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: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar

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.


Yes.

While the child support laws could be reformed, there is no unsuspecting father. Even those that don't know the child was created, as I just said, entertain the possibility that it *might* be created when they have sex with the woman. Same as she always assumes she might get pregnant.

As for the 'tic-tac' route that man still agreed to the marraige. He might have been pressured, yes, but not forced.

Those are unfortunate circumstances, of course, but entirely different than forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term (or, conversly, if this logic is evenly applied, forcing her to abort.)

Just like sex does not inject love into a relationship, having a child does not magically bring a relationship together, and this sure as hell woulnd' be as easy as saying "You have the child, then I'll raise it, no strings attached."

But bottom line with your response, one gender getting "Screwed over" doesn't mean you can turn around and say "Let's even this and screw both sides evenly.

[edit on 19-2-2009 by asmeone2]




posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by tezzajw
 
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.

Well, they wouldn't have to worry about getting pregnant if they're not getting any from similar aged males.

Different standards, I guess but that's the reality of the different sexes. I'm glad I was born male, but at the same time I think that I would have had much more fun if I was female?

Ultimately, it's about which couples will be responsible enough to raise a child. Nature makes us breeding machines, even the dumbest and least deserving can do it.

North Dakota has a bunch of dumb people who have voted on something that they have absolutely no authority over to even justify casting a vote!

[edit on 19-2-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

North Dakota has a bunch of dumb people who have voted on something that they have absolutely no authority over to even justify casting a vote!


The people were not the ones voting,


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."


I believe that this will eventually will be forced into a referendum as this is no the vote of the majority but only the appointed law makers.

The Supreme court will have to intervene as only the majority of votes in the state have to vote to have the bill passed as law.

I think that the only reason that the law makers did this is to make a statement as this type of bills will never be passed with majority vote in the state population.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by tezzajw
North Dakota has a bunch of dumb people who have voted on something that they have absolutely no authority over to even justify casting a vote!

The people were not the ones voting,

I'll state it again. North Dakota has a bunch of dumb people who have voted... Of 92 who have voted, 51 claimed to know when life begins.

By using 'a bunch of dumb people', I meant the 51 lawmakers who voted in favour.

Dumb people also includes lawmakers. Using some of their descisions and reasoning, there are clearly lawmakers who happen to be some of the dumbest people on Earth.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Well when you have groups that are influencing the decisions of the so call lawmakers this things tend to happen.

Only one other state had this same bill in their state elections and the bill die as the state voters didn't supported.

This how the groups behind the bill like the American Life League are trying to have Roe vs Wade revoked but I doubt that they will.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


The people of that state elected those representatives though...



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I think we need to have a law - that stops letting lawmakers
make laws that have to do with personal choice.

You're a lawmaker - not a God.

Personhood is not up to the man or woman up the street who just happened to have enough money or clout to run for office.

You are not my personhood decider.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by spinkyboo
 


First we have to have a law to decide what is a personal choice.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2
reply to post by spinkyboo
 


First we have to have a law to decide what is a personal choice.


Yes - I knew that was coming. : )



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinkyboo

Originally posted by asmeone2
reply to post by spinkyboo
 


First we have to have a law to decide what is a personal choice.


Yes - I knew that was coming. : )



I don't mean it literally. I just think it's bad logic, even though you meant it sincerely--it would be easy for the PL crowd to put "The fetus is a person therefore it isn't a personal choice" into law.

That's essentially what this bill does, although it's framed around a slightly different technicality.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
YEAH AWESOME personhood starts at conception and ends at birth.
welcome to Sharia law ,hello Dark Ages!


what a crock of crap ,did you know that something like a third of all pregnancies end in miscarriage most of the time without the women even knowing she had one ?

Some one needs to tell Jesus this,

There's nothing that could possibly go wrong in a society that protects billionaires like they are an endangered species but won't institute Universal healthcare.

cause there is absolutely no connection with healthcare and women and infant mortality


you do know that infant mortality in the US is the lowest of any industrialized nation?



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2

Originally posted by spinkyboo

Originally posted by asmeone2
reply to post by spinkyboo
 


First we have to have a law to decide what is a personal choice.


Yes - I knew that was coming. : )



I don't mean it literally. I just think it's bad logic, even though you meant it sincerely--it would be easy for the PL crowd to put "The fetus is a person therefore it isn't a personal choice" into law.

That's essentially what this bill does, although it's framed around a slightly different technicality.


Right. I understand that.

I think it is an absolutely frightening suggestion that what is inside of a
persons body - would not be theirs to make a decision about.





[edit on 19-2-2009 by spinkyboo]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


Yes they did and so the voters in Colorado, still in Colorado the bill die as the voters didn't support the bill during the elections.

