"personhood" idiocy in N Dakota

[g5000]

A concurrent resolution to create and enact a new section to article I of the Constitution of North Dakota, relating to the inalienable right to life of every human being at every stage of development.

ND 4009 | 2013-2014 | 63rd Legislative Assembly | LegiScan

The bill says "right to life" three times in it.

 

[AmyNation]

If I take my two year old to the emergency room for a broken arm, and the doctor says he needs a cast, and I say no, the doctor will say I'm endangering my child and call the police.

Personhood bills give doctors the right to force medical decisions on pregnant women.

 

[Lumpy 1]

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.

The only way an abortion can occur in the first place is for the personhood of the fetus to be denied.

So to reverse Roe v. Wade, you have to reverse the non-personhood of the fetus.

No, you can argue a fetus has a right to life without granting that life full personhood rights. To give a fetus all the rights you give born people, is to give the state jurisdiction over a woman's body.

Over time... Obamacare accomplishes the same result..

 

[g5000]

If I take my two year old to the emergency room for a broken arm, and the doctor says he needs a cast, and I say no, the doctor will say I'm endangering my child and call the police.

Personhood bills give doctors the right to force medical decisions on pregnant women.

You made a distinction between "right to life" and "personhood". I would like to know what that difference is. The bill says "right to life" in it three times. It does not contain the word "personhood".

"Personhood" is probably a pro-choice scare tactic media invention.

 

[AmyNation]

There are a ton of cases out there, from states who have similar laws already in place. Pregnant woman being taken in cuffs to the hospital because their doctor felt home birth was dangerous, pregnant woman charged with manslaughter because she refused a c-section and her baby died, pregnant woman flees hospital because the doctor wants her to have a C-section and she wants a natural delivery.

When you declare a fetus is the same as a born child, the state can step in if they disagree with a woman's life or medical choices.

 

[g5000]

There are a ton of cases out there, from states who have similar laws already in place. Pregnant woman being taken in cuffs to the hospital because their doctor felt home birth was dangerous, pregnant woman charged with manslaughter because she refused a c-section and her baby died, pregnant woman flees hospital because the doctor wants her to have a C-section and she wants a natural delivery.

When you declare a fetus is the same as a born child, the state can step in if they disagree with a woman's life or medical choices.

Do you have links to these cases?

I bet they were all third trimester cases where even the Supreme Court agrees the fetus is a protected human.

From the OP link:

North Dakota lawmakers passed a Personhood Constitutional Amendment initiative on Thursday that would amend the state's constitution to give legal rights and protections to human embryos. If the ballot initiative passes the House, North Dakota voters will decide on it during the 2014 elections.

"Personhood Constitutional Amendment". HuffPo calls it that. The bill is actually titled, "The inalienable right to life of every human being at every stage of development."

It's a right to life bill.

 

[OODA_Loop]

When you declare a fetus is the same as a born child, the state can step in if they disagree with a woman's life or medical choices.

You dwell in the pre-fundamentally transformed America.

State knows best now.

 

[Stephanie]

why is it when a person kills a pregnant woman they can charged with double homicide?
they make no mention of the gestation of the pregnancy..So they consider that fetus to be, A PERSON

 

[g5000]

If I take my two year old to the emergency room for a broken arm, and the doctor says he needs a cast, and I say no, the doctor will say I'm endangering my child and call the police.

Personhood bills give doctors the right to force medical decisions on pregnant women.

There is virtually no difference between your two year old and a third trimester fetus. A doctor can and should stop you from harming, or allowing harm to come to, a third trimester fetus. Even the courts agree on this.

A "personhood" bill, since you insist on calling it that, prevents a woman from getting an abortion because such a law says the embryo or fetus has a right to life.

 

[g5000]

why is it when a person kills a pregnant woman they can charged with double homicide?
they make no mention of the gestation of the pregnancy..So they consider that fetus to be, A PERSON

Actually they do mention the gestation of the pregnancy.

Edited to add: I stand corrected. Federal law does not mention the gestation and considers it a crime to murder a fetus at any state of development: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

 

[yidnar]

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.

One problem is, the right is not averse to trashing the Constitution in their all out bid to control every aspect of our lives.

