If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Fresh on the heels of approving laws that ban abortions based on fetal birth defects or after the sixth week of pregnancy, ND lawmakers apparently decide to try to go "all in" and ban any abortions occuring after the first picosecond of pregnancy   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 143
    More: Asinine, North Dakota, University of North Dakota, criminal negligence, Personhood USA, abortions, IVF  
•       •       •

3124 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Mar 2013 at 12:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



143 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-19 12:45:13 PM  
They just passed a law banning abortions based on genetic defects?  What kind of sick farks would force an anacephalic baby to be born? (warning, DO NOT google, trust me you're better off not knwoing that such things can exist) or one with exterior interal organs?  And is it only "genetic" defects? Are deformities caused by teratogens also banned, or is aborting those babies okay?
 
2013-03-19 12:47:43 PM  
Well the resulting law suit is an excellent use of the North Dakota's resources.
 
2013-03-19 12:49:24 PM  
Laser like focus on jobs
 
2013-03-19 12:50:55 PM  
In all fairness, it's ND, you basically have to leave the state to get medical care, period.
 
2013-03-19 12:51:34 PM  

what_now: Well the resulting law suit is an excellent use of the North Dakota's resources.


Yeah well as they are currently flush with temporary cash from the Oil and Natural gas boom, they want to spend it on something worthwhile like paying lawyer to lose before the Supreme Court and not on something frivolous like Medicaid expansion for the poorest residents (after all, lots of those folks are Injuns...)
 
2013-03-19 12:51:51 PM  

Magorn: What kind of sick farks would force an anacephalic baby to be born?


People who get raging boners over the thought of women suffering. For Republicans, this is better than Viagra!
 
2013-03-19 12:52:59 PM  

what_now: Well the resulting law suit is an excellent use of the North Dakota's resources.



Forcing a challenge and fast-tracking it all the way up to the SCOTUS might be the whole point. Scalia and Thomas aren't getting any younger ...
 
2013-03-19 12:53:05 PM  
No, subby - pregnancy is medically defined as the implantation of a fertilized ovum. Fertilization of an ovum is not pregnancy and thus abortion is impossible.

ND is going ultra-retard and trying to give legal rights to a single-celled parasite.
 
2013-03-19 12:53:47 PM  
That's too bad because I really really wanted to move to North Dakota.
 
2013-03-19 12:54:07 PM  

Swoop1809: Laser like focus on jobs


Governor Walker is that you from Wisconsin?
 
2013-03-19 12:54:35 PM  

Magorn: They just passed a law banning abortions based on genetic defects?  What kind of sick farks would force an anacephalic baby to be born? (warning, DO NOT google, trust me you're better off not knwoing that such things can exist) or one with exterior interal organs?  And is it only "genetic" defects? Are deformities caused by teratogens also banned, or is aborting those babies okay?


I have two healthy kids.  We most certainly would have aborted for any serious genetic defect.  We even had the discussion before starting to have kids.
 
2013-03-19 12:55:51 PM  
The fact that they aren't wanting to ban IVF just proves that it's not really about believing that life begins at conception.
 
2013-03-19 12:56:27 PM  
Republicans still wondering why they can't win a (presidential) election?
 
2013-03-19 12:56:35 PM  

Magorn: They just passed a law banning abortions based on genetic defects?  What kind of sick farks would force an anacephalic baby to be born? (warning, DO NOT google, trust me you're better off not knwoing that such things can exist) or one with exterior interal organs?  And is it only "genetic" defects? Are deformities caused by teratogens also banned, or is aborting those babies okay?


There HAS to be an exception in there for "severe malformation" that would result in stillbirth or miscarriage - both of those also mean increased risk to mom's health.

There HAS to be.

// did none of the people in the ND legislature have any fears about their kids in utero?
// fark, I don't even HAVE kids, but the day they told me a test on my (then-fetal) nephew looked like his spine might not be forming correctly was a scary day for me
// a happy, healthy (if speech-impeded) 4-year old, he is
 
2013-03-19 12:56:55 PM  

TofuTheAlmighty: No, subby - pregnancy is medically defined as the implantation of a fertilized ovum. Fertilization of an ovum is not pregnancy and thus abortion is impossible.

ND is going ultra-retard and trying to give legal rights to a single-celled parasite.


Don't blame subby because politicians in North Dakota don't know how a babby is formed.
 
