North Dakota lawmakers vote that 'personhood' starts at conception

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
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.

It doesn't boil down to that at all. It's not necessarily a religious issue. It also has nothing to do with Christianity or Christians. Do a lot of Christians oppose it? Yes. Do a lot of christians support it. Of course.

It would be foolish to confuse religion with morality. And this is an issue of morality.

It's not an issue of morality. I mean, it is, but what defines when life starts? That's religion, to me. There's no scientific "this is when consciousness starts, this is when the ability to really live on it's own starts, this is when it is not just a blastocyst but an improved blastocyst with feelings and rights and not just cells that get thrown around all the time anyway." Basically, I think religion is the only way to really find an "answer" to the rights of those cells. Because they're really just cells, there's no "soul" test or anything. And since all religions differ, there isn't just a general agreement. It's not like morality with the death penalty, when there is torture and pain and the rights of citizens and laws and we can compare it to other countries and the brain dies at this point, yadda yadda yadda. Obviously the start of "life" is more difficult. Technically, life can be a cell, and a single sperm is a cell. So that's awkward, huh.

"Personhood" isn't defined. I think religion defines it. "Person" isn't a scientific or logical term. It's uber abstract. Really, to me, a person looks like a stick figure. Anything more than that is kind of speculation. Can the stick figure be boiled down to a single line? I don't think so, but some people do.

This is an issue loaded with emotion and frequently those emotions get the best of people. The issue of abortion and the life of the unborn child is a complex one and becomes even more complex when the impact of the pregnancy on other lives is considered. I will never agree with birth control by abortion but there are times when an abortion is a viable and indeed sometimes necessary thing.

Consider the impact of pregnancy on a young girl or indeed a woman of any age when that pregnancy is the result of rape. Are we to insist that the pregnancy be carried full term to birth under those circumstances? What if medical tests show that the child has horrific birth defects? Are we so wise and all knowing that we force suffering on an innocent? Do we force parents who may not be able to handle it either emotionally or financially to do so anyway?

It seems to me that these factors are often not factored in and I believe it essential that they are.

reply to post by gallopinghordes


What's more worrying and needs to be very carefully watched if this bill is not overturned is what they do with birth control options.

If these legislators are going to outlaw abortion, they shoudl be realistic enough to provide BC for women without moral or financial hassle.

reply to post by ravenshadow13


Then you'd have to argue the origin of morality, which has raged on far longer than the issue of legislation concerning abortion in America.

For me, there's life being created within somebody. That life should be protected, even from the people who are responsible for creating that life. We all make decisions that we have to live with and learn from. The ultimate decision concerning life shouldn't be one of those we can wipe clean like a slate. A life at conception is life/energy in a kenetic state, developing and reliant on but not belonging to the mother.

reply to post by asmeone2


I agree with you; however there are already ways for women to get birth control at little or no cost. My concern is for women who become victims of sexual assault or other issues over which they have no control. Do we really want to victimize them again?

Birth control AND non-abstinence only sexual education. I mean, come on, even Sarah Palin's daughter (who reminds me so much of some of my very close friends) was like "Expecting teens not to have intercourse is entirely unrealistic."

My mom was on a committee against abstinence only sex ed years ago in town, and of course the opposing committee won. So now we learn how horrible sex is, and kids get knocked up and put in alternative school.

Not only does there need to be free birth control (especially condoms, which are super cheap, but also birth control pills and diaphragms for anybody with a latex allergy or other concerns). And decent birth control pills. I know many girls who go to the free clinics and get the cheap pills that they give out, which make the girls gain a ton of weight, have hormonal problems, and are often discontinued because of the horrible side effects. Each prospective woman needs to be properly evaluated for a method that works best for their hormonal type.

Not only is abstinence not very realistic among modern teenagers, the same goes for condom use. Especially because the typical "health class" does not teach us about how to properly prevent ourselves from getting STDs and preventing pregnancy. It basically says, if anything, "sex gives you diseases and there's nothing you can do about it, it will kill you, so don't do it."

