It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

North Dakota lawmakers vote that 'personhood' starts at conception

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
I understand where the prolife and the pro abortion people are coming from.

My mom had on right before I was conceived so I have a kinda catch 22 situation
If my mom didn’t have one my ass wouldn’t have been born and my sister or her daughter
would have been born. But because she was aborted my brother and I were born
who did I side with me or unborn baby and being that if one is born the other isn’t decision?


I look at it this way if you don’t want a baby condom, pill or the other methods before sex not after if the condom pill or other methods didn’t work and you decide abortion I’ll accept it

I believe in dealing with something you create you planned to not use one of the methods to prevent pregnancy and you become pregnant your fault you knew what would happen your taking the chance so deal with it.

If you did not want a child sperm should not have entered the other person upon that I look at it as a decision on pregnancy when there are choices to not do that.




posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


Yeah, but how many women give the men a choice in an abortion?
I didn't mine.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by asmeone2
 


Yeah, but how many women give the men a choice in an abortion?
I didn't mine.


You are intentionally skirting the point.

If men did not pressure otherwise unwilling women into sex, or vice versa, then *many* of these pregnancies that go on to be aborted would not happen in the first place.

To answer your question, as far as asking him whether or not to have the abortion, I do not have statistics, but I imagine many do not. However, it stands to reason that when a man has sex with a woman he has to entertain the thought that she might get pregnant.

That goes back into the responsibility of both genders I was talking about.

If you say Ladies don't have sex you might get pregnant OMG! there should also be some mention of Men don't have sex you might get a woman pregnant and have to pay endless child support or have it aborted without your conscent OMG!



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


And more have died from black market abortions in the 60s, but it's fine. Really, you don't know about 95%? Want to find a lower percentage? Did your friends take any herbal remedies at all? Did you know that antibiotics of any sort, for any duration, will totally cancel out the effectiveness of the birth control pill?

Did you know you could learn all that from reading the piece of paper that comes with the prescription? Take it at the same time every day, follow all precautions, and make sure that the pill you take is right for your hormone level (not too low).

Again, I'm not pregnant and I'm on the pill. All of my friends who are on the pill are not pregnant and have never been. So really, I mean, I don't know. But if you take it correctly, those are the statistics.

So, you know LOTS of women who got pregnant on the pill. I know LOTS of women who haven't, and have taken it correctly, and are perfectly peachy.

The infertility is why I refuse to get the shot. But it apparently works just as well as the pill, maybe just a little more, but not a large percentage because Loestrin is 99% effective and so is Depo. The morning after pill is just two birth control pills, and it would only lead to that if it caused a miscarriage of a larger embryo. The microscopic embryo that is usually prevented from implanting (how Plan B works) is discarded like everything else. I know tons of people who have taken Plan B and are fine. I imagine it would only cause such intense complications if you were pregnant longer than you thought. Which is why they ask you and volunteer to give you a pregnancy test if you ask for Plan B in a doctor's office, and also why you shouldn't take the birth control pill if you are pregnant.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 

No, I am NOT 'skirting the issue'.
I used to be a feminist, much like you.
Men are sometimes 'egged on' to get women. I believe it and if you and Ravenshadow were men, I would say something similar to what you are saying AS I HAVE on other threads!
Do you think it was the father of my child's responsibility for the abortion, as MUCH as mine?
Yes, because he knew what I was going to do, but
I was going to do it, (Unless he had persuaded me otherwise, which he didn't try.)
But, what do you think I will tell my sons when they are old enough to start 'experimenting'?
"Do what you want"?
"Take no responsibility"?
Of course not!



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by asmeone2
 

Do you think it was the father of my child's responsibility for the abortion, as MUCH as mine?
Yes, because he knew what I was going to do, but
I was going to do it, (Unless he had persuaded me otherwise, which he didn't try.)


It WAS partly his fault because he got you pregnant in the first place--and because he did not persuade you otherwise.

