Consequences of Granting Legal Status to a Fertilized Human Egg
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-10-31/consequences-granting-legal-status-fertilized-human-egg
![A June 6, 2011 file photo shows "Personhood" supporters gathering at a prayer rally at the Capitol in Jackson, Miss., to concentrate their efforts to get a proposed "personhood" constitutional amendment offered to voters. The amendment offers a definition of a person not now found in the Mississippi Constitution. - (AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis, File)](http://thedianerehmshow.org/sites/thedianerehmshow.org/files/imagecache/620xH/images/headline/111031_righttolife.jpg "A June 6, 2011 file photo shows "Personhood" supporters gathering at a prayer rally at the Capitol in Jackson, Miss., to concentrate their efforts to get a proposed "personhood" constitutional amendment offered to voters. The amendment offers a definition of a person not now found in the Mississippi Constitution. - (AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis, File)")
A June 6, 2011 file photo shows "Personhood" supporters gathering at a prayer rally at the Capitol in Jackson, Miss., to concentrate their efforts to get a proposed "personhood" constitutional amendment offered to voters. The amendment offers a definition of a person not now found in the Mississippi Constitution.
(AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis, File)
Mississippi will ask voters next week to decide whether to give legal status to fertilized human eggs. If the ballot measure is approved, abortion would become tantamount to murder. And in vitro fertility clinics and popular methods of birth control could be outlawed. Many observers deem it one of the gravest assaults on women's reproductive rights in decades. Similar efforts to redefine "personhood" are in the works in several states. Colorado voters twice defeated personhood initiatives recently. But many expect the Mississippi measure to pass. We'll talk about the latest tactics in the battle against abortion.
Guests
Robert Destro
professor of law; director, Interdisciplinary Program in Law & Religion Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America.
Jon Fasman
Atlanta correspondent for the Economist.
Suzanne Novak
senior staff attorney, Center for Reproductive Rights.
Walter Hoye
a spokesman for PersonhoodUSA; president of the Issues4Life Foundation and the California Civil Rights Foundation.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
The religious right has caught itself in a logical trap of its own making.
On the one hand, it fervently supports our "war on terror", but on the other hand, its vision of the world is frighteningly similar to that of Muslim extremists. Will these folks soon be pushing for female circumcision, the lopping off of limbs, and the stoning of women unfaithful to their husbands? After all, they are all to be found in the Good Book.
They crow and bleat about the Constitution, but the medicine they prescribe for our ills would mangle the Constitution into insensibility.
There is nothing so disreputable as a person who cannot think outside the bounds of their own preconceptions and prejudices, and the religious right cannot claim a high ground it has not even bothered to set foot on.
God gave us a marvelous brain. High time we tried using it.
As the mother of two grown children, I feel strongly that Right-to-Lifers downplay and denigrate all that mothers do to raise their children. An embryo uncared for does not automatically grow to become a healthy child. How strange it is that Right-to-Lifers think a woman is so silly or stupid that she cannot make wise decisions about birth control and pregnancy, but then insist that the same silly or stupid woman take over the important role of raising a child. Children deserve better!
If the Mississippi proposal passes, then it would seem that Mississippi women could petition for institutions where they could spend their pregnancies under medical supervision. The state would then pay for relatives or other caregivers to take care of any already existing children of the pregnant women. No excuses should be allowed to the state's protest that it does not have funding. After all, the new law would make reproduction a primary state function.
Hi Ben, I'm the web producer for The Diane Rehm Show. Thank you for participating in our comments section. We appreciate your comments, but I need to remind you that this is a forum that welcomes a wide variety of viewpoints. So your comment "anybody who says differently is a liar" is inappropriate in this forum. Please keep this, as well as our other standards, in mind when writing future comments.
Hi ecgberht, I'm the web producer for The Diane Rehm Show. Thank you for participating in our comments section. We appreciate your comments, but I need to remind you that name-calling will not be tolerated here. I have also sent a message to Ben reminding him that this is a space where we want to hear a wide variety of viewpoints that not everyone will agree upon. Please keep this, as well as our other standards and guidelines, in mind when writing future comments.
Fair enough and I apologize. The very last comment in the post was out of line (just a little frustration showing itself, but still no excuse).
One point though. I did not see a similar comment when the poster Grady Lee Howard referred to me as a "racist".
To me, that is a serious charge that merits evidence, and to date, none has been provided.
