Oklahoma "personhood" bill fails in Legislature

Apr 19, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Reuters

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.

Comments (Page 6)

Showing posts 101 - 120 of491
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#126
Apr 24, 2012
 
zef wrote:
<quoted text>So start deporting them. Or crawl back under your rock.
The constition does not have anything to do with who has rights.
The protection of fundamental human rights was a foundation stone in the establishment of the United States over 200 years ago.
The Constitution you fool is about people born.. When born do those rights adhere. Not before. That has been explained to enough times to you as well.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#127
Apr 24, 2012
 
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>If you feel that government has no right to legislate human rights you need to stop quoting government documents, dumbass.
That would make too much sense though.. As we all know zef on her best days makes no sense. On her worse days babble on about things that have nothing to do with abortion.
Bringmedinner

San Jose, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128
Apr 24, 2012
 
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you are mistaken. RvW does not grant the fetus rights.
As for being a person, it won't matter as far as a woman's reproductive rights are concerned. Even as a person, a fetus would not have the right to use another's bodily systems to sustain it's own life against the woman's will. No person has such a civil right.
That vacant logic would apply to children out of the womb up to about seven years of age. Law clearly establishes parental responsibilities and does not allow women to snuff their infants, nor toddlers because they are inconvenient at some moment in time.
Bringmedinner

San Jose, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129
Apr 24, 2012
 
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
Are really this stupid or do you have to work at it..
The inherent rights are on the woman side.. DERRR
The fetus has none.. That is a reality and fact.
there is nothing in Roe v wade that says anything about what a fetus right might be. It is the pregnant woman right at each stage of her pregnancy that details how much the State interest in balance with the Pregnant woman rights.
The fetus has no rights.
Inherent or other wise. Deal with it as that is reality.
Yes, currently, man-made laws give a woman's selfish concerns priority. That changes as soon as the law is reversed, or altered because of the civil rights of all human beings. Roe v Wade allows for the possibility of defining a fetus as a person. When that happens, you and others won't be allowed to murder humans by abortion, or by slamming a youngster up against some wall.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130
Apr 24, 2012
 
Bringmedinner wrote:
<quoted text>
That vacant logic would apply to children out of the womb up to about seven years of age. Law clearly establishes parental responsibilities and does not allow women to snuff their infants, nor toddlers because they are inconvenient at some moment in time.
Of course it would not. Once born, they are not using another's organ systems to make their function.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131
Apr 24, 2012
 
Bringmedinner wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, currently, man-made laws give a woman's selfish concerns priority. That changes as soon as the law is reversed, or altered because of the civil rights of all human beings. Roe v Wade allows for the possibility of defining a fetus as a person. When that happens, you and others won't be allowed to murder humans by abortion, or by slamming a youngster up against some wall.
Again, proclaiming the fetus a person will alter nothing. They STILL will not have the right to use anothers organ systems against their will to sustain their own organ function. No person has that right, and none ever will. Equal rights, not special rights, remember? A woman will still retain her right to do with her own uterus what she decides is best. And since abortion will still be legal, it will not be "murder".
Bringmedinner

San Jose, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132
Apr 24, 2012
 
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it would not. Once born, they are not using another's organ systems to make their function.
You're simply wrong about everything! A child in the womb is not using the mother's organ system, but has their own organs and is completely a separate entity from the mother. Outside the womb, a child is totally dependent upon the mother for survival and cannot survive on its own.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#133
Apr 24, 2012
 
Bringmedinner wrote:
<quoted text>
You're simply wrong about everything! A child in the womb is not using the mother's organ system, but has their own organs and is completely a separate entity from the mother. Outside the womb, a child is totally dependent upon the mother for survival and cannot survive on its own.
I didn't say "survive". I spoke of organ fuction, and an embryo or fetus simply does not have organs that will function without the woman's. If it did, then it would be alive even if expelled from the uterus. And sorry, but that's not possible before very late in the pregnancy.

And no one has the right to use another's organs against their will.

