• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

GOP in Oklahoma trying to legislate "personhood" for embryos

HomerJS

HomerJS

Lifer
Is the real plan by the GOP here is just cause a newborn explosion in the US?

First they want to circumvent current laws that allow abortion. Second, they want to elimate the most popular forms of birth control such as the standard birth control pill, morning after pill. Women had better not get raped in Ok. because they will not be able to take the morning after pill (standard practice for rape victims). Even if the MAP wasn't available if a raped women becomes pregnant an abortion would be illegal.

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/40f28ace2e4440e9873239cd0d9439f3/OK--Oklahoma-Ballot-2012/
 
If embryos are granted personhood, and a couple has some in vitro fertilized embryos frozen at a fertility clinic, can they claim them as dependents on their taxes?
 
senseamp said:
If embryos are granted personhood, and a couple has some in vitro fertilized embryos frozen at a fertility clinic, can they claim them as dependents on their taxes?
Click to expand...

I'd assume so.

Also the contraception is just ridiculous, I can understand the argument about conception being the start of the life, but contraception is just legislating behavior as opposed to protecting what may or not be a life.
 
I know, I hate it when I am in hick states too. What is all that green doing there?

52811d1258171188-columbus-oh-oklahoma-city-ok-img_1708.jpg
 
Hmm...misleading title, they're trying to let the public vote on it not "legislate" anything... Why not let the citizens of the state decide for themselves?

In other words don't move to OK?
 
corwin said:
Hmm...misleading title, they're trying to let the public vote on it not "legislate" anything... Why not let the citizens of the state decide for themselves?

In other words don't move to OK?
Click to expand...

This was the same crap that was pulled in Mississippi, thankfully the voters there rejected it.

Just because the people vote something in to law doesn't make it constitutional.
 
CrackRabbit said:
This was the same crap that was pulled in Mississippi, thankfully the voters there rejected it.

Just because the people vote something in to law doesn't make it constitutional.
Click to expand...
Sure doesn't..and this won't pass either, but putting something to a public vote isn't "legislating" anything
 
CrackRabbit said:
This was the same crap that was pulled in Mississippi, thankfully the voters there rejected it.

Just because the people vote something in to law doesn't make it constitutional.
Click to expand...


seems to me that all those people who believe the constitution is completely in favor of states rights, each choosing how to govern their own would make this completely constitutional.
 
HomerJS said:
Is the real plan by the GOP here is just cause a newborn explosion in the US?

First they want to circumvent current laws that allow abortion. Second, they want to elimate the most popular forms of birth control such as the standard birth control pill, morning after pill. Women had better not get raped in Ok. because they will not be able to take the morning after pill (standard practice for rape victims). Even if the MAP wasn't available if a raped women becomes pregnant an abortion would be illegal.

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/40f28ace2e4440e9873239cd0d9439f3/OK--Oklahoma-Ballot-2012/
Click to expand...

To the extent that they're trying to make it illegal to kill someone in utero, I have no problem. Forcing a woman to carry a rapist's child is wrong. Outlawing normal birth control is wrong except for RU-486, and the morning after pill, which I assume is Plan B, cannot dislodge an implanted embryo, so that ought not be disallowed.
 
HomerJS said:
Is the real plan by the GOP here is just cause a newborn explosion in the US?

First they want to circumvent current laws that allow abortion. Second, they want to elimate the most popular forms of birth control such as the standard birth control pill, morning after pill. Women had better not get raped in Ok. because they will not be able to take the morning after pill (standard practice for rape victims). Even if the MAP wasn't available if a raped women becomes pregnant an abortion would be illegal.

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/40f28ace2e4440e9873239cd0d9439f3/OK--Oklahoma-Ballot-2012/
Click to expand...
Do practical concerns always trump ethical ones? How do you decide? You implicitly dismissed any ethical considerations by expressing only practical considerations. To demonstrate the problem with this, I can simply reverse your position as follows:

Dems are trying to cause a population explosion by providing financial support for impoverished mothers. This will prevent children from starving. Women better not get jobs because they will be ineligible for such support. Even if support was offered to women with employment, it would be illegal for her to let her children starve to death.

Determination of whether someone (embryo, immigrant, political refugee, or what you) is a citizen is something this country has never explicitly addressed except in Amendment XIV. The Supreme Court extrapolated this amendment well outside its intended scope to effectively decide for us who will be a citizen. This decision will eventually be reviewed as these issues become increasingly complex due to advances in medical technology. Democrats have already undertaken such methods in other states (e.g. Missouri). In this case, personhood was defined differently by declaring that an embryo is not a person and can be used for research purposes. Until this question is answered at the federal level by an amendment, legislation, or proper Supreme Court review that doesn't have all of the loopholes and shenanigans found in Roe v. Wade, the issue is certainly open to state legislation. Without settling this debate regarding personhood, all of the practical considerations you mentioned are irrelevant because only citizens (i.e. persons) receive protections under the law.
 
First Mississippi now Oklahoma who would thunk... 😉

This is a PRIME example of Conservative small Gubermint ...LMAO
 
Last edited:
Makes no difference.

No person -- born or unborn -- has the unconditional right to occupy the body of another person, nor to nourish itself of that person's body, nor to rob oxygen from that person's bloodstream, nor to inject that person with hormones, nor to inject that person with body waste. All persons enjoy the right to defend themselves with lethal force if necessary against such bodily violations, and any waiver of those rights must be explicit.

