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 48
    More: Asinine, North Dakota, University of North Dakota, criminal negligence, Personhood USA, abortions, IVF  
•       •       •

3121 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-19 12:55:51 PM
9 votes:
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 12:45:13 PM
5 votes:
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 01:33:18 PM
4 votes:

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 12:51:51 PM
4 votes:

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 12:49:24 PM
4 votes:
Laser like focus on jobs
2013-03-19 10:04:50 PM
3 votes:
If the people that wanted to pass these laws really wanted to stop pregnancies from terminating they'd be funding research into the #1 cause of failed pregnancies - the female body.

At least 25% - and possibly 50% - of all pregnancies naturally terminate for unknown reasons within a very short time period after the egg is fertilized.  A very common reason is failure of the egg to implant in the female.

Funding research into this would stop a much greater percentage of babies.  But they won't because they're not really about saving life.  They are about taking control of women's bodies.

Even more fun - do you know how much effect laws have on the per-capita rate of abortion? Zero.  Polls done around the world show approximately the same rate of abortion regardless of the local laws.

And, CSB time:

My wife and I wanted kids.  We had our first no problem.

My wife's second pregnancy resulted in us finding out at the first ultrasound that embryo was dead at around 8 weeks.

Same thing the third pregnancy.

Fourth pregnancy comes along - first ultra-sound is ok.  Due to previous problems we are seeing a specialist who runs genetic tests around 12 weeks plus an ultra-sound.  The ultrasound indicates possible down's syndrome, which is confirmed by the genetic test via amniotic fluid samples.  There was also another genetic flaw, one of the Trisomy ones (I forget which number).  This combination was literally in the 1 out of millions category.

We go home and check the literature and find literally no cases of the baby surviving to birth with these two conditions.  We do find plenty of cases of complications of the mother's life.

Given we were at 12 weeks we had VERY little time to make a choice, because we were near the end of the first trimesester.  Three days later we walked into an abortion clinic out of state and the procedure was performed.

I'll make a couple more comments.

I told my wife I did not want to risk her life over the baby's.  The baby wouldn't survive anyway.

I also told her that I think people who insist on keeping the baby in these situations are forgetting the responsibilities they already have to their existing children and family.  You do no one a favor by being dead and leaving a 4 year old behind.

My wife had many similar thoughts, but I think she still feels some guilt.  Part of that is because when it comes to an abortion the husband has ZERO say in the matter (and I'm okay with that, except I wish I could take at least half the guilt from my wife).  She is the one who went to the back of the clinic, signed the forms, and allowed the procedure to be done, at least in any legal sense.  I have supported her as much as possible of course.

Also, I do not see a moral difference between our case and taking a loved one off of life support.

And this is why I want to cock punch anti-abortion zealots as hard as possible.

One final thought - life is, as it turns out, not without a sense of humor.  We decided we would try one more time.

We got twins :)

/csb
2013-03-19 02:47:08 PM
3 votes:

willfullyobscure: An implanted fetus is a human life. You have to accept that. A germinated seed is a plant, even if you don't get any tomatoes from it for 90-120 days depending on the variety. No different with fetuses.

The mother is a human life too; and in supporting abortion, you are saying that her right to decide what happens to her own body is more important than having the state protect the life of the fetus. Her right to autonomy vs the unborn's right to life.

There is no other way around it. This is the heart of the debate and all else is just noise.


Let's assume you're right about the first part (as an interesting side note, what is your stance on the right to murder bacteria?). You're forgetting a major part of this equation:

What's best for the child?

Dying in horrible agony a few hours after birth? No, that's not best. Dying slowly over a few years? Still no. Putting a child in a situation where the parents hate them and they're shunted from foster home to foster home? Difficult, which is why it's legally the choice of the mother, who has the most legal interest (because Daddy's a great guy, but does not actually have any physical effects from pregnancy). But overall, aborting babies with severe genetic defects isn't about what the parents want, it's about what's best for the  child. They're dead either way most of the time. Killing them before their nerves fully develop? That is the most ethical solution.

Society teaches us to preserve life at all costs. That view is completely, 100% wrong, and causes far more harm than good. That's why anti-abortionists really have no claim to religion; forcing children to die in agony or mothers to deliver stillborn children is not moral, ethical, or anything else. It's petty and goes against everything Christ (which is the usual god they claim) taught.

