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.

(The Daily Beast)   North Dakota's fetal heartbeat law aborted   (thedailybeast.com) divider line 106
    More: Cool, North Dakota, abortions  
•       •       •

2282 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Jul 2013 at 5:43 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-22 05:45:35 PM
Won't someone think of the blastocysts?
 
2013-07-22 05:48:55 PM
Nah, North Dakota just had a premature ejaculation of the bill.
 
2013-07-22 05:49:00 PM
Good.  Let's hope it stays dead.
 
2013-07-22 05:49:50 PM
Undead balls of 32 cells will attack the living!
 
2013-07-22 05:49:58 PM
We'll drag them, kicking and screaming, into the mid-twentieth century, whether they like it or not.
 
M-G
2013-07-22 05:51:58 PM
static2.dmcdn.net

He's still looking for one...
 
2013-07-22 05:53:29 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Won't someone think of the blastocysts?


Actually if there is a fetal heartbeat its no longer a blastocyst.

/the patient and the doctor should be the only ones making these decisions.
 
2013-07-22 05:54:50 PM
Wait....

There are women in North Dakota?

I thought they'd moved out after the oilmen came in and started tearing up the place?
 
2013-07-22 05:56:32 PM

vernonFL: Uranus Is Huge!: Won't someone think of the blastocysts?

Actually if there is a fetal heartbeat its no longer a blastocyst.

/the patient and the doctor should be the only ones making these decisions.


Right. So the blastocysts would still be subject to abortion. Won't someone think of them?
 
2013-07-22 05:56:52 PM

M-G: [static2.dmcdn.net image 160x120]

He's still looking for one...


Well played.
 
2013-07-22 05:58:00 PM
Christian abortion(miscarriage) fully allowed by the church.
http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/trial_ordeal.html
Then the Lord said to Moses, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him by sleeping with another man, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), and if feelings of jealousy come over the husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure--or even if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure--then he is to take his wife to the priest. . . .

The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, "If no other man has slept with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have defiled yourself by sleeping with a man other than your husband"--here the priest is to put the woman under this curse of the oath--"may the Lord cause your people to curse and denounce you when he causes your thigh to waste away and your abdomen to swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your thigh wastes away."' (Numbers 5:11-22)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_bitter_water#Abortion_int e rpretation
Abortion interpretation

While nothing in the text implies the woman might be pregnant, several commentaries on the Bible maintain that the ordeal is to be applied in the case of a woman who has become pregnant, allegedly by her lover.[28][12] One reading is that the ordeal results in a prolapsed uterus if she is guilty.[29] Some interpretations of the ordeal describe it as a purposeful abortion or miscarriage of the woman's love child if it exists within her, or a confirmation of her innocence if no miscarriage is observed.[13][12][30]

Some scholars interpret the bitter potion as an abortifacient inducing a miscarriage if the woman is pregnant with another man's child.[31][32][33][34] Arnold Ehrlich interprets the ordeal such that it ends either harmlessly if the woman is faithful, or with an induced abortion: "the embryo falls".[13]
 
2013-07-22 06:05:20 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Won't someone think of the blastocysts?


 When you die and try to go to heaven, we'll see how funny you are when you have to look all of those aborted gastrulas right in the ectoderm,
 
2013-07-22 06:05:40 PM
I for one welcome our totipotent overlords
 
2013-07-22 06:06:16 PM
sheep snorter:

While nothing in the text implies the woman might be pregnant, several commentaries on the Bible maintain that the ordeal is to be applied in the case of a woman who has become pregnant, allegedly by her lover.[28][12] One reading is that the ordeal results in a prolapsed uterus if she is guilty.[29] Some interpretations of the ordeal describe it as a purposeful abortion or miscarriage of the woman's love child if it exists within her, or a confirmation of her innocence if no miscarriage is observed.[13][12][30]

Some scholars interpret the bitter potion as an abortifacient inducing a miscarriage if the woman is pregnant with another man's child.[31][32][33][34] Arnold Ehrlich interprets the ordeal such that it ends either harmlessly if the woman is faithful, or with an induced abortion: "the embryo falls".[13]


Weak.
 
2013-07-22 06:07:58 PM
Good.
 
2013-07-22 06:10:38 PM
i.imgur.com

/someone else's health care is none of your damn business
 
2013-07-22 06:11:15 PM
Small government!  Except when we want to regulate your health.
Save lives!  Except for when our policies drive people to unlicensed back alley doctors with little accountability or to non-prescribed medications with off-label abortion use
We do it for the children!  Except that we don't want to pay for prenatal care, post-birth medical care or food aid
The Bible commands us!  To abort the child in cases of adultery (Numbers 5:11), or to pay restitution to the father as calculated by a judge when an abortion is committed, but no other penalty (Exodus 21:22).  Or just kill 'em if they are from Samaria or Tappuah (Hosea 13:16, King 15:16).  Or how children people the age of one month shouldn't even be counted as people.  (Numbers 3:40)  They're not even worth a shekel of silver - that's not until five months (Leviticus 27:6 ).
We value life!  But are a death penalty state.  And hunt for sport.
Party of fiscal responsibility! Except when we pass laws we know are unconstitutional because we want the taxpayers to foot the bill for us trying to make a political point.


