North Dakota lawmakers vote that 'personhood' starts at conception

reply to post by human8


In my opinion, an individual is someone who can survive as an individual. Survive meaning breathe, get food, stay alive, on their own.

Individual:

adj.
Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human: individual consciousness.
By or for one person: individual work; an individual portion.
Existing as a distinct entity; separate: individual drops of rain.
Marked by or expressing individuality; distinctive or individualistic: an individual way of dressing.
Special; particular: Each variety of melon has its individual flavor and texture.
Serving to identify or set apart: “There was nothing individual about him except a deep scar … across his right cheek” (Rebecca West).
n.
A single human considered apart from a society or community: the rights of the individual.
A human regarded as a unique personality: always treated her clients as individuals.
A person distinguished from others by a special quality.
Usage Problem. A person.
A single animal or plant as distinguished from a species, community, or group.
A member of a collection or set; a specimen.

www.answers.com...

Distinguished aside from society, on it's own. I don't think that a fetus qualifies.
If fetuses learned to communicate with us outside the womb, and wanted to express their rights as Americans, we wouldn't let them. We would be like "oh, you're just a fetus."

Like babies. We keep them alive because at that point they are an individual organism. But if a baby decided to sue it's mother for not feeding it on time or changing it's formula, we would laugh our heads off and be like "oh, that is so cute, you're just a baby."

They do that to young children, too. So I guess until they get all their rights as individuals, a fetus definitely should not either.

Originally posted by mrsdudara
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.

until the first women who really needed that abortion, dies, or becomes permantly disabled from being forced to carry it full term, then, the fetes' rights will trump the mothers?

if this flies through the supreme court unchallenged, well, then it's time for all the women out there, weather they are single, or married, whatever, to just say no to the sex, period, unless of course, the two partners are in agreement that a child is desired...

anyone know weather this law has anything in it regarding the health and welfare of the mother or not, if it doesn't I don't expect it to get by the courts.

reply to post by dawnstar


Haha, that just made me think... if abortion becomes illegal, homosexuality will skyrocket. And tons of people who are anti-abortion will wonder why, and they will be angry, and then...

People will be allowed to have sex only to make babies. So anywhere from 0-14ish times a lifetime.

Who wants to sign up?

reply to post by ravenshadow13


That is what I am trying to say, many of these women who wecriticize for not using birth control properly simply did not have the resources to do so.

reply to post by ravenshadow13


It's intersesting to look at it that way because until a person reaches the age of legal conscent--18 inmost states--they have *no* legal rights to speak of at all.

Anything they do to their body, medically speaking, has to have their parent's OK. They do not legally have control of their own body until they are 18.

The argument is that a person should not have an abortion because they do not have a say what to do with the body growing inside of them, even though the moment that body is born, they have 100% say over it.

Bassakwards if you ask me.

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by dawnstar

 

Haha, that just made me think... if abortion becomes illegal, homosexuality will skyrocket. And tons of people who are anti-abortion will wonder why, and they will be angry, and then...

People will be allowed to have sex only to make babies. So anywhere from 0-14ish times a lifetime.

Who wants to sign up?

Yeah, funny thing is, those evil gays won't be allowed to adopt the babies that were born to unwed mothers, either.

reply to post by Amaterasu


bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that is why in the bible abortion was never an issue.

The state of North Dakota has the right to do a referendum to allow its citizens to vote on their own, but the government of North Dakota has not right to impose a vote base on a few, that is corrupt and dirty.l

Still that will be a state that I will not have any desire to visit, live or pay taxes on.

I guess an exodus of unhappy population will be in order.

and, well, if the fetus has equal rights with it's mommy, does that meant the it has all the rights to the proper nutrition, right to a non-alcholic, non-smoke, non- whatever lifestyle? are we gonna have people force feeding pregnant moms the proper nutritional diet? what when the determine that all that perfume, ect that so many like to wear isn't reallly good for the baby, shall we forbid the pregnant women from wearing it, or going anywhere where they might be exposed to such things....
just how far can you impede on a women's rights to uphold the rights of those few cells in her body? I mean, once the women's right to life is trumped by forcing her to carry a child that is known to be very risky to her, well, think that about covers just where the rights of women are fitting on the social structure!

reply to post by dawnstar


All my life I always said that the hidden purpose of all this pro lifters is actually to be able to used and manipulate the female body at will.

That has been their dirty littler secret and a few dirty morons politicians in North Dakota may actually get away with it.

I will love seen pregnant women in North Dakota been kidnapped by the state during gestation periods to enforce the law in the protection of a fetus.

What many blind followers out there doesn't understand is that laws like this only step over the rights of a living and breathing human being for the purposes of manipulation and control of body parts, in this instance the female reproduction parts and the womb.

