Slippery Slope to Remove Roe vs. Wade? What do you think?
Offline What are your thoughts on this article?
BISMARCK, N.D. -- 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.
Representatives voted 51-41 to approve the measure Tuesday. It now moves to the North Dakota Senate for its review.
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.
The measure's sponsor, Rep. Dan Ruby, R-Minot, said the legislation did not automatically ban abortion. Ruby has introduced bills in previous sessions of the Legislature to prohibit abortion in North Dakota.
"This language is not as aggressive as the direct ban legislation that I've proposed in the past," Ruby said during House floor debate on Tuesday. "This is very simply defining when life begins, and giving that life some protections under our Constitution — the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Critics of the measure say it will cost millions of dollars to defend. Ruby said the state has been willing to go to bat for other principles that were less important.
In Oklahoma, meanwhile, a state House committee Tuesday approved legislation that would prohibit physicians from performing abortions solely on account of the gender of a woman's fetus, even though the measure's author said there is no evidence the practice has ever occurred in the state.
The legislation passed 20-2 by the House Public Health Committee. The bill now goes to the full House for consideration.
The author of the bill, Rep. Dan Sullivan, R-Tulsa, said it is designed to stop couples from using the gender of a fetus as a reason to get an abortion. Sullivan said a doctor would be prohibited from performing an abortion if the mother specifically said the fetus' sex was the reason.
However, he said there is no evidence the practice has occurred in Oklahoma. "I haven't received any definite information that proves it," Sullivan said.
- Login to post comments
Also, if you respond, when do you think "life" begins?
Life began several billion years ago, and manifests in trillions of different lines of continuity. A sperm cell is just as "alive" as you and me. (Unless you are a bot. In which case, scratch that. I might also be a bot, though. Hm.)
Fertilization doesn't magically impart some sort of mystical thing we call "life." It's all just part of the process of living.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
This is the preamble to the North Dakota Constitution:
The preamble violates section 3 of their own constitution:
How can any rights granted by this constitution be taken seriously? I submit that this state constitution is of no value concerning the issue of protecting the rights of individuals. They need to fix this issue before they can start to deal with larger matters, such as when life begins.
Slightly off topic, but if life begins with a fertilized egg, does that mean Jesus was never alive in the first place?
There is literally no debate on this issue. Anyone who thinks there is is just ignorant of the undeniable facts. As Nigel said, life began a very long time ago and has not stopped since. It is a continuum. Both the egg and the sperm are just as alive as the fetus, which is just as alive as the baby, which is just as alive as the adult.
The question most people mean to ask is "When does a fertilized egg gain political status?" This is a question for politicians, not scientists. I disagree strongly with the decision to give personhood to anything in the womb. It's not just a slippery slope. It's a pandora's box. However, I'm going to point and say, "I told you so" the first time a woman is brought up on a charge of involuntary manslaughter for a spontaneous abortion with sketchy circumstances.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
First off I'm Canadian but I grew up in the State of Maine.
I was under the impression that a State Law could not supercede or over rule the Federal Statute. Nor could a State Supreme Court over rule the federal Supreme Court. If this is true then the bill itself would seem a waste of time and nothing will realy change in N.Dakota.
The bill itself would seem to violate Section 3 of the North Dakota State Constitution. I'm not a lawyer but I would argue that the last line of section 3 "...or justify practices inconsistent with peace or safty of this state." means "you can't use your religeous beliefs to change the Status Quo.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Further monsters from the box:
Since most fertilized eggs are discharged in regular menstruation, I believe the only way to protect all the unborn humans is to make it mandatory that all women submit to pre-menstrual tests to see if they have an unattached human in their womb. If they do, they must pay for a surgical procedure to attach the human to the lining of the womb, and take hormone treatments to ensure the human is not spontaneously aborted.
From now on, menstruation shall be known as, "Discharge of the half-human." Ejaculation shall be known as "The half-human lottery."
Corpses shall be given the right to vote until such time as their DNA decays to the point it is no longer part of the human genome.
There shall be a standard "homo sapiens genome," and my DNA shall be the standard on file at NIS.