Come on North Dakota, tell us how you're all such righteous people!
 
2013-07-22 06:13:52 PM
Which almost certainly means that they'll pass the same bill again next year.
 
2013-07-22 06:14:57 PM

EngineerAU: Which almost certainly means that they'll pass the same bill again next year.

week.

FTFY
 
2013-07-22 06:24:37 PM

vernonFL: Uranus Is Huge!: Won't someone think of the blastocysts?

Actually if there is a fetal heartbeat its no longer a blastocyst.

/the patient and the doctor should be the only ones making these decisions.


FTFY
 
2013-07-22 06:25:39 PM

EngineerAU: Which almost certainly means that they'll pass the same bill again next year.


You're getting at what this is about: not the sanctity of life, and not women's health - it's about money for the activists and their lawyers, to keep this endless dance going.

Ringshadow: /someone else's health care is none of your damn business


 Lemme guess - next comes the part where you demand payment from the taxpayers for abortions, the health care you just got through saying was none of the taxpayers' business.

You can't have it both ways. Your choice? Fine by me. Your choice ends at my wallet, though.

/and your Pill should be OTC, btw
 
2013-07-22 06:28:35 PM

Ringshadow: [i.imgur.com image 500x617]

/someone else's health care is none of your damn business


Thanks, Imma gonna steal that for future reference.
 
2013-07-22 06:29:41 PM

Gulper Eel: You can't have it both ways. Your choice? Fine by me. Your choice ends at my wallet, though.

/and your Pill should be OTC, btw


can't argue there
 
2013-07-22 06:35:01 PM

Son of Thunder: sheep snorter:

While nothing in the text implies the woman might be pregnant, several commentaries on the Bible maintain that the ordeal is to be applied in the case of a woman who has become pregnant, allegedly by her lover.[28][12] One reading is that the ordeal results in a prolapsed uterus if she is guilty.[29] Some interpretations of the ordeal describe it as a purposeful abortion or miscarriage of the woman's love child if it exists within her, or a confirmation of her innocence if no miscarriage is observed.[13][12][30]

Some scholars interpret the bitter potion as an abortifacient inducing a miscarriage if the woman is pregnant with another man's child.[31][32][33][34] Arnold Ehrlich interprets the ordeal such that it ends either harmlessly if the woman is faithful, or with an induced abortion: "the embryo falls".[13]

Weak.


About as legit as most biblical interpretation,
 
2013-07-22 06:37:02 PM

EngineerAU: Which almost certainly means that they'll pass the same bill again next year appeal to the supreme court before Scalia or Thomas kicks the bucket, leading to essentially a reversal of Roe Vs. Wade.


Fixed it for you.  That was always the end game with these asinine laws.  Conservatives know that they have about a 5 year window to let their derpers on the SCOTUS do their thing.
 
2013-07-22 06:37:04 PM

Ringshadow: [i.imgur.com image 500x617]

/someone else's health care is none of your damn business


Does that mean that parents can stop feeding their children without fear of repercussion of the law?

Oh gods, I can't believe I'm about to enter an abortion debate....  Killing fetuses is killing people just as killing convicted criminals is killing people.  Once people accept that and move the debate into the realm of when it's acceptable to kill people, then we can have an honest debate about abortion that isn't just warrghble going back and forth.

/Still giggles at Vegans who support abortions.
 
2013-07-22 06:40:32 PM

Click Click D'oh: Ringshadow: [i.imgur.com image 500x617]

/someone else's health care is none of your damn business

Does that mean that parents can stop feeding their children without fear of repercussion of the law?

Oh gods, I can't believe I'm about to enter an abortion debate....  Killing fetuses is killing people just as killing convicted criminals is killing people.  Once people accept that and move the debate into the realm of when it's acceptable to kill people, then we can have an honest debate about abortion that isn't just warrghble going back and forth.

/Still giggles at Vegans who support abortions.


So all women who miscarry should be investigated by the Police for murder. Howe long do you think the sentence should be? 10 years? 20? Execution?
 
2013-07-22 06:43:09 PM

Click Click D'oh: Ringshadow: [i.imgur.com image 500x617]

/someone else's health care is none of your damn business

Does that mean that parents can stop feeding their children without fear of repercussion of the law?

