NationStates Jolt Archive

North Dakota's House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively outlawing abortion. (http://www.kxmb.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=333726)

Yeah we've seen it tried before. What makes me howl with outrage is this:

The House voted 51-41 this afternoon to declare that a fertilized egg has all the rights of any person. That means a fetus could not be legally aborted without the procedure being considered murder.

That also means that a woman - by simply having her period -could be charged under this law with murder, if the fertilized egg failed to implant and was thus flushed out during the normal course of a period, or a fertilized and implanted egg became non viable and an spontaneous miscarriage occurred...

Oh this is beyond words. Someone give that idiot- and every male idiot in that state house who voted for this stupidity - a gender change for one year. And every male that voted them into power in the first place. And what I'd like to do to any woman who voted for this is unmentionable!

And if you don't think some dumb ass, backwater, country sheriff won't try this out ( should by some forsaken happenstance it actually becomes law ) at some point, you have far more faith in humanity than I.

Bloody ridiculous, and this is coming from somebody who's fairly pro-life.

North Dakota's House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively outlawing abortion. (http://www.kxmb.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=333726)

Yeah we've seen it tried before. What makes me howl with outrage is this:



That also means that a woman - by simply having her period -could be charged under this law with murder, if the fertilized egg failed to implant and was thus flushed out during the normal course of a period, or a fertilized and implanted egg became non viable and an spontaneous miscarriage occurred...

Oh this is beyond words. Someone give that idiot- and every male idiot in that state house who voted for this stupidity - a gender change for one year. And every male that voted them into power in the first place. And what I'd like to do to any woman who voted for this is unmentionable!

And if you don't think some dumb ass, backwater, country sheriff won't try this out ( should by some forsaken happenstance it actually becomes law ) at some point, you have far more faith in humanity than I.

Clearly state rescue workers will have to station themselves by every meunstrating women to 'rescue' these unborn citizens. *nod*

wow thats a stupid law. does that mean that they are going to investigate every miscarraige as potential reckless homicide?

Yup, that's ludicrously stupid. I have a hard time fathoming how the people responsible for this bill could not understand how ludicrously stupid it is.

North Dakota finally decided that it couldn't contain women's rights...so they turned them all into serial killers with regular schedules instead.

:hail: Props to the North Dakota House.

So if an arsonist burns down a fertility clinic do they get charged with 20,000 counts of murder?

Woohoo ! Let us now sue every woman in North Dakota for multiple murders !

Let us start with the wives and teenage daughters of the voters.

:hail: Props to the North Dakota House.

So, we'll sign you up as a menstruation monitor, shall we?

Itll get overturned as unconstitutional, and they know it. Id be more pissed that your state senate is wasting time on this if I were you.

So if an arsonist burns down a fertility clinic do they get charged with 20,000 counts of murder?

I understand that certain asian ethnicities like to eat fertilized chicken eggs. Will they get charged with animal cruelty?

So if an arsonist burns down a fertility clinic do they get charged with 20,000 counts of murder?

I'm gonna try for a megadeath!

So, we'll sign you up as a menstruation monitor, shall we?

Closest he's like to get to a woman with his personality.

and this will go absolutely nowhere. It's also worth noting that this has merely gone through the House, still needs to pass through the state senate, then make it to the governor. It's a long way to go before it's law.

Closest he's like to get to a woman with his personality.

Oh, I wasn't going to have him near any women. Just have him sift through buckets for twelve hours a day.

and this will go absolutely nowhere. It's also worth noting that this has merely gone through the House, still needs to pass through the state senate, then make it to the governor. It's a long way to go before it's law.

Curse you for being logical and making sense while everyone else is screaming in hysteria. I demand this thread devolve into a pointless abortion debate without delay.

Curse you for being logical and making sense while everyone else is screaming in hysteria. I demand this thread devolve into a pointless abortion debate without delay.

Partial birth abortion on demand liberals ra-ra-ra-ra Dark Lord ra-ra

Itll get overturned as unconstitutional, and they know it. Id be more pissed that your state senate is wasting time on this if I were you.

Do apostrophes hurt?

That also means that a woman - by simply having her period -could be charged under this law with murder, if the fertilized egg failed to implant and was thus flushed out during the normal course of a period, or a fertilized and implanted egg became non viable and an spontaneous miscarriage occurred...

Are you sure about this?

The article you linked doesn't give a reference to the bill's number, so unless you know it the rest of us have no way of knowing what the proposed legislation actually says.

:hail: Props to the North Dakota House.

You're quite hilarious. Can we count on you to monitor every North Dakota woman's menstruation cycle to make sure that none accidentally flush a fertilized egg?

*points*

To the Supreme Court-mobile!

Do apostrophes hurt?
Could be missing from the keyboard or something.

But then lack of knowledge of basic English seems to be something common on the internet.

I had a way off work today which I spent power wanking.. Does that make me a crinimal because my life is already empty and pointless without incarceration..

:hail: Props to the North Dakota House.

Leeroy, the best thing about seeing you so fervently wishing ill on all women is the fact that your convictions will become socially unacceptable to hold within your lifetime.

Are you sure about this?

The article you linked doesn't give a reference to the bill's number, so unless you know it the rest of us have no way of knowing what the proposed legislation actually says.

True. But if it indeed boils down to "a fertilised egg is a person" the statement is quite correct. Almost all sexual active women would then have killed people by menstruating in their lifetime.

Well North Dakota is too far away from mormon central.

Next thing you, onanism will be reinstated as a felony.

Here's another link (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jCYLBnGybRvUb4qdAa71wFCbEg0wD96DUE3G0)

The bill declares that "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens" is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws.

Here's another link (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jCYLBnGybRvUb4qdAa71wFCbEg0wD96DUE3G0)
Hurrah?

That's a lot of scientific research out the window.

I swear sometimes these sorts of people just want the rest of humanity to regress to the Middle Ages.

excuse me I ment to say isn't to far away from mormon central (Utah for those who don't know)

The bill declares that "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens" is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws.

Do the rights granted by ND include the right to use another person's body against her will?

Living in ND as a woman ... this scares the hell out of me.

Not because it's ND doing it. Even if this does become law (heaven forbid), it won't be on the books long before the Supreme Court strikes it down. It's the thought that another state -- one with more power and money -- could try to push something like this through and potentially beat the Supreme Court.

Living in ND as a woman ... this scares the hell out of me.

Not because it's ND doing it. Even if this does become law (heaven forbid), it won't be on the books long before the Supreme Court strikes it down. It's the thought that another state -- one with more power and money -- could try to push something like this through and potentially beat the Supreme Court.

what scares me, personally, is that a law can't be struck down until it's enforced. Which means, someone actually would have to get arrested for it..

And you suck at replying to TGs :p

*points*

To the Supreme Court-mobile!

Da-na-na-na-na-na...Supreme Court!

The bill declares that "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens" is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws.

Well, let's not let Magneto find out about this. Apparently, North Carolinians will still allow mutants to be aborted. He's not going to like this...

Who the hell's dumb enough to try and outlaw abortion when we already have far too many people?

Here's another link (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jCYLBnGybRvUb4qdAa71wFCbEg0wD96DUE3G0)

um...wow, this law is unconstitutional for a whole shit ton of reasons, and not just the obvious.

Well, let's not let Magneto find out about this. Apparently, North Carolinians will still allow mutants to be aborted. He's not going to like this...

Mutants are more likely to register and vote Democrat anyways.

Who the hell's dumb enough to try and outlaw abortion when we already have far too many people?

Mormon extremist! This is the work of mormons I tell you!

um...wow, this law is unconstitutional for a whole shit ton of reasons, and not just the obvious.

Do tell. o_O

OK, here's the three ways I think this law would be unconstitutional. Basically it says this "hey, our state constitution says "persons" get rights. Well, we define "person" to include fetus!"

Alright, problem. Three problems:

1) the obvious is it crashes headlong into Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The enforcement of this would essentially violate the 14th amendment

2) additionally it's defining it as a "person" under the North Dakota constitution. It doesn't matter what the North Dakota constitution defines a person as, a state constitution can't limit the rights that the federal constitution grants. If the ramifications of defining a fetus as a person under North Dakota constitution would create a situation in which it strips the rights of a person under the federal constitution, that is in violation of the supremacy clause

3) this one is more of a guess, assuming that the ND constitution is similar to the federal constitution in terms of its seperation of powers. What this bill does, essentially, is say that the use of the word "persons" in the North Dakota constitution includes "fetus". Problem. This is constitutional interpretation. The legislature is saying, essentially, what the constitution says. It's saying "the constitutional use of the word person includes a fetus". The legislature can't do that. It's not the job of the legislature to interpret the constitution. That's the job of the judiciary. It's the legislature's job to pass legislation that is consistant with the constitution as interpreteted by the judiciary. This is constitutional interpretation, and is the job of the courts. See e.g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)

Quote:
The bill declares that "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens" is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws.

This is much more extreme than the opening post represents: if you bleed, you must not clean up the stain, but rather are required to keep those helpless erythrocytes alive indefinitely on a Petri dish, otherwise you are guilty of negligent homicide.