Sharen, can you cite any scriptures supporting your view? How can any word issued from the mouth of God be irrelevant?
if this initiative were to pass, then any fetal death would have to be investigated, just as the death of any baby has to be investigated. The methods of birth control that prevent implantation would be outlawed in Mississippi, but this means that not only would they be unavailable, their USE in MS would be a felony. It would be a premeditated ending of what is defined as a human life; that's usually first or second-degree murder.
On the other end -- if a fetus is legally a person, then it could be held guilty of enslaving the mother. Once a child is born, it can be given up for adoption. But before that, the mother is stuck being an incubator. The fetus irrevocably changes the mother's body, and some of those changes can be life-threatening. If the mother has no choice, and the fetus is a full legal individual, then the fetus is guilty of enslaving the mother.
You might say those are ridiculous consequences. It would never happen that way. But right now, that IS the law. If a fetus is a legal individual, then a threat to it is no less than a threat to a 5-year old, and such a threat would REQUIRE action by local law enforcement. You would have to start making legal exceptions for this class of person, which defeats the stated purpose of the initiative. Otherwise, you'd have erratic enforcement of the law - which ends up defeating the purpose of having laws to begin with.
@ aware
Couldn't agree more about increasing the access and quality of sex education.
Would we tolerate a law that permitted learning to drive only AFTER you've had a car accident?
Ugh...
Actually, the medieval Catholic view was that a soul entered the fetus at "quickening", which generally occurs at between 15-20 weeks. English common law also recognized this standard; prior to quickening, abortion is not a crime, but after quickening it was considered manslaughter. After birth, it is full homicide/murder.
@ rumin8
"Mark Nelson, you would be right if both the woman and the unborn child died in scenario spoken of at Exodus 21. However, if you read the context, you will see that it is the unborn child that dies, not the woman, and it is that soul (the unborn child) that must be accounted for with the soul (life) of the man responsible."
RESPONSE:
In the scripture below you are broadly misinterpreting the term "mischief" to favor your argument.
The term "mischief" is vague and undefined. How do we know "mischief" doesn't mean the death of the mother only and not the fetus?
Semiotics are very important here as the Bible is an incredibly vague, multiply translated, and egregiously misinterpreted document.
The word "life" (as used here in the singluar form) is referring to an already existing Christian woman, not a fetus. Throughout Exodus Chapter 21 the term "life" or "soul" (depending on your translation) is being used to refer to an ALREADY living person.
It is of major importance that the woman is specifically mentioned in this scripture -- this confers personhood upon her. The fetus is merely referred to as "fruit" -- a non-human object.
It's reaching to imagine that in saying "life for life" or "soul for soul" the Bible is referring to a fetus. Especially when a living fully formed human is present. Ignoring the woman as the "life" or "soul" in question is transparently biased, and offensive to my respect for extant human life.
Below is the passage of Exodus 21 as I found it online (the same on several websites). This is from http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ex/21.html
"21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."
"21:23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life..."
Diane, love your show. I'm for all women's right to choose. If you choose to not have an abortion or take the pill, fine. If you choose otherwise, fine. One funny thought: The Personhood people say emphatically that science proves that human life starts at conception, but ask them how man was created and we get a different non-science-based story.
Mark Nelson wrote:
"Couldn't agree more about increasing the access and quality of sex education.
Would we tolerate a law that permitted learning to drive only AFTER you've had a car accident?
Ugh..."
Who'd you learn to drive from? I learned to drive from my parents. Until you're willing to MANDATE driver's ed, why should we MANDATE sex ed in the schools. Schools can offer the service, but parents should have the right to opt out.
Double-ugh.
jjaynewton wrote:
"I'm for all women's right to choose. If you choose to not have an abortion or take the pill, fine. If you choose otherwise, fine."
Very open-minded you are, and you give a very clear exposition on the woman's point of view.
jjaynewton, who speaks for the unborn dead?
yes unborn important to religious right... you are completely alone afterbirth(yup US meant that)... after birth.
posted thank you for REP Ellmers helping homeless hungry veterans... tried to AS she hasn't and post 'disappeared'
another 50yr old prior veteran/ public service now needs to learn the bongo drums... already know how to endure violence.
Never imagined killed by own country/ police forces.
