Lawmakers get death threats after passing sweeping pro-life laws
On March 22 North Dakota became the first state to legislatively authorize a ballot initiative that would establish the right to life from the moment of conception.
On March 26 North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple signed three other major pro-life bills into law. According to the Bismarck Tribune:
- HB1305 will make it a Class A misdemeanor for a physician to willingly perform an abortion based specifically on gender or on genetic abnormalities.
- HB1456 requires a physician to determine whether there’s a detectable heartbeat prior to performing an abortion. A physician who willingly performs an abortion after the detection of a heartbeat could be subject to a Class C felony….
- SB2305 requires physicians providing abortions to be licensed in the state and to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.
While the pro-abortion website RH Reality Check reports “the governor [pictured right] is receiving spiritual ‘attaboys'” from the Catholic Church for upholding those pro-life measures, the mainstream media is reporting a very different story, that the governor and lawmakers are receiving death threats. From valleynewslive.com, March 27:
[T]he N.D. Highway Patrol and the Richland County State’s Attorney are investigating potentially threatening emails and phone calls sent to lawmakers.
The messages were traced to someone in Richland County. Officials won’t say the nature of the messages or which legislators received the threats, and no charges have been filed at this point.
“We were very surprised,” says Robin Nelson, one of the organizers of Monday night’s rally protesting the anti-abortion bills and a Stand Up for Women organizer. “Stand Up for Women is a peaceful movement, but this is an emotional issue. Emotions are running high.”
A group fighting for the legal right to murder babies is “a peaceful movement”? Sure.
More from the Stand Up for Women ND Facebook page (click to enlarge)…
Reality bites.
It dawned on me yesterday after reading about these threats that we should expect major outbreaks of violence and anarchy as we edge closer to the day when abortion is again made illegal in America. Perhaps I’m late to the party.
After seeing what union thugs did in Wisconsin, and the lawlessness of the occupy movement, I have a better taste of what’s ahead.
But then again, I probably don’t.
Because abortion is satan’s baby, pardon the pun.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
“A group fighting for the legal right to murder babies is “a peaceful movement”? Sure.”
Yes, they want to kill babies in peace.
Jill, this blog post echoes a column I read this week at National Catholic Register:
Preparing My Children for Martyrdom
Interesting while tragic article. Thanks for the link Cranky.
RESPECTFUL killing of babies in peace.
I love how the abortion princess who responds just can’t believe that those sweet widdle abortion rights warriors would call in death threats! THEY WANT MORE KILLING. THAT’S THEIR GOAL.
HELLO.
More details here:
http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/259923/
Sad. Sounds like drugs are involved.
You know, that group really needs to change its name to “Stand Up for [Born] Women ND,” given that they oppose the bill banning abortion for purposes of sex selection. Their philosophy is, “Don’t want a girl? Kill her! Problem solved!” Doesn’t sound like “standing up for women” to me.
Well, as much as they are being pretty inconsistent, I will give grudging props to the fauxminists for calling out the threatmakers and seeking to defuse the situation. At least it’s something.
That’s the sick thing. The Left makes the Right out to be the sicko, violent freaks. But which side not only more often follows through but is never cast as sickos by the media?
We are not surprised.
Pro-aborts believe that killing is a suitable solution to just about any sort of problem.
“Pro-aborts believe that killing is a suitable solution to just about any sort of problem.”
hello, mr. strawman.
Jack well done, abortion is killing of unprotected with out a voice, the opposition is strong because they know that are loosing, the misleading campaign with false freedom for women is starting to brake. Women are starting seeing the cost for them of abortion, many women had express the pain and unbearable lost of the lost of their child. Well done. G-D way is life not dead.
One of the proaborts on the FB page says, “they could be propagandizing this to make the pro-choicers look bad.”
Or you could just look bad because, uh, I don’t know, you support the killing of innocent humans.
Then let me rephrase that for you Blue Velvet:
Abortion rights advocates believe that abortion is a suitable solution to just about any sort of problem?
Is this not true by many pro-choicer’s standards? Is this not what we’ve heard here a number of times here? Having an abortion is more desirable than having a child born into poverty or to become a violent criminal? That without abortion access, women will be more likely to be unemployed, school drop outs, and in poverty? That abortion rights and increased abortion access would remedy this?
“Pro-aborts believe that killing is a suitable solution to just about any sort of problem.”
hello, mr. strawman.
Says the person who had her own child killed so she could finish school. Lack of self-awareness, for the lose.
Here is another comment written by Linda Olsrud on the Stand up for Women FB page:
Can we get rid of the pro-life trolls on here? My first instinct was it is they who are making the threats. In general, people who are pro-choice (and most are also pro-life, we just think it is nobody’s business but ours what happens with our bodies) are smart enough to know how to effect change and it is not by threatening an adult state official. However, there certainly IS proof that the other side thinks nothing of killing doctors or clinic workers. This site posted a request and a suggestion in response to what is being rumored. All of you zealots need to post on your own pages. You just prove once again how nuts you are.
When you get into Ms. Olsrud’s FB page you find she is Executive Director at VSA North Dakota, the State Organization on Arts and Disability.
I wouldn’t allow Ms. Olsrud to watch my pets to say nothing of a disabled child. It’s really hard for me to take women like Linda seriously. She claims to care for the same people she advocates killing in the womb.
But we are the nuts. Alrighty then.
No, I got an abortion so I wouldn’t be pregnant any more. Difference.
Just noticed that Ms. Olsrud also has this listed under “About” on her FB page:
Nominee for the new Obama Administration’s Secretary for the Arts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6_1Pw1xm9U
No, I got an abortion so I wouldn’t be pregnant any more.
This is like me saying I got a hitman so I wouldn’t be poor any more.
You know because my teen sure eats a lot of food and grows out of his clothing quickly.
Nice detective work, Prax. Thick as thieves they all are, but at least thieves supposedly have a degree of honor.
No, I got an abortion so I wouldn’t be pregnant any more.
And what was the big pressing deal that you couldn’t wait a few months? You realize that whole “pregnancy” thing clears up on its own after awhile, right?
