North Dakota House Gives Fertilized Eggs Human Status

[-Cp]

Awesome!!!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/18/north-dakota-house-gives-fertilized-eggs-human-status/

BISMARCK, N.D. -- 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.

The bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended abortion rights nationwide, supporters of the legislation said.

Representatives voted 51-41 to approve the measure Tuesday. It now moves to the North Dakota Senate for its review.

[Noir]

Interesting.

I would like to know how it does not ban abortion as is claimed though, if it is classing fertilized eggs as humans that are protected by the constitution.

[PostmodernProphet]

Interesting.

I would like to know how it does not ban abortion as is claimed though, if it is classing fertilized eggs as humans that are protected by the constitution.

because the ban would have to result from a court order after the courts applied the constitution to the rights of the newly recognized human beings.....

[Mr. P]

Awesome!!!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/18/north-dakota-house-gives-fertilized-eggs-human-status/

BISMARCK, N.D. -- 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.

The bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended abortion rights nationwide, supporters of the legislation said.

Representatives voted 51-41 to approve the measure Tuesday. It now moves to the North Dakota Senate for its review.

The bill declares that "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens" is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws.

The measure's sponsor, Rep. Dan Ruby, R-Minot, said the legislation did not automatically ban abortion. Ruby has introduced bills in previous sessions of the Legislature to prohibit abortion in North Dakota.

"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."

Critics of the measure say it will cost millions of dollars to defend. Ruby said the state has been willing to go to bat for other principles that were less important.

In Oklahoma, meanwhile, a state House committee Tuesday approved legislation that would prohibit physicians from performing abortions solely on account of the gender of a woman's fetus, even though the measure's author said there is no evidence the practice has ever occurred in the state.

The legislation passed 20-2 by the House Public Health Committee. The bill now goes to the full House for consideration.

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 seriously doubt the U.S. SC will allow a State to legislate when life begins. This may cost the folks in N.D. millions..of wasted $$.

As for Rep Ruby and his statement "... and giving that life some protections under our Constitution — the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." which Constitution is he referring to, the State or U.S.? Cuz that phrase ain't in the U.S. Constitution. You'd think he'd know that.

[Trigg]

Ruby has introduced bills in previous sessions of the Legislature to prohibit abortion in North Dakota.

They put an almost complete ban on abortion to a vote and it was defeated.

Obviously the people arn't in favor of such a strict law. If this bill is put to a public vote I can see it being rejected also.

[The ClayTaurus]

They put an almost complete ban on abortion to a vote and it was defeated.

Obviously the people arn't in favor of such a strict law. If this bill is put to a public vote I can see it being rejected also.I was just going to say, what happened to "letting the people decide!"?

[MtnBiker]

I was just going to say, what happened to "letting the people decide!"?

Which people?

Did the "people" decide Roe V Wade?

However I agree, let the people decide, it should be a State's right issue, not a Federal issue.

[Mr. P]

Which people?

Did the "people" decide Roe V Wade?

However I agree, let the people decide, it should be a State's right issue, not a Federal issue.

Not if it restricts rights afforded by the U.S. Constitution. That's what Roe was all about.

[darin]

This law doesn't do anything to restrict or suspend privacy - which is what Roe vs. Wade was all about.

[Missileman]

Awesome!!!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/18/north-dakota-house-gives-fertilized-eggs-human-status/

BISMARCK, N.D. -- 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.

The bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended abortion rights nationwide, supporters of the legislation said.

Representatives voted 51-41 to approve the measure Tuesday. It now moves to the North Dakota Senate for its review.

The bill declares that "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens" is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws.

The measure's sponsor, Rep. Dan Ruby, R-Minot, said the legislation did not automatically ban abortion. Ruby has introduced bills in previous sessions of the Legislature to prohibit abortion in North Dakota.

"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."

Critics of the measure say it will cost millions of dollars to defend. Ruby said the state has been willing to go to bat for other principles that were less important.