2013-03-19 12:59:15 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Magorn: They just passed a law banning abortions based on genetic defects?  What kind of sick farks would force an anacephalic baby to be born? (warning, DO NOT google, trust me you're better off not knwoing that such things can exist) or one with exterior interal organs?  And is it only "genetic" defects? Are deformities caused by teratogens also banned, or is aborting those babies okay?

There HAS to be an exception in there for "severe malformation" that would result in stillbirth or miscarriage - both of those also mean increased risk to mom's health.

There HAS to be.


I've seen your name on this tab often enough to remember it.  How are you still this optimistic?
 
2013-03-19 01:05:37 PM  

Karac: How are you still this optimistic?


Helps me avoid suicide to not see the world for the place full of deadbeats, sociopaths, bad actors in positions of power (and I don't mean Reagan), malevolence, greed, envy, clannishness, and enmity I know it is.

I grew up with religion, and seeing how a system designed to bring people together got twisted and misused even to my 14-year-old slice of life was enough to get me to realize that everyone's in this life for themselves and will happily murder your entire family in front of you - laughing all the while - if it means they "win". Exceptions are so rare as to not exist.

When everything looks like shiat, finding the rays of light that break through - my optimism - is what keeps me going.

// tl;dr - why do you ask? :)
 
2013-03-19 01:05:48 PM  

Karac: Dr Dreidel: Magorn: They just passed a law banning abortions based on genetic defects?  What kind of sick farks would force an anacephalic baby to be born? (warning, DO NOT google, trust me you're better off not knwoing that such things can exist) or one with exterior interal organs?  And is it only "genetic" defects? Are deformities caused by teratogens also banned, or is aborting those babies okay?

There HAS to be an exception in there for "severe malformation" that would result in stillbirth or miscarriage - both of those also mean increased risk to mom's health.

There HAS to be.

I've seen your name on this tab often enough to remember it.  How are you still this optimistic?


With Dr. Dreidel, it always lands on gimel.
 
2013-03-19 01:06:02 PM  

Wadded Beef: That's too bad because I really really wanted to move to North Dakota.


I've been there. No reason to go.
 
2013-03-19 01:06:09 PM  

Dr Dreidel: There HAS to be an exception in there for "severe malformation" that would result in stillbirth or miscarriage - both of those also mean increased risk to mom's health.

There HAS to be.

// did none of the people in the ND legislature have any fears about their kids in utero?
// fark, I don't even HAVE kids, but the day they told me a test on my (then-fetal) nephew looked like his spine might not be forming correctly was a scary day for me
// a happy, healthy (if speech-impeded) 4-year old, he is


These are Republicans who view faith and rhetoric (or faith IN their rhetoric) to be more important then facts.  They take to heart that all abortion is murder and it's NEVER medically necessary; so any claims or evidence to the contrary is obviously false, because abortion is ALWAYS optional.
 
2013-03-19 01:07:38 PM  
The whole concept of fetal personhood is flawed. No one debates that a fetus is alive in the biological sense, and it has genes different from both its mother and its father, and is therefore a unique life form.

It is not, until some point well after conception but still before birth, a "person". Any termination of pregnancy before this point is not killing a person and is not murder.

If we were to consider a fetus a person from the moment of conception, then a woman's body becomes a crime scene if the pregnancy spontaneously aborts (i.e. she has a miscarriage).

The whole problem with the morality of abortion comes down to three questions:

1. Does a person have a right to do whatever they wish to their body at any time under any circumstances? If the answer is yes, abortion is always moral.

2. Does a mother have any responsibility at any time to her fetus that circumscribes her rights described in question 1?

3. If a person does have a right to do whatever they wish to their body at any time, does this include dictating how someone else attached to it is removed?

Those three questions are, to me, the fundamental question. The answers, again for me, are

1. Usually, but not always.

2. Yes, after the fetus has become a person (which happens at some point after conception but before birth).

3. No. You have a right to request someone else to be disconnected from your body, but you have to compromise in such a way as the total amount of harm to both you and the other person is minimized. If the other entity isn't a person, you have complete and total control.

I think my answers are reasonable (but of course everyone thinks their answers are reasonable). The pro-lifers who want to completely ban abortions are absolutely morally incorrect. The pro-choicers who believe that abortions are moral at any point during pregnancy* are also incorrect - but they're not out there trying to change the law, or criminalize the behavior of the other side, or completely stifle the debate, are they?

There are people who believe that some abortions should be restricted but who think that most should be allowed. The problem is that they are drowned out by the crazy right wingers.

