Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

North Dakota lawmakers vote that 'personhood' starts at conception

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   

North Dakota lawmakers vote that 'personhood' starts at conception


www.news.com.au

NORTH Dakota has become the first US state to move towards passing a law that defines "personhood" as starting at the moment of conception, which would effectively outlaw abortion, pro-life groups said.

Lawmakers in the North Dakota lower house voted 51 to 41 on Tuesday to pass the Personhood of Children Act, which confers the same basic rights on "all human beings from the beginning of their biological development, including the pre-born, partially born."
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Here's my problem with this: None of those people can know or prove that their opinion is correct.

So, based on a vote of 51 to 41, the majority get to decide when a person is defined as being a person, legally. This is absurd.

What gives these 92 people the right to decide how everyone in the state should live, according to the law? The law is a joke. In this case, it is an uninformed joke, as these 92 people are only voting with their opinions, NOT facts.

I've got no real convictions in the pro/anti abortion debate. I'd prefer to stay out of someone else's life and let them decide. The only thing that annoys me is when abortion is used as a form of birth control.

www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
I've got no real convictions in the pro/anti abortion debate. I'd prefer to stay out of someone else's life and let them decide.


That's why I am pro-life.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Does this mean that everyone in North Dakota just got nine months older?

[edit on 18-2-2009 by TravelerintheDark]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


I agree. Many people (not all, but many) argue that it shouldn't be up to a bunch of white guys in Washington whether a woman can have an abortion. I say that it shouldn't be up to one woman whether or not the child lives or dies.




On another note: Is North Dakota legally allowed to do this? The constitution is a little ineffective at deciding this issue, as abortion as it exists today was not something that was an issue back then.

Article 14, Section one states:


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Also, Roe v. Wade:


In deciding Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that a Texas statute forbidding abortion except when necessary to save the life of the woman was unconstitutional. The Court arrived at its decision by concluding that the issue of abortion and abortion rights falls under the right to privacy.


The Roe v. Wade allowed states to mandate rules about abortion, but not outlaw it. So, the North Dakota ruling is unconstitutional, right?


en.wikipedia.org...

Sorry about all the edits, for some reason it wouldn't post right.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by Existent]

[edit on 18-2-2009 by Existent]

[edit on 18-2-2009 by Existent]

[edit on 18-2-2009 by Existent]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Existent
I say that it shouldn't be up to one woman whether or not the child lives or dies.

The mother is the only person keeping the baby alive. Who else but the mother, should have a say in if the baby lives or dies? The baby doesn't grow inside the father, so ultimately, the decision isn't his.

I don't believe that there are any 'correct' answers. It's such a mirky topic that can only divide people.

Throw in a 51-41 vote to make it even more ridiculous and we shall see what happens in due course.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
The mother is the only person keeping the baby alive. Who else but the mother, should have a say in if the baby lives or dies?


You bring up a good point, but I don't think anyone should be able to decide to end a life. Only my opinion, but there it is. And yes, a 51-41 vote is downright ridiculous.

My major point, though, was on the legality of the vote itself.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Existent
And yes, a 51-41 vote is downright ridiculous.
My major point, though, was on the legality of the vote itself.

Agreed.

This is a clear case of where the law FAILS no matter what decision is made. It can never represent any type of moral majority.

Let the overpaid Constitution lawyers argue their case. Shake up their ivory towers and watch them scramble to justify their existence!

Edit:

Originally posted by Existent
but I don't think anyone should be able to decide to end a life.

Yet people are still executed by state and federal laws. Isn't that just a retroactive form of abortion?

[edit on 18-2-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Though I shy away from dogma and such, I fully realize that a benchmark would help. If we go to the many of the scriptures written about the issue, we find that in ALL of them, the soul enters at first breath.

Including the Talmud, the Hebrew scriptures given to them by the God of the Bible.

So rather than argue over this, why can't we take the words of the God(s) we say we believe in? They all tell us the answer.

And on top of that, it is criminal, morally vile, and unethical to force a fetus to first breath to then abandon it to the neglect and abuse that virtually always happens to unwanted children. If we are going to force that first breath, we should be ready to provide ALL the necessities:

Food
Clothing
Shelter and
LOVE.