In Oklahoma, meanwhile, a state House committee Tuesday approved legislation that would prohibit physicians from performing abortions solely on account of the gender of a woman's fetus, even though the measure's author said there is no evidence the practice has ever occurred in the state.

The legislation passed 20-2 by the House Public Health Committee. The bill now goes to the full House for consideration.

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 guess this means that the birth control pill will be outlawed in ND too since the pill can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg which would technically be murder if this amazingly stupid legislation passes.

[Mr. P]

This law doesn't do anything to restrict or suspend privacy - which is what Roe vs. Wade was all about.

Roe was not "all" about privacy really...just part.


According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Yes, Roe was won on the privacy issue which were the grounds of the fight against the barring of abortion in Texas . The right to make a choice of legal abortion was what was won with the privacy issue..preventing barring via state law, which is why this proposal however creative it's packaged ain't got a chance of success.

[theHawk]

I was just going to say, what happened to "letting the people decide!"?

Liberals abhor the idea of letting the people actualy decide on abortion. As long as we have liberals in Congress and in the courts, they'll never let the people have any say in abortion laws.

[johnney]

I was just going to say, what happened to "letting the people decide!"?
those people who want to do your thinking for you because, you know, you dont know how to do it for yourself and therefore should be making this type of decision.

[-Cp]

I guess this means that the birth control pill will be outlawed in ND too since the pill can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg which would technically be murder if this amazingly stupid legislation passes.

Are you really that dumb?

[DannyR]

Liberals abhor the idea of letting the people actualy decide on abortion.

No, you can vote and decide all you want to when it comes to 2nd and 3rd trimesters. Thats what Roe v Wade allows. 1st trimester however its up to the woman and her doctor what is allowed.

[DannyR]

Are you really that dumb?Why don't you avoid the insults and actually consider what he said. How is taking a pill that ultimately kills a fertilized egg any different than having an abortion? If the definition of a human being with full legal rights is a fertilized egg, then he's quite correct that many birth control methods could be banned.

[Mr. P]

Are you really that dumb?

Are you really that blind? Or is it naive? Remember the druggists that refused to fill birth control scripts a few yrs back? There's no end to the control over people that some folks seek.

Be careful with that soap in the shower CP, you may be charged as a serial killer someday. :eek:

[Yurt]

Why don't you avoid the insults and actually consider what he said. How is taking a pill that ultimately kills a fertilized egg any different than having an abortion? If the definition of a human being with full legal rights is a fertilized egg, then he's quite correct that many birth control methods could be banned.

and you're free of insults :poke:

pot/kettle

[DannyR]

and you're free of insults pot/kettlePlease post examples please. I think you'll find that I've never insulted anyone on this board directly.

What I have done is portrayed certain folk (unnamed) as idiots, and if you choose to associate with them then I guess that includes you. But I never directly attack anyone as I've seen you frequently do me.

[Missileman]

Are you really that dumb?

If a fertilized egg is a human being, then anything that is done to cause its death is a crime right?

[bullypulpit]

Awesome!!!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/18/north-dakota-house-gives-fertilized-eggs-human-status/

BISMARCK, N.D. -- 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.

The bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended abortion rights nationwide, supporters of the legislation said.

Representatives voted 51-41 to approve the measure Tuesday. It now moves to the North Dakota Senate for its review.

Awesome stupidity. If fertilized eggs are humans, any fertilized egg which fails to implant as a result of birth control will be a murder...whether its from oral contraceptives or IUD's. Following that logic, all birth control which would interfere with implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterine wall must be banned. essentially, leaving condoms and diaphragms as the only methods. Unless interfering with the fertilization is viewed as interference in creation of a human being and these methods are to be banned as well.

Take a good look and tell me which is human....

<center><img src=http://www.advancedfertility.com/images/8_cell.jpg></center>

<center><img src=http://www.atlas.or.kr/donation/donation_files/DSCN1092.jpg></center>

(sorry...got carried away with the ignorance displayed in the opening post. posted before I read down further.)