I'm not wrong. You are.
Bringmedinner

San Jose, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134
Apr 24, 2012
 
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say "survive". I spoke of organ fuction, and an embryo or fetus simply does not have organs that will function without the woman's. If it did, then it would be alive even if expelled from the uterus. And sorry, but that's not possible before very late in the pregnancy.
And no one has the right to use another's organs against their will.
I'm not wrong. You are.
A four year old child doesn't have organ systems that can function without the mother's, or those of some surrogate.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#135
Apr 24, 2012
 
Bringmedinner wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, currently, man-made laws give a woman's selfish concerns priority. That changes as soon as the law is reversed, or altered because of the civil rights of all human beings. Roe v Wade allows for the possibility of defining a fetus as a person. When that happens, you and others won't be allowed to murder humans by abortion, or by slamming a youngster up against some wall.
No, it doesn't.. Your continue insistence that it does shows what a fool you are here. It does not alter the fact and reality that Roe v Wade is about the rights of the woman that finds herself pregnant.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#136
Apr 24, 2012
 
Bringmedinner wrote:
<quoted text>
You're simply wrong about everything! A child in the womb is not using the mother's organ system, but has their own organs and is completely a separate entity from the mother. Outside the womb, a child is totally dependent upon the mother for survival and cannot survive on its own.
Simple biology says different..

The umbilical cord alone is a an engineering wonder that brings everything that a growing z/e/f needs. This is supplied directly from the woman bodies.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137
Apr 24, 2012
 
Bringmedinner wrote:
<quoted text>
A four year old child doesn't have organ systems that can function without the mother's, or those of some surrogate.
This is patently untrue. You need to educate yourself on the facts of human anatomy and physiology.

Care taking does not equal using someone's organs for your own to function.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#138
Apr 24, 2012
 
Bringmedinner wrote:
<quoted text>
A four year old child doesn't have organ systems that can function without the mother's, or those of some surrogate.
Where did you learn biology? Your post is one of the most ignorant one to date.
Bringmedinner

San Jose, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139
Apr 24, 2012
 
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't.. Your continue insistence that it does shows what a fool you are here. It does not alter the fact and reality that Roe v Wade is about the rights of the woman that finds herself pregnant.
Your continued insistence that it doesn't and your promotion of killing babies for convenience shows what a useless and degraded pagan you are here. Our verbiage would be different... you say "the woman that finds herself pregnant"; I say the woman who can't keep her legs together. The whole abortion issue isn't a women's issue anyway. It's a man's issue of convincing women they are something they are not in order to escape responsibility toward their women and their own children... drugged up loons who force women into being murderers and against their own natures.
Contributions

Plymouth, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#140
Apr 24, 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?
Because a fetus is just a fetus you retard.

Classifying a fetus as human is like classifying sperm as human. Both are obviously not human but have the "potential" to be.

Does that mean each time a man ejaculates he commits genocide on millions of humans?

God you rightwing nutjobs are retarded.
Bringmedinner

San Jose, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#141
Apr 24, 2012
 
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
This is patently untrue. You need to educate yourself on the facts of human anatomy and physiology.
Care taking does not equal using someone's organs for your own to function.
You are wrong. A 3 YR. OLD CHILD CANNOT SURVIVE UNLESS ITS MOTHER'S ORGANS ARE FUNCTIONING.
Contributions

Plymouth, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142
Apr 24, 2012
 
Bringmedinner wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong. A 3 YR. OLD CHILD CANNOT SURVIVE UNLESS ITS MOTHER'S ORGANS ARE FUNCTIONING.
You mean 3 month fetus right?

Obviously a 3 year old child can survive.
Bringmedinner

San Jose, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#143
Apr 24, 2012
 
Contributions wrote:
<quoted text>
Because a fetus is just a fetus you retard.
Classifying a fetus as human is like classifying sperm as human. Both are obviously not human but have the "potential" to be.
Does that mean each time a man ejaculates he commits genocide on millions of humans?
God you rightwing nutjobs are retarded.
A fetus is a completely realized, intact and unique human being, who enjoys music. Sperm, or the ovum is not.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144
Apr 24, 2012
 
Bringmedinner wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong. A 3 YR. OLD CHILD CANNOT SURVIVE UNLESS ITS MOTHER'S ORGANS ARE FUNCTIONING.
Completely wrong, given the fact that any adult may perform those caretaking tasks.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145
Apr 24, 2012
 
Bringmedinner wrote:
<quoted text>
A fetus is a completely realized, intact and unique human being, who enjoys music. Sperm, or the ovum is not.
A fetus is never complete, as it's circulatory system does not begin functioning on it's own until after birth, with the first breath, and at that point, it's no longer a fetus.

As for "human being", that is not a scientific designation. Human is, but not human being. It's a philosophical concept, and as such, is a matter of opinion.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 101 - 120 of491
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••