The easiest way is simply to redefine abortion. So abortions will be called xyzyxes and bank robbing will be called abortion. Then there'll be an anti-abortion law to stop bank robbery.

So, we'll sign you up as a menstruation monitor, shall we?

This does not sound like a very fun job.

I'll rephrase that... this sounds like a horrible job.

The easiest way is simply to redefine abortion. So abortions will be called xyzyxes and bank robbing will be called abortion. Then there'll be an anti-abortion law to stop bank robbery.

Well, abortion is bad for the economy, all those people losing their savings like that, not to mention the financial institution itself!

This does not sound like a very fun job.

I'll rephrase that... this sounds like a horrible job.

I could probably get used to being around bleeding vaginas all day but probably not the hormonal women attached to them..

Though I am pro-life, this situation seems to be trying to slip a fast one by the American Costitution.

They tried to pass a completely no abortions law in South Dakota a few years ago too, but it didn't stick.

I think that pro-lifers should concern themselves with winning any battle, especially small battles, rather than the all-or-nothing RvW.

Partial birth abortion ban? That makes me happy... is it all of what I want? Nope, but it's better than no ban on partial-birth abortion. There has to be some point at which pro-lifers are in the battle for any gain they can get.

I could probably get used to being around bleeding vaginas all day but probably not the hormonal women attached to them..

I'm not a huge fan of both.

What we need is a "Normal Three Weeks Vaginal Inspector" That job is probably a little more down my alley.

Clearly state rescue workers will have to station themselves by every meunstrating women to 'rescue' these unborn citizens. *nod*

Or handle burial detail.

What, is there a sign on my house that says, "dead fetus storage"?

This is ridiculous!

I don't need you to tell me how fucking good my coffee is, okay? I'm the one who buys it. I know how good it is. When Bonnie goes shopping she buys SHIT. I buy the gourmet expensive stuff because when I drink it I want to taste it. But you know what's on my mind right now? It AIN'T the coffee in my kitchen, it's the dead fetus in my garage.

I don't need you to tell me how fucking good my coffee is, okay? I'm the one who buys it. I know how good it is. When Bonnie goes shopping she buys SHIT. I buy the gourmet expensive stuff because when I drink it I want to taste it. But you know what's on my mind right now? It AIN'T the coffee in my kitchen, it's the dead fetus in my garage.

...

Okay, I'll bite. What movie is this?

I don't need you to tell me how fucking good my coffee is, okay? I'm the one who buys it. I know how good it is. When Bonnie goes shopping she buys SHIT. I buy the gourmet expensive stuff because when I drink it I want to taste it. But you know what's on my mind right now? It AIN'T the coffee in my kitchen, it's the dead fetus in my garage.

What was this about?

What was this about?

No, No, No, No, let me ask you a question. When you came pulling in here, did you notice a sign out in front of my house that said Dead Fetus Storage?

...

Okay, I'll bite. What movie is this?

Pulp Fiction

I can't believe we're still fighthing this fight

No, No, No, No, let me ask you a question. When you came pulling in here, did you notice a sign out in front of my house that said Dead Fetus Storage?

Actually, yeah. I bought it for you last summer.

When we were together.

Making love.

BDSM.

>.>

:p

I can't believe we're still fighthing this fight

Meat Loaf?

Actually, yeah. I bought it for you last summer.

When we were together.

Making love.

BDSM.

>.>

:p

Whether or not what we experienced was an According to Hoyle miracle is insignificant. What is significant is that I felt the touch of God. God got involved.

You're quite hilarious. Can we count on you to monitor every North Dakota woman's menstruation cycle to make sure that none accidentally flush a fertilized egg?

On average, 1 of every three fertilised eggs fails to implant.

Statistically, any mom of two - has dropped a fertilised-but-un-implanted egg.

On average, 1 of every three fertilised eggs fails to implant.

Statistically, any mom of two - has dropped a fertilised-but-un-implanted egg.

We can open a funeral home in North Dakota. I hear business will be up.

We can open a funeral home in North Dakota. I hear business will be up.

I almost wish it would go through, just so a bunch of us could....

It would be awesome to drive around North Dakota, knocking on people's doors, asking if they'd menstruated, and did they want us to check for (and dispose of) dead babies.

I almost wish it would go through, just so a bunch of us could....

It would be awesome to drive around North Dakota, knocking on people's doors, asking if they'd menstruated, and did they want us to check for (and dispose of) dead babies.

You do the talking. I'll stand there with the large magnifying glass and the tiny little coffins.

You do the talking. I'll stand there with the large magnifying glass and the tiny little coffins.

your funny :p

Since 1929, Groce Funeral Home and Cremation Service has paid tribute to the time-honored traditions of the Buncombe County community.

Our professional and caring staff takes pride in providing high quality and affordable funeral services that meet the special needs of your family.

We offer a complete range of quality services from funerals to cremation, and are experienced at honoring many faiths and customs. We invite you to contact us with your questions, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and we are glad to inspect your used tampons and sanitary napkins for possible dead babies.

So if an arsonist burns down a fertility clinic do they get charged with 20,000 counts of murder?

Or, even better, an OB/GYN office where fertility treatments as well as abortions are performed gets burned down by anti-abortion nutters, and they get charged with 20,000 counts of murder. In a weird way, I wish we could do this.

No, No, No, No, let me ask you a question. When you came pulling in here, did you notice a sign out in front of my house that said Dead Fetus Storage?

Well, I did tell you! I was pregnant with triplets! What was I supposed to do? *sobs*

Sounds like this goes way beyond restricting or even banning abortion. I've even been hearing on another forum that this law would grant protection to cancer, though I don't know if that's true.

I'm not sure I can fathom what the purpose of this is. It won't pass. Is it to make a point? What is that point, that every person in the world is a mass murderer? How would they enforce such a law? (arbitrarily, with lot's of picking and choosing. Probably why they made it so broad:headbang:).

My God this is retarded.

I am sickened, appalled, aghast, nauseated, disgusted, aghast again, and totally in shock at how grotesquely insensitive you people are being at the death of unfertilized haploid gamete rag-babies.

Menstruation is murder! A woman's normal cycle stops something that has a portion of the genetic information for the potential eventual growth of a beating heart!

You people should learn to be more Christ-like.

Jesus went around healing the sick and extrapolating fish, not having his period all over everything.

North Dakota's House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively outlawing abortion. (http://www.kxmb.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=333726)

Yeah we've seen it tried before. What makes me howl with outrage is this:



That also means that a woman - by simply having her period -could be charged under this law with murder, if the fertilized egg failed to implant and was thus flushed out during the normal course of a period, or a fertilized and implanted egg became non viable and an spontaneous miscarriage occurred...

Oh this is beyond words. Someone give that idiot- and every male idiot in that state house who voted for this stupidity - a gender change for one year. And every male that voted them into power in the first place. And what I'd like to do to any woman who voted for this is unmentionable!

And if you don't think some dumb ass, backwater, country sheriff won't try this out ( should by some forsaken happenstance it actually becomes law ) at some point, you have far more faith in humanity than I.

I'm actually glad the pro-life movement exposes itself with this kind of combination of idiocy and tyrrany. This shows exactly how they think (or fail to think).

This should come as no surprise. Many states actually have laws that are not in compliance with the Constitution and/or SCOTUS precedent concerning abortion, but just don't try to enforce them.

Well, I did tell you! I was pregnant with triplets! What was I supposed to do? *sobs*

I thought good Spanish girls didn't have babies out of wedlock?

You know, a quickie Swiss marriage, and your 3 little bastardos would be legitimized...

I thought good Spanish girls didn't have babies out of wedlock?

That's why I went to DK's clinic. Good Spanish girls like me need their pure, nubile reputations.

You know, a quickie Swiss marriage, and your 3 little bastardos would be legitimized...

What? Are you proposing?:$

Here, by the way, is the text of the legislation: pdf (http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/61-2009/bill-text/JRDS0200.pdf), html (http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:GCEtC_9FwKQJ:www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/61-2009/bill-text/JRDS0200.pdf+North+Dakota+HB+1572&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)

I'm actually glad the pro-life movement exposes itself with this kind of combination of idiocy and tyrrany. This shows exactly how they think (or fail to think).

This should come as no surprise. Many states actually have laws that are not in compliance with the Constitution and/or SCOTUS precedent concerning abortion, but just don't try to enforce them.

Look in your heart, Cat-Tribe. How can you call it tyrrany to not respect the full rights of a fertilized egg?

How can you look it in the face...I mean, um, eye...well...how can you look it in the phosholipid bilayer, and say that? With a microscope, sure, but it still really hard, because it has no ears to hear what you're saying.

The fact is, a woman's body is capturable territory, just like Iraq, or France. And you only have to hold it for 9 months. Why do you think real men call their sperm "soldiers"?

Why do you hate the troops, Cat-Tribe?

That's why I went to DK's clinic. Good Spanish girls like me need their pure, nubile reputations.

What? Are you proposing?:$

Well, with all that "pure, nubile" talk, who wouldn't?

You're the only girl sweet enough to still be choosy with her men, even when bloated with a hat-trick of three bastards crowding your womb.

