[Abortion] North Dakota makes its play for "Worst State In The Union"

[Charlie Don't Surf]

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/03/22/1764141/north-dakota-passes-personhood/

lol, Think Progress link, but the pertinent, undeniable facts:

North Dakota lawmakers voted on Friday afternoon to pass a “personhood” abortion ban, which would endow fertilized eggs with all the rights of U.S. citizens and effectively outlaw abortion. The measure, which passed the Senate last month, passed the House by a 57-35 vote and now heads to a ballot vote, likely in the next November election.
A personhood ban could have far-reaching consequences even beyond abortion care, since it will charge doctors who damage embryos with criminal negligence. Doctors in the state say it will also prevent them from performing in vitro fertilization, and some medical professionals have vowed to leave the state if it is signed into law.
Personhood measures are so extreme that some pro-life Republicans in the state have come out against them, planning to join a pro-choice rally in the state capital on Monday to oppose the far-right abortion restriction. “We have stepped over the line,” Republican state Rep. Kathy Hawken (R-Fargo) said of the recent push to pass personhood. “North Dakota hasn’t even passed a primary seatbelt law, but we have the most invasive attack on women’s health anywhere.”

At least it's going to the ballot and the people of North Dakota have a shot to stop them from passing this moronic law. However, I don't really have much faith since they elected the state lawmakers that did this in the first place.

 

[Tress]

North Dakota has been trying to pass an ultra-strict abortion ban in recent years in an attempt to start an abortion case with the Supreme Court. This law is designed to overturn Roe v. Wade. They think they have enough conservatives on the court to do it. This is a shot across the bow for the entire country.

 

[Zappit]

If it passes, does that mean a man who has sex with a pregnant woman can be charged with home invasion?

 

[Ravenpoe]

If it passes, does that mean a man who has sex with a pregnant woman can be charged with home invasion?

 

[Cajungal]

Holy shit. Do fertilized eggs get their own SS#?

 

[Bubble181]

Will they be making the hormonal spiral illegal as well? Don't stop fertilization (some types, at least)...

 

[Krisken]

Or does the mother get charged with murder when her body rejects a pregnancy naturally.

 

[Bubble181]

Or does the mother get charged with murder when her body rejects a pregnancy naturally.

Involuntary manslaughter, I'd say. Not a lot of intent there

 

[Terrik]

You gotta admit, no matter your personal belief on abortion, that's pretty extreme.

 

[Krisken]

Involuntary manslaughter, I'd say. Not a lot of intent there

Good point.

However, using birth control beyond barrier methods is intent. Bitches be going down.

 

[Hailey Knight]

Next up: Menstrual cycle is murder.

 

[Bubble181]

You gotta admit, no matter your personal belief on abortion, that's pretty extreme.

I'm sure the Taliban think this is a good, fitting way to organise your women's health and privacy issues.

 

[Terrik]

I'm sure the Taliban think this is a good, fitting way to organise your women's health and privacy issues.

Of course, here's a thought experiment---is there any point pre-birth that an abortion would be considered murder? How about forced abortion?

NSFL:

Spoiler

Was the fetus murdered? Or the mother simply assaulted? For reference, the fetus was 7 months.

 

[Bowielee]

If it passes, does that mean a man who has sex with a pregnant woman can be charged with home invasion?

On a more serious note, some of these extremists could possibly consider it sexual conduct with a minor. This whole thing brings with it a pandora's box of legal issues.

 

[TommiR]

This whole thing brings with it a pandora's box of legal issues.

A distinct possibility. However, if this piece of legislation starts bringing in too many problems for the benefit, it will probably be repealed.

 

[Bowielee]

Not to mention that it directly undermines Roe V Wade, circumventing a supreme court decision that's still being upheld.

 

[Tress]

Not to mention that it directly undermines Roe V Wade, circumventing a supreme court decision that's still being upheld.

But like I said earlier, they know that. They're counting on it. They want this to go to court, and they think it will lead to Roe v. Wade being overturned.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

In North Dakota, they think the morning after pill kills more people than high-magazine assault weapons. And are way closer to banning the former than the latter.

