I really do love Amanda's