• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal judge delays North Dakota abortion law

minnie616

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
23,037
Reaction score
25,743
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
In The News:

Federal judge delays North Dakota abortion law
July 22,2013

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A federal judge has temporarily blocked a new North Dakota law that bans abortion when a fetal heartbeat is detected — as early as six weeks into pregnancy.

U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland in Bismarck granted a temporary injunction Monday that blocks the law from taking effect on Aug. 1.

The law was passed this year by the North Dakota Legislature. It would outlaw the procedure as early as six weeks into pregnancy and before some women know they are pregnant.

The law was one of four that the Republican-controlled Legislature and GOP Gov. Jack Dalrymple passed this year that combined make North Dakota the most restrictive state in the nation in which to get an abortion.

"There is no question that (the North Dakota law) is in direct contradiction to a litany of United States Supreme Court cases addressing restraints on abortion," Hovland wrote. " (It) is clearly an invalid and unconstitutional law based on the United States Supreme Court precedent in Roe v. Wade from 1973 ... and the progeny of cases that have followed."

read more:

Federal judge delays North Dakota abortion law
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,703
Reaction score
20,419
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Do you believe there should be, or can be any restriction, as it relates to the development of the fetus, that a state can legislate determining a time at which an abortion may not be performed? If so, how does the Supreme Court's decision that a woman's constitutional right of privacy allows for abortion would not then be infringed if any restrictions on abortion were to be implemented? Clearly, if a woman has a right to remove what some pro-abortionist call a parasite growing inside their body based on the Supreme Court decision, doesn't the woman retain that right regardless of how large or developed that parasite grows? If you have a cancer tumor, you're not restricted legally by the tumor's size when it comes to eradication. Why should the tumor in the womb be treated differently or do you believe it shouldn't?
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
15,942
Reaction score
20,915
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Do you believe there should be, or can be any restriction, as it relates to the development of the fetus, that a state can legislate determining a time at which an abortion may not be performed? If so, how does the Supreme Court's decision that a woman's constitutional right of privacy allows for abortion would not then be infringed if any restrictions on abortion were to be implemented? Clearly, if a woman has a right to remove what some pro-abortionist call a parasite growing inside their body based on the Supreme Court decision, doesn't the woman retain that right regardless of how large or developed that parasite grows? If you have a cancer tumor, you're not restricted legally by the tumor's size when it comes to eradication. Why should the tumor in the womb be treated differently or do you believe it shouldn't?

I'm sorry, are you arguing from a position of devil's advocate or do you really understand what you are saying here?

Look at Roe v. Wade. It is not based upon some humanitarian assumption, or some personal viewpoint without medical basis. The reason for the different tri-mester holdings is based on medical and scientific evidence. During the first 20 weeks the zygote/fetus is still only a potential human because it has not developed sufficient structure to survive and exist as an individual. This is the only period when Roe v. Wade gives a woman an almost absolute right to abort.

A few weeks before the second trimester the law allows restrictions, and at a couple of weeks before the third trimester the law prohibits abortion absent medical concerns for the womans life or health. How could you think that laws restricting abortion under the 20 week SCOTUS protection could possibly not violate a woman's right to chose at that point?
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,703
Reaction score
20,419
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm sorry, are you arguing from a position of devil's advocate or do you really understand what you are saying here?

Look at Roe v. Wade. It is not based upon some humanitarian assumption, or some personal viewpoint without medical basis. The reason for the different tri-mester holdings is based on medical and scientific evidence. During the first 20 weeks the zygote/fetus is still only a potential human because it has not developed sufficient structure to survive and exist as an individual. This is the only period when Roe v. Wade gives a woman an almost absolute right to abort.

A few weeks before the second trimester the law allows restrictions, and at a couple of weeks before the third trimester the law prohibits abortion absent medical concerns for the womans life or health. How could you think that laws restricting abortion under the 20 week SCOTUS protection could possibly not violate a woman's right to chose at that point?

I'll put the qualifier in of supporting abortion where the mental and/or physical health of the mother or child requires it. My comments relate to abortion that is outside that qualification.

Being the devil's advocate, on what basis do you determine who can survive and exist as an individual? Do you believe that a 3 month old child can survive and exist as an individual without any care and support from the mother or others? Those who support abortion like to use the term "viable" and that prior to "viability" a fetus may be aborted but the term viability is subjective. I don't consider a 3 month old child viable without significant care and support from at least one if not more adults. It's why society has child endangerment laws requiring that parents see to the health and welfare of their minor children up to the age of 16 or 18 depending on the jurisdiction. Why is that?

