"personhood" idiocy in N Dakota

[Sallow]

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.

Ah so now it's not a Socialist/Nanny State thing that the government decide that every pregnancy come to term.

And you talk about hypocrisy?

Really?

 

[Sallow]

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.

Ah..so you want to give fetuses the right to vote?

Or..babies?

Or kids?

And where does this stop?

Only with fertilized eggs?

Sperm?

What?

 

[Sallow]

"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.

Not really.

Because in the case of a woman deciding to bring a pregnancy to term..we know that will result in a baby.

At that point..killing that woman's baby..is murder.

 

[Sallow]

"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?

It's really none of anyone's business what two consenting adults do.

And it's not the government's business what a woman decides to do with her own body.

It's a pretty simple concept.

 

[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.

Ah so now it's not a Socialist/Nanny State thing that the government decide that every pregnancy come to term.

And you talk about hypocrisy?

Really?

I'm not defending their decision. Just pointing out how dishonest & hypocritical you Socialist Nanny/Police Staters are. Since when are you guys against Big Brother dictating terms in Citizens' personal lives? So to you, i say too bad. You can't have it both ways. You'll just have to shut up and deal with it when things don't go your way. That's the downside of Big Brother-Worship.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

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?

It's really none of anyone's business what two consenting adults do.

And it's not the government's business what a woman decides to do with her own body.

It's a pretty simple concept.

Women don't have the right to kill human beings because they find it convenient.

That. too, is a simple concept.

 

[RosieS]

Men don't have the right to dictate what a woman will or will not do concerning her pregnancy. It is an issue for her and her doctor since Roe v. Wade.

Women don't have rights concerning prostate treatment.

If men want pregnancy "rights", work harder on the development of an artificial womb.

Until then, it is really none of your business. You were not endowed by our Creator with a uterus and you have no right to be up in anyone's. So sayeth SCOTUS. Roe v. Wade was decided on the basis of privacy....so that took away male rights to interfere.

Regards from Rosie

 

[paulitician]

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?

It's really none of anyone's business what two consenting adults do.

And it's not the government's business what a woman decides to do with her own body.

It's a pretty simple concept.

Women don't have the right to kill human beings because they find it convenient.

That. too, is a simple concept.

You do know you're arguing with Socialist/Progressive Nanny/Police Staters, don't ya? They don't even realize how dishonest & hypocritical they are. They're all for Big Brother intruding in Citizens' personal lives. But as usual, they're just trying to have their cake and eat it too. They stomp their feet and throw their temper tantrums anytime things don't go their way. They just don't get it. These things are the result of Big Brother-Worship. And they're the biggest Big Brother-Worshippers in the country. They're a very confused lot for sure.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Men don't have the right to dictate what a woman will or will not do concerning her pregnancy. It is an issue for her and her doctor since Roe v. Wade.

Women don't have rights concerning prostate treatment.

If men want pregnancy "rights", work harder on the development of an artificial womb.

Until then, it is really none of your business. You were not endowed by our Creator with a uterus and you have no right to be up in anyone's. So sayeth SCOTUS. Roe v. Wade was decided on the basis of privacy....so that took away male rights to interfere.

Regards from Rosie

No, it's not a man-woman thing. Many, many women believe that human life is sacred, too.

Sorry, no cigar.

Babies aren't prostates, you moron, nor are they globs of cells or choices.

The fact that you were born with a uterus does not qualify you to kill human beings for convenience.

 

[AmyNation]

Personhood laws are not just anti-abortion laws, and attempting to make the issue a "pro-life vs pro-choice" argument is disingenuous. Personhood laws give full rights to fetuses and they give the state the right to "speak" for those fetuses.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Personhood laws are not just anti-abortion laws, and attempting to make the issue a "pro-life vs pro-choice" argument is disingenuous. Personhood laws give full rights to fetuses and they give the state the right to "speak" for those fetuses.

Yes, and it's about time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Personhood laws are not just anti-abortion laws, and attempting to make the issue a "pro-life vs pro-choice" argument is disingenuous. Personhood laws give full rights to fetuses and they give the state the right to "speak" for those fetuses.