Oh gods, I can't believe I'm about to enter an abortion debate....  Killing fetuses is killing people just as killing convicted criminals is killing people.  Once people accept that and move the debate into the realm of when it's acceptable to kill people, then we can have an honest debate about abortion that isn't just warrghble going back and forth.

/Still giggles at Vegans who support abortions.


I disagree with the bolded part, but if we do go there, then "before they're born" is an acceptable answer to me.
 
2013-07-22 06:43:32 PM

Click Click D'oh: Does that mean that parents can stop feeding their children without fear of repercussion of the law?


How is feeding your children mean they are "using your body"?
 
2013-07-22 06:44:48 PM

Hollie Maea: Click Click D'oh: Does that mean that parents can stop feeding their children without fear of repercussion of the law?

How is feeding your children mean they are "using your body"?


Breastfeeding? I dunno, there was a lot of stupid in that post.
 
2013-07-22 06:44:49 PM
I can't wait for the day the fundies realize they've been totally used by the US Bishops. Should be pretty funny.

/misogyny makes for strange bedfellows.
//I'm so old that I remember when Protestants could use birth control.
 
2013-07-22 06:46:36 PM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Breastfeeding? I dunno, there was a lot of stupid in that post


You don't have to breast feed your kids.  But you do have to give them SOMETHING to eat.

But yeah...a lot of stupid.
 
2013-07-22 06:47:58 PM

Piizzadude: vernonFL: Uranus Is Huge!: Won't someone think of the blastocysts?

Actually if there is a fetal heartbeat its no longer a blastocyst.

/the patient and the doctor should be the only ones making these decisions.

FTFY


I think if a doctor believes there's no way in hell a fetus should be carried to term, the patient ought to listen.

/though yeah it does remain her decision
 
2013-07-22 06:49:20 PM

Click Click D'oh: Oh gods, I can't believe I'm about to enter an abortion debate....  
[...]
/Still giggles at Vegans who support abortions.


You really should have listened to your initial instinct.
 
2013-07-22 06:49:23 PM

Hollie Maea: EngineerAU: Which almost certainly means that they'll pass the same bill again next year appeal to the supreme court before Scalia or Thomas kicks the bucket, leading to essentially a reversal of Roe Vs. Wade.

Fixed it for you. That was always the end game with these asinine laws. Conservatives know that they have about a 5 year window to let their derpers on the SCOTUS do their thing.


If that hadn't happened by now with five different Republican presidential terms (not counting Nixon/Ford) covering 20 years since the anti-abortion movement got rolling...it's not happening, not in your most feverish help-help-I'm-being-repressed dreams. There is no end game. The idea is to keep the donations rolling in.

But it's a fantastic fundraising talking point, I'll grant.
 
2013-07-22 06:50:03 PM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: I disagree with the bolded part, but if we do go there, then "before they're born" is an acceptable answer to me.


So, do prematurely children get personhood early or are they granted it when their nine months expires?  What about overdue children, do they become people in the womb, or do they get delayed personhood?


Hollie Maea: How is feeding your children mean they are "using your body"?


Where did you get the food from?

The store, duh.  Where did you get the money from?  Work?  So, you have to dedicate x amount of time to doing a specific task, generally not of your choosing, to support the life of the child?  I thought slavery was illegal in the US.  Sovereignty of the body and all, can't be forced to degrade your rights to support another.  The argument falls flat on it's face.  It's well established in US law that the rights of a parent may be infringed in order to provide for the rights of

a dependent child.
 
2013-07-22 06:51:15 PM

Hickory-smoked: Click Click D'oh: Oh gods, I can't believe I'm about to enter an abortion debate....  
[...]
/Still giggles at Vegans who support abortions.

You really should have listened to your initial instinct.


Yes, because personal attacks are such a great way to persuade people.
 
2013-07-22 06:53:13 PM

Gulper Eel: You can't have it both ways. Your choice? Fine by me. Your choice ends at my wallet, though.


Hyde amendment already prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions.
 
2013-07-22 06:57:28 PM

Gulper Eel: Lemme guess - next comes the part where you demand payment from the taxpayers for abortions, the health care you just got through saying was none of the taxpayers' business.


There are a number of faults with your argument.  The main two are that we live in a welfare state that provides assistance to poor mothers and that we live in a mandatory insurance state where everyone must be part of a health risk pool.

Many abortions are performed because the mother/parents are unable to provide the financial support needed for the child to grow up in a stable healthy environment.  Couldn't it be argued that since we already have welfare, it would be financially beneficial to society to prevent these situations from arising, and instead, allowing the parents to choose when to have the birth (without having to deal with adoptions, which are a different issue).