That's what I'm trying to say--it takes a man and a woman to make a child, one gender is not more responsible than the other for creating "unwanted" pregnancies.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


Right, except when looking closely at cases of rape when one person did overpower the other. Or you could look more broadly at cases of rape.



An estimated 91% of victims of rape are female, 9% are male and 99% of offenders are male. (Bureau of Justice Statistics 1999)

www2.ucsc.edu...

For the record. But I don't think that a man or woman, in a consensual situation, is more responsible than the other. That makes no sense.

If a guy doesn't want to wear a condom or something, and you want him to, then don't have sex with him. If you choose to, then you are just as responsible. (Not you especially, just "you" in general.) Because that's the only possible... way I could see that even possibly logically playing out. But it would still be dumb.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Does anyone realize that the ONLY way a human female can become pregnant is by a human sperm and a human egg and good ol fashion human humping? Women can't have half-rabbit/dog/cat/alien/whale/moose babies, the only possible way a human can become pregnant is with uniquely human components and dna, therefore the result of that perfect synthesis of organic matter IS HUMAN. FROM CONCEPTION. IF ANYTHING WAS EVEN SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAT EMBRYO WOULD NOT HAPPEN AND CONCEPTION WOULD NEVER HAPPEN THEREFORE WHEN A HUMAN OR ANY ANIMAL BECOMES PREGNANT THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBILITY EXCEPT THAT IT IS THAT UNIQUE SPECIES. I am all for a woman's choice to do what they want, especially if it is threatening the woman's life, but realize that you are killing a human.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   
This legislation poses some interesting questions:

1. Will this force fertility clinics to keep all unused, but fertilized, embryos until they can be adopted? Will the frozen embryos also be considered human, or do they actually have to be implanted and developing before they are human?
Would the disposal of unwanted embryos open up the clinics or the donor parents to criminal prosecutions?

2. Does this mean that if a pregnant woman, whether she is aware of the pregnancy yet or not, does not properly care for herself (and thereby, her child) and she has a miscarriage, she can be prosecuted for wrongful death or manslaughter? What if the child is not spontaneously aborted but is born with something wrong? Could she be charged with neglect?

I hope the proponents of this bill also provided for the care and support of any unwanted children forced to be born, and then left for the state to take care of. We all know how fond people are of the welfare system.


This sets a dangerous precedent and I don't think this state will be the last one to try it.

I feel so sad for all of the children who are going to suffer as a result of these lawmakers tunnel-vision.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
"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.


Sure it is, look here in the North Dakota General Provisions; TITLE 1 CHAPTER 1-01 GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND DEFINITIONS which states...
1-01-49. Other general definitions. As used in this code, unless the context otherwise
requires:
1. "Depose" includes every mode of written statement under oath or affirmation.
2. "Executor" includes administrator and "administrator" includes executor.
3. "Individual" means a human being.
4. "Oath" includes "affirmation".
5. "Organization" includes a foreign or domestic association, business trust,
corporation, enterprise, estate, joint venture, limited liability company, limited liability
partnership, limited partnership, partnership, trust, or any legal or commercial entity.
6. "Partnership" includes a limited liability partnership registered under chapter 45-22.
7. "Penitentiary" includes any affiliated facilities.
8. "Person" means an individual, organization, government, political subdivision, or
government agency or instrumentality.

So a person is an individual or a organization all in one broad wave of the magic wand...thank you mickey mouse the Sorcerer's Apprentice!

And an Individual is a human being.
So there. Of course you are a human being...right?

BLACKS LAW Here's what Rob Menard said about personhood and the definition of human being.

Blacks 3rd and 4th have radically different definitions and are far more enlightening. Also it allows you to see the gradual change to the definitions. In Blacks 3rd it states: A human being is not a person because he is a human being, but because rights and duties have been ascribed to him. Specifically the person is that legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. But not all human beings are persons, as was the case in Olde England when there were slaves.


