# No human rights for an egg as ND Legislature votes down bill



## willythekid (Jan 21, 2008)

I normally do not subscribe to slippery-slope theories like some on here about gun control, but this could have ended up bad if passed....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04 ... ized-eggs/


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

It's conjoined with its mother until it takes a breath of air. Interesting could lead to conjoined twins disputing separations also. Could you imagine being the Atty's for conjoined twins battling each other in court.. one head would say one thing and the other head would say the opposite.. Stephen King stuff for sure!


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

I hear ya willy!

Just imagine if it would have passed. I can't believe it actually received 16 votes of support! Leave it to the backwards ND legislature to further disgrace itself this year.

If eggs would have been given "humanhood", you are right it is a slippery slope in many aspects. Just imagine if that were the case for eggs, the same argument could then be made for sperm. Any non intercourse wasting, misuse, or nonintercourse use of sperm would be a crime punishable by law. I mean an egg has no greater rights than a sperm correct? Both would have to be equally represented under the letter of the law for equal representation right? 

Hmmm we could take that further, and even if intercourse did happen, and some slipped out and left the body, both people could be charged with recklessly wasting humanhood. 

I can't imagine any red blooded Republicans in here would want Big Guv'ment crawling into their bedrooms with a magnifying glass to certify no humanhood had been recklessly discharged or lost...

Just imagine the murder cases that North Dakota would have to start charging! Thousands of North Dakotans charged with a million counts of murder!!

Their goes that much discussed surplus of money! State guv'ments will have to start adding inspectors and prosecutors just to cover the surge in crime North Dakota would surely see! oke:

Until a life form can survive on its own without artificial medical assistance (E.g, until well into the third trimester), and/or has been delivered and seperated from its mother (to address the issue of clarifiying a "premie"), it is a mass of cells that is in the process of transforming to a human. Life doesn't begin at conception no matter how much anti-choice crazy folks super duper wish it to be the case, to further their political agenda... and trying to push that bar even further back certifiably shows how radical their goals of trying to define life at an even earlier stage really is.


----------



## jgat (Oct 27, 2006)

R y a n said:


> Until a life form can survive on its own without artificial medical assistance (E.g, until well into the third trimester), and/or has been delivered and seperated from its mother (to address the issue of clarifiying a "premie"), it is a mass of cells that is in the process of transforming to a human. Life doesn't begin at conception no matter how much anti-choice crazy folks super duper wish it to be the case, to further their political agenda... and trying to push that bar even further back certifiably shows how radical their goals of trying to define life at an even earlier stage really is.


Nope. :eyeroll:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

jgat said:


> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> > Until a life form can survive on its own without artificial medical assistance (E.g, until well into the third trimester), and/or has been delivered and seperated from its mother (to address the issue of clarifiying a "premie"), it is a mass of cells that is in the process of transforming to a human. Life doesn't begin at conception no matter how much anti-choice crazy folks super duper wish it to be the case, to further their political agenda... and trying to push that bar even further back certifiably shows how radical their goals of trying to define life at an even earlier stage really is.
> ...


Curious JGat

What is the current letter of the law?

How is it currently defined? Do you know?

You might be surprised at the answer.

However in regards to the specific merits of this bill as proposed (and the question raised in this thread), (and irrespective of your feeling on abortion definitions in general) ..... do _you_ believe an egg should be given "humanhood"? If so, would you agree it is a slipperly slope that subsequently, sperm would be mandated to have equal rights as defined under the equal protection clause of the Constitution?

Can you then draw the logical line to see the mess (pun fully intended) it would make of the courts, and your personal private life?

Curious?


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

How can it be life if medically it can't be made to live?

I'm pro-choice even though I do not believe in abortion for anything other than to save the mothers life or that of an obviously deformed fetus.

Some will say it is playing God, I say not, it is playing with what God gave us to learn from.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

buckseye said:


> How can it be life if medically it can't be made to live?
> 
> I'm pro-choice even though I do not believe in abortion for anything other than to save the mothers life or that of an obviously deformed fetus.
> 
> Some will say it is playing God, I say not, it is playing with what God gave us to learn from.


Precisely. I'm also pro-choice, and do not believe _*life*_ begins until something can _*live*_ (hence life begins) outside of the woman independent of artificial machine assistance

:thumb:

It is blatantly obvious as to the underlying intent of what the misguided legislation was designed to do.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

buckseye said:


> Some will say it is playing God, I say not, it is playing with what God gave us to learn from.


