North Dakota House passes abortion ban

RAMSTORIA

RAMSTORIA

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (100%)
North Dakota's House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively outlawing abortion.

The House voted 51-41 this afternoon to declare that a fertilized egg has all the rights of any person.

That means a fetus could not be legally aborted without the procedure being considered murder.

Minot Republican Dan Ruby has sponsored other bills banning abortion in previous legislative sessions - all of which failed.

He also sponsored today's bill and says it is compatable with Roe versus Wade - the Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion.

(Rep. Dan Ruby, -R- Minot) "This is the exact language that's required by Roe vs. Wade. It stipulated that before a challenge can be made, we have to identify when life begins, and that's what this does." VO CONTINUES But Minot Democrat Kari Conrad says the bill will land North Dakota in court, trying to defend the constitutionality of a law that goes against the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

(Rep. Kari Conrad, -D- Minot) "People who presented this bill, were very clear that they intended to challenge Roe versus Wade. So they intend to put the state of North Dakota into court defending Roe vs. Wade"
Click to expand...

http://www.kxmc.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=333726

supreme court here we come?

i wonder how long before this gets overturned. the whole when-does-life-begin debate seems so subjective.
 
Pretty stupid to define it that way, that even outlaws morning after pills, etc. Seems like if some chick miscarried she could get charged for manslaughter.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Pretty stupid to define it that way, that even outlaws morning after pills, etc. Seems like if some chick miscarried she could get charged for manslaughter.[/quote]


Well, if someone were to kill the mother in that same condition they would be charged with murdering the mother and the unborn baby.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Well, if someone were to kill the mother in that same condition they would be charged with murdering the mother and the unborn baby.[/quote]

Well of course in that situation the woman intends to have the baby, and it's just an addition to a sentence.

What I'm saying is that if a fertilized egg is human and has all human rights then miscarrying due to having, say, unsuitable conditions in the womb due to anything the mother may have control over, or even failure to implant for those reasons, could technically get her some form of manslaughter. If a woman was pregnant and didn't even know it, wrecked her car because of her own fault, then miscarried, then there's manslaughter too. Not that I'm a lawyer or have any idea what I'm talking about, but it follows logically anyway.

It just seems like a bad idea to declare that something has human rights when naturally it's not going to get anywhere near being born most of the time. But then again, I don't have a problem with abortion.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Well of course in that situation the woman intends to have the baby, and it's just an addition to a sentence.

What I'm saying is that if a fertilized egg is human and has all human rights then miscarrying due to having, say, unsuitable conditions in the womb due to anything the mother may have control over, or even failure to implant for those reasons, could technically get her some form of manslaughter. If a woman was pregnant and didn't even know it, wrecked her car because of her own fault, then miscarried, then there's manslaughter too. Not that I'm a lawyer or have any idea what I'm talking about, but it follows logically anyway.

It just seems like a bad idea to declare that something has human rights when naturally it's not going to get anywhere near being born most of the time. But then again, I don't have a problem with abortion.[/quote]

That's just it. A miscarriage means something won't be born and that is a part of nature. However, most births left to natural courses lead to life. Abortion is not something to be used simply due to the inconvenience of having a child, however I think more people that do have abortions give it great thought and use that last resort responsibly.

To be honest, I don't have a problem with it being a human rights issue if that is the argument they want to make. I've seen stories of people who are abortion survivors and it is humbling and sometimes I don't think they get enough consideration in the issue of abortion.

I dated someone who had an abortion long before I met her and when we were talking she was afraid of what my reaction would be when she disclosed it to me. I told her that it was her decision and that it was legal and I wouldn't judge her for it (I had a good reason for that that I won't go into). I also took into consideration what she had to deal with. There are so many sides to this that sometimes I think it is too complex an issue.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Well of course in that situation the woman intends to have the baby, and it's just an addition to a sentence.[/quote]

What if I murdered my girlfriend, who was pregnant, but she planned to have an abortion? Would I get charged with both murders? I sure would.
 
Didn't N.Dakota do something similiar last year or a few years ago? I remember the Indian reservations saying they could possibly host clinics.
 
[quote name='homeland']Didn't N.Dakota do something similiar last year or a few years ago? I remember the Indian reservations saying they could possibly host clinics.[/QUOTE]

i believe theyve tried to get similar bills to pass in the past, but this is the first one to actually go through.
 
Hmmm. imagines Obama putting in a Pro-Life candidate.

"I've disappointed you so far. Do you mind if I disappoint you a little more?". ;-P
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']What if I murdered my girlfriend, who was pregnant, but she planned to have an abortion? Would I get charged with both murders? I sure would.[/quote]

I meant in comparison to abortion or a woman being charged with killing her own baby/fetus/fertilized egg while it was in utero. Obviously you'd get charged with both because you're killing the kid, rather than the woman in whom it is gestating.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I meant in comparison to abortion or a woman being charged with killing her own baby/fetus/fertilized egg while it was in utero. Obviously you'd get charged with both because you're killing the kid, rather than the woman in whom it is gestating.[/quote]

I would not be killing the kid. I would shoot the woman who happened to be pregnant in the head. It would then be found out she was pregnant, and I would have a murder charge placed on me because of the child in her womb. I would not harm the child at all, but I guarantee you they would charge me for two murders.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Good thing no one lives in North Dakota.

sorry.[/QUOTE]

Don't worry. Only two people are offended there. ;-P
 
It has yet to be specified, but any state that thinks a pregnancy created through rape should be carried out needs to get their shit handed to them.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='HotShotX']It has yet to be specified, but any state that thinks a pregnancy created through rape should be carried out needs to get their shit handed to them.

~HotShotX[/quote]

Don't you know??? It's God's will!!!
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']I would not be killing the kid. I would shoot the woman who happened to be pregnant in the head. It would then be found out she was pregnant, and I would have a murder charge placed on me because of the child in her womb. I would not harm the child at all, but I guarantee you they would charge me for two murders.[/quote]

If you kill the woman you kill the kid, it requires the woman to survive. Where the hell are you even going with this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top