It's humans who have arbitrarily decided that a fetus is not a human prior to a certain stage in their development. I don't believe science has said that before 20 weeks or before 24 weeks or whatever that it is impossible to determine what that object in the womb may be and it suddenly becomes human at 20/24 weeks and subject to the protections society gives humans. It is the whole argument against abortion. Those who oppose abortion believe this is a human child at the point of conception - it's a human from the very beginning and deserving of all the rights and privileges of any other human being. Those who support abortion have simply constructed an arbitrary rationale based on selfish need to justify the actions they desire.

If you can't kill or abandon a 3 month old child, why should you be able to kill or abandon a child at an earlier stage of it's development? That's the question.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
15,942
Reaction score
20,915
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I'll put the qualifier in of supporting abortion where the mental and/or physical health of the mother or child requires it. My comments relate to abortion that is outside that qualification.

I'm not sure what this signifies in the debate, since that qualifier already exists in the second and third trimesters, but has no application at all in the first 20 weeks of the first trimester.

Being the devil's advocate, on what basis do you determine who can survive and exist as an individual? Do you believe that a 3 month old child can survive and exist as an individual without any care and support from the mother or others? Those who support abortion like to use the term "viable" and that prior to "viability" a fetus may be aborted but the term viability is subjective. I don't consider a 3 month old child viable without significant care and support from at least one if not more adults.

Well, you are always entitled to your opinion on any matter. But since you are not a female who has to carry the fetus as it develops into a child; nor unless you are a gynocologists, or a cell biologist...I don't know that you'd have the qualifications to make a factual determination on that score. I tend to accept the scientific information showing that a mass of cells growing within the woman's womb starts out as a potential human being, and at some point becomes one. When it does become more than a potential life I support giving it protected status. Until then, while it is still no more human than the womans kidney, or any other group of cells, abortion is perfectly acceptable.

It's why society has child endangerment laws requiring that parents see to the health and welfare of their minor children up to the age of 16 or 18 depending on the jurisdiction. Why is that?

I consider this a red herring argument since it deals with a completely different issue. There is no queston of protected status once a child is born.

It's humans who have arbitrarily decided that a fetus is not a human prior to a certain stage in their development.

Again, I am not sure where you are going with this point. There is no debate on this; of course humans decided this, as we decide many, many things in life. The reason why those with the responsibility made this particular determination I have already expressed above.

I don't believe science has said that before 20 weeks or before 24 weeks or whatever that it is impossible to determine what that object in the womb may be and it suddenly becomes human at 20/24 weeks and subject to the protections society gives humans.

This is not a matter for your belief. At some point it is clear a change occurs from mass of cells to a human child. When the mass of cells can exist outside the mothers womb with normal assistance (like the earliest known premie born at 22 weeks) then it deserves protected status.

The rest of your argument rests on "faith." I can't argue with faith, that is each person's burden to bear. :)
 

polgara

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
20,215
Reaction score
17,786
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I'll put the qualifier in of supporting abortion where the mental and/or physical health of the mother or child requires it. My comments relate to abortion that is outside that qualification.

Being the devil's advocate, on what basis do you determine who can survive and exist as an individual? Do you believe that a 3 month old child can survive and exist as an individual without any care and support from the mother or others? Those who support abortion like to use the term "viable" and that prior to "viability" a fetus may be aborted but the term viability is subjective. I don't consider a 3 month old child viable without significant care and support from at least one if not more adults. It's why society has child endangerment laws requiring that parents see to the health and welfare of their minor children up to the age of 16 or 18 depending on the jurisdiction. Why is that?

It's humans who have arbitrarily decided that a fetus is not a human prior to a certain stage in their development. I don't believe science has said that before 20 weeks or before 24 weeks or whatever that it is impossible to determine what that object in the womb may be and it suddenly becomes human at 20/24 weeks and subject to the protections society gives humans. It is the whole argument against abortion. Those who oppose abortion believe this is a human child at the point of conception - it's a human from the very beginning and deserving of all the rights and privileges of any other human being. Those who support abortion have simply constructed an arbitrary rationale based on selfish need to justify the actions they desire.

If you can't kill or abandon a 3 month old child, why should you be able to kill or abandon a child at an earlier stage of it's development? That's the question.

