Oklahoma "personhood" bill fails in Legislature

Apr 19, 2012 Full story: Reuters 491

A proposed 'personhood' law in Oklahoma that would grant embryos full rights as people from the moment of conception failed in the state's Legislature without coming to a vote in the House of Representatives, lawmakers said on Thursday.

Full Story
First Prev
of 25
Next Last
Gypsy Bear

United States

#1 Apr 21, 2012
how very sad

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#2 Apr 21, 2012
Sad only I that the republican party was not being rational. Instead thought that business leaders did not like the bill.

Welcome to the modern day republican party. more concerned with what a business CEO likes. Than the Constitution.
zef

Fillmore, CA

#3 Apr 21, 2012
Embryos have rights as do all humans of all ages. The government does not grant rights. The purpose of the government is to protect the rights that humans naturally have.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Human rights violations occur when actions by state (or non-state) actors abuse, ignore, or deny basic human rights (including civil, political, cultural, social, and economic rights).
Calypso

Ryde, Australia

#4 Apr 21, 2012
zef wrote:
Embryos have rights as do all humans of all ages. The government does not grant rights. The purpose of the government is to protect the rights that humans naturally have.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Human rights violations occur when actions by state (or non-state) actors abuse, ignore, or deny basic human rights (including civil, political, cultural, social, and economic rights).
You can't grant full rights to a fetus without enslaving women, dumbass. Maybe you're okay with that, but those of us that are against slavery aren't. Nobody has the right to use someone's body against their will. Not even your precious fetus. To grant them dominion over the female body when no-one else can legally claim it would reduce women to chattel.

It's interesting how easily people forget that little fact, when they're trying to champion the cause of unborn humans. It's like the woman ceases to exist in any meaningful form to you people, the moment the sperm hits the egg. Sad.
zef

Fillmore, CA

#5 Apr 21, 2012
Calypso wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't grant full rights to a fetus without enslaving women, dumbass. Maybe you're okay with that, but those of us that are against slavery aren't. Nobody has the right to use someone's body against their will. Not even your precious fetus. To grant them dominion over the female body when no-one else can legally claim it would reduce women to chattel.
It's interesting how easily people forget that little fact, when they're trying to champion the cause of unborn humans. It's like the woman ceases to exist in any meaningful form to you people, the moment the sperm hits the egg. Sad.
How is killing a female fetus, which is a "female body", with abortion not "dominion over a female body"? How is killing anyone with any method not dominion over their body?
Human rights are inherent. Human rights cannot be granted.
All humans are the same individual at any age. The woman that you are now is the same individual that you were when you were a fetus. You can't kill a female fetus without destroying the life of a woman, which is what a female fetus is, the beginning of a woman's life. Killing female fetus with abortions reduces women to nothingness. Everyone has the right to life. All humans have the right to exist within their mother's womb untill they are capable of living outside of their mother's womb.
None of your terrorist threats, or acts of terrorism regarding my ass will coerce me into agreeing with your tyrannical reign of terror, and death. The only thing your torture and brutality with regards to my ass will achieve is my death. Which is what you want, and completely unimportant in your nihilistic regime of tyrannical women and their legion of sycophants.
Calypso

Chittaway Point, Australia

#6 Apr 22, 2012
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
How is killing a female fetus, which is a "female body", with abortion not "dominion over a female body"? How is killing anyone with any method not dominion over their body?
Good lawd, take your medication! Ordinary people aren't completely incapable of understanding the difference between killing someone/something for the sake of doing it and removing something from your body with death as a result. Women are not obligated to host the unborn and suffer the dangers and pain of childbirth just because said unborn require use of their organs.

If you're ever in a car accident and the other driver is at fault, you cannot legally compel the faulty party to donate even a single drop of blood to keep you alive, even though they directly caused your need for it.

Convicted murderers, rapists and child molesters have full medical autonomy, and cannot be made to donate one drop of their DNA for the survival of others.

Even the dead have the final say in who gets to use their bodies, even after they've vacated it. If you aren't registered as an organ donor, they can't harvest one fat cell from you, even to keep an unfortunate child somewhere on the other side of the globe alive for a few more years.

Do you HONESTLY see NOTHING wrong with granting convicted criminals, corpses and fetus more rights than women? What in the bloody HELL is the matter with you sick slavists?
zef

