"personhood" idiocy in N Dakota

[clevergirl]

That’s your belief, however subjective, and you’re entitled to it; and Griswold/Roe/Casey allows you to retain that belief and act upon it accordingly, just as others are allowed to believe ‘personhood’ begins at some point before or after, free from interference by the state.

The courts were wise to refrain from the issue of ‘when life begins,’ and appropriately left that to each person’s good conscience, good faith, and religious or philosophical beliefs.

The courts were ignorant of the science that came after those decisions... Had the modern ultra sound been available there is no way in hell Roe would ever have been decided the way it was...EVER!

Science is not my "belief". Person-hood is merely the singular identity of each individual human. You are were and will always be the person you became at the moment you were created. That did not manically change outside the womb.

You are probably right about the court siding the other way had they had modern ultrasounds. However, that was then, and this is now and I don't believe ultrasounds will sway the court now.

I disagree...the problem is not that ultra sounds would be any less convincing, The problem is getting a case before the supreme court where the ultra sound could be introduced as evidence.

But think about that... The ultra sound combined with DNA science completely destroys the made up legal benchmark of "trimester" stages as being proof that somehow the unborn child becomes more human. This is the entire argument that gave Roe "privacy" standing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No scientific evidence warrants your conclusion is the point, thus your opinions are the illegitimate ones by the evidence.

Yell all you want (it's your right), but nothing changes because of your erroneous thinking.

 

[clevergirl]

Jake your ignorance is showing again. You need to go back to the pre-schoolers sand box where your mental acuity wont be mocked.

 

[AmyNation]

The courts were ignorant of the science that came after those decisions... Had the modern ultra sound been available there is no way in hell Roe would ever have been decided the way it was...EVER!

Science is not my "belief". Person-hood is merely the singular identity of each individual human. You are were and will always be the person you became at the moment you were created. That did not manically change outside the womb.

You are probably right about the court siding the other way had they had modern ultrasounds. However, that was then, and this is now and I don't believe ultrasounds will sway the court now.

I disagree...the problem is not that ultra sounds would be any less convincing, The problem is getting a case before the supreme court where the ultra sound could be introduced as evidence.

But think about that... The ultra sound combined with DNA science completely destroys the made up legal benchmark of "trimester" stages as being proof that somehow the unborn child becomes more human. This is the entire argument that gave Roe "privacy" standing.

The science still stands behind the right to abortion. Besides which, the right to your own body must superceed all else, if you don't own that, we've lost everything.

 

[AmyNation]

Think about it, if the right to life was ruled more important than the right to your own body, the consequences would be monumental. What would stop the state from demanding you give blood? Or compelling you to donate organs? Bone marrow?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jake your ignorance is showing again. You need to go back to the pre-schoolers sand box where your mental acuity wont be mocked.

Sigh

 

[JakeStarkey]

The progressive right wing statist pro-life folks would love that type of Big Government control.

 

[Meathead]

I don't have very strong beliefs on this topic, but it does seem ironic when someone like Scott Peterson can be convicted of double homicide and get the death penalty for killing his pregnant wife, while a woman can opt to kill her own fetus.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't have very strong beliefs on this topic, but it does seem ironic when someone like Scott Peterson can be convicted of double homicide and get the death penalty for killing his pregnant wife, while a woman can opt to kill her own fetus.

Go study the term "murder" and come back and tell us what you have learned.

 

[Meathead]

I don't have very strong beliefs on this topic, but it does seem ironic when someone like Scott Peterson can be convicted of double homicide and get the death penalty for killing his pregnant wife, while a woman can opt to kill her own fetus.

Go study the term "murder" and come back and tell us what you have learned.

Seriously? Ok, I will if you look up "insight" and "ignorance" and tell us what you've learned. You should do it regardless of what I do anyway. There are few more ignorant or stupid here. Mememe maybe, but very few.

Sorry there Jake, but you don't realize you are a intellectual midget. You simply don't have the insight.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Meathead thinks that his definition of murder meets the legal definition.

It doesn't, and I find his moniker is well fitted to his intelligence.

 

[Meathead]

Meathead thinks that his definition of murder meets the legal definition.

It doesn't, and I find his moniker is well fitted to his intelligence.

I said I have no strong feelings about this and do not consider abortion murder. I find it ironic that someone can be convicted of double homocide for the killing of a pregnant woman, while any woman can kill her own fetus. Perhaps you confuse the word "kill" with "murder.

Jake, you are consistently derided on these forums with good reason. You are a disingenuous and ignorant fool which people consistently point out. Listen to them ffs! They are not lying!