Condoms rip, often, especially among teens who don't know how to use them (expiration dates, not keeping them in humid environments at certain temps, etc). So, what happens when one rips? Usually nothing. I know some people who have had to go to the doctor to get a script for Plan B, which is probably the right thing to do. But usually the kids can't even tell their parents what happened so it's like, um, let's hope for the best.

I promise that almost every single actively sexual young adult, and even perhaps adult, birth control or not, has had a pregnancy scare at least once.

So if abortions are going to be illegal for whatever .... reason. They had -better- make some improvements in these other areas.

And in response to the above post, Plan B would be the option, I guess. Unless they call that an "abortion of a possible embryo that may or may not exist yet but let's not risk it." My experiences with Plan B are that lots of doctors are really tentative to give it out for anything and I know someone who was told "oh, well, chances are that you won't get pregnant" by a doctor wearing a cross, who proceeded to give a lecture about how sexual activity was bad. Not even a lie. So, you'd better have a good pharmacist, and they'd better keep Plan B legal. If it becomes illegal, so, too, will birth control pills. Because Plan B is just a double dose of the pill.

And if birth control pills become illegal, I will -really- have left the country by then.

[edit on 2/18/2009 by ravenshadow13]

Originally posted by gallopinghordes
reply to post by asmeone2

 

I agree with you; however there are already ways for women to get birth control at little or no cost. My concern is for women who become victims of sexual assault or other issues over which they have no control. Do we really want to victimize them again?

No I fully concede your point. It is a valid one and the exemption should be made.

However, too often these things seem to follow a "First we'll outlaw abortion and then we'll take away birth control! That'll show the fornicators!" attitude.

This ruling, in theory, already outlaws morning after and EC pills. It isn't a big strech of the imagination to think that the same lobby involved here would want to branch out and find a way to declare all birth control morally unacceptable.

reply to post by ravenshadow13


In many states one has to be 18 to even buy condomns. It's rediculous.

But anyway, stopping teens from having sex is only one small part of this issue.

I would agree that there are many valid reasons to abstain from sex during the teenage years, and it shouldn't be frowned upon by those who do so, but it's rediculous to expect consenting adults, in their 20s and beyond, to abstain as well.

That is what many people do not understand, restricting birth control harms *everyone.* Not just teens, but every sexually active woman, including those in long-term relationships and married women who just don't want to have any more kids.

reply to post by asmeone2


You have to be 18 to buy condoms in some states? Really? Never knew that.

The age of consent in many states is 16, and few people even know that. If they really don't want teenagers to be having sex, then they could raise the age. But then we would see more of those cases where, you know, 17 year old goes to jail for having sex with 16 year old girlfriend.

Getting rid of Plan B/morning after pill is the same as getting rid of birth control pills. I mean, someone could just take two birth control pills as a morning after pill. It would be impossible to regulate.

I guess married couples would be encouraged to use IUDs... maybe, but IUDs have tons of risks and side effects, can be really painful, and can lead to severe infection and inflammation. If humans were designed only to have sex when they were "ready" to have a baby, we would have estrus and go into heat like most mammals and primates do. I don't even know why, evolutionarily, we are still able to reproduce ALL THE TIME, since we are so freaking overpopulated. But either way, outlawing birth control would be ridiculous. Condoms, in some form, have been around for hundreds of years, and even supposedly "primitive" tribes have been known to utilize certain plants to make the chances of fertilization less likely.

And even if teens should maybe abstain, according to our society (and strictly our society since many girls in other cultures are married and have kids by 18, and the female body is usually ready by 12 or 13), there should be enough information available for those who decide not to, that accidents and mistakes due to a lack of education on the issue would no longer happen.

My school wanted us all to sign waivers from age 15+ saying that we were going to abstain. They wanted us to talk to our families about it and sign it, and whatever. It was optional, of course, and my mom ripped it up and wrote a letter. But that's because she's a midwife and has had patients who were 12 years old who carried babies to term because of a lack of education or a lack of proper birth control.

