ND measure says fertilized egg has human rights

[Linda7NJ]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/ABORTION_RESTRICTIONS?SITE=FLTAM&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.

 

[colomom]

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?

 

[T-Rex]

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?

 

[CyberLaw]

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.

 

[colomom]

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.....

 

[twinkiesmom]

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.

 

[Linda7NJ]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/ABORTION_RESTRICTIONS?SITE=FLTAM&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?:waitasec:

 

[southcitymom]

It boggles the mind - the legal can of worms it would open up for so many issues.

 

[colomom]

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

All I know is you better make sure they are happy....

 

[CyberLaw]

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.

 

[accordn2me]

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

:clap::clap::clap: 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."

 

[colomom]

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.

 

[CyberLaw]

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.

 

[Shecky]

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%

 

[colomom]

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.

 

[angelmom]

Well I think extremists on either side can always make the consequences sound horrific. Just like some pro life activists think legalized abortion is part of the slippery slope towards making it okay to kill newborns or young children with impunity. (Reading this forum and some of the cases where little or no penalty is imposed for abuse or neglect might make you agree with them.)

If the law were written correctly, there could be many upsides to it. It could bring criminal penalties to someone who willfully and maliciously destroys embryos. It could raise the penalties for someone who abuses or batters a pregnant woman and causes harm or death to the fetus, even if the mother isn't seriously harmed. It could allow for civil penalties if a product or service harms a fetus due to negligence. It could even provide for criminal penalties for a mother who abuses illegal drugs while pregnant to the detriment of her baby.

It's interesting that laws like this always bring out the claws of the pro-choice groups when, in fact, I think they protect the parents who WANT their babies and are devastated when something happens and there are no consequences. Why do the pro choice people only take the side of those who choose not to be parents?

Recently a group I work with helped get a law passed so that parents who had suffered a stillbirth could get a birth certificate. That's all we wanted. Previously, they could only get a death certificate, but no birth certificate. The law was passed literally during the last moments of the legislative session due to the hostility and political posturing of BOTH the pro life and pro choice groups. The pro lifers were pissed that it was only for babies after 20 weeks (the medical definition of stillbirth). The pro choicers gave their usual "slippery slope" BS, even though the law specifically stated that the certificate endowed no legal rights or definitions. The parents have to request it - it isn't sent to anyone who doesn't want it.

We figured if both sides were mad then we had done a good job. :angel:

 

[Kat]

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.

Bolded by me because it speaks volumes to me.

Amen, I have nothing that I could possibly add to your post colomom. Yes, I am pro-choice. Yes, that comes as a very big surprise to those who know me and know that I have five children. That was my choice.

I want my daughters to have the ability to make their own choices too. All five of them. ( I count my stepdaughters in that number).

 

[Linda7NJ]

[/b]

Bolded by me because it speaks volumes to me.

Amen, I have nothing that I could possibly add to your post colomom. Yes, I am pro-choice. Yes, that comes as a very big surprise to those who know me and know that I have five children. That was my choice.

I want my daughters to have the ability to make their own choices too. All five of them. ( I count my stepdaughters in that number).

I agree with you.

I'm pro-choice and consider myself pro-children as well. Every child born deserves to be wanted. Forcing women to bear children they don't want will never be in a child's best interest.

 

[capoly]

[/B]

Bolded by me because it speaks volumes to me.

Amen, I have nothing that I could possibly add to your post colomom. Yes, I am pro-choice. Yes, that comes as a very big surprise to those who know me and know that I have five children. That was my choice.

I want my daughters to have the ability to make their own choices too. All five of them. ( I count my stepdaughters in that number).

I agree with you.

I'm pro-choice and consider myself pro-children as well. Every child born deserves to be wanted. Forcing women to bear children they don't want will never be in a child's best interest.

6 children, pro-choice, pro-child.

Sounds like the perfect State for Octo-mom to move to.

 

[Jack]

I find it fascinating and exasperating that there is so much turmoil around the subject of when life begins. You'd think, as intelligent as we are, that there would be no questions about it. My own opinion is that you are not fully alive until you can survive (reasonably) without leaching fom another being. So for me a fetus becomes alive when it can survive outside the womb. If a state wants to claim that a fertilized egg has the same rights as a viable fetus then they had better figure out a way to house them and care for them all, equally. Having "rights" to something is a far different than being fortunate enough to have attained it. If you have a right to something then no matter what it cannot be taken from you. Most things in life are privileges. That isn't fair, but thats the way it is. If a government proclaims life a right, then they become responsible for providing the conditions which makes that right possible. We know that's not possible or the government would be paying for our healthcare and research to irradicate all diseases...

The "right" to life clashes with a persons right to liberty if a government forces a woman into birth and/or parenthood. So, if Roe vs Wade is overturned then we will need to amend the constitution to redefine what rights over-ride others.