"personhood" idiocy in N Dakota

[AmyNation]

I have a friend whose wife is pro-life and recently had their second child. She battled with her OBGYN over the type of birth she would have, luckily she doesn't live in any of the "personhood" states, and so she got the final say in her medical care.

 

[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?

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.

So not only are you a hypocrite, you are a delusional hypocrite.

Like the guy you worship, Ron Paul.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Well true.

And Fetuses are not human beings.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's a conceit, a false one, that men have any right to tell women what to do with their bodies.

 

[Delia]

Personhood bills, scary stuff.

What's scary that people want to kill their offspring.

To be an offspring, I think said spring has to actually have been sprung.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Look folks, I think that the GOP is beginning to catch on to us democrats supporting the GOP war on women (under ground, of course). While they continue to marginalize women, even after they lose elections as a result, sooner or later they are going to wise up, and stop doing this. We have to find a more subtle approach of fueling GOP anger over social issues....They are even beginning to tire of gay bashing and opposing immigration amnesty. Hell, even Cheney recently said that he supports this, as well as background checks on gun buyers. Sooner or later, they are going to stop being the party of the "stupid", and begin talking about issues that matter.

 

[SuperDave]

It's a conceit, a false one, that men have any right to tell women what to do with their bodies.

No one claims that men have the right to tell women what to do with their bodies, the concept you seem to be having so much trouble with is that an unborn baby, just because it happens to be growing inside a woman, is not part of her body. It is a unique person all it's own and it doesn't deserve to die because it's Mother and/or it's Father was lazy about ensuring they were using adequate birth control.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's a conceit, a false one, that men have any right to tell women what to do with their bodies.

No one claims that men have the right to tell women what to do with their bodies, the concept you seem to be having so much trouble with is that an unborn baby, just because it happens to be growing inside a woman, is not part of her body. It is a unique person all it's own and it doesn't deserve to die because it's Mother and/or it's Father was lazy about ensuring they were using adequate birth control.

You have the right to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is. A mother's right to security from rape and incest and to life and health supersede that of a fetus to come to full term.

Sorry, dave, that's the law, both secularly and morally.

 

[Avatar4321]

You have the right to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is. A mother's right to security from rape and incest and to life and health supersede that of a fetus to come to full term.

Sorry, dave, that's the law, both secularly and morally.

How exactly is killing the child supposed to secure a mother from rape or incest? If a child was concieved through rape or incest, the evil has already been done. How does doing another evil stop it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have the right to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is. A mother's right to security from rape and incest and to life and health supersede that of a fetus to come to full term.

Sorry, dave, that's the law, both secularly and morally.

How exactly is killing the child supposed to secure a mother from rape or incest? If a child was concieved through rape or incest, the evil has already been done. How does doing another evil stop it?

You are entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it is. I won't argue it with you. The justice of the mother's moral position is untainted.

 

[SuperDave]

It's a conceit, a false one, that men have any right to tell women what to do with their bodies.

No one claims that men have the right to tell women what to do with their bodies, the concept you seem to be having so much trouble with is that an unborn baby, just because it happens to be growing inside a woman, is not part of her body. It is a unique person all it's own and it doesn't deserve to die because it's Mother and/or it's Father was lazy about ensuring they were using adequate birth control.

You have the right to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is. A mother's right to security from rape and incest and to life and health supersede that of a fetus to come to full term.

Sorry, dave, that's the law, both secularly and morally.

We weren't discussing those extreme examples, we're talking about abortion on demand. I would never want to see a law that required women to have a child when doing so would put her life or health in serious jeopardy anymore than I would expect someone who can't swim to jump in a pool to try to save a person who was drowning.

Now can you please explain where my opinion is so wrong?

 

[Avatar4321]

You have the right to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is. A mother's right to security from rape and incest and to life and health supersede that of a fetus to come to full term.

Sorry, dave, that's the law, both secularly and morally.

How exactly is killing the child supposed to secure a mother from rape or incest? If a child was concieved through rape or incest, the evil has already been done. How does doing another evil stop it?

You are entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it is. I won't argue it with you. The justice of the mother's moral position is untainted.

I didn't state an opinion. I asked a question. Several, in fact. If you don't want to defend your position, that's fine. Ill respect that.

 

[asterism]

It's a conceit, a false one, that men have any right to tell women what to do with their bodies.

No one claims that men have the right to tell women what to do with their bodies, the concept you seem to be having so much trouble with is that an unborn baby, just because it happens to be growing inside a woman, is not part of her body. It is a unique person all it's own and it doesn't deserve to die because it's Mother and/or it's Father was lazy about ensuring they were using adequate birth control.

You have the right to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is. A mother's right to security from rape and incest and to life and health supersede that of a fetus to come to full term.

Sorry, dave, that's the law, both secularly and morally.

That is an excellent point which is why existing law already deals with conflicts of interest when one human is expected to sacrifice their life to save another. Think conjoined twins.