[bullypulpit]

and you're free of insults :poke:

pot/kettle

Stop trying to change the subject.


Why don't you avoid the insults and actually consider what he said. How is taking a pill that ultimately kills a fertilized egg any different than having an abortion? If the definition of a human being with full legal rights is a fertilized egg, then he's quite correct that many birth control methods could be banned.

Answer the question...please.

[PostmodernProphet]

No, you can vote and decide all you want to when it comes to 2nd and 3rd trimesters. Thats what Roe v Wade allows. 1st trimester however its up to the woman and her doctor what is allowed.

and in North Dakota, the child has a say in what happens as well, since like the woman and her doctor, he's a human being with rights....

[PostmodernProphet]

There's no end to the control over people that some folks seek.


true....I've even heard some argue they ought to have the right to kill people before they are even born......now THAT'S control over people.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Be careful with that soap in the shower CP, you may be charged as a serial killer someday. :eek:

now I will grant they have an argument about the fertilized egg, but that's just fucking stupid....it really pisses me off when a pro-baby killer demonstrates that callous a disregard for biology......

[PostmodernProphet]

If a fertilized egg is a human being, then anything that is done to cause its death is a crime right?

a bit more problematic regarding evidence than the cases where the fetus is chopped up into tiny bits and they try to flush it down a drain.......though, I don't expect you will see this strawman turned into anything real people will pay attention to.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Answer the question...please.

sure, it's a strawman designed to retain your rights to commit homicide......

[Missileman]

a bit more problematic regarding evidence than the cases where the fetus is chopped up into tiny bits and they try to flush it down a drain.......though, I don't expect you will see this strawman turned into anything real people will pay attention to.....

You couldn't recognize a strawman if it crawled out your ass. My argument is not a strawman.

[PostmodernProphet]

You couldn't recognize a strawman if it crawled out your ass. My argument is not a strawman.
/yawn.....

for once you might get valid use out of the liberal "privacy" argument.....in order to obtain a prosecution for murder against a person using contraceptives you would need to invade the privacy of their homes....good luck getting a search warrant to find evidence of contraception based upon reasonable likelihood of the perp engaging in protected sex.......on the other hand, evidence of a Planned Parenthood chopshop wouldn't be protected by privacy issues......

personally, I would say that arguing a law granting human being status for the unborn will lead to bans against contraception is about as close to the classic definition of "strawman" as you can get without actually experiencing intense itching under your flannel shirt......

[Mr. P]

/yawn.....

for once you might get valid use out of the liberal "privacy" argument.....in order to obtain a prosecution for murder against a person using contraceptives you would need to invade the privacy of their homes....good luck getting a search warrant to find evidence of contraception based upon reasonable likelihood of the perp engaging in protected sex.......on the other hand, evidence of a Planned Parenthood chopshop wouldn't be protected by privacy issues......

personally, I would say that arguing a law granting human being status for the unborn will lead to bans against contraception is about as close to the classic definition of "strawman" as you can get without actually experiencing intense itching under your flannel shirt......

You would lose that argument.
Both you and CP have conveniently forgotten the druggists that refused to fill birth control scripts a few yrs back?

[The ClayTaurus]

If a fertilized egg is a human being, then anything that is done to cause its death is a crime right?Don't expect a meaningful answer. CP is more uninterested in engaging in a meaningful debate with someone having an opposing viewpoint than ANYONE I've seen on this board.

[The ClayTaurus]

Liberals abhor the idea of letting the people actualy decide on abortion. As long as we have liberals in Congress and in the courts, they'll never let the people have any say in abortion laws.So... liberals are to blame in North Dakota?

[PostmodernProphet]

You would lose that argument.
Both you and CP have conveniently forgotten the druggists that refused to fill birth control scripts a few yrs back?

no, I would NOT lose that argument......claiming the government is going to make contraceptives illegal smells of chaff.......why do you fear the thought of someone taking away your right to kill children?......

