North Dakota challenges Roe v Wade?

[piasabird]

So if one state wants to make it illegal it is up to that state, not the federal government.

Abortion is the ultimate act of selfishness. It is telling citizens it is ok to commit any crime as long as it gets you gain or profit.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: piasabird
So if one state wants to make it illegal it is up to that state, not the federal government.

Abortion is the ultimate act of selfishness. It is telling citizens it is ok to commit any crime as long as it gets you gain or profit.

No, it is not up to the state.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Well wait a minute. If the rate of murders suddenly spiked to unheard of levels, should we make it legal?

You aren't making any sense. The argument to keep abortion legal isn't that a lot of abortions happen, it's that making it illegal is ineffective at reducing abortion and has other bad effects on society.

I for one find it unfathomable that someone would want to contribute to the deaths of thousands for no gain outside of the fuzzy feeling they get from thinking their government is standing up for what is right. I'm not really worried about it, as abortion will never be illegal in the US again, but the principle is baffling.

Then forget abortion for a minute. If the murder rate were to get way, way worse, should we legalize it?

According to the effectiveness principle, we should.

Huh? Why would an increase in the murder rate determine that? You would have to provide some evidence that the laws against murder were ineffective at reducing murder, and that these laws had other bad effects on society. Since there is manifest evidence to the contrary, that's an utterly ridiculous idea.

As a general rule though if a law leads to no gain for society, but does cause bad things, then yes we should get rid of it. Common sense.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: piasabird
So if one state wants to make it illegal it is up to that state, not the federal government.

Abortion is the ultimate act of selfishness. It is telling citizens it is ok to commit any crime as long as it gets you gain or profit.

No, it is not up to the state.

Correct, it's not up to the state since RvW is couched in some mythical protection afforded by the 14th Amendment. Is a federal constitutional issue.

Should the federal constitutional issue be removed, then state law will apply since nothing other than the 14th was invoked in RvW.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: piasabird
So if one state wants to make it illegal it is up to that state, not the federal government.

Abortion is the ultimate act of selfishness. It is telling citizens it is ok to commit any crime as long as it gets you gain or profit.

No, it is not up to the state.

Correct, it's not up to the state since RvW is couched in some mythical protection afforded by the 14th Amendment. Is a federal constitutional issue.

Should the federal constitutional issue be removed, then state law will apply since nothing other than the 14th was invoked in RvW.

Yeap. Then what will happen is that half the states will make it illegal post haste, and the other half wont. Since I'm nearly certain I will never be living in a state where abortion is illegal (not due to that issue, just due to where I'm likely to live geographically) in a lot of ways it won't affect me in the slightest. It also won't affect people with the cash to buy a plane ticket to fly to a state where abortion is legal. What it WILL do is screw over the poor people who can't afford an extra plane trip.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Well wait a minute. If the rate of murders suddenly spiked to unheard of levels, should we make it legal?

That depends on why the rate of murders suddenly spiked. If it is due to the side effects of a specific law or set of laws then those laws should be amended, completely removed, or completely replaced.

Alright, then let's assume with no changes in the current laws, the murder rate skyrockets tomorrow, and continues to get worse. Should murder be legalized?

Again, that depends on why it spiked. Sometimes a law does not need to change in order for it to produce new negative side effects long after it is first created. This is because people change and adapt with the times. The laws often need to change too in order to compensate and avoid these unintended negative side effects.

If the existence of our murder laws results in the increase of murder then those laws either need to be amended, removed, or replaced entirely with something more effective. The bottom line is that whatever we do it needs to actually produce favorable results.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: brandonb
I hope they do challenge Roe v Wade and win.

So people can go back to unsafe, back alley abortions? Or so you can "punish" them with a baby? Or if they then are going to give it up for adoption, have to deal with what is essentially a parasite for 9 months and the lost time for being able to work.... etc...

Also, overturning Roe vs. Wade will just toss the issue back to the states, where some will choose to ban it and others will just leave things the way they are.

That's exactly the way it should be.

You may have such a dim view of unborn children, but not everyone does.

