Legal status could be granted to egg

[selfinflikted]

There's an article in my local paper today about several new abortion bills that are on the table for the Alabama legislature. One bill in particular sticks out to me, that I would like to discuss.

This new bill would "..give new legal status to a fertilized egg." The bill's sponsor (R) wants it to say that "..all references to 'persons' in Alabama law apply from the point of fertilization."

In my opinion, this is absolutely ridiculous! It is an embarrassment to me that this bill is even on the table in my home state. Can you imagine the legal ramifications if this gets passed where property rights, inheritance, and even in vitro fertilization are concerned?!? What do you all think?

(I cannot find a link to this story in the online version of the Mobile Press Register, but I will keep looking and will hopefully be able to post it)

 

[Jase]

It's absurd to give a ball of cells the legal status of "person". What next, neurons get rights? How about white blood cells?

I've noticed that the red states' #1 issue in terms of laws to be passed this term all deal with abortion. Something like 18 states are trying to pass something related to it, several are trying to make it illegal.

It's very unethical (not mention illegal) to use the legislature to push a religious agenda.

 

[selfinflikted]

It's absurd to give a ball of cells the legal status of "person". What next, neurons get rights? How about white blood cells?

I've noticed that the red states' #1 issue in terms of laws to be passed this term all deal with abortion. Something like 18 states are trying to pass something related to it, several are trying to make it illegal.

It's very unethical (not mention illegal) to use the legislature to push a religious agenda.

Agreed. There are a couple of other bills too, one would cut the ban on elective abortions from after 24 weeks to after 20 weeks, and another would force doctors to show women pictures of ultrasounds before they could legally abort.

I disagree with all the bills.

 

[Insane_Duck]

It's absurd to give a ball of cells the legal status of "person". What next, neurons get rights? How about white blood cells?

I've noticed that the red states' #1 issue in terms of laws to be passed this term all deal with abortion. Something like 18 states are trying to pass something related to it, several are trying to make it illegal.

It's very unethical (not mention illegal) to use the legislature to push a religious agenda.

Millions of appendixes are being killed on our watch. Outlaw appendix removal! Appendix rights! They are obviously both alive and human.

 

[jayem]

An acorn is not an oak tree.

A tadpole is not a frog.

An egg is not a chicken.

A zygote is not a baby.

 

[selfinflikted]

An acorn is not an oak tree.

A tadpole is not a frog.

An egg is not a chicken.

A zygote is not a baby.

 

[Incariol]

This is just painful.

 

[Gabe7]

Corporations have person legal status. It only stands to reason that other entities will also as the legal system loses its way over time from where it began.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

On a somewhat related note, there is debate over whether it is ethical, legal or even feasible to copyright genes.

 

[revanneosl]

I am trying to imagine what effect this legislation would have on the decennial census, and the resultant changes that would be made to the apportionment of Congressional representatives. Think about it. The presence in a city of a couple of fertility clinics which store frozen embyros on site could completely redraw the congressional district map.

 

[Hespera]

There's an article in my local paper today about several new abortion bills that are on the table for the Alabama legislature. One bill in particular sticks out to me, that I would like to discuss.

This new bill would "..give new legal status to a fertilized egg." The bill's sponsor (R) wants it to say that "..all references to 'persons' in Alabama law apply from the point of fertilization."

In my opinion, this is absolutely ridiculous! It is an embarrassment to me that this bill is even on the table in my home state. Can you imagine the legal ramifications if this gets passed where property rights, inheritance, and even in vitro fertilization are concerned?!? What do you all think?

(I cannot find a link to this story in the online version of the Mobile Press Register, but I will keep looking and will hopefully be able to post it)

Once someone has fertilized and egg, they have started a human being on his / her life path. They have signed the most binding and powerful of all contracts possible.

How anyone could have such a monstrous notion as that one can pick and choose that today you were a person and yesterday you were not
is just beyond me, other than that it is denial out to the point of insanity.

Im not a Christian but the saying "What ye do unto the least among us, you do also unto me" ought to resonate with anyone who is not a psychopath.

if it doesnt yet you better think about it pretty hard.

