1215 users online (248 members and 967 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    30,906

    ND measure says fertilized egg has human rights

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...TAM&SECTION=US

    A measure approved by the North Dakota House gives a fertilized human egg the legal rights of a human being, a step that would essentially ban abortion in the state.
    The bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended abortion rights nationwide, supporters of the legislation said.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    3,135
    So that would mean that a pregnant woman who smoked, or who took street drugs, or anything that was thought to possibly be harmful to the fetus, could be prosecuted??

    Someone could be charged with child abuse before the child is even born?

    I would think that a pregnant woman could collect welfare for her unborn child. How do you ensure "happiness" for a fetus?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,299
    So, does that mean that any woman of child-bearing age who's had sex recently, but has not had her period yet, can drive in the car-pool lane, since, potentially, she's not alone?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,681
    What is it with this state. Correct me if I am wrong, but did they already try to pass some other legislation that prevented abortion.

    I hope Obama brings this state into the year 2009. Some how they think that women are not going to die by having "back street" butchers butcher them because a women is extremely desperate to not be a mother. Mistake or not, accident or not, abortions will happen, it is just the consequences of what happens to the women as a result.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    3,135
    The more I think about it the more I think this is a crazy idea.

    Can you imagine how much money upholding this law will cost the state??

    If this is passed I can see ND following California into bankruptcy.

    I suppose they will want a bailout.....

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,661
    Quote Originally Posted by CyberLaw View Post
    I hope Obama brings this state into the year 2009.
    Obama doesn't have any power over the state of North Dakota. You would need a Supreme Court vacancy for Obama to have any influence over the laws of North Dakota.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    30,906
    Quote Originally Posted by Linda7NJ View Post
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...TAM&SECTION=US

    A measure approved by the North Dakota House gives a fertilized human egg the legal rights of a human being, a step that would essentially ban abortion in the state.
    The bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended abortion rights nationwide, supporters of the legislation said.

    Wonder if you have a batch of fertilized embryos stored ...can you claim them all as dependants on your income tax?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    16,021
    It boggles the mind - the legal can of worms it would open up for so many issues.
    I do not intend to tiptoe through life only to arrive safely at death!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    3,135
    Quote Originally Posted by Linda7NJ View Post
    Wonder if you have a batch of fertilized embryos stored ...can you claim them all as dependants on your income tax?
    All I know is you better make sure they are happy....

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,681
    So if a women has a "miscarriage" is there going to be a "police investigation" to determine if the women "contributed" in any way shape or form to the "death" of the fetus.

    If the "police investigation" determines that she did not have proper pre natal care, nutrition, vitamins, exercise, no stress, or anything else that "may" have contributed to the "death" or "murder" of the fetus, then is she going to be "charged" with murder and then sentenced.

    What about "compulsory" motherhood. Maybe a women does not want to be "forced" to become a mother. She has an abortion. So, the choice is, compulsory" motherhood or "a murder trial".

    I doubt that this will pass a challenge at the Supreme Court. No one has been able to determine "when life begins". Generally it is when "the unborn" is viable to survive.

    A fetus is a potential human. Until it is born, and takes it first breath, it is still a potential human.

    What about birth defects. Does the mother have to prove that she in no way shape or form "contributed" to the said birth defect. Will every birth defect "have to be investigated" to determined if "assault" occurred or somehow the "mother harmed" the fetus.

    I guess they will have to have the "pregnancy" police, do women need "to register" their pregnancy so they can be "monitored".

    I mean we want to "ensure" that the "human rights' of the fetus come well before the choice and privacy of the "compulsory" mother.

    I hope a women does have a choice, makes that choice public, then challenges the police to arrest her for "murder" and human rights violations.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    LSU
    Posts
    1,777
    Quote Originally Posted by Linda7NJ View Post
    Wonder if you have a batch of fertilized embryos stored ...can you claim them all as dependants on your income tax?
    LMAO!

    Ya know, you should be able too! My friend just had 2 embryos implanted Sunday. We don't have a lot of time at work to get into a lot of detail, but one of the expenses was they had to pre-pay for storing any fertilized embryos that were not implanted. IIRC, she was going to get $700 back because she only produced 2 eggs and had both put back in her body after fertilization. IIRC, she said after x number of years....2 iirc, they were going to have to go back to the clinic to decide what to do with the remaining embroys, and throwing them in the trash was not one of the options! Her exact words, "you can't just kill them."

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    3,135
    Quote Originally Posted by CyberLaw View Post
    So if a women has a "miscarriage" is there going to be a "police investigation" to determine if the women "contributed" in any way shape or form to the "death" of the fetus.

