Really Jack?

DirtyMike's picture
DirtyMike
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 10/26/11

flycaster Said:
 Honkers, who in the heck is saying that they don't believe in helping out children in poverty?  Show me one person who is saying that.  And tell me, when does life begin?  You "pro-choice" people fail to answer that.  Read my above posts.  Is a baby really a part of a womans body like a fingernail is?  Does it not have it's own DNA and beating heart.  A woman only is there to protect and feed the baby.  It is not just another part of the body which a woman can throw away.

What you need to do is grab an embryology book and look through the development process of a fetus.  Look at the timeline of when organs develop, more specifically.  To be honest, I have no idea when you should label something as living.  I don't agree with a mother getting an abortion for the sole purpose of "birth control."  I also don't agree with some law makers making choices for women throughout the state.  Just like I don't agree with law makers making choices about guns.  Aren't republicans supposed to want less government?  Why is it o.k. to tell someone that they can't have an abortion but not o.k. to tell someone they can't have a magazine capable of holding a hundred rounds? 

On a side note, just because of ones' thought process, does that mean they have to line up with a political party?  Is it our duty as Americans to chose left or right?  Depending on what party I've chosen, do I have to agree with every decision that party makes because that's what they typically do? 


walleyepike1976's picture
walleyepike1976
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/29/10

Westerneagle Said:

walleyepike1976 Said:

Scenario for all of you.  Your wife is pregnant the doc says she and the baby will die if she continues to carry.  Do you just let her die even if you can save her by her having an abortion?  Serious question.  Just so you know where I stand Im going to save my wife. 


What if she says she would rather die then living the rest of her life with the fact that she outright killed the baby?
Are you going to force her to bend to your will?
What if the doctor happens to be wrong? What if after the child has been chopped up into pieces its revealed that both would have been fine?
There lays your son or daughter in a pile of mush.
Better think hard about what you profess.

If that is the decision she makes then so be it.  I am not going to force her to do anything she does not want to do.  If she agreed to do it I am going to trust what the doc says that the baby was not going to live and that would be the end of it for me.
If the doc was wrong thats what malpractice suits are for and yes it would tear me up knowing that nothing needed to happen and I would live with it everyday for the rest of my life.
You may not like how i believe for myself but I think it is very narrow minded to not take all things into consideration and make as much of an educated decision as possible with something as important as this.  I refuse to let things like this be left to chance.

Wags86's picture
Wags86
Offline
Joined: 12/14/10

It really sucks that this isnt more cut and dry. Can there be provisions made where they are allowed in extreme circumstances only? incest, rape, mother will die? Id be all for that.

Unfortunatley it seems that you either allow them or you dont. What a crappy deal all the way around. Im not gonna post on this anymore cuz this stuff just sucks to think about anyway you look at it

 

 "I get what you're saying:  Like a sausage replica featuring a Polander holding a sacred illumination device." 

 

beminoid31's picture
beminoid31
Offline
Joined: 12/26/08

 Flyswatter- to me life begins when they are able to survive outside of the womb. When's that....somewhere between 20-25 weeks. There I answered it for ya. Now ridicule, beat me down, tell me I'm wrong but still not changing my opinion. Here's a little more of my background. Born and raised catholic. Baptized catholic. Confirmed catholic. Haven't been to church since besides weddings or funerals. Ready go!!! And no I'm not gonna comment anymore than that. Have a good day meow

cant drink all day unless you start in the morning.
Im only one man
GET SOME!!!!!

dakota1977's picture
dakota1977
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/27/06

 Thought I'd add this snippet from an article by Judge Andrew Napolitano. I'll include the link to the entire article which I encourage all to read. It gives more specifics on the Roe v. Wade decision. Here's just part of it:

In the past 39 years, American physicians have performed more than 50 million abortions. Abortion is the most frequent medical procedure performed in the U.S. The linchpin to Roe vs. Wade is the Court's rationale that because the decision to undergo an abortion ordinarily occurs between patient and physician, and because that interaction ordinarily takes place in private, the right to privacy insulates abortion from the reach of the State. Roe vs. Wade itself does not define the right to an abortion, but it does unambiguously declare that the baby in the womb is not a person, and that the right to privacy phttp://lewrockwell.com/napolitano/napolitano38.1.htmlrotects the mother's decision to kill the baby.

Did you catch that? The Supreme Court declared that the baby in the womb is not a person. When it made that declaration, it rejected dozens of decisions of other courts, in America and in Great Britain, holding that the baby in the womb is a person. This is reminiscent of the Supreme Court's infamous Dred Scott decision in 1857 in which it ruled that blacks were not persons. In both cases, it cited no precedent, it gave no rational basis, and in Roe vs. Wade, it merely said that because philosophers, physicians and lawyers could not agree on whether babies in wombs are persons, it would declare them not to be persons.