Yes, pregnancy surely “clears up,” like the common cold. Right. Tell me, how is it being unemployed in this economy with a bunch of kids to take care of? Must be terribly rewarding.
Not analogous, Prax. Your teenager isn’t living inside you any more. I know the distinction can be confusing.
Yes, pregnancy surely “clears up,” like the common cold. Right. Tell me, how is it being unemployed in this economy with a bunch of kids to take care of? Must be terribly rewarding.
I wouldn’t know any longer, since I’ve already secured new employment. Jobs come and go, and not one of them is any replacement for the lives of either one of my children. But I don’t expect you to fathom that. It *is* rewarding, however.
But yeah, go cuddle your degree or smooch your paycheck. Cuz that’s uber-rewarding, I’m sure.
Your teenager isn’t living inside you any more.
Your right, by golly, BV. This. is. because. I. didn’t. pay. the. hitman. to. kill. him. while. he. was. there.
Furthermore, I’d hardly qualify 2 children as “a bunch”, and whether or not it is challenging or rewarding for me is absolutely irrelevant, since THEY seem to be very fond of living, and that has remained a constant in hard times and easy times. You would’ve had the chance to witness that yourself, had you allowed your child to live rather than having him/her killed as you did.
Probably more rewarding knowing that I didn’t have to being a child into this world to anchor my own emotional stability.
Right. Because not killing Maggie was all for MEEE and not for her. Is that what you have to tell yourself to sleep at night, Megs? That NOT killing your child would’ve been “selfish”? Sad.
Because being poor is SOOOO much worse than being dead, you know.
So Megs, you KILLED your child to anchor your emotional stability??
C’mon. If you had allowed your baby to live, don’t you think you would have found a way for you both to live in this world? Millions of women do it all the time. They adapt. They delay. They work. They sacrifice. They open their hearts.
My emotional stability has been challenged many times since having my 3. I have a teeange daughter who looks more and more like a supermodel by the day, so I suspect it will be again. My body’s all stretched out, no matter how much exercising I do. Mostly, dh and I look at each other and think, “meh.”
But there was this moment, last night, when DD2, Blaise, walked towards me during the twilight after a hard fought soccer game, smiled at me, and said, “I’m so glad you came.” Bring on the extra butt and the loss of income not finishing that PHD will forever plague me. As long as I can have more moments like these.
BV, you do realize that no one is forced to raise a child, right? Why not have the baby and place him/her or adoption? Then you don’t have to worry about the costs of raising a child, and the child doesn’t have to die for the sake of your convenience. Win-win.
You know, my brother was laid off from his civil engineering job when his wife was 8 months pregnant with their 2nd child. Do you think she should have had an abortion at that point, given they no longer had income?
Probably more rewarding knowing that I didn’t have to being a child into this world to anchor my own emotional stability.
Your right, BV. I found a picture of yourself in the dictionary after the words “emotional stability”.
e·mo·tion·al sta·bil·i·ty - /i?m?SH?nl/ /st??bilit?/
1 : the quality, state, or degree of being emotionally stable: as in
a. one who didn’t have to bring her child in the world but spends the rest of her
life defending her right to take him out to those who oppose taking out
children
2 : a women with twelve college degrees who still insists on calling herself Blue
Velvet
Examples of EMOTIONAL STABILITY
the mother’s mental and emotional stability
More proof of her emotional stability is the fact she chose to abort her only child to further her education.
There shall be not further questions regarding the emotional stability of women named Blue Velvet.
But there was this moment, last night, when DD2, Blaise, walked towards me during the twilight after a hard fought soccer game, smiled at me, and said, “I’m so glad you came.”
I recently checked out my daughter’s sport’s questionnaire on her college website. After the question “My role model:” my little girl wrote, “My mom.”
These are precious moments for sure, Courtnay.
Prax, it almost makes up for the first two solid years of his life when all he did was cry. :)
Please do not flatter yourself into thinking that I’m “defending” my decisions to you. It seems to be a trend among you prolifers, this smug delusion that everybody secretly wants your life. Or that you can sit on a moral pedestal forevermore because you felt an obligation to an embryo. Go you!
Then why are you here, Megs?
Because nothing infuriates me more than women who want to control what other women do with their bodies.
And why are you here, Courtnay? To be a “witness” for “life,” or to validate your own decisions in this conservative, antiwoman echo chamber?
I have no desire to control what a woman does with her own body
I do think women should not dismember someone else’s body, such as that of an unborn child.
Why are you anti-science, BV? Science has clearly shown that unborn children have separate, distinct, genetically unique bodies of their own. Why are you so eager to control the bodies of unborn children?
Let me ask you this. While I was pregnant with my son, did I have a penis?
For my part, I’m here to discuss and help expose the anti-scientific and wholly illogical rhetoric of the enthusiastically pro-abortion crowd.
Thanks for asking. Ever since I was 13 years old, this is the issue that God has put on my heart. No matter where I was led religiously, spiritually or politically (and before I became a mom, most significantly), I have always carried the absolute conviction that we cannot kill innocent people, no matter how little and quiet they are. So yes, I became their voice. I will never not be their voice. I will never not know that killing unborn babies is wrong.
Plus, I seek no validation because none is necessary. When you are absolutely right, you don’t test your convictions against the current winds. If I did that, I’d be an Episcopalian Liberal, which is, ironically, what most of my friends are. I’m used to being an outlier, and it sort of suits me.
But back to you Megs. You carved out a presence here, and then you changed your name. And you purposely spend valuable time at a place and with people who infuriate you. Why? As long as you’ve been here, we’ve never softened our defense of your baby’s right to life. There’s no chance we will. And these are hours you can never get back. Again, why?
Hanahah oh, that’s laughable. So what does science say about the social rights that can be claimed by two entities housed in the same body?
Because I don’t own a television, which is absolutely pathetic, I know.
Because I don’t own a television, which is absolutely pathetic, I know.
It’s not the tv you are missing. . . .