Look in your heart, Cat-Tribe. How can you call it tyrrany to not respect the full rights of a fertilized egg?

How can you look it in the face...I mean, um, eye...well...how can you look it in the phosholipid bilayer, and say that? With a microscope, sure, but it still really hard, because it has no ears to hear what you're saying.

The fact is, a woman's body is capturable territory, just like Iraq, or France. And you only have to hold it for 9 months. Why do you think real men call their sperm "soldiers"?

Why do you hate the troops, Cat-Tribe?

That's unfair. It's not 'the troops' that are the problem, it's what comes after...

Once you free the troops, that's when the problems arise.

The real question is, why does Cat Tribe hate freedom?

Well, with all that "pure, nubile" talk, who wouldn't?

Exactly. Hence, I aborted those bastardos. Keep appearances, my mother always says.

You're the only girl sweet enough to still be choosy with her men, even when bloated with a hat-trick of three bastards crowding your womb.

I got rid of the ''mocosos'', but I did it for you.:fluffle:

Exactly. Hence, I aborted those bastardos. Keep appearances, my mother always says.

I got rid of the ''mocosos'', but I did it for you.:fluffle:

I'm betting your mother is the only woman alive as pretty as you.
I wonder if she knows her daughter is a dirty fetus killer who makes Hitler look like...um...Hitler, if he had made it in art school and become a nice local character that did portraits of tourists in Vienna.

I'm betting your mother is the only woman alive as pretty as you.

My mother is gorgeous. We sorta look alike, it's just that she's 2 inches taller than me and sports blonde hair.

I wonder if she knows her daughter is a dirty fetus killer who makes Hitler look like...um...Hitler, if he had made it in art school and become a nice local character that did portraits of tourists in Vienna.

She says I'm like poison. Go figure.:wink:

Yeah, that is fairly idiotic....Im curious as to how this wouldnt apply to Sperm however...

Also, since Medical Technology, to my knowledge, hasnt advanced far enough to allow Transwomen to have a Period, I dont believe the punishment will work all that well, lol...

Yeah, that is fairly idiotic....Im curious as to how this wouldnt apply to Sperm however...

Also, since Medical Technology, to my knowledge, hasnt advanced far enough to allow Transwomen to have a Period, I dont believe the punishment will work all that well, lol...

I think the actual law applies to fertilized eggs.

Its still pretty absurd, though.

I had a way off work today which I spent power wanking.. Does that make me a crinimal because my life is already empty and pointless without incarceration..

Illuminatus!, much?

I keep telling you people, semen doesn't need as much regulation as the female plumbing.

When a man accidently stares to long at Rexella Van Impe and fires off a salvo of knuckle children, its a sin, sure, but God understands about men. Because he loved us so much he came to earth as a man, and men crank it sometimes.

But women...women's natural processes don't deserve that kind of sympathy.

Remember, it was Jesus Christ, not Shaniqua Christ.

Shaniqua Christ.

You mean his Brother Craig's Ho? :p

Partial birth abortion ban? That makes me happy... is it all of what I want? Nope, but it's better than no ban on partial-birth abortion.

Why? It doesn't stop a single abortion from happening. All it does is endanger women who now may or may not be able to get the procedure that is best for their particular medical situation.

You mean his Brother Craig's Ho? :p

Craig Christ...the Roger Clinton of God's family...

Hasn't this been done already?

Why? It doesn't stop a single abortion from happening. [b]All/b] it does is endanger women who now may or may not be able to get the procedure that is best for their particular medical situation.

Nuh-uh.

Because if you completely outlaw abortion, three things will happen:

1.) People will stop having unprotected sex, ever, at any time.

2.) Those women that do get pregnant will marry good men, become decent mothers, and their children will grow up to become eagle scouts, missionaries, pastors, and biologists who get the Nobel Prize for ground breaking work in Intelligent Design.

3.) Jesus will finally come back, because the only thing stopping him is he's afraid he'll be conceived into some skank that will stick him with the Wire Coat Hanger of Destiny.

Here, by the way, is the text of the legislation: pdf (http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/61-2009/bill-text/JRDS0200.pdf), html (http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:GCEtC_9FwKQJ:www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/61-2009/bill-text/JRDS0200.pdf+North+Dakota+HB+1572&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)

Wow.....that's even worse than it sounded in the article.

There's so much wrong with that bill that I don't even know where to start. (And, as usual with such bills, the science is incorrect - whether intentionally or not. When will legislators learn that they can't legislate scientific fact?)

Wire Coat Hanger of Destiny.

Hey, that's how I name my...

>.>

Er, carry on.

Wow.....that's even worse than it sounded in the article.

There's so much wrong with that bill that I don't even know where to start. (And, as usual with such bills, the science is incorrect - whether intentionally or not. When will legislators learn that they can't legislate scientific fact?)

Wrong again. My state passed a bill making Pi equal to the integer 3, and math is a lot easier for our students now.

Circles take a long, long, long time to draw, but its worth it.

Wrong again. My state passed a bill making Pi equal to the integer 3, and math is a lot easier for our students now.

Circles take a long, long, long time to draw, but its worth it.

Mainly because they're hexagons now?

Mainly because they're hexagons now?

We don't use that word. The legislature decided it sounded "witch sympathetic".

We call them "Christ-Centered Faith Based Polygons with More Than Five But Fewer than 7 sides".

Outlawing abortion does not work:


DESPITE BEING LARGELY ILLEGAL,
ABORTION IN MEXICO IS FAR MORE PREVALENT
THAN IN THE UNITED STATES
Stark Contrast Shows Restrictions Less Related to Incidence Than to Increased Risks for Women

A new national study shows that the number of abortions performed in Mexico increased by one-third between 1990 and 2006 (from 533,000 to 875,000), despite legal restrictions that virtually ban the procedure in most parts of the country. (In 2007, the federal district of Mexico City legalized abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy; the procedure remains illegal in other Mexican states.) Mexico’s 2006 abortion rate (33 per 1,000 women) was more than 40% higher than the abortion rate in the United States (19.4 per 1,000 women), where abortion is broadly legal and available.

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2009/02/02/index.html

Outlawing abortion does not work:


Neither does outlawing drugs, doesnt make them stop...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080630201007.htm

Point is, if someone feels "morally right" no amount of "facts" or "statistics" will make them feel otherwise...

Why do you think there are still Religious people, lol..

Faith Based Polygons

...

You're good.

North Dakota's House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively outlawing abortion. (http://www.kxmb.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=333726)

Yeah we've seen it tried before. What makes me howl with outrage is this:



That also means that a woman - by simply having her period -could be charged under this law with murder, if the fertilized egg failed to implant and was thus flushed out during the normal course of a period, or a fertilized and implanted egg became non viable and an spontaneous miscarriage occurred...

Oh this is beyond words. Someone give that idiot- and every male idiot in that state house who voted for this stupidity - a gender change for one year. And every male that voted them into power in the first place. And what I'd like to do to any woman who voted for this is unmentionable!

And if you don't think some dumb ass, backwater, country sheriff won't try this out ( should by some forsaken happenstance it actually becomes law ) at some point, you have far more faith in humanity than I.

Umm it is stupid but not as stupid as you claim. It is just another typical stupid pro life state law that will be declared unconstitutional and *yawn*

Umm it is stupid but not as stupid as you claim. It is just another typical stupid pro life state law that will be declared unconstitutional and *yawn*

What gets me though is, no matter how many times we tell them that it is Stupid and Unconstitutional, they keep on trying, and just go further and further off the deep end with their new versions of it...

Outlawing abortion does not work:


http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2009/02/02/index.html

No shit. Everyone knows outlawing abortion doesn't work, comprehensive education + easy access to contraceptives reduces abortions. And by everyone I mean not ideologue extremists and their GOP panderers.

Umm it is stupid but not as stupid as you claim. It is just another typical stupid pro life state law that will be declared unconstitutional and *yawn*

Actually, that level of stupidity really is the logical conclusion of a move like this.

Well, unless one recognizes the right of the woman to her own body. Of course, if they recognized that, they wouldn't be trying to pass the law.

What gets me though is, no matter how many times we tell them that it is Stupid and Unconstitutional, they keep on trying, and just go further and further off the deep end with their new versions of it...

Actually, that level of stupidity really is the logical conclusion of a move like this.

Well, unless one recognizes the right of the woman to her own body. Of course, if they recognized that, they wouldn't be trying to pass the law.

The thought is that they need test cases to try on new supreme courts. we have a few new justices since the last abortion case (i think) so lets try another time.

The thought is that they need test cases to try on new supreme courts. we have a few new justices since the last abortion case (i think) so lets try another time.

1. Meethinks you haven't read just how stupid this law is.

2. The endless challenges to women's fundamental rights are fucking tedious and offensive.

The endless challenges to women's fundamental rights are fucking tedious and offensive.

It's sorta like if there were still people fighting for slavery in the Supreme Court.

It's sorta like if there were still people fighting for slavery in the Supreme Court.

Oh they do, just for a different race (Hispanics) and under a different name (Wage Slavery)...

If menstruation is illegal, only outlaws will have periods.