If the baby in the womb is a person, then all abortion is unlawful. That's because of the constitutional protection for all persons. The Constitution unambiguously prohibits the government from impairing or permitting others to impair the life, liberty and property of persons without due process. Here's my political beef with so-called pro-life politicians in both parties. In the years in which the pro-life Ronald Reagan and both Presidents Bush were in the White House, from time to time, both chambers of Congress had pro-life majorities. Did you see any legislation passed that declared a baby in the womb to be a person? No. This could have been done by a simple majority vote and presidential signature, and Roe vs. Wade, and all the killing it spawned, would have ended.

How scary is this? The Supreme Court declares a class of humanity not to be persons, and then permits people to destroy the members of the class. That's what happened to blacks during slavery; that was the philosophical argument underlying the Holocaust; that's what is happening to babies in the womb today; and that might become the basis for the government killing persons it hates or fears in the future. It will declare them to be non-persons.

Is the baby in the womb a person? Of course babies in wombs are persons. From the moment of the union of egg and sperm, there is present a fully actualizable human genome; meaning all the genetic material necessary for post-birth existence is there. And the parents of that union are human beings. With human parents and a human genome, what else could a baby in a womb be but a person? If you have any doubt, why not give the benefit of that doubt to life, rather than to death? Unless you prefer death to life and killing to nurturing and misery to joy, I expect you agree.

Since you have been reading this essay, 10 babies have lost their lives, as abortions occur in the U.S. about two and a half times a minute. How long can a society last when we cannot protect the weakest among us, and when we destroy them out of convenience, and when we make that destruction legal? Who will be destroyed next?

Link: 

-Justin

flycaster's picture
flycaster
Offline
Joined: 6/14/04

Pro-abortion people, who in the hell is saying that a baby can't be aborted to save the mothers life?  Even the Catholic church doesn't believe in that.  There is no one saying that.  You believe it is said because of the stereo types you have.

Again, I ask the pro-abortion people, when does life start?  I see no one is willing to answer.

dakota1977's picture
dakota1977
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/27/06

-Justin

walleyepike1976's picture
walleyepike1976
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/29/10

flycaster Said:
Pro-abortion people, who in the hell is saying that a baby can't be aborted to save the mothers life?  Even the Catholic church doesn't believe in that.  There is no one saying that.  You believe it is said because of the stereo types you have.

Again, I ask the pro-abortion people, when does life start?  I see no one is willing to answer.

At Conception.  There now Ive said it.  And I still will not change my view.
and just for the record agian i dont believe it should be used as birth control but should be allowed in extreme cases and up to the end of the first trimester not 6 weeks like the ND law we are discussing.

Chargers's picture
Chargers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/7/09


Westerneagle Said:

walleyepike1976 Said:

Scenario for all of you.  Your wife is pregnant the doc says she and the baby will die if she continues to carry.  Do you just let her die even if you can save her by her having an abortion?  Serious question.  Just so you know where I stand Im going to save my wife. 


What if she says she would rather die then living the rest of her life with the fact that she outright killed the baby?
Are you going to force her to bend to your will?
What if the doctor happens to be wrong? What if after the child has been chopped up into pieces its revealed that both would have been fine?
There lays your son or daughter in a pile of mush.
Better think hard about what you profess.

western, if that fetus was gay would you still support its rights???

Colt45's picture
Colt45
Offline
Joined: 8/24/12

walleyepike1976 Said:

Scenario for all of you.  Your wife is pregnant the doc says she and the baby will die if she continues to carry.  Do you just let her die even if you can save her by her having an abortion?  Serious question.  Just so you know where I stand Im going to save my wife. 

I believe the wife in this scenario has as much a right to life as the unborn child, and it would be her choice to terminate or carry the baby to term. This whole debate centers on when does life begin, conception, a detectable heartbeat, delivery, or somewhere in between.  I will never understand how late term babies are not considered a human life and can legally be terminated in the womb given the fact they could survive just fine outside the womb. Its a fine line for sure.

flycaster's picture
flycaster
Offline
Joined: 6/14/04

   at least you are honest about when you think life begins.  For you it begins when a baby can survive outside the womb.  For me, I don't know the answer and I want to error on the side of being right.

In my mind, it is all sacred from conception to the end of life.  It is hurtful to all when we allow ourselves to devalue a person as a blob of cells that don't mean anything.  We must respect ourselves and others more than that just as you must respect all things.

You may not believe this but I am not a religious person.  I am closer to beliefs of an athiest than I am to believing in god or religion.  But I still believe that as a society we must respect life more than we do.  It is for our good.

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

DirtyMike Said:

flycaster Said:
 Honkers, who in the heck is saying that they don't believe in helping out children in poverty?  Show me one person who is saying that.  And tell me, when does life begin?  You "pro-choice" people fail to answer that.  Read my above posts.  Is a baby really a part of a womans body like a fingernail is?  Does it not have it's own DNA and beating heart.  A woman only is there to protect and feed the baby.  It is not just another part of the body which a woman can throw away.