Prax, it almost makes up for the first two solid years of his life when all he did was cry
I hear you! That little girl of mine fussed a lot the first couple of years, too. I would drive her around the back roads, put her in her carrier and put her on the dryer while it was running, sing to her (this made her cry harder!), rock her, bathe her, lay her on a heating pad, try different foods, etc., etc. But no terrible twos for her. Once she hit toddler-hood, she was the easiest, most even-tempered child.
Now the boys were the exact opposite. Quiet, easy, sleep-through-the-night infants but once they found out what their legs were for, they took off and haven’t stopped since!
You presence and viewpoint are valuable here insofar as you serve to doubly reinforce my commitment to life for all human beings with human hearts, blood, dna, lady or mister parts, etc., no matter where they happen to housed. So you help US. But c’mon, isn;t there some holy-abortion-feminist web site where you could garner some high fives? (you aren’t missing much on tv, for sure.)
And just so you know, since I breastfed my three, they were tied to and dependent upon me A LONG TIME after they were born. Newborns nurse like 8-12 times a day, so for all practical purposes, I housed them for a lot longer than their gestation. Why is breathing on your own the distinction for proaborts as the human mechanism that finally makes you autonomous? Why not eating/drinking? Because then, I would have had a whole lot longer to choose whether I wanted that infant, right? Choice is GOOD.
Or that you can sit on a moral pedestal forevermore because you felt an obligation to an embryo. Go you!
I can put my hand out and touch, or feel, the desk that my computer sits upon. I can do this, because it is actually there, it is real, and it exists.
I never want to be as numb as you, Megan.
The fetus I was carrying at the same time you had the embryo which shared a genetic child-parent bond with you killed is now 5 years old. He has steadily been increasing his vocabulary and learning new words to read because he’s driven to do so. I’m constantly in awe of his ambition to read so that he can better interact with his other family members. He says the most hilarious things, and he loves making others laugh. This is a real obligation a mother has to her child so that they may experience such things. Every human being is entitled to live such a life. This is a common theme in our society, and it is why entities like Child Protective Services were established. The basic principles of human rights are not scientific and cannot be proven, but the inherent need in so many people to protect the youngest, weakest, and most defenseless among us certainly speaks volumes as to how deeply ingrained in our society the social rights of our children are.
With the exception of abortion, of course. And why someone would want to take part in and then stump for such a bloody exception to such a beautiful precedent is beyond me.
But yeah. Woohoo. Go, you.
In all fairness, Megan, I do like the name Blue Velvet.
Blue Velvet reminds me of my parents. It was their “song” (do couples have songs anymore?) My mom had a blue velvet dress and white knee-high boots that she wore when her and dad went out for dinner. I loved that outfit and I don’t know how she was able to get her hair up in that huge beehive!
It is a really nice song.
Because nothing infuriates me more than women who want to control what other women do with their bodies.
That infuriates me, too. That’s why it’s so ironic that the only child I’ve carried thus far whose life was ever in the balance of the question of abortion was MY DAUGHTER. She’s a beautiful young woman now, Megan. Do you think your child was a girl? If so, who was the one in control of whose body, then?
Praxedes,
My better half and I have a song. Taj Mahal, by Sam Roberts. It is absolutely gorgeous, and captures the passion of our relationship perfectly. It was the soundtrack of the night we professed our love for one another.
PLease, please check out “True Companion” by Marc Cohn.
Best wedding dance song Eh. VER.
Amazing songs! I’ve never heard either of them.
Me and hubby need to get us a song; I’ll have to play these for him. And I think X should bring the beehive back. She could pull it off. (:
I know you didn’t ask me Megan but like Courtney, I am here because feel called to speak out for those who can’t.
And because outspoken prolifers are the best of the best.
And because I hope to bring folks like you over to where true freedom can be found.
And because I used to drink like a fish and smoke like a chimney and Jill’s Place is my latest addiction.
And because I avoid housework like the plague.
Well, Courtnay, in a world where your right to physical autonomy and liberty doesn’t matter, the govt could have forced you to breastfeed your children for as long as it saw fit. Also, if little Timmy’s mom down the street was having difficulty breastfeeding at the time, you might have been called upon to feed him, too. Why not?
Well there’s a completely unsupported slippery slope.
Blue Velvet, do you think it should be legal to refuse to breastfeed your own child if it’s certain to result in their death?
So, I guess this thread stopped being about the death threats a while back, huh?
Oops. Sorry JDC we got a little off track. Just trying to bring light to darkness.
I don’t see your thoughts about this situation up there anywhere but maybe I missed them. I have had threats made to my life. Have you? It’s not fun and of course threats are hard to prove especially if they are made one-on-one. I applaud anyone who stands up to this evil behavior.
I personally find it real easy to skip over the posts that I don’t want to read. So, I guess you find it hard, huh?
Happy Easter JDC. I hope your day is filled with Joy.
“Oops. Sorry JDC we got a little off track. Just trying to bring light to darkness.”
No need to apologize it’s perfectly fine. I just find the directions these conversations go very interesting, and sometimes feel the need to acknowledge as such.
“I have had threats made to my life. Have you?”
No, not yet anyway. I guess I haven’t angered the right people yet. :)
“Happy Easter JDC. I hope your day is filled with Joy.”
Happy Easter, Praxedes. I wish the same for you as well.
Thanks, JDC.
No, not yet anyway. I guess I haven’t angered the right people yet.
Keep speaking out and you surely will. I think I often anger people just by being myself. (:
Blue Velvet, do you think it should be legal to refuse to breastfeed your own child if it’s certain to result in their death?
I’ve asked pro-choice people several times:
Prior to the invention of baby formula in 1867, would it have been completely moral and ethical for a woman to deny her baby permission to breast-feed and let it starve to death?
I’ve never gotten an answer.
I’ve never gotten an answer.
If PP was around back then, their lobbyists would have probably answered, ““We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”
That’s why wet nurses existed.
That’s sidestepping the question BV. If there was no other way for a baby to get nutrients, would you think it was moral for a mother (or father) to refuse to feed them for whatever reason?
