I hope they prosecute God for all those miscarriages he performs every year.

Considering the state doesn't prosecute God when people die of natural causes, I'd say He's safe.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - What a woman does with her body is up to her, her family, her doctor and her spititual leader.

I also have no problem with a woman doing as she pleases with her own body. What she does to another though, I have a problem with.

I'm personally don't agree...but...I believe in states rights. I just will not be living in ND or any other state that passes this type of legislation.

I agree with the Oklahoma legislation. Abortion based on gender would IMHO be akin to murder because of it's aspect of targeting termination based on fetus attributes rather than not wanting a child as the reason for termination.
I guess termination based on genetic abnormality also fits that description. That could be a hole in my argument. Tough call.

.

We ought to really get a betting pool going on how long it will be before this is standing tall in the SCOTUS on the Super Fast Track.

There is no way this will go more than several weeks without some major players jumping all manner of bones to get this quashed.

It will be interesting in any event.

.

(02-19-2009 11:16 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I agree with the Oklahoma legislation. Abortion based on gender would IMHO be akin to murder because of it's aspect of targeting termination based on fetus attributes rather than not wanting a child as the reason for termination.
I guess termination based on genetic abnormality also fits that description. That could be a hole in my argument. Tough call.

You must be confering life and rights to the first example, gender based, to call that murder. If the same woman simply says she doesn't want a child, how do you deny the same considerations?

(02-19-2009 11:41 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-19-2009 11:16 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I agree with the Oklahoma legislation. Abortion based on gender would IMHO be akin to murder because of it's aspect of targeting termination based on fetus attributes rather than not wanting a child as the reason for termination.
I guess termination based on genetic abnormality also fits that description. That could be a hole in my argument. Tough call.

You must be confering life and rights to the first example, gender based, to call that murder. If the same woman simply says she doesn't want a child, how do you deny the same considerations?

Oh..Absolutely the slope gets very slippery on this one. I guess my opinion is based on the feeling that the gender based abortion would not be based on the desire NOT to have a child...but...the desire to have a child of a particular gender. The mother fully intended to have a child at conception in this instance and is really using science as a means of a type of eugenics.

I have NO opinion either way on the "instant" of conception..since science has not proven it to me conclusively. My opinion is based on a BS morality of my own...I fully admit it.

Then the mother should be prosecuted if a miscarriage or still-born happens. No more double-standards with health-care. How do you like it now North Dakota?

I'm just pointing out the other side of the coin.

This should not be law. They should have just left Roe v. Wade alone.

R v W should never have existed. This should be up to each state to decide. Then as Fo said, people can decide where to live. And I have no idea what kind of coin you have that the other side looks like that. Are they minting Loonies now?

[quote='RockyMtnRamfan' pid='4008679' dateline='1235111471']
Then the mother should be prosecuted if a miscarriage or still-born happens. No more double-standards with health-care. How do you like it now North Dakota?

I'm just pointing out the other side of the coin. [/qyote]

You are? Because this really makes no sense.

Quote:This should not be law. They should have just left Roe v. Wade alone.

Why? What gives you the right to kill 1.6M* innocent people, each year?

*It may be down to 1.2-1.4M these days. Lucky us.

.

Stay focused here guys ....

This is not about Women's Rights or any Citizens Rights - - this is 1000% about Life Being Worthless and both ends of the Spectrum and thus, discardable.

And we know this for a fact now from within the Obami Sh'tulus Packages Health Section and Tom Dachshund's stupid mouth foaming, that "Old People need to get a grip, saddled up, STFU, and suffer the Diseases Of Growing Old".

They will be coming for the Middle of the Spectrum Next ......

UH OOOOOH !!!!! THERE HERRRRRRREEEEE ......

.

(02-19-2009 11:05 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I've said it before and I'll say it again - What a woman does with her body is up to her, her family, her doctor and her spititual leader.

Here's how reproduction works: A woman conceives, then a new human forms inside her womb, with its own body. And that's the way reproduction works.

(02-20-2009 03:44 PM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  

(02-19-2009 11:05 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I've said it before and I'll say it again - What a woman does with her body is up to her, her family, her doctor and her spititual leader.