Good morning, CJ. :2wave:

That is an excellent question, but let me play devil's advocate for the other side. It has been explained to me that everyone who conceives is not capable of being a responsible caregiver for another human being, either mentally or physically. To some, pregnancy is a mistake that needs to be corrected, and the reasons are myriad. I don't know how many millions of abortions have taken place over the years, but one has to assume that a child is not wanted in most cases. Is it the right thing to do to abort early on before that fetus is viable? The argument rages on, but what kind of life can an unloved, unwanted child expect to have if they are dumped into an orphanage and forgotten?

People will have sex, but birth control pills have been readily available for a long time, so why are there still so many abortions? It seems that we need to concentrate more on preventing pregnancy in the first place, instead of getting rid of the end result. It wouldn't surprise me that at some point all females might be required at an early age to get a shot that prevents pregnancy, but if so, who will make that decision? More government intrusion into our lives? It looks more and more like 1984 wasn't so far off the mark after all.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Good morning, CJ. :2wave:

That is an excellent question, but let me play devil's advocate for the other side. It has been explained to me that everyone who conceives is not capable of being a responsible caregiver for another human being, either mentally or physically. To some, pregnancy is a mistake that needs to be corrected, and the reasons are myriad. I don't know how many millions of abortions have taken place over the years, but one has to assume that a child is not wanted in most cases. Is it the right thing to do to abort early on before that fetus is viable? The argument rages on, but what kind of life can an unloved, unwanted child expect to have if they are dumped into an orphanage and forgotten?

People will have sex, but birth control pills have been readily available for a long time, so why are there still so many abortions? It seems that we need to concentrate more on preventing pregnancy in the first place, instead of getting rid of the end result. It wouldn't surprise me that at some point all females might be required at an early age to get a shot that prevents pregnancy, but if so, who will make that decision? More government intrusion into our lives? It looks more and more like 1984 wasn't so far off the mark after all.

Actually, I believe abortion rates are going down because of greater access to birth control.

The issue is whether to keep abortion procedures accessible to women despite a lessening need or want for abortion.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,703
Reaction score
20,419
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Good morning, CJ. :2wave:

That is an excellent question, but let me play devil's advocate for the other side. It has been explained to me that everyone who conceives is not capable of being a responsible caregiver for another human being, either mentally or physically. To some, pregnancy is a mistake that needs to be corrected, and the reasons are myriad. I don't know how many millions of abortions have taken place over the years, but one has to assume that a child is not wanted in most cases. Is it the right thing to do to abort early on before that fetus is viable? The argument rages on, but what kind of life can an unloved, unwanted child expect to have if they are dumped into an orphanage and forgotten?

People will have sex, but birth control pills have been readily available for a long time, so why are there still so many abortions? It seems that we need to concentrate more on preventing pregnancy in the first place, instead of getting rid of the end result. It wouldn't surprise me that at some point all females might be required at an early age to get a shot that prevents pregnancy, but if so, who will make that decision? More government intrusion into our lives? It looks more and more like 1984 wasn't so far off the mark after all.

Good morning Lady P. - hope you're well

To respond to your reasonable points, I'd simply say that nobody has a guarantee that life will always be easy or simple and very often the moral path is also the most difficult path. Lots of actions we as humans take also have unpleasant or inconvenient consequences and as responsible adults we accept those and work with those, not simply wash away the "problem".

I would simply say that humans have vulnerabilities all along the continuum of our existences and I believe they should receive the utmost protection for the entirety of that journey, from the first day to the last, regardless of their independent viability at any time along that road.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,703
Reaction score
20,419
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm not sure what this signifies in the debate, since that qualifier already exists in the second and third trimesters, but has no application at all in the first 20 weeks of the first trimester.



Well, you are always entitled to your opinion on any matter. But since you are not a female who has to carry the fetus as it develops into a child; nor unless you are a gynocologists, or a cell biologist...I don't know that you'd have the qualifications to make a factual determination on that score. I tend to accept the scientific information showing that a mass of cells growing within the woman's womb starts out as a potential human being, and at some point becomes one. When it does become more than a potential life I support giving it protected status. Until then, while it is still no more human than the womans kidney, or any other group of cells, abortion is perfectly acceptable.



I consider this a red herring argument since it deals with a completely different issue. There is no queston of protected status once a child is born.



Again, I am not sure where you are going with this point. There is no debate on this; of course humans decided this, as we decide many, many things in life. The reason why those with the responsibility made this particular determination I have already expressed above.