[Mr. P]

no, I would NOT lose that argument......claiming the government is going to make contraceptives illegal smells of chaff.......why do you fear the thought of someone taking away your right to kill children?......

Those druggist didn't work for the Gov.

I fear any group that wants to take any of my rights. Don't you?

[PostmodernProphet]

Those druggist didn't work for the Gov.

I fear any group that wants to take any of my rights. Don't you?

nope, I don't fear a group that wants to take away my right to kill children.......I applaud them.....

[Missileman]

personally, I would say that arguing a law granting human being status for the unborn will lead to bans against contraception is about as close to the classic definition of "strawman" as you can get without actually experiencing intense itching under your flannel shirt......

As I said, you have no clue what a strawman is. If anything I posed a "slippery slope" argument, but one with merit.

[Mr. P]

nope, I don't fear a group that wants to take away my right to kill children.......I applaud them.....

As I said those druggist didn't work for the Gov.

[PostmodernProphet]

As I said those druggist didn't work for the Gov.

???.....and that somehow makes your strawman MORE plausible?.....

[bullypulpit]

Awesome stupidity. If fertilized eggs are humans, any fertilized egg which fails to implant as a result of birth control will be a murder...whether its from oral contraceptives or IUD's. Following that logic, all birth control which would interfere with implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterine wall must be banned. essentially, leaving condoms and diaphragms as the only methods. Unless interfering with the fertilization is viewed as interference in creation of a human being and these methods are to be banned as well.

Take a good look and tell me which is human....

<center><img src=http://www.advancedfertility.com/images/8_cell.jpg></center>

<center><img src=http://www.atlas.or.kr/donation/donation_files/DSCN1092.jpg></center>

(sorry...got carried away with the ignorance displayed in the opening post. posted before I read down further.)

What? No takers? No surprise there. :coffee:

[Mr. P]

What? No takers? No surprise there. :coffee:

Just on the pic alone...the top looks like fish or frog eggs.

So I'll GUESS the bottom one.

Or maybe there both human Donno.

[Mr. P]

???.....and that somehow makes your strawman MORE plausible?.....

I have no strawman..ever heard of "Blue Laws"? A group imposing their belief of what others should and shouldn't do imposed by the force of Gov.

This legislation is nothing more than the same.

[Missileman]

I have no strawman..ever heard of "Blue Laws"? A group imposing their belief of what others should and shouldn't do imposed by the force of Gov.

This legislation is nothing more than the same.

Pay no attention to PMP...has absolutely no idea what a strawman is.

[PostmodernProphet]

I have no strawman..ever heard of "Blue Laws"? A group imposing their belief of what others should and shouldn't do imposed by the force of Gov.

This legislation is nothing more than the same.

so any attempt to keep you from killing children is an attempt to enforce Blue Laws?......seems to me that a law letting you kill children is a Black Law....

[PostmodernProphet]

Pay no attention to PMP...has absolutely no idea what a strawman is.

you know, I think you actually believe that simply asserting you are smarter than me gains you points in the debate.....that's probably the reason you never win them......

[PostmodernProphet]

Pay no attention to PMP...has absolutely no idea what a strawman is.

you know, I think you actually believe that simply asserting you are smarter than me gains you points in the debate.....that's probably the reason you never win them......

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent"

for example, some idiot might misrepresent the argument that you should be prevented from killing children as a secret attempt to prevent contraceptives.....

[Missileman]

you know, I think you actually believe that simply asserting you are smarter than me gains you points in the debate.....that's probably the reason you never win them......

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent"

for example, some idiot might misrepresent the argument that you should be prevented from killing children as a secret attempt to prevent contraceptives.....

Right dumbshit! Now post the argument of yours that mine superficially resembles.

[PostmodernProphet]

Right dumbshit! Now post the argument of yours that mine superficially resembles.

it's in the post you quoted....already done for you....