If any are left without all of these after we have weilded such power over them...WE are guilty of the crimes and sadness they must endure.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Amaterasu, a good argument for religious people, but many people (including myself) aren't religious, or aren't religious enough to consider that argument valid (I'm not bashing anyone's religious beliefs, just stating mine). It is cruel to force a child to first breath, then abandon it, just as it is cruel to abort a fetus that may have become the next Winston Churchill or Thomas Jefferson. And maybe that child was going to grow up to become an axe murderer. We can't judge by someone's possible future actions, only by their potential. Man was created equal. Is it not counter to our beliefs to prevent someone from fulfilling their potential? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When does the mother's pursuit of happiness override the child's right to life? Obviously not every abortion is about that, but we American's tend to have difficulty drawing the line. American government is very hypocritical at times. A "moral majority" is the very reason a super-majority is required to amend the Constitution. It isn't an easy issue. but 92 people from North Dokata shouldn't get to decide.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Existent
 


There is a loop hole for every thing. I think they successfully found the one loop hole for abortion. Person has always been assumed as from birth on, but no definition has ever been put on record. Now that it is defined from conception on, that unborn child now has equal rights.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Thank you. I was unsure as to whether a federal definition existed.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Thank god. The way all the orphanages are just crying to be more overcrowded makes me cry. There are barely enough unwanted and mistreated children in the world. This will guarantee that number grows at an amazing rate. I know I would far rather watch then be born, live a crappy life, turn into crappy adults, be little more than a detriment to society and then be buried on my dime a sinner than to have them get a free ticket to heaven for having been aborted.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Ugh its horrible that people are soooo selfish to the point where they want to outlaw abortion. All the money thats going to be spent on this one kid you'll have, could feed thousands of starving, ALIVE, children around the world.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luciferdescending
Thank god. The way all the orphanages are just crying to be more overcrowded makes me cry. There are barely enough unwanted and mistreated children in the world. This will guarantee that number grows at an amazing rate. I know I would far rather watch then be born, live a crappy life, turn into crappy adults, be little more than a detriment to society and then be buried on my dime a sinner than to have them get a free ticket to heaven for having been aborted.


Lucifer, baby, dont be upset. Look on the bright side, at least you will have more company this way.




I think this law rocks!



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Existent
Amaterasu, a good argument for religious people, but many people (including myself) aren't religious, or aren't religious enough to consider that argument valid (I'm not bashing anyone's religious beliefs, just stating mine).


It works pretty good for some of us who are not religious, too. Like I said, I avoid dogma, but since we cannot PROOVE the soul or its entrance into us... Let's use scripture.


It is cruel to force a child to first breath, then abandon it, just as it is cruel to abort a fetus that may have become the next Winston Churchill or Thomas Jefferson.


Here is the main fallacy that anti-choice people bring up. The facts support the idea that sociopaths and psychopaths virtually always come from twisted families with little to no love, with neglect and psychological, physical and sexual abuse. The more love (especially!) that an individual receives, the more likely they are to contribute positively to society.

So... Trying to suggest that we will cause neglect and abuse but that's ok on the off chance we might have a Churchill or Jefferson - but far more likely a Dahmer or a Jack the Ripper - all makes up for forcing these little ones to misery.


And maybe that child was going to grow up to become an axe murderer.


Far more likely than a Mother Teresa...


We can't judge by someone's possible future actions, only by their potential.


Their potential as measured within the bounds of how they are likely to be treated. And frankly, we might conclude that their potential is most likely in the realm of a drain on society. Ergo, we might take more seriously our obligation to provide for those we force into first breath. Or... We might conclude that it is wrong to spew unwanted children into our Universe. And choose the benchmarks given in scriptures the world over.


Man was created equal. Is it not counter to our beliefs to prevent someone from fulfilling their potential?


Only if we have at least a 50/50 chance that that potential will be positive... But the facts give us around a 70% chance of being a detriment to society.

On top of that, how can you say that the fetus is anything? Many are born dead, in fact, so the mere state of fetushood says nothing. In other words, a fetus is not yet a "someone" of whom we could prevent potential. (Unless we state the potential is to become a human upon birth...)


When does the mother's pursuit of happiness override the child's right to life?


You show me a child and I might have an answer. Fetus is not child. And when does a mother's lack of interest in the eventual human life of her fetus not matter? And who gives you the authority to speak, relative to a fetus, of a "child's" life?


Obviously not every abortion is about that, but we American's tend to have difficulty drawing the line.


So just how DO you propose to get abundant love to the unwanted children - regardless of the reason the child is unwanted?



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 





Here is the main fallacy that anti-choice people bring up. The facts support the idea that sociopaths and psychopaths virtually always come from twisted families with little to no love, with neglect and psychological, physical and sexual abuse. The more love (especially!) that an individual receives, the more likely they are to contribute positively to society.