Mostly going to echo the majority of comments here. This is stupid.

What I will add is a mention of an organization I know of that has the right idea for reducing abortions. I can't remember the name, but they help Israeli women who cannot afford to raise a child, chiefly by providing them with basic supplies, thereby removing the incentive for an abortion. They do have something of an ulterior motive (increase the effective Jewish birthrate in Israel, thereby preserving a Jewish majority), but the concept is sound.

If this passes, there is an obvious way around it. When South Dakota banned abortions, the Sioux opened an abortion clinic on their reservation, outside the reach of state law. With any luck, the Native Americans in North Dakota will do the same.

The thought is that they need test cases to try on new supreme courts. we have a few new justices since the last abortion case (i think) so lets try another time.

Then why not pass a law actually banning abortion, instead of doing something even more stupid?

Then why not pass a law actually banning abortion, instead of doing something even more stupid?

Because it's a wedge. If you try and ban abortion outright, you're going to get slapped down. Hard.

If you instead chip away around the problem until it's fully exposed and ripe for the taking, you can remove it without looking like you're doing something unconstitutional.

If menstruation is illegal, only outlaws will have periods.

Then what will Yanks end their sentences with?

Then why not pass a law actually banning abortion, instead of doing something even more stupid?

Because they think somehow that an outright ban on abortion would run directly into Roe, and lose.

They're trying to think of something that would force anyone looking at Roe to go along with stopping abortion (twisted, but they've had no luck with the approach you suggested).

But, a business opportunity... I can now start manufacturing thumb-sized coffins for those miscarried fetuses that pop out all the time...

Then what will Yanks end their sentences with?
Full stops. This bill is just a stealthy way to try to get British English back in use in North Dakota.

I can't remember the name, but they help Israeli women who cannot afford to raise a child, chiefly by providing them with basic supplies, thereby removing the incentive for an abortion. They do have something of an ulterior motive (increase the effective Jewish birthrate in Israel, thereby preserving a Jewish majority), but the concept is sound.


Yay. Eugenics.

Yay. Eugenics.
Or in this case, Jewgenics :)

Because it's a wedge. If you try and ban abortion outright, you're going to get slapped down. Hard.

If you instead chip away around the problem until it's fully exposed and ripe for the taking, you can remove it without looking like you're doing something unconstitutional.

Have you read the actual bill? There are no pretenses here.

They even say something like, "Abortions are never medically necessary because a baby isn't a disease."

Have you read the actual bill? There are no pretenses here.

They even say something like, "Abortions are never medically necessary because a baby isn't a disease."

No, I haven't actually read the bill, and in that case it is incredibly stupid and pointless.

No, seriously, while they say things like "well, it's ok if an abortion HAPPENS due to unrelated medical treatment like chemo (how nice of them), there is never a medical reason to have an abortion"

Yeah, right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy).

Full stops. This bill is just a stealthy way to try to get British English back in use in North Dakota.

Genius! Tricksy Brits.

No, seriously, while they say things like "well, it's ok if an abortion HAPPENS due to unrelated medical treatment like chemo (how nice of them), there is never a medical reason to have an abortion"

Is it bad of me to actually hope one of the wives or daughters of the makers of this tripe will end up in a hospital needing an abortion to survive ? And then to have a doctor waving this statement in front of daddies eyes ?

Hmm. Yes, it is bad of me. They are innocents after all.

No, seriously, while they say things like "well, it's ok if an abortion HAPPENS due to unrelated medical treatment like chemo (how nice of them), there is never a medical reason to have an abortion"

Yeah, right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy).

So, they're trying to kill women.

Neo, is there any way in which one could construe this as a murder attempt?

Genius! Tricksy Brits.
We'll turn anything to our favour :)

North Dakota's House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively outlawing abortion. (http://www.kxmb.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=333726)

Yeah we've seen it tried before. What makes me howl with outrage is this:



That also means that a woman - by simply having her period -could be charged under this law with murder, if the fertilized egg failed to implant and was thus flushed out during the normal course of a period, or a fertilized and implanted egg became non viable and an spontaneous miscarriage occurred...

Oh this is beyond words. Someone give that idiot- and every male idiot in that state house who voted for this stupidity - a gender change for one year. And every male that voted them into power in the first place. And what I'd like to do to any woman who voted for this is unmentionable!

And if you don't think some dumb ass, backwater, country sheriff won't try this out ( should by some forsaken happenstance it actually becomes law ) at some point, you have far more faith in humanity than I.

nope. because one does not plan on having a period. it happens, thus not murder (which premeditation or intent is somewhat required.)

Abortion is done with the intent to 'kill' the fertized egg. thus murder.

however, with this ruling. an abusive husband who causes a miscarrage could face homocide charges. more to tack on when punishing the bastard. :D

however, with this ruling. an abusive husband who causes a miscarrage could face homocide charges. more to tack on when punishing the bastard. :D

As far as I know, it's common in many states to charge someone with murder for the death of the unborn. It's very common to charge a man who kills a pregnant woman with double-homicide.

nope. because one does not plan on having a period. it happens, thus not murder (which premeditation or intent is somewhat required.)

One does however usually choose to engage in activities that can produce a fertilised egg ;)

nope. because one does not plan on having a period. it happens, thus not murder (which premeditation or intent is somewhat required.)

So, not murder, but involuntary manslaughter? Because accidentally killing someone is still a crime.

So, not murder, but involuntary manslaughter? Because accidentally killing someone is still a crime.

Only if you're being negligent.

One does however usually choose to engage in activities that can produce a fertilised egg ;)
realise the slippery slope here.
rich people cannot be victims of robbery or theft because they chose to save up the money and be rich.
So, not murder, but involuntary manslaughter? Because accidentally killing someone is still a crime.
More like Act of God or natural causes since the woman cannot (AFAIK) make the fertilzed egg not anchor itself to the uteris wall.

Only if you're being negligent.

It was negligent not to have unprotected sex, leading to fertilization.

nope. because one does not plan on having a period. it happens, thus not murder (which premeditation or intent is somewhat required.)

For murder, yes. For manslaughter? No.

More like Act of God or natural causes since the woman cannot (AFAIK) make the fertilzed egg not anchor itself to the uteris wall.

Actually, she can - by using certain forms of contraception.

In addition, it might fail to implant (or miscarry after implantation) if her life is too stressful, she doesn't have the right diet, etc.

Any woman who is sexually active is aware that she might be pregnant. Thus, any action she takes that might cause a failure to implant or a miscarriage could be seen as negligent.

How far is ND willing to go in controlling women's lives to protect the "babies"?

It was negligent not to have unprotected sex, leading to fertilization.
Then all the mothers of the world go to jail. Yours first.

The crime isn't in letting the egg get fertilized, the crime would be in what happens to it after that.......in the same way that mothers of SIDS babies aren't charged for their death, a woman who spontaneously aborts wouldn't be either.

Then all the mothers of the world go to jail. Yours first.

The crime isn't in letting the egg get fertilized, the crime would be in what happens to it after that.......in the same way that mothers of SIDS babies aren't charged for their death, a woman who spontaneously aborts wouldn't be either.

however, as been pointed out, there are certain things one can do to greatly increase the chance of having a spontanious abortion. How far that goes to becoming "negligence" is an interesting question.

however, as been pointed out, there are certain things one can do to greatly increase the chance of having a spontanious abortion. How far that goes to becoming "negligence" is an interesting question.

Well, yes. It is interesting. Do we base it on science or old wives tales? Because I totally showered and washed my hair during both my pregnancies, as many times as 3 times a day.

Well, yes. It is interesting. Do we base it on science or old wives tales? Because I totally showered and washed my hair during both my pregnancies, as many times as 3 times a day.

"This just in... cowgirl and reverse cowgirl now against the law in North Dakota."

Assuming they aren't already, that is.

however, as been pointed out, there are certain things one can do to greatly increase the chance of having a spontanious abortion. How far that goes to becoming "negligence" is an interesting question.

that's what will probably be argued in the courtrooms, between the lawyers. :D

nope. because one does not plan on having a period. it happens
But you KNEW it was going to happen, and deliberately failed to get pregnant!

Abortion is done with the intent to 'kill' the fertized egg. thus murder.


Actually, 'killing' the fertilised egg is just an unfortunate side-effect. The 'intent' is to remove it.

More like Act of God or natural causes since the woman cannot (AFAIK) make the fertilzed egg not anchor itself to the uteris wall.

IUD contraception is based entirely on that principle.

Which means IUD contraception would (theoretically) be murder, under this 'law'.

IUD contraception is based entirely on that principle.

Which means IUD contraception would (theoretically) be murder, under this 'law'.
Not theoretically: actually.

Not theoretically: actually.

Yeah... the 'theory' element is whether they'd apply it.

They've clearly not actually thought it through.

The crime isn't in letting the egg get fertilized, the crime would be in what happens to it after that.......in the same way that mothers of SIDS babies aren't charged for their death, a woman who spontaneously aborts wouldn't be either.

What if we found that a woman could cause SIDS by mistreating the child, wouldn't we then at least investigate to see whether or not that was the cause in a particular instance?