The lawmakers are just that people that make laws, but is up to the senate in the state to aprove the bill before going to the voters in a referendum as that is the only way that they could have the supreme court decision revoke, not by senate vote alone, it has to have the entire support of the voters of the state or at least the majority.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu


Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by Amaterasu
 

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 may all be true, but you're focusing on sociopaths and psychopaths, not in children considered for abortion. Certainly not all children considered for abortion don't all turn out to be abused and turn into psychos. I would love for you to provide statistics for child abuse rates in households that considered abortion to those who didn't.




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.


You're just saying things. You're not stating facts, as facts have to be verified.


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 want to see where you're coming up with these exact numbers.




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.


Being as why I stated



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.


But you cut that part out.


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


Not reading any of these studies or even hearing about them before your "stats," you'll have to excuse my ignorance.


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."


Many:
1. constituting or forming a large number; numerous: many people.

You were making a weak insinuation that abortion is some how acceptable because "Many children are still born." Which doesn't even make sense, and I don't think has any bearing in the discussion.


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.


I am not doing anything but practicing and partaking in human responsibility. Responsibility doesn't start at conception, but from the minute you engage in a sexual relationship. When I have sex with my girlfriend, the outcome of that could be a baby. Everybody knows that and that is a risk. Instead of circumventing responsiblity, people need to take up the natural order and assume the role as a mother and father. Not allowing people to experience the weight of their actions leads to the perpetuation of said actions. Not only is this a mental issue it's a biologic issue.




veral factors can account for this. Dr. Philip Ney points out that pregnancy, like sleep, is a biorhythm. If you are awakened in the middle of the night, your body says, "Go back to sleep." Many who abort, therefore, feel the urge to get pregnant again. A biorhythm has been interrupted. Many want a "replacement" or "atonement" baby. Yet once pregnant again, they realize (or someone else makes them realize) that the same circumstances that led to the first abortion are still in place. Hence, another abortion follows. Source



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


Human life specifically. As human life is considered "sapient" and your common mouth bacteria as non-sentient, I'd have to ask you to consider the difference.


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


Wrong again. See above.



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?


That's what mothers do. The natural cycle and conditioning of a mother. They nuture their young to health. Mammals, in most cases will refuse to partake in infantcide unless conditions threaten their own livelihood. Abortion is just a modern form of that. Children threaten the welfare of one's projected "life" or even "lifestyle." The reason they abort is not because it might hurt them, or that "hell, many babies are born stillborn," or even that they don't eventually want a family. They abort because it's a "burden."



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by asmeone2
 


Yes they did and so the voters in Colorado, still in Colorado the bill die as the voters didn't support the bill during the elections.

The lawmakers are just that people that make laws, but is up to the senate in the state to aprove the bill before going to the voters in a referendum as that is the only way that they could have the supreme court decision revoke, not by senate vote alone, it has to have the entire support of the voters of the state or at least the majority.





OK thanks for clearing that up. I was under the impression that this did not go to the people for voting.

But still--the idea that the definition of "life" is something to be votedupon, without scientific evidence to back it up? THat's absurd.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


Yes, they tried this in Colorado but it die in the general elections, now they are trying to do it in North Dakota and I have the feeling that it will die also once goes into a referendum.

Remember that the whole purpose of this bill is to repeal the Roe vs Wade decision by the Supreme court but still it needs the voters approval in the state.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


More importantly, I still have not been able to figure out how federal law would supercede this, if at all.

If I had unlimited time and money I would take this to the SC and challenge it on the grounds that the Govt. cannot define something without having demonstratable scientific proof.

[edit on 19-2-2009 by asmeone2]



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
In truth, I don't think you really can know exactly when a human is a human, or when he has a soul, or when it's considered murder for ending it's life...people can debate it all they want and run however many tests they think will give them their answers but it will probably all be in vain.

If there can be any doubt, I think it's better to allow it to live and be safe rather than sorry.

[edit on 20-2-2009 by JayTaylor]



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by JayTaylor
 


Well this is ironic, as most prolifters are also bible thumper and they use the bible to refer to the evils of abortion.

but funny that the bible define human life as the first breath of air.

The fetus do not breath in the womb but it takes its first breath as soon as is out of the womb and no longer part of the female body.

Now this part many prolifters will not even dare to argue about, because that is not the agenda the agenda is to control every aspect of women reproduction parts, including their genitals and the womb.

And then you have women that actually wants that.

The people in the bible even when ancient had more brains when understanding the begining of human life actually.



[edit on 20-2-2009 by marg6043]



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Now this part many prolifters will not even dare to argue about, because that is not the agenda the agenda is to control every aspect of women reproduction parts, including their genitals and the womb.


Is it really an evil agenda, or do most pro-lifers simply feel as passionate about protecting what they perceive to be a human life as you do about protecting what you perceive to be reproductive rights?



[edit on 20-2-2009 by quango]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join