What you need to do is grab an embryology book and look through the development process of a fetus.  Look at the timeline of when organs develop, more specifically.  To be honest, I have no idea when you should label something as living.  I don't agree with a mother getting an abortion for the sole purpose of "birth control."  I also don't agree with some law makers making choices for women throughout the state.  Just like I don't agree with law makers making choices about guns.  Aren't republicans supposed to want less government?  Why is it o.k. to tell someone that they can't have an abortion but not o.k. to tell someone they can't have a magazine capable of holding a hundred rounds? 

On a side note, just because of ones' thought process, does that mean they have to line up with a political party?  Is it our duty as Americans to chose left or right?  Depending on what party I've chosen, do I have to agree with every decision that party makes because that's what they typically do? 

The thought process you use can be argued both ways. How about you look at it as though just like a conservative wants the second amendment protecting our rights to guns, any guns for that matter. The abortion debate can be made that a conservative is fighting for the right of that human life, that some discount as not being life at all.

The right of that child to life, garners the same rights as me to own an AR 15 wouldnt you agree?

Neat

DirtyMike's picture
DirtyMike
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 10/26/11

 Fly caster, you had three people tell you their views about when life begins. All three were different. Do you notice that we all agree on the other topics though? There isn't a cut and dry method of who should and shouldn't be able to get an abortion.  Some situations require a different thought process. What these laws do is hinder the health of both mother and child regardless of ethical situations. 


DirtyMike's picture
DirtyMike
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 10/26/11

 John, I don't agree. It's your choice to have a gun or baby. No one should limit your ability to have either nor should anyone try to tell you that you can't sell your gun to the neighbors kid or that the mother can't make a decision to save her own life or prevent the child she's carrying from horrific, terminal diseases. It's all about choice. If you're ok with someone eliminating your choices, I can understand where you are coming from. 


walleyepike1976's picture
walleyepike1976
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/29/10

DirtyMike Said:
 Fly caster, you had three people tell you their views about when life begins. All three were different. Do you notice that we all agree on the other topics though? There isn't a cut and dry method of who should and shouldn't be able to get an abortion.  Some situations require a different thought process. What these laws do is hinder the health of both mother and child regardless of ethical situations. 

NodakAngler1's picture
NodakAngler1
Offline
Joined: 7/26/10

flycaster Said:
Pro-abortion people, who in the hell is saying that a baby can't be aborted to save the mothers life?  Even the Catholic church doesn't believe in that.  There is no one saying that.  You believe it is said because of the stereo types you have.

Again, I ask the pro-abortion people, when does life start?  I see no one is willing to answer.

Life starts when two different cells come together to develope a completely new, independant being. This is not debateable, science agrees and has stated this. It's the same begining point whether simple life forms or complex.Those stating they don't know when life begins are behind on the argument for pro-abortion by quite a few years. Gotta Google pro abortion arguments so you can get caught up. Dakota 1977's article is quite revealing as far as where this is at.

John Browning=GENIUS
NDA Rocks!

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

couple of things... making abortions illegal and then leaving an exception for a rape victim scares the living bejeesus out of me.  i prosecute and defend people in criminal court for a living.  when i first started out, i was convinced every victim told the truth.  after about a decade of involvement on both sides of the aisle, i now trust nobodys story until i've made every attempt to verify it with evidence to the best extent possible.  when i say "nobody", i mean nobody... not the police and not even a rape victim until i feel like i've done my due diligence and gotten all available information.  i have this suspicion that having one of the few "exceptions" be for victims of rape will lead to at least a few women crying wolf when there was nothing but a lamb.  sounds paranoid... but, it will happen... and even if only one innocent man gets convicted because of a scenario like this it will be too many.  so, leave it as it currently is or something similar or just ban them... but, i'd rather not see them completely illegal with rape being only one of a couple exceptions.

another one... i think its plainsman... kept referencing tax dollars and/or insurance companies paying for abortion.  can someone give me information on this?  i am pretty sure medicaid only covers them in cases of rape, incest or life endangerment.  and i didn't think insurance coverage for them was standard.  i know it isn't required to be considered a "qualified" policy under obamacare.  maybe private insurance coverage for situations other than medical danger to the mother is more common than i thought. 

someone talked about organ development, etc... i think the medical literature says that the there is significant development in the spinal neuro pathways between 12-16 weeks and the ability to feel pain is almost a definite by 20 weeks... probably sooner.  

finally, i was hoping more of the 100% pro-lifers would weigh in on leftover embryos frozen in a lab after fertilization treatment and whether they constitute "life".  or the fertilized egg that is prevented from "implanting" by the plan B pill.  or the situations of severe danger to the mother.  or the situations of eptopic (got that word for the facebook post above) pregnancies where the child isn't likely to make it to term or will be born with severe, painful and costly complications that make life beyond a few days or weeks almost impossible and certainly very miserable for both the baby and the parents and other loved ones if they happen to be one of the small % that do make it to term.  all are different questions and scenarios that don't deserve a "one glove fits all" answer for me anyway.  

i enjoy these controversial subjects as long as i can control my emotions.  i think they offer a great window into the hearts, minds and psyche of society as a whole.  