Actually, 'killing' the fertilised egg is just an unfortunate side-effect. The 'intent' is to remove it.
except it's known that the Fertilised egg cannot survive once removed.

IUD contraception is based entirely on that principle.

Which means IUD contraception would (theoretically) be murder, under this 'law'.

yep. under that law it would be.

What if we found that a woman could cause SIDS by mistreating the child, wouldn't we then at least investigate to see whether or not that was the cause in a particular instance?

Sure, but in the end.......unless she smothered the child nothing really is going to happen.....I mean I don't think so, there's a bit of stupidity before you get to the negligent line.....

Yeah... the 'theory' element is whether they'd apply it.
Gotcha.
They've clearly not actually thought it through.
I'm not sure about that. Criminalizing contraception as well as abortion may indeed have been intentional.

What if we found that a woman could cause SIDS by mistreating the child, wouldn't we then at least investigate to see whether or not that was the cause in a particular instance?

Don't forget burden of proof. if it can be proven that SIDS can be the result of certain forms of mistreatment... then all SIDS cases will be examined.

Yeah... the 'theory' element is whether they'd apply it.

They've clearly not actually thought it through.

on this, I agree. it will be hammered out in the courts. but oh... the media circus...

I'm not sure about that. Criminalizing contraception as well as abortion may indeed have been intentional.

Criminalising one kind of contraception, at any rate. Isn't that normally a Catholic schtick? Is ND especially catholicky?

I think it's either an oversight, or an accepted casualty, to be honest. And typical of the thin-end-of-the-wedge politics we've seen time and again in the fight to erode Roe v's Wade.

I'm not sure about that. Criminalizing contraception as well as abortion may indeed have been intentional.

Some forms of Contraception...

I wonder if this will allows lawsuits to contraception companies should their products 'fail'...

Yeah... the 'theory' element is whether they'd apply it.

They've clearly not actually thought it through.

The bill actually contains a reference to the fact that some contraception might "kill babies."

Ok, that isn't where they use the "kill babies" reference, but:
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:GCEtC_9FwKQJ:www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/61-2009/bill-text/JRDS0200.pdf+North+Dakota+HB+1572&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

It is not yet possible to conclusively determine whether all chemical
contraception is abortifacient or not.
f.
All abortions, whether surgically or chemically induced, terminate the life of a
whole, separate, unique, living human being. There is an existing relationship
between a pregnant woman and her preborn child during the entire period of
gestation

They don't specifically mention IUDs, but it is clearly their intention to criminalize any contraception which they see as an abortificant. Based on the rest of the language of the bill, my guess is that means any contraception that causes a fertilized egg not to develop into a baby.

Don't forget burden of proof. if it can be proven that SIDS can be the result of certain forms of mistreatment... then all SIDS cases will be examined.

And miscarriage can be the result of stresses a woman may place on her own body. So we would at least have to investigate...

They don't specifically mention IUDs, but it is clearly their intention to criminalize any contraception which they see as an abortificant. Based on the rest of the language of the bill, my guess is that means any contraception that causes a fertilized egg not to develop into a baby.


Based on the language - yes. It's design, not oversight or unintended consequence.

And miscarriage can be the result of stresses a woman may place on her own body. So we would at least have to investigate...
yep. but remember. there has to be evidence to support the case. ;)

yep. but remember. there has to be evidence to support the case. ;)

You get evidence through an investigation, however. This means that, were a woman to have a miscarriage, we'd have to dig into her lifestyle to find out if she did something to cause it. As if she isn't likely suffering enough...

Would people do that? Probably not - proof positive that they don't really think an embryo/fetus should be treated in the same way as a born person.

But it's a disturbing thought nonetheless.

How many times do I have to blame mormons before some one responds???

Criminalising one kind of contraception, at any rate. Isn't that normally a Catholic schtick? Is ND especially catholicky?

As a ND resident, yeah, we're sort of Catholicky. But we're also Lutheran and Methodist.

How many times do I have to blame mormons before some one responds???

I think we just sorta accepted it...

On average, 1 of every three fertilised eggs fails to implant.

Statistically, any mom of two - has dropped a fertilised-but-un-implanted egg.

So, I should turn my mother in then. Or does the fact that she's post-menopausal now mean that the statute of limitations has run out?

my take on it is the pro life camp wants to get abortion to SCOTUS again. They feel this is the best chance they have in getting a reversal of Roe V Wade. it will likely be a 5/4 split in pro choice favor. so they write a law in a weird way in hopes SCOTUS will hear it rather then refuse to hear it, which would leave the matter to previous rulings.

Oh this is beyond words. Someone give that idiot- and every male idiot in that state house who voted for this stupidity - a gender change for one year. And every male that voted them into power in the first place. And what I'd like to do to any woman who voted for this is unmentionable!

Yea. I don't understand how men can be so stupid about pregnancy and abortion, and even less I understand how women can be. It's... it's like being a Jew and joining the Nazi party!



Btw: if the fertilised egg has the same rights of a human being, well, it should have the same duties, so... what the hell is he doing inside the uterus of a woman who DOESN'T want him to be there? RAPIST!

I think we just sorta accepted it...

wow. this is a first.

Btw: if the fertilised egg has the same rights of a human being, well, it should have the same duties, so... what the hell is he doing inside the uterus of a woman who DOESN'T want him to be there? RAPIST!

...Holy Shit...

Risottia, you're a GENIUS!

Neo! How would that pan out in actual court???

...Holy Shit...

Risottia, you're a GENIUS!

Neo! How would that pan out in actual court???

Neo Art is busy soaping Poliwanacraca in the sink, like a big head of lettuce.

You might have trouble showing criminal intent...

Neo Art is busy soaping Poliwanacraca in the sink, like a big head of lettuce.

You might have trouble showing criminal intent...

1- Sure you didn't mean WITH a big head of lettuce?

2- It's a person. ;)

Neo Art is busy soaping Poliwanacraca in the sink, like a big head of lettuce.

She can come up for air when she's sorry for what she did.

1- Sure you didn't mean WITH a big head of lettuce?

2- It's a person. ;)

1. I've heard she's into the Bok Choy, but Poliwanacraca is Neo Art's source of vitamins and fiber these days, not me.

2. Yes, and when a person is charged, establishing criminal intent or mens rea is usually part of the legal standard to be satisfied.

Putting this tiny thing on the stand is going to be tough..."Please focus the mircroscope and raise your right....um...can you form some kind of pseudopod out of your cellular membrane or something, please?"

She can come up for air when she's sorry for what she did.

Lines like that are why I love you.

She can come up for air when she's sorry for what she did.

Okay.

Anyways, how would "suing an embryo for rape under this law" pan out in court?

She can come up for air when she's sorry for what she did.

.....what did I do?

Also, who the heck puts soap on lettuce? :p

.....what did I do?

Also, who the heck puts soap on lettuce? :p

I read "soaking" the first time. Made more sense.

1. I've heard she's into the Bok Choy, but Poliwanacraca is Neo Art's source of vitamins and fiber these days, not me.

I'm very nutritious. *nod* I'm not sure where the fiber is coming from, though...


Putting this tiny thing on the stand is going to be tough..."Please focus the mircroscope and raise your right....um...can you form some kind of pseudopod out of your cellular membrane or something, please?"

Laughing. So. Hard. :D

.....what did I do?

Also, who the heck puts soap on lettuce? :p

When this lettuce is a dirty, dirty, dirty girl like you, soap is necessary. It helps remove the patina of shame and trucker sweat that gives you such a tangy allure, Poli.

Anyway, a slut like you deserves to be raped by a fertilized egg.

"Take it! Take it you whore! If I had several trillion more cells, I'd slap you and pull your hair!"

I'm very nutritious. *nod* I'm not sure where the fiber is coming from, though...



Laughing. So. Hard. :D

Could be done in absentia...

I read "soaking" the first time. Made more sense.

It makes more sense than the law proposed, that's for sure.

Anyway, a slut like you deserves to be raped by a fertilized egg.

"Take it! Take it you whore! If I had several trillion more cells, I'd slap you and pull your hair!"

Okay, it's cliché, but...

ROFL!!!

Okay.

Anyways, how would "suing an embryo for rape under this law" pan out in court?

it wouldn't. A fetus has no ability to form intent.

it wouldn't. A fetus has no ability to form intent.

But it's a person. o_o

Well, if there is no intent, maybe something like suing for damages? :p

Or maybe an eviction lawsuit! :D

(Whatever it's called there. In my defense, I never translated legal texts.)

"Take it! Take it you whore! If I had several trillion more cells, I'd slap you and pull your hair!"

Dude, knock it off, you're turning poli on.

.....again. You know how awkward it is when we're getting busy and she starts yelling out "oh jhani...jhaini...jahini....hammurab!"

Okay, it's cliché, but...

ROFL!!!

Making light of the victims of cellular rape?

I suppose you're equally soft on protozoic molestation.

I'm going to hire Neo Art to sue you...for...washing your hands, and killing bacteria.

When this lettuce is a dirty, dirty, dirty girl like you, soap is necessary. It helps remove the patina of shame and trucker sweat that gives you such a tangy allure, Poli.