I didn’t sidestep the question. I don’t believe that the mother should be compelled to breastfeed the child, but she would need to secure other means of feeding the infant. Born child, has rights. Anyway, aren’t you doing exactly what prolifers accuse US of doing, which is using a less common instance to “win” your case? Ill return to my fundamental point, which is that women should not be forced to gestate an unborn child against her will.
Jack why are you anti-abortion? It seems likes many people in this board had bad relationships with their mothers, and this “prolifeness” could be a way to seek a kind of retroactive punishment for failed mothering. I am pro choice because many of my female relatives had terrible experiences with pregnancy, and I saw how much my parents sacrificed to have me. These family histories are formative, no doubt.
I just find it umplausible that anybody could sincerely believe that an unborn child could claim the same rights as the grown woman whose body it occupies. Forgive my unsophisticated psychoanalysis.
Well, my relationship with my mother is probably formative, no doubt. It’s not about “punishing” her though (you have to look at it through the most negative lens don’t you?) . I have no wish to “punish” my mom or any other woman for anything, actually most of what I feel towards my mom is pity that my existence makes her so miserable. It’s about ensuring that children who were unloved and unwanted aren’t forever at the legal mercy of people who wish them to be dead. I don’t see how my life or anyone else’s should be dependent on how loved we are.
But honestly I have noticed the opposite, that most pro-lifers (me being an obvious exception) came from rather “traditional” families where they had mothers they were quite close to. Most of them can’t seem to imagine that a woman wouldn’t be happy to be one or grow to love her initially unwanted child, which I think is limited because obviously some women really, really don’t want kids and never grow to love the unwanted ones. I think birth control is a great thing. I’m just unwilling to legally support the deaths of these kids because of the fact that some people don’t want to parent.
“I just find it umplausible that anybody could sincerely believe that an unborn child could claim the same rights as the grown woman whose body it occupies. Forgive my unsophisticated psychoanalysis.”
But we do, all personal experiences aside. Regardless of whether you believe it’s sincere or psychological damage driven, it’s just a fact that a whole lot of us think that unborn children deserve legal protection.
Because at one point in my life, *I* was the unborn child. Because at one point in her life, my daughter was the unborn child.
Where does a desire for punishment fit into empathy and logic…anywhere?
“Where does a desire for punishment fit into empathy and logic…anywhere?”
I think a better question is where does logic fit into the pro-choice position. Oh wait, we already know the answer: nowhere.
I am pro choice because many of my female relatives had terrible experiences with pregnancy, and I saw how much my parents sacrificed to have me. These family histories are formative, no doubt.
So…you were afraid of pregnancy and motherhood, Megan? I feel sorry for you, what you lost out on due to your fears. And I feel very sorry for your child, as well.
I was recently talking to a dear friend of mine that I knew before I ever even started having children, before I even met my children’s biological father. He was afraid, and pressured his girlfriend to have an abortion. I care a great deal about him, but his numbness in this regard is reminiscent of Megan, and is very troubling. You can see the fear there. Always the fear.
It’s sad. Sometimes, to get the best out of living, you just have to let your Tyler Durden take over and stop being so freaking scared of life.
Wrong, X. I didn’t feel “fear”; rather, I was grateful that I live under a political system that respects me as a full subject, a subject capable of deciding if or when to grow a new human inside of me. Your mother deserved the right to choose, you deserved the right to choose, and your DAUGHTER deserves that right, too.
I’m never going to get standing up for the right of abusive mothers (or parents in general) over the abused kids.
So how far should the state go in protectjng the unborn against their mothers? Should the govt incarcerate women monitor all pregnant women so they don’t do anything “abusive”?
Yes, because we constantly monitor children of born parents, you know. Every second of every day, the Party watches me through my Big Brother television set to make sure I am raising my children correctly.
Or, you could look at it rationally and realize pregnant women under pro-life laws will live their lives like any other parent.
Wrong, X. I didn’t feel “fear”; rather, I was grateful that I live under a political system that respects me as a full subject, a subject capable of deciding if or when to grow a new human inside of me.
Deflection. Everything you stated as to your reasoning indicated fear on your part. Furthermore, you realize no one here opposes a person’s ability to DECIDE if/when to become a parent. It’s simply that once you were pregnant, you ALREADY WERE growing a new human being inside of you! That’s the problem, Megan. You already WERE. You know that.
Your mother deserved the right to choose, you deserved the right to choose, and your DAUGHTER deserves that right, too.
Yeah, my mom deserved AND HAD that right, and I deserved AND HAD that right, my daughter deserves and WILL HAVE that right, too, and NOTHING she or I am advocating for will revoke that right! But you totally ignore that once we are pregnant, THAT RIGHT IS IRRELEVANT, because we ARE ALREADY GROWING THAT NEW HUMAN BEING INSIDE OF US! And Megan, nothing you say is going to change HER mind, because she KNOWS that once a woman is pregnant she is ALREADY growing that new human being within her…because SHE KNOWS that she was once that human being…she KNOWS what her father wanted me to do to her, too. And she knows what you did to your child, too. She knows what you did to that child that is/was the same age as her little brother that she loves so much too. She knows that. And I know that a 10 year old is not smarter than you.
Hmm in my last comment, I meant “parents of born children”, not “children of born parents”.
Don’t judge me it’s late.
Because nothing screams prolife like multiple shootings, stalking people at their homes, groups of people chasing women down streets after being repeatedly told to go away and plotting to blow up buildings. Oh wait, plotting to blow up a building gets you praise on prolife sites and a plum position with Operation Rescue. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones is a good and apt saying that applies to both sides.
A whole host of pro-women’s slavery going on here today. In essence what you support is the ability to lock up women for 9 months if necessary and force them to carry an unwanted pregnancy against their will. You call an undifferentiated clump of cells a baby. Why? Because it lives and has human dna? Sperm has human dna and lives. And yet where are the religious fanatics on the war path about all the millions of little sperm babies left on the sheets of your so-called religious followers on cold solo saturday nights. 98% of abortions take place when that “baby” has no face, no limbs, no nervous system, no consciousness, no identifable human form. That’s not a baby and that’s not a human being. That’s a potential human being. You propose to force women to use their bodies against their will so a potential human being can live. And yet, in no other circumstance do we force human beings to use their bodies so others can live. For example, a father could not be forced to donate his bone marrow to his two-day old infant to preserve his life. Your dreams of overturning Roe v. Wade is a fairytale. It’s extremely doubtful that ND’s law will even be accepted on appeal to the 8th circuit. But go ahead and pat yourselves on the back for the time being. Two years from now when the state has spent millions defending a law that has no defense, you can explain yourselves to the taxpayers.