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Westerneagle's picture
Westerneagle
Offline
Joined: 10/14/06

Chargers Said:


Westerneagle Said:

walleyepike1976 Said:

Scenario for all of you.  Your wife is pregnant the doc says she and the baby will die if she continues to carry.  Do you just let her die even if you can save her by her having an abortion?  Serious question.  Just so you know where I stand Im going to save my wife. 


What if she says she would rather die then living the rest of her life with the fact that she outright killed the baby?
Are you going to force her to bend to your will?
What if the doctor happens to be wrong? What if after the child has been chopped up into pieces its revealed that both would have been fine?
There lays your son or daughter in a pile of mush.
Better think hard about what you profess.

western, if that fetus was gay would you still support its rights???

They are all God's children.  So they would have the Right to Life and be given the gift of breathing air, of being fed to grow up to be Loved.
Do you agree?

So how do you tell if a fetus is gay? 


flycaster's picture
flycaster
Offline
Joined: 6/14/04

 OK DirtyMike, you are right there are some pro-abortion people who have told me when life begins.  The latest date out of these was at 20 weeks.  So the people who say 20 weeks shouldn't have a problem with outlawing abortions past 20 weeks and should be outraged when it happens later than 20 weeks.  Should we not be outraged when we believe an innocent person is killed?  Where do you stand?  When do you believe it begins?

flycaster's picture
flycaster
Offline
Joined: 6/14/04

 Walleypike, how do these laws hinder the life of the mother?  Which part of the law hinders the life of a mother?  It certainly doesn't hinder the life of a child.  It protects children from getting killed.

gonefshn's picture
gonefshn
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

They are all God's children. So they would have the Right to Life and be given the gift of breathing air, of being fed to grow up to be Loved.
Do you agree?

It's what I was taught too, but not everyone believes in God the way I do.  They should be allowed to believe their way just like I should mine. When you bring God into the argument, you ruin the "legal" justification in my opinion.  Our country was based on seperating church and state and allowing for people of all beliefs. 

What I find most ironic on this is how it's mostly the righties who are super anti-abortion and feel it's their cause to push this view on everyone else.  But when it comes to libs pushing their view of who's sick, who needs help, gun control, and what not on them they totally freak out.  Those things effect "life" as well.

Kinda fun as a middle roader watching all the hypocracy in action.

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

Westerneagle Said:
They are all God's children.  So they would have the Right to Life and be given the gift of breathing air, of being fed to grow up to be Loved.
Do you agree?

So how do you tell if a fetus is gay? 


This...

Neat

DirtyMike's picture
DirtyMike
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 10/26/11

The only reason I don't agree with "life at conception" is because it needs to be implanted into the uterine wall before it becomes viable.  Situations where there is an ectopic pregnancy, meaning the embryo is implanted in either a fallopian tube or even outside of the uterus, is that still life?  Are you outraged when that "embryo" needs to be removed?  I could get on board with 20 weeks.  It's been awhile since I took embryology but 20 weeks does ring a bell as far as neural arch/notochord development.  I agree with pro-life people in that the fetus shouldn't be devalued as something less than human.  So, ban abortions after 20 weeks with some additions to the law allowing consideration to special circumstances such as ectopic pregnancies, genetic defects, I'd say rape victims but they should be making reports before 20 weeks pass by, and other situations that I'm sure I'm forgetting. 

flycaster Said:
 OK DirtyMike, you are right there are some pro-abortion people who have told me when life begins.  The latest date out of these was at 20 weeks.  So the people who say 20 weeks shouldn't have a problem with outlawing abortions past 20 weeks and should be outraged when it happens later than 20 weeks.  Should we not be outraged when we believe an innocent person is killed?  Where do you stand?  When do you believe it begins?


beminoid31's picture
beminoid31
Offline
Joined: 12/26/08

this might be a terrible comparison but here it goes. I shot a mature doe the last week of season in MN in 2000. dec 30 to be exact. when gutting it I felt a really hard substance toward the pelvic. I didn't break open the sac but did cut it free from the rest of the guts. I held it up to the sunlight and it was not one but 3 little deer. they were about 3-4in long and you could tell hooves and all. heres my question to you pro-life people. should of I been charged for poaching since I only had one tag? I mean they were alive to you guys. I did keep the sac with the fluid in it and donated it to the NDSU zoology dept. the 3 professors that I showed had never seen that before. but they were in the womb and somewhat developed so should of I been charged for poaching since it was 4 deer total that I killed?

cant drink all day unless you start in the morning.
Im only one man
GET SOME!!!!!

jsthntn's picture
jsthntn
Offline
Joined: 2/27/07

a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy..............short answer, yes!

comparing people to deer makes total sense.......... 

beminoid31 Said:
this might be a terrible comparison but here it goes. I shot a mature doe the last week of season in MN in 2000. dec 30 to be exact. when gutting it I felt a really hard substance toward the pelvic. I didn't break open the sac but did cut it free from the rest of the guts. I held it up to the sunlight and it was not one but 3 little deer. they were about 3-4in long and you could tell hooves and all. heres my question to you pro-life people. should of I been charged for poaching since I only had one tag? I mean they were alive to you guys. I did keep the sac with the fluid in it and donated it to the NDSU zoology dept. the 3 professors that I showed had never seen that before. but they were in the womb and somewhat developed so should of I been charged for poaching since it was 4 deer total that I killed?