I like Yozhik and the way he likens personhood and parenthood to legal title to a car.

Think of a "child" as you do a "vehicle".

Both are registered.
Ownership is signed over to the state.
You are the assigned keeper.
You do not "hold allodial title".
You have legal responsibilities.
The "asset" can be repossessed.

Different label but exactly the same system and process.

So they just increased the ability to float any bonds they create on the population out to
conception which gives them 10 months more play time, that is nearly a whole fiscal year. Sounds like they are on the move to overt slavery.

This is from a essay called OFFICE OF PERSON
If you carefully read the statute laws enacted by your state legislature you will also notice that they are all written with phrases similar to these five examples :
1. A person commits the offense of failure to carry a license if the person . . .
2. A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the person . . .
3. A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person . . .
4. A person commits the offense of fishing if the person . . .
5. A person commits the offense of breathing if the person . . .
Notice that only "persons" can commit these state legislature created crimes. A crime is by definition an offense committed against the "state." If you commit an offense against a human, it is called a tort. Examples of torts would be any personal injury, slander, or defamation of character.
So how does someone become a "person" and subject to regulation by state statutes and laws ?
There is only one way. You must ask the state for permission to volunteer to become a state person. You must volunteer because the U.S. Constitution forbids the state from compelling you into slavery. This is found in the 13th and 14th Amendments.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   
My Merriam-Webster Dictionary (1997) states the following definitions:

human n : any of a species of primate mammals comprising all living persons and their recent ancestors; also : HOMINID

Nowhere does it say MEN and WOMEN are HUMAN.
PERSONS are HUMAN.
A 'baby' is a MAN is a MAN unless otherwise specified or claimed.

I don't know maybe someone has another view.

So that would render this law ABSOLUTELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL on the grounds of the
13th Amendment to the Constitution. If we were party to it that is.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

A fetus cannot Volunteer. End of STORY. I wish, they will hash this out into a gazillion different moral and philosophical red herrings as usual. Ho hum.

14th Amendment
Section 1. 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.

Where is the United States? The Ten Square mile area of the District of Columbia and related territories. I.E. Puerto Rico, Marianas Islands, Guam. et.al. NOT THE STATES.
Sorry to get political but they are the Legislature, no?
Carry On with the moral rants.






[edit on 19-2-2009 by human8]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   
The problem I have is that abortion is somehow a woman's only issue.

Without exception, there is no protection nor provision for the father to act on behalf of the unborn child. Sure the joke can be made for the guy to have it if he wants it; but in all seriousness there is a feel of "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." with the abortion issue.

I hate to pull out Reagan here but there is a lot of truth to these words: "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." ~Ronald Reagan

But that is why I say that abortion is not a state's issue but is a right of the people. Just that I am absolutely against abortion on my personal level.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:40 AM
link   
I was wondering what happened to bigottry when Mc Cain and Palin packed their stuff and left.
Now I know, they're still out there, threatening the laws of ethics, moral, and reason as soon as they have an opportunity.

So supposing my wife and I have a kid somewhere in N.Dakota, something goes wrong and my child is diagnosed with severe risks of autism and handicap, when my wife is 5 months pregnant. So the law tells me this is murder?
Come on lawmakers, open the windows of your ivory towers, breathe some air, and jump.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by jezebel5150
This legislation poses some interesting questions:

2. Does this mean that if a pregnant woman, whether she is aware of the pregnancy yet or not, does not properly care for herself (and thereby, her child) and she has a miscarriage, she can be prosecuted for wrongful death or manslaughter? What if the child is not spontaneously aborted but is born with something wrong? Could she be charged with neglect?

I hope the proponents of this bill also provided for the care and support of any unwanted children forced to be born, and then left for the state to take care of. We all know how fond people are of the welfare system.


This sets a dangerous precedent and I don't think this state will be the last one to try it.


No kidding, you raise a good question.