R I P US
A person is a social definition. Life is a continuation of a living sperm and living egg. Fertilization is the start of the development of a human being, but it is not a complete human being. Until the fetus has developed and born, it cannot be a person. It is up to the woman to determine if she will carry the unborn to term; however, at the point at which a fetus can survive separated from the womb, the fetus then has a claim to life separate from the mother. Establishing a legal definition of person prior to the ability of the fetus to survive imposes a burden of slavery on women who are forced to accept pregnancies under any condition or circumstance, and is an intrusion into the personal life by religious segment of the public
Where did I learn to drive? At a licensed and accredited driving school in my state. Unlike you, I did not learn to drive from my parents. Something tells me the driving school I attended was better prepared to produce responsible, conscientious drivers.
What did that school require?
1) 25 hours of classroom instruction (not including breaks or time for meals), or home study or Internet training program (must be equivalent to classroom instruction requirements).
2) 6 hours of Behind-the-Wheel training.
3) 50 hours of supervised driving practice that includes 10 hours of driving during darkness.
Did my parents help me? Of course. Did they know all the of State's laws and procedures regarding the operation of a vehicle? NO. Were they prepared to offer me the level of instruction outlined above? NO.
Had I relied on my parents ONLY to learn how to drive I would have been ignorant and ill prepared. I could have eventually placed myself, other drivers, and pedestrians in potentially fatal danger.
It's no different with sexual education. Ignorance can be fatal. While we require our children to obtain a learner's permit and/or driver's license in order to operate a vehicle, we leave them completely ignorant and unprotected with sex.
The subject here responsible sexual education. DO NOT equate sexual education with sexual activity. Do not attempt to distract me or derail this dialogue with such false comparisons.
Ironically, we let our children engage in sexual activity without any protection or education. Would you let your ("unborn") child drive a car without knowing how?
Perpetuating the ignorance of our children exposes them to the diseases and reproductive consequences of unprotected sex. That is something I find immoral.
HOW sex happens should be taught in school.
WHY sex happens should be taught by parents.
Hi ecgberht, thanks for letting me know about Grady's comment. You're right - it was certainly also inappropriate, and we must have missed it. It is helpful for us when you and others here flag comments as abusive - this brings them to our attention and makes it easier for us to address truly inappropriate ones. If you can find the show and date when he wrote this I can send him a similar message.
Anne, thanks for following up. I will remember about the flag next time:
Grady Lee Howard wrote:
So it's OK for eggyonface to be a racist as long as people are intimidated from mentioning it. Everyone understands that fascists use Obama's pigmentation and African father to generate hate. The P-tardy could never have gained office without fanning racial hatred. I saw it happening firsthand when I lived in Dallas, NC for three years. Sue Myrick of that district may be the most blatant racist in Congress. Thankfully she is old and can't be toted around like a senile Strom Thurmond much longer.
August 2, 2011 - 10:21 am
"While we require our children to obtain a learner's permit and/or driver's license in order to operate a vehicle"
So one should have to have a license to have sex? Or just a learner's permit?
The requirement of a license (or permit) is to measure the proficiency of the operator, not how they learned to drive.
But since you had all that training, "You must be an excellent driver ... excellent driver."
Individuals are required to have a driver's license because it is the proper duty of the state to protect OTHERS from them, not the driver himself.
It is the duty of PARENTS to protect their children, not the duty of the state. Again, if you want to offer sex ed to students that's probably ok. It should be the parents' decision whether their kid gets it.
It is not the duty of the state to protect you from yourself. That's your job (or in this case, your parents' job). It's only the duty of the state to protect you from others. That, Mark Nelson, is where we fundamentally disagree.
Honest question:do you have guidelines about what is and is not inappropriate? Disagreement on a forum can be a good thing and is expected. However, I have found that a number of the posts in this group are attacks, either directly or indirectly against a person or a group. When this tone is continued, it just closes everyone's mind up.
This has more to do with control than it does on philosophy.
What the backers of this bill want is to put women - and by extension men - in their place. The most fundamental right is the control of your own body - all other rights are based on the assumption of that fundamental right. In other words: if a woman doesn't have the right to choose, she may as well have no rights at all.
All men need to get their opinions out of the abortion debate. It disgusts me to see men even attempting to insert their voice into this issue.
I'd be interested to see how many of this bill's supporters are paradoxically willing to limit access to healthcare for underprivileged children.
One major consequence of this "measure" is something that was discussed at length on All Things Considered in recent months, and that was that even doctors cannot tell when conception actually takes place. There are arguments regarding whether fertilization is considered conception or whether it is when the fertilized egg is implanted. So, just how does the legal system think it is going to enforce anything like this measure.