* I say this as the father of a pre-term child. I remember talking to someone who said that abortions after the gestational age at which my son was born are okay because they're not a person and even if they were, the mother's rights allow for no consideration under any circumstances of those of the fetus. My son at the time of this discussion had not become a person according to this argument. I was infuriated.
 
2013-03-19 01:08:20 PM  

Jim_Callahan: In all fairness, it's ND, you basically have to leave the state to get

medical care, period. food, books, electronics, prescriptions, an education, arts....
 
2013-03-19 01:14:14 PM  
Next up: President Obama gets some bigger brass balls and starts reminding these teabaggerdouche politicians that are passing these unconstitutional laws, that abortion is legal and anyone blocking abortions is a criminal and needs to be castrated or spade with the hole sewn closed.
 
2013-03-19 01:15:05 PM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Wadded Beef: That's too bad because I really really wanted to move to North Dakota.

I've been there. No reason to go.


Remember kids, Fargo was just a movie and most of it was filmed in MN since ND is such a shiathole
 
2013-03-19 01:15:50 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: They take to heart that all abortion is murder and it's NEVER medically necessary; so any claims or evidence to the contrary is obviously false, because abortion is ALWAYS optional.


No, they don't give two shiats about whether it's "Murder" or not, they just really like to subjugate those dirty dirty sluts for having the sheer audacity to be born with a vagina.
 
2013-03-19 01:16:01 PM  

Lord Dimwit: It is not, until some point well after conception but still before birth, a "person".


Realistically, from a psychological and physiological perspective, not until significantly  after birth, actually.  Babies that are a couple months old don't have object permanence or any capacity for abstraction, so they don't actually have a mind yet, which is kind of a prerequisite for being a person.

We go with birth as the dividing line more for convenience than due to anything rigorous.

//By the "biological organism with distinct human DNA" logic, they need to ban antibiotics because that qualifies many of the bacteria in the average human body.  Yes, we share a substantial portion of genetic code with them.
 
2013-03-19 01:16:56 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Karac: How are you still this optimistic?

Helps me avoid suicide to not see the world for the place full of deadbeats, sociopaths, bad actors in positions of power (and I don't mean Reagan), malevolence, greed, envy, clannishness, and enmity I know it is.

I grew up with religion, and seeing how a system designed to bring people together got twisted and misused even to my 14-year-old slice of life was enough to get me to realize that everyone's in this life for themselves and will happily murder your entire family in front of you - laughing all the while - if it means they "win". Exceptions are so rare as to not exist.

When everything looks like shiat, finding the rays of light that break through - my optimism - is what keeps me going.

// tl;dr - why do you ask? :)


One little ray: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-moments-that-prove-mr.-rogers-was-great e st-american/
 
2013-03-19 01:17:32 PM  
So a  fertilized ovum is a person.  Could a woman in ND claim to have had six dependents each year on her taxes that died before implanting?
 
2013-03-19 01:17:34 PM  

Magorn: They just passed a law banning abortions based on genetic defects?  What kind of sick farks would force an anacephalic baby to be born? (warning, DO NOT google, trust me you're better off not knwoing that such things can exist) or one with exterior interal organs?  And is it only "genetic" defects? Are deformities caused by teratogens also banned, or is aborting those babies okay?


They don't know or care about other people who may have to live through that horrible experience.

They literally don't give a fark
 
2013-03-19 01:18:09 PM  
So, as I understand it, zygotes will now have more legal status than gay partners.
 
2013-03-19 01:18:15 PM  
I thought it was basic constitutional knowledge that government can regulate rights?
 
2013-03-19 01:19:40 PM  

Cheron: So a  fertilized ovum is a person.  Could a woman in ND claim to have had six dependents each year on her taxes that died before implanting?


If a criminal kills a woman who just found out she was pregnant after being a week late would the criminal be charged with two counts of murder?
 
2013-03-19 01:19:49 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Lord Dimwit: It is not, until some point well after conception but still before birth, a "person".

Realistically, from a psychological and physiological perspective, not until significantly  after birth, actually.   Babies that are a couple months old don't have object permanence or any capacity for abstraction, so they don't actually have a mind yet, which is kind of a prerequisite for being a person.

We go with birth as the dividing line more for convenience than due to anything rigorous.

//By the "biological organism with distinct human DNA" logic, they need to ban antibiotics because that qualifies many of the bacteria in the average human body.  Yes, we share a substantial portion of genetic code with them.


At CPAC individuals like this are know as candidates
 
2013-03-19 01:22:24 PM  

phaseolus: what_now: Well the resulting law suit is an excellent use of the North Dakota's resources.


