North Dakota house gives fertilized eggs human status.

[Third Eye Open]

North Dakota has given fertilized eggs the status of 'human'.

So, would this mean that wearing an IUD is the equivalent of premeditated murder?

A large percentage of fertilized eggs are washed out with menstrual flow, would this make menstruating akin to involuntary manslaughter?

Could I 'adopt' several hundred of these 'humans' and keep them in a freezer while claiming them as dependents?

Any guesses how long it will be before this is overturned by the supreme court?

Also, when do you think it should be called 'human' ?

 

[godless dave]

A large percentage of fertilized eggs are washed out with menstrual flow, would this make menstruating akin to involuntary manslaughter?

I would think it would be death by natural causes. Of course only a coroner or medical examiner can make that determination for sure. Therefore, if this law comes into effect, sexually active North Dakota women should make sure to collect their menstrual flow every month and bring it to a medical examiner's office so they can see if there is a fertilized egg in there and, if so, determine a cause of death and draw up a death certificate.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

OK, that's not going to work at all. They obviously haven't thought this through. The law, according to the articles, "The bill declares that "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens" is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws." Nevermind that NO ONE has "the genome of homo sapiens" only A human genome. That's like saying "a book is anything which contains all words ever written." Beyond the stupidity of that, here's a scenario which demonstrate what a badly worded law that'd be.

Assume you're female (there's about a 50% chance this is not a difficult assumption to make.) You get pregnant and then take out a life insurance policy on your zygote. There's a relatively good chance the embryo will fail to come to term, at least a good chance that justifies the cost/benefit ration of a few months of life insurance payments.

 

[Rasmus]

Actually, I'd question whether the female egg or a sperm cell meets the definition of "organism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism

A human is able to reproduce, but a single ovum? I doubt that. Of course, not even all humans have that capability...

 

[Safe-Keeper]

A human being, much like a cake, goes through several stages of creation and formation. I get the bowl, I combine and manipulate ingredients, I put the dough in the oven, I retrieve it from the oven. During this process, the contents that will eventually be known as a 'cake', as said, go through many stages, from 'separate ingredients' to 'dough' to 'unbaked cake' to 'partly baked cake' to 'cake'. When exactly the ingredients can be called a cake is up for debate, but what these nitwits are essentially saying is that the instant I mix sugar and butter in a bowl, I have, for all intents and purposes, a Mississippi Mudpie.

Utterly and completely ridiculous.

 

[Hokulele]

Anything to increase the tax base, eh?

 

[Steelmage]

Is sperm considered human being too by these people?

This reminds me of a George Carlin route:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...I4nK-gHTscSVBg&q=george+carlin+abortion&hl=en

 

[Smackety]

I think any woman in ND who might be pregnant should no longer be allowed to drive, it is not something the unborn child would consent to.

 

[Aerik]

And thus, about all sexually active women in North Dakota are about to become murderers.

All sexually active women are sure, at least once in their lives, have an egg become fertilized, but fail to implant, and pass in the next menstruation. This bill makes these women murderers for this, because they dare to have sex. It also means that miscarriages are, what, manslaughter?

But most of all, it makes women slaves. Slaves to people that had no right to leech onto their bodies.

disgusting. As always, pro-life just means anti-woman.

 

[KingMerv00]

And thus, about all sexually active women in North Dakota are about to become murderers.

The law is stupid but the above isn't true.

 

[uruk]

North Dakota has given fertilized eggs the status of 'human'.

When a sperm fertilizes an ovum all the necessary chromosomes shuffle to produce the genetic make up of an individual human being. That is how a human is created. Ovum is fertilized and a zygote is produced. The zygote then goes on to embryo then fetus and is born if left in the womb to develop.

So, would this mean that wearing an IUD is the equivalent of premeditated murder?

I think it is better to prevent conception rather than preventing implantation of a fertilized ovum.

Here is a thought, why is it when someone murders a pregnant woman the muderer is also charged with the murderof the unborn child?

A large percentage of fertilized eggs are washed out with menstrual flow, would this make menstruating akin to involuntary manslaughter?

Than is very different than pourposly removing the zygote. "Natural causes" I think someone said.

Could I 'adopt' several hundred of these 'humans' and keep them in a freezer while claiming them as dependents?

So how is frozen zygotes costing you money? the electric bill maybe? little tiny frozen diapers?

Any guesses how long it will be before this is overturned by the supreme court?

Also, when do you think it should be called 'human' ?

So then a person at stage one of it's development is not a person?

 

[uruk]

OK, that's not going to work at all. They obviously haven't thought this through. The law, according to the articles, "The bill declares that "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens" is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws." Nevermind that NO ONE has "the genome of homo sapiens" only A human genome. That's like saying "a book is anything which contains all words ever written." Beyond the stupidity of that, here's a scenario which demonstrate what a badly worded law that'd be.