Fillmore, CA

#7 Apr 22, 2012
Calypso wrote:
<quoted text>
Good lawd, take your medication! Ordinary people aren't completely incapable of understanding the difference between killing someone/something for the sake of doing it and removing something from your body with death as a result. Women are not obligated to host the unborn and suffer the dangers and pain of childbirth just because said unborn require use of their organs.
If you're ever in a car accident and the other driver is at fault, you cannot legally compel the faulty party to donate even a single drop of blood to keep you alive, even though they directly caused your need for it.
Convicted murderers, rapists and child molesters have full medical autonomy, and cannot be made to donate one drop of their DNA for the survival of others.
Even the dead have the final say in who gets to use their bodies, even after they've vacated it. If you aren't registered as an organ donor, they can't harvest one fat cell from you, even to keep an unfortunate child somewhere on the other side of the globe alive for a few more years.
Do you HONESTLY see NOTHING wrong with granting convicted criminals, corpses and fetus more rights than women? What in the bloody HELL is the matter with you sick slavists?
More rights? What woman was never in her mother's womb? How many pregnant women were killed by their mother with an abortion? Slavists? No woman is required to get pregnant, and all states have strict laws against forcing women to get pregnant. Having total control over someone elses life is slavery. And having total control over someone elses life is abortion. Every child has their own DNA, their own organs, their own fat cells. No child has ever recieved any of their mother's DNA, organs, or fat cells.. The only thing the child recieves from the mother is the child's own blood. No one has the right to kill a child, any child, simply because they do not want to take care of it.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#8 Apr 22, 2012
Deja vu, all over again. Lol

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#9 Apr 22, 2012
zef wrote:
Embryos have rights as do all humans of all ages. The government does not grant rights. The purpose of the government is to protect the rights that humans naturally have.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Human rights violations occur when actions by state (or non-state) actors abuse, ignore, or deny basic human rights (including civil, political, cultural, social, and economic rights).
Still arguing this same lame stupidity.

Newsflash.. It is never going to happen.

Either women give up their rights and effectively become a breeding vessel or sanity reins in that fetus do not have any rights at all.

Personally, I think the courts are going to find that a fetus can not have rights. Period.

Yeah, I know that just pisses you off to no end when I have pointed out that fact to you in the past.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#10 Apr 22, 2012
Calypso wrote:
<quoted text>
Good lawd, take your medication! Ordinary people aren't completely incapable of understanding the difference between killing someone/something for the sake of doing it and removing something from your body with death as a result. Women are not obligated to host the unborn and suffer the dangers and pain of childbirth just because said unborn require use of their organs.
If you're ever in a car accident and the other driver is at fault, you cannot legally compel the faulty party to donate even a single drop of blood to keep you alive, even though they directly caused your need for it.
Convicted murderers, rapists and child molesters have full medical autonomy, and cannot be made to donate one drop of their DNA for the survival of others.
Even the dead have the final say in who gets to use their bodies, even after they've vacated it. If you aren't registered as an organ donor, they can't harvest one fat cell from you, even to keep an unfortunate child somewhere on the other side of the globe alive for a few more years.
Do you HONESTLY see NOTHING wrong with granting convicted criminals, corpses and fetus more rights than women? What in the bloody HELL is the matter with you sick slavists?
zef is mental case.. Getting anything rational out of this poster on a good day is down right next to impossible.

With zef most days are not good. Wait till she accuses you of being an "ageist" bigot. Yeah, you would think that the nurses would keep the drip up on high.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#11 Apr 22, 2012
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
zef is mental case.. Getting anything rational out of this poster on a good day is down right next to impossible.
With zef most days are not good. Wait till she accuses you of being an "ageist" bigot. Yeah, you would think that the nurses would keep the drip up on high.
Now, now, unless you can prove she is a danger to herself or others, we can't restrain her, chemically or otherwise. I could accidentally drop her laptop in her bedside commode...

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#12 Apr 22, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Now, now, unless you can prove she is a danger to herself or others, we can't restrain her, chemically or otherwise. I could accidentally drop her laptop in her bedside commode...
Yes I know according to the Calif. State Supreme Court decision in 1970's unless a person can be proved to be a danger to themselves or others. That person can be held in any institution and must be released.

Another brilliant stroke from then Governor Ronald Reagan who decided that instead of taking the case up to the Federal level he would simply release every one. Thereby saving the State of California millions of dollars.

Well played then Governor Reagan, well played..

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#13 Apr 22, 2012
That person can be held in any institution and must be released.

Should have read,'can not be held'..

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#14 Apr 22, 2012
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I know according to the Calif. State Supreme Court decision in 1970's unless a person can be proved to be a danger to themselves or others. That person can be held in any institution and must be released.
Another brilliant stroke from then Governor Ronald Reagan who decided that instead of taking the case up to the Federal level he would simply release every one. Thereby saving the State of California millions of dollars.
Well played then Governor Reagan, well played..
I absolutely support the Patient's Bill of Rights, don't you? We had to sue the State of California on our son's behalf, in fact, because it did not comply. Huge class action suit.
Sick of Stupid

Santa Rosa Beach, FL

#15 Apr 22, 2012
I do not understand the concept here.
Why do fetuses and zygotes need the protection of the government
And furthermore... How is a fetus a person?
If look to our constitution there is a fairly clear defInation of when the constitution begins to protect the rights of people. After they are born.
No where does the constitution mention the unborn, or egg fertization.
Our government is only responsible for "any person born".
What is the fascination Conservatives have with the unborn?
I do not give a rat's ass about the unborn.
I cannot understand why conservatives do.