Like I said as long as this anti civil rights decision is on in that State that will be a state in long list that It doesn't exist for me.

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
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.

Hmmmm.... And how would I narrow these facts down, when they are from studies that looked into the childhood of sociopaths and psychopaths, and found in virtually all of the cases a severe dysfunction in childhood...?

Do you want me to describe every famous 'path's history? Is that the specific you are looking for?

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.

And I believe that you are trying to deny the facts, create misdirection, and throw in a veiled ad hominem... Given that all studies show the truth of my statements, I have to conclude that you have more an agenda than have I.

Not every single non-aborted child is going to grow up in an unloving situation, nor will it be a sociopath or a nutjob.

True. Just 85-90% will receive some neglect and/or abuse. And sociopathic behavior is likely in 60-70%. With some small percentage fitting into the psychopath category. So if we can expect a large number of disfunctional individuals, and a handful of OK individuals, clinging to the hope that one will save the world somehow... How aweful an approach is that? "Let's bring huge numbers into the world to suffer and create a base of twisted people, because we have a one in 50 billion of having a savior born from these we would force to first breath..."

Sounds good to me. Not.

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.

Awesome! I'm so glad that little one is one of the few who are receiving love. But just because you can find an example of a case where all is ok, you cannot generalize (as you accused me of doing!) to all cases.

Good thing the parents had a CHOICE.

Far more likely than a Mother Teresa...

Because you say so, right?

Um... No. Because all studies say so. I might presume you are either dim or baiting me.

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 your point? I never said a huge number, or a lot, or any such. I said that "many" are born dead. Granted, percentagewise, that's not a large number, but if you had a pile of all the stillbirths for a year in front of you, you would say "many."

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.

Look at you! You're justifying the damning of many unwanted children to a life of hell, with nothing to suggest that something not viable on its own has any human spirit.

"Unless we state..." It is the origin of human life. Spiritual or not ( I prefer the latter ), it is still life.

Ahhh. So it's "life" that is important! You careful not to kill any bacteria when brushing your teeth?

Seriously, just because it is life is not enough of a reason to protect it. Else we all would eat nothing.

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.

I see. So just because YOU think a mother should treasure and nurture that makes all mothers behave as you feel they should? You would continue on forcing fetuses to first breath and because YOU think they should be loved and cherished, they will be?

Who's being unrealistic?

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

Ok. Not sure what THIS is related to.

[edit on 2/19/2009 by Amaterasu]

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by ravenshadow13

 

Yeah an abortion is NOT fun.

Very true.

Knowing you have just been an accomplice in murder sux!

I suppose so. But knowing you saved a child unhappiness and possible torment by ending its automatic growth patterns in one's womb before it became a child... I comfortably live with that just fine.

Not only that, you have no respect from the father who gave you that child!

Huh??? What's this got to do with things? Some fathers have no respect regardless. Some respect one for the choices one makes. Others don't. This is rather irrelevant.

Are we animals?

Why yes we are. As a matter of fact.

Indeed, we are animals.

The truth is that my body is ready to create a healthy baby right now. But I'm not.
And right now I couldn't afford one, either. I would have to put it up for adoption, and that could very well lead to a stressful life for the child. With all the overpopulation, moral concerns in society, would you really want more people in the world right now- especially if the mother isn't ready (and therefore the baby isn't ready to be born to that mother, either.)

reply to post by ravenshadow13


That is interesting, we have many women that certain circunstances in their life good or bad lead to an unwated pregnacy when they are not redy for motherhood.

I wonder what the state of North Dakota will do to pregnant crack addicts, I guess they will force them into incubation areas for the sole purpose to made sure they will deliver a healthy Personhood.

BTW this law is still for grasp as the citizens of the state are the only ones that can approve it with majority.

I Think that the self righteous ones that passed the bill knows that a referendum will never give the majority vote to support it, so they are just tasting grounds to see how this will end up.

reply to post by Ahabstar


I think I raised an interesting point, yet no one wants to address that side of the issue? The father was a part of the equation very early on. And I am not talking about instances of rape, incest, mother's life in jeopardy...just normal healthy pregnancy.

Yet due to a perversion of agenda in which the mother is portrayed as a victim, the father can not be a father despite demonstration of desire or ability to provide if the mother does not wish to participate in a full term pregnancy.

Reversing the situation, the father is legally obligated if the mother wishes to have the child regardless if he wants the child or not or even wishes to not participate at all.

Will no one address this?

[edit on 19-2-2009 by Ahabstar]

reply to post by Ahabstar


I don't think that the problem that people have with abortions is about the father's role in the pregnancy. Do I think it is important? Of course.