Anyway, a slut like you deserves to be raped by a fertilized egg.

"Take it! Take it you whore! If I had several trillion more cells, I'd slap you and pull your hair!"

I have a strict no-fertilized-egg policy at the moment, but I do appreciate the effort this fertilized egg is apparently putting in to suit my particular tastes.

Also, I am laughing so hard I am in PAIN. Therefore, NA approves. :p

Or maybe an eviction lawsuit! :D

. . . . oh my. You could charge it rent....

Dude, knock it off, you're turning poli on.

.....again. You know how awkward it is when we're getting busy and she starts yelling out "oh jhani...jhaini...jahini....hammurab!"

Pfft, I only did that once, Mr. "Ayn Is Just A Nickname I Made Up For You, Really."

Dude, knock it off, you're turning poli on.

.....again. You know how awkward it is when we're getting busy and she starts yelling out "oh jhani...jhaini...jahini....hammurab!"

Sure, she'll slum with me in an unlicensed hotel next to the highway, but when she wants a real "relationship", she goes to the guy who made more than $4,000 last year.

Shallow bint.

I have a strict no-fertilized-egg policy at the moment, but I do appreciate the effort this fertilized egg is apparently putting in to suit my particular tastes.

Also, I am laughing so hard I am in PAIN. Therefore, NA approves. :p

You being a woman, you're just a cyclical murder machine, like a cylon with a liquid red eye and a string hanging out the side of its head.





That's right.

Sure, she'll slum with me in an unlicensed hotel next to the highway, but when she wants a real "relationship", she goes to the guy who made more than $4,000 last year.

Shallow bint.

It's not the income, it's the legal expertise. When he starts talking about preferred stock dividend payouts under a itemized deduction scheme of capital gains taxes, it totally gets me hot in the pants - and really, can you blame me?

It's not the income, it's the legal expertise. When he starts talking about preferred stock dividend payouts under a itemized deduction scheme of capital gains taxes, it totally gets me hot in the pants - and really, can you blame me?

Uh, huh, right. Its his thorough grasp of Sarbanes Oxley compliance and reporting protocols, not his 14 inch jewshaft.

Whatever you say, size queen.

Uh, huh, right. Its his thorough grasp of Sarbanes Oxley compliance and reporting protocols, not his 14 inch jewshaft.

Whatever you say, size queen.
I don't know...that Sarbanes Oxley...that's pretty hot.

Uh, huh, right. Its his thorough grasp of Sarbanes Oxley compliance and reporting protocols, not his 14 inch jewshaft.

Whatever you say, size queen.

sarbanes oxley deals with corporate accountability. Capital gains tax on dividends is governed by the Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act.

Fucking n00b.

and it's 16 inches.

I don't know...that Sarbanes Oxley...that's pretty hot.

Oh, baby, put it in...put in provisions for criminal charges against executives under certain conditions...oh, god...pierce it! Pierce that corporate veil! Oh, god...I'm coming...I'm coming like an independent auditor with strenghtened disclosure standards...oh god, fuck me! Fuck me all the way to my internal control standards!!!

Oh, baby, put it in...put in provisions for criminal charges against executives under certain conditions...oh, god...pierce it! Pierce that corporate veil! Oh, god...I'm coming...I'm coming like an independent auditor with strenghtened disclosure standards...oh god, fuck me! Fuck me all the way to my internal control standards!!!
I know people I so need to email that to. :D *falls about laughing*

sarbanes oxley deals with corporate accountability. Capital gains tax on dividends is governed by the Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act.

Fucking n00b.

and it's 16 inches.

Suck my cock for a period not less than one year, Harvard Boy. Sarbanes Oxley jokes are always funny, even when they don't apply.

Oh, baby, put it in...put in provisions for criminal charges against executives under certain conditions...oh, god...pierce it! Pierce that corporate veil! Oh, god...I'm coming...I'm coming like an independent auditor with strenghtened disclosure standards...oh god, fuck me! Fuck me all the way to my internal control standards!!!

Dammit, NA, I told you I thought that little electronic thing under your bed looked like a bug! I don't even want to know what other snippets of conversation Hammy overheard...

Oh, baby, put it in...put in provisions for criminal charges against executives under certain conditions...oh, god...pierce it! Pierce that corporate veil! Oh, god...I'm coming...I'm coming like an independent auditor with strenghtened disclosure standards...oh god, fuck me! Fuck me all the way to my internal control standards!!!

oh baby, I'm going to penalize you like the retaliatory penalties against whistleblowers that have been made illegal

I know people I so need to email that to. :D *falls about laughing*

I used to think Neo Art got women because he went to Harvard. Then I thought he got women because of his car.

Then I realized he gets women by restructuring their revenue to avail themselves of existing legislative grace, and then he puts his 16 inch Hebrew Hammer into them.

oh baby, I'm going to penalize you like the retaliatory penalties against whistleblowers that have been made illegal

See how much smack you talk when I tell Poli about Nanatsu, and vice versa, and tell them both about you Valentasia...

I used to think Neo Art got women because he went to Harvard. Then I thought he got women because of his car.

Then I realized he gets women by restructuring their revenue to avail themselves of existing legislative grace, and then he puts his 16 inch Hebrew Hammer into them.
Works every time. You should take notes. I mean, hell, if he can do it, anyone can. Which I suppose could include you. ;)

Then I realized he gets women by restructuring their revenue to avail themselves of existing legislative grace, and then he puts his 16 inch Hebrew Hammer into them.

and THESE

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3008/2983343156_6c64b57084.jpg

are NOT the hammer.


....

The hammer is my penis...

and THESE

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3008/2983343156_6c64b57084.jpg

are NOT the hammer.

...

The hammer is my penis...

Geek-kudos. :)

Itll get overturned as unconstitutional, and they know it. Id be more pissed that your state senate is wasting time on this if I were you.Problem is that determining the legality of abortion should be a state right, and not a federal matter.

Problem is that determining the legality of abortion should be a state right, and not a federal matter.

Yeah, fuck the 14th Amendment!!! :rolleyes:

Yeah, fuck the 14th Amendment!!! :rolleyes:

That's your solution to everything.

Yeah, fuck the 14th Amendment!!! :rolleyes:

Make sure you use contraception. We can't have lots of little amendments running around the place. And don't even think about aborting those amendments in utero.

Mutants are more likely to register and vote Democrat anyways.

Ever since giant robots started showing up at mutants homes we . . . I mean THEY . . .have been hesitant to register for ANYTHING.

Problem is that determining the legality of abortion should be a state right, and not a federal matter.

Even if that were so, How does that help the problem on either side? I mean, for the Anti-Abortionists there are still Abortions taking place, so their crusade isnt over...

And for Abortionists, there are still ones going on for those who cant afford to go to California, Massachusetts, etc...so they have been moved to the back alleys and are resulting in botched versions...




So, how would this be good for...Anyone, on either side? :confused:

Problem is that determining the legality of abortion should be a state right, and not a federal matter.

*sigh*

Governments don't have rights. They have authority and powers. And there are some authorities that none of them should have.

Abortion is not a federal matter. It is an individual matter.

See how much smack you talk when I tell Poli about Nanatsu, and vice versa, and tell them both about you Valentasia...

Oh gods, please, keep me out of these sexscapades of yours, Hammurba and Neo Art! I respect Poli too much for this!
*runs away sobbing*

Problem is that determining the legality of abortion should be a state right, and not a federal matter.

Just like slavery should.

Oh gods, please, keep me out of these sexscapades of yours, Hammurba and Neo Art! I respect Poli too much for this!
*runs away sobbing*

The logical answer is to let Hammy and Neo work out their sordid shenanigans between themselves, while you run off with Poli. :)

(I'd also be willing to bet that, if you took a poll, it would be the democratically preferred option, too...)

:D

The logical answer is to let Hammy and Neo work out their sordid shenanigans between themselves, while you run off with Poli. :)

(I'd also be willing to bet that, if you took a poll, it would be the democratically preferred option, too...)

:D

Well, running away with Poli sounds magnificent. Besides, Neo and Hammy bicker too much about law and what not.:$

Just like slavery should.

Ah, the old abortion-is-equal-to-slavery argument. What a classic.

Wait, what?

Abortion is not a federal matter. It is an individual matter.
This opinion is contingent upon your assumption that the fetus is not an individual itself, worthy of rights.

Well, running away with Poli sounds magnificent. Besides, Neo and Hammy bicker too much about law and what not.:$

I have room where you two can hide out... ;)

Well, running away with Poli sounds magnificent. Besides, Neo and Hammy bicker too much about law and what not.:$

Hehe. I fear I'm addicted to the legal-talk, though. And, really, how often does a girl get the chance to be called a dirty gold-digging lettuce? :p

I have room where you two can hide out... ;)

I think I'll be the only one running away, JuNii. Poli like legal lettuces and what nots. :tongue:

BUt I still love you, beyotch.:fluffle:

Ah, the old abortion-is-equal-to-slavery argument. What a classic.

Wait, what?


The point isn't that the two things are the same, they're not - the point is that invoking 'rights' is inadvisable... because that can of worms leads to ultimatums - either people have rights or they don't.