Forcing a challenge and fast-tracking it all the way up to the SCOTUS might be the whole point. Scalia and Thomas aren't getting any younger ...


Still, it's hard to see how this could survive strict scrutiny in light of Roe v Wade... oh who am I kidding, Scalia believes that the Constitution says whatever he believes it says.

/you might be right
 
2013-03-19 01:23:20 PM  
I think it goes without saying at this point that if you're a woman, you should not live in any state that votes predominantly Republican on any issue.  Which means I technically should get the hell out of Dodge, since I live in North Carolina, but we're purple enough that I can justify not dumping my boyfriend and amscraying.  If you're a woman and you live in any former Confederate state, any state in the Plains, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, or Alaska?  LEAVE.  LEAVE NOW.  It's not safe for you and it never will be.  They want to turn your life into a live-action retelling of The Handmaid's Tale.
 
2013-03-19 01:23:33 PM  
Which is why I will be lobbying for my own view on the law - MANDATORY ABORTIONS FOR EVERYONE! Even the men!
 
2013-03-19 01:23:44 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Lord Dimwit: It is not, until some point well after conception but still before birth, a "person".

Realistically, from a psychological and physiological perspective, not until significantly  after birth, actually.  Babies that are a couple months old don't have object permanence or any capacity for abstraction, so they don't actually have a mind yet, which is kind of a prerequisite for being a person.

We go with birth as the dividing line more for convenience than due to anything rigorous.

//By the "biological organism with distinct human DNA" logic, they need to ban antibiotics because that qualifies many of the bacteria in the average human body.  Yes, we share a substantial portion of genetic code with them.


I think that's an invalid argument. Are schizoprhenics not persons? What about people with IQs under 85? At some point, yes, you cease to be a "person" in my mind (anacephalics being an obvious example, of course, but I would place the line higher than that), but saying that the capacity for abstract reasoning is a requirement for personhood is just as arbitrary as using birth. I would argue that the appearance of brain activity in the higher brain (which happens around 24 weeks' gestation) is a good marker of personhood.
 
2013-03-19 01:24:21 PM  

Giltric: Cheron: So a  fertilized ovum is a person.  Could a woman in ND claim to have had six dependents each year on her taxes that died before implanting?

If a criminal kills a woman who just found out she was pregnant after being a week late would the criminal be charged with two counts of murder?


That already happens.
 
2013-03-19 01:24:27 PM  
I think that if you are in favor of life for every fetus and you believe every inseminated egg is precious and deserves to live... you would also be in favor of universal health care and giving all people a chance to live.
 
2013-03-19 01:24:54 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: No, they don't give two shiats about whether it's "Murder" or not, they just really like to subjugate those dirty dirty sluts for having the sheer audacity to be born with a vagina.


AS a former 100% right to lifer, that's not true, and wasn't true for the vast majority of my fellow Christians, but feel free to keep punch that strawman's solar plexus.
 
2013-03-19 01:27:35 PM  

rwhamann: One little ray: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-moments-that-prove-mr.-rogers-was-great e st-american/


cracked link? well, there goes my afternoon. :P
 
2013-03-19 01:28:23 PM  

Philip J. Fry: They don't know or care about other people who may have to live through that horrible experience.

They literally don't give a fark


My ex-wife's church was glowing with pride over the woman who kept her proven brain dead child to term.  As in, they knew the child had no brain. I shuddered at that, and I was mostly pro-life at the time.
 
2013-03-19 01:29:13 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Lord Dimwit: It is not, until some point well after conception but still before birth, a "person".

Realistically, from a psychological and physiological perspective, not until significantly  after birth, actually.  Babies that are a couple months old don't have object permanence or any capacity for abstraction, so they don't actually have a mind yet, which is kind of a prerequisite for being a person.

We go with birth as the dividing line more for convenience than due to anything rigorous.

//By the "biological organism with distinct human DNA" logic, they need to ban antibiotics because that qualifies many of the bacteria in the average human body.  Yes, we share a substantial portion of genetic code with them.


So the authors of this law and those that voted for it are "non-persons"?

i6.minus.com
 
2013-03-19 01:29:25 PM  

rwhamann: Fluorescent Testicle: No, they don't give two shiats about whether it's "Murder" or not, they just really like to subjugate those dirty dirty sluts for having the sheer audacity to be born with a vagina.

AS a former 100% right to lifer, that's not true, and wasn't true for the vast majority of my fellow Christians, but feel free to keep punch that strawman's solar plexus.


