|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:35 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090218/ap_on_re_us/abortion_restrictionsQuote: "This language is not as aggressive as the direct ban legislation that I've proposed in the past," Ruby said during House floor debate on Tuesday. "This is very simply defining when life begins, and giving that life some protections under our Constitution — the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Pursuit of happiness - unless you're a pregnant woman.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:24 pm
I think that this legislation is a terrible idea. It's going to make so many things illegal! All women will be treated at pre-pregnant, and thus will no longer to be able to ride roller coasters, drink, take medication, or do anything that would endanger a fetus that might not even be there.
*foams at the mouth* How can people be so stupid!?!?!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 8:24 pm
Even if the state senate passes it, it won't stand up against RvW, no matter what the wanktards who wrote the bill think about it. Defining when life begins would require some, y'know, proof that didn't come from nutjobbery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:24 pm
If Obama passes the Freedom of Choice Act, would it negate that?
PS: I thought it granted fetuses personhood, as I think we're all pretty sure fetuses are human... Well, as long as they're inside a human woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:04 am
Quote: The author of the bill, Rep. Dan Sullivan, R-Tulsa, said it is designed to stop couples from using the gender of a fetus as a reason to get an abortion. Sullivan said a doctor would be prohibited from performing an abortion if the mother specifically said the fetus' sex was the reason. However, he said there is no evidence the practice has occurred in Oklahoma. "I haven't received any definite information that proves it," Sullivan said.
I SMELL BULLSHIT!
heaping piles of it.
Hopefully this douchebaggery nonsense won't cross the border into SoDak. We have enough abortion issues from prolifers.
And that reason for the bill is well uh BS
Also, have they not thought of what could occur if a fetus is given full human rights? Miscarriage is manslaughter. Birth control could be murder (since it stops a fertilized egg from implanting)
so much WRONG with this
D:<
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:00 am
"A measure approved by the North Dakota House gives a fertilized human egg the legal rights of a human being, a step that would essentially ban abortion in the state."
So far nothing about birth control but I'm sure they'll do something about it and especially Plan B. neutral
I live in CA but this bums me out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:04 pm
That's messed up. I always thought that if pro-lifers got their way, and the fetus was placed on the same level as a born human, it would lead to women who miscarry being investigated to see if she caused the miscarriage by not eating enough or something. If that happens, she would then be arrested for negligent homocide, the same way a parent who let their baby starve to death would.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:08 pm
[Lieutenant Jailbait] Quote: The author of the bill, Rep. Dan Sullivan, R-Tulsa, said it is designed to stop couples from using the gender of a fetus as a reason to get an abortion. Sullivan said a doctor would be prohibited from performing an abortion if the mother specifically said the fetus' sex was the reason. However, he said there is no evidence the practice has occurred in Oklahoma. "I haven't received any definite information that proves it," Sullivan said.
I SMELL BULLSHIT!
heaping piles of it.
Hopefully this douchebaggery nonsense won't cross the border into SoDak. We have enough abortion issues from prolifers.
And that reason for the bill is well uh BS
Also, have they not thought of what could occur if a fetus is given full human rights? Miscarriage is manslaughter. Birth control could be murder (since it stops a fertilized egg from implanting)
so much WRONG with this
D:<
Um, gender exclusive abortions rarely happen in the US. They mostly occur in countries where males are preferred over females, to carry on the family name and such. Happens a lot in China, since they have the one child policy and if the couple has a girl, they wouldn't get another chance to try for a boy. Even so, a woman can still go to an abortion clinic if gender is the reason and she could just say that she doesn't have time for a child or it's too much responsibility for her to handle or something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:18 pm
marshmallowcreampie [Lieutenant Jailbait] Quote: The author of the bill, Rep. Dan Sullivan, R-Tulsa, said it is designed to stop couples from using the gender of a fetus as a reason to get an abortion. Sullivan said a doctor would be prohibited from performing an abortion if the mother specifically said the fetus' sex was the reason. However, he said there is no evidence the practice has occurred in Oklahoma. "I haven't received any definite information that proves it," Sullivan said.
I SMELL BULLSHIT!
heaping piles of it.
Hopefully this douchebaggery nonsense won't cross the border into SoDak. We have enough abortion issues from prolifers.
And that reason for the bill is well uh BS
Also, have they not thought of what could occur if a fetus is given full human rights? Miscarriage is manslaughter. Birth control could be murder (since it stops a fertilized egg from implanting)
so much WRONG with this
D:<
Um, gender exclusive abortions rarely happen in the US. They mostly occur in countries where males are preferred over females, to carry on the family name and such. Happens a lot in China, since they have the one child policy and if the couple has a girl, they wouldn't get another chance to try for a boy. Even so, a woman can still go to an abortion clinic if gender is the reason and she could just say that she doesn't have time for a child or it's too much responsibility for her to handle or something.
Ya i know that
Hence my confusion at the article and the quote. wtf.
D:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:34 am
[Lieutenant Jailbait] marshmallowcreampie [Lieutenant Jailbait] Quote: The author of the bill, Rep. Dan Sullivan, R-Tulsa, said it is designed to stop couples from using the gender of a fetus as a reason to get an abortion. Sullivan said a doctor would be prohibited from performing an abortion if the mother specifically said the fetus' sex was the reason. However, he said there is no evidence the practice has occurred in Oklahoma. "I haven't received any definite information that proves it," Sullivan said.
I SMELL BULLSHIT!
heaping piles of it.
Hopefully this douchebaggery nonsense won't cross the border into SoDak. We have enough abortion issues from prolifers.
And that reason for the bill is well uh BS
Also, have they not thought of what could occur if a fetus is given full human rights? Miscarriage is manslaughter. Birth control could be murder (since it stops a fertilized egg from implanting)
so much WRONG with this
D:<
Um, gender exclusive abortions rarely happen in the US. They mostly occur in countries where males are preferred over females, to carry on the family name and such. Happens a lot in China, since they have the one child policy and if the couple has a girl, they wouldn't get another chance to try for a boy. Even so, a woman can still go to an abortion clinic if gender is the reason and she could just say that she doesn't have time for a child or it's too much responsibility for her to handle or something.
Ya i know that
Hence my confusion at the article and the quote. wtf.
D:
Plus the fact that you can't even TELL the sex until abortion is illegal in America anyway. (Can you?) It's never gonna get through.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:36 am
Don't forget liberty! That's the most obvious one that this would take away. Life would be threatened too, as pregnancy and childbirth always have a risk of complications and are about 12 times more deadly than a first-trimester abortion. [Lieutenant Jailbait]
...Birth control could be murder (since it stops a fertilized egg from implanting)...
Actually, Planned Parenthood's page on oral contraceptives says: Quote: The hormones in the pill work by keeping a woman’s ovaries from releasing eggs — ovulation. Pregnancy cannot happen if there is no egg to join with sperm. The hormones in the pill also prevent pregnancy by thickening a woman’s cervical mucus. The mucus blocks sperm and keeps it from joining with an egg. Some people say that the pill works by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the lining of the uterus. But there is no proof that this actually happens.But, as laws like this teach us, the personal beliefs of a loud and radical enough minority are more important than science and reality in determining laws. rolleyes Even if it was completely disproven a lot of them would say that it's a conspiracy by the "abortion industry". I'm not kidding, I saw a lifer on RHReality Check actually try to tell us that the American College of Obsteticians and Gynecologists changed the definition of pregnancy to trick women into taking the pill, which they claimed is an abortifacient. They think that pregnancy begins at conception, though that makes no logical sense because conception itself does not alter the woman's body or mean that a pregnancy is established. There's no medical difference until implantation. marshmallowcreampie ....I always thought that if pro-lifers got their way, and the fetus was placed on the same level as a born human.... You know what? They wouldn't even give it the same rights. As other pro-choicers have said, no human being has the right to use another's body without their consent even if they need it to live.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:58 pm
PhaedraMcSpiffy Don't forget liberty! That's the most obvious one that this would take away. Life would be threatened too, as pregnancy and childbirth always have a risk of complications and are about 12 times more deadly than a first-trimester abortion. [Lieutenant Jailbait]
...Birth control could be murder (since it stops a fertilized egg from implanting)...
Actually, Planned Parenthood's page on oral contraceptives says: Quote: The hormones in the pill work by keeping a woman’s ovaries from releasing eggs — ovulation. Pregnancy cannot happen if there is no egg to join with sperm. The hormones in the pill also prevent pregnancy by thickening a woman’s cervical mucus. The mucus blocks sperm and keeps it from joining with an egg. Some people say that the pill works by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the lining of the uterus. But there is no proof that this actually happens.But, as laws like this teach us, the personal beliefs of a loud and radical enough minority are more important than science and reality in determining laws. rolleyes Even if it was completely disproven a lot of them would say that it's a conspiracy by the "abortion industry". I'm not kidding, I saw a lifer on RHReality Check actually try to tell us that the American College of Obsteticians and Gynecologists changed the definition of pregnancy to trick women into taking the pill, which they claimed is an abortifacient. They think that pregnancy begins at conception, though that makes no logical sense because conception itself does not alter the woman's body or mean that a pregnancy is established. There's no medical difference until implantation. marshmallowcreampie ....I always thought that if pro-lifers got their way, and the fetus was placed on the same level as a born human.... You know what? They wouldn't even give it the same rights. As other pro-choicers have said, no human being has the right to use another's body without their consent even if they need it to live.
Oh i know that about the pill, i was sort of mocking the Pill Kills!!! people. Theyre in the same vein as these people and if this gets passed for good, they will have more grounds to push their extreme pro-life views
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:11 am
Well, this is certainly a contradiction...
Last I checked, the first few lines of the Declaration of Independence were not law-binding statements.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but does it or does it not say in Amendment 14 than only persons are granted rights?
And... does the US Code define persons as those who are exclusively "born alive" or doesn't it?
With this information, I conclude that it's already written into our country's code and Constitution that only born people can be protected by laws.
Does anyone disagree or have different proof?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:56 am
Please tell me someone, somewhere is trying to fight this. I went to PP and Naral and couldn't find ANYTHING about it there. gonk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
