General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsbadtoworse
(5,957 posts)sheshe2
(83,773 posts)badtoworse
(5,957 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Whether it was intentional or not, the OP raised an important question. I was interested in her opinion, not the GOP's. If you post about an issue, I think it's reasonable to expect you to discuss it, when others reply to your post.
BTW, you knew nothing about my opinion when you posted this. I'll give you credit for posting you own opinion which I responded to.
sheshe2
(83,773 posts)Congressional GOP Pushes Zygote Personhood Bills
Mississippi voters rejected a constitutional amendment granting personhood to zygotesbut congressional Republicans want to take the plan national.
Map: Is a personhood amendment coming to a state near you?
The Mississippi amendment alters the state's Constitution so that "the term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof." Nearly identical language appears in three bills that have been endorsed by scores of Republicans in Congress, including top House committee chairmen Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) and Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.).
Advertise on MotherJones.com
Like the Mississippi measure, these bills, which are not constitutional amendments, would extend the rights of legal personhoodincluding equal protection under the lawto a zygote, the single cell formed when a human sperm fuses with an egg. The national measures are "designed to achieve the same end" as the Mississippi effort, says Sara Rosenbaum, a health law expert and professor at George Washington University who frequently testifies before Congress on reproductive rights issues. "The aim of the bills is to reclassify or to overturn the fundamental constitutional fact on which Roe v. Wade rests," she adds. Opponents of abortion rights agree with Rosenbaum's analysis: The National Pro-Life Alliance, a group that backs all three bills, calls them "a frontal assault on Roe v. Wade" and sees them as a way of "legislatively overturning" the Supreme Court decision.
Fetal Personhood
Crimes Against Pregnant Women Act Advances In Colorado, Heads To Gov. John Hickenlooper's Desk
A bill that would allow prosecutors to punish criminals who harm an unborn child during a crime received final approval by state lawmakers on Friday and now heads to Gov. John Hickenlooper's desk to be signed into law.
North Dakota Personhood Measure Passes State House
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/north-dakota-personhood_n_2934503.html
The measure will now appear on the November 2014 ballot, and voters will be able to accept or reject it. If it passes, it will amend North Dakota's constitution to state that the inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be recognized and protected. The amendment would ban abortion in the state, without exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother, and it could affect the legality of some forms of birth control, stem cell research and in vitro fertilization.
The North Dakota legislature has taken historic strides to protect every human being in the state, paving the way for human rights nationwide, Keith Mason, president of the anti-abortion advocacy group Personhood USA, said in a statement on Friday. This amendment strikes the balance of accomplishing more for the unborn than any other amendment the nation has ever seen, while protecting pregnant women and their right to true medical care. We applaud the North Dakota House and Senate for their willingness to protect all of the people in their state.
Similar fetal personhood initiatives have been rejected by voters in several other states, including Mississippi, one of the most socially conservative states in the country.
Rain Mcloud
(812 posts)The same line of bullshit over masturbation the Vatican took during the crusades,Swords for Jesus.
Now it is advantageous on several levels but the salient points are;
1.Tax Cuts
2.White Minority by 2050 and it is accepted as fact that angry paranoid white people vote Republican.
Rinse and Repeat as necessary until the Churches control every aspect of your personal life.
PopeOxycontinI
(176 posts)begins at ejaculation and then ends at birth...they no longer give a shit at that point.
sheshe2
(83,773 posts)I answered one already....more?
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)...not recent state legislation on the matter. You might not have intended it, but your OP raised an important question: At what point does a fetus, unborn child, (whatever you're comfortable with) acquire its civil rights. What is your view?
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)alc
(1,151 posts)There was a time many didn't like a black was a "person" so it was ok to kill them. Most on the anti-abortion side fell like those who were fighting for acceptance of blacks as people, because they honestly feel the fetus is a person. I disagree with them as far as a fetus being a person, but I can respect their intentions. Calling names and attributing motives that aren't true (e.g. "controlling women" isn't a path that will lead to any compromise. And, without compromise they will win in many states.
They are even more "all-or-nothing" than the pro-choice side so I don't expect them to be making the first move on finding solutions that everyone can live with. So, pro-choicers discussing when they feel a fetus becomes a person could be very useful.
For me it's when the fetus can live outside the womb, but I don't have a week # that I associate with that (24-27?).
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)allow for unassisted viability outside the womb.
Pre-viability fetuses/embryos are not people. I don't know of any traditional or historical societies that considered nonviable fetuses to be persons equal to born humans. Even in biblical times they most definitely were not.
Enjoy yourself.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)If you read Justice Ginsburg's writing on the subject, viability is not a good point to establish thresholds for abortion legality because technology will always push viability downwards. The technology already exists to create synthetic wombs and it's only ethical questions which are holding back experimentation and implementation. This would push viability back all the way to the tap and non-sterile men who masturbate would be responsible for the murder of entire civilizations. Viability is really just as arbitrary as anything else because we don't rip fetuses out of the womb once they are viable.
This is one of the few things I'm with Ayn Rand on. Abortion should be unrestricted till birth. Anything else and it's the government which is arbitrarily deciding what is infanticide for one woman and what isn't for another. It's either all OK or none of it is. Anything else is arbitrary and capricious. A non-person's 'rights' do not trump those of an actual person.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)I would add that unassisted does not preclude reasonable measures to keep a prematurely born baby alive. Babies born a few weeks premature routinely survive to become normal children. They may need additional care compared to a full term baby (e.g. an incubator), but such facilities are normally available at hospitals and I wouldn't consider that to be an extraordinary measure. I'm not an expert, but I believe that after 7 months, a baby's chances of survival with routine, appropriate (for a premature baby) care are excellent. I would say that by 7 months, a fetus has certainly acquired civil rights.
Again, I'm no expert, but prior to 7 months, I believe it starts getting dicey and prior to 5 months, a prematurely born baby has very little chance of survival, no matter what measures are taken. It seems logical then that at some point between 5 and 7 months, a fetus has acquired civil rights.
Response to badtoworse (Reply #1)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)jmowreader
(50,557 posts)And then they want to declare it a nonentity the second it starts breathing air.
sheshe2
(83,773 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)When does a pregnant woman become a person with her own civil rights?
last1standing
(11,709 posts)And I swear I'll never eat a clucking egg.
phylny
(8,380 posts)insurance policy out on my "person" right after I found out I was pregnant. Then, I'd sue the hell out of any insurance company that wouldn't insure my person. Because if it's person at conception, then legally, an insurance company would have to insure the life of that person, right?
See, I had a history of miscarriages....
Heather MC
(8,084 posts)Criminalize women for mis-carriages
under their law you would be a serial killer and would not be allowed to profit from the criminal activity of multiple mis-carriages.
Half my girlfriends would be
in jail as well. with no children. some suffered three or four losses before carrying there babies to term.
The GOP is sick
populistdriven
(5,644 posts)Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)Cheers!
caseymoz
(5,763 posts). . . that would mean an adult is an undead corpse.
LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)then I DEMAND that every corporate CEO undergo a mandatory anal ultrasound.