 

[Wicked Jester]

I will never accept that the consequences of getting pregnant are giving over the right to my body to the state.

If I want to eat all raw food, get drunk every night, never visit an OBGYN and have a home birth in my bath tub with a witch doctor chanting over me, that's my right, and the state has no fucking business telling me otherwise.

And i'm quite sure you woud have no problem using the state system (medical and monetary) to take care of the child when it is born with major non-functional issues, due to the stupid choices you made while pregnant, correct?

Are you attempting to suggest the state has the right to force pregnant women to eat healthy, visit a government approved doctor and have a government approved birth because she might ask for assistance from the state after she we
gives birth?

Nooooo, i'm asking if you would have no problem using the state (taxpayers) system (medical and monetary) to take care of the child, after you knowingly acted recklessly during pregnancy, and your reckless actions caused said child to be born with major issues?

After all, you said yourself that you have the right to recklessly carry the child, full well knowing your actions would most likely bring harm to said child.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Meathead thinks that his definition of murder meets the legal definition.

It doesn't, and I find his moniker is well fitted to his intelligence.

I said I have no strong feelings about this and do not consider abortion murder. I find it ironic that someone can be convicted of double homocide for the killing of a pregnant woman, while any woman can kill her own fetus. Perhaps you confuse the word "kill" with "murder.

Jake, you are consistently derided on these forums with good reason. You are a disingenuous and ignorant fool which people consistently point out. Listen to them ffs! They are not lying!

Derided by losers like you from the far right and the libertarians. This is a badge of honor to me.

Son, you don't decide what is and is not murder. Step off.

 

[Sallow]

Not any more scary than how Callously the left dismisses the idea that a Fetus is a person.

It's not.

And..it's not the business of the government to decide what a woman does with her body.

 

[AmyNation]

And i'm quite sure you woud have no problem using the state system (medical and monetary) to take care of the child when it is born with major non-functional issues, due to the stupid choices you made while pregnant, correct?

Are you attempting to suggest the state has the right to force pregnant women to eat healthy, visit a government approved doctor and have a government approved birth because she might ask for assistance from the state after she we
gives birth?

Nooooo, i'm asking if you would have no problem using the state (taxpayers) system (medical and monetary) to take care of the child, after you knowingly acted recklessly during pregnancy, and your reckless actions caused said child to be born with major issues?

After all, you said yourself that you have the right to recklessly carry the child, full well knowing your actions would most likely bring harm to said child.

Hmm, I don't know, although I wouldnt oppose a law that says if you go against doctors orders youre not allowed to get assistance from the state should something happen to your fetus. Would that make you feel better?

 

[asterism]

The lifers really need to stop and think for a moment about what this could mean for women. If a fetus was ruled a person, abortion would be murder. If a woman needed an abortion for medical reasons, it would be defensive homicide if she had one, and she would have to answer to her 'crime' in court - because her abortion WOULD be considered a crime until she can prove otherwise.

A woman or young girl who is the victim of incest wouldn't be allowed to abort the fetus - the spawn of her rapist would have more rights than she does.

You would be taking rights away from the woman and giving them to something that cannot even think for itself, and isn't even aware of its own existence.

If you don't think that is going to far, there is something wrong with you.

That's not true.

Surgeries on conjoined twins where both will die without it but one might live with it are performed without any of the "defensive homicide" fiction you talk about.

 

[Darkwind]

It is amazing the lengths that you people will go to just to dehumanize someone for your own personal convenience.

 

[asterism]

Not any more scary than how Callously the left dismisses the idea that a Fetus is a person.

It's not.

And..it's not the business of the government to decide what a woman does with her body.

It already does. Women cannot sell their organs nor can they (with a few exceptions) rent their bodies for sex.

 

[clevergirl]

Think about it, if the right to life was ruled more important than the right to your own body, the consequences would be monumental. What would stop the state from demanding you give blood? Or compelling you to donate organs? Bone marrow?

The right to your own body? You take the risk of pregnancy into your own hands every time you have sex. In today's day and age, the risk of pregnancy can be so reduced as to be no real risk at all. But claiming the right to kill an unborn baby because your actions created its existence is grossly diabolical.

Pre Roe the law was such that abortion, except for specific circumstances, was considered manslaughter. As I posted previously, the only witch hunts that existed were the pro abortion lobby wanting to kill the unborn. There were none of the "what might the state do" scenarios taking place.

The false screed about what what the state "might do" is preposterous in light of the history over this very issue.