[edit on 2/18/2009 by ravenshadow13]

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by asmeone2

 

You have to be 18 to buy condoms in some states? Really? Never knew that.

The age of consent in many states is 16, and few people even know that. If they really don't want teenagers to be having sex, then they could raise the age. But then we would see more of those cases where, you know, 17 year old goes to jail for having sex with 16 year old girlfriend.

Sadly, in most cases, I think it is the parents of one party or another that pushes these cases, just to be vindictive.

Getting rid of Plan B/morning after pill is the same as getting rid of birth control pills. I mean, someone could just take two birth control pills as a morning after pill. It would be impossible to regulate.

No, I imagine we would go back to all kinds of at-home unsafe abortions.

I guess married couples would be encouraged to use IUDs... maybe, but IUDs have tons of risks and side effects, can be really painful, and can lead to severe infection and inflammation.

Married people should not be penalized in that way!

It makes no sense, someone in government decides that it is "wrong" for people to have sex and children outside of marraige, so they do all these things that just make it more difficult for maried people? What the hay?

If humans were designed only to have sex when they were "ready" to have a baby, we would have estrus and go into heat like most mammals and primates do. I don't even know why, evolutionarily, we are still able to reproduce ALL THE TIME, since we are so freaking overpopulated.

Yeah, God/The Genes dropped the ball on that one. That would make everything so much more simple. And I will slap the first person who tries to say "It's because Eve ate the Apple..."

Interestingly, the whole tradition with June brides came about because it was safest for a woman to get married around then, get pregnent a month or so later, and then give birth.

But either way, outlawing birth control would be ridiculous. Condoms, in some form, have been around for hundreds of years, and even supposedly "primitive" tribes have been known to utilize certain plants to make the chances of fertilization less likely.

There are plants that can do that, and that can cause miscarraige, but it is absolutely no substitute for medical practices in this field.


I would reckon that there are--and certainly will be more if this trend continues--women that have died from non-medical abortions in this day and age, but it's like a person who dies of starvation in America, the actual cause of death never makes it down.


Your edits:

And even if teens should maybe abstain, according to our society (and strictly our society since many girls in other cultures are married and have kids by 18, and the female body is usually ready by 12 or 13), there should be enough information available for those who decide not to, that accidents and mistakes due to a lack of education on the issue would no longer happen.

Agreed.

One pet peeve, and I have made a RATS thread about this, is that the burden of staying "pure" is almost entirely placed on the girl.

If they really want to push the agenda, there should be just as much pressure on the guys to stay abstinant too, and to not pressure the girls to have sex.

My school wanted us all to sign waivers from age 15+ saying that we were going to abstain. They wanted us to talk to our families about it and sign it, and whatever. It was optional, of course, and my mom ripped it up and wrote a letter. But that's because she's a midwife and has had patients who were 12 years old who carried babies to term because of a lack of education or a lack of proper birth control.

Ugh, sickening that a school actually did that! If a church or youth group wants to, their perogative, but no way a school shoudl do that.

I commend your mom for speaking out and I hope her voice was heard; she is actually qualified to speak on the subject.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by asmeone2]

Of course. And the entire black market abortion thing is the sole SOLE reason why I am entirely against the anti-abortion movement. My mom had a good friend who came very close to dying from an infection in the late 60s because of a black market abortion. And my mom had patients who did die from these hotel room abortions, with poor equipment and skilled or unskilled doctors who can't possibly even do a decent job without the right tools. Thousands of women would die. Or they would go to other countries for abortions, which would be costly, and not an option for most.