Actually Ithink that that is great idea. Any organizim that has a human genome, or is genetcaly a human being, is protected. That would protect the rights of clones when we get around to producing them. A human being is a human being reguardless of how they were concieved.

 

[uruk]

Actually, I'd question whether the female egg or a sperm cell meets the definition of "organism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism

A human is able to reproduce, but a single ovum? I doubt that. Of course, not even all humans have that capability...

Sperm and ovums are gametes They only have half the genetic material necessary to produce a human. A sperm or ovum is not a person. It is when the chromosomes shuffle into a complete set does it become a person.

That is how humans reproduce.

 

[uruk]

A human being, much like a cake, goes through several stages of creation and formation. I get the bowl, I combine and manipulate ingredients, I put the dough in the oven, I retrieve it from the oven. During this process, the contents that will eventually be known as a 'cake', as said, go through many stages, from 'separate ingredients' to 'dough' to 'unbaked cake' to 'partly baked cake' to 'cake'. When exactly the ingredients can be called a cake is up for debate, but what these nitwits are essentially saying is that the instant I mix sugar and butter in a bowl, I have, for all intents and purposes, a Mississippi Mudpie.

Utterly and completely ridiculous.

A human is not a cake. It has fewer ingrediants. Just two.

But use the analogy, When all the ingrediants are mixed you have "cake batter" When cooked it will become a cake. The cake is already in the batter. It is the batter. It just has to go through the baking process to become what we readily recognize as cake.

It depends on wether you see the cake in the batter.

I guess it is easy to see the zygote as nothing more than a collection of cells rather than a human being because it does not look recognizeably human. But the person is all there genetically. The heart the brain and the eventual mind if the zygote is allowed to continue to develop.

As mentioned before, this is the first step in the creation of a person. Is a person not a person because he/she is only a few cells in early development? So when does that group of cells become a human? How many cells does it take?

I guess the difference is location. If those few cells are in a womb, it is a person. If it is in a petri dish in a freezer it is not a person.

Same group of cells, different location.

 

[uruk]

Is sperm considered human being too by these people?

This reminds me of a George Carlin route:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...I4nK-gHTscSVBg&q=george+carlin+abortion&hl=en

I hope not. Sperm is not a person. You need the other part.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Actually, the law isn't as stupid as it first sounds. That is, as long as you look past the obvious stupidity - calling a freshly fertilized egg the equivalent of a full-fledged human being - to the real reason why it is being worked through the ND legislature.

This is meant as a setup to challenge Roe v. Wade - period. Recall that ND was the state where they've tried these wacky anti-choice laws before and they've been turned back (twice now) by voter referendums.

The nutbags in the religious right are hoping that eventually they'll get one of these stupid laws to stick past a voter referendum so that they can mount a potentially successful challenge to Roe v. Wade. Apparently, these nitwits think they have a chance of winning such a case given the current make up of the Supreme Court.

Until the SCOTUS becomes a bit more moderate to liberal, this is going to be a recurring pattern. Enjoy the show.

 

[uruk]

And thus, about all sexually active women in North Dakota are about to become murderers.

All sexually active women are sure, at least once in their lives, have an egg become fertilized, but fail to implant, and pass in the next menstruation. This bill makes these women murderers for this, because they dare to have sex. It also means that miscarriages are, what, manslaughter?

But most of all, it makes women slaves. Slaves to people that had no right to leech onto their bodies.

disgusting. As always, pro-life just means anti-woman.

You seem to be making a facetious assumption. If the zygote does not implant on the womb or is miscarried it is due to natural causes or accident. How is the woman responsible for that?

I'm sorry that biology made the female the gestator. But it's fact of life. Does not the child, who is a human being, due any consideration? Does it's life have any value at all?

I am not religious by any stretch of the imagination. I just happen to value human life.

I see no issue with abortion if it means the survival of the mother's life.
I cannot begrudge any woman who choses her life over the life of the child who's gestation is a direct threat to her life. No one has the authority to force the woman into a choice under those conditions. Conception due to rape might also fall into this catagory.


But it is quite another issue when the abortion is due to indescretion, or cosmetics, or inconvienace. If the woman or man does not want to concieve a child or is incapable of taking care of the children then they should take measures to prevent conception.

In these cases adoption should the choice over abortion. As far as I know any church will accept a new born from a woman, no questions asked, if the woman does not want the child or feels that they cannot care for the child. And maybe the experiance of carrying the child to term will serve to remind the woman to take responsibilty over her own body and actions and prevent another unwanted pregnancy.

Again that is not to say that the male is innocent but the fact remains that it is the female who carries the burden of gestation. Unfortunately it is the woman who has to take responsibilty over her own body and men have to respect that responsibility.