[Mr. P]

you know, I think you actually believe that simply asserting you are smarter than me gains you points in the debate.....that's probably the reason you never win them......

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent"

for example, some idiot might misrepresent the argument that you should be prevented from killing children as a secret attempt to prevent contraceptives.....

:laugh2: How about the idiot who wants to legislate that a persons life begins at X without any proof or consideration of biological process?

How about the idiot that will follow the above and claim babies are being killed because you jack-off instead of planting that seed?

How about the idiot who thinks sex is ONLY for procreation and birth control should be illegal?

Yea, their all OUT there..here too I think.

You don't have a problem with these idiots taking your right to privacy away, or intruding in your private life so be it. I do!

[Missileman]

it's in the post you quoted....already done for you....

My argument preceeded yours, idiot!

[bullypulpit]

Just on the pic alone...the top looks like fish or frog eggs.

So I'll GUESS the bottom one.

Or maybe there both human Donno.

The top photo is a human egg, the bottom, that of a roundworm. A human egg IS NOT a human being...not by any tortured stretch of the imagination. A human egg has the POTENTIAL to become a human being, nothing more. Those who would argue otherwise are more concerned about the egg that the woman who would be forced to carry it to term in their dim, dark, medieval world. A world in which women are nothing more than baby-making machines. A world in which they, not women or anyone else for that matter, can gainsay them.

[bullypulpit]

so any attempt to keep you from killing children is an attempt to enforce Blue Laws?......seems to me that a law letting you kill children is a Black Law....

Pssst...Gotta newsflash for ya. A fertilized egg isn't a child.

[PostmodernProphet]

What? No takers? No surprise there. :coffee:

so tell me Bully.....are you under the opinion that a biological scientist with access to both cell clusters could NOT tell if one or both or neither was human?.....because if you are, your dogma is not scientific.....

[PostmodernProphet]

:laugh2: How about the idiot who wants to legislate that a persons life begins at X without any proof or consideration of biological process?


there is nothing incongruous between science and this legislation.....since biology cannot define when "human being"-ness occurs, having legislation define it is not scientific.....it is simply a step toward resolving that metaphysical concept that troubles Bully and others.....



How about the idiot that will follow the above and claim babies are being killed because you jack-off instead of planting that seed?

How about the idiot who thinks sex is ONLY for procreation and birth control should be illegal?


the only evidence of that variety of "idiot" that has appeared in this thread was been the liberal variety of "idiot".....




You don't have a problem with these idiots taking your right to privacy away, or intruding in your private life so be it. I do!

I have a problem with liberals who address a logical solution to a difficult problem by saying there are secret conspiracies to use that solution to take away rights that have nothing to do with the issue......

you idiots have spent this thread NOT dealing with the issue of when a person becomes a human being, but with irrelevant issues of birth control and the arguments about the methods of debate......your diversions are a waste of time....nobody has taken your fucking privacy away, nobody has asserted any "blue laws"....there are provisions of the constitution and law that protect you from both.....declaring that a fetus is a human being has NOT touched your constitutional or legal rights......it has simply done something that you and other liberals dread....given rights to someone you don't want to have rights.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Pssst...Gotta newsflash for ya. A fertilized egg isn't a child.


sorry, I don't accept your dogma.....now, if you had scientific evidence of that I might pay attention....meanwhile, in North Dakota, a fertilized egg IS a child....not according to science, not according to dogma.....according to law.....now we have nothing more to argue about.....and when the child murderers try to claim that it's nothing more than a parasite we can say, sorry.....by law, it's a child......one more pro-child killing argument bites the dust.....

[bullypulpit]

so tell me Bully.....are you under the opinion that a biological scientist with access to both cell clusters could NOT tell if one or both or neither was human?.....because if you are, your dogma is not scientific.....

Well, golly...Ya got me there. The number of genes in each nucleus would give away its nature. But it seems we need to review definitions again.