20% of all pregnancies end in miscaraige, or spontaneous abortion, and I'd imagine that someone could find an imagined reason why it was the mother's fault in all of those.

The really scarry thing is I can see this legislation extending to babies who are born with disabilities or are born early.

For all I that I hate to see "meth babies" ould like to see some responsiblility to the mother, it's scary to think that there could be legal repercussions in situations where the mother did not take care of the child "right."

Baby was born early? Must have been the mother's fault. If she could be found guilty of a "crime" against its personhood, does the insurance have to pick up the tab?

Baby had a birth defect? Same thing, if it was a "Crime" that caused it, does insurance have to pay? Is that reason to remove it from the parent's care?

Scary legislation indeed.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


Thank you for all your excellent posts. Reality checks.

My 2c. The state making a theological pronouncement. Theocracy is here.

Juno aside, too many babies are forced to be born for other than purely loving reasons. Birth is the punishment for having become pregnant. You made your bed, now lie in it--as the old saying goes. For some girls, adoption is ruled out, as they are told that they would be "unfit" mothers if they give up their baby they are forced to birth. Sad messy situation.

A corporation is an individual, dividing cells a person. God, forgive us our foolishness.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Existent
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.


So you are saying that a sperms life has already been sealed as soon as it is made in the testes? It could grow up to be a slave owner/hypocrite like Thomas Jefferson.

I believe a woman should have the right to have an abortion before or at the 3rd month of conception, it would be cruel to kill a fetus that has formed a gender, THEN it becomes a human. For the first few months the baby is genetically female.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


Thanks, no problem.

I do not like that abortions happen but I try to be realistic abotu it. The way to prevent them is to encourage BC use and have a realistic ide aof human sexuality, not to make laws like this.

Hopefully this will be overturned at a federal level if legeslation such as FOCA gets put into place--the definition of life should not be up to government.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
...the 13th amendment? Are you kidding me? That is in reference to cruel and unusual punishment by the state. The state isn't MAKING people get abortions, or even suggesting it, it's just allowing it. So like, if someone gets in car crash and gets hurt or dies, does that mean that cars should be illegal because they cause a ton of deaths and that is cruel and unusual? No, because it's your choice to risk driving a car. Like it's your choice to have sex without protection, but it's also your choice to have a baby or not, or have an abortion.

And really, until healthcare becomes free, I don't want to see one woman being made to have a baby that will have medical problems who does not want to, especially if she cannot afford it.

And until food is free, as is childcare, and there is a somewhat decent leave of maternal absence required by law, no woman should be forced to have a baby unless the government reimburses her for:
The money that she will lose in wages because of being out due to pregnancy
Counseling
Decent medical care (not Medicaid)
An acceptable adoption agency that has NO connection to orphanages or less-than-par foster homes
And of course emotional turmoil.

What is cruel and unusual is facilitating thousands of black market abortion deaths, babies being born into situations where they cannot be fed or clothed or watched, children being born that have congenital problems so severe that the mother will have to cope with the death of her child in the first weeks of life (real life, outside the womb), and ruining the futures that many women have hoped for.

Really, you don't have to get an abortion if you don't want one. You don't have to kill yourself if you don't want to. Suicide isn't illegal. And a fetus cannot make a decision, it does not have emotions, and this is ridiculous. Very few men have had permanent problems by impregnating a women who has chosen not to have an abortion, because the sad truth is that lots of fathers do not remain the caregivers of the child. So a woman is left on her own, without the means, with a child that she isn't ready for, with a career that she may not have chosen if she had not had a baby. That's cruel and unusual punishment. If you want to make all these women have children, without giving free birth control and sex education and an allotment for women who are raped to have abortions somewhere safe, then all the men who would just walk away from the situation should be castrated, and the state should provide the mother with enough money to provide for the child in excellent form, and provide 100% safe, non-profit agencies for adoption, free medical care during the pregnancy (including supplements, the choice to see whatever licensed doctor, OBGYN, midwife, and doula that they want), and support. And that will never happen.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


A while back I made this thread:

Adoption is not a good alternative to abortion.