This is not a matter for your belief. At some point it is clear a change occurs from mass of cells to a human child. When the mass of cells can exist outside the mothers womb with normal assistance (like the earliest known premie born at 22 weeks) then it deserves protected status.

The rest of your argument rests on "faith." I can't argue with faith, that is each person's burden to bear. :)

Clearly, we disagree - my argument is no more based on "faith" than yours is and no less valid as a position than yours is.

Just to be clear, as well, I never argued that all fetuses successfully develop into the fullness of human beings yet I'd defy you to point out an occasion where a fetus developed into something that was not human. As for your argument that humans make these kinds of decisions all the time, I would simply point out that there was a time in your country when the same voices of authority adjudged that blacks weren't fully human nor did they have the rights other humans had. There was a time when such blacks could be easily disposed of. In that case, saner more decent heads prevailed over time and it could very well be that saner more decent heads will prevail in the abortion issue as well.
 

minnie616

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
23,037
Reaction score
25,743
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
The rate of abortions has been going down .
In fact in 2009 ( the latest stat avaible ) the number of abortions was 5 percent lower than the year below ( 2008 )
That was the biggest single year drop since thy first started recording abortions in the 1950 s.
In fact abortions fell in 2009 according to the CDC to under 800,000 .
The high was about 1.3 million about 15 years ago.

With the newer almost goof proof long term birth control that more women of child bearing years are choosing I think the rate will continue to fall.

Right now no method of birth control ( other than abstinence ) is 100 percent effective.
 

JayDubya

Struggler
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
17,181
Reaction score
4,037
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
More illiterate morons in high office, supposed to uphold the rule of law, spitting on it.
 

year2late

IIJAFM
DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2013
Messages
22,923
Reaction score
20,315
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
The rate of abortions has been going down .
In fact in 2009 ( the latest stat avaible ) the number of abortions was 5 percent lower than the year below ( 2008 )
That was the biggest single year drop since thy first started recording abortions in the 1950 s.
In fact abortions fell in 2009 according to the CDC to under 800,000 .
The high was about 1.3 million about 15 years ago.

With the newer almost goof proof long term birth control that more women of child bearing years are choosing I think the rate will continue to fall.

Right now no method of birth control ( other than abstinence ) is 100 percent effective.

OMG!!!Access to high quality affordable birth control prevents abortions?? Say it isn't so! I thought it was bible totin' finger wagging Christians that prevented abortions!
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,886
Reaction score
17,287
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Good. It was a dumb budgetary move in the first place. Hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend something like this, while belaying funding for child services along with everything else. Many of the Republicans in our legislature had no high ground to stand on this session.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
 

Ontologuy

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,564
Reaction score
1,865
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Both Roe and Webster were judged just prior to the establishment of the hard-science concensus that a human begins to live at conception.

Should This case make it to the SCOTUS, the 35+ year-old scientific consensus would definitely cause Roe and Webster some grief.

That is likely the intent of this law, simply to challenge Roe and Webster with scientific consensus information, a consensus that did not exist back then.
 

joko104

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
63,609
Reaction score
22,428
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Both Roe and Webster were judged just prior to the establishment of the hard-science concensus that a human begins to live at conception.

Should This case make it to the SCOTUS, the 35+ year-old scientific consensus would definitely cause Roe and Webster some grief.

That is likely the intent of this law, simply to challenge Roe and Webster with scientific consensus information, a consensus that did not exist back then.

Absolutely false and absurd message.

No, life does NOT begin at "conception." Conception is a religious term meaning when God "conceives" of the soul of another person. "Life begins at conception" is a religious declaration that all life comes from God, as all live and everything that exists is because it was "conceived" in the mind of God.

The word is fertilization and that was understood long before Roe V Wade. So you are wrong and wrong.
 

Ontologuy

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,564
Reaction score
1,865
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Absolutely false and absurd message.
Your projection here is amusing, really.


No, life does NOT begin at "conception."
That a human begins to live at conception is a 35+ year-old scientific consensus among the hard sciences of taxonomy, phylogeny, anthropology, biology, genetics-DNA, organism-life, and embryonics, and without any rational scientific conjecture.

To say that a human does not begin at conception is essentially a blatantly false statement that even high school textbooks today refute.


Conception is a religious term meaning when God "conceives" of the soul of another person.
Whether or not that's one of the definitions of "conception" is, of course, irrelevant.

The topically relevant meaning of conception is the common sociological/scientific definition meaning strictly when an egg and sperm combine to become one cell. When that happens, conception is said to have taken place.

