"personhood" idiocy in N Dakota

[AmyNation]

So, you think the SC can rule that the right to life superceeds a persons right over their own body, and that will be the end of it? No one will then take the next logical step and say if the right to life is paramount that people should be compelled to donate where needed?



I see it as a very real step as its the same exact argument for a woman's right to choose as it is a mans right to not donate his kidney. Right to life vs personal rights over your own body.

*shrug* I really don't see it mattering much as I don't see roe ever being overturned. Ever.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Almost all Americans opposed abortion on demand. After that, common sense has to take priority. Most Americans believe in federally regulated and restricted abortion rights in case of rape, incest, and the health and life of the mother. The no abortion crowd is diabolical.

 

[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.

Almost all Americans opposed abortion on demand. After that, common sense has to take priority. Most Americans believe in federally regulated and restricted abortion rights in case of rape, incest, and the health and life of the mother. The no abortion crowd is diabolical.

Two things and then I am done responding to you on this issue Jake. You are just too ridiculously idiotic.

1. Yes, most Americans do oppose abortion on demand (Captain Obvious)...and yet that accounts for 97% of all abortions...get a clue.

2. The pro abortion lobby is so powerful, that despite how the majority of Americans feel, the rabid fight to restrict abortion in any way is basically cut off at the knees.

 

[clevergirl]

Quote: Originally Posted by clevergirl :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.

So, you think the SC can rule that the right to life superceeds a persons right over their own body, and that will be the end of it? No one will then take the next logical step and say if the right to life is paramount that people should be compelled to donate where needed?



I see it as a very real step as its the same exact argument for a woman's right to choose as it is a mans right to not donate his kidney. Right to life vs personal rights over your own body.

*shrug* I really don't see it mattering much as I don't see roe ever being overturned. Ever.

No, the "right over their own body exists. Just as the unborn's right to life exists. What you have is dueling interests. The only way to determine which supersedes is to ask "at what harm" The unborn would win that argument unless to continue pregnancy would kill the mother. It's legal argument.

You may be right- though there exist some pretty brilliant legal experts who are constantly trying to get a case with standing- it very well may get done.

 

[AmyNation]

I think the way personhood laws have already be ultilzed shows that a step in that direction has dangerous consequences. Who would have thought declaring 3rd trimester fetus, a person, could give the state the right to drag a woman in labor out of her home in cuffs and force her to have a c-section?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Almost all Americans opposed abortion on demand. After that, common sense has to take priority. Most Americans believe in federally regulated and restricted abortion rights in case of rape, incest, and the health and life of the mother. The no abortion crowd is diabolical.

Two things and then I am done responding to you on this issue Jake. You are just too ridiculously idiotic.

1. Yes, most Americans do oppose abortion on demand (Captain Obvious)...and yet that accounts for 97% of all abortions...get a clue.

2. The pro abortion lobby is so powerful, that despite how the majority of Americans feel, the rabid fight to restrict abortion in any way is basically cut off at the knees.

Grow up, this is a message board, so it is not your way or the hiway.

The ultrasound wand mandated by male-dominated leges and stuck up a woman's vagina does not support your silly contention in #2.

Most of the 97% "on demand" are for abortions because of rape, incest, and life/health of the mother, as you well know.

The fact is that the fetus does not have a pre-emptive right over that of the mother.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Quote: Originally Posted by clevergirl :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.

So, you think the SC can rule that the right to life superceeds a persons right over their own body, and that will be the end of it? No one will then take the next logical step and say if the right to life is paramount that people should be compelled to donate where needed?



I see it as a very real step as its the same exact argument for a woman's right to choose as it is a mans right to not donate his kidney. Right to life vs personal rights over your own body.

*shrug* I really don't see it mattering much as I don't see roe ever being overturned. Ever.

No, the "right over their own body exists. Just as the unborn's right to life exists. What you have is dueling interests. The only way to determine which supersedes is to ask "at what harm" The unborn would win that argument unless to continue pregnancy would kill the mother. It's legal argument.

You may be right- though there exist some pretty brilliant legal experts who are constantly trying to get a case with standing- it very well may get done.

If Roe is overturned, outraged American womanhood will destroy the Republican Party.

 

[Papageorgio]

Yeah right, Roe vs Wade overturned.

Because in the last 40 plus years it has been close to being overturned...never.

Liberal bullshit, it is there it won't be overturned but it makes for great liberal fear.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Never mind ‘false screeds,’ ‘witch hunts,’ or the ‘pro abortion lobby' (whatever that’s supposed to be…) – what is your solution to solving the problem, in the context of current Constitutional case law?

 

[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.

