Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

The N.D. Senate approved bills that would ban the destruction of human embryos and outlaw abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Your thoughts?

  1. Too restrictive
  2. Good idea
  3. No strong feelings either way
 
 
 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(46)

locomotive

Feb-23-13 9:37 AM

Diogenist: "You seem under the misapprehension that abortion is an only-answer, and that I'm making a big shrug of the shoulders over individual responsibility. I'm not. Public education, frankness between parents and their kids, and accessibility to a variety of preventive measures are the first-wave defence against teen pregnancy."

I can agree with these statements.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Feb-23-13 6:45 AM

The dead beat dad program just made the kids with kids refuse to work. Maybe give them community service if the community has to pay for their fun.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TheDiogenist

Feb-22-13 8:09 PM

"Off the hook" was in reply to lorexxx, whose comment has mysteriously disappeared... I'm guessing they've been taken off?

Anyway, as far as the abstinence/abstinence-only nuance, it seemed to me implied in your stance on embryos that beyond abstinence, contraceptive measures you would approve of are rather limited. Your comment "100% effective" added to that appearance.

You seem under the misapprehension that abortion is an only-answer, and that I'm making a big shrug of the shoulders over individual responsibility. I'm not. Public education, frankness between parents and their kids, and accessibility to a variety of preventive measures are the first-wave defence against teen pregnancy. But pregnancy oughtn't be a form of punishment, and in any case teen pregnancies aren't the only issue. It's a health issue, broader than any subsidiary demographic and more important than any simplistic ethical standpoint.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Feb-22-13 7:19 PM

Who said people who promote abstinence as a viable birth control method are promoting abstinence-only?

Oh, I guess you did, but you might be wrong on that.

As far as abstinence-only states going away from the position, that would be up to them, right?

"The guy is always off the hook." How does forcing a gal to term change that?"

Did I say that girls should be forced to term? No. Bringing up the idea that the guys shouldn't be given a complete pass isn't saying that girls should be forced to term. I'm asking, whatever happened to personal responsibility, for both guys and gals? Do we have to say "they're just gonna do it anyway" and give up? That's a depressing thought...

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TheDiogenist

Feb-22-13 12:07 PM

I'm afraid you're wrong. If one-half of high schoolers are sexually active at least once, then abstinence is only 50% effective. The policy is only as good as its results, and states that have abstinence-only programmes at their schools (NM, Texas, Mississippi) are failing miserably. At least in Texas (probably in other states) officials are starting to withdraw from that position. Teens who have had a well-rounded sex ed have been found to have 60% fewer pregnancies. "The guy is always off the hook." How does forcing a gal to term change that?

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TheDiogenist

Feb-22-13 12:05 PM

I'm afraid you're wrong. If one-half of high schoolers are sexually active at least once, then abstinence is only 50% effective. The policy is only as good as its results, and states that have abstinence-only programmes at their schools (NM, Texas, Mississippi) are failing miserably. At least in Texas (probably in other states) officials are starting to withdraw from that position. Teens who have had a well-rounded sex ed have been found to have 60% fewer pregnancies. "The guy is always off the hook." How does forcing a gal to term change that?

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Feb-22-13 11:18 AM

My singular viewpoint contributes to the suffering of others? By this logic, I'd suppose your singular viewpoint then wouldn't contribute to the suffering of others. Well, except for aborted fetuses.

As one evaluates all various birth control methods available, it turns out abstinence is the only method that's 100% effective. To say that someone who promotes abstinence is "abstinence-only" is presumptive. How many times have the other birth control methods been proven ineffective? They're called "accidents" aren't they?

It's sounds morally superior to say "it's a woman's decision" but it really isn't. What's morally superior about covering up irresponsibility? It took two to bring about the situation, and it's irresponsible to give one party a complete pass, and the other party the power of life or death of another in her hands.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TheDiogenist

Feb-21-13 9:33 PM

*typos saving space* remove 'answers' and end with 'others.' Voila.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TheDiogenist

Feb-21-13 9:31 PM

"As a woman" I will respectfully note, is in the singular. Again, the question of what business it is of yours over all other women's personal decisions still stands. Likewise, your comment regarding 'having half a pregnancy to decide' ignores that most pregnancies are caught around four to six weeks after conception, or that the decision will have ramifications for the next eighteen years (if not a lifetime). The fixation at 20 weeks also ignores that the overwhelming majority of abortions happen well before that point, yet effectively bars its employ in the odd event of life-threatening complication. I don't even want to delve into discussing your views on embryos either, or your abstinence-only answer approaches. You see only potential, frankly missing the point entirely. Which doesn't make you a bad person, but what you're vying for does more harm than good. In alleviating your own projected sense of conscience, you and people like you contribute to the real suffering of

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Feb-21-13 4:42 PM

cont...A normal pregnancy is 40 weeks long, culminating in labor/delivery. So the Senate bill seems to mean that a woman has 1/2 the pregnancy to decide if she's going to abort, halfway into the second trimester. Isn't that enough time to gather resources and decide? If not, can someone tell me why not?