Leave to someone who thinks he is above god to make a statement like that.

So you are saying that god, if you truly believe, states that life is when the child is out of the womb??

Ryan you can recite "mans" law all day long, but true Christians follow Gods law. Many, many people put themselves above Gods law in this country. Hence the anything goes society that "you" people belong to. We all suffer hell on earth, but this ******* will take what measures I need to not to suffer hell in the after life.


----------



## Labs4me (Mar 14, 2008)

The slippery slope that I see in this bill is as follows. What happens if there is a complication in a pregnancy that requires a medical procedure that endangers or eliminates the fetus but will save the woman's life? Can the procedure be done to save the woman's life and kills what this bill states is an equal life? Under law it would be given the same rights as the woman carrying it. If it were me in this situation I would choose to save my wife every time.
The what ifs are endless with this bill. What if I have testicular cancer, can I have it removed or is that harming life? What if a woman has to have a hysterectomy, is that harming life because now there is nowhere for that life to form?


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> Leave to someone who thinks he is above god to make a statement like that.


Thank you and by the way God has a capital G.

This is my interpretation of what God said. Go forth and multiply, take care of my garden for that will feed you. Have mercy on all living things and allow none to suffer. Be good and kind to your neighbor. Forgive wrongdoings, even when you have to forgive yourself. Basically don't do anything that will take away from another humans life whether mentally like you are trying to do or physically like jails do. I hope I left a few loopholes you can jump into and crawl around!!!


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

buckseye said:


> Go forth and multiply, take care of my garden for that will feed you. Have mercy on all living things and allow none to suffer.


You said it, certainly you must mean it.


----------



## ruger1 (Aug 16, 2006)

4CurlRedleg said:


> Ryan you can recite "mans" law all day long, but true Christians follow Gods law. Many, many people put themselves above Gods law in this country. Hence the anything goes society that "you" people belong to. We all suffer hell on earth, but this ******* will take what measures I need to not to suffer hell in the after life.


A prime example with what is wrong with the religious radicals who ignore science and choose to wonder through this world blindly following unrealistic ideals.

I think I'll follow the science and believe that life doesn't begin until the "mass of cells" can survive on it's own outside the womb.

However with being said. As a scientist, I cannot prove that god exists any more than I can disprove it.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

ruger1 said:


> A prime example with what is wrong with the religious radicals who ignore science and choose to wonder through this world blindly following unrealistic ideals.


Welcome to the land of Al Franken. The midwest version of California, coming to a county near you- same sex marriage, abortions with no parent consent as well as 3rd trimester and most likely legalized dope.

Enjoy.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> A prime example with what is wrong with the religious radicals


Why do we always see the most radical calling others radical? People who follow the Bible must be radical. You guys simply try to shame people into not debating you.

When life begins. Well, that depends on if you want to get excited about a few chemicals in a rock from Mars that was found in the antarctic a few years ago, or if your pro abortion and want to define human life. Things that can not live on their own are called parasitic. Many species on this earth would die by your definitions, but I'll bet you would want to protect the animals.

As you noticed I didn't really debate you because I'm sick of it, but I did give you something to think about.


----------



## ruger1 (Aug 16, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> > A prime example with what is wrong with the religious radicals
> 
> 
> Why do we always see the most radical calling others radical? People who follow the Bible must be radical. You guys simply try to shame people into not debating you.


I don't disagree with you plainsman. It's is and old and irritating debate. I will defend myself in saying that I don't see me trying to make laws that tell people what they can and cannot do with their body and life. However I do see the religious community pushing their own propaganda and beliefs on me and the rest of society. That my friend is called radical.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

If you think about it for a while nearly every law we make pushes our value onto someone else. Sometimes we do it because it affects another person, but there are times we do it when it affects only them. In both cases society (nothing but a group of individuals) pushes it's values onto others. 
The argument many make against abortion is that it doesn't affect only them. Science isn't consistent. In pure science we see life defined one way, and when social pressures come to bare science (or at least some scientists, not all) defines life slightly different. 
It's very confusing and I am not going to be arrogant enough to tell you I know when life begins. I will say "can you begin to imagine how excited scientists would be if the found a mass of cells inside a Martian rock? It would make headlines around the world saying "life discovered on Mars".