And if you're going to say they should, you can't arbitrarily start saying that they have those rights until they cross certain zip codes.

I think I'll be the only one running away, JuNii. Poli like legal lettuces and what nots. :tongue:

BUt I still love you, beyotch.:fluffle:

damn... so much for the thr... OH!... OK, got lotta room! :D

The point isn't that the two things are the same, they're not - the point is that invoking 'rights' is inadvisable... because that can of worms leads to ultimatums - either people have rights or they don't.

And if you're going to say they should, you can't arbitrarily start saying that they have those rights until they cross certain zip codes.

But it isn't completely wrong to say that perhaps abortion should be legislated on the state level as opposed to the federal level. In fact, this is something I don't completely disagree with.

But it isn't completely wrong to say that perhaps abortion should be legislated on the state level...

Yes, it is.

But, thanks for playing.

Yes, it is.

But, thanks for playing.

Care to elaborate? Or do you believe that 100% of laws should be made on the federal level?

Care to elaborate? Or do you believe that 100% of laws should be made on the federal level?

I didn't bring up 'rights' in the first place.

If you're going to argue that there are 'rights', then you can't argue that you can opt some people out.

Care to elaborate? Or do you believe that 100% of laws should be made on the federal level?

Traffic laws - state issue.

Public spending laws - state issue.

CIVIL RIGHTS - not an issue to be left for the state of Utah to decide.

Traffic laws - state issue.

Public spending laws - state issue.

CIVIL RIGHTS - not an issue to be left for the state of Utah to decide.

Abortion is not a civil rights issue. There is a legitimate and ongoing debate occurring over the topic.

I didn't bring up 'rights' in the first place.

If you're going to argue that there are 'rights', then you can't argue that you can opt some people out.

I'm confused. I believe the person who brought up rights did so in the context that abortion is a state's rights issue, so it should be legislated on the state level. Am I incorrect?

Abortion is not a civil rights issue. There is a legitimate and ongoing debate occurring over the topic.

Then I am sure you will be able to present the arguments as to WHY it isn't.

Then I am sure you will be able to present the arguments as to WHY it isn't.

Civil and political rights are a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc; individual freedom of belief, speech, association, and the press; and political participation. Contrast with economic, social and cultural rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_right

Economic, social and cultural rights are socio-economic human rights; compare with civil and political rights. Economic, social and cultural rights are included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and elaborated upon in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Examples of such rights include the right to food, the right to housing and the right to health.

The theory of three generations of human rights considers this group of rights to be "second-generation rights", and the theory of negative and positive rights considers them to be positive rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic,_social_and_cultural_rights

Some philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between negative and positive rights (not to be confused with the similar but different distinction between negative and positive liberties). According to this view, positive rights are those rights which permit or oblige action, whereas negative rights are those which permit or oblige inaction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_rights

The argument over abortion can be summed up as an argument over whether the right to privacy or the right to life is at debate. The right to privacy could perhaps be described as a "civil right", but most certainly is a negative right (that is, one that requires inaction). The right to life is most certainly a positive right and, I would argue, an economic, social and cultural right.

My position on the entire debate (not on abortion itself) is that there is no consensus, so there should be no federal legislation. There is no clear answer to the question, which is why I believe it should be left up to the states to decide. This way, we don't assume agreement on a federal level, where no such agreement exists. On a state level there is greater consensus among constituents, so it would be easier and more democratic to legislate on this level.

Snip.

If the answer is not clear, it should be a federal issue until it is.

If the answer is not clear, it should be a federal issue until it is.

Can you explain to me why this is?

Can you explain to me why this is?

It may well be a federal issue per se. And until then, the nation has more competence. In case it IS a civil rights issue, some people will have been prevented due access to them. In case it isn't, there is no harm done.

I'm confused. I believe the person who brought up rights did so in the context that abortion is a state's rights issue, so it should be legislated on the state level. Am I incorrect?

Bringing up 'rights' was the Achilles heel, there.

There are plenty of good argument to be made about abortion that don't have to circle around 'rights'. Once you invoke rights, it's a rights issue.

..."Civil and political rights are a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity"...

Physical integrity. Civil right.

Sources. Read them.

It may well be a federal issue per se. And until then, the nation has more competence. In case it IS a civil rights issue, some people will have been prevented due access to them. In case it isn't, there is no harm done.

The problem with legislating it as a federal level is not one of competence. It is one of democratic process. A law made in the national Congress is one, presumably, for protecting the rights of every member of the US, or for the benefit of all those citizens. As such, it assumes a national consensus on the issue. Or clear Constitutional or legal precedent, but usually you won't find a law that diverges from public opinion, even if there is "clear" legal cause for it. That's an entirely different discussion, though.

State legislatures are around for a reason, however. There are issues where there is no national consensus, or no clear avenue for the national legislature to take legal action. In fact, this happens quite often. And, as we all know, all powers not given to the federal legislature are given to the state ones.

Honestly, there should be much less legal precedent on abortion than there is. The Roe v. Wade decision never should have happened like it did.

There are plenty of good argument to be made about abortion that don't have to circle around 'rights'. Once you invoke rights, it's a rights issue.
The "rights" mentioned by myself (and perhaps the other poster, but I don't read minds) would be more accurately classified as "powers", as under Article 10.

Physical integrity. Civil right.

Sources. Read them.

Yeah, right to privacy.

My posts. Read them.

But it isn't completely wrong to say that perhaps abortion should be legislated on the state level as opposed to the federal level. In fact, this is something I don't completely disagree with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_right


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic,_social_and_cultural_rights


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_rights

The argument over abortion can be summed up as an argument over whether the right to privacy or the right to life is at debate. The right to privacy could perhaps be described as a "civil right", but most certainly is a negative right (that is, one that requires inaction). The right to life is most certainly a positive right and, I would argue, an economic, social and cultural right.

My position on the entire debate (not on abortion itself) is that there is no consensus, so there should be no federal legislation. There is no clear answer to the question, which is why I believe it should be left up to the states to decide. This way, we don't assume agreement on a federal level, where no such agreement exists. On a state level there is greater consensus among constituents, so it would be easier and more democratic to legislate on this level.

Um. PoliSci 101: the only "federal legislation" at issue here is THE FUCKING U.S. CONSTITUTION.

(Actually, there is at least one federal abortion law, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. I would agree that legislation is inappropriate, but for different reasons than "states' rights.")

As for your nonsense about abortion not being a right: (1) I don't take legal or ethical advice straight from Wikipedia; (2) as GnI pointed out, your own source lists physical integrity; and (3) is based on the premise that the unborn have not only the same, but greater rights, than born humans.

Finally, your argument that state-level abortion laws would be "more democratic" misunderstands the concepts of constitutional rights. These are not matters for popular vote.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

(3) is based on the premise that the unborn have not only the same, but greater rights, than born humans.
I don't understand how this is true. Hypothetically, if the unborn have the same rights as the rest of us, then their right to live trumps the rights to privacy of their mothers, does it not?

Finally, your argument that state-level abortion laws would be "more democratic" misunderstands the concepts of constitutional rights. These are not matters for popular vote.
If there was consensus, I would agree. But there are multiple interpretations of the Constitution, depending entirely upon whether you believe that fetuses are entitled to the same rights as born citizens. There is no correct answer.

This opinion is contingent upon your assumption that the fetus is not an individual itself, worthy of rights.

Not at all. Even if the fetus is an individual with rights, those rights do not include the right to use the woman's body against her will.

Thus, abortion is still an individual matter.

Not at all. Even if the fetus is an individual with rights, those rights do not include the right to use the woman's body against her will.

Would you not say that permission was given by engaging in such acts that could lead to a pregnancy?

I don't have specific arguments against such lines of debate. I don't even agree with pro-lifers. I just think it should be a state issue.

I don't understand how this is true. Hypothetically, if the unborn have the same rights as the rest of us, then their right to live trumps the rights to privacy of their mothers, does it not?

No, the fetus' right to life does not trump a woman's right to her own body. Unless you want to argue that things like organ and blood donation should be mandatory...

Would you not say that permission was given by engaging in such acts that could lead to a pregnancy?

No, I wouldn't. And even if it was, such permission could be withdrawn at any time, just as I can withdraw permission for any other use of my body at any time.


I don't have specific arguments against such lines of debate. I don't even agree with pro-lifers. I just think it should be a state issue.

And I think your argument places too much power over an individual's body in the hands of the government. The fact that it is the state government doesn't make it any less of an infringement on essential individual liberty.

I don't understand how this is true. Hypothetically, if the unborn have the same rights as the rest of us, then their right to live trumps the rights to privacy of their mothers, does it not?


I'm glad to hear that I have a right to your kidney should I need one. Where the hell does a right to privacy come in though? The argument is one of bodily autonomy not privacy.

Ah, the old abortion-is-equal-to-slavery argument. What a classic.

Wait, what?
It's a classic because it works and is always appropriate.

This opinion is contingent upon your assumption that the fetus is not an individual itself, worthy of rights.
No, actually it is not. Just for the sake of arguing this point, let's assume that a fetus is an individual itself, worthy of rights (it isn't, but let's pretend).

