Do North Dakota's new personhood and heartbeat abortion laws go too far?

  • Yes, North Dakota's person hood and heartbeat abortion laws go way too far.

    I don't understand how few week old clump of cells can override the rights of another person's body. Nothing about abortion is immoral, and this law is just trying to push morality and shame other people. The law doesn't even allow abortions in medical emergencies. I guess North Dakota thinks that an embryo that wouldn't survive outside of it's mother's body is more important than the mother who actually has to, you know, be alive in order for an embryo to develop. This will obviously be overturned due to Roe vs. Wade, and just end up making a big ridiculous waste of money, time, and effort in the North Dakota state government.

  • Yes, North Dakota's newly enacted abortions laws go too far; they deny women lifesaving medical treatment.

    The North Dakota law outlawing abortion at the point a fetal heartbeat can be detected (generally around the six-week mark) puts the "right to life" of a fertilized egg above the health and life the mother. It takes away a woman's right to make a medical decision concerning her body and her mental well-being. The provider restrictions were a direct attack on the only medical facility in the state that provided abortion services. It's an abuse of the legislative power of the state government.

    The worst part is that in reality it only effects the poor who cannot afford to leave the state to have an abortion.

  • Challenging Roe vs. Wade

    This state legislation is in direct opposition to Roe vs. Wade because it will make abortion illegal as early as six weeks of pregnancy when many women are not even aware that they are pregnant. Having a heartbeat does not mean that the fetus can live outside a mother's womb as defined by Roe vs Wade. Moreover, federal law is the supreme law of the land which is likely to trump this state law.

  • North Dakota’s Law Doesn’t Go Far Enough

    Not even close. If it has a heartbeat, it is a person. If it is a person, then it deserves protection under the same laws that are in place to protect humans from humans. An unborn child has no other protection. Just because our laws do not go far enough in punishing rape, or incest, or other heinous crimes where people feel compelled to advocate an abortion should be permitted, does this mean the unborn infant should have to pay with its life for our inability to successfully curtail our societies maladies? Unborn infants should be protected from their own species, and if its heart beats, then it is a person! Abort it, and face the charge of murder, because that’s all it is.

  • No, it does not go too far.

    It is disheartening to see all this debate about the validity of life at creation. It should not be a question that life exists at conception. I am sure that if legal abortion was available fifty years ago many of those advocating for unfettered access to abortion today would not be here to debate the topic. In the year 2014 why are we debating the destruction of life when there are a plethora of methods available that would prevent conception? With the ability to conceive comes the responsibility to accept the consequences of that ability. For all those advocates for abortion think about this, what if your mother chose abortion when you were the inconvenient pregnancy.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.