North Dakota Legislature: A fertilized egg has rights of a human

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by adk, Feb 18, 2009.

  1. adk macrumors 68000

    adk

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Location:
    Stuck in the middle with you
    #1
    I've never started a thread in here before, but this one sort of came out of left field.

    Source


    Your Thoughts?
     
  2. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #2
    Interesting. It has to make it through their senate before it ever becomes an issue, though. Either way, I do think this is a state's issue, so we'll see what happens.
     
  3. SLC Flyfishing macrumors 65816

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #3
    Change it to fertilized and implanted egg and that's essentially how I feel.

    SLC
     
  4. jonbravo77 macrumors 6502a

    jonbravo77

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #5
    It's weird issue, On one hand it is a state's issue since there is no constitutional amendment saying other wise, but on the other hand since the U.S. Supreme court decided on Roe v. Wade it is also a federal issue. But that's all I am going to add to this thread. Don't feel like being lashed out at. :cool:
     
  5. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    Wacky- and that's all I'm going to say about it.
     
  6. marbles macrumors 68000

    marbles

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Location:
    EU mostly
    #7
    This will set precedent & abortion will finally be illegal
     
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #8
    No- it won't. Keep dreaming.
     
  8. marbles macrumors 68000

    marbles

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Location:
    EU mostly
    #9
    No dream, just hope.
     
  9. jonbravo77 macrumors 6502a

    jonbravo77

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #11
    So, (and not to be accusatory) you are of the opinion that government has the right to dictate what a person does with their own body? Just wanting to clarify..
     
  10. yojitani macrumors 68000

    yojitani

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Location:
    An octopus's garden
    #12
    This probably wouldn't happen in a state with an urban population.

    Shame, anyway.
     
  11. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #13
    This is nothing more than a ploy to have SCOTUS reexamine Roe v. Wade.

    It's not going to work.
     
  12. marbles macrumors 68000

    marbles

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Location:
    EU mostly
    #14
    I know, it's a tuff one, but at the end of the day a human is a human no matter what stage of evolution or development they are at . To a certain extent I think it would be wise to have the 'state ' dictate , like an intermediary of sorts I suppose , protecting the life of the unborn.
     
  13. jonbravo77 macrumors 6502a

    jonbravo77

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #15
    But you didn't answer my simple question. Is it right that government should be able to dictate what a human being does with their own body?
     
  14. iObama macrumors 6502

    iObama

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    Location:
    SF
    #16
    I think it's great. I firmly believe life begins at conception, and I would regardless of my "religious preferences" abortion has always been a horribly grotesque matter to me.
     
  15. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #17
    See Jon's post above.
     
  16. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #18
    Stop with the trapping questions. The point is that because they believe the fertilized egg is a human from day one, it's rights trump the mother's ability to abort it. Since people are going to differ on when it's a human, their interpretation of your question is going to be completely different.
     
  17. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #19
    How is it a trap?

    Its a legitamite question. Im sure someone with an opposing viewpoint would ask "SO your alright with the killing of human babies?". Is it still a trap then?


    I beleive in the mothers choice. Her body, her choice. Religion and government should stay the hell away from it.
     
  18. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #20
    Yes, that's a trap too. Just like the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" You force the other person to agree with your terms by even answering the question. That's not fair, and it doesn't encourage good discussion.
     
  19. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #21
    North Dakota has actually tried this twice before in recent times (once in 2004 and I think this past election as well).

    Planned Parenthood has actually been very agile in that state, sending these constitutional changes to the ballot box and then having them defeated.

    It obviously is an attempt to set up a test case against Roe v Wade, but these efforts are futile for the current period in time.
    Indeed. Kennedy is not going to vote for such an absurd blanket ban, and there's no guarantee that Roberts would either (since we honestly don't know where he stands on the issue).

    The 8th Circuit Court would probably nullify it well before it ever gets to SCOTUS, and Scalia and Thomas won't grant Cert to a case they know is doomed to fail.

    An all around poor strategy.
    How would you prefer the question to be phrased?

    You can't deny that a ban on abortion does indeed restrict personal freedom. There's no way to run from that reality. It does so as much as a speed limit restricts freedoms or a ban on burglary does. The differences between them involve scope and purpose.
     
  20. thebassoonist macrumors 6502a

    thebassoonist

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Location:
    Davis, CA
    #22
    Are they going to criminalize IUDs and progestin-only birth control?
     
  21. Apple Ink macrumors 68000

    Apple Ink

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    #23
    Then why the heck leave out vasectomy/tubectomical procedures, spermicides and even condoms....

    This frankly seems like another crap... an inspiration probably drawn from the Vatican... "Abortions and condoms increase promiscuity...." I cant decide whether to cry or laugh on this one..
     
  22. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #24
    Right, but since the topic at hand is very specific, the purpose of asking a general question is to try and get the person to think in a more abstract way and not apply their personal opinion to a given situation. Take your examples, if we were talking about if it were right to steal, and I asked the question whether or not it was right for the government to limit personal freedoms, people would balk at the supposition that it could be legitimized. This is a special case where one's rights infringe upon another's. The situation is the same for those who believe the fetus is a human from day one. The mother's rights end where the child's right to life is concerned.

    Don't beat around the bush and just ask the actual question, do you believe abortion is right or wrong?
     
  23. thebassoonist macrumors 6502a

    thebassoonist

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Location:
    Davis, CA
    #25
    True. But vasectomies and tubectomies (sp? or even a word?), spermicides, and condoms PREVENT the sperm from reaching the egg, whereas progestin-only and IUDs sometimes prevent ovulation, but almost certainly prevent implantation -- therefore, couples using IUDs and progestin-only birth control are murderers.
     

Share This Page