> I don't see me trying to make laws that tell people what they can and cannot do with their body and life


Perhaps that is because we have already passed most of the useful laws that I can think of. Things will change that require new laws. Lastly not making laws if the tell people what they can or can not do with their body --- is that good or bad? Seriously, I am just thinking about that. Sure it appears noble on the surface, and it keeps getting repeated like parrots on caffeine, but is that good? I think it is most of the time, but I'm not willing to make that blanket statement.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

I once heard a very good quote on this.

It would seem all the people for abortion have nothing to worry about because they have already be born.

As far as needing artificial medical assistance to stay alive, if you perscribe to that thinking we could probably abort 10-20% of the living population.


----------



## ruger1 (Aug 16, 2006)

southdakbearfan said:


> As far as needing artificial medical assistance to stay alive, if you prescribe to that thinking we could probably abort 10-20% of the living population.


I do prescribe to that and I must agree with your comment. However it's hard enough to keep the death penalty legal. Can you imagine how hard it would be to legalize 4000th trimester abortions. :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

southdakbearfan said:


> As far as needing artificial medical assistance to stay alive, if you perscribe to that thinking we could probably abort 10-20% of the living population.


Don't worry, they'll get to it.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

ruger1 said:


> A prime example with what is wrong with the religious radicals who ignore science and choose to wonder through this world blindly following unrealistic ideals.


Interesting. All the unrealistic ideals revolve around a modern relevant time calendar. B.C. and A.D. Or are you just talking about the ones over the weekend?


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Interesting. I've followed the posts since my earlier weekend postings. Noone has still touched the slipperly slope aspect of needing to give sperm the same rights as eggs if this were to pass... although I do understand the need to gloss over and ignore talking points that don't fit into the logic of the argument.

In regards to this stuff though...



Plainsman said:


> If you think about it for a while nearly every law we make pushes our value onto someone else. Sometimes we do it because it affects another person, but there are times we do it when it affects only them. In both cases society (nothing but a group of individuals) pushes it's values onto others.


True every law does push on some form of value onto another group. The difference is, that some come from a perspective of trying to set values based on fairness to all, whilst others push values that they have learned from a book of often followed fables and stories. When you have people who are so beholden to a book like that, whether it be the Christian Bible, Muslim Koran or other religous writings, that is pushing a value set down that is based on one particular flavor being "the right one".



Plainsman said:


> > I don't see me trying to make laws that tell people what they can and cannot do with their body and life
> 
> 
> Perhaps that is because we have already passed most of the useful laws that I can think of. Things will change that require new laws. Lastly not making laws if the tell people what they can or can not do with their body --- is that good or bad? Seriously, I am just thinking about that. Sure it appears noble on the surface, and it keeps getting repeated like parrots on caffeine, but is that good? I think it is most of the time, but I'm not willing to make that blanket statement.


Perhaps... but I don't belive in legislating what people can do with their own body in any context. If you support the banning of abortion you do, as you are mandating what a woman can and cannot do with a mass of cells existing within her body, making her responsible for them, and also giving her absolute right to do with them as she pleases.

I'm assuming that if you are in favor of giving a mass of cells rights, that would then by extension mean you would be in favor of creating laws that would make it a felony for a woman to drink alcohol during childbearing years, or at the very least during a confirmed birth, as there exists a possibility that she might be carrying a human life form at any given moment, and since that life form of cells has rights, it needs to be protected from that evil host, as she cannot have dominion over her own cells.

You see... if you are going to stand for the rights of masses of cells that cannot exist outside of the human body, you need to be prepared for all of the downstream logic that follows as a result of that set of choices.

Or so it seems to me.



Plainsman said:


> It's very confusing and I am not going to be arrogant enough to tell you I know when life begins. I will say "can you begin to imagine how excited scientists would be if the found a mass of cells inside a Martian rock? It would make headlines around the world saying "life discovered on Mars".


It would seem that a huge part of this issue is in the using the word "life" in it's different connotations. For your purposes, you would appear to be using the same definiton for things that are actually different. From what I see, you need to differentiate between a mass of cellular movement indicating some form of non Earth organic material. Even NASA scientists have debated on calling anything discovered "life", as they acknowledge it isn't an accurate descriptor. However I'm sure the headline sensationalizing papers would use any words possible to cause a stir and sell newspapers.