Another problem is that rw's do not recognize the difference or care that there is a difference.

it sounds to me that the right is protecting the rights of the unborn.

 

[Katzndogz]

After reading the article the law says that abortions must be performed by a licensed doctor who has hospital admitting privileges. This will shut down the state's one abortion clinic. Who was doing abortions? Some guy who was an auto mechanic the week before. Democrats hate women and don't care if they bleed to death or get blood poisoning.

 

[g5000]

The only way Roe v. Wade can be overturned in court any more is for a "personhood" law to be passed and then challenged all the way to the Supreme Court.

That's the motive behind these laws.

 

[g5000]

After reading the article the law says that abortions must be performed by a licensed doctor who has hospital admitting privileges. This will shut down the state's one abortion clinic. Who was doing abortions? Some guy who was an auto mechanic the week before. Democrats hate women and don't care if they bleed to death or get blood poisoning.

That's Mississippi's law, not North Dakota's.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

One problem is, the right is not averse to trashing the Constitution in their all out bid to control every aspect of our lives.

Another problem is that rw's do not recognize the difference or care that there is a difference.

Show me in the constitution where the feds have the authority to interfere with the licensing and regulating of professionals within a states borders.

 

[AmyNation]

If I take my two year old to the emergency room for a broken arm, and the doctor says he needs a cast, and I say no, the doctor will say I'm endangering my child and call the police.

Personhood bills give doctors the right to force medical decisions on pregnant women.

There is virtually no difference between your two year old and a third trimester fetus. A doctor can and should stop you from harming, or allowing harm to come to, a third trimester fetus. Even the courts agree on this.

A "personhood" bill, since you insist on calling it that, prevents a woman from getting an abortion because such a law says the embryo or fetus has a right to life.

I dont disagree that 3rd trimester is a child, I disagree with giving that child the same rights you give a two year old.

 

[AmyNation]

There are a ton of cases out there, from states who have similar laws already in place. Pregnant woman being taken in cuffs to the hospital because their doctor felt home birth was dangerous, pregnant woman charged with manslaughter because she refused a c-section and her baby died, pregnant woman flees hospital because the doctor wants her to have a C-section and she wants a natural delivery.

When you declare a fetus is the same as a born child, the state can step in if they disagree with a woman's life or medical choices.

Do you have links to these cases?

I bet they were all third trimester cases where even the Supreme Court agrees the fetus is a protected human.

From the OP link:

North Dakota lawmakers passed a Personhood Constitutional Amendment initiative on Thursday that would amend the state's constitution to give legal rights and protections to human embryos. If the ballot initiative passes the House, North Dakota voters will decide on it during the 2014 elections.

"Personhood Constitutional Amendment". HuffPo calls it that. The bill is actually titled, "The inalienable right to life of every human being at every stage of development."

It's a right to life bill.

Yes, they were all 3rd trimester, I can dig up links for those cases. I absolutely don't think that a pregnant women should lose the right to her own medical decisions simply because of the fetus, at any stage.

 

[uscitizen]

So if a person exists as a fetus the a pregnent woman having sex is child abuse, a real perversion.

So if a pregnant woman drinks a beer she is guilty of providing a minor with alcohol?

 

[AmyNation]

If you say that a fetus is equal to the mother, and has equal rights, than you open up countless ways the state can interfere with the woman's life, drinking, smoking, what type of birth she wants, everything.

 

[AmyNation]

Amendment 48: It's dangerous to women - The Denver Post

"For example, in Washington, D.C., doctors sought a court order to force Ayesha Madyun to have a C-section, claiming the fetus faced a 50 to 75 percent chance of infection if not delivered surgically. The court said, "All that stood between the Madyun fetus and its independent existence, separate from its mother, was — put simply — a doctor's scalpel." With that, the court granted the order. When the procedure was done, there was no evidence of infection.

In Florida, Laura Pemberton wanted to have a vaginal birth after a previous C-section. Her doctors believed that her fetus had a right to be born by a C-section. A sheriff came to her house, took her into custody while she was in active labor, strapped her legs together and forced her to go to a hospital, where they were holding a hearing about the rights of the fetus. A lawyer was appointed for her fetus but not for her. She was forced to have a C-section. Pemberton subsequently gave birth vaginally to four more children, defying the medical and court predictions of harm."