North Dakota Measure 1

[Oldiesfreak1854]

No. A blastocyst is not a person.

Blastocysts also don't kick or suck their thumbs.

[Vega]

No, and I don't think it'll pass. It didn't pass in Mississippi, so why should it pass in North Dakota?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

People don't care about other people's rights, and are easily swayed by fear tactics, so this will likely not pass.  But if it does I will be thrilled, and it may just start a chain reaction.

[politicallefty]

No. A blastocyst is not a person.

Blastocysts also don't kick or suck their thumbs.

Yes, and I don't think it should be granted the full rights and protections of personhood, as this amendment would do. Perhaps I went too late in development. A zygote is not a person. I cannot understand how one can equate that with an actual human being.

[Lief 🗽]

I would vote no, of course. (normal/don't support treating women as property)

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I would vote no, of course. (normal/don't support treating women as property)

But treating unborn children as property is fine?

[Lief 🗽]

I would vote no, of course. (normal/don't support treating women as property)

But treating unborn children as property is fine?

Yes, clumps of cells inside a woman's body are her own property.

[Bigby]

Although I don't really view abortion positively, I feel that banning abortion would have unintentional consequences. As such, I would vote no.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I would vote no, of course. (normal/don't support treating women as property)

But treating unborn children as property is fine?

Yes, clumps of cells inside a woman's body are her own property.

At least you admit that's the way you view it.  But abortion is still legal at 24 weeks IIRC and you can't argue that it's just a lump of cells at that point.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Although I don't really view abortion positively, I feel that banning abortion would have unintentional intentional (and disingenuous), obvious, and incredibly pernicious consequences. As such, I would vote no.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

No/No. (sane)

[ElectionsGuy]

I would obviously vote no because I don't believe in this flimsy idea of everyone having an inherent right to life and furthermore preference the right of the woman already alive to choose whether or not she will have a child over the 'right' of the state to force her to carry a child to term that she may not be able to feed or properly clothe and that the state won't bother lifting a finger to help her feed, shelter, or clothe said child.

The right to choose should be allowed at any stage of pregnancy, without any questions asked. It should be performed free of charge and the stigma associated with getting an abortion should be vigorously combated with a public information campaign. Anti-abortion terrorists who bomb clinics and kill doctors (and women who get abortions) in an effort to intimidate women and assert patriarchal dominance over them should be tried for hate crimes and sentenced to death if found guilty.

You're for the death penalty? Never knew that.

[TNF]

I would obviously vote no because I don't believe in this flimsy idea of everyone having an inherent right to life and furthermore preference the right of the woman already alive to choose whether or not she will have a child over the 'right' of the state to force her to carry a child to term that she may not be able to feed or properly clothe and that the state won't bother lifting a finger to help her feed, shelter, or clothe said child.

The right to choose should be allowed at any stage of pregnancy, without any questions asked. It should be performed free of charge and the stigma associated with getting an abortion should be vigorously combated with a public information campaign. Anti-abortion terrorists who bomb clinics and kill doctors (and women who get abortions) in an effort to intimidate women and assert patriarchal dominance over them should be tried for hate crimes and sentenced to death if found guilty.

You're for the death penalty? Never knew that.

I support capital punishment in context. I don't think that the United States of America or any of its fifty states should have the ability to put anyone to death, because both of those entities are soaked in blood from head to foot and thus have no right to render judgment upon petty murderers or other criminals.

I do however believe that a hypothetical socialist government, freed from the domination of Capital and its two parties, should be able to execute those who (1) actively seek to destroy socialist society (i.e. by organizing terrorist groups to bring down the government; I wouldn't arrest people distributing works by Ayn Rand or forming explicitly capitalist political parties, but I would put the latter under intense monitoring to make sure that they're not receiving covert funding from foreign or expatriated capitalists); and (2) engage in activities that seek to undermine the solidarity of the working class (i.e. engaging in racist domestic terrorism or violence, bombing abortion clinics, domestic abuse, homophobic violence, etc.; hate speech should be prohibited in public and explicit hate groups banned and their leaders arrested, but I wouldn't arrest people for saying racist or sexist things in private).

Murder would probably vanish as a phenomenon after a few decades due to the common ownership of property and free distribution of goods and services, same goes for the bulk of all crimes that we now have under capitalism. Those that then break the law could be given community service to help them right those they have wronged, or if the offense is bad enough, be ostracized, perhaps to some kind of space colony for some period of time until they can adequately learn how to interact with other people.