 "I'll show you where the bear sh**s in the woods!" ~ Dad
(I still have no clue what it means.)

"You're not really even my son." ~ Dad
(I still don't believe him.)

Chargers's picture
Chargers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/7/09

flycaster Said:
 Walleypike, how do these laws hinder the life of the mother?  Which part of the law hinders the life of a mother?  It certainly doesn't hinder the life of a child.  It protects children from getting killed.

Red River Women's Clinic - Shelly Silkee
Let us please think rationally about what these Anti-Abortion bills really entail, please. Not all abortions are committed just because "this isn't wanted." North Dakota still has the highest incident of teen pregnancies per capita, and that was WITH legal abortions. So please don't be so silly. We do not have an abundance of abortions being performed - obviously. But what it does me...an is... Eptopic pregnancies will not be ended, meaning EXTREME health consequences and possibly death for the mother (and in most cases eptopic pregnancies do NOT yeild a living baby.) It means that when 2 people who love each other find out their fetus has genetic complications that mean their baby WON'T LIVE past a year will be burdened with heartbreak that is prolonged and severe. It means that a mother with severe health complications of her own will not be given precident over a fetus and could likely die (with no indication the baby lives, either. so BOTH could die?) What it means are little girls who are molested and raped will be FORCED to live with the unfortunate consequence of someone else's crime. If YOUR OWN MOTHER was forced with the decision to die or attempt an impossible delivery, would you not want YOUR OWN MOTHER to choose her life and remain in yours? Please, remove the blinders and remove the hate and disdain. These are your mothers, sisters, daughters, girlfriends, wives, best friends, neighbors, and co-workers. If YOU do not believe in abortions, by all means NOBODY will MAKE YOU GET ONE. But PLEASE do not turn a blind eye to the woman you may have condemned to a lifetime of hardship you cannot imagine, or to the woman whose death certificate you ought to be signing with your own name.

Bri-Guy2's picture
Bri-Guy2
Offline
Joined: 3/10/09

What isn't getting enough attention is what happens to these unwanted children.  I don't see Grande or Sitte proposing legislation to fund their births, daycare, food, pre-school education, or medical.  They haven't proposed any legislation to streamline the adoption process.  Hell, they won't even agree to pay for these kids to get a $0.10 carton of milk at school! 

Instead, they (and most of you) will call the parents (and children) "takers" and "leeches."  Every day I see people on here constantly complaining about all the welfare recipients out there and how you hate to pay for these services.  What do you think is going to happen now?  How many of these children do you think are going into self-sufficient homes? 

I can't help be see a lot of those people who support this unconstitutional law talking out of both sides of their mouths.  "You can't pass a law taking away my constitutional right to own an assault rifle"..."but go ahead an pass a law taking away a woman's constitutional right to terminate a pre-viable pregnancy."  

beminoid31's picture
beminoid31
Offline
Joined: 12/26/08

atleast I didn't compare it to cannibalism like someone did

cant drink all day unless you start in the morning.
Im only one man
GET SOME!!!!!

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 

Bri-Guy2 Said:
What isn't getting enough attention is what happens to these unwanted children.  I don't see Grande or Sitte proposing legislation to fund their births, daycare, food, pre-school education, or medical.  They haven't proposed any legislation to streamline the adoption process.  Hell, they won't even agree to pay for these kids to get a $0.10 carton of milk at school! 

Instead, they (and most of you) will call the parents (and children) "takers" and "leeches."  Every day I see people on here constantmly complaining about all the welfare recipients out there and how you hate to pay for these services.  What do you think is going to happen now?  How many of these children do you think are going into self-sufficient homes? 

I can't help be see a lot of those people who support this unconstitutional law talking out of both sides of their mouths.  "You can't pass a law taking away my constitutional right to own an assault rifle"..."but go ahead an pass a law taking away a woman's constitutional right to terminate a pre-viable pregnancy."  

Drop off the next unwanted black gay crack baby at dalrymples house, along with a severely disfigured brain dead humanoid and see if he's interested in caring for them

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

 

gonefshn Said:
They are all God's children. So they would have the Right to Life and be given the gift of breathing air, of being fed to grow up to be Loved.
Do you agree?

It's what I was taught too, but not everyone believes in God the way I do.  They should be allowed to believe their way just like I should mine. When you bring God into the argument, you ruin the "legal" justification in my opinion.  Our country was based on seperating church and state and allowing for people of all beliefs. 