But let's hear it for "small government," "freedom-loving" conservative hypocrites... 🙄
 
CycloWizard said:
Do practical concerns always trump ethical ones? How do you decide? You implicitly dismissed any ethical considerations by expressing only practical considerations. To demonstrate the problem with this, I can simply reverse your position as follows:

Dems are trying to cause a population explosion by providing financial support for impoverished mothers. This will prevent children from starving. Women better not get jobs because they will be ineligible for such support. Even if support was offered to women with employment, it would be illegal for her to let her children starve to death.

Determination of whether someone (embryo, immigrant, political refugee, or what you) is a citizen is something this country has never explicitly addressed except in Amendment XIV. The Supreme Court extrapolated this amendment well outside its intended scope to effectively decide for us who will be a citizen. This decision will eventually be reviewed as these issues become increasingly complex due to advances in medical technology. Democrats have already undertaken such methods in other states (e.g. Missouri). In this case, personhood was defined differently by declaring that an embryo is not a person and can be used for research purposes. Until this question is answered at the federal level by an amendment, legislation, or proper Supreme Court review that doesn't have all of the loopholes and shenanigans found in Roe v. Wade, the issue is certainly open to state legislation. Without settling this debate regarding personhood, all of the practical considerations you mentioned are irrelevant because only citizens (i.e. persons) receive protections under the law.
Click to expand...


Well said.
 
haha - cyclo and cyber jerking each other off - so surprising...

remember this is the state that votes Inhoff into the senate every 4 years....
 
CycloWizard said:
Do practical concerns always trump ethical ones? How do you decide? You implicitly dismissed any ethical considerations by expressing only practical considerations. To demonstrate the problem with this, I can simply reverse your position as follows:

Dems are trying to cause a population explosion by providing financial support for impoverished mothers. This will prevent children from starving. Women better not get jobs because they will be ineligible for such support. Even if support was offered to women with employment, it would be illegal for her to let her children starve to death.

Determination of whether someone (embryo, immigrant, political refugee, or what you) is a citizen is something this country has never explicitly addressed except in Amendment XIV. The Supreme Court extrapolated this amendment well outside its intended scope to effectively decide for us who will be a citizen. This decision will eventually be reviewed as these issues become increasingly complex due to advances in medical technology. Democrats have already undertaken such methods in other states (e.g. Missouri). In this case, personhood was defined differently by declaring that an embryo is not a person and can be used for research purposes. Until this question is answered at the federal level by an amendment, legislation, or proper Supreme Court review that doesn't have all of the loopholes and shenanigans found in Roe v. Wade, the issue is certainly open to state legislation. Without settling this debate regarding personhood, all of the practical considerations you mentioned are irrelevant because only citizens (i.e. persons) receive protections under the law.
Click to expand...

Romney said corporations are people. Is he a liar or stupid?

Based on the results of Citizens United I don't hold much hope for the SCOTUS.

The federal government is unlikely to deam embryos people. Any woman ovulation capable having sex in a given month would be able to claim the existance of two people and claim them on their income tax. Even if they don't give "birth" in the traditional sense the claim of a second person would hold for that taxable year.
 
CycloWizard said:
Determination of whether someone (embryo, immigrant, political refugee, or what you) is a citizen is something this country has never explicitly addressed except in Amendment XIV. The Supreme Court extrapolated this amendment well outside its intended scope to effectively decide for us who will be a citizen. This decision will eventually be reviewed as these issues become increasingly complex due to advances in medical technology. Democrats have already undertaken such methods in other states (e.g. Missouri). In this case, personhood was defined differently by declaring that an embryo is not a person and can be used for research purposes. Until this question is answered at the federal level by an amendment, legislation, or proper Supreme Court review that doesn't have all of the loopholes and shenanigans found in Roe v. Wade, the issue is certainly open to state legislation. Without settling this debate regarding personhood, all of the practical considerations you mentioned are irrelevant because only citizens (i.e. persons) receive protections under the law.
Click to expand...

Sigh. For someone to try to pretend to be so smart, you miss the obvious, the woman/mother/pregnant/carrier of the conceptus is a citizen. The US Supreme Court has already ruled on a number of decisions regarding various "decisions" whether it is along the line of abortion (Roe v Wade and subsequent cases) or contraception (Griswold v Connecticut and the subsequent Eisenstadt v Baird case). Heck, the author of this ballot measure seems to even contradict his own measure. If a conceptus is a person and has full rights to life, then why does it suddenly matter if the woman's life is at risk? By the logic that a conceptus is a citizen/person/human being, intent shouldn't matter. But the author hints at the underlying flaw, the inconvenient truth, that the "mother's rights" trumps whatever the conceptus is afforded. One cannot parade around yelling that every fertilzed egg/conceptus is a human being/person/citizen and has rights that MUST BE PROTECTED, and then suddenly turn around and ignore it when the intent has changed (although I applaud the author at least somewhat getting his logic on target by saying no abortions for rape or incest... but he would have to take it further to actually make logical sense).

Considering some of the "planks" of this decision would have been already decided by the US Supreme Court... even if it passed, it would be rejected by many of the district courts. That is why this isn't just "state legislation." States cannot ignore US Supreme Court decisions, unless they do not want the protections afforded by the Constitution.
 
As a male I am outraged. If a female embryo is a person, why are not my sperm cells persons also. After all each and every sperm cell we males produce is a potential human being too.

And to take things one step further, since males produce more sperm cells than females produce embryos, by a factors of more than a million, it proves males produce more person hood than females and hence proves males are the superior sex.

Its just the Lemon Law of male sexual superiority, its may start in Oklahoma, but soon it will sweep the nation, and then the entire world. Yee haw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top