I wish everyone in these sorts of discussion would avoid meaningless phrases, like "unborn children." To you, a fertilized egg is an unborn child. To me, a post-viability fetus is an unborn children. I care a lot about unborn children, but not YOUR notion of unborn children.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Statistics can be misleading, and I don't agree that study was at all empirical. Once again, I don't care about effectiveness. You don't outlaw rape out of concern with out-of-control rape rates. You outlaw it because it's wrong.

But there's absolutely no consensus that aborting a first-trimester fetus is "wrong." So why would you insist on outlawing such abortions?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: piasabird
So if one state wants to make it illegal it is up to that state, not the federal government.

Abortion is the ultimate act of selfishness. It is telling citizens it is ok to commit any crime as long as it gets you gain or profit.

You're wrong. Individual liberties specified or inferred from the Constitution are NOT "states rights" issues. The states can't outlaw free speech. They can't outlaw freedom of association. They can't outlaw interracial marriages.

Roe v. Wade found, in part, that laws outlawing all abortions, except those necessary to save the life of the mother, were in violation of due process. Due process is a fundamental right, defined in the Constitution, and states can't decide to ignore it.

Furthermore, abortion isn't a crime, except in the minds of religious nutjobs.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: sactoking
Link

North Dakota's House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively outlawing abortion.

The House voted 51-41 this afternoon to declare that a fertilized egg has all the rights of any person.

That means a fetus could not be legally aborted without the procedure being considered murder.

Minot Republican Dan Ruby has sponsored other bills banning abortion in previous legislative sessions - all of which failed.

He also sponsored today's bill and says it is compatable with Roe versus Wade - the Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion.

(Rep. Dan Ruby, -R- Minot) "This is the exact language that's required by Roe vs. Wade. It stipulated that before a challenge can be made, we have to identify when life begins, and that's what this does." VO CONTINUES But Minot Democrat Kari Conrad says the bill will land North Dakota in court, trying to defend the constitutionality of a law that goes against the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

(Rep. Kari Conrad, -D- Minot) "People who presented this bill, were very clear that they intended to challenge Roe versus Wade. So they intend to put the state of North Dakota into court defending Roe vs. Wade"


The bill now goes to the North Dakota Senate.

Interesting take on the matter. I wondered how long it would be before some state tried this. My cursory take on the matter is that if it passes Senate and is signed into law, the USSC would have trouble overturning it. To do so, the USSC would have to definitively state when "life" begins, which is something they have deliberately avoided in the past.

Personally, I think a bill like this goes a long way to fixing one of my pet peeves. I don't care if abortion is legal or not, since as a married man of fidelity it will hopefully not be pertinent to me, but it always irritated me that a woman can have an abortion because it's "her body" and the fetus is not a person but that a criminal can be convicted of double murder for killing the same woman. The law treats the fetus as a fetus and a person simultaneously and at odds with itself.

And what about all the fertilized ova sitting in cold storage?? Or when multiple ova are implanted and the extra need to be removed to insure a healthy birth???

 

[miketheidiot]

glad to see the northdakota is spending my tax dollars in worthwhile ways.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: brandonb
I hope they do challenge Roe v Wade and win.

So people can go back to unsafe, back alley abortions? Or so you can "punish" them with a baby? Or if they then are going to give it up for adoption, have to deal with what is essentially a parasite for 9 months and the lost time for being able to work.... etc...

Also, overturning Roe vs. Wade will just toss the issue back to the states, where some will choose to ban it and others will just leave things the way they are.

I think he's planning on having all the babies transferred to his body.
Or maybe he plans to personally fund all the orphanages in N.D.

 

[Paratus]

I love this law. The ways it could be abused are enormous!

I dare someone who truly believes that a fertilized egg is a person with all the rights afforded by state and federal law to truthfully answer the following questions.

Is abortion murder?

If a woman takes the morning after pill and ejects a fertilize egg is that an abortion

If a woman harms her health to the point of miscarrage is that an abortion?

Can the parents of a child be convicted of child endangerment for leaving their child someplace that creates a high likelihood of harm or death occurring, (e.g. leaving a child for 30 minutes in a car on a sunny day)?