Genetic drift from the standard is hereby outlawed. To ensure standards compliance, women shall only be impregnated by the "standard DNA." Any organism not in compliance with the standard genome shall be declared a non-person, and forfeit reproductive and political rights.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Ok. So it would still be legal to have an abortion, if the mother said it was because her bunny slippers told her the child would be evil?
Yep.
Or if she said, "I think aborted fetuses are cute, and tasty spread on crackers."
It'd only be illegal if she said, "I didn't want no boy!" or a variation thereof.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Man...North Dakota sucks!
Apparently, you can't send your children to work in the mines until they are twelve!
For shame...
Don't they already do this in Chicago and some parts of Texas?
"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.
Thanks to everyone who replied so far. Very interesting ideas to think about, especially considering the implications for embryos discarded naturally. I know is was a sacrastic remark; yet, laws often breach over to territory we take for granted and in directions that, although sound crazy, lawyers are not afraid to pursue.
Some clarification: The reason I said, "when do you think "life" beings" is that the quotes indicate this use of "life" is usually a phrase people use when they are addressing the topic of when a the fetus/baby/whatever you think it is gets rights. For instance, we all agree that if I shot any living human from 1 years old to 100 that I should be punished. Does this apply to the 7 month old who is out of the womb?
What about the 7 month old in the womb? Is it the same as one out of the womb? Should a person be punished for stabbing a 7 month old who is out of the womb? Should an abortion doctor be punished for ending the "existence" of a fetus/baby/whatever you think it is just as a person would be for killing it, if it was inside the womb?
Just wanted to clarify.
Please keep the comments going and thanks again for your relpies.
I base my definition of human life on survival probabilities. At about 6 months there is a decent probability of a fetus surviving upon removal from the womb, so it can then start being considered as a separate human entity.
You may have read of cultures that have practiced infanticide. I doubt they cared so very little for their children in comparison to us. They didn't see an infant as a person with full life as so many of them did die before whatever age was the cutoff for the given culture. So, the standard of "Is it probably going to live?" before classifying a fetus or baby as human has been in place before.
"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.
We live in a rather charmed period of human history. Most of us never have to decide between a questionable case of "infant death syndrome" and the risk of our whole family starving. We can't possibly imagine what it's like to lose five or six children before they reach the age of five. There's a very old graveyard about ten miles outside of my town that I used to visit from time to time. One of the most poignant reminders of just how good things are now is a small family plot where there is a single headstone commemorating four children of the same mother, all of whom died before the age of two. The one child who did survive to a ripe old age is buried next to his mother, who died giving birth to him.
The notion of the "inherent worth of human life" is a luxury reserved for prosperous times. It is not an absolute standard throughout all of history.
As I said before, the question of "personhood" really is a political one, not scientific. There really isn't a dividing line between a fetus and a baby, or a baby and a child, or a child and an adult. I have a rather controversial point of view with regard to abortion -- I'm not just pro-choice. I'm pro-abortion. I believe that in an overpopulated world with the looming threat of global warming, economic collapse, and nuclear terrorism, when a fetus is likely to be born into bad circumstances, and likely to grow up poor, or be born into a severely dysfunctional family, or to a young teenager who will resent being a parent, the most kind and humane thing to do is abort it.
This is my political and moral view, not a scientific statement. Since I also believe that morality is largely determined by core values, which are malleable, I wouldn't expect everyone to agree with me. I would prefer to live in a society where I am free to practice my moral beliefs alongside those who disagree with me.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Hambydammit
Thanks for your reply. I have a questions about this comment:
"There really isn't a dividing line between a fetus and a baby, or a baby and a child, or a child and an adult. I have a rather controversial point of view with regard to abortion -- I'm not just pro-choice. I'm pro-abortion. I believe that in an overpopulated world with the looming threat of global warming, economic collapse, and nuclear terrorism, when a fetus is likely to be born into bad circumstances, and likely to grow up poor, or be born into a severely dysfunctional family, or to a young teenager who will resent being a parent, the most kind and humane thing to do is abort it.
Here is my question. If there is no real dividing line between a fetus / baby, then would a young woman who gave birth to a premature baby and left out to die of exposure be commiting the same act as the pregnant teenager who had a partial birth abortion in the 1990s? I guess what I am asking is, do you think they commited the same act? Thanks for your time.