<blockquote>
Main Entry: <b>dog·ma</b>
Pronunciation: \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s):
Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem — more at decent
Date: 1638

<b>1 a:</b> something held as an established opinion ; especially : a definite authoritative tenet <b>b:</b> a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> <b>c:</b> a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative <b><i>without adequate grounds</i></b><b>2:</b> a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church</blockquote>

Notice, "without adequate grounds"...That would be your stance, absent any other support beyond being rooted in religious doctrine. A fertilized human egg is not a human being. Please note that "Human" and "Being" both reflect life <i>ex utero</i>. But no amount of evidence will convince you. You, not I, are the slave of dogma. You are a true believer wearing the blinkers of your belief which narrow your vision to the point that you can barely see what is before you. You have my sympathy.

[PostmodernProphet]

Notice, "without adequate grounds"...That would be your stance,

and yours....unless of course you've been hiding some scientific evidence in your pocket....if so, nows the time to shake it out......it's not as if your position is some sort of "default" mode.....

all North Dakota has done is said, since science cannot provide us with a solution and the issue needs to be resolved, here is the resolution....by law, a fetus IS a human being.....

[PostmodernProphet]

if there were to be a "default" mode, it would work against you....if we have to make assumptions about whether this is a human being or not, whether it is something we can kill or something we can't, we ought to opt for the decision that we cannot kill it unless we KNOW scientifically we can.....that in fact was the "default" until Roe v Wade said, "we're going to let you kill it"....they did not do so on the basis of scientific fact, they did so on the basis of an arbitrary choice.......now, North Dakota has altered that choice.......

[Mr. P]

there is nothing incongruous between science and this legislation.....since biology cannot define when "human being"-ness occurs, having legislation define it is not scientific.....it is simply a step toward resolving that metaphysical concept that troubles Bully and others.....



the only evidence of that variety of "idiot" that has appeared in this thread was been the liberal variety of "idiot".....




I have a problem with liberals who address a logical solution to a difficult problem by saying there are secret conspiracies to use that solution to take away rights that have nothing to do with the issue......

you idiots have spent this thread NOT dealing with the issue of when a person becomes a human being, but with irrelevant issues of birth control and the arguments about the methods of debate......your diversions are a waste of time....nobody has taken your fucking privacy away, nobody has asserted any "blue laws"....there are provisions of the constitution and law that protect you from both.....declaring that a fetus is a human being has NOT touched your constitutional or legal rights......it has simply done something that you and other liberals dread....given rights to someone you don't want to have rights.....

You are so full of shit. A clump of cells days after fertilization is NOT a someone. I believe it has been you who carried this thread off topic and into the typical abortion debate.

Your arguments are so weak you have resorted to insinuating I support baby killing and I'm a liberal. Pretty sad, PMP. I expect no less from a hard core control freak though..no substance just "I believe" and "you should because" crap.

You have no real idea what my position on abortion is and most likely never will. Speculate all ya want.

[PostmodernProphet]

A clump of cells days after fertilization is NOT a someone.
obviously, since you have no science to prove that it is nothing more than your opinion.....whether it is my opinion instead of yours that is full of shit, is also nothing more than your opinion....



I believe it has been you who carried this thread off topic and into the typical abortion debate.


if you think that abortion is "off topic" to this thread, you're an idiot....



Your arguments are so weak you have resorted to insinuating I support baby killing and I'm a liberal
if you don't want to kill babies, why are you so worried that someone will legally identify that which you want to kill as a baby?......you ought to simply say, "Oh, I can't kill any of those anymore, because now they are legally babies".....instead, you object to someone legally identifying them as babies so you can continue to kill them.....the logic is infallible.......and I never said you were a liberal, I said you wanted to kill babies......true, liberals do want to kill babies, but maybe you want to kill them for other reasons.....

[PostmodernProphet]

You have no real idea what my position on abortion is and most likely never will. Speculate all ya want.
so end the speculation.....come out and say that women should not be allowed to kill their children.....