North Dakota state legislators have deluded themselves. Here’s exactly what’s going to happen. The constitutionality of this law will be challenged immediately in federal district court. The federal court will issue an injunction prohibiting it from being enforced while the case is pending in court. Federal courts are required to follow legal precedent. Roe v. Wade is legal precedent. Because this legislation is so blatantly outside the realm of Roe v. Wade, the federal district court will have no choice but to find it unconstituional on its face. North Dakota will appeal to the 8th circuit. The 8th Circuit will summarily affirm the lower court because the law is so blatantly and obviously unconstitutional on its face. Case closed. In the meantime, North Dakota will have spent millions of taxpayer dollars defending a law that was indefensible. All this from a party who claims to be about less government spending. The hillbilly tea party strikes again.
How was your Easter, Tenn and JC?
I’ll bet you a nickel they both turn out to be the same guy.
Thank you for asking. My Easter was perfect and wonderful. I went to church with my extended family, brunch with my husband and then my parents came to town and we had both a child and adult Easter egg hunt at my Uncle’s house. My nephew found the prize egg and was over the moon. Nobody stalked, plotted to blow up any building of any kind or shot anybody. Before you ask, I do not have post abortion anger. My husband and I have no children by choice. I have used the evil birth control and avoided pregnancy. Thank God the Jesus I believed who died for all our sins isn’t as intolerant and self-righteous as many so-called Christians.
Hey, Tenn? Do you think all feminists are crazy people who threaten people with death for passing laws they don’t agree with, or in one rather hypocritical case, send death threats to a woman who worked with domestic violence victims and said that women could be as abusive as men? No? You don’t judge all feminists on some extremists that claim the label? Then you probably shouldn’t do it to other groups like pro-lifers.
Jack, I do not judge all prolifers by the same standards as criminals at all. In fact, my Easter that I spent was with a pro-life family. They were a family who chose to give birth to a baby who did not develop a brain in the uterus. I fully support their family even though the child died right after birth and a dear family member nearly killed himself over this event. What I am referring to is the prolife urge to characterize every single person who isn’t rabidly prolife as being a fan of chopping babies to pieces for the hell of it. This simply isn’t true. I would further say that an internet threat while wrong is a far cry from taking a fire arm and killing a person. I would also think it was a far cry from Ms. Sullenburger (sorry if the spelling is wrong) plotting to blow up an abortion clinic in Los Angeles. Aside from clinic employees, I doubt she was trained in proper handling and transport of those types of materials and could have killed many getting them to the clinic. Look at pictures outside the clinic in Louisville. As many as 7 or 8 or more men and women will gather around people going down the sidewalk shouting and trying to force written materials on them after they have asked to be left alone. Those people may have been rape victims in the past (I was, it did not result in pregnancy) and a group of men shouting at me and refusing to leave me alone would be traumatic for me. Prolifers have in fact shot physicians fatally. They have followed them home and even if those people have innocent minor children they stand outside their house for hours. If some random people chased me down a public street or stood outside my house for eight hours it would be considered stalking. I would call the police. My point is that it is highly hypocritical for a movement that has a history of extremists murdering, stalking, plotting to blow up and harassing to point out the few extremists of the other side of the issue. I do not think people should be threatened ever, at all, over any sort of media. I condemn it. It is wrong. To say people do this because they are prolife or prochoice is absurd because both groups have people who behave as they shouldn’t. This site claims “all” prochoice baby murderers act the same way. I don’t. Your issue is with them because I agree with you.
Well, killing is the baseline for “pro-choice”.
As was expressed earlier in this thread, only one person on this thread has caused the death of someone else, and that is the “pro-choice” Megan/Blue Velvet.
As atheists/agnostics, you do realize that Jack and I don’t really care that you contracept and have opted not to have children, right? Good for you! Seriously! But making the decision not to have children, accidentally getting pregnant, then killing the resulting child in an abortion is NOT an acceptable method to keep someone “child-free”.
Also, abortion supporters actually do this sort of thing a lot more often than the media reports. Been here long? Have you seen the Crisis Pregnancy Center in New York that was vandalized so hard by “Pro-Choicers” they ripped the floor to splinters? How about the Arizona Crisis Pregnancy Center that was firebombed?
Handing someone literature that might be helpful to them out of care and concern isn’t harassment, but I think abortion clinic staff telling me that I should’ve killed my daughter with an abortion is.
How about when a pro-legal abortionist shoots a pro-lifer to death?
How about an elderly pro-lifer being assaulted so badly he was put in the hospital by a pro-legal abortionist just for collecting signatures? …Bonus for you-the attacker turned out to be a serial rapist!
Mathew Reid Haver tried to run over an elderly 40 Days For Life participant with his SUV in Chico, California.
And the list goes on…The history of extremists on both sides to be violent is there, it’s just that only one side has theirs reported. Educate yourself, Tenn!
I condemn violence on both sides. What I said was it was hypocritical of people who claim to be prolife to clutch their pearls and gasp in awe that some prochoice behave illegally or even violently while venerating prolife people who do the same. Not all prolife people are the same. Not all prochoice people are the same. I am agreeing with you on that.
Sorry, Tenn. Epic fail. There’s a huge difference.
Dietrich Bonhoffer’s proposed violence against Hitler is in NO WAY comparable to Hitler’s violence against Jews, homosexuals and mentally retarded. One was was a response to the other. One is righteous, and the other is not.
I would do anything to protect innocent children outside of the womb. They are no less precious inside the womb. If that means standing out side the abortion mill and hand out information to less bloody means, then by all means, I will do that because it is righteous. Though I will most likely leave my pearls on at home. It’s not a dinner party, this desire of ours to end the slaughter of the unborn.