In reference to someone who stated earlier that the "right to life" gang doesn't care about the lives of other species, it doesn't even care about the life of the human mother -- as anyone with an ounce of sense, not to mention empathy, knows that an uninterrupted ectopic pregnancy would always result in the death of the mother (and along with it the blastocyst or fertilized egg).
Garvin wrote:
"if a woman doesn't have the right to choose, she may as well have no rights at all. "
Garvin, I have asked this question many times of many people and also in this thread; I've yet to get an answer. Perhaps you're smart enough to offer one. When an abortion is considered there are the interests of three individuals at play; the doctor, who looks out for his interests; the mother, who looks out for her interests; the unborn. Who looks out for the interests of the unborn? Put simply, who speaks for the unborn dead?
"All men need to get their opinions out of the abortion debate."
And you're a man, right?
"It disgusts me to see men even attempting to insert their voice into this issue"
Perfect. Anything to weigh the interests of the abortion decision to the doctor and the mother. When the third party, the powerless party, the unborn, have NO voice, someone has to speak for them.
What do you say we do a survey where mothers ask their children, "I thought about an abortion with you, but decided to have you instead. Would you rather I had the abortion?" How many "yes" responses do you think you'd get?
"it doesn't even care about the life of the human mother "
Simply false. The guest does not represent all "right to life"ers.
I wonder if the fetus these personhood advocates want to defend will defend the child if it turns out to be Gay.
Because god is irrelevant.
@ ecgberht
1) "So one should have to have a license to have sex? Or just a learner's permit?"
Neither, just an education. I never said one "should have a license to have sex". That was a presumption you made.
2) "It is not the duty of the state to protect you from yourself."
Then why do States require driver education? Why not just let everyone get behind the wheel at any age and any ability? Why are the licenses of alcoholics and the elderly taken away? Surely it is to protect those drivers from themselves, and prevent them from harming others.
3) "The requirement of a license (or permit) is to measure the proficiency of the operator, not how they learned to drive."
"Not how they learned to drive"? Actually most (if not all) states require drivers complete a state approved drivers education course.
4) "It is the duty of PARENTS to protect their children..."
Agreed. And they're not.
________________________________________
Again, do not equate sexual education with sexual activity.
Schools should teach HOW to have sex. Parents should teach WHY to have sex (even though most do not).
"I never said one "should have a license to have sex". "
So we've established you do not recognize sarcasm when you read it.
"Then why do States require driver education?"
"Actually most (if not all) states require drivers complete a state approved drivers education course."
No, that's false. They don't. Some do. And do not confuse "behind the wheel time" with formal driver's ed. But, fine, let's say EVERY state did. Let's say there were a FEDERAL mandate for it. Who is that designed to protect? You think that's designed to protect the driver from himself? Then why don't I need a license to operate, say, farm equipment? The only time I need a license is when I operate it on a public road. Hmmm.
"Why are the licenses of alcoholics and the elderly taken away? Surely it is to protect those drivers from themselves ...."
Perhaps in your opinion. But there's no evidence for that. The state can and should take away the license of anyone who is a danger to others.
"Agreed. And they're not."
So naturally the state should do it right? The state should pick up the slack whenever anyone fails at anything, right?
That is just utter nonsense.
"Schools should teach HOW to have sex."
No. They should not. That is a complete intrusion into a very personal area of development that should take place in the home between parent and child.
Wow... I really have no other words. Keep taking rights from women, what rights do you take from men? Thats right, NONE! I'm completely at a loss of words. I use birth control myself not just to prevent pregnancy right now but to control my hormones which is a medical condition. Also are these people trying to say a wertman like me, whether married out not who has a medical condition that getting pregnant could cause severe issues for the mother and child can't protect herself till she is ready, until her doctors feel it is safe. Think again. Diabetes, heart problems, blood pressure issues, cancer are just some big examples of diseases that cause complications with pregnancy, but does that mean women with these problems should just get fixed so they can never know the love of their own child if they can? I'm all for adoption but I want the option to give my partner a child of our own, at least try to. Freedom of speech and choice should continue, we say america is the home of the free, it's starting to seem like were no longer free anymore.
The self-appointed Morally Wonderful intellectual dilettantes need to get a clue. See http://bgladd.blogspot.com/2008/04/diploid-dave-et-al.html