You need to narrow down your "facts." You're speaking quite generally and seemingly so with a bias. That isn't my "fallacy" as an "anti-choice" person at all. I believe your points about these environments that these children will be brought up more misdirected and honestly a manifestation of your own point of view.

Not every single non-aborted child is going to grow up in an unloving situation, nor will it be a sociopath or a nutjob. I've had some pretty irresponsible friends who were on the verge of aborting their baby because they thought it would be too hard on them and the child being young parents at 16 and 17. They are now IN LOVE with the little girl and THRIVE for that baby's well being. We've talked at length about it and his voice still gets wobbly five years later. This isn't always the case, but it's not always the case that the child will be subjected to a life of pain and suffering.




Far more likely than a Mother Teresa...


Because you say so, right?




On top of that, how can you say that the fetus is anything? Many are born dead, in fact, so the mere state of fetushood says nothing. In other words, a fetus is not yet a "someone" of whom we could prevent potential. (Unless we state the potential is to become a human upon birth...)


Fetus: The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal. There's less than a 1% chance your child will be born stillborn.

And I don't mean to be rude, but look at you... You're justifying the death of a child, fetus, embryo, with word usage. "Unless we state..." It is the origin of human life. Spiritual or not ( I prefer the latter ), it is still life. You can use terminology to defend your case, and that's fine, but it's undeniable that it is, after conception, a growing, living being, and as a mother, grateful or not should treasure and nurture that.

People in all respects to life should reap what they sow.


[edit on 18-2-2009 by DeadFlagBlues]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
What I meant by religious beliefs was that not everyone believes in scripture, and therefore is counter democratic to base our laws on them.

Just because a Fetus is born dead doesn't mean it was never a human. The fact of the matter is that in some cases, a woman will want an abortion but not get one, then love that child with all her heart. Other times, a woman will not even consider an abortion, but then be cold and callous towards the child. Who are we to say," Sorry, but your peers have decided that you are too mean a person to possibly love and raise a healthy child." and force her into abortion? Statistics are one thing, but life is another altogether. Two children can go through the exact same family conditions and come out completely different. Either we hold that every single child has the right to life, or we face a reality where outsiders intervene in the right to procreate.

And, to get back on topic, I just read this:


Lawmakers in the North Dakota lower house voted 51 to 41 on Tuesday to pass the Personhood of Children Act, which confers the same basic rights on "all human beings from the beginning of their biological development, including the pre-born, partially born."

...

Personhood laws are crafted to challenge Roe v Wade and return the decision-making process on whether or not abortion is legal to the states, Brian Rooney of the Thomas More Law Centre said.

"The purpose of these laws is to challenge Roe v Wade. Once Roe v Wade is overturned, it doesn't mean abortion is illegal in all 50 states but it says that the states decide what to do with abortion,'' Mr Rooney said.


Which takes us right back to the question of whether Abortion is up the states or the Fed. The current Federal ruling is that all women have the right to an abortion (during a certain time period). If someone doesn't want a child, then they shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Abortion should be a last resort, so to speak. Rape, incest, disease, and the occasionally minority (99.9% effective still leaves .1% chance) should be the only times abortion is considered.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
The issue basically boils down to the fact that a law against abortion would be directly against the separation of church and state. So technically, conservatives should be totally against these anti-abortion laws. Except the "Christian Conservative Group" which I didn't even know was a legitimate thing, but is probably the majority of the total conservatives in America.

So... I mean, they can go and change the constitution if they want to make the USA a legit Christian nation. That would make the abortion thing okay, and the laws against embryonic stem cell research, or whatever they want. But I would probably leave the country.

Oh, and the reason why it would be a Christian change and not a Religious change is that not all religions are anti-abortion, and not all religions interpret the ideas of life and soul the same way.

I would leave. I mean, I would leave the country ASAP if even one state made abortion illegal.

And for the record, IMO life doesn't start until it can survive physically on it's own. The same way that I don't think someone with severe brain damage who shows no cognitive function who cannot survive without machines is really alive, either.

Alive, able to live. That's what I think.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Good god this is one scary precedent.

It should not be up to the Govt. to decide what is life and what is not.

I know a lot of ATSers think this is good but think of all the ways this precedent could be mis-used...

Can they nix much-needed stem cell research with this?

Can they prevent IVF treatments to deserving parents, because some might be wasted?

Or if we want to flip it, what happens if they start to define what is not life?

Does a comatose person still have personhood?

A retarded person?

An elderly person suffering from dementia?

Urk... very scary here. The Govt. should not decide who can or can not have a medical procedure!





new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join