But I don't think it should lead to new laws passed, except perhaps that the father of the child must consent to the abortion? That would be an excellent idea and I would have no problem it in most cases, except those of rape and whatnot. But regular pregnancies? Sure. If the father really wants to keep the child and devote his life to it and the mother, then that's highly commendable and should be encouraged instead of just ditching them both. The mother and father should discuss the situation and come to an agreement, in most cases. I think that encouraging them to both consent to the abortion is a good idea, in these vanilla cases.

I don't think that a father has any rights to demand an abortion or force a birth. Ultimately, he's not carrying the baby...

Once he's planted his seed, his work is done. I can see how people will object to that, which is fair enough. The North Dakota vote will pose a financial burden on people who can't afford the child that they're forced to birth, if abortion is outlawed.

Men should be looking out for the untapped potential of older ladies who are past menopause, if they just want some fun. Much safer, stress free and often without any strings attached. haha! Youger girls are traps and trouble. The sooner that boys realise that, the better off they'll be.

reply to post by tezzajw


I agree... because that's kind of how reproduction works. Did you know that most domestic cats living as feral have weird pregnancies compared to ours? It's super common for the mother to give birth to a litter with kittens from different fathers, because it takes a certain amount of times of mating to induce ovulation. Weird, right? So, technically, the man is just supposed to fertilize the woman, and then whatever. Some species have fathers that leave. Others have fathers that get eaten by the mothers. But sadly, humans have emotions about things like rights of unborn babies and the opinion of a father for an abortion. It would never work because really, a man could just leave and never come back after the child is born, and it happens all the time. Or they don't want to pay childcare. Or whatever.

This thread made me so freaking nervous with all these accusations that I just took a pregnancy test. And it was negative. Because I'm on the pill and take it correctly, and that is the only form of birth control that I use (I regularly get checked for STIs, as does my partner, and I am monogamous).

So, haha. I guess according to some there was an 80% chance that I would be fine, and a 20% chance that I would be preggers. But I'm not preggers, and I've not been preggers enough times with the pill to personally discount that statistic. Therefore, correctly used birth control pills have a 99.9% success rate.

Who wants to reimburse me for the Clearblue test? ^_^

/LOLZ!!! My mom would totally go for your statement re: fun menopausal women. She could get a mighty fine hunk, lol. If all the young kids who are just horny wanted to fool around with women, that's a sweet idea.

What would the young girls do, though? Go fool around with guys who have their tubes tied? Become lesbians? Kind of doesn't seem fair.

[edit on 2/19/2009 by ravenshadow13]

reply to post by ravenshadow13


Okay, hypothetically let's say you and I hooked up for whatever reason and I had some kind of super sperm (Hey, it's my hypothetical, don't be a buzzkill ) and it got past a condom, diaphragm, BC pills and you had a random ovulation on top of it. You know that I would one day like to have a child but you don't, at least at that moment.

Nevermind how intelligent, caring, beautiful and wonderful that child (Houdini would be a good name after getting past all that ) would be. No matter how much I begged, cried, promised to marry, promised to leave with our child or whatever...it is still your decision alone.

Now I hope that didn't creep you out. I don't mean to sound like some sort of weirdo. Just wanted you to see the other side. You see, I have a strong suspicion that I might have had a child once. But that I wasn't part of the decision. And yes, she and I did love each other very much. In fact, deep down I still do. And maybe she does as well, hard to say. But even after all these years, I can still feel when she is nearby without having seen her.

So anyway, being that my mother was 16 when she became pregnant with me, I tend to have a pretty strong view on abortion from different sides of the issue. But I still say that while I personally oppose them that my views are not for everyone.

[edit on 19-2-2009 by Ahabstar]

reply to post by Ahabstar


I did address that earlier on, I dn't remember what page though.

Just like we say (rather callously IMO) to a woman "Do not have sex if you want to be 100% sure you do not get pregnant"

THe same goes for the men. Do not have sex with someone if you want to be 100% sure that you do not get them pregnant and possibly they may get an abortion.

Other than that, it is not their body. I cringe at the idea that would give a man that kind of rights over a woman's body--especially since, to my knolwedge, there is no safe way to DNA test a fetus before it was born. Think ofa ll the ways that law could be mis-used.

[edit on 19-2-2009 by asmeone2]

Originally posted by asmeone2


Other than that, it is not their body. I cringe at the idea that would give a man that kind of rights over a woman's body--especially since, to my knolwedge, there is no safe way to DNA test a fetus before it was born. Think ofa ll the ways that law could be mis-used.

[edit on 19-2-2009 by asmeone2]

Would it be worse than the ways laws are manipulated today? Some women have been known to go the tic-tac route to get men to marry them. Or change their minds and force child support on an unsuspecting father. Or the ever popular 10-15 years later the doorbell rings... surprise!

Sadly there are many ways to make laws created in the spirit of equality and fairness and use the legal system to make a race to the bottom.