Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Abotion Ilegal in North Dakota after 6 weeks

Posted 1 year ago on March 27, 2013, 9:57 a.m. EST by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

or when the fetes has a determinable heartbeat

21 Comments

21 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

I love it when a bunch of guys sit around and play political football with my gender.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

it's divisive by nature

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. Pretty simple. Stop using my uterus as a political football.

[-] -2 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

A couple of questions:

Do you believe that future medical capability or technology will alter the current position (political or medical) on when life actually begins (or fetal viability)?

And when that occurs, do you believe that the two opposings sides be willing to change their current position, and would the courts then follow with change also?

The right to choose (re: time limit) will someday be altered significantly through medical technology.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

For some.

I doubt it.

No, you see, my stance will remain that it I don't owe you a reason. Further, you will still have failed to eradicate the reasoning that many women do have abortions. There will still be abortions taking place but, you will not be able to offer safety.

[-] -2 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

Could you expand on the first two answers? On the third answer, I was not debating whether people will continue or not to have abortions, but rather medical technology will change the decision point of when one may choose to have the procedure or not. For example, in one hundred years, it may be viable for a fetus to survive outside the womb after 15 weeks. That could become the legal definition point for court rulings on abortion? And yes, I do agree that women will continue to abort (tragically) after any legal limit is set, for many reasons as you suggest. The decision stress would be higher due to less time to decide (legally).

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Technology changes, people do not. I give you: Todd Aiken in 2012 and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion%E2%80%93breast_cancer_hypothesis

So, if...........if.............if.......... Small chance. The country will not be run by doctors, the laws are not passed currently because of doctors nor will they be in the future. Therefore, there would be no reason for it to be altered in the courts due to technology. But, I'm sure that it could be bought.

So, in a 100 years some might change their stance. But, most probably will not.

[-] -3 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

I am not a pessimistic as you are. I believe people can change. If not, then we are doomed to remain as we are. I have to change and you will have to also. My hope is we elect real people to office, not politicians. Did not have to watch the video to know that Todd Aiken is an idiot, and will become a relic of the past. Am glad he is not from my state.

So here's a hypothetical question: current law has abortion restricted to first two trimesters. If scientific technology and findings happen to improve premature infants chances, let's say by 5 weeks, would you support movement of the definition point of legal abortion ? Or do we keep things as they are and end up with that tragic overlap, where upstairs they are born and downstairs they are not. This is something that will happen someday and should be out in the open and discussed.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Nope.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

That's it? Nothing else? A pity. So you don't believe that we all need to change? Then we will never ever progress, and remain exactly where we are, mired in the mud of partisan positions.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

I gave it to you in my first post. I don't owe you an explanation. Look, I want people to be better than they are in the future. I would hope that elected officials would be smarter in the future. I would hope that poverty would be eradicated in the future. I'm sure that they thought the same 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 3,000 years ago etc. Hence, the long history of aborticants.

[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

6 weeks is less time than a skipped period

the woman may not even know that she is pregnant

[-] -2 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

Who is talking about 6 weeks? I mentioned 15 weeks for an example, and if medical technology is advanced (per example) one would believe that a pregnancy test would be as well advanced also to provide earlier result. We are talking about 100 yrs into the future.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple signed bills Tuesday making the state's abortion laws the nation's most restrictive and setting the stage for what he called a U.S. Supreme Court challenge of "the boundaries of Roe v. Wade."

The bills bar abortions if a fetal heartbeat is heard, which can be six weeks into a pregnancy;

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/26/north-dakota-abortion-ban/2021215/

[-] -2 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

Eventually, it will be up to the scientists and the medical professionals to determine lbegining of life. Politicians and religious beliefs should not be the ones to decide when this occurs. Religious people can choose to believe otherwise, but not from a legal or medical position.

[-] -3 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

6 weeks is not less time than a skipped period. thats every 28 days give or take.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

offhand

I would argue intelligence does not began until there is separation conflict with the senses of the outside world.

The floating feeling cannot register until their is a difference to observe

[-] -2 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

I would counter that we do not know that the human brain does not have activity until outside the womb. Babies or fetuses do move and respond to changing conditions while inside the womb. Whether it is voluntary or involuntary i am not certain, but I would say there are likely plenty of studies out there.

One can feel motion without observation.

[-] -2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

but not conscious of its own existence

[-] -2 points by engineer4 (352) 1 year ago

But is consciousness necessarily a determinant of life or existence?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

life exist in algae

have a glass of water

[Removed]