/And as far as abortions where the mother has a loving family to support her and it's just 'not convenient'...well, that exists in an alternate universe, so if you want to handle abortions where there are non-biological reasons for the abortion, start by creating support networks for mothers and babies.
2013-03-19 02:31:34 PM
3 votes:

willfullyobscure: It's a biological fact. Life begins at implantation. Might as well argue that the sun comes up in the West. Have an abortion==end a human life.


But not a human person, and that's the important part. Life is cheap; every cell in your body has the complete set of instructions to make another human. The important part is not life, but the presence of a functioning higher brain - the part that differentiates a clump of cells with human DNA from a person. A first trimester fetus is life, but it most definitely is not a person.

You can try to handwave away that distinction all you want; you will always be in the wrong on any scientific or ethical basis for doing so. You can try and pretend it's a religious claim, that the "soul" makes the fetus a person at conception. But that's just empty supernaturalism, and even at that it contradicts what is actually taught in the Bible (just as one example) about when ensoulment is supposed to take place (with the first breath, actually) and even then, children younger than a month old were not functionally considered to be persons because they died so commonly.
2013-03-19 01:53:26 PM
3 votes:

RsquaredW: Lord Dimwit: 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.

"Anytime" abortionists are largely a fringe boogieman. Most people are concerned with viability - commonly about 22-24 weeks, which is when half of fetuses that are removed from the body can survive with the help of advanced medical care (28 weeks was the lower limit of RvW, in an era of less advanced medical care).  While a preterm at that level of development could survive, so could a baby with a number of highly disabling genetic disorders, and there are already significant barriers to abortion in the case of preterms in the potentially viable age range (doctor must certify/test).

// largely a pragmatist


Thank you, that's what I was trying to say. The right wing tries to say that there are people out there who want abortions as the kid is popping out of the birth canal, and while there might be one or two nutcases out there like that, they're not in the majority or the plurality or even a significant minority. It's the same tactic as the whole "if we allow gay marriage then we have to let people marry turtles!" argument.

The debate has never been "no abortions ever vs unrestricted abortions at any time!" - it's always been "no abortions ever vs abortions in certain circumstances weighing the rights, safety, and health of everyone involved".
2013-03-19 01:46:52 PM
3 votes:

Lord Dimwit: 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.


"Anytime" abortionists are largely a fringe boogieman. Most people are concerned with viability - commonly about 22-24 weeks, which is when half of fetuses that are removed from the body can survive with the help of advanced medical care (28 weeks was the lower limit of RvW, in an era of less advanced medical care).  While a preterm at that level of development could survive, so could a baby with a number of highly disabling genetic disorders, and there are already significant barriers to abortion in the case of preterms in the potentially viable age range (doctor must certify/test).

// largely a pragmatist
2013-03-19 01:44:06 PM
3 votes:

willfullyobscure: An implanted fetus is a human life. You have to accept that. A germinated seed is a plant, even if you don't get any tomatoes from it for 90-120 days depending on the variety. No different with fetuses.

The mother is a human life too; and in supporting abortion, you are saying that her right to decide what happens to her own body is more important than having the state protect the life of the fetus. Her right to autonomy vs the unborn's right to life.

There is no other way around it. This is the heart of the debate and all else is just noise.


It can definitely be framed that way. The argument, for me, is simple - you don't automatically have all human rights from the instant you become human. A child has fewer rights than an adult. A severely mentally disabled person has fewer rights than someone capable of caring for themselves (e.g. if a severely mentally disabled person can be restrained against his or her will). A fetus, especially one without a cerebral cortex, has fewer rights than someone with a cerebral cortex (in this case, the mother).

The whole purpose of society and laws is the weigh the rights of different people against one another. I would argue that before the development of the cerebral cortex, the mother's rights outweigh those of the fetus in all circumstances. Things get murkier from there.
2013-03-19 12:47:43 PM
3 votes:
Well the resulting law suit is an excellent use of the North Dakota's resources.
2013-03-19 01:51:29 PM
2 votes:
You DO know that these laws are just a deliberate troll to get the cases kicked up to the US Supreme Court, where Scalia and Thomas are just itchin' to use it as an excuse to overturn Roe V. Wade, right?
2013-03-19 01:51:00 PM
2 votes:

Coco LaFemme: 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.