What I find most ironic on this is how it's mostly the righties who are super anti-abortion and feel it's their cause to push this view on everyone else.  But when it comes to libs pushing their view of who's sick, who needs help, gun control, and what not on them they totally freak out.  Those things effect "life" as well.

Kinda fun as a middle roader watching all the hypocracy in action.

"middle roader"... lol... don't you realize that's just a term that liberals like us/you use to describe yourself/ourselves to make us/you feel better and feel accepted by the mob?  i bet you wear a big flaming rainbow shirt and use the moniker gonefishingwdemocrats on the usual liberal blog sites you visit while sitting at your government funded computer, drinking your government funded coffee... awaiting your government funded retirement so that you can enjoy the fruits of your many years of perpetuating your liberal mindset on the internet and sit around sucking at the government tit until you die in a government funded nursing home being paid for by a "public option" insurance plan.  

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Cowbell's picture
Cowbell
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/15/06

espringers Said:
 

gonefshn Said:
They are all God's children. So they would have the Right to Life and be given the gift of breathing air, of being fed to grow up to be Loved.
Do you agree?

It's what I was taught too, but not everyone believes in God the way I do.  They should be allowed to believe their way just like I should mine. When you bring God into the argument, you ruin the "legal" justification in my opinion.  Our country was based on seperating church and state and allowing for people of all beliefs. 

What I find most ironic on this is how it's mostly the righties who are super anti-abortion and feel it's their cause to push this view on everyone else.  But when it comes to libs pushing their view of who's sick, who needs help, gun control, and what not on them they totally freak out.  Those things effect "life" as well.

Kinda fun as a middle roader watching all the hypocracy in action.

"middle roader"... lol... don't you realize that's just a term that liberals like us/you use to describe yourself/ourselves to make us/you feel better and feel accepted by the mob?  i bet you wear a big flaming rainbow shirt and use the moniker gonefishingwdemocrats on the usual liberal blog sites you visit while sitting at your government funded computer, drinking your government funded coffee... awaiting your government funded retirement so that you can enjoy the fruits of your many years of perpetuating your liberal mindset on the internet and sit around sucking at the government tit until you die in a government funded nursing home being paid for by a "public option" insurance plan.  

I was just going to comment on the "middle roader" but you did a fine job for me. A "middle roader" doesn't proclaim he is only voting for democrats from here on out, does he?

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

for goodness sake no!  you must remain a wolf in sheep's clothing until just the right moment in time... then you pounce like the ravenous tax seeking, rights gouging carnivore you are.... sssshhhhhhhh... be very quiet... we are hunting conservatives....

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

Wring your hands,stomp your feet, whine,cry and complain all you want. This new law and Jack signing it should be of no surprise to anyone. Myself regardless of what I believe am glad this law was passed and that the issue of personhood will now be brought before the courts to settle this issue once and for all. Like it or not, the state has now defined when life begins and itis going to be very hard for those who want anytime abortions to fight this angle in court. Especially with the number of states that have double charges being able to be filedagainst someone that kills a pregnant woman either by intent or accident!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

walleyepike1976's picture
walleyepike1976
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/29/10

flycaster Said:
 Walleypike, how do these laws hinder the life of the mother?  Which part of the law hinders the life of a mother?  It certainly doesn't hinder the life of a child.  It protects children from getting killed.

Its pretty staight forward if you outlaw abortion in all cases then by law you cant get one ....... if the mothers life is at risk before the baby is viable outside the womb then I would say everybody would die then mother and baby even though you could technically save the mother by terminating the pregnancy.  You cant save the baby it can not live outside the womb at this stage in growing.  so let them both die is not a good enough answer for me when you could obviously save the mother

Im not hiding behind anything  and I certianly am not trying to be wafflely with  my answers if I need to be clearer on my stance let me know what parts I need to clarify.     

I can try to explain my view to you all day but it wont change your mind and you sure as hell wont change mine.  So lets just agree to disagree
.
and just for the record agian i dont believe it should be used as birth control but should be allowed in extreme cases and up to the end of the first trimester not 6 weeks like the ND law we are discussing.
 

gonefshn's picture
gonefshn
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

espringers Said:
 

gonefshn Said:
They are all God's children. So they would have the Right to Life and be given the gift of breathing air, of being fed to grow up to be Loved.
Do you agree?

It's what I was taught too, but not everyone believes in God the way I do.  They should be allowed to believe their way just like I should mine. When you bring God into the argument, you ruin the "legal" justification in my opinion.  Our country was based on seperating church and state and allowing for people of all beliefs. 

What I find most ironic on this is how it's mostly the righties who are super anti-abortion and feel it's their cause to push this view on everyone else.  But when it comes to libs pushing their view of who's sick, who needs help, gun control, and what not on them they totally freak out.  Those things effect "life" as well.

Kinda fun as a middle roader watching all the hypocracy in action.