Can the parents of a child be convicted of child neglect / involuntary manslaughter for leaving their child someplace that creates a high likelihood of harm or death occurring and that harm or death does occur, (e.g. leaving a child for 60 minutes in a car on a sunny day)?

What is the percentage of fertilized eggs that DO implant in the uterus?

What is the percentage of fertilized eggs that DO NOT implant in the uterus?

If you answer all that what conclusion do you find?

 

[villageidiot111]

Originally posted by: ayabe
I think there's only one clinic in the whole state and the doctor only comes in a few days a week. So for all intents and purposes, it IS illegal there since most people can't get access.

But, I'm glad that the what 300,000 people in North Dakota are being productive.

I'm sure the state reps of North Dakota are experts on when life begins, a few of them even have a couple of years of community college under their belts.

Wow, great point! Anyone who disagrees with you obviously has an inadequate education.

 

[eternalone]

The fetus is created by 2 people, 50% genetic make up of both parties, one party should not have the right to destroy the fetus . I think the majority of Americans would vote to ban abortion if we were to take a vote again and it would be defeated in a landslide.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: eternalone
The fetus is created by 2 people, 50% genetic make up of both parties, one party should not have the right to destroy the fetus . I think the majority of Americans would vote to ban abortion if we were to take a vote again and in would be defeated in a landslide.

Again?

When did "we" vote on this issue?

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: villageidiot111

Originally posted by: ayabe
I think there's only one clinic in the whole state and the doctor only comes in a few days a week. So for all intents and purposes, it IS illegal there since most people can't get access.

But, I'm glad that the what 300,000 people in North Dakota are being productive.

I'm sure the state reps of North Dakota are experts on when life begins, a few of them even have a couple of years of community college under their belts.

Wow, great point! Anyone who disagrees with you obviously has an inadequate education.

Thanks. But you know I'm not arrogant enough to declare from the hilltops as to when human life begins, especially without any medical background.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: Paratus
I love this law. The ways it could be abused are enormous!

I dare someone who truly believes that a fertilized egg is a person with all the rights afforded by state and federal law to truthfully answer the following questions.

Is abortion murder?

If a woman takes the morning after pill and ejects a fertilize egg is that an abortion

If a woman harms her health to the point of miscarrage is that an abortion?

Can the parents of a child be convicted of child endangerment for leaving their child someplace that creates a high likelihood of harm or death occurring, (e.g. leaving a child for 30 minutes in a car on a sunny day)?

Can the parents of a child be convicted of child neglect / involuntary manslaughter for leaving their child someplace that creates a high likelihood of harm or death occurring and that harm or death does occur, (e.g. leaving a child for 60 minutes in a car on a sunny day)?

What is the percentage of fertilized eggs that DO implant in the uterus?

What is the percentage of fertilized eggs that DO NOT implant in the uterus?

If you answer all that what conclusion do you find?

That abortion is not murder, people need to stop thinking life is sacred and that humans are anything more then a bunch of cells.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: eternalone
The fetus is created by 2 people, 50% genetic make up of both parties, one party should not have the right to destroy the fetus . I think the majority of Americans would vote to ban abortion if we were to take a vote again and in would be defeated in a landslide.

One party doesn't have what is essentially a parasite living in them for 9 months. When you can carry a baby, assuming you are a man, come back and talk.

People might not feel right in getting an abortion personally, but they also feel it is not their's or government's place to tell someone they can't have one either.

I don't see the right to choice being defeated in this landslide as you so call it - if it would be, I doubt it would be such a big issue for politicians when they run for office.

 

[abaez]

Originally posted by: eternalone
The fetus is created by 2 people, 50% genetic make up of both parties, one party should not have the right to destroy the fetus . I think the majority of Americans would vote to ban abortion if we were to take a vote again and in would be defeated in a landslide.

I don't think so:

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm (Aug. 2008): Pro-Choice: 54%, Pro-Life: 45%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx Scroll down to the poll results for the past 30 years.

 

[ericlp]

double post...

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: Paratus
I love this law. The ways it could be abused are enormous!

I dare someone who truly believes that a fertilized egg is a person with all the rights afforded by state and federal law to truthfully answer the following questions.

Is abortion murder?