As far as focusing on "mitigating the circumstances of unplanned pregnancy," I've always maintained telling young girls the obvious as soon as they're reaching puberty: One time can get you pregnant. Are you ready for that? Really?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Feb-21-13 4:38 PM

Diogenist, as a woman, I believe discussing abortion is some of my business. I've had conversations with friends and relatives who have had "the procedure" done, and it has always changed them in one way or another. This issue is personally relevant to me, as I've had babies too.

Now everyone, please notice what was approved: "bills that would ban the destruction of human embryos and outlaw abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy."

Human embryos have the potential of life when implanted in a womb for gestation and delivery. So it seems logical that if embryos are allowed to be destroyed, potential human beings are being destroyed. What's interesting to me about the embryo debate is that the technology arrived, then the ethics of the technology came afterwards. "What do we do with all these embryos now?"

A normal pregnancy is 40 weeks long, culminating in labor/delivery. So the Senate bill seems to mean that a woman has 1/2 the pregnancy to decid

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Feb-21-13 11:24 AM

We need to find some people who wish they were aborted and ask them why?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TheDiogenist

Feb-20-13 7:46 PM

I didn't think I was talking about abortion in the abstract. On the contrary, your 'fundamentals' are on the airier end of the debate, L. Who's bearing the burden of decision here? The woman sitting with her doctor, or the people outside with their maudlin pickets? Like I've said before, if abortion is a concern of yours then focus on mitigating the circumstances of unplanned pregnancy. Beyond that, it's really none of your business.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Feb-20-13 6:29 PM

But the fundamentals are part and parcel of the argument, such as "when does life begin" or "is abortion taking a life."

If you base a decision about abortion only on empathy or economy, the fundamentals will never matter. You will never wrestle with the issue in a realistic fashion.

An abortion procedure is fine to talk about in the abstract, but when pictures, video, or personal testimonies of doctors, nurses and patients are introduced into the discussion, then an abortion procedure becomes real. It's academic vs. hands-on.

Many people view the abortion issue as a moral one, thus all the passion on both sides.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TheDiogenist

Feb-20-13 4:02 PM

I'd think whichever way one decides to go, the decision is a difficult, ultimately empathetic one. Some people couldn't bear to have a child only to abandon it to fate, being adopted off or institutionalised (depending on the circumstances). Sentimentality aside though, a fetus hasn't an inkling of self-awareness. Up to a point it really is just a burgeoning bud of multiplying cells, and in the most extreme instances (I'm thinking later-in-term) a life that hasn't become attached to life (if that makes sense). 'Playing god' in the end comes down to the empathetic question: knowing what I know, which is easier to live with, and what is the most responsible thing to do? The answer varies case by personal case, and whatever happens people are left to wonder about it for a lifetime afterwards. And that's why I think it's unfair to blanket-ban the procedure. It's a highly personal decision.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Feb-20-13 3:36 PM

What you wrote right here is so true TheDiogenist, (The trade off being either negating a potential life unrealised, or forcing a life to enter into a serious statistical disadvantage that contributes to other societal problems.) Through the last few years I have asked some people who were born with disabilities, some very severe, if they were glad they were born, every one of them said they were with great feeling. I really wish they could be adopted instead of terminated.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TheDiogenist

Feb-20-13 3:09 PM

Early, that the housing set-up for unwed mothers hasn't done much by way of decreasing the number of abortions (I'm only guessing; it's hard to find a correlative figure) might suggest that the project - while maybe commendable in spirit - isn't quite addressing the underlying concern. If asked, very few women would want to be dependent on the state for something as frightening and permanent as being a single parent. Until contributing factors to unwed, unplanned pregnancies are objectively and effectively dealt with, abortion should be considered the lesser of two evils. (The trade off being either negating a potential life unrealised, or forcing a life to enter into a serious statistical disadvantage that contributes to other societal problems.)

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Feb-20-13 10:30 AM

I can't remember for sure, didn't we start un-wed mothers programs 20-30 years ago to combat abortion. We give any woman who needs it free housing and food for her and her baby already so I'm not sure what more can be done.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Feb-20-13 9:44 AM

The big question, are we playing God when we take human lives unborn or incarcerated?

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Feb-20-13 9:21 AM

Bill, as crazy as it seems that is a pertinent thought to this discussion.

I'm glad I was born but I 100% believe it should be up to the woman because she is the only one who has to live with her conscious.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EarlyBird

Feb-20-13 7:41 AM

I stand with my original statement, I'm glad I was born. This abortion stuff is akin to what Hitler did to the Jews, he wasted millions of lives for nothing.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

disgusted

Feb-19-13 10:06 PM

takahari, if you are so sleep deprived that you can't comprehend the fact that minreader was addressing billgargetsit by using the shortened form of 'bill', I suggest you use the time you post here to sleep.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

disgusted

Feb-19-13 9:33 PM

takahari, stop swallowing the garbage from the pro-abortionists. rape, incest, and emergency care for the life of the mother are exempt,

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

minreader

Feb-19-13 9:24 PM

bill............have another drink, go the bed. Or do something else other than post your comemts here. Because nobody wants to read your garbage

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

theheat

Feb-19-13 7:14 PM

To voice my thoughts simply...the citizens that legislate for North Dakota have a long way to go before they entire the 21st century. Oh, and those that elect these legislators have a long way to go before they entire the 20th century.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 46 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web