It was not meant to imply that every adopted baby should be aborted, as some within the thread tried to accuse, but to point out that in practice, adoption is not the panacea it is made out to be.

Yes the child lives but for the mother and many other people involved it can be just as, if not more, emtionally damaging than having an abortion.

I encourage everyone to read that as we got into some very good discussions about just how difficult it can be for a woman to carry a child to term even if she has the option to give it up for adoption.

Something I want to point out that I wrote in that thread too. The more reliable forms of birth control are prescription-only, and can be very expensive.

For young people and the uninsured, condomns and spermicide may be the only options avaible. Someone who can't go to the doctor, or isn't allowed by their parents to fill the prescription, will be forced to rely on less safe BC methods and thus more likely to get pregnant.

[edit on 19-2-2009 by asmeone2]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


Or the pills given out by free clinics which aren't tailored to hormonal levels. It's a sad excuse for "free birth control." It can make people ill, gain tons of weight, develop emotional problems, and more.



The average U.S. woman spends about three decades trying not to get pregnant and only a few years trying to get or being pregnant. So why, asks the Guttmacher Institute, do so many adult women--who account for 90% of unintended pregnancies--not use birth control consistently or correctly?

Half of the sexually active U.S. women aged 18 to 44 who don't want to get pregnant either never use birth control or use it inconsistently or incorrectly, according to a new report from the institute, a sexual and reproductive health research, education and policy organization.

blogs.usatoday.com...

People use two condoms. They use expired condoms. They take medications that make the pill ineffective. They consider "pulling out" to be a birth control method. They use incorrect types of spermicide with their diaphragms and condoms and it eats away at the rubber. They decide not to use condoms because many condoms contain chemicals that cause inflammation. They use condoms that are too big or too small (getting the Magnums might end up giving you an infant). They keep condoms in dark, humid, warm places that weaken the latex. They track their periods and ovulation to decide when is "safest" to have intercourse (even though a woman can get pregnant at ANY time).

They don't offer birth control lessons for free, nor sex education in schools. And until they do that, abortion will be the only form of prevention for the people who do not understand how to properly use birth control. The pill is 99% effective if you use it correctly. Most people don't. It's not like they didn't try to prevent pregnancy, and sometimes people just can't afford it, and more often are not educated in these areas enough to understand how to prevent pregnancy safely, with the lowest risk rate.

If abortion became illegal and all these teenagers who don't have the best access to birth control become pregnant, all you anti-abortion people here on ATS will be PISSED. Because there will be more violence, more black market deaths of women close to all of us, more competition for jobs and food, more babies born in areas without the resources to provide the best upbringing, more mothers who don't work, a louder call for free healthcare, paid maternity leave that lasts for months, as is custom in other countries, and basically the same feeling that people have about illegal immigrants. It would make everything a lot worse, and eventually, the rape cases and black market abortions will repeal any laws or amendments made to make abortion illegal. Tons of doctors would have lost their licenses for giving abortions to women who would otherwise go out of the country, but do not have the money to do so.

There will be a research thread on this topic soon. There is enough evidence to support the truth that abortion became a problem in the early 1800s for a reason. Before that, many cultures practiced abortion, and women all over Europe practiced them and were taught to do so and it was fine. But as soon as women started wanting to enter the workplace, abortion laws were created as a way to keep them at home. Even when abortion was very selectively legal in the 1960s, especially 1969, 90% of all women who had legal abortions were white women in private practices. Why would you want to prevent the births occurring into economic sections where the mother could afford a child? Why not the people who have trouble feeding and housing themselves?

It's ridiculous that there is so much debate over this topic. I don't know what the agenda is, be it religion, an anti-feminist movement, an anti-sex education movement, a pro-chastity belt movement, or what. If you just think about it, really, think which circumstance you would rather deal with for the future of the country.




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join