It may not be true for the vast majority of Christians, but they continue to vote for people who, in addition to supporting total bans on abortion, also talk about things like "legitimate rape" and who vote to deny women the right to confront their rapists in court.
 
2013-03-19 01:29:35 PM  

Magorn: They just passed a law banning abortions based on genetic defects?  What kind of sick farks would force an anacephalic baby to be born? (warning, DO NOT google, trust me you're better off not knwoing that such things can exist) or one with exterior interal organs?  And is it only "genetic" defects? Are deformities caused by teratogens also banned, or is aborting those babies okay?


Well, it's really in response to that rash of eugenics-based abortions we had back in '12.  Woo-iee, that was a tough time.  Turns out some skinheads actually read all of Obamacare, then went around legally forcibly aborting all the 'genetically inferior' race babies.  That was kinda rough, but people really got riled up with they found out Obamacare had to pay the skinheads for doing it.  Thanks, Fartbongo!
 
2013-03-19 01:30:24 PM  

winterbraid: cracked link? well, there goes my afternoon. :P


try reading that one without crying.
 
2013-03-19 01:32:19 PM  

Lord_Baull: So, as I understand it, zygotes will now have more legal status than gay partners.


well, except the gay Zygotes, of course

Oh now THERE's a fundy dilemma just waiting to happen.  IF science ever identifies the "gay gene" and develops a pre-natal test.....
 
2013-03-19 01:33:18 PM  

rwhamann: Fluorescent Testicle: No, they don't give two shiats about whether it's "Murder" or not, they just really like to subjugate those dirty dirty sluts for having the sheer audacity to be born with a vagina.

AS a former 100% right to lifer, that's not true, and wasn't true for the vast majority of my fellow Christians, but feel free to keep punch that strawman's solar plexus.


May not be how you framed it, but that's how it shakes out. The same way the GOP may actually believe that cutting taxes on the rich grows the economy, but has the unintended effect of making the rich richer and the poor poorer - they may want poor people to jump the economic ranks, but that hasn't happened in 30-odd years.

In the 40-odd years since Roe v Wade, the pro-life movement has not pushed for any sort of parallel rules for the fathers of these fetii, at least not nearly in the same dogmatic way they fetishize every pregnancy - no mandatory paternity tests, no forced payments to expectant mothers, no restrictions on his bodily autonomy...

// I realize that's kind of harsh
// but seriously - the movement may not intend to be so misogynistic, but that's how it looks to everyone else
 
2013-03-19 01:36:19 PM  

Lord Dimwit: I think that's an invalid argument. Are schizoprhenics not persons? What about people with IQs under 85? At some point, yes, you cease to be a "person" in my mind (anacephalics being an obvious example, of course, but I would place the line higher than that), but saying that the capacity for abstract reasoning is a requirement for personhood is just as arbitrary as using birth. I would argue that the appearance of brain activity in the higher brain (which happens around 24 weeks' gestation) is a good marker of personhood.


Schizophrenics and people with low IQs have minds, they're just malfunctional.  Not the same thing.

And your standard makes a cat or an octopus legally a person, so not really feeling it there.
 
2013-03-19 01:36:19 PM  

Dr Dreidel: rwhamann: Fluorescent Testicle: No, they don't give two shiats about whether it's "Murder" or not, they just really like to subjugate those dirty dirty sluts for having the sheer audacity to be born with a vagina.

AS a former 100% right to lifer, that's not true, and wasn't true for the vast majority of my fellow Christians, but feel free to keep punch that strawman's solar plexus.

May not be how you framed it, but that's how it shakes out. The same way the GOP may actually believe that cutting taxes on the rich grows the economy, but has the unintended effect of making the rich richer and the poor poorer - they may want poor people to jump the economic ranks, but that hasn't happened in 30-odd years.

In the 40-odd years since Roe v Wade, the pro-life movement has not pushed for any sort of parallel rules for the fathers of these fetii, at least not nearly in the same dogmatic way they fetishize every pregnancy - no mandatory paternity tests, no forced payments to expectant mothers, no restrictions on his bodily autonomy...

// I realize that's kind of harsh
// but seriously - the movement may not intend to be so misogynistic, but that's how it looks to everyone else


I think what's more telling is that the same people who tend to be staunchly pro-life are also opposed to anything that would improve the infant mortality rate, like government-provided health insurance, free or low-cost clinics, and so on. They also tend to vote for people who talk about "legitimate rape".
 
Displayed 50 of 143 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report