Rally the forces!

http://www.lifenews.com/bio2811.html

Senate Vote

Does anyone know when the vote on HB1572 is? It was supposed to be 2 weeks ago.

Question re: Youtube

Do you folks enjoy my videos? If so, rate up. If not, what could I do better (no, I'm not appearing on camera).

Re: Responding to Roebotic [nonsense]

Post links in the Comments section to pro-abortion shirts, bumper stickers, etc. that you want responded to in "Responding to Roebotic [nonsense] 0002". I thoughts there was a lot of Roebotic [nonsense], but I realized it's mostly repeats.

Requests2

If I'm going to keep this up daily for the rest of the yeat, I'll need some input from you.

Skype

I now have Skype. If you want to have a Skype debate, we can set up a time.

Requests

I am now taking requests. If you have a video you want owned, tell me.

Youtube4

Rate my vids.

Email

Here are the emails of the ND senators. Email them and express your support for the commonsense HB1572. I'm not including sample email because I want yours all to differ.

Arden C. Anderson <aranderson@nd.gov>, John M. Andrist <jandrist@nd.gov>, JoNell A. Bakke <jbakke@nd.gov>, Arthur H. Behm <abehm@nd.gov>, Bill Bowman <bbowman@nd.gov>, Randel Christmann <rchristmann@nd.gov>, Dwight Cook <dcook@nd.gov>, Dick Dever <ddever@nd.gov>, Jim Dotzenrod <jdotzenrod@nd.gov>, Robert S. Erbele <rerbele@nd.gov>, Tom Fiebiger <tdfiebiger@nd.gov>, Tom Fischer <tfischer@nd.gov>, Tim Flakoll <tflakoll@nd.gov>, Layton W. Freborg <lfreborg@nd.gov>, Tony S. Grindberg <tgrindberg@nd.gov>, Joan Heckaman <jheckaman@nd.gov>, David Hogue <dhogue@nd.gov>, Ray Holmberg <rholmberg@nd.gov>, Robert M. Horne <rhorne@nd.gov>, Ralph L. Kilzer <rkilzer@nd.gov>, Jerry Klein <jklein@nd.gov>, Aaron Krauter <akrauter@nd.gov>, Karen K. Krebsbach <kkrebsbach@nd.gov>, Gary A. Lee <galee@nd.gov>, Judy Lee <jlee@nd.gov>, Elroy N. Lindaas <elindaas@nd.gov>, Stanley W. Lyson <slyson@nd.gov>, Richard Marcellais <rmarcellais@nd.gov>, Tim Mathern <tmathern@nd.gov>, Joe Miller <joetmiller@nd.gov>, Carolyn Nelson <cnelson@nd.gov>, Dave Nething <dnething@nd.gov>, George Nodland <glnodland@nd.gov>, David O'Connell <doconnell@nd.gov>, Dave Oehlke <doehlke@nd.gov>, Curtis Olafson <colafson@nd.gov>, Jim Pomeroy <jpomeroy@nd.gov>, Tracy Potter <tpotter@nd.gov>, Larry J. Robinson <lrobinson@nd.gov>, Mac Schneider <macschneider@nd.gov>, Tom Seymour <tseymour@nd.gov>, Bob Stenehjem <bstenehjem@nd.gov>, Ryan M. Taylor <rtaylor@nd.gov>, Constance Triplett <ctriplett@nd.gov>, Terry M. Wanzek <tmwanzek@nd.gov>, Rich Wardner <rwardner@nd.gov>, John Warner <jwarner@nd.gov>

Science Class

I've seen some pro-abortion people say ND HB1572 would make killing any human cell murder, and that sexual reproduction is one organism splitting into two (the splitting taking place at birth), regardless of whether another partner contributes genetic material. Seriously, they need to go back to school.

Montana's Personhood Bill

North Dakota will probably win, because Montana's populus have to vote on theirs too.

ndhb1572ftw

Expect a vote any day now...

Take action

Spread this to support prenatal rights.

ND HB1572 FTW

Oh your god some people are stupid.

http://www.dakotapolitics.com/blogPost.asp?PostId=17054

HB 1572

Yesterday there was a committe hearing. Expect a vote this week.

Youtube3

I'll be uploading regularly (but less so than I blog). I have 4 so far.

Help!

President Obama has shown we must raise our efforts. What have you done?

YouTube2

I uploaded my first video!

Um, what?

http://lifenews.com/bio2786.html

Personhood Bills

North Dakota's bill has passed the House and is waiting for the Senate. Montana has a bill that has passed the Senate and is waiting for the House. It's basically a race. I'm rooting for North Dakota, because I like their bill better.

/me facepalms

http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/nd_stop_hb1572

As expected, Planned Parenthood is throwing a hissy fit about North Dakota’s HB-1572. Seems they haven’t even read it, particularly Section 2, 3e-3k.