Show me one instance in which any individual has the right to take over the use of an other individual's body against that other individual's will. Show me one instance in which individual A is has a right to invade individual B's body, usurp B's physical integrity, syphon off B's nutrients and physical energy, etc, for A's personal use, all without B's permission.

There is no such right, and no one is allowed to that. If a fetus is an individual, then they would have the same rights as everyone else, and that would NOT include using me against my will.

Abortion is not a civil rights issue. There is a legitimate and ongoing debate occurring over the topic.
Actually, it is a civil rights issue, referring to the right to maintain one's bodily integrity, as quoted by you (see bold):

Quote:
Civil and political rights are a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc; individual freedom of belief, speech, association, and the press; and political participation. Contrast with economic, social and cultural rights.

I'm confused. I believe the person who brought up rights did so in the context that abortion is a state's rights issue, so it should be legislated on the state level. Am I incorrect?
You are wrong for the same reason that person was wrong. As Dempublicents pointed out, governments do not have rights. They have powers and authorities. Not rights.

<snip>

My position on the entire debate (not on abortion itself) is that there is no consensus, so there should be no federal legislation. There is no clear answer to the question, which is why I believe it should be left up to the states to decide. This way, we don't assume agreement on a federal level, where no such agreement exists. On a state level there is greater consensus among constituents, so it would be easier and more democratic to legislate on this level.
You know what would be even easier, as well as not burdened at all by the lack of consensus? If both the federal and state governments stayed the hell out of the issue altogether. Canada proves that no restrictions on abortion are needed in order to avoid the horror stories of abuses that anti-choicers like to imagine. Let's have no law about it at all. Anything about which there is no law is legal by default. Classify abortion as a medical procedure, let it be regulated by health codes and medical ethics, and beyond that, let it be no one's business but the woman's and her doctor's. Done and done. Easy as pie.

Let's have no law about it at all. Anything about which there is no law is legal be default. Classify abortion as a medical procedure, let it be regulated by health codes and medical ethics, and beyond that, let it be no one's business but the woman's and her doctor's. Done and done. Easy as pie.


As appealing as that sounds, there are a lot of loose ends. A lot of antis don't want their tax money to pay for an abortion - so are we going to support abortions for poor women who can't afford them?

Yes, if the government weren't in the business of constantly meddling in our lives, just eliminating a lot of laws would make things simpler.

If both the federal and state governments stayed the hell out of the issue altogether.

I don't disagree. But the issue isn't one of legislate or not, its one of federal vs state legislation.

Actually, it is a civil rights issue, referring to the right to maintain one's bodily integrity, as quoted by you
You are wrong for the same reason that person was wrong. As Dempublicents pointed out, governments do not have rights. They have powers and authorities. Not rights.
I have already addressed this. Read my posts and get back to me.

I don't understand how this is true. Hypothetically, if the unborn have the same rights as the rest of us, then their right to live trumps the rights to privacy of their mothers, does it not?


If there was consensus, I would agree. But there are multiple interpretations of the Constitution, depending entirely upon whether you believe that fetuses are entitled to the same rights as born citizens. There is no correct answer.

First, Constitutional rights do not require "a consensus" to be protected. That was addressed in my quote. There are always multiple interpretations of the Constitution, that is why we have a Supreme Court.

Second, every person has a right to liberty including the right to privacy and to control their own body. Even if the unborn have a right to life, that does NOT necessarily give it a superior claim to use of the woman's body. She has the superior claim -- as it is her body.

Third, when we are talking law not ethics, personhood is granted by the 14th Amendment to those who are born, not the unborn.

There are always multiple interpretations of the Constitution, that is why we have a Supreme Court.
Do you think that Roe v. Wade was the proper way to go about things?

I don't disagree. But the issue isn't one of legislate or not, its one of federal vs state legislation.

As has already been pointed out, there's really only one piece of federal legislation regarding abortion, and I'm pretty sure Murv would agree that it is inappropriate - particularly given the fact that the only thing it accomplishes is endangering women's lives.

Show me one instance in which any individual has the right to take over the use of an other individual's body against that other individual's will. Show me one instance in which individual A is has a right to invade individual B's body, usurp B's physical integrity, syphon off B's nutrients and physical energy, etc, for A's personal use, all without B's permission.

Indeed, there are, AFAIK, no legal grounds for, say, breaking and entering "if you otherwise risk dying from exposure". And this is a foetus breaking and entering A BODY.

(Did I spell "foetus" right?)

Do you think that Roe v. Wade was the proper way to go about things?

Yes. As were other controversial decisions like Brown v. Board of Education.

We don't leave constitutional rights to the mercy of the states just because that would "be easier" or "more democratic."

Would you not say that permission was given by engaging in such acts that could lead to a pregnancy?

I don't have specific arguments against such lines of debate. I don't even agree with pro-lifers. I just think it should be a state issue.
Yes, I understand what you are saying, but you are wrong. Civil rights and human rights apply to ALL citizens of the United States of America. Not citizens of New York or Alabama or California or Hawaii, etc. Citizens of the United States of America. Since we are all citizens of the same nation, that means we all get the same rights and legal protections for those rights as every other citizen, regardless of where we live within the nation -- note: the nation, not any given state.

States are bound to the Constitution. They do not have the authority to decide that SOME people don't get to maintain their own bodily integrity. The end.

Therefore, you can argue all you like over whether you think the state should violate basic civil and human rights or whether the fed should be doing it. The bottom line is NO level of government can do that. Therefore, NO legislation that would have that effect, whether federal or state, would be legitimate.

I don't disagree. But the issue isn't one of legislate or not, its one of federal vs state legislation.

I have already addressed this. Read my posts and get back to me.
I did read your subsequent posts, but Dempublicents already made the points I would have made. I refer you to her responses to you and add myself +1 to what she said.

Do you think that Roe v. Wade was the proper way to go about things?

When the government unduly infringes on the rights of the individual, the courts are a good avenue for stopping said infringement.

Of course, it would be better if the government never did so, or if we didn't all too often have majorities that were more than willing to infringe on the rights of minorities, but that isn't the case.

Yes. As were other controversial decisions like Brown v. Board of Education.

Poor comparison. Roe v. Wade was legislation, not an interpretation of the Constitution.

It is not the role of the Courts to create. They stepped outside of their bounds.

Poor comparison. Roe v. Wade was legislation, not an interpretation of the Constitution.

No, it wasn't.

I'm tired of people yelling "legislating from the bench" whenever it's a decision they don't like.

Poor comparison. Roe v. Wade was legislation, not an interpretation of the Constitution.

Um....no, it wasn't. It was a Supreme Court decision, just like Brown v. Board or Loving v. Virginia or Lawrence v. Texas.

As has already been pointed out, there's really only one piece of federal legislation regarding abortion, and I'm pretty sure Murv would agree that it is inappropriate - particularly given the fact that the only thing it accomplishes is endangering women's lives.
Indeed, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban is an abomination of a law because (a) it is based on a fiction and (b) as you say, it accomplishes nothing but to interfere with medical practice and endanger women's lives. The Congress should be ashamed of themselves for that piece of pandering shit, and I look forward to the day it can be repealed.

Um....no, it wasn't. It was a Supreme Court decision, just like Brown v. Board or Loving v. Virginia or Lawrence v. Texas.

Roe v. Wade provided specifics on abortions. It set arbitrary, yet specific guidelines. Generally when people claim "legislation from the bench" they are talking about constructionism vs. activism when it comes to the Constitution. When I use the term as applied to Roe v. Wade I am talking about actual law being created by the Supreme Court.

Poor comparison. Roe v. Wade was legislation, not an interpretation of the Constitution.

Bullshit. Have you actually read Roe v. Wade (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html), 410 U.S. 113 (1973), AND (perhaps more importantly) Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833), 505 U.S. 833 (1992)? Feel free to point out where SCOTUS is legislating and not interpreting the Constitution.

Regardless, the same was and is said about Brown v. Board of Education, so it is a great comparison.

Bullshit. Have you actually read Roe v. Wade (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html), 410 U.S. 113 (1973), AND (perhaps more importantly) Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833), 505 U.S. 833 (1992)? Feel free to point out where SCOTUS is legislating and not interpreting the Constitution.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.
Where in the Constitution are trimesters addressed?

Roe v. Wade provided specifics on abortions. It set arbitrary, yet specific guidelines. Generally when people claim "legislation from the bench" they are talking about constructionism vs. activism when it comes to the Constitution. When I use the term as applied to Roe v. Wade I am talking about actual law being created by the Supreme Court.

Please define the difference between "actual law being created" by SCOTUS and SCOTUS exercising the power of judicial review.

Then explain how Roe is an example of the former.

Where in the Constitution are trimesters addressed?

*sigh*

First of all, the trimester system has long ago been replaced.

Secondly, the trimester system used logical points in the pregnancy in balancing the interests of the state against the rights of the individual. By your argument, it would have been better for the Court to say no abortions could ever be banned or regulated than for the Court to say at "X point abortions can be banned."

BTW, was Miranda v. Arizona (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=384&invol=436), 384 U.S. 436 (1966), legislating from the bench?