That's when a new human is created.

"Life begins at conception" is a religious declaration that all life comes from God, as all live and everything that exists is because it was "conceived" in the mind of God.
Your attempt to descredt my accurate presentation via your spin about religion is simply a huge fail.

Readers passing this way will see that you're attempting to obfuscate via subterfuge, again, a huge fail.

For you to say that the word conception is only a religious term relevant to the topic is so laughable .. well, you're only going to embarrass yourself with that. :lol:


The word is fertilization
"Conception" and "fertilization" are essentially synonymous -- pretty much everyone knows that .. except you, at least that's what you're saying.

Don't know whether you truly are oblivious to that reality or you're just feigning dumb in a failed attempt to make some kind of point.


and that was understood long before Roe V Wade.
Here again you attempt to obfuscate.

That the specific mechanics of conception/fertilization was known before Roe v Wade and Webster v. Reproductive Health Services isn't at issue, which I'm guessing you know.

What's at issue is what conception is: the creation of a new living human, alive as alive can be.

Prior to Roe and Webster there was no scientific consensus that a human begins to live at conception.

That scientific consensus was established very shortly after Webster.

Those sponsoring the North Dakota abortion law know this.

They want to bring a challenge to Roe and Webster in terms of the obvious evidence of a living human: the heartbeat.

They believe they can win the SCOTUS challenge because of the now long-known hard-science consensus that a living human begins to live at conception, conception that occurs considerably prior to the detection of a heartbeat.

All this is really pretty obvious, really.
 
Last edited:

TiredOfLife

Banned
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
2,817
Reaction score
582
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
These "laws" always make two groups happy. The anti-choice, big-government for religious morality types, and lawyers, neither of which I like to feed since it only encourages them. A true waste of time and money, not to mention good will.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,522
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Do you believe there should be, or can be any restriction, as it relates to the development of the fetus, that a state can legislate determining a time at which an abortion may not be performed? If so, how does the Supreme Court's decision that a woman's constitutional right of privacy allows for abortion would not then be infringed if any restrictions on abortion were to be implemented? Clearly, if a woman has a right to remove what some pro-abortionist call a parasite growing inside their body based on the Supreme Court decision, doesn't the woman retain that right regardless of how large or developed that parasite grows? If you have a cancer tumor, you're not restricted legally by the tumor's size when it comes to eradication. Why should the tumor in the womb be treated differently or do you believe it shouldn't?

I'll answer as if your question was a sincere one, as much as I doubt that it was

Under the Constitution, the govt can make laws regulating abortion at any time during the ZEF's development, as long as the regulation is for the purpose of protecting the mothers' health. Abortion can not be limited for any other reason besides protecting the mothers health until *after* viability, at which point the govt has an legitimate interest in protecting potential persons.

The removal of cancers can not be limited (for reasons other than protecting the patients life) because at no point in a cancers' development does it have to potential to become a person. Therefore, the state has no legitimate interests in protecting cancers.

IOW, when cancers start growing up to be people, then your argument will have some legal merit
 

minnie616

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
23,037
Reaction score
25,743
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
UPDATE:

CNN) -- A North Dakota judge Wednesday halted the imminent implementation of a law that threatened to shut down the state's only abortion clinic by mandating that physicians involved in the practice have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

The preliminary injunction blocks the law, SB 2305, from going into effect as scheduled on Thursday.

<SNIP>

The ruling makes SB 2305 the latest North Dakota law on abortion that a court has blocked in recent weeks.

A federal judge earlier this month temporarily blocked the enforcement of a law banning abortions when a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can happen as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.

,SNIP>
As Corwin points out, putting the law into effect would force the closure of Red River Women's Clinic -- a place where "all abortions ... are completed long before the fetus becomes viable (and) are extremely safe and effective."

It's staff, until now, had no reason to be affiliated with a local hospital, much less be approved to perform abortions at such facilities.

Early stage abortions "are relatively simple procedures, performed on an outpatient basis" in clinics without need for hospitalization, he added. The "old argument" that the women need to be near hospitals should "grave complications" arise has been "dispelled," according to Corwin.

<SNIP>

"The judge clearly stated that these attempts to contrive safety concerns continue to be wrong-headed, and that the (North Dakota) constitution does include protections for women seeking abortions," Kromenaker said.

read more:

North Dakota's only abortion clinic stays open after judge's ruling - CNN.com
 
Top Bottom