You know, it would be horrible to have a child at my age, even though in many other cultures I would probably have recently had one. It would be horrible because it would interrupt my education and I would not be able to afford the proper care for the baby. But, if there was an optimum time with the least risk, it would be around the early 20s. Look at all the news against the fertility treatments, even of parents in their 30s. Clearly, waiting a long time isn't the right answer for the health of mother and child. There has to be some consideration for this. And for the fact that at around 18 the instinct to have a child really kicks in, because that's when you "should" according to nature. It would be horrible to suppress that, I think, or at least the urge. No one ever really talks about how it's so easy for teenagers to get pregnant when a condom rips, but fairly newly married couples in their early 30s have to go to fertility therapists and things.

The 1960s version of "Our Bodies, Ourselves" (my mom has at least 4 versions of the book) includes an entire section on abortion, for the first time. It has a good section about these illegal abortions in hotel rooms, and it comes with a very graphic picture that, to me, trumps all the pictures that anti-abortionists throw around of dead fetuses. I won't even describe the picture here but if anyone is interested you can U2U me for the details or I can scan in the page somewhere.

Imagine if every person who has had an abortion was dead. My mom and my aunt would be dead, many more women that I know, and that you know. Neither my boyfriend or I would even be here.

Sadly, in this really conservative, mostly white, mostly Republican, mostly Christian town... no one really listened. A few people did, but a few people were really horrible to my mom (and later to me) about the issues. The kicker is that one of the men who was on the committee... his daughter is currently dealing with a very serious decision and she chose the same route as Palin's daughter. She's a really, really good friend of mine... but... you have to wonder.

It's so odd that guys are almost encouraged by their fathers to party and stuff... and girls are either really closely watched or ignored. I was really lucky and give personal freedom, while informed of the consequences of any actions that I may take. Have I made bad decisions? Um, of course, I'm 18, I don't live in a box. But I've learned from it, and I'm glad that I dealt with these issues NOW rather than in 10 years when I'm married.

I know tons of boys my age who lost their virginities at 12. So I think that is about average for males. I would venture... 15 or so as average for females. And even though many girls don't wait for marriage, they can still be considered "prude" if they wait even until age 17. Ridiculous, as you said, asme.

[edit on 2/18/2009 by ravenshadow13]

reply to post by tezzajw


well heres the problem with your preference of staying out of other people's lives....if a person...scientifically, and medically is a person at conception...then abortion...is murder..and murder is against the law...so what makes it an opinion? one doctor against another? people who have no degree whatso ever..who claim its not a life, and other who claim it is? what scientific proof does one need to support that its a life,..or not a life...and if after all the proof it comes down to it being a life...a living human being...does that make it murder? Lets put it this way...right now...I live in Ga...Deer season is over...if we went out and shot a deer right now..we would be arrested, go to jail for several years, and permenantly loose a hunting license..know why? because right now is when Does (femal deer) begin to get pregnant...and give birth in the spring.....we're not allowed to shoot them..because they are pregnant..and they are animals....if I was pregnant right now...and I was shot and I was killed, and my baby was killed...should the killer go to jail for one life? or two? to determine when life is life...is not a matter of opinion...it comes down to medical, and scientifical proof...and all the proof? so far..as pointed towards one thing...life begins at conception...therefore...abortion is murder..its not an opinion...its a fact...10 years ago...it was nothing for a baby to be aborted at 20 weeks gestation...simply because it was not viable..it could not survive outside the mother's womb...that was turned over on on its ear the minute that one baby made news..at not only surviving at 20weeks..but going home 4 months later....due to technology..so heres my question...what happens when technology makes it possilbe for a baby to be viable outside the womb at 16 weeks? 12 weeks? 8 weeks? what then? is it still not a life? and if its still not considered a life due to it not being able to survive without technology..then what about others who have to have technology to survive? the 30 year old on a breathing machine? those who had to have transplants to survive...are they not "life" since they needed medical intervention? my suggestion..how many of you have seen the video "the silent scream" ? see..I WAS A Pro-choice..or rather, I was against abortion, but felt like many of you did...I had no right to tell someone else what to do with they're body...until I saw that 8 week..."baby" in the womb..pull away in fear from the sucking device..how could an 8wk fetus..with apparently no eyesight..do that? sorry..but if anyone has seen that video..and watched all of it..and can still be pro-choice..then to me there is something wrong with them to begin with. But we are human..we destroy ourselves..there is proof of this as well..wars, the way we treat our neighbors, far and abroad..we want to keep abortion, because we want the right to say..I control, I decide, I don't want it? I can do what I want. to me..saying we have no right in telling a woman if she can kill a baby or not..because its inside her body..is the same as saying..we have no right to tell a woman to stop hitting her kids when she is standing right next to us..after all..the kids were once inside her body..thats just a matter of geography.