It's the economy stupid

These personhood laws they keep trying to ram down our throats just leave the door open to tons of legal stupidity.
Under a personhood law if a mom has a miscarriage, Is it murder?
What if there is a car accident and fetus is lost. Is there now reasons to charge for vehicular homocide?
If a kid has medical problems because of mother's less than perfect prenatal activity is she liable? Can her kid sue her for mistreatment?
Can the unborn collect Social Security?
Will mothers have to register with the gov that they are pregnant?

GOP double talk nonsense

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#16 Apr 22, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>I absolutely support the Patient's Bill of Rights, don't you? We had to sue the State of California on our son's behalf, in fact, because it did not comply. Huge class action suit.
The only part that I have never supported was pushing the mentally ill out on to the streets..

Having seen that result first hand. I can only say that what ever the intent was. It put people that needed and needs help out on the street. Where really they should be some where safe and receiving help.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#17 Apr 22, 2012
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
The only part that I have never supported was pushing the mentally ill out on to the streets..
Having seen that result first hand. I can only say that what ever the intent was. It put people that needed and needs help out on the street. Where really they should be some where safe and receiving help.
That depends on what one thinks "help" is. Some people would rather live on the street than be told how they should live; they often do not like the controlled environment our society demands they live in. If a person is not willing to accept what you think they need and they are not unsafe, you can't force them. That is why street programs are so important. Of course, government tends to put the needs of the mentally ill at the bottom of the list. Sux
zef

Fillmore, CA

#18 Apr 22, 2012
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>Still arguing this same lame stupidity.
Newsflash.. It is never going to happen.
Either women give up their rights and effectively become a breeding vessel or sanity reins in that fetus do not have any rights at all.
Personally, I think the courts are going to find that a fetus can not have rights. Period.
Yeah, I know that just pisses you off to no end when I have pointed out that fact to you in the past.
As much as you like to think of yourself as god. You and your bigotry do not decide who does or does not have rights. Neither can any court decide who does or does not have rights. Human rights are inherent and all humans are equally human regardless of whether they are born or not.
zef

Fillmore, CA

#19 Apr 22, 2012
Sick of Stupid wrote:
I do not understand the concept here.
Why do fetuses and zygotes need the protection of the government
And furthermore... How is a fetus a person?
If look to our constitution there is a fairly clear defInation of when the constitution begins to protect the rights of people. After they are born.
No where does the constitution mention the unborn, or egg fertization.
Our government is only responsible for "any person born".
What is the fascination Conservatives have with the unborn?
I do not give a rat's ass about the unborn.
I cannot understand why conservatives do.
It's the economy stupid
These personhood laws they keep trying to ram down our throats just leave the door open to tons of legal stupidity.
Under a personhood law if a mom has a miscarriage, Is it murder?
What if there is a car accident and fetus is lost. Is there now reasons to charge for vehicular homocide?
If a kid has medical problems because of mother's less than perfect prenatal activity is she liable? Can her kid sue her for mistreatment?
Can the unborn collect Social Security?
Will mothers have to register with the gov that they are pregnant?
GOP double talk nonsense
The constitution does not grant rights. The constitution cannot grant rights. Human rights are inherent not granted. The only thing the constitution grants to the born is citizenship. And citizenship is not a right. You think that because U.S. citizens are persons. Being a U.S. citizen is required to be a person. I think you are a blithering, ranting, homicidal maniac. That you are a danger, and a threat to every human being living inside their mother's womb, or outside of their mother's womb that is not a U.S. citizen.

Rights of U.S. Citizens
•Vote in federal elections
•Serve on a jury
•Bring family members to the United States
•Obtain citizenship for children born abroad
•Travel with a U.S. passport
•Run for federal office
•Become eligible for federal grants and scholarship

Right to life is a phrase that describes the belief that a human being has an essential right to live, particularly that a human being has the right not to be killed by another human being.

Life Begins at Fertilization
The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote:
"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]
"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun..."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
"The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#21 Apr 22, 2012
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
As much as you like to think of yourself as god. You and your bigotry do not decide who does or does not have rights. Neither can any court decide who does or does not have rights. Human rights are inherent and all humans are equally human regardless of whether they are born or not.
You must live with your disappointment, it appears. Sorry.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 25
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Missouri Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Driving While Black - And Poor 2 hr ATVrider 32
'De-escalation' now part of Ferguson police tra... 13 hr Acme Travel 4
child support corrupt in mo? (Dec '08) 16 hr slick1979 529
Lesson learned: Police can better calm situations Dec 15 reality is a crutch 1
Sheriff's departments bust multi-county theft r... (Sep '11) Dec 14 curious 437
Missouri KKK Leader: Ferguson Protests Are Boos... Dec 14 neveratfault 26
Dem Missouri Gov Protected Ferguson Looters Not... Dec 8 USA Today 1
More from around the web