In all seriousness, again it's time to trot out my somewhat scaremongering, but absolutely legally correct analysis of what "life begins at conception" laws coupled with a repeal of Roe v. Wade would actually mean:


Contrary to popular belief, Roe takes no position on when life begins.What it does do is create a legal dividing line between the time when a mother's "right to privacy" is so paramount that the state cannot invade or trump her decisions about her own body, and then the state begins to have a sufficiently robust interest in the life of the child that they can step in and begin to restrict the abortion process.If that ruling were to cease to exist, any law placing restrictions on a woman based on the state's claim that it was to protect the life of the child would only have to pass the extremely low bar of the law "having some conceivable rational basis"Now couple that with a statement that life begins at fertilization and you got yourselves Trouble with a capital T that rhymes with C which stand for Conception.Because, you see, no process known to medical science can do anything more than estimate when conception has occurred.Most women don't even realize they ARE pregnant until they've missed a period and that could be four weeks or so after conception. And we can't have all of these "potential persons" subject to abuse and/or neglect for four whole weeks of their lives while the state stands by and does nothing now can we?So obviously, the only rational thing to do is to place blanket restrictions on any woman from first menses to menopause (with perhaps exceptions for medically certified virgins who submit to weekly exams to confirm their status, and those deemed biologically infertile).So clearly, at a minimum we'd have to pass laws forbidding the sale of alcohol or cigarettes to, or its consumption by any "potentially pregnant" woman (maybe we could give them one week a month off from this provided they prove to the alcohol seller that they are actively menstruating ).And Why stop there , we'd need to place mandatory nutrition monitoring of these women to ensure that IF they are pregnant our little future voter is getting the pre-natal vitamins they need right?And we reallyneed to limit these women's exposure to toxic chemicals and place limits on their physical activity lest they unwittingly cause a miscarriage.Oh and speaking of miscarriages, it goes without saying that in order to ensure justice for all these "unborn-American" citizens, any miscarriage will have to cause the opening of a homicide investigation and require the coroner to do a full autopsy.And of course we'd have to bring criminal neglect or child abuse charges against the mother if she contributed to the little tyke's demise by carelessness or willful consumption of the wrong kinds of food or drink...etc etc ad naseum.

Overblown?Perhaps.Utterly legal if Roe goes away?Absolutely
2013-03-19 01:36:19 PM
2 votes:

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".
2013-03-19 01:29:25 PM
2 votes:

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 01:23:20 PM
2 votes:
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 01:18:09 PM
2 votes:
So, as I understand it, zygotes will now have more legal status than gay partners.
2013-03-19 01:07:38 PM
2 votes:
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 01:05:37 PM
2 votes:

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? :)
2013-03-20 09:24:56 AM
1 votes:

Patronick313: TL;DR - No one elses decisions effect your relationship with your God(s). Religious freedom doesn't mean you get to make the decisions for everyone else. I really miss Salute Your Shorts.


I like you.  You sound reasonable.  That's a quality that's in short order these days.

And you know what? I also find abortion horrific and I find it distasteful that people do it for convenience, even though I've made the choice to have one (or, technically, my wife).  Sometimes there's only a list of bad options to choose from and again I would never presume to make that choice for someone.

Although I also think there's a whole world of possibilities that could open up if we could get people to be zealots less and compassionate more.  Imagine a world where one choice was a place that housed and fed expectant mothers who were poor and supported them, whether they chose to give up the baby for adoption or keep it.

I'd like to live in that world.
2013-03-20 12:33:59 AM
1 votes:

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: willfullyobscure: An implanted fetus is a human life. You have to accept that...

Because why? Because you said so? Hell no. I don't have to accept it, because it's not true

FTFM damn touchpad..


IDK why you bothered.  Your argument works as well against itself as it does against willfullyobscure
2013-03-19 10:08:15 PM
1 votes:

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.


For the run-of-the-mill soldiers on the abortion war (i.e., you), it's about the preciousness of life. For those in power who can really enact legislation and such, it's about subjugating the dirty dirty sluts. They don't give two ratsass about your feelings of the sanctity of life. They're using you to enable their desire to control women. So you fell for it. Suckers.
2013-03-19 05:50:24 PM
1 votes:
If presented with a personhood amendment, could you not claim the little farker was both invading your personal space and assaulting you (little bastard is stuck in there and leaching your nutrients*) - then just invoke Stand Your Ground and abort the farker?  I mean, if they want to play fast and loose with definitions, then play faster and looser

*And death by childbirth is still a thing, so it is potentially deadly assault
2013-03-19 05:48:02 PM
1 votes:
The thing about banning abortion is, you can't do it. Like, it's physically impossible to do so. You get 9 months to travel to a country where it's legal and do it there, or get it done in a back alley by a black market butcher, or just fall down the stairs a couple dozen times. The kind of infant morality rates you see in third world countries without proper medical infrastructure proves you don't need a medical procedure to kill a fetus, you just need one to do it safely.