reply to post by ravenshadow13


Yeah, why should a girl or boy wait to have sex?
Why not do what you want to do and then, if you have a pregnancy just get rid of it, because you aren't 'compatible' or 'ready'?
Why not just FORGET love and all the implications!
Just have fun? Yeah an abortion is NOT fun.
Knowing you have just been an accomplice in murder sux!
Not only that, you have no respect from the father who gave you that child!
Why not wait? Like you said, "condoms don't always work".
Are we animals?

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


How is a person a person at conception? It's just a cell cluster. For the first few days it has no form or function, it doesn't even have the ability to move for months. If the mother died during the first few months, the baby would have no hope of survival.

My best friend always says, if you think that a zygote has rights, then you'd better never waste sperm. Because every sperm COULD become a person, but they obviously all don't. Not all zygotes become fetuses. Not all fetuses naturally survive, even in the best conditions. So maybe masturbation will become illegal eventually, too. All those "maybe" babies have rights.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


Here's that video.
I haven't seen it;


Part 1,2,3,4 and 5.......



[edit on 18-2-2009 by Clearskies]

even if you are a person, you still have no rights to the body and resources of another person.

reply to post by Clearskies


Or you could just use birth control. You know, that's what most people do. I don't know ONE teenager who goes around carelessly having sex, thinking "Oh, if I get knocked up, I will just get an abortion."

I never said it was fun and if you read what I wrote, I know people very close to me who have had abortions. It sucks and you feel horrible about it and abortions shouldn't happen unless there is a case of rape or something. Because for everyone else, there's birth control. And if the birth control programs and sex ed programs were better, most people wouldn't need abortions unless they were really lazy and irresponsible. And if they were lazy and irresponsible, then yes, they shouldn't have an abortion. If they had an accident (condom ripping... which they do rip, especially since some teenagers think it's fine to use expired condoms or double up condoms) or if they really did make a horrible mistake and forgot their diaphragm one time, or if they were raped, then they should be able to have another chance. Especially in the instance of rape.

No one has an abortion because they want to or because it is "fun". And if I'm wrong and some people do, then they shouldn't be allowed to have them.

What about what asme said? What about parents who don't want another child? They are being responsible. Should they be punished, either by not being allowed to have a child that they cannot take care of as responsible adults, or by not being permitted to have intercourse because birth control will become illegal, too?

Note- I would have posted the black market abortion stuff but it would have been removed for graphic content. But I do have the book and I can easily scan in the section.

There is no end to this argument. There just isn't. No one ever changes their mind, no conclusion is ever reached, people will just keep trying to trump the other argument and put forth more and more statistics or ... shock films for or against a cause. Basically I said what I have to say, and I've said it before, and I don't really care what y'all do because if the country does take that turn, I am long gone.

[edit on 2/18/2009 by ravenshadow13]

[edit on 2/18/2009 by ravenshadow13]

i know this will fall on deaf ears and get laughs..

but I'm serious...

the only method of birth control that should be used effectively..

is orgasm denial.

contemplate it all you want.. ponder it.. laugh at it..
but it's the only way.

no more pregnancies please.

lets hold off on that little animalistic rutting urge .. until the world is a bit more sane for people to use the holy power of creation to multiply.


-

reply to post by ravenshadow13


Who's wanting to take away birth control from teenagers?
I don't know of any and I have been to beaucoups of churches!
Did you know birth control works less than 85%?

[edit on 18-2-2009 by Clearskies]