A tiny unborn child at any stage needs the greatest level of protection we can give to anyone.

how can you possibly not acknowledge that?

 

[selfinflikted]

Once someone has fertilized and egg, they have started a human being on his / her life path. They have signed the most binding and powerful of all contracts possible.

How anyone could have such a monstrous notion as that one can pick and choose that today you were a person and yesterday you were not
is just beyond me, other than that it is denial out to the point of insanity.

Im not a Christian but the saying "What ye do unto the least among us, you do also unto me" ought to resonate with anyone who is not a psychopath.

if it doesnt yet you better think about it pretty hard.

A tiny unborn child at any stage needs the greatest level of protection we can give to anyone.

how can you possibly not acknowledge that?

I can't tell if you're being facetious, but are you honestly suggesting that a fertilized egg ought to have rights?

 

[Hespera]

I can't tell if you're being facetious, but are you honestly suggesting that a fertilized egg ought to have rights?

I would never joke about something like this.

how do you propose to decide the exact point at which your single cell becomes a human with rights?
After the first division, two cells?
6th, at 64 cells?

four months?

an hour before birth?

Do you even think about these things? I guess not if you think its a joke.

 

[Mystman]

IIRC, something like 50% of all fertilized eggs never even make it to the "mom notices that she's pregnant"-stage, and that chance is probably highly modified by all sorts of behavior that the women can engage in..

If you were to engage in behavior that carries a 10% chance of killing someone (say... drunk driving in a SUV through a playground), you'll be penalized, and justly so. So if a fertilized egg is a person, should all behavior that significantly increases the chance of having a "miscarriage" (can you call it that when the egg isn't even implanted yet?) also be penalized?

 

[selfinflikted]

I would never joke about something like this.

how do you propose to decide the exact point at which your single cell becomes a human with rights?
After the first division, two cells?
6th, at 64 cells?

four months?

an hour before birth?

Do you even think about these things? I guess not if you think its a joke.

Of course I've thought about it, I just don't agree with you

ETA: To answer your question though, I think viability outside the womb is a good starting point for even beginning to talk about rights.

 

[selfinflikted]

IIRC, something like 50% of all fertilized eggs never even make it to the "mom notices that she's pregnant"-stage, and that chance is probably highly modified by all sorts of behavior that the women can engage in..

If you were to engage in behavior that carries a 10% chance of killing someone (say... drunk driving in a SUV through a playground), you'll be penalized, and justly so. So if a fertilized egg is a person, should all behavior that increases the chance of having a "miscarriage" (can you call it that when the egg isn't even implanted yet?) also be penalized?

Yea, exactly. There are tons of ramifications, if this gets put into law. The first one that pops into my head is in vitro fertilization. Can you imagine the number of counts of murder a Dr could be charged with when he discards all those unused fertilized eggs?

This bill is just ridiculous. It makes me embarrassed (though, I already was to begin with) to be from Alabama.

 

[Hespera]

Of course I've thought about it, I just don't agree with you

so tell me at what point it stops being ok to kill a baby.

 

[Hespera]

IIRC, something like 50% of all fertilized eggs never even make it to the "mom notices that she's pregnant"-stage, and that chance is probably highly modified by all sorts of behavior that the women can engage in..

If you were to engage in behavior that carries a 10% chance of killing someone (say... drunk driving in a SUV through a playground), you'll be penalized, and justly so. So if a fertilized egg is a person, should all behavior that significantly increases the chance of having a "miscarriage" (can you call it that when the egg isn't even implanted yet?) also be penalized?

that is a lot different from premeditated murder and is so recognized by law.

 

[selfinflikted]

Fertilized egg =/= baby, Hespera. That's emotional rhetoric, and something I wouldn't expect at all from you.

Also, in case you are wondering, I'm mostly against abortion personally, but I am pro-choice. Were I able to become pregnant, I wouldn't abort (unless, of course, there were circumstances that would dictate otherwise). But I fully support the right of others to make different choices than I would, where their bodies are concerned.

 

[revanneosl]

Also you have to think about ectopic pregnancies. If they aren't terminated, the woman dies. So now you're deciding which "person's" right to not die takes precedence.

In Alabama, you could be talking about 992 dead women per year every year.