Once that happens, the state can speak for all "persons", born and unborn.

The organ harvesting companies are pushing this type of law as hard as they can.

 

[paulitician]

Lots of other States running countless Abortion Mills to choose from. Looks like North Dakota wants out of the Baby-Murdering Business. Their choice i guess. So, you want it easier to kill your baby? Don't live in North Dakota. Problem solved. You're welcome.

 

[AmyNation]

Personhood laws are not just anti-abortion laws, and attempting to make the issue a "pro-life vs pro-choice" argument is disingenuous. Personhood laws give full rights to fetuses and they give the state the right to "speak" for those fetuses.

Yes, and it's about time.

I'm very greatful that people who feel like you are the minority

 

[RosieS]

Men don't have the right to dictate what a woman will or will not do concerning her pregnancy. It is an issue for her and her doctor since Roe v. Wade.

Women don't have rights concerning prostate treatment.

If men want pregnancy "rights", work harder on the development of an artificial womb.

Until then, it is really none of your business. You were not endowed by our Creator with a uterus and you have no right to be up in anyone's. So sayeth SCOTUS. Roe v. Wade was decided on the basis of privacy....so that took away male rights to interfere.

Regards from Rosie

No, it's not a man-woman thing. Many, many women believe that human life is sacred, too.

Sorry, no cigar.

Babies aren't prostates, you moron, nor are they globs of cells or choices.

The fact that you were born with a uterus does not qualify you to kill human beings for convenience.

The fact that you were born without a uterus prevents you from doing anything concerning my uterus. I have privacy rights given to me over my uterus, and protecting it from YOU, given to me by SCOTUS. It has been that way for 40 years and you STILL don't get it. How slow and dull of you.

You can't make a woman carry and you can't prevent any abortion. 40 years and comprehension eludes you.

Seems SCOTUS understood exactly what kind of males needed to be dealt with decisively. And so the men of 40 years ago on the Court did.

Regards from Rosie

 

[paulitician]

Men don't have the right to dictate what a woman will or will not do concerning her pregnancy. It is an issue for her and her doctor since Roe v. Wade.

Women don't have rights concerning prostate treatment.

If men want pregnancy "rights", work harder on the development of an artificial womb.

Until then, it is really none of your business. You were not endowed by our Creator with a uterus and you have no right to be up in anyone's. So sayeth SCOTUS. Roe v. Wade was decided on the basis of privacy....so that took away male rights to interfere.

Regards from Rosie

No, it's not a man-woman thing. Many, many women believe that human life is sacred, too.

Sorry, no cigar.

Babies aren't prostates, you moron, nor are they globs of cells or choices.

The fact that you were born with a uterus does not qualify you to kill human beings for convenience.

The fact that you were born without a uterus prevents you from doing anything concerning my uterus. I have privacy rights given to me over my uterus, and protecting it from YOU, given to me by SCOTUS. It has been that way for 40 years and you STILL don't get it. How slow and dull of you.

You can't make a woman carry and you can't prevent any abortion. 40 years and comprehension eludes you.

Seems SCOTUS understood exactly what kind of males needed to be dealt with decisively. And so the men of 40 years ago on the Court did.

Regards from Rosie

Oh the times, they are a changin. Thanks to the Big Brother-Worshippers. He can do almost anything now. Stay tuned.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, it's not a man-woman thing. Many, many women believe that human life is sacred, too.

Sorry, no cigar.

Babies aren't prostates, you moron, nor are they globs of cells or choices.

The fact that you were born with a uterus does not qualify you to kill human beings for convenience.

The fact that you were born without a uterus prevents you from doing anything concerning my uterus. I have privacy rights given to me over my uterus, and protecting it from YOU, given to me by SCOTUS. It has been that way for 40 years and you STILL don't get it. How slow and dull of you.

You can't make a woman carry and you can't prevent any abortion. 40 years and comprehension eludes you.

Seems SCOTUS understood exactly what kind of males needed to be dealt with decisively. And so the men of 40 years ago on the Court did.