And that's what laws exist to do, to create social order and promote public safety. Forcing people to have something done in secret and unsafely is the exact opposite result we should want and in fact encourages people to break OTHER laws that actually do exist for very good reasons.
2013-03-19 05:02:17 PM
1 votes:

Lord Dimwit: 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).


Sometimes I think the best recourse is to play these dumbasses at their own game.  Let's get legislation in place that requires that spontaneous abortion/miscarriage investigated as suicide.
2013-03-19 03:00:27 PM
1 votes:

Strix occidentalis: Also, how would the law treat hydatidiform moles and ectopic pregnancies?


I got into a debate with another woman over abortion and brought up ectopic pregnancies. She said the mother should carry to term. Then I asked if she knew what an ectopic pregnancy was and her answer was "modern medicine can keep them both alive. That's fact."

That's when I shook my head and walked away from the argument because there's no reasoning with that amount of stupid.
2013-03-19 02:44:22 PM
1 votes:

palelizard: willfullyobscure: It's a biological fact. Life begins at implantation. Might as well argue that the sun comes up in the West. Have an abortion==end a human life.

Define life.


There's a reason that the terms "life," "human life," and "personhood" are used interchangeably by certain people in these discussions, and I fear my opinion of those reasons is very ungenerous...

/An ameoba is "life." A blob of spit can legitmately be said to contain "human life." If you mean something else, use the right term.
2013-03-19 02:17:19 PM
1 votes:
You're gonna carry your rape baby, and you're gonna like it. Also note, ND is one of the states where the rapist gets full parental rights, so have fun forming that relationship over your lifetime, also good luck with your kid after you have to leave him/her with a known rapist for the weekend.

/because small government
2013-03-19 02:02:42 PM
1 votes:

willfullyobscure: It's a biological fact. Life begins at implantation. Might as well argue that the sun comes up in the West. Have an abortion==end a human life.


Define life.
2013-03-19 01:43:38 PM
1 votes:

willfullyobscure: An implanted fetus is a human life. You have to accept that...


Because why? Because you said so? Hell no. I don't have to accept it, because it's not t
2013-03-19 01:41:51 PM
1 votes:
If personhood begins at conception, and roughly 50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant, then having kids is immoral.

On average, for every kid born, one has to die.
2013-03-19 01:41:47 PM
1 votes:

Lord Dimwit: 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.


The anti-intellectual groupthink is the primary reason I just can't go to church anymore, even though I pray daily and still believe.  American Evangelicals have taken "the ends justiify the means" to heart on a frightening, if subconcious, level.  They are willing to vote for all matter of immoral people if the magic (R) is behind their name, because that (R) stands for No Mo(R)e abo(R)tions.  Treatment of the poor, support for big tobacco and big oil, hatred of illegal aliens, none of them dissaude them.  When I was arguing about who was the more moral candidate in 2004 with a church elder, I asked him why the unborn dead in America were more important to God than the very dead in Iraq. I pointed out that according to our beliefs, the babies are now in heaven, while many of the Muslim dead went to hell. His very cold reply was that the Iraqis that died had had their chance to accept Christ and didn't. (This at a very cool, and very compassionate church I might add, the most compassionate church I've ever attended.)
2013-03-19 01:32:19 PM
1 votes:

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 01:29:13 PM
1 votes:

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 01:28:23 PM
1 votes:

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 01:24:54 PM
1 votes:

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 01:24:27 PM
1 votes:
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 01:23:44 PM
1 votes:

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 01:16:01 PM
1 votes:

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 01:15:50 PM
1 votes:

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 01:15:05 PM
1 votes:

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 01:05:48 PM
1 votes:

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 12:56:27 PM
1 votes:
Republicans still wondering why they can't win a (presidential) election?
2013-03-19 12:53:05 PM
1 votes:
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 12:52:59 PM
1 votes:

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 12:51:34 PM
1 votes:

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 12:50:55 PM
1 votes:
In all fairness, it's ND, you basically have to leave the state to get medical care, period.
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report