|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Sept 11, 2011 13:55:39 GMT -5
Since that kind of thing is a virtual certainty should this pass, it shouldn't take too long to get it challenged.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 11, 2011 15:28:46 GMT -5
What would count for standing is a woman who (1) got pregnant, had a miscarriage, and was prosecuted for manslaughter, or (2) got pregnant, had an abortion, and was prosecuted for murder. MANSLAUGHTER? That bitch should get the chair! We value life and we're not afraid to KILL YOU over it! ....Sorry, my sarcasm level seems to be stuck at 11. |
|
|
|
Post by gyeonghwa on Sept 11, 2011 15:35:26 GMT -5
Some commentaries are saying that this is a ploy so that the Supreme Court can overturn Roe Vs. Wade. Either way, it's disgusting.  |
|
|
|
Post by Iosa the Invincible on Sept 11, 2011 15:40:29 GMT -5
Some commentaries are saying that this is a ploy so that the Supreme Court can overturn Roe Vs. Wade. Either way, it's disgusting. Of course, this 'ploy' also has the potential to horribly backfire. It'll probably take the death of a woman who couldn't terminate on medical grounds before this law can be seriously challenged if it passes. |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Sept 11, 2011 17:00:16 GMT -5
Some commentaries are saying that this is a ploy so that the Supreme Court can overturn Roe Vs. Wade. Either way, it's disgusting. It's no ploy...it's the plan. It's what they've been trying to figure out how to do for years. Ironbite-they really want to restrict the woman's right to choose because well....they're hateful bastards. |
|
|
|
Post by nickiknack on Sept 11, 2011 17:26:47 GMT -5
Ughhhh...and as ironbite said, it's not a ploy just the plan...its the only reasons for such laws, because they want Roe V. Wade overturned...which is an anti-choicer's wet dream...
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 11, 2011 20:15:30 GMT -5
You know, I can understand the need for debate over whether or not a fetus (particularly in latter pregnancy) can ever be considered a person, but an embryo? Not a person. That's a cluster of cells. It has the potential to become a person, but to place the well-being of an embryo over that of a fully conscious, autonomous being is utterly absurd.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickiknack on Sept 11, 2011 23:45:39 GMT -5
One has to wonder if they're going to try and push for voting rights next for embryos...
|
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Sept 11, 2011 23:54:50 GMT -5
Of course not. Children must be born, even into hateful homes where they'd be reviled and despised, or sent to a shitty foster home where some fundie batshit can beat them to death with a garden hose.
They just care about it while its essentially parasitizing off the woman's body. Whatever happens afterward is God's Will (TM), and therefore, acceptable.
Humanity, it has some of the finest living beings to ever grace this Earth...but it also has some who are the worst monsters imaginable.
|
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Sept 12, 2011 2:33:55 GMT -5
To a degree, I can kind of agree with this definition. Before everyone flames me though, let me explain. As science inevitably moves forward things like cloning will inevitably become a reality. Similarly genetic and cellular manipulation will probably allow for people to splice their genes into a blank egg and in effect clone a child to be their offspring. These would all be good things particularly in helping couples unable to have children to have genetically related offspring. I feel that giving these clones and genetically manipulated children equal rights and for them to be recognized as fully human would be essential.
That said though, the aim of this definition is reprehensible. Instead of trying to ensure equal rights for people of all circumstances they instead just seek to deny rights to women. To a degree though, I dont feel it would overturn Roe Vs Wade. After all, even if the embryo is declared a person. Roe Vs Wade established that a woman has first and sole right to her own body. Hence she should still be able to abort. Similarly she can insist that it was not murder because she was protecting her body from another "person". The fact that this person could not survive separate is a completely separate issue.
You know, the thing that amazes me, if the anti-choice crowd used as much effort to actually do something good instead of all this crap imagine how progressive our societies would be.
|
|
murdin
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by murdin on Sept 12, 2011 3:27:28 GMT -5
To a degree, I can kind of agree with this definition. Before everyone flames me though, let me explain. As science inevitably moves forward things like cloning will inevitably become a reality. Similarly genetic and cellular manipulation will probably allow for people to splice their genes into a blank egg and in effect clone a child to be their offspring. These would all be good things particularly in helping couples unable to have children to have genetically related offspring. I feel that giving these clones and genetically manipulated children equal rights and for them to be recognized as fully human would be essential. No way. No matter how you put it, fertilization is an absolutely terrible way to define personhood. There's no reason to believe that future cloning techniques will necessarily involve a glitched fertilization, and more importantly, you are already denying full, individual humanity to twins. |
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Sept 12, 2011 7:53:44 GMT -5
If you define an embryo as a human being, with all rights thereof, wouldn't that make a miscarriage manslaughter? Wouldn't that make a woman who is unaware she is pregnant and drinks alcohol guilty of neglect and abuse? If a woman does not know she is pregnant and engages in stress activity that causes natural abortion (which happens more than you think it does), wouldn't that make her guilty of negligent homicide?
Fertilization is not only a terrible definition for personhood, it's unenforceable, undetectable, and idiotic.
|
|
|
|
Post by The_L on Sept 12, 2011 8:04:17 GMT -5
Measure 26 seeks to alter the term person or persons to include "every human being from the moment of fertilisation, cloning or functional equivalent thereof". Functional equivalent of clonage... like mitosis? By this utterly retarded reasoning, every single living cell in our organism is its own person. The insanity doesn't stop there. Let's assume that mitosis doesn't count, probably because it doesn't involve fertilization. Good. Then it means that all cells produced from a same zygote by mitosis are one single human being. Now let's say that somewhere in the early stages of conception, said lump of cells-cum-"human being" splits in two. It certainly doesn't count as a functional equivalent of fertilisation, therefore both lumps of cells are still a single human being. When the cells in each of those lumps differentiate into their own sets of organs, they are still a single human being. When two baby-shaped lumps of cells come out of the mother's body, they are actually one single human being, and ought to be treated as such legally. In other words, identical twins have no soul. Brilliant! Now, what about miscarriages? Are those legally manslaughter? |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Sept 12, 2011 15:08:06 GMT -5
If you define an embryo as a human being, with all rights thereof, wouldn't that make a miscarriage manslaughter? Wouldn't that make a woman who is unaware she is pregnant and drinks alcohol guilty of neglect and abuse? If a woman does not know she is pregnant and engages in stress activity that causes natural abortion (which happens more than you think it does), wouldn't that make her guilty of negligent homicide? Fertilization is not only a terrible definition for personhood, it's unenforceable, undetectable, and idiotic. But sandman...THINK OF THE PREWCIOUS WITTLE UNBORN BABIES! Ironbite-WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THEM!? |
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Sept 12, 2011 16:07:48 GMT -5
I did, then, I added the A1.
|
|
