Personhood starts at conception (1 Viewer)

[katie tully]

North Dakota lawmakers vote that 'personhood' starts at conception | World Breaking News | News.com.au

NORTH Dakota has become the first US state to move towards passing a law that defines "personhood" as starting at the moment of conception, which would effectively outlaw abortion, pro-life groups said.
Lawmakers in the North Dakota lower house voted 51 to 41 on Tuesday to pass the Personhood of Children Act, which confers the same basic rights on "all human beings from the beginning of their biological development, including the pre-born, partially born."

"This is the first state legislature that has actually acted in a positive way" on a personhood law, Judie Brown, president of the American Life League (ALL), said.

"As of today there are 19 states that have laws proposed, but no other state has got this far," she said.

Voters in Colorado rejected by three-to-one a personhood amendment to their state constitution in a referendum in November.

The North Dakota Bill is expected to go before the state senate in around two weeks.

If passed, it would be used to challenge the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe versus Wade decision, which legalised abortion in the US and gave the country some of the least restrictive abortion laws in the world, experts said.

Roe v Wade states that women have the absolute right to terminate a pregnancy during the first three months and a qualified right to do so up to six months.

Personhood laws are crafted to challenge Roe v Wade and return the decision-making process on whether or not abortion is legal to the states, Brian Rooney of the Thomas More Law Centre said.

"The purpose of these laws is to challenge Roe v Wade. Once Roe v Wade is overturned, it doesn't mean abortion is illegal in all 50 states but it says that the states decide what to do with abortion,'' Mr Rooney said.

Excellent precedence has been set.

 

[jb_nc]

Government up in ur face

Deciding what you can and cannot do

Sounds great

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Excellent precedence has been set.

Quite. Abortion would be pretty fantastic if there was some accurate way of pinpointing when something was or was not a human. There is not. It is therefore not safe to actively terminate a pregnancy at any point throughout the pregnancy. I think this law is good. ^_^

 

[sdent40]

Government up in ur face

Deciding what you can and cannot do

Sounds great

love it

 

[katie tully]

Quite. Abortion would be pretty fantastic if there was some accurate way of pinpointing when something was or was not a human. There is not. It is therefore not safe to actively terminate a pregnancy at any point throughout the pregnancy. I think this law is good. ^_^

It's just as safe, if not safer than most routine surgeries.

 

[Iron]

Aborshun is a tragedy

 

[SAVAK]

i support abortion up until 25 weeks.

 

[katie tully]

I support retrospective abortion in Neb's case.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

It's just as safe, if not safer than most routine surgeries.

I think you may have missed my point. I was referring to the life of a baby. If you set up arbitrary points at which something is or is not a human (first trimester, 6 months, four days etc) then there's every chance that the baby might be overdeveloped and past that point, and hence by your very own definitions, a human. This is not acceptable.

If there was some universally agreed upon point at which something (biologically) is or is not a human, and we could pinpoint this point exactly for each individual foetus, then I wouldn't have anything against abortion.

:jaw:

 

[SAVAK]

I dont understand why people are against abortion. must be the fudoo in you.

read my sig.

 

[SAVAK]

I think you may have missed my point. I was referring to the life of a baby. If you set up arbitrary points at which something is or is not a human (first trimester, 6 months, four days etc) then there's every chance that the baby might be overdeveloped and past that point, and hence by your very own definitions, a human. This is not acceptable.

If there was some universally agreed upon point at which something (biologically) is or is not a human, and we could pinpoint this point exactly for each individual foetus, then I wouldn't have anything against abortion.

:jaw:

even if the baby was human at 25 weeks id still approve an abortion if the mother wanted it. Why should the government interfere in such personal matters? if the mother wants to abort, the mother wants to abort. capiche?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I support retrospective abortion in Neb's case.

I support stapling the sides of your gaping vagina together to make sure you never get pregnant again, and fill this wonderful earth with moar of your hideous offspring.

 

[katie tully]

I make cute babies.

I'll address your other ridiculous point in a minute.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

even if the baby was human at 25 weeks id still approve an abortion if the mother wanted it. Why should the government interfere in such personal matters? if the mother wants to abort, the mother wants to abort. capiche?

Nah not really

 

[katie tully]

I think you may have missed my point. I was referring to the life of a baby. If you set up arbitrary points at which something is or is not a human (first trimester, 6 months, four days etc) then there's every chance that the baby might be overdeveloped and past that point, and hence by your very own definitions, a human. This is not acceptable.

If there was some universally agreed upon point at which something (biologically) is or is not a human, and we could pinpoint this point exactly for each individual foetus, then I wouldn't have anything against abortion.

:jaw:

Blah blah yap.

Either way Neb, even if we found a line at which we could no longer perform abortions, it wouldn't matter to you anyway because you're always going to try and argue that it's a hooman.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Blah blah yap.

Either way Neb, even if we found a line at which we could no longer perform abortions, it wouldn't matter to you anyway because you're always going to try and argue that it's a hooman.

Not if there was actually some kind of proof, biologically, that it wasn't.

As I had just conceded.

You moron.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Let's do this debate again

^_^

 

[katie tully]

Not if there was actually some kind of proof, biologically, that it wasn't.

As I had just conceded.

You moron.

What proof do you need.

Until it is viable enough to sustain life outside the uterus, independent of the well being of the mother ... I'm fairly sure we've been over this chuckle head.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Assuming we accept this, how do you propose we test this measure of yours?

 

[katie tully]

With a ruuuuuuuuuuler.

Or we create some babies in vivo!