North Dakota has led the way in terms of chipping away at abortion rights. Along with Mississippi and other Bible Belt states, North Dakota has sought time and again to test the Supreme Courts ruling that has allowed women in the United States to kill their unborn children at any stage of their pregnancies.
The latest approach is to come after the ruling through the idea that technology could not tell when life began. However, there has now been a lot of discussion surrounding whether or not babies that have not been born can feel pain, or not, and that is where the North Dakota law is testing the Supreme Court’s ruling.
So, the question for the court now is, can it be determined that an unborn baby feels pain, and if so, how can it continue to justify inhumane treatment—we wouldn’t dismember a dog and vacuum it out, how can we do it for a human?
All or Nothing
This strategy of picking away at abortion is controversial in Pro-Life camps. Many say that we should save the arguments to go for an outright ban, instead of going for chipping away at the ruling a little at a time. They argue that we can create enough of a public feeling against abortion that we can get a Constitutional Amendment, or get enough Anti-Roe people on the court to overturn the whole thing.
Then there are others that would seek to limit it and hope to make it as hard as possible to get an abortion. They figure that every life they save is a life that would not have been aborted.
Which camp do you find yourself in? Which tactic do you think is better?