Regards from Rosie

Oh the times, they are a changin. Thanks to the Big Brother-Worshippers. He can do almost anything now. Stay tuned.

Yep, males cannot rule women anymore. Sob.

 

[clevergirl]

Men don't have the right to dictate what a woman will or will not do concerning her pregnancy. It is an issue for her and her doctor since Roe v. Wade.

Women don't have rights concerning prostate treatment.

If men want pregnancy "rights", work harder on the development of an artificial womb.

Until then, it is really none of your business. You were not endowed by our Creator with a uterus and you have no right to be up in anyone's. So sayeth SCOTUS. Roe v. Wade was decided on the basis of privacy....so that took away male rights to interfere.

Regards from Rosie

No, it's not a man-woman thing. Many, many women believe that human life is sacred, too.

Sorry, no cigar.

Babies aren't prostates, you moron, nor are they globs of cells or choices.

The fact that you were born with a uterus does not qualify you to kill human beings for convenience.

The fact that you were born without a uterus prevents you from doing anything concerning my uterus. I have privacy rights given to me over my uterus, and protecting it from YOU, given to me by SCOTUS. It has been that way for 40 years and you STILL don't get it. How slow and dull of you.

You can't make a woman carry and you can't prevent any abortion. 40 years and comprehension eludes you.

Seems SCOTUS understood exactly what kind of males needed to be dealt with decisively. And so the men of 40 years ago on the Court did.

Regards from Rosie

No, what SCOTUS did (by a split court) was make a ruling(s) based on and around archaic science available to them at the time. Your rights to your uterus should (and at one time did) end when another human being's life becomes a part of the equation.

To dismiss the father of that unborn baby is the height of ignorant self righteousness.

Regards you floozy~

 

[paulitician]

The fact that you were born without a uterus prevents you from doing anything concerning my uterus. I have privacy rights given to me over my uterus, and protecting it from YOU, given to me by SCOTUS. It has been that way for 40 years and you STILL don't get it. How slow and dull of you.

You can't make a woman carry and you can't prevent any abortion. 40 years and comprehension eludes you.

Seems SCOTUS understood exactly what kind of males needed to be dealt with decisively. And so the men of 40 years ago on the Court did.

Regards from Rosie

Oh the times, they are a changin. Thanks to the Big Brother-Worshippers. He can do almost anything now. Stay tuned.

Yep, males cannot rule women anymore. Sob.

Irrelevant. Many American Women oppose Abortion.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Men don't have the right to dictate what a woman will or will not do concerning her pregnancy. It is an issue for her and her doctor since Roe v. Wade.

Women don't have rights concerning prostate treatment.

If men want pregnancy "rights", work harder on the development of an artificial womb.

Until then, it is really none of your business. You were not endowed by our Creator with a uterus and you have no right to be up in anyone's. So sayeth SCOTUS. Roe v. Wade was decided on the basis of privacy....so that took away male rights to interfere.

Regards from Rosie

No, it's not a man-woman thing. Many, many women believe that human life is sacred, too.

Sorry, no cigar.

Babies aren't prostates, you moron, nor are they globs of cells or choices.

The fact that you were born with a uterus does not qualify you to kill human beings for convenience.

The fact that you were born without a uterus prevents you from doing anything concerning my uterus. I have privacy rights given to me over my uterus, and protecting it from YOU, given to me by SCOTUS. It has been that way for 40 years and you STILL don't get it. How slow and dull of you.

You can't make an woman carry and you can't prevent any abortion. 40 years and comprehension eludes you.

Seems SCOTUS understood exactly what kind of males needed to be dealt with decisively. And so the men of 40 years ago on the Court did.

Regards from Rosie

SCOTUS overstepped itself --nothing new there. Apparently killing is alright as long as it's done in private, is that it?

My. what stunning logic in your argument. It amounts to neener, neener, neener, I can kill my baby any time I want to and there's nothing you can do about it.

I believe that if SCOTUS knew they were giving carte blanche to irresponsible women to kill humans at will it would've thought twice.

By the way, millions of people are working to preserve the sanctity of life and there's nothing you can do about that, either.