What I said was it was hypocritical of people who claim to be prolife to clutch their pearls and gasp in awe that some prochoice behave illegally or even violently while venerating prolife people who do the same.
And I said I am not in awe, as supporting the choice to kill other human beings-children-in order to solve one’s problems is the baseline for the “Pro-Choice” or pro-legal abortion position. ;)
Well X, maybe someday your little sword-wielding defender of the unborn will grow up and realize that her birth was a gift, not an entitlement.
It’s a thought exercise, Jack, and a response to your claim that I would protect perpetrators of abuse over their victims. But I would argue that if the state truly wanted to define personhood at the moment of conception, then it would have to do a whole lot more than outlaw abortion to fully honor the unborn as full citizens.
“Well X, maybe someday your little sword-wielding defender of the unborn will grow up and realize that her birth was a gift, not an entitlement.”
I’m seriously glad that X is raising her daughter to know that she is deserving of life, and her worth isn’t dependent on how much someone else wants her. Being raised the opposite is absolutely horrible.
“It’s a thought exercise, Jack, and a response to your claim that I would protect perpetrators of abuse over their victims. But I would argue that if the state truly wanted to define personhood at the moment of conception, then it would have to do a whole lot more than outlaw abortion to fully honor the unborn as full citizens.”
You do protect the perps over the victims in some cases. I am sure you don’t in most cases though.
What do you think would have to be done to protect the unborn as citizens, in a hypothetical world where they have the same human rights as all of us? If I take your past comments into account it seems that you think the state would have the right to imprison pregnant women on a whim.
A whole host of pro-women’s slavery going on here today. In essence what you support is the ability to lock up women for 9 months if necessary and force them to carry an unwanted pregnancy against their will.
Not really. What I support is affording the unborn the same basic rights as born children, which include the right to not be killed and the right to the basic necessities of life from one’s parents. That’s a far cry from locking the parents up for nine months.
You call an undifferentiated clump of cells a baby. Why? Because it lives and has human dna? Sperm has human dna and lives. And yet where are the religious fanatics on the war path about all the millions of little sperm babies left on the sheets of your so-called religious followers on cold solo saturday nights.
No. Because the unborn is a distinct, whole human organism from fertilization on (which any embryology textbook can tell you) and because the differences between the embryo you once were and the mature human you are now (size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency) aren’t sufficient to justify killing you at that stage. The sperm cell, on the other hand, is part of a larger organism rather than a complete entity. It’s no more a human being than a piece of blank film is a photograph. A human genome can help us distinguish between an embryonic human and an embryonic panda, but having one isn’t sufficient for a living thing to be a human being.
This would be more difficult to refute than the human DNA + alive strawman. But you did ask.
98% of abortions take place when that “baby” has no face, no limbs, no nervous system, no consciousness, no identifable human form.
Can’t let you do that, Star Fox. This is what it looks like at eight weeks. The percentage of abortions done after eight weeks is… more than 2%.
That’s not a baby and that’s not a human being. That’s a potential human being.
(See: The Developing Embryo by Moore and Persaud).
You propose to force women to use their bodies against their will so a potential human being can live. And yet, in no other circumstance do we force human beings to use their bodies so others can live.
That’s not necessarily true. See the above thought exercise on breastfeeding.
Your dreams of overturning Roe v. Wade is a fairytale.
We shall see. It won’t happen today or tomorrow with the current breakdown of justices (or the current president). But experts in constitutional law will admit (after being given varying amounts of truth serum, depending on ideology) that the Roe v. Wade decision is intellectually indefensible.
Maggie:
Blue Velvet, you are very idiotic. Your choices are very idiotic. You think that I don’t have a right to live, and whenever YOU were an unborn child, YOU wouldn’t have a right to live. But EVERYONE should have a right to live. An abortion is just like if someone murdered somebody. It’s taking away their right to live, and it’s wrong-very wrong. You think that if my mom and my dad had been switched, I would be dead right now, and you think that’s okay.
Such solipsism – hope she grows out of it.
It’s a stable starting point. And, at least she has the chance to grow out of it, because I didn’t kill her.
OOOOh. SOLIPSISM. Is that one of your college degree words? Nice.
I hope nobody missed what Megs said above; it’s striking and quite neatly delineates (yeah, I learned that one in college too. No killing required) the difference between pro life and proabortion mindsets.
Well X, maybe someday your little sword-wielding defender of the unborn will grow up and realize that her birth was a gift, not an entitlement.
Bing-freakin’-o! See, to Megs, a mother “gifts” her child with birth (cause she already has life in the womb) when it’s convenient for the mother. The baby, created through no responsibility of her own, isn’t entitled to a darn thing (prenatal care, birth, breastmilk) unless it suits mom.
CLUE: the baby is the gift from GOD to US (sorry, X, just go with me here.) We are receivers of the gift of life. As a woman, I can be channel of peace or destruction of that gift, but make no mistake: a person’s worth (at any stage of life) does not depend on someone else’s opinion, EVER EVER EVER. The entitlement to life, or right to life, is foundational, preeminent, personal and absolute: if you’re here, in any way, shape or form, you get a seat at the table.
Unless you’re at Megan’s dinner party. That dreary affair is by invitation only.
Pretty much, Courtnay. I just think it’s disturbing that a 10 year old girl can better comprehend justice and basic human rights than a college-educated grown woman.
“Basic human rights” dictate that the right to life and autonomy are inextricably linked. If not, then it’s permissible to secure our continued existence at the expense if somebody else’s right to bodily sovereignty, health and wellbeing. And in lay terms, that’s called slavery.
Well Courtnay, at your dinner party I’m sure we’d talk about all kinds of ways to safeguard human life than merely outlawing abortion. Banning war, capital punishment, access to firearms, smoking, border policing, fatty foods and interstate highways would all be hot topics on the agenda, I’m sure.
Megs, we could talk about those things. But we would always begin with the right to life, because without that, other rights and safeguards are meaningless. Civil rights begin in the womb.
