North Dakota has One Foot in the Door to Give Fertilized Eggs Human Rights
Just a few days ago the North Dakota House of Representatives voted 51-41 to pass a fetal personhood bill, HB 1572 that gives fertilized eggs the same rights as a human being.
The following exact wordage of the bill was taken from the Personhood North Dakota website. On a side note, I am very tempted to buy the Personhood Pennsylvania domain just so they can’t. Hmmm… Decisions, decisions.
Legislative Assembly HOUSE BILL NO. 1572
of North Dakota
Introduced by
Representative RubySECTION 1. References to individual, person, or human being – Legislative intent. For purposes of interpretation of the constitution and laws of North Dakota, it is the intent of the legislative assembly that an individual, a person, when the context indicates that a reference to an individual is intended, or a human being includes any organism with the genome of homo sapiens. SECTION 2. STATE TO DEFEND CHALLENGE. The legislative assembly, by concurrent resolution, may appoint one or more of its members, as a matter of right and in the legislative member’s official capacity, to intervene to defend this Act in any case in which this Act’s constitutionality is challenged.”
This bill is sponsored by Rep. Dan Ruby, a Republican man who (for the upteenth time) will never know what it is to be “with child” himself. He has been quoted as saying:
“This is the exact language that’s required by Roe vs. Wade. It stipulated that before a challenge can be made, we have to identify when life begins, and that’s what this does.”
Ruby has sponsored other bills that would ban abortion in the past, but this is the first bill that he has sponsored that has made it as far as being sent to the North Dakota Senate–A tragedy for all free-thinking, pro-choice women and men living in North Dakota.
This bill is not intended to just give fertilized eggs the same rights as humans, it is intended and will be fought continually to outlaw abortion and is specifically designed to pose a legal challenge to Roe v Wade. Also, if this bill succeeds, it will also go on to outlaw birth control and emergency contraception because in a perfect, anti-choice world, we have no choices or control over our own bodies or reproductive freedoms. Period. End of discussion.
This bill now goes to the North Dakota Senate and although I hope that this bill is squashed, given that the North Dakota Senate is anti-choice I am doubtful. Maybe they will prove me wrong, though.
Related Posts:
4 Comments Leave a Comment
Leave a Reply
Sex-Positivity
I'm passionate about sex-positivity and believe every sexual being should have the freedom to explore their sexuality safely and without condemnation. I even lost my ad network after my refusal to censor myself after reviewing feminist porn.So if you're in the market for sex toys, porn, books, etc. take a look at the retailers below, all of which are feminist-friendly.
Out Campaign
The OUT Campaign allows individuals to let others know they are not alone. It can also be a nice way of opening a conversation and help to demolish the negative stereotypes of atheists. Let the world know that we are not about to go away and that we are not going to allow those that would condemn us to push us into the shadows.
You see every day a child begging on crossing. And Police present on every crossing in India. I saw a little child naked asking for money when there has been so much cold.
What do feel..pity and give some money…or ….just driving to home ..or Office..
But what about our God-given free will?? If this bill passed, then it would certainly go against human rights. I second your vote that this bill should be squashed, no second thought.
Its really nice information. Thanks for sharing it.
I thought consent (unvolunteered) was just a straw man argument because what really matters is bodily autonomy, which I established in my earlier post does not exist.
But if you would like me to re-iterate: the woman chose to engage in an activity that she knew could lead to pregnancy. By engaging in an activity, she is responsible for the consequences of that action, whether they were intentional or not.
There is a recent example where a man gave his wife a kidney under false pretenses (that they would stay married). He sued for the kidney back in the divorce and was denied because even though he was unwilling that she should use his kidney, she was already dependant on it to live. His bodily autonomy did not supersede her right to live; his unwillingness to let her continue to use the kidney did not supersede her right to live; the fact that she received his kidney under false pretenses did not supersede her right to live.
Now I will wait for you to accuse me of knocking down stamen and call me a “liar” without giving any examples to back up your argument. “