Do You Support The Embryo "Personhood" Movement?

no, i do not. why should an embry have the right to bear arms? ok, well just kidding about that. but honestly, that gives a very large window for forced birthers to force people to give birth. sorry, i will never support something like that.

Ooo, tricky topic. It would depend on wether you're looking at it as a legal issue or a moral issue. I am catholic, and apparently a bad one because I'm pro-choice and support the death penalty.
Morally, that's you're personal belief and is between you and your higher power. It has no place in our courts and shouldn't be pushed on others.
Legally? Does a blastocyst or a zygote have a name? A social security number? Is it an independant living organism? No.
Religous groups need to stay out of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court doesn't need to be interpreting the bible. If an individual wants to live where faith sets the tone for government business, move to Afghanistan. They love using God to tell people how to live, who to love, how to dress, and what to do.

NFW!! What's next? Rights for the quark or the nano?

Not remotely. An embryo is not a person. It cannot think, breathe, or even support itself. In my opinion, if a person believes that an embryo is a person, then that's neat and I'll respect that, but i expect the same respect. People should keep their beliefs to themselves and if they think that abortion is wrong then (here's a thought) don't get one. But if you believe that it is not wrong then no one has a right to tell you other wise. Not your family, friends, or random group of politicians.

At this moment, there is probably no cause I am more against in our society. The ramifications of fostering that belief in the masses are far greater than they seem to understand.

Nay

hahaha CELemon! That's Hysterical!

I say NO! An embryo is NOT a viable human being. An embryo/fetus is not viable until it can survive outside the womb without it's eyes fused.

I am not a fan of abortion, but I really don't know where I stand on this legislation. It seems weird to grant constitutional rights to something that doesn't even have the capacity to understand what constitutional rights are. But then, how many people walking around in this country don't even know what is in the Constitution?

absolutly not. There is a fine line between creating laws that protect everyone and forcing moral beliefs on the whole population. I will never support the lobbyist's mistaken belief that they can dictate what happens to my body.

I support the the ovum "personhood" movement. Every woman should be pregnant every time it is possible. "No More Periods - Just pregnancies!" That's our motto!

No, that's a load of bollocks! What about the constitutional rights of expectant mothers, who feel they can't provide emotionally or financially for a child? When i hear stuff like this, im glad im live in England - this would never happen here. I do think the limit should be lowered slightly though, to maybe 16 weeks instead of 24 - my friend gave birth to twins at 24 weeks; the docs said one of them wouldn't survive and the other, at best, would have cerebal palsy - they are both as fit as fiddles, yet they were almost written off at birth. I find it, then, slightly disturbing when an aborted baby would basically be put on a slab to die at the exact same stage of pregnancy. that's not to say im pro-life; im pro-choice, but it does seem a bit high. I think the key lies in sex education being given far earlier than it is now - at 7 or 8 years, instead of 15 or 16 yrs, when it's clear that they've already made their minds up about sex and accepted all the school yard myths about how you can and can't get pregnant. we need to teach our kids about sex in the context of a loving relationship, whether straight or gay & promote the use of contraceptives - maybe then we wouldn't be dealing with so many cases of teenage pregnancy & abortion. Sadly, alas, in America and the UK we are soo uptight about sex in general that we rarely speak of it; particularly in front of the kids. When my kids ask a question, i answer it truthfully - i find this to be preferable to lies, plus, how did we all get here? I'm also a Catholic, but i resent a man and a celibate to boot, telling me what i can and can't do with my body - even God gave us free will! Just cause they wear a frock, doesn't mean they can speak for women! When you mix politics and religion, you get crazy stuff like this to deal with - im sorry, but i dont think the clergy have a place in congress, not in any way, shape or form. Also, while we're on the subject of constitutions, did you know the federal income tax is unconstitutional? It is; check it out!

Embryos are not babies until out of the womb and spanked into breathing air. Until then they are a fetus.

No, I don't support this idea at all. Everything I wanted to say as to why I'm against it as already been said, lol.

ABSOLUTELY! That is the way it used to be without even having to think about it and we definitely never needed a contract to say that our baby was in fact a baby from day one! This is a brilliant and important idea given the age we live in. Un fortunately it probably won't pass- there are too many people who do not truly understand what they are caught up in. They don't understand that 'pro-choice' was merely a SLOGAN that caught on to increase the number of abortions, and that the 'defense' came LATER. They don't understand that there really is no debate, but it was just another capitalistic venture to give doctors more money and to keep the surgical practice going. It is ridiculous. Abortion is nothing more than a capitalistic commodity just like cornflakes, cars and houses- but people have bought into it. On the other hand we are talking about REAL LIVES being murdered and this is appalling to the person with a conscience or a person who knows better. I feel bad for the innocent mothers who don't.

Right now there are thousands of embryos frozen in liquid nitrogen. They are the extra embryos produced and saved during in vitro fertilization attempts. If the first attempt at implantation fails, additional embryos are thawed and implanted.

IF these embryos are persons, then.... we can never discard them, or that would be murder, right? So what do we do, keep them frozen until the end of time?

BTW, if they are persons, shouldn't we reapportion the US House of Representatives, based on the residence of these "persons?" Can the "parents" claim their two dozen embryos in storage as dependents on their taxes?

Isn't it interesting how, when taken to logical conclusions, many aspects of law can't help but end up being an ***?

This one hangs on some matters of principle, I believe.

Strictly speaking, I believe that "Life is present" upon conception. However, one must remember that a pregnancy is MAKING a human body, which becomes a fully-fledged human at about age 7 or a bit less, when the human Soul incarnating in it gets firmly established (according to some).

If you can think of the human body as a vehicle of human consciousness, it becomes perhaps less problematic to destroy one that, for one reason or another, is not considered welcome or appropriate - but is not yet fully formed nor able to exist independantly... It is known that up to 25% of pregnancies are terminated by the body naturally, because they are not viable for some reason or other - but that's not directly due to concious rejection and choice to kill by the mother. And in many cases the mother doesn't even know.

Of course, even a baby is not able to exist independantly for at least 5 to 8 years; so there's a bit of a gray area there as well. One wouldn't contemplate doing away with a baby after it was born, just because it is not independant. But it is certainly "an individual", even if not a truly "thinking" individual, and able to support itself.

I must admit that on the face of it, it does seem a bit of a stretch to claim that an embryo is a person; I would say, "has the potential of becoming a person".

I also think that people - young people particularly - should thing twice, even thrice, before having sex for fun with the risk of getting pregnant, and landing themselves in the situation being discussed. To me, that's absolute irresponsibility. If they "don't know what does it", then the irresponsibility is on their parents for not instructing them.

I go with the Hopi Indian view of life -- their word for it means the same as our word for "breath." Until an embryo becomes a fetus and that fetus can exist without a host, with or without medical intervention, they are not a person, but a potential person. A fine line, I know, but otherwise crosseyedlemon is right -- we will soon be forced to protect the rights of ***** and ova, which means birth control would become illegal? No, it's getting pretty silly from my perspective...