[Mr. P]

so end the speculation.....come out and say that women should not be allowed to kill their children.....

Show me that a clump a cells days old is a child and I'll post an opinion..until then I'm tired of yer circular BS. Go play with someone else. This is a serious issue you obviously have no intention or capability to "discuss".

[PostmodernProphet]

Show me that a clump a cells days old is a child and I'll post an opinion..until then I'm tired of yer circular BS. Go play with someone else. This is a serious issue you obviously have no intention or capability to "discuss".

it isn't a matter of opinion anymore, it's a matter of law, at least in North Dakota.....the clump of cells IS a child.....yet you object.....the only reason you should object is because you want to continue killing them, neh?.......

[PostmodernProphet]

Here is another question for folks to ponder......since all states are required to give "full faith and credit" to the laws of other states (an argument much favored by liberals relating to gay marriage), then must abortion clinics in all 50 states be required to obtain an affidavit from their clients that the child to be killed was not conceived in North Dakota, where it is a human being and may not be deprived of life without due process?.....

if a pregnant woman drives through North Dakota, is her unborn attorned with status as human being, even after she crosses the state line?.....in other words, will the other 49 states be required to acknowledge that by becoming a human being while in North Dakota, it cannot be stripped of that status by arriving in Montana?.....

[Mr. P]

it isn't a matter of opinion anymore, it's a matter of law, at least in North Dakota.....the clump of cells IS a child.....yet you object.....the only reason you should object is because you want to continue killing them, neh?.......

It's not law.My guess is it will never be law.

[Missileman]

It's not law.My guess is it will never be law.

PMP's got a serious problem with time...he can't go more than a couple posts without propelling something into the future erroneously.

[Yurt]

Here is another question for folks to ponder......since all states are required to give "full faith and credit" to the laws of other states (an argument much favored by liberals relating to gay marriage), then must abortion clinics in all 50 states be required to obtain an affidavit from their clients that the child to be killed was not conceived in North Dakota, where it is a human being and may not be deprived of life without due process?.....

if a pregnant woman drives through North Dakota, is her unborn attorned with status as human being, even after she crosses the state line?.....in other words, will the other 49 states be required to acknowledge that by becoming a human being while in North Dakota, it cannot be stripped of that status by arriving in Montana?.....

isn't full faith and credit about contracts, judgments....not other states laws, for example certain states have different crimes for qualifiers, the state you come from or domiciled may consider X crime the qualifier that gives you more time, however, you go to state Y and commit a crime they cannot give you state X's qualifier, they are bound by state Y law.

so in the instant case, i don't think the other states would be bound.

[bullypulpit]

it isn't a matter of opinion anymore, it's a matter of law, at least in North Dakota.....the clump of cells IS a child.....yet you object.....the only reason you should object is because you want to continue killing them, neh?.......

No, it's not, and no amount of wishful thinking on your part will make it otherwise. At the most basic level, ALL animal life starts at conception, but that fertilized egg only represents the potential that gestation may bring to actualization. Until the animal is viable outside the egg/womb, the point is moot.

But mired in religious dogma as you are, you cannot accept this. You keep wishing it to be otherwise just as when children indulge in magical thinking in hopes of achieving their desires. But then, religion is nothing more than the magical thinking of children run amok in the hands of adults.

[bullypulpit]

What's the matter, PMP? Did your circular logic finally collapse on itself, striking you on the head and rendering you mute, as it fell?

[PostmodernProphet]

since you didn't say anything new, I didn't see any reason to comment.....you're down to repeating yourself, and it wasn't worth that much the first time around.....

[PostmodernProphet]

No, it's not

/shrugs....why do you think my opinion is "dogma" and yours isn't?......

[bullypulpit]

since you didn't say anything new, I didn't see any reason to comment.....you're down to repeating yourself, and it wasn't worth that much the first time around.....

Repetition in a vain attempt to batter down the wall of dogma you've erected around yourself. None are so blind as those who will not see...and you're about as blind as they come.