"middle roader"... lol... don't you realize that's just a term that liberals like us/you use to describe yourself/ourselves to make us/you feel better and feel accepted by the mob?  i bet you wear a big flaming rainbow shirt and use the moniker gonefishingwdemocrats on the usual liberal blog sites you visit while sitting at your government funded computer, drinking your government funded coffee... awaiting your government funded retirement so that you can enjoy the fruits of your many years of perpetuating your liberal mindset on the internet and sit around sucking at the government tit until you die in a government funded nursing home being paid for by a "public option" insurance plan.  

No I'm not a farmer. 

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

"Push this view on everyone else"
"I could get on board with 20 weeks."

Push WHAT view on everyone else?  That abortion should be illegal?  That it should be a state decided matter?   That there is no human life in question here??

The issue is a little more complicated than that.

Oh, somebody else could get on board with 20 weeks.  Well, bully for them.  How about 19 weeks?

Let's take a look at the REAL issue at hand here.

We only have to ask ourselves a few questions.  This entity, inside a female human, does it have brain waves?  Does it have a heart beat?  Does it require nourishment in order to keep both?  Does it have a nervous system?  Does it have a distinctive form or is it really just a blob of cell matter? 

Well I think we have just determined it is alive.  It has brain waves.  It has a heart beat.  It requires nourishment from the female human to keep both.  It has a complex nervous system that displays emotion and pain.  It has distinctive and unique form.

Now what?  Oh yeah, it's inside a human female.  To me, correct me if I am wrong, but both common sense and medical science would tell us this living entity is human.  I mean, being that it resides in another human.  It's certainly not a giraffe.

A living, individual, human being.

This isn't about anyone wanting to infringe on anothers "rights".  It's about protecting the rights of ALL living humans on an individual basis.  This unborn baby has the same right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness you and I do.  Those rights are protected by the Constitution for ALL living humans living legally within this country.

Not just those who can vote in the next election.

 

flycaster's picture
flycaster
Offline
Joined: 6/14/04

 You guys, really?  Because you make the assumption that it would be hard for someone to take care of a child they didn't want, it's ok to kill that child?

multi-species-angler, a "disfigured brain dead humanoid"?  Is that what you would label a human - a humanoid?  So a black, gay, crack baby should be killed because it's going to be a burden to someone?

And now it up to the pro-life people to make sure that if an abortion law gets passed, we are now the ones that are going to have to take care of the babies?  I'm against drunk driving, so should I be the one that has to make sure every drunk has a ride home?  It's all of our responsibility buddy.  


yelowjackt's picture
yelowjackt
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/31/05



"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously"
...People who don’t understand sarcasm are awesome !?!
Jig-em-Up Guide Service | Grand Forks, ND | 701-739-9198 jig-em-up-guide-service.com

 

 

gonefshn's picture
gonefshn
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

The fact is this will never be resolved until there a constitutional amendment that defines it.  And unfortunately, there will never be agreement "when" a person becomes a person.  Until then, we'll continue to waste millions of dollars in legal fees and people on here will be assholes to other members who might disagree with their view be it pro, anti, or whatever.  

flycaster's picture
flycaster
Offline
Joined: 6/14/04

 And knock it off you pro-abortion people.  The laws make exceptions for some abortions.  You are lying when you say that all abortions will be illegal under these laws.  They all are legal up to six weeks.

walleyepike1976's picture
walleyepike1976
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/29/10

So I ask this at what point does the mothers life become less important than babies life?  I keep getting asked about my beliefs and seriously would like to know the answer to this question.  I believe mothers health trumps pre outside of womb baby viability.  If the baby is viable outside the womb then they can deliver and try to keep them both alive. 

flycaster's picture
flycaster
Offline
Joined: 6/14/04

 Gonefishin, it may be a waste of money to you for legal fees but there are some things that people feel strong enough about to fight.  As for people being assholes to other members who disagree on this topic, I must say, I haven't seen it.  No one has been rude to me and I to others.  

There are some things worth fighting for.  This is one of them.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

multi-species-angler Said:
 

Bri-Guy2 Said:
What isn't getting enough attention is what happens to these unwanted children.  I don't see Grande or Sitte proposing legislation to fund their births, daycare, food, pre-school education, or medical.  They haven't proposed any legislation to streamline the adoption process.  Hell, they won't even agree to pay for these kids to get a $0.10 carton of milk at school! 

Instead, they (and most of you) will call the parents (and children) "takers" and "leeches."  Every day I see people on here constantmly complaining about all the welfare recipients out there and how you hate to pay for these services.  What do you think is going to happen now?  How many of these children do you think are going into self-sufficient homes? 

I can't help be see a lot of those people who support this unconstitutional law talking out of both sides of their mouths.  "You can't pass a law taking away my constitutional right to own an assault rifle"..."but go ahead an pass a law taking away a woman's constitutional right to terminate a pre-viable pregnancy."  

Drop off the next unwanted black gay crack baby at dalrymples house, along with a severely disfigured brain dead humanoid and see if he's interested in caring for them

I'm  not sure he would let a liberal into his house.

