who supports right to choose

[rodriguezequal 3]

I say pro-life...because that is what most of them wish to be called. I say pro-coice for those who believe it should be legal. I do not say anti-choice or pro-abortion. You don't see pro-choicers standing in front of churchs protesting or calling pro-lifers murders for the deaths they will cause, by making abortions illegal, of women who will die in labor or who will lose their lives...those who, forced to have an unwanted baby, will die emotionally, financially, mentally, or even physically. Either side can swing things to their views...I just think child killing is a term that is obviously to make their side sound better...but whatever. It is what it is

[green 6]

Well, I am relieved that my reproductive days are long gone.

[green 6]

But, North Dakota is real close to Canada. Guess we'll be seeing a lot of pregnant women in distress, eh?

[Carrie_C 9]

I'm glad I don't live in North Dakota. It's bad enough living in Tennessee.

[gadgetlady 4]

Well, I am relieved that my reproductive days are long gone.

I wish mine were LOL! I'm awfully tired of the whole thing. I hope, within the next 5 years . . .

[gadgetlady 4]

I think you guys are missing the point. This will be challenged and will make its way up the court system -- that is the ultimate goal of it, not to affect abortion in North Dakota, but nationwide. It is intended to challenge the Blackmun hole in Roe v. Wade, whereby Justice Blackmun (writing for the majority) said that if the personhood of the unborn could be established, abortion would have to be made illegal.

[rodriguezequal 3]

That is why I think it is sad. I did not miss the point. It is disgustingly sad that people have to control everyone's rights just because of their beliefs!

[BJean 16]

Yes, this challenge of Roe v. Wade is just what the anti-choice (calling a spade a spade) people have been after for a long time. Of course I don't think that it's a done deal yet, is it? The Supreme Court hasn't decided to hear the case, have they?

To many of us, a lawsuit like this is a colossal waste of taxpayer money. The basis of this challenge - that a fertilized egg is a person, has a soul and all that, is assinine. That just doesn't work on so many very obvious levels.

Btw, indiscriminately calling abortion "child killing" is not calling a spade a spade. It's using an inflammatory label that is not necessarily accurate, and it is done like rodriguez said, merely to try to further the anti-choice cause (by trying to generate negative emotions).

[gadgetlady 4]

Please try to understand: pro-lifers have no desire to control other people in the sense that we wish to curtail their freedom and their rights. I'm all for freedom in a myriad of ways.

We just do not consider the ability to kill one's child a "right", just as the ability to abuse one's toddler isn't a "right", the ability to maim one's sponse isn't a "right", the ability to own a slave isn't a "right", etc. So the only "control" we desire is the cessation of one person's killing another.

[gadgetlady 4]

Yes, this challenge of Roe v. Wade is just what the anti-choice (calling a spade a spade) people have been after for a long time. Of course I don't think that it's a done deal yet, is it? The Supreme Court hasn't decided to hear the case, have they?

LOL! - There's not even a "case" yet - the law was just passed. But if the Supreme Court doesn't decide to hear it, that's just fine; I'd be happy to see the law stand in North Dakota as other states' amendments are forthcoming as well.

The basis of this challenge - that a fertilized egg is a person, has a soul and all that

I don't believe I heard anyone say anything about a soul.

Btw, indiscriminately calling abortion "child killing" is not calling a spade a spade. It's using an inflammatory label that is not necessarily accurate, and it is done like rodriguez said, merely to try to further the anti-choice cause (by trying to generate negative emotions).

And saying "anti-choice" isn't trying to generate negative emotions or using an inflammatory label? I am not ever against choice except when the choice interferes with another human being's right to live.

Interestingly, there are many Middle Eastern countries that legally treat women as property. It is the husband's "choice" to beat or kill their wives. Is someone "anti-CHOICE" if they think a man shouldn't be able to CHOOSE to kill his wife? Is everything that is legal, just? And you can't say that that's a different situation, that it's obvious that women aren't property and therefore shouldn't be treated as such, because it's not obvious to THEM.

As a country founded in law, we should base our laws on facts, not on religion or feelings or emotions. When a person is conceived, he or she is a member of the human race. That is precisely what the personhood amendment states.

[rodriguezequal 3]

That's kind of funny because science is 100% positive that when you beat a toddler they feel the pain...however, science has not proved that the growing fetus/embryo feels anything...maybe that is where the difference is...hmmm. I'm also sure that spouses and slaves feel pain...

[gadgetlady 4]

The ability to feel pain isn't what makes us human. Otherwise it should be perfectly legal to kill someone so long as they're anesthetized.

[rodriguezequal 3]

I'm sorry...where in my post did I say that..? I just said the difference was that there was no pain. I didn't say therefore they're not human or therefore we can kill people if they can't feel..I just stated a point, that's all

[gadgetlady 4]

There are differences in all stages of life. Newborns can't feed themselves. Toddlers can't read Tolstoy. Pre-teens can't reproduce. Fetuses can't speak. Senior citizens can't hear as well as younger people. Paraplegics can't feel pain in certain parts of their bodies. We are all in different stages of life and we all have different abilities. We are, nevertheless, all human.

I am not against wife-beating or wife-murder because wives can feel pain. If the husbands got them drunk and made them pass out before killing them, I would still be against it. I'm against it because it is a violation of their basic human rights.

Similarly, I am not against slave-ownership because slaves can feel pain. I am against it because it is a violation of their basic human rights.

I am not against abortion because the babies may or may not feel pain (certainly the late-term babies do, and if you've ever seen videos of ultrasounds being performed during early abortions, where the baby is trying to escape the suction mechanism, you'd probably wonder if those babies could also, indeed, feel pain). I'm against it because it's a violation of their basic human rights.

[rodriguezequal 3]

Yeah and out of all those stages of life all of them feel pain except for one...hmm. Oh and I have read articles where it says that abortion is not painful for the fetus. I am not pro choice because they don't feel pain. I am pro choice because it is not the body and life of everyone else...it is the body and the life of the woman carrying the embryo/fetus. I am against making it illegal because it isn't anyone elses choice to make...It is not your life that suffers...it is not your body it is not you mentality or you life that is ruined...