Likewise, couldn't it be argued that since we have both welfare and mandatory health insurance, that it would be cheaper for the taxpayers and ratepayers to not have to support a child with a significant health defect that would burden the system?


You can't have it both ways. Your choice? Fine by me. Your choice ends at my wallet, though.

I have no problem with people not wanting to participate in mandatory health insurance or to pay taxes into government funding of hospitals.  But if you want an exception, you have to abide by a pay-first health care policy.  No cash?  Die on the sidewalk.  Lose your job because of your health?  No unemployment or welfare for you.  Starve on the street.  Have a family?  No food stamps or welfare if the assets you leave behind are insufficient to keep them going.

You can't have it both ways.
 
2013-07-22 07:03:55 PM

Click Click D'oh: Mitch Taylor's Bro: I disagree with the bolded part, but if we do go there, then "before they're born" is an acceptable answer to me.

So, do prematurely children get personhood early or are they granted it when their nine months expires?  What about overdue children, do they become people in the womb, or do they get delayed personhood?


WTF is "prematurely children" supposed to mean? And you already said--which I regrettably played along with--that fetuses were already people, so everything else in your response is equally dumb.

No one smart enough to use a computer could be this dumb, so I'm spitting out the hook. Troll on, brave abortion thread troller!
 
2013-07-22 07:04:58 PM

Dinjiin: Likewise, couldn't it be argued that since we have both welfare and mandatory health insurance, that it would be cheaper for the taxpayers and ratepayers to not have to support a child with a significant health defect that would burden the system?


Cost should never be the deciding factor in the life or death of a person.
 
2013-07-22 07:07:01 PM

Click Click D'oh: Dinjiin: Likewise, couldn't it be argued that since we have both welfare and mandatory health insurance, that it would be cheaper for the taxpayers and ratepayers to not have to support a child with a significant health defect that would burden the system?

Cost should never be the deciding factor in the life or death of a person.


It is though.

Everyday, people make those decisions regarding life and death based on cost.

They range from actuaries at insurance companies to families having to make a difficult decision regarding a loved one on life support.
 
2013-07-22 07:08:02 PM
Another fake law passed by grandstanding pols to appeal to the knot-headed voters.
 
2013-07-22 07:08:55 PM

Click Click D'oh: Dinjiin: Likewise, couldn't it be argued that since we have both welfare and mandatory health insurance, that it would be cheaper for the taxpayers and ratepayers to not have to support a child with a significant health defect that would burden the system?

Cost should never be the deciding factor in the life or death of a person.


I assume you're for a single payer health insurance system then?
 
2013-07-22 07:08:55 PM

meat0918: Wait....

There are women in North Dakota?

I thought they'd moved out after the oilmen came in and started tearing up the place?


almost all of them...
 
2013-07-22 07:09:03 PM

Dinjiin: Many abortions are performed because the mother/parents are unable to provide the financial support needed for the child to grow up in a stable healthy environment.


I suspect abortion would be a lot less common if contraceptives were cheap AND easily available AND frankly discussed in comprehensive sex-education programs in the schools.
 
2013-07-22 07:10:27 PM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: WTF is "prematurely children" supposed to mean?


Premature births.  Please excuse the "ly"

Mitch Taylor's Bro: And you already said--which I regrettably played along with--that fetuses were already people, so everything else in your response is equally dumb.


I was trying to determine your position for when someone gains rights and protections. My position is irrelevant to the matter as it's already been established. "Birth" is a rather nebulous and shifting event.  If a child is born extremely prematurely and kept alive by medical technology, shouldn't other unborn children also be granted the same rights and privledges then?  Or are we still free to kill the infant in the incubator since they shouldn't have been born yet?  More importantly, doesn't that mean that as medical technology advances and we can save prematurely born children at earlier and earlier ages, rights will be granted at younger and younger ages?

Seems an awfully nebulous and shifting target.  I'm looking for a consistent and logical point at which rights are granted, because last I looked, birth canals were awfully odd vehicles for establishing legal personhood.
 
2013-07-22 07:12:24 PM
Fetuses aren't people.
 
2013-07-22 07:13:11 PM

Soup4Bonnie: Gulper Eel: You can't have it both ways. Your choice? Fine by me. Your choice ends at my wallet, though.

Hyde amendment already prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions.


It's funny that no matter how often anyone says this, the antiabortionists never seem to hear it.
 
2013-07-22 07:13:55 PM
Perry, and his Caped Crusader (right) have taken up the Dakota bill and want to blow life back into it. There's a guy with a purple feather hat next to the Caped Crusader with a white feather hat. It's obviously a fashion contest, too. Won't someone think of the feathers.

Everyone in this picture owns stock in a maternity suit company.

www.dallasnews.com
 
Displayed 50 of 106 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report