However the rape, incest, and health of the mother is a red herring in this debate since 97% of abortions are elective and for the convenience of the mother. A fetus doesn't become a baby just because a mother wishes it so and it doesn't become a parasite the same way. It either is a baby or it isn't. Legislation proposing that it is a baby is a good way of putting that question to the voters.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but morally and legally the mother is protected against infringement by the fetus in cases of rape, incest, and life and health of the mother.

We are in the situation we are because the states could not recognize those basic rights of the mother.

The states' inability to legislate morally and ethically led to them giving up any prohibition in the first three months against on demand, a misfortune I agree, but, as I said, the states brought it on themselves.

 

[RosieS]

No one claims that men have the right to tell women what to do with their bodies, the concept you seem to be having so much trouble with is that an unborn baby, just because it happens to be growing inside a woman, is not part of her body. It is a unique person all it's own and it doesn't deserve to die because it's Mother and/or it's Father was lazy about ensuring they were using adequate birth control.

You have the right to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is. A mother's right to security from rape and incest and to life and health supersede that of a fetus to come to full term.

Sorry, dave, that's the law, both secularly and morally.

That is an excellent point which is why existing law already deals with conflicts of interest when one human is expected to sacrifice their life to save another. Think conjoined twins.

However the rape, incest, and health of the mother is a red herring in this debate since 97% of abortions are elective and for the convenience of the mother. A fetus doesn't become a baby just because a mother wishes it so and it doesn't become a parasite the same way. It either is a baby or it isn't. Legislation proposing that it is a baby is a good way of putting that question to the voters.

When do women get to have a vote on *your* reproductive rights? Can you be jailed, as an example, for heedlessly spilling your seed and leaving it as a biohazard? Let's have a vote on it.

Regards from Rosie

 

[Avatar4321]

When do women get to have a vote on *your* reproductive rights? Can you be jailed, as an example, for heedlessly spilling your seed and leaving it as a biohazard? Let's have a vote on it.

Regards from Rosie

Nothing in the Constitution would stop States from passing such a law. Not really sure what purpose it would serve.

You still don't have a right to kill your children.

 

[RosieS]

When do women get to have a vote on *your* reproductive rights? Can you be jailed, as an example, for heedlessly spilling your seed and leaving it as a biohazard? Let's have a vote on it.

Regards from Rosie

Nothing in the Constitution would stop States from passing such a law. Not really sure what purpose it would serve.

You still don't have a right to kill your children.

I haven't. All are alive and well. HIPPA regulations keep my medical history private....so you have no right to my reproductive medical info.

I don't as to yours, either.

Ethically, you need to stay uninterested and aloof concerning my lady parts. You are verging on immorality.

Regards from Rosie

 

[Avatar4321]

When do women get to have a vote on *your* reproductive rights? Can you be jailed, as an example, for heedlessly spilling your seed and leaving it as a biohazard? Let's have a vote on it.

Regards from Rosie

Nothing in the Constitution would stop States from passing such a law. Not really sure what purpose it would serve.

You still don't have a right to kill your children.

I haven't. All are alive and well. HIPPA regulations keep my medical history private....so you have no right to my reproductive medical info.

I don't as to yours, either.

Ethically, you need to stay uninterested and aloof concerning my lady parts. You are verging on immorality.

Regards from Rosie

When you suggest that you have the right to kill your offspring, I have a moral obligation to tell you that you're deluding yourself.

 

[asterism]

You have the right to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is. A mother's right to security from rape and incest and to life and health supersede that of a fetus to come to full term.

Sorry, dave, that's the law, both secularly and morally.

That is an excellent point which is why existing law already deals with conflicts of interest when one human is expected to sacrifice their life to save another. Think conjoined twins.

However the rape, incest, and health of the mother is a red herring in this debate since 97% of abortions are elective and for the convenience of the mother. A fetus doesn't become a baby just because a mother wishes it so and it doesn't become a parasite the same way. It either is a baby or it isn't. Legislation proposing that it is a baby is a good way of putting that question to the voters.

When do women get to have a vote on *your* reproductive rights? Can you be jailed, as an example, for heedlessly spilling your seed and leaving it as a biohazard? Let's have a vote on it.

Regards from Rosie

Your repeated attempts to make this a gender issue just spotlight to fallacy of the rape and incest talking point.

I can be jailed if I don't use my body to support a child I didn't choose to have. Your logic is flawed.

 

[asterism]

When do women get to have a vote on *your* reproductive rights? Can you be jailed, as an example, for heedlessly spilling your seed and leaving it as a biohazard? Let's have a vote on it.

Regards from Rosie

Nothing in the Constitution would stop States from passing such a law. Not really sure what purpose it would serve.

You still don't have a right to kill your children.

I haven't. All are alive and well. HIPPA regulations keep my medical history private....so you have no right to my reproductive medical info.

I don't as to yours, either.

Ethically, you need to stay uninterested and aloof concerning my lady parts. You are verging on immorality.

Regards from Rosie

HIPPA worked really well for Rush Limbaugh didn't it?

Go ahead and think that more government in healthcare gives you privacy.