The child did not ask to be concieved, why should it be condemened for the mistake of others?

And this is why it is convienent to see the zygote or embryo as not being human. No guilt. It is just a few cells to be flushed.


Having said all this I do not believe that abortion should be made illegal, But abortion for anything other than an imminent threat to the mothers life should be socialy unnacceptable.

 

[uruk]

Actually, the law isn't as stupid as it first sounds. That is, as long as you look past the obvious stupidity - calling a freshly fertilized egg the equivalent of a full-fledged human being - to the real reason why it is being worked through the ND legislature.

The freshly fertilized egg has all the genetic information of a full fledged human being and will become a full fledged human being when gestated. Doesn't that person in the early stages of it's development have any importance? Just a meaningless group of cells?

This is meant as a setup to challenge Roe v. Wade - period. Recall that ND was the state where they've tried these wacky anti-choice laws before and they've been turned back (twice now) by voter referendums.

The nutbags in the religious right are hoping that eventually they'll get one of these stupid laws to stick past a voter referendum so that they can mount a potentially successful challenge to Roe v. Wade. Apparently, these nitwits think they have a chance of winning such a case given the current make up of the Supreme Court.

Until the SCOTUS becomes a bit more moderate to liberal, this is going to be a recurring pattern. Enjoy the show.

Now that I am opposed to. I think abortion is justified under certain circumstances.

 

[MattusMaximus]

The freshly fertilized egg has all the genetic information of a full fledged human being and will become a full fledged human being when gestated. Doesn't that person in the early stages of it's development have any importance? Just a meaningless group of cells?

So your criteria for something being "human" is simply genetic information? So are strands of DNA thus "human" by your definition, since that is where all the genetic information resides?

Strip away everything but the DNA, because that is the "human" part. All those DNA samples in crime labs all over the country are actually "humans" being imprisoned! I think we should pass laws giving "human" DNA full-fledged rights under the U.S. Constitution. To be consistent, that is the sort of loony argument you'd have to make, uruk.

Now that I am opposed to. I think abortion is justified under certain circumstances.

So you're okay with abortion when you get to set the circumstances & criteria, as opposed to allowing other people set their criteria? Sounds to me like you're pro-choice, in the sense that you'd like to choose for everyone else.

Nice

 

[uruk]

So your criteria for something being "human" is simply genetic information? So are strands of DNA thus "human" by your definition, since that is where all the genetic information resides?

Strip away everything but the DNA, because that is the "human" part. All those DNA samples in crime labs all over the country are actually "humans" being imprisoned! I think we should pass laws giving "human" DNA full-fledged rights under the U.S. Constitution. To be consistent, that is the sort of loony argument you'd have to make, uruk.

No. My argument is that a human being is created when the ovum is fertilized. That is how human beings procreate. That is how you make a human being.
You start by fertilizing an ovum.

It is silly to argue that the zygote is not a human being simply because it a just a few cells and does not resemble a full fledge human being. Is a person who is severly malformed not a human being? Even in the case of anacephaly, not having a brain does not mean that the infant is not human. What makes it physiologicaly a human being?

The DNA by it self, especially derived from full fledge differentiated cells, is not in and of itself a human being. It is the context the DNA is in that makes a human being.

The DNA in the cells of a zygote is what is guiding the zygote into the fully developed form of a human being. Fertilization and the resultant zygote are the first stages in the developement of a human being. No fertilized ovum, No zygote. No Zygote, no Foetus. No foetus, no fully formed human being.

So tell me again that a fertilized ovum is not a human being.

So you're okay with abortion when you get to set the circumstances & criteria, as opposed to allowing other people set their criteria? Sounds to me like you're pro-choice, in the sense that you'd like to choose for everyone else.

Nice

Who says that I get to set the circumstances and criteria? It's the people who choose.
I am just presenting my argument. Right now the law says a zygote and foetus is not a human being. I just disagree with that assesment. It seems to me to be a institutionalized denial of facts in favor of convienance or expediancy.

I do not want Rowe vs. Wade reversed because of the what the consequences will be. What I would prefer is that people show some personal responsibility and protect themselves from creating unwanted pregnancies. And if they don't or can't prevent the unwanted pregnancy, at least give the developing person a chance at life via adoption if they can't deal with raising a child.

Aren't you glad your parents did not choose to have you aborted? Why deny the foetus that chance?

I think it should be moraly reprehensible to terminate a developing human life simply for the reason of inconvienance or expediancy. Seems to me to be a needless death of a human life.

But I know that is not realisitic to ask people to act responsibly. So right now it's just easier and legal to kill the developing person in the name of convienance and expediancy than to owe up to our mistakes and deal with the consequences of our actions.

Don't you think it would be a better world if we did?