North Dakota lawmakers vote that 'personhood' starts at conception

reply to post by marg6043


That was something that I had to think about very carefully, when I was pregnant with twins, and thinking at one point I was going to deliver early.

I know many people will disagree with me but when I child is born that early--intentionally or not--I think it is selfish to keep it alive in many cases .

I would not want to keep a child of mine that was born that early alive artificially on life support, just so he can grow up into a life of disability.

reply to post by asmeone2


Most premature born children with almost full developed lungs will survive with not problem.

That is why I am against late term abortions unless is definitely something wrong with the fetus at that time that will endanger the life of the mother, and still is always the choice of the mother to give her life for the life of her child.

But the less developed is the fetus the less the chances to survive and live a healthy life.

reply to post by marg6043


Yes but I'm talking about those who are born 28 weeks or below, theyusually have a disability, the lungs being one area, cretainly those in the 20-24 week range are not going to fair well at all.

reply to post by asmeone2


I know but as usual is the decision of the mother and their doctors, but as we know is not many cases out there of children born this early surviving.

I personally think abortion should be illegal. Except for people like victims of rape, who were impregnated against their will.

reply to post by asmeone2
While on the subject of defining "personhood" they should stipulate that "personhood" does NOT extend to corporations!

Given the overpopulation and moral problem of killing a developing human being, the world should get to the point where embryo initiation is randomly permitted to only a relatively small percentage of the present figure, for enough generations until the global population gets down to 50 million.

reply to post by Existent


"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."

I agree 100%. Abortion is the only instance in this country where we leave the option of life or death in the hands of a single individual without recall or recourse. It's archaic, barbarian, a national embarrassment.
Women- perhaps especially pregnant women- don't have perfect judgement, they're not infallible. What could possibly qualify a single person to decide life or death for anything, without any sort of oversight or review?
How many angry wives have had clandestine abortions out of spite? How can anyone think this is appropriate? Don't tell me this doesn't happen, you'rewasting your breath. Women are no less human and no less fickle than any of the rest of us.
If you kill your dog because you've decided you don't want it or can't afford it any more, you'll be arrested. Your dog, but not your kid? WTF!?
Get a clue, people- abortion is NOT birth control, and women have no more rights than anyone else. Even a supreme court judge can't sentence someone to death without someone else reviewing his decision. To give any one person this kind of power is absurd, and contradicts the principals of justice and human rights.

reply to post by gallopinghordes


OH,, well of course, if a man rapes a woman, he should be aborted. I agree with that. I don't agree with all the other forms of murder. Hmmm, well - on second though, if you have a 15 year old son that does not obey, why not abort him? Good Idea.

Greg

reply to post by tezzajw

My thoughts exactly. And it's not 92 people making this decision, it's 51. But you are asking the right question. Exactly what sort of expertise are these people bringing to bear on the issue that makes them uniquely qualified to decide such a profound question? And the answer, of course, is NONE. This is all about other people's opinions.

Looky here: what if souls, like matter, are indestructible--you can neither create nor destroy them? And your body is really nothing more than a suitcase, a container to carry the soul around in while it's here on this planet? Wouldn't that mean that when a body dies, the soul is released, presumably to travel on about its business, wherever it likes? What of the fact that the body loses 21 grams of weight at the moment of death? What's that, a fart?

If the body is just a suitcase to carry the soul, and the soul itself is impossible to destroy, then the argument that abortion is "killing babies" is exposed for how foolish it really is. Abortion merely stops the growing process of the body, the suitcase, though at the juncture(s) it's done, it's not even a wallet. You don't kill the soul; that's not possible, remember? So that soul goes on to somewhere, something else, and nobody can say what that is, although religious fanatics will always try.

Look, if you truly want to understand the abortion debate, forget the rhetoric, the emotional hyperbole, the politicians and slick evangelists, step back, grab the bull by the tail and look the facts in the face. It is no coincidence that those who describe themselves as "pro-life" are also the most likely to champion what they so naively label a "strong national defense", i.e., military. They also are most likely to cheer for war, to effortlessly dehumanize whomever their enemy of the week is, and to be apologists after the fact for all the things that go wrong. Funny, too, how many of them claim to support the death penalty. And not a touch of irony from any of them.

Check it; you can't be "pro-life" and pro-death penalty. It's called a "contradiction", or more accurately, "hypocrisy". Likewise, if you truly are pro-life you should be opposed to war in all its ugly manifestations. Tell me, all you phony "pro-lifers" out there, how is it that Iraqi children aren't as entitled to life as American ones, hmmm? Hundreds of thousands of them have been killed in the Bush/Cheney war of choice there and yet not a peep out of even ONE of you about it.

And how is it that you are such great proponents of the rights of politicians to CHOOSE to visit such devastation on people and yet not so when it comes to a woman to decide what she can and can't do with her own body? "It's not a choice, it's a child.", I hear you wail. So how come not so for children in Iraq?