That "life" you are describing is a different kind of simple cellular formation and is not the same as describing "life" of a complex organism. If you are comparing them, then I'd surmise that you consider all organism, and therefore all cell masses to be alive and therefore "life", which would then lead us down the slippery slope to treating eggs as "life", and thus sperm as life....

Which then leads me back to my original thoughts about the authorties being awful busy prosecuting lots of folks for a million counts of murder.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> As far as needing artificial medical assistance to stay alive, if you perscribe to that thinking we could probably abort 10-20% of the living population.


Have you ever had a loved one hooked up to all the life sustaining machinery and had to decide to pull the plug??? If not you really have no clue!! In preemies they do pick a day and time to disconnect them from assisted breathing etc.. it must survive on its own or die.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Ryan... TFF!!!! :lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Noone has still touched the slipperly slope aspect of needing to give sperm the same rights as eggs if this were to pass... although I do understand the need to gloss over and ignore talking points that don't fit into the logic of the argument.


I didn't simply skip over it, I thought it was to foolish to debate. If your simply looking to fight with someone can't that be done on the baitpile thread? When we digress to far it has the potential to turn into something like the path shooting in the snowgoose form and get locked.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Maybe we should let the women who have had abortions decide this one. Or maybe some of you on here have had the experience yourselves... or maybe you are all just second party with nothing to loose so its easy to talk crap. :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> or maybe you are all just second party


That would include any male, so maybe you should be careful about who is talking crap.

I don't think anyone has the corner on this thread. It looks like one of those that was started to simply get dumb and tick everyone off. It certainly has little potential for anything meaningful. When you start talking about the rights of sperm there is no way to turn this into an intellectual discussion. It's absurdity on display.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> That would include any male, so maybe you should be careful about who is talking crap.


Well Sir I am defending womens rights because I love women!! No maybe's about that!! :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

buckseye said:


> > That would include any male, so maybe you should be careful about who is talking crap.
> 
> 
> Well Sir I am defending womens rights because I love women!! No maybe's about that!! :beer:


No offense buckeye, but that can be looked at from both points of view also. Plus the other side can say they love children.

This looks like it's going nowhere to me. People have their mind made up, and we are not going to change them by going off the deep end, which some are doing. I'm going to get out of this thread because I am not willing to let anyone simply wreak havoc for their entertainment, and I may have to moderate. I seldom do, but what is that they say about pornography? It's pornography if it has no redeeming social value. This thread is headed that way. Enough people get banned on their own accord they don't need to be sucked in and then punished.

buckeye :beer:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

It's definitely an emotional subject for many.



> No offense buckeye, but that can be looked at from both points of view also.


I certainly hope this is not a one sided situation... that's scary!

Not real sure where the offended talk came from but hey I'm not offended either. :beer:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

buckseye said:


> Ryan... TFF!!!! :lol:




It's difficult to argue rock solid logic.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

R y a n said:


> buckseye said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan... TFF!!!! :lol:
> ...


 uke:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

This abortion debate will go on till the end of time. I personally on believe in abortion only if the mother could die as a result of the baby or if the baby has deformations. But I do enjoy hearing a why or why not people support abortion.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Ryan wrote:



> Interesting. I've followed the posts since my earlier weekend postings. Noone has still touched the slipperly slope aspect of needing to give sperm the same rights as eggs if this were to pass... although I do understand the need to gloss over and ignore talking points that don't fit into the logic of the argument.


Ryan, shut off your computer and pick up a book. Your reading comprehension is slipping. The bill was about_ FERTILIZED _eggs. So unless your masterbatorial episodes result in sperm already mated with eggs, your point is moot ! :wink:

And if the latter is true, you are one interesting individual!


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Nice pick up Csquared. I was wondering why they were parsing out the egg/sperm. If your going to speak in absolutes you had better bring your A game.

I guess that rock solid logic went right over my head. :roll:

Anywho, both Catholic Bishops, Paul Zipfel of Bismarck and Samuel Aquila of Fargo did not support this bill as written either. Basically it did not offer protection for any party involved.

Done.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

4curl, I'm guessing it's been a _LONG_ time since anything's gone over YOUR head. :wink:

And what this shows is you don't _*need* _an A game to participate in an abortion debate.


----------