Here it is, for your convenience:

e. 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.

g. Because all preborn children are persons, no abortion performed with specific

intent is legal. A direct abortion is always performed with the specific intent to

bring death to a preborn child; it is a deprivation of the right to life and the right

to the equal protection of the law and is the ultimate manifestation of the

involuntary servitude of one human being to another.

h. A mother is not going to die by recognizing her child's right to life. When the

mother needs a life-saving medical operation, then an indirect abortion is not

legally or morally considered abortion because it is not performed with specific

intent to bring death to a preborn child. The death of the child may be

permitted as an indirect and unavoidable result of steps necessary to save the

mother's life. Physicians shall make, in all cases, every effort to preserve

both the life of the mother and the life of the preborn child. Physicians shall

provide equal care and equal consideration to the mother and child.

i. Medical treatment that has as its primary purpose to cure a disease of the

pregnant woman or of a twin preborn human being may not be considered

abortion. The pregnant woman must be given the choice of which treatment

to receive provided it is treatment intended to act upon or cure a disease.

This excludes the possibility of ever performing an abortion under the

pretense of a medical necessity since a preborn human being is not a

disease.

j. In the case of twins, all medical procedures designed to address specific

medical conditions that affect both twins are lawful provided as the physician's

actions are performed with the specific intent to save the life of the preborn

human being with highest chance of survival.

k. If a pregnant woman's health is in danger during a pregnancy, the physician

may not be held criminally responsible for unintentionally causing the death of

the preborn human being from legitimate treatment administered to the

pregnant woman. Chemotherapy, radiation treatment, and other medical

procedures that are not intended to cause the death of the preborn human

being but that are likely to do so, may not be prohibited if prescribed to cure

the pregnant woman. Under no circumstance may abortion be considered

legitimate treatment.

And looky here:

SECTION 2. Legislative findings regarding certain effects of establishing

personhood.

1. With respect to preborn personhood, it is the intent of the legislative assembly to:

a. Immunize a woman from criminal prosecution for abortion.

Also, this part disturbs me:

12.1-27.2-04.1. Possession of certain materials prohibited. A person is guilty of a

class C felony if, knowing of its character and content, that person knowingly possesses any

motion picture, photograph, or other visual representation that includes sexual conduct by a

minor. A person is guilty of a class B felony if the minor is a born alive child as defined in

section 1 of this Act.

Are they really implying there’s fetus porn (or necrophiliac CP)‽ And if there is fetus porn, is it less bad than CP?

"Pro-choice"

Pro-gun: I support the right of others to choose to own a gun, but do not necessarily support them myself.
Pro-gambling: I support the right of others to choose to gamble, but do not necessarily support it myself.

Pro-X means pro-right to X.

There is no right to choose; "choose" is a transitive verb. There is, however, a right to choose X. Just like there is no right to punch. You may punch a brick but not a person. There is no right to choose to rob a bank. There is a right to choose what clothes to wear.

"Live" is an intransitive verb.

By the pro-abortion logic, anti-gambling people are anti-choice. "Pro-choice" would mean supporting choice in general. 

Sorry, but those who are pro-abortion don't get to claim choice as exclusively refering to abortion.

Suggestions

I need some pwnage material. Hard pwnage, easy pwnage, even self-pwnage (things that pwn themselves).

One rule: nothing from Pandagon.

YouTube

I just wanted to let you know I'll be posting some simple videos soon. They'll be here.

Poetry

Just like I feel that it reflects badly on society as a whole when someone can get rich off of cleaning their paintbrush on parchment, or by superglueing random crap together, I feel that there's a fine line between poetry that doesn't rhyme and just a bunch of words.

Ido

Ido estas aĉa lingvo. Fiido ne havas faĉilajn korelaciojn. Ankaŭ la vorto "del" ne estas senchava. Mi kredas ke Ido estas farinta de hispanuloj. Ĝi ne havas la prefikson "mal-" kaj ne havas neŭtralan vortordon. "Genitoro, patro, matro" estas pli malsimpla ol "gepatro, patro, patrino".

Subscribe

I've noticed I have quite a few commenters now. I encourage you to subscribe.

Also, notify me if a post's URL doesn't match its title.

Arguments pro-lifers should not use 03

Pro-prenatal rights argument: Arguments that Assume Religion

Example(s): misc. Bible quotes

Why you shouldn't use it: It's an appeal to authority

Exceptions to this prohibition: Arguing with another believer, who you know is one beforehand. Scratch that. Never use it. In the case of deconversion, they may dismiss prenatal rights as purely religious.

Arguments pro-lifers should not use 02

Pro-prenatal rights argument: "What if you had been aborted?

Example(s): N/A

Why you shouldn't use it: They'd be dead, so they wouldn't care. I'm pretty sure this has never persuaded anyone.

Exceptions to this prohibition: None. Don't use it. Ever.

Arguments pro-lifers should not use 01

Pro-prenatal rights argument: Arguments that Assume Personhood

Example(s): What if you went to you're mom's house and she wanted to kill you? Would she have that right?

Why you shouldn't use it: Personhood is the state of having rights; basically, this is circular logic.

Exceptions to this prohibition: Arguments where personhood is a given. For example, arguing against abortion in case of rape. Also explaining how you think, not persuasively. Also, to get the discussion back to the issue of personhood.

Amanda Marcotte

I've been asked why I care what she says. I really don't. She's the VenomFangX of the Roebots.

Easy pwange.

She's a fountain of material.

However, I'm pretty shocked that she has such a following.