 

[Shawn]

I believe this means you can effectively add the kiddo as an exemption on your taxes the moment of conception.

 

[TommiR]

In North Dakota, they think the morning after pill kills more people than high-magazine assault weapons. And are way closer to banning the former than the latter.

I'd assume it is not so difficult even today to 3D-print your own high-capacity magazines at home. Give it a decade or so, and it might be completely possible to 3D-print a fully functioning and durable enough assault rifle to go with your magazine. And I understand that it is legal in at least some parts of the United States to make your own firearms.

So gun control might be running into some problems in the future, and firearms ban enforcement could get difficult to the point of impracticability. Whereas I imagine morning after pills can't really be made at home, can easily enough be banned from being legally available after the foetus has been granted personhood, and the ban is likely to go down much better with the constituents than a ban on firearms. So if you were a North Dakotan politician looking to get re-elected, which one of the bans would be the better way to go?

 

[Ravenpoe]

I'd assume it is not so difficult even today to 3D-print your own high-capacity magazines at home. Give it a decade or so, and it might be completely possible to 3D-print a fully functioning and durable enough assault rifle to go with your magazine. And I understand that it is legal in at least some parts of the United States to make your own firearms.

So gun control might be running into some problems in the future, and firearms ban enforcement could get difficult to the point of impracticability. Whereas I imagine morning after pills can't really be made at home, can easily enough be banned from being legally available after the foetus has been granted personhood, and the ban is likely to go down much better with the constituents than a ban on firearms. So if you were a North Dakotan politician looking to get re-elected, which one of the bans would be the better way to go?

I still don't fully understand why this argument comes up every time. You can effectively machine your own machine gun, too. That doesn't mean we shouldn't regulate machine guns. The kind of time, effort, and resources that go into being able to create your own magazines are far far above what most people just looking to go buy a magazine would want to invest.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

you can grow your own pot, just fucking legalize it already

 

[TommiR]

I still don't fully understand why this argument comes up every time. You can effectively machine your own machine gun, too. That doesn't mean we shouldn't regulate machine guns. The kind of time, effort, and resources that go into being able to create your own magazines are far far above what most people just looking to go buy a magazine would want to invest.

Nowadays when everything is still legal, it is certainly a lot easier and cheaper to just go to the store and buy what you believe you need. However, if the proposed assault weapons and high-capacity magazines ban comes into effect, it would seem that the spreading and maturing of 3D printing technology might mean it is not necessarily the end of such weapons and accessories in private hands. Legal or not.

As to machining your own gun, sure, you could do it. But I think you might be underestimating the level of skill involved. For instance, I know next to nothing about machining things, at least certainly nothing that could be put into practical use. I could learn, but with a 3D printer, I wouldn't have to. As things currently seem, after they improve upon existing designs, any idiot with enough money to buy a printer and materials, and an internet connection to acquire blueprints, can produce themselves a working assault rifle. No skill required.

 

[CrimsonSoul]

Nowadays when everything is still legal, it is certainly a lot easier and cheaper to just go to the store and buy what you believe you need. However, if the proposed assault weapons and high-capacity magazines ban comes into effect, it would seem that the spreading and maturing of 3D printing technology might mean it is not necessarily the end of such weapons and accessories in private hands. Legal or not.

As to machining your own gun, sure, you could do it. But I think you might be underestimating the level of skill involved. For instance, I know next to nothing about machining things, at least certainly nothing that could be put into practical use. I could learn, but with a 3D printer, I wouldn't have to. As things currently seem, after they improve upon existing designs, any idiot with enough money to buy a printer and materials, and an internet connection to acquire blueprints, can produce themselves a working assault rifle. No skill required.

No they couldn't just print a rifle. They could print part of it. But a lot of the items would still have to be made from metal like the pins, springs, firing pin, bolt carrier group, the barrel. No matter how good the plastic is it will never be good enough to replace the metal parts in a firearm. They call glocks a plastic gun because it is mostly high density plastic but the parts that are metal are metal for a reason.

 

[TommiR]

No they couldn't just print a rifle. They could print part of it. But a lot of the items would still have to be made from metal like the pins, springs, firing pin, bolt carrier group, the barrel. No matter how good the plastic is it will never be good enough to replace the metal parts in a firearm. They call glocks a plastic gun because it is mostly high density plastic but the parts that are metal are metal for a reason.

I'm aware of one instance where they supposedly printed a working weapon, which broke down after six shots I think, due to the stress overpowering the resin. There are unconfirmed claims of printed weapons firing a hundred rounds without problems. I certainly do hope you are correct and that 3D printers will never be able to manufacture a reliable weapon (not as good as a machined one, but reliable enough), as I know of a couple of assholes I doubt anyone would wish to see in possession of the capability to produce working rapid-fire weapons, and in general ordinary citizens possessing the ability to turn their garages into weapon sweatshops does not give me confidence for the future. Myself, I'm not really so sure of the ultimate limits of the technology.

But one deals with the world as-is, not as-should-be.

 

[CrimsonSoul]

Also the heat would melt the plastic. There's a YouTube video somewhere of a guy firing a fully automatic ar-qt until it fails I think he got to around 300 rounds of constant fire before the rifle itself caught on fire

And the reports of the ones firing hundred of rounds are in instances where they only printed parts of the lower receiver and then only used 22's in it

 

[Eriol]

in general ordinary citizens possessing the ability to turn their garages into weapon sweatshops does not give me confidence for the future.

To me this puts the world in quite a sad place, in that it suggests that without the restrictions currently in place, people would go off madly and there would be anarchy. I think that's not giving nearly enough credit to people as a whole. In fact, the faith in "the people" is one of the reasons that there are advocates for more concealed-carry and such laws, as it presumes that the vast majority will be responsible, and that it's not "the law" keeping back the hordes of anarchy.

So a philosophical difference in how to look at people.

 

[CrimsonSoul]

Because I don't want to edit. The lower receiver is basically a hunk of plastic already. That picture is the lower receiver or what the atf considers as a firearm.

 

[CrimsonSoul]

To me this puts the world in quite a sad place, in that it suggests that without the restrictions currently in place, people would go off madly and there would be anarchy. I think that's not giving nearly enough credit to people as a whole. In fact, the faith in "the people" is one of the reasons that there are advocates for more concealed-carry and such laws, as it presumes that the vast majority will be responsible, and that it's not "the law" keeping back the hordes of anarchy.

So a philosophical difference in how to look at people.

I love concealed and open carry laws.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

I shouldn't have mentioned the guns part since I should have known it would go the other way to "guns are really awesome" instead of discussing this breach in women's rights and women's health. My bad

 

[CrimsonSoul]

I shouldn't have mentioned the guns part since I should have known it would go the other way to "guns are really awesome" instead of discussing this breach in women's rights and women's health. My bad

If it makes you feel any better charlie, I am very against abortion but I also won't let my views interfere with someone's who is ok with it and I wouldn't picket an abortion clinic. Their life their choice.

 

[Ravenpoe]

I shouldn't have mentioned the guns part since I should have known it would go the other way to "guns are really awesome" instead of discussing this breach in women's rights and women's health. My bad

I think it actually might be because there isn't a lot to discuss on the original topic. I'd say around 99% of the forum would agree that it's a terrible thing and hope that ND doesn't do something so drastically stupid and backwards.

 

[Zappit]

On the subject of guns, if a pregnant woman shoots somebody, does the kid get charged as an accomplice? I suppose that could apply to any crime a pregnant North Dakotan might commit.

It almost would be easier if Texas pulled this. Texas would probably ban abortion just to make a fetus eligible for the death penalty.

 

[CrimsonSoul]

On the subject of guns, if a pregnant woman shoots somebody, does the kid get charged as an accomplice? I suppose that could apply to any crime a pregnant North Dakotan might commit.

It almost would be easier if Texas pulled this. Texas would probably ban abortion just to make a fetus eligible for the death penalty.

Bazinga

 

[LordRendar]

It almost would be easier if Texas pulled this. Texas would probably ban abortion just to make a fetus eligible for the death penalty.

So in the end the fetus is still gone?