If a woman takes the morning after pill and ejects a fertilize egg is that an abortion

If a woman harms her health to the point of miscarrage is that an abortion?

Can the parents of a child be convicted of child endangerment for leaving their child someplace that creates a high likelihood of harm or death occurring, (e.g. leaving a child for 30 minutes in a car on a sunny day)?

Can the parents of a child be convicted of child neglect / involuntary manslaughter for leaving their child someplace that creates a high likelihood of harm or death occurring and that harm or death does occur, (e.g. leaving a child for 60 minutes in a car on a sunny day)?

What is the percentage of fertilized eggs that DO implant in the uterus?

What is the percentage of fertilized eggs that DO NOT implant in the uterus?

If you answer all that what conclusion do you find?

That abortion is not murder, people need to stop thinking life is sacred and that humans are anything more then a bunch of animals.

Fixed for ya. Tho...... I guess you haven't read the bible lately? You gotta understand these people mentality will never change as long as they are ball and chained to the church and the good book. These people will do anything for their churches and religion no matter what you say you'll always be wrong.

Hey, phreaks, let's do a trade, let's reverse roe vs. wade for condom machines in every school bathroom for free and make birth control available for free to anyone who wants it.

Win or not ... You jesus freaks aren't going to change anything.

But I highly doubt it will win...

Here's a bright concept for all you assholes wanting to "CONTROL" others. Don't have one if you don't like it. Stop preaching your disease to others.

Thanks!

 

[brandonb]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: brandonb
I hope they do challenge Roe v Wade and win.

So people can go back to unsafe, back alley abortions? Or so you can "punish" them with a baby? Or if they then are going to give it up for adoption, have to deal with what is essentially a parasite for 9 months and the lost time for being able to work.... etc...

Also, overturning Roe vs. Wade will just toss the issue back to the states, where some will choose to ban it and others will just leave things the way they are.

I think he's planning on having all the babies transferred to his body.
Or maybe he plans to personally fund all the orphanages in N.D.

Anybody who calls a fetus a parasite needs their heads examined. Its a fetus, not a parasite. There is a difference. If people can't figure it out, maybe we need to outlaw abortions until people get a clue to what it truely is...

People act like kids are balls and chains, and a negative thing, not a positive thing. If you mind is so warped to think a baby is a ball and chain and not a gift, then you are absolutely ass backwards in your moral thinking. The point of your existance is not to get your penis wet (or brown depending on your orientation), or to die with a million dollars in your bank account. Unfortunately it seems people have lost perspective.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: brandonb

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: brandonb
I hope they do challenge Roe v Wade and win.

So people can go back to unsafe, back alley abortions? Or so you can "punish" them with a baby? Or if they then are going to give it up for adoption, have to deal with what is essentially a parasite for 9 months and the lost time for being able to work.... etc...

Also, overturning Roe vs. Wade will just toss the issue back to the states, where some will choose to ban it and others will just leave things the way they are.

I think he's planning on having all the babies transferred to his body.
Or maybe he plans to personally fund all the orphanages in N.D.

Anybody who calls a fetus a parasite needs their heads examined. Its a fetus, not a parasite. There is a difference. If people can't figure it out, maybe we need to outlaw abortions until people get a clue to what it truely is...

People act like kids are balls and chains, and a negative thing, not a positive thing. If you mind is so warped to think a baby is a ball and chain and not a gift, then you are absolutely ass backwards in your moral thinking. The point of your existance is not to get your penis wet (or brown depending on your orientation), or to die with a million dollars in your bank account. Unfortunately it seems people have lost perspective.

Who the heck are you responding to?

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: eternalone
The fetus is created by 2 people, 50% genetic make up of both parties, one party should not have the right to destroy the fetus . I think the majority of Americans would vote to ban abortion if we were to take a vote again and in would be defeated in a landslide.

You'd be completely wrong. Besides the crazy fundies, everyone else doesn't have a problem with abortion.

Originally posted by: brandonb
The point of your existance is not to get your penis wet (or brown depending on your orientation), or to die with a million dollars in your bank account. Unfortunately it seems people have lost perspective.

What if their point of existence isn't to have a baby?