Of course, as any thinking person knows, your concern is never for children. As far as the "Right To Life" crowd is concerned, that right ends at birth--especially if your parents are Muslims. And there is the crux of the biscuit, campers.

Religion. Once again, religion inserts its unsolicited snout in everyone else's business, by fiat of an infinitesimally tiny slice of the populace with loud mouths, open hostility toward any notions of intellectual curiosity, and a childish insistence that they are never wrong.

Humans have been enslaved by religion for many millenia. It truly is time for us as a species to throw off this unnecessary yoke of oppression and start BEING those beings we really can be. Religion appeals to the simple-minded, the avaricious, the power-hungry, the frightened, the useless. Eradicate it and the human race will improve in giant leaps forward. Coddle and perpetuate it and the human race will destroy itself in wars and consumerism in fealty to a host of invisible, non-existent "gods" by the end of the century.

It's our choice.

Originally posted by tezzajw


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)

This argument could be used with regard to every piece of legislation. On the converse side of your argument, if the majority are pro-choice, they're also defining when a person is in fact a person. The pro-lifers are erring on the side of life though. If the people don't like their legislators, they have the option to vote them out every several years.

Originally posted by Knowledgeforall
Given the overpopulation and moral problem of killing a developing human being, the world should get to the point where embryo initiation is randomly permitted to only a relatively small percentage of the present figure, for enough generations until the global population gets down to 50 million.

Which state in the USA is overpopulated(or any first world country for that matter)? It's only an issue when one lives in an area devoid of resources.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
On the converse side of your argument, if the majority are pro-choice, they're also defining when a person is in fact a person.

No, they would not be making that definition, nor would it need to be defined.

Pro-choice means that they permit a woman to have the right to do as she wishes with her body. If she wants to get rid of the organism inside her, then she's allowed to.

That's NOT defining the point when an organism becomes a person.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by BlueRaja
On the converse side of your argument, if the majority are pro-choice, they're also defining when a person is in fact a person.

No, they would not be making that definition, nor would it need to be defined.

Pro-choice means that they permit a woman to have the right to do as she wishes with her body. If she wants to get rid of the organism inside her, then she's allowed to.

That's NOT defining the point when an organism becomes a person.

It is defining that organism as not worthy of protecting though, as it's obviously not a human being while it's still inside the mother, in their eyes.

reply to post by asmeone2


My perfect, beautiful and smart daughter was born when I was barely 6 months pregnant! I couldn't even hold her for 5 weeks and it took another 2 weeks for her to reach 5 pounds and that was in 1969!
I suppose medicine has improved by now; you're arguement doesn't hold water
edit to add:
I also work in a children't hospital and see much younger children surviving almost daily.
A pregnant woman is carrying a Person inside her ...

[edit on 23-2-2009 by AmericanDaughter]

reply to post by AmericanDaughter


6 months is actually the best time for survival of a fetus as the lungs have time to mature the problem is if the fetus is born 4 or 5 months of gestation that is a dangerous time, even with all the advances in medicine, the survival is very weak.

reply to post by quango


I agree brother!!
Some of you people need to get a brain!! Lets see, question-- what is the human body made of???
Answer-- Living cells, that's right!! Sperm is a living cell, The egg in the woman is a living cell, when they meet and the sperm enters into the egg it begins to form another living cell!!!! That LIVING CELL is a fetus.

Is any of this making sense to you yet!!!???

Two living cells can only bring forth life, So by your logic, those of you who think that a fetus is not a life, the fetus, at this stage would have to be dead. If so, then you have no need for an abortion.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
It is defining that organism as not worthy of protecting though, as it's obviously not a human being while it's still inside the mother, in their eyes.

No, it's not defining that.

Pro-choice doesn't define anything. It allows a mother to remove what is inside of her, whether it is dead, alive, growing, human or hybrid alien.

Perhaps the organism inside the woman IS worth protecting, however pro-choice recognises that the woman has the ultimate say over HER body and the organism inside her.

Why is this issue so one sided?
All anyone ever considers is the potential child.

How about giving some consideration to the woman who has this unwanted pregnancy.

Why exactly should she be FORCED to stay pregnant?

Does she have any rights at all?

And don't anyone come out with that stupid idea that she should have kept her legs closed. Your kind seems to forget that it takes 2, and that the male half is the agressor 99% of the time.

And for your women out there who object to abortion==
tell you what....
We'll just remove the embryo and implant it into YOU!
How do you like that?

Yes, of course lawmakers get to decide who's a person. A human fetus is *always* human, and it is alive. Claims that a fetus isn't really "alive" until birth are specious. By any meaningful standard, a fertilizd ovum is alive.

The only question is when someone's legal rights begin. Any moment can be chosen - conception, birth, attaining the age of majority, etc. This is a matter of choice, not of scientific fact. It is up to society to say when personhood begins (and, potentially, ends). We might not like the decision our lawmakers come to, but we need to have some clarity as to exactly when a person's rights start.