You love your bodily autonomy: we get it. You act as if carrying YOUR CHILD (not just anyone’s, not just a random baby who showed up in your body, unprodded by nature and human action) is the hugest tragedy you might endure. And what you fail to realize is that for those of us who’ve been reading your comments, post after post, year after year, see so clearly what you do not: the tragedy lies in your inisistence that your abortion was wise and measured, and your baby was a meaningless embryo. We might infuriate you, Megan, but I think we also make you feel something. Which is better than nothing.
That’s a punt.
Well X, maybe someday your little sword-wielding defender of the unborn will grow up and realize that her birth was a gift, not an entitlement.
Wow, BlueVelvet. If only you could get the Democratic Party to adopt this cold-blooded template, we would at last solve the “entitlements problem”, and along with it the deficit.
Because how can you be entitled to anything if you’re not entitled to be alive in the first place? Think of it as sort of a screwy “fruit of the poisonous tree”.
That’s a punt.
Only in that it went way over your head.
“Basic human rights” dictate that the right to life and autonomy are inextricably linked. If not, then it’s permissible to secure our continued existence at the expense if somebody else’s right to bodily sovereignty, health and wellbeing. And in lay terms, that’s called slavery.
No. Many, many people that are not slaves also lack complete bodily autonomy. Infants, young children, prisoners, physically disabled, mentally disabled, caregivers, the unconscious, etc. Basic human rights dictate that the right to life comes before complete bodily autonomy. And slaves also have a right to life.
“Basic human rights” dictate that the right to life and autonomy are inextricably linked.
Yes. Because if the right to life is not recognized, the right to “autonomy” loses all meaning and relevance.
If not, then it’s permissible to secure our continued existence at the expense if somebody else’s right to bodily sovereignty, health and wellbeing.
Minor children ALREADY HAVE such rights at the expense of their guardians, who by default are their biological parents. Abortion is the ONLY exception. WHUPS!
And in lay terms, that’s called slavery.
Unless you’re talking about MINOR CHILDREN, in which case that’s called PARENTHOOD, and all your bellyaching sounds like sociopathic pap.
Plus, I don’t know how this comment, “But EVERYONE should have a right to live. An abortion is just like if someone murdered somebody. It’s taking away their right to live, and it’s wrong-very wrong.” lends itself to solipsism.
You can talk until you’re blue in the face, Blue Velvet. You can do all the mental gymnastics you need to try and justify it, but the FACT won’t change…
YOU are the mother of a dead child..and always will be.
On the flip side, the “right to life” is a fundamental element of the right to bodily integrity. If I have the right to remain free from violations to my person, then I also have the right to remain free from violations that could end my life. Really, trying to reverse the order here means that it is morally permissible to do all sorts of things to people as long as they don’t die as a result. Forced marriage is allowable in some countries because the right to life is separated from the right to
Oh, just when it was getting good. ;)
All my “bellyaching”? That’s a stupid way to argue, to trivialize your opponent’s concerns. In that case, how about this: grow up, stop pretending you’re in some kind of real-life, antiabortion version of Tomb Raider, and leave grown women to decide what they’d like to host inside their bodies, and for how long.
Way, waaaaaaaaaaaaaay over.
All my “bellyaching”? That’s a stupid way to argue, to trivialize your opponent’s concerns.
Is that anything like disregarding the legitimate point of a 10 year old who would’ve been killed in an abortion had her parents’ genders been reversed at the time she was conceived and calling her solipsistic? I’m sorry, you’ll have to give me the copy of your double-standards rule book you’re attempting to use against a 10 year old girl, because I’m not following. And heck-it wasn’t even an applicable insult if you’d bothered to have read everything she said.
In that case, how about this: grow up, stop pretending you’re in some kind of real-life, antiabortion version of Tomb Raider, and leave grown women to decide what they’d like to host inside their bodies, and for how long.
Never was able to play Tomb Raider. The controls were always rather cumbersome for me. I AM a grown up, though. According to The Entertainment Software Association, by their own survey numbers, the average game player is 30 years old, and more than half of American adults play video games. So, I’m pretty average as far as gamers and adults are concerned.
But I digress. I wish the issue we were actually discussing was as trivial as something like video games. But, we’re not talking about trivialities like games here, Megan, aside from the child-like tantrum you have been throwing up and down this thread. Because, as was pointed out to you earlier by someone who, had she been unfortunate enough to have found herself housed in your icebox of a uterus (under that vestigial heart-shaped berg ice in your chest), she would most likely be DEAD now, we are not talking about “what”, but “who”. The “who” being your child, my child, and all children. Every human being here, yourself included, started out as one of those “who”s, and trying to pretend like your child was not a “who” but a “what” is a blatant and very sad coping mechanism after being confronted by one of those “who”s that you had killed.
And she’s just the one who escaped the abortion wished for her by one of her parents and was fortunate enough not to meet the fate you paid for for your child. If you hang around, you’ll eventually have the pleasure of conversing with my son who is roughly the same age your child would be had you let him or her live rather than killing them. So, you’ll always have the opportunity to be reminded that you did not eliminate a “what”, but you killed a “who”, because he’ll be there to remind you.
“On the flip side, the “right to life” is a fundamental element of the right to bodily integrity. If I have the right to remain free from violations to my person, then I also have the right to remain free from violations that could end my life. Really, trying to reverse the order here means that it is morally permissible to do all sorts of things to people as long as they don’t die as a result. Forced marriage is allowable in some countries because the right to life is separated from the right to”
Megan, seriously. You are smarter than this. You know that the vast, vast majority of pro-lifers think that bodily autonomy is an extremely important right. I think it’s only second to the right to life. You can’t have any rights if you are dead, so it naturally follows that the right not the be deprived of life is the most important right that needs to be protected.
Forced marriages happen when cultures don’t have strong body autonomy rights, sure. Funny thing is, those cultures tend to have very weak right to life protections as well. You can argue “which came first, chicken or the egg” all day, but when it comes down to it, the extremely important right to protect your body from violation can only exist if you are alive.