Never mind ‘false screeds,’ ‘witch hunts,’ or the ‘pro abortion lobby' (whatever that’s supposed to be…) – what is your solution to solving the problem, in the context of current Constitutional case law?

Someone who does not know there is a pro abortion lobby is someone open to actual solutions?

The solution is to outlaw abortion on demand... To give the law making back to the states and voters where it belongs with regards to rape and incest. The case for terminating a pregnancy to save a woman's life, that is at risk due to pregnancy, should be a given in all 50 states.

As to getting the abortion debate back before the Supreme Court? There exists organizations that continue to seek out that perfect case.

 

[Mr. H.]

I have two (count 'em 2) children who both were "decision points".

For the sake of illustration, and out of deference to "choicers", I'll not refer to them in vitro.

The outcome of decision begat two of the most wonderful beautiful humanoids I've ever known.

My eldest, a 32 year old Creative Executive living in L.A. and working Hollywood (most successfully)...
and my youngest, an aspiring ballernia in her Junior high school year of attendance at a prestigeous Arts Acadamy.

We face blank canvases in life. Our paints only material and disconnected. Until we splash them in unknowing hope upon a surface of uncertainty.

The outcome... sometimes unknown. But always our own creation.

Creation of the human mind, body... will.

That is, unless you choose to paint over the canvas and pretend it didn't happen.

But hey- dat's ok, innit?

 

[asterism]

So, you think the SC can rule that the right to life superceeds a persons right over their own body, and that will be the end of it? No one will then take the next logical step and say if the right to life is paramount that people should be compelled to donate where needed?



I see it as a very real step as its the same exact argument for a woman's right to choose as it is a mans right to not donate his kidney. Right to life vs personal rights over your own body.

*shrug* I really don't see it mattering much as I don't see roe ever being overturned. Ever.

Conjoined twins are good examples of the law as it applies to conflicting rights to live. Has anyone ever been charged with a crime for sacrificing one child so that they don't both die?

No.

 

[Mr. H.]

"Decision points".

They can be your friend, they can be your enema.

 

[Mr. H.]

Maybe we are confusing the "right to choose" with the "right to decide".

 

[Mr. H.]

"Choice" is an option granted by another. "Decision" is the option made by the decider.

 

[Noomi]

"Choice" is an option granted by another. "Decision" is the option made by the decider.

Are you saying that women shouldn't have a choice as to whether to abort or not, unless someone else gives them that choice?

 

[Mr. H.]

"Choice" is an option granted by another. "Decision" is the option made by the decider.

Are you saying that women shouldn't have a choice as to whether to abort or not, unless someone else gives them that choice?

Maybe women are poor choosers and hasty deciders.
My ex was a poor chooser, but she conceded out of deference to her husband (lil' ol me ).
My wife and I were not hasty deciders, ergo our daughter.

But that's really moot isn't it, since the Supreme Court thing.

It's about convenience, as I've discussed in another thread.
As a matter of fact, that's how a notable abortion activist explained it. Don't remember what thread. Anyhow she was on a talk show. I'll look it up if you insist.

Just another day, another walk in the park. I'm not marginalizing the decision to exercise choice. It's sometimes not an easy one.

And I'll never marginalize an innocent in vitro blob thing.

What I find ironic is when the murderer of a pregnant women is charged with a double homicide. I mean that just takes the cake LOL.

 

[paulitician]

Last i checked, no one is forced to live in North Dakota. I suspect most of the complaining about this on this board is coming from hypocritical Socialist Nanny/Police Staters, who don't even live there. You can't have it both ways. You want Big Brother involved with Citizens' personal lives, you have to deal with it when things don't go your way. And Socialist Nanny/Police Staters are all for Big Brother being involved and dictating terms in Citizens' personal lives. So their complaining about the Abortion issue is very dishonest and hypocritical. They just don't have credibility.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Personhood bills are a whole different conversation than pro-life vs prochoice. You're pro-life, ok, work at restricting abortion in your state and repealing roe vs wade, but everyone should be against personhood bills. They aren't anti-abortion, they're pro-government choice.

No, they're a reflection of the government's duty to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It's actually one of the legitimate functions of government.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

"Choice" is an option granted by another. "Decision" is the option made by the decider.

Are you saying that women shouldn't have a choice as to whether to abort or not, unless someone else gives them that choice?

No one forces women to have sex. If they do they go to prision, and rightly. One can only surmise that women become pregnant voluntarily. A myriad of effective birth control devices are readily available including the right to say no.

Why should adult women not live up to their choices and responsibilities? What gives them the power of life and death? Should men have the right to kill their progeny, too?