Here's how reproduction works: A woman conceives, then a new human forms inside her womb, with its own body. And that's the way reproduction works.

Thanks for the lesson. What's your point?

(02-20-2009 11:27 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  [quote='RockyMtnRamfan' pid='4008679' dateline='1235111471']
Then the mother should be prosecuted if a miscarriage or still-born happens. No more double-standards with health-care. How do you like it now North Dakota?

I'm just pointing out the other side of the coin. [/qyote]

You are? Because this really makes no sense.

Quote:This should not be law. They should have just left Roe v. Wade alone.

Why? What gives you the right to kill 1.6M* innocent people, each year?

*It may be down to 1.2-1.4M these days. Lucky us.

So how many of those unwanted innocent people have you adopted? What happens to these unwanted innocent people get to the age of 18 and nobody has adopted them(usually minority and those with disabilities)? Many will go on welfare and/or live out on the streets. If there is no welfare these people will end up on the street and many end up in prison costing tax payer a ton of money which you don't want to spend. How about if we keep abortion legal and try to get unwanted pregnancies down by using ALL available means like education by teaching sex education AND abstinance with abortion as the last resort.

(02-21-2009 02:56 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-20-2009 11:27 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  [quote='RockyMtnRamfan' pid='4008679' dateline='1235111471']
Then the mother should be prosecuted if a miscarriage or still-born happens. No more double-standards with health-care. How do you like it now North Dakota?

I'm just pointing out the other side of the coin. [/qyote]

You are? Because this really makes no sense.

Quote:This should not be law. They should have just left Roe v. Wade alone.

Why? What gives you the right to kill 1.6M* innocent people, each year?

*It may be down to 1.2-1.4M these days. Lucky us.

So how many of those unwanted innocent people have you adopted? What happens to these unwanted innocent people get to the age of 18 and nobody has adopted them(usually minority and those with disabilities)? Many will go on welfare and/or live out on the streets. If there is no welfare these people will end up on the street and many end up in prison costing tax payer a ton of money which you don't want to spend. How about if we keep abortion legal and try to get unwanted pregnancies down by using ALL available means like education by teaching sex education AND abstinance with abortion as the last resort.

Yes...We know how well teaching abstinence works.
I advocate doing what I did with my daughter...Talk freely and openly about sex at puberty...and then take them to a physician and put them on the pill. I firmly believe in protection against one's own stupidity. The idea the this would suddenly make a girl promiscuous is a fallacy. Young people are not stupid. If you treat them like an adult, most of the time they respond like one.

(02-19-2009 11:16 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I agree with the Oklahoma legislation. Abortion based on gender would IMHO be akin to murder because of it's aspect of targeting termination based on fetus attributes rather than not wanting a child as the reason for termination.

Damn straight. Trying to perform an abortion on a man is tantamount to abortion.

Allowing the choice of abortion is the largest tax saving measure every proposed by Government. If those that ***** and complain about the Gov't taking their tax $'s every figured that out I'd be surprised.

.

I am just sorry that "Obama Mama" didn't choose to Abort.

Quote:Allowing the choice of abortion is the largest tax saving measure every proposed by Government. If those that ***** and complain about the Gov't taking their tax $'s every figured that out I'd be surprised.

And so will "Killing off the Sick Elderly and the Genetically Imperfect under the Natural Selection Laws of Euthanasia" ...... I mean it is in the 'Sh'tulus Package' after all, so it just HAS TO BE RIGHT.

.

(02-21-2009 03:34 PM)Tripster Wrote:  .

I am just sorry that "Obama Mama" didn't choose to Abort.

Quote:Allowing the choice of abortion is the largest tax saving measure every proposed by Government. If those that ***** and complain about the Gov't taking their tax $'s every figured that out I'd be surprised.

And so will "Killing off the Sick Elderly and the Genetically Imperfect under the Natural Selection Laws of Euthanasia" ...... I mean it is in the 'Sh'tulus Package' after all, so it just HAS TO BE RIGHT.

.

So if you were in terrible pain and were going to die in a few months(or less), you would want to continue to live just because you believe Jesus will save your sorry ass? Not a chance. I don't think "genetically imperfect" should be killed(hey, I don't want you killed-just to get help for your mental problems) but I can see where there could be cases one can make a case for.