Xalisae, Elder Scrolls and Final Fantasy >>>>>>>> All action games like Tomb Raider :D
Megan it weirds me out how you will step around the issue and refuse to face what you are actually supporting though.
Tell Maggie that you would support her death if X had given into the pressure from her husband and those around her. Tell me I should be dead because it was wrong my dad didn’t let my mom get the abortion. You do this a lot, you’ll defend abortion to the bone but you don’t follow through with the consequences of what you are supporting. You’re talking about real people. You are saying that I shouldn’t be typing this right now, that my children shouldn’t exist because I should have been killed because I was unlucky enough to have an abusive mother. You are saying that Maggie’s life was only worth anything as long as X was strong enough not to give into pressure. We’re real people, just like your baby was and just like all the children that you think are less important than the women who don’t want to carry them.
Never was big on Final Fantasy (HERESY, I KNO), but I love me some Elder Scrolls.
We can’t be friends anymore X, sorry about your terrible taste in video games.
Seriously “not big on Final Fantasy”?? Smdh.
Geeze. I already get this crap from Andy, now you, too. *sulks while hooking up a PS2 to end this once and for all*
Good, now go play VII, X and XII they are my favorites. Nao.
Abortion is illegal in most parts of the Middle East, so in terms of “life” issues as defined by the US, the area has a pretty decent track record. Life without autonomy=the barest form of human existence there is.
Obviously I think the pregnant woman is more important than the unborn life she’s carrying. On one hand we have an autonomous person, and on
the other a completely UNautonomous embryo or fetus that is living inside this woman. You can’t claim to be an independent person with the right to physical integrity, which includes life, if you are literally housed inside someone’s body. I’m not sorry for saying it.
“Abortion is illegal in most parts of the Middle East, so in terms of “life” issues as defined by the US, the area has a pretty decent track record. Life without autonomy=the barest form of human existence there is.”
Again, you are smarter than this. You know that pro-fetus isn’t pro-life. A person who is actually pro-life isn’t going to support the human rights violations that are common in some areas in the Middle East like honor killings.
Again, just say what you really support. Say “Jack, you should be dead right now. It was wrong for your dad to save your life”. Or say “Maggie, I would have been fine with your death if your mom had given into her husband’s pressure”.
Oh, God. Are you denying the humanity of somebody like Rebecca Kirssling if you argue that her mother didn’t deserve to be raped? Seriously selfish and flawed reasoning.
“Oh, God. Are you denying the humanity of somebody like Rebecca Kirssling if you argue that her mother didn’t deserve to be raped? Seriously selfish and flawed reasoning.”
Don’t be ridiculous, I don’t support rape and you know it. No one has the right to be conceived, everyone should have the right to be legally protected from harm once they already exist.
Megan, I’ve said it over, and over, and over again, and I don’t know how else to put this to you so you can understand it:
No one is arguing against a woman deciding when/where/how to become a mother. That’s why rape is illegal-it’s pretty unanimous. However, it is a simple biological fact that once a woman is pregnant, she already HAS become biological mother to a new, living human being. If that was not the case, and we did not have people like Jack and Maggie to LITERALLY SHOW US OTHERWISE, there would be no issue here, and Jack and I would support such a stance 100%.
Life without autonomy=the barest form of human existence there is.
Baloney. That’s the type of thought process that leads to euthanasia and other horrors. You might look at someone like Christopher Reeve after his injury and see “the barest form of human existence”, but that’s your problem because you don’t value human life. Your autonomy is your god. I pray you never experience an accident or illness that takes that away Megan. You might not be strong enough to endure.
Well, that’s a bad example because while Reeve had limited mobility, he was still able to express preferences and had the right to make decisions for himself. He still occupied the same singular body as before. Also, I have experienced serious illness and somehow came out all right, so thanks.
A pregnant woman is still able to express her preferences and make decisions for herself (even is she’s not able to act on all those decisions, as Reeve couldn’t autonomously act on his). She still occupies the same singular body as before. I guess you agree that a pregnant woman possesses the coveted bodily autonomy, even if her pregnancy is unwanted.
Right, she does have autonomy and, like Reeve, can legally make her own decisions, including the decision to get an abortion.
She would have autonomy even if she didn’t legally have the right to get an abortion.
It would be violated, for sure.
Megs, how in the world can you be violated by your own child who you helped to create? Doesn’t this pit mamas up against their children? That’s about as unhealthy as natural relationships get. Moms and their babies are ON THE SAME SIDE. Well, unless you view your own child as a parasite.
Where does bodily autonomy stop? And why there?
BlueVelvet says:
It would be violated, for sure.
Sorry, but if you argue that Christopher Reeve’s lack of mobility didn’t violate his autonomy (like you did April 5, 2013 at 2:01 pm), then there’s no way you can argue that a lack of legal abortion violates a pregnant woman’s autonomy.
I’m talking about autonomy in the sense of the contractual obligation that exists between people. No individual or state entity violated Reeve’s autonomy because his injury was an accident. But If the government passes a law outlawing abortion, then it violates its obligation to respect a woman’s right to make decisions about her body. It’s not the condition of pregnancy, per se, that’s a violation, since a) unborn children aren’t yet persons under the law so can’t be seen as “violators” and b) pregnancy may be desired by the woman. The issue is not being able to end it if she chooses.
I don’t want to “pit” mothers against their unborn children…which, by the way, you guys do when you say that the unborn must be “protected” from their abusive mothers.
Protecting isn’t pitting.
Abortion is killing. i.e., abuse. So yeah, I need to protect those babies.
Are this outraged by seatbelt, soda, and drug laws?
I don’t want to “pit” mothers against their unborn children…which, by the way, you guys do when you say that the unborn must be “protected” from their abusive mothers.
If elective abortion isn’t the epitome of abusing a child to death either directly by or at the behest of a child’s parent(s)…then what is it? Legalizing the act of doing so is what has pitted a mother against her unborn child. If it didn’t exist, the default legal position would go back to a parent societal obligation of protecting and caring for their child, even in utero.
Seriously, though, Megan. Why? Why can’t you just tell me what you think, honestly? Say it to HER, ffs. She deserves it.
I don’t understand you.