Speaking of  liberal why is it they are willing to suck the brains out of a human, but put you in prison for years if you step on an eagle egg?    Not original I read another post somewhere. 

Why do people keep asking about the mothers life?  There are provisions made for the danger to the mothers life and other provisions.  Are these people trying to mislead the  not to smart or can't they  read?   The question has been aswered a number of times.  Go back and read. 

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Has been pretty civil for a change.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

 

gonefshn Said:

espringers Said:
 

gonefshn Said:
They are all God's children. So they would have the Right to Life and be given the gift of breathing air, of being fed to grow up to be Loved.
Do you agree?

It's what I was taught too, but not everyone believes in God the way I do.  They should be allowed to believe their way just like I should mine. When you bring God into the argument, you ruin the "legal" justification in my opinion.  Our country was based on seperating church and state and allowing for people of all beliefs. 

What I find most ironic on this is how it's mostly the righties who are super anti-abortion and feel it's their cause to push this view on everyone else.  But when it comes to libs pushing their view of who's sick, who needs help, gun control, and what not on them they totally freak out.  Those things effect "life" as well.

Kinda fun as a middle roader watching all the hypocracy in action.

"middle roader"... lol... don't you realize that's just a term that liberals like us/you use to describe yourself/ourselves to make us/you feel better and feel accepted by the mob?  i bet you wear a big flaming rainbow shirt and use the moniker gonefishingwdemocrats on the usual liberal blog sites you visit while sitting at your government funded computer, drinking your government funded coffee... awaiting your government funded retirement so that you can enjoy the fruits of your many years of perpetuating your liberal mindset on the internet and sit around sucking at the government tit until you die in a government funded nursing home being paid for by a "public option" insurance plan.  

No I'm not a farmer. 

phhhhhfffttttt.... that there is funny shtuff... gonfshn, the closet liberal and farmer hater.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

dakota1977's picture
dakota1977
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/27/06

For those that don't like to read, here's the video of what the Judge has to add to the subject at hand.  I posted the transcript earlier.

-Justin

walleyepike1976's picture
walleyepike1976
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/29/10

Plainsman Said:

multi-species-angler Said:
 

Bri-Guy2 Said:
What isn't getting enough attention is what happens to these unwanted children.  I don't see Grande or Sitte proposing legislation to fund their births, daycare, food, pre-school education, or medical.  They haven't proposed any legislation to streamline the adoption process.  Hell, they won't even agree to pay for these kids to get a $0.10 carton of milk at school! 

Instead, they (and most of you) will call the parents (and children) "takers" and "leeches."  Every day I see people on here constantmly complaining about all the welfare recipients out there and how you hate to pay for these services.  What do you think is going to happen now?  How many of these children do you think are going into self-sufficient homes? 

I can't help be see a lot of those people who support this unconstitutional law talking out of both sides of their mouths.  "You can't pass a law taking away my constitutional right to own an assault rifle"..."but go ahead an pass a law taking away a woman's constitutional right to terminate a pre-viable pregnancy."  

Drop off the next unwanted black gay crack baby at dalrymples house, along with a severely disfigured brain dead humanoid and see if he's interested in caring for them

I'm  not sure he would let a liberal into his house.

Speaking of  liberal why is it they are willing to suck the brains out of a human, but put you in prison for years if you step on an eagle egg?    Not original I read another post somewhere. 

Why do people keep asking about the mothers life?  There are provisions made for the danger to the mothers life and other provisions.  Are these people trying to mislead the  not to smart or can't they  read?   The question has been aswered a number of times.  Go back and read. 

I have read both of the House bills and yes it does have exceptions.  I know that.  This has been more of an discussion about abortion itself not the laws that were signed.  At least from my side it has been.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

walleyepike1976 ahh I understand.  Others have asked that question even after it has been answered, so my question stands, but not towards you.

I should also not repay condescension with condescension that gets us nowhere.  That in relation to the governor not letting a liberal into his house.  I'll try harder not to get ticked when liberals think they are intellectually superior. 

Honkers_N_Walleyes's picture
Honkers_N_Walleyes
Offline
Joined: 2/19/10

flycaster Said:
 Honkers, who in the heck is saying that they don't believe in helping out children in poverty? 

No one is saying it directly obviously but, pretty much every conservative republican is against entitlement programs such as...food stamps, housing assistance, medicare, medicaid, school lunch programs assistance, elementary school milk programs(one our state thought we should give up so we can give bigger tax breaks to the oil companies)  correct?   Well how do you help kids in poverty if you cut those programs or take them away all together? Pro life = the entire childhood life not just from conception to birth.  Being pro life means helping ensure that child is born safely and grows up healthy until he/she is an adult.  Are you seeing the hipocracy yet? 

flycaster's picture
flycaster
Offline
Joined: 6/14/04

 Honkers, which republicans are against those entitlements you stated?  I've heard many republicans want to reform those entitlements to cut down on how much they are costing us but I don't know of any that want to completely get rid of those entitlements.  Name some names and examples of where they say they want to completely get rid of those programs.

Pages