    If the "police investigation" determines that she did not have proper pre natal care, nutrition, vitamins, exercise, no stress, or anything else that "may" have contributed to the "death" or "murder" of the fetus, then is she going to be "charged" with murder and then sentenced.

    What about "compulsory" motherhood. Maybe a women does not want to be "forced" to become a mother. She has an abortion. So, the choice is, compulsory" motherhood or "a murder trial".

    I doubt that this will pass a challenge at the Supreme Court. No one has been able to determine "when life begins". Generally it is when "the unborn" is viable to survive.

    A fetus is a potential human. Until it is born, and takes it first breath, it is still a potential human.

    What about birth defects. Does the mother have to prove that she in no way shape or form "contributed" to the said birth defect. Will every birth defect "have to be investigated" to determined if "assault" occurred or somehow the "mother harmed" the fetus.

    I guess they will have to have the "pregnancy" police, do women need "to register" their pregnancy so they can be "monitored".

    I mean we want to "ensure" that the "human rights' of the fetus come well before the choice and privacy of the "compulsory" mother.

    I hope a women does have a choice, makes that choice public, then challenges the police to arrest her for "murder" and human rights violations.
    Wow!! That's just plain scary CyberLaw.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,681
    If you think the prior post is "scary' for women think about the following:

    Pro-choice groups have warned that a law passed by legislators in the US state of North Dakota recognizing the "personhood" of a fetus would not only outlaw abortion but could also bar access to birth control.

    Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, said: "While it is a direct challenge to Roe v Wade, we expect that the bill would not only ban abortion but could reach common forms of birth control as well."

    So let me get this straight:
    A women in N.D. Cannot prevent pregnancy, cannot plan "when she will have children" and if she does become pregnant must then become a mother, even if she wants to or not, or wanted to take birth control to prevent pregnancy or was raped and went to the pharmacy for Plan B.

    I think all women of child bearing ages should "leave" North Dakota or else they could be "forced" into becoming a mother, if they want to or not, if their husbands want more children or not, if they have planned their family and have enough kids, if the wife just started a new job, college or career. It will not matter under what circumstances the "person" is conceived. You might only want two kids, can only afford two kids, have a great marriage, but "alas" can do nothing to prevent any further pregnancies. So you end up with baby number three, four, five and six and there is nothing you and your husband can do about it, except not have a "married" sex life.

    A women cannot choose an abortion, nor can she choose birth control.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    602
    Quote Originally Posted by CyberLaw View Post
    If you think the prior post is "scary' for women think about the following:

    Pro-choice groups have warned that a law passed by legislators in the US state of North Dakota recognizing the "personhood" of a fetus would not only outlaw abortion but could also bar access to birth control.

    Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, said: "While it is a direct challenge to Roe v Wade, we expect that the bill would not only ban abortion but could reach common forms of birth control as well."

    So let me get this straight:
    A women in N.D. Cannot prevent pregnancy, cannot plan "when she will have children" and if she does become pregnant must then become a mother, even if she wants to or not, or wanted to take birth control to prevent pregnancy or was raped and went to the pharmacy for Plan B.

    I think all women of child bearing ages should "leave" North Dakota or else they could be "forced" into becoming a mother, if they want to or not, if their husbands want more children or not, if they have planned their family and have enough kids, if the wife just started a new job, college or career. It will not matter under what circumstances the "person" is conceived. You might only want two kids, can only afford two kids, have a great marriage, but "alas" can do nothing to prevent any further pregnancies. So you end up with baby number three, four, five and six and there is nothing you and your husband can do about it, except not have a "married" sex life.

    A women cannot choose an abortion, nor can she choose birth control.
    I agree with you 100%

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    3,135
    The thing is that this will never work the way they hope. They think passing laws like this is some sort of crusade and they are morally obligated to try and get abortion banned. Even if abortion or birth control are banned it will not stop anything. It will just change the manner in which these things are handled. There will be an immediate black market for birth control which will result in substandard medications or methods with a hefty price tag. We all know that women will travel out of state for abortions or seek out back alley procedures.

    Eventually the state will have to absorb healthcare costs for women who have been butchered, unwanted children that have been abused, the cost of ridiculous arrests and legal bills, welfare for families driven into bankruptcy because of having more children than they can afford, the cost of caring for unwanted children dropped off at fire stations or worse, left in dumpsters and much, much more. People will not move to ND and people will leave rather than live in this environment. The state will cease to exist as we know it.

    I also believe that if the right to make these decisions is taken away women in this country will rise up and the protests will be like none ever seen before. Terrorists will be the least of our worries.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 07-02-2017, 09:55 AM
  2. Happy Human Rights Day
    By windovervocalcords in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-12-2006, 12:07 AM