Export thread

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.”

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

Zappit said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

Krisken said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Bubble181 said:

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

Click to expand...

Good point.

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

Next up: Menstrual cycle is murder.

Terrik said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Bubble181 said:

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

Click to expand...

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:

Zappit said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Bowielee said:

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

Click to expand...

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 However, if this piece of legislation starts bringing in too many problems for the benefit, it will probably be repealed.

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

Bowielee said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

Charlie Don't Surf said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

TommiR said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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

Ravenpoe said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

TommiR said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

CrimsonSoul said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

TommiR said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Eriol said:

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.

Click to expand...

I love concealed and open carry laws.

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

Charlie Don't Surf said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Zappit said:

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.

Click to expand...

Bazinga

Zappit said:

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

Click to expand...

So in the end the fetus is still gone?

LordRendar said:

So in the end the fetus is still gone?

Click to expand...

Yes, but at the hands of the government instead of the individual.

You heard it here first, folks: Texas is implementing a baby massacre program!

CrimsonSoul said:

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

Click to expand...

I'm sure you are correct as to the limitations of the present-day technology. I hope these limits remain in the coming decades as well.

Eriol said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well, I do have faith that it is 'the law', backed by the threat of overwhelming force, which provides the best protection against a society descending into cut-throat anarchy and the strong preying (excessively) on the weak. The general population has been conditioned to civility through many generations of orderly society provided by strong laws. But if one strips away a couple of surface layers, I think one might discover a clannish and tribal creature who is quite willing to take a weapon to anyone perceived to have wronged them or theirs, or to seize what they want from outsiders through force or deception, with the threat of consequences providing the only deterrent against such misconduct.

So yes, a philosophical difference in the outlook.

As to current gun restrictions, I don't know enough to make the call, and I think they differ too much from place to place anyway. Perhaps they are just about right, or too loose to have sufficient effect, or too strict for the benefit.

TommiR said:

Well, I do have faith that it is 'the law', backed by the threat of overwhelming force, which provides the best protection against a society descending into cut-throat anarchy and the strong preying (excessively) on the weak.

Click to expand...

I like how you qualified that as if a little bit of preying on the weak is just fine and dandy.

Bowielee said:

I like how you qualified that as if a little bit of preying on the weak is just fine and dandy.

Click to expand...

Not fine and dandy, but perhaps unavoidable. Even in well-ordered and law-abiding societies, I think it would be a stretch to say that the powerful do not enjoy a significant advantage over those less fortunate, or that they do not make use of it for their own gain. But the law puts limits to that, makes sure the 'preying on the weak' is not as extensive or outrageous as it otherwise might be, and that the weak can still survive.

CrimsonSoul said:

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

Click to expand...

I'm not sure anyone ever pays attention to me when I say this (I've said this in many threads already but it bears repeating). There are already machines that can print with metals. Mild steels, stainless steels, exotic alloys. Look up direct laser sintering. Metal parts can be printed and then hardened, tempered, annealed... whatever treatments are necessary for the part. That means you could print almost every single part of a firearm and heat treat those parts to have comparable strengths to traditionally manufactured ones.

You know, even if a printed gun can only fire six shots, that's more than enough for a lot of people planning mischief.

Halforums: where the abortion threads go to gun control, and the gun control threads go to gun control.

blotsfan said:

Halforums: where the abortion threads go to gun control, and the gun control threads go to gun control.

Click to expand...

I suspect that the vast majority of people here agree that this law is way over the top and will cause nothing but problems. When we're in agreement there's not as much to talk about so the topic is bound to wander sooner rather than later.

Charlie also kickstarted it with his earlier comments (which I actually thought were pretty good).

Azurephoenix said:

I'm not sure anyone ever pays attention to me when I say this (I've said this in many threads already but it bears repeating). There are already machines that can print with metals. Mild steels, stainless steels, exotic alloys. Look up direct laser sintering. Metal parts can be printed and then hardened, tempered, annealed... whatever treatments are necessary for the part. That means you could print almost every single part of a firearm and heat treat those parts to have comparable strengths to traditionally manufactured ones.

Click to expand...

That hardly sounds cost effective for the criminal or psychopath on the go.

Bowielee said:

That hardly sounds cost effective for the criminal or psychopath on the go.

Click to expand...

Oh it absolutely isn't cost effective. It's just people seem to neglect that is already is possible to make these parts out of metal using additive printing processes. I'm sure like the plastic 3D printing these types of laser sintering machines will get more and more compact and eventually become more accessible.

Guns: As CrimsonSoul mentioned, the part of the gun that the government considers "the gun" (and everything else is just spare parts) is the lower receiver, which is perfectly able to be made entirely of resin with no problems. All the other parts of the gun to make it work, metal or otherwise, can be easily purchased separately without tracking or impediment because they're not "the gun," only buying lower receivers is regulated/restricted. Think of it like the guy who found a bunch of WW2 planes crashed in shallow water, dug out their registration plates, claimed them as salvage, and then was able to rebuild them up from nothing and legally own them because the registration plates were "the plane" for purposes of law and ownership. So, you don't have to print the whole gun... just the lower receiver. You can get all the metal/polycarbonate/wood/whatever parts you want easily as spare/replacement parts, and assemble your own gun without the government knowing you now own a fully or semi automatic assault rifle.

Abortion: I hold the (surprise surprise) unpopular belief that fetuses are a life, but not children any more than children are adults. We as a society choose when it is acceptable to end a person's life every day - criminals, wars, and so on. Children don't have the same rights as adults, it stands to logic that foetii would be acknowledged to have different rights from both. Whether or not they have the same rights to live as children and adults is something we as a society decide. I think a lot of the controversy on the subject is perpetuated by the fact that the legality of the process of abortion was decided by a court decision without popular referendum. I don't know if either side of the debate (I'm in favor of legal abortion, personally) wants to actually risk a decisive vote, because all too often the polls surprise you - who'da thunk it'd be California at the front of the anti-gay marriage wavefront, after all?

TLDR: Gasbandit says abortion ends a life. END THOSE LIVES! END THEM ALL! BWA HA HA HA HA.

Here's what's always bothered me about the abortion debate: abortion is the symptom of a greater problem. If social conservatives wouldn't act like knuckle-dragging assholes when it comes to sex education, the number of unplanned pregnancies would go down dramatically. Being pro-choice doesn't mean you like abortion. Nobody likes abortion. Everyone wants to see it go away, we would just rather see it go away because no one needs it anymore.

Azurephoenix said:

Oh it absolutely isn't cost effective. It's just people seem to neglect that is already is possible to make these parts out of metal using additive printing processes. I'm sure like the plastic 3D printing these types of laser sintering machines will get more and more compact and eventually become more accessible.

Click to expand...

You can also machine your own gun without the use of any modern technology, but that doesn't make it a viable way of acquiring a firearm. That's why it kind of mystifies me that this is even brought up in these discussions. It's not feasible enough to even be a concern.

Bowielee said:

You can also machine your own gun without the use of any modern technology, but that doesn't make it a viable way of acquiring a firearm. That's why it kind of mystifies me that this is even brought up in these discussions. It's not feasible enough to even be a concern.

Click to expand...

True, but the reason I mention it is that machining, drop forging and even stamping steel parts require a significant amount of experience to create something with tolerances as tight as a firearm. It also requires quite a bit of equipment (unless you're using CNC type stuff... which is right up the same alley as 3D printing... it's just subtractive instead of additive).

With up and coming 3D printing options... that requirement for years of skill is disappearing fast as well as the massive cost for multiple machining tools. Not to mention that people won't even need to design their own parts. There will likely be a plethora of them floating around the internet. It's not a problem... yet.

Sorry for continuing to drag this thread off topic. I'll stop now.

bhamv3 said:

You know, even if a printed gun can only fire six shots, that's more than enough for a lot of people planning mischief.

Click to expand...

Again toy can't print a whole gun and only a part or two of it then you'll have to go spend 1k plus in today's gun market to get the rest of it. A completely printed fun wouldn't even make it past one shot, it would blow up in your hand because of the cheep plastic that the printers use

Yes, you can't print up a gun for no cost. The thing people are worried about is not that you can make a gun for nothing, it's that you can for a similar price of what a gun would normally cost, combine 3d printed parts with ordered "spare" parts and create guns that the government wouldn't have on record and wouldn't have a serial number or any of that.

Shawnacy said:

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

Click to expand...

...Get a legal abortion in the next state over, and start all over again each year? Sounds like a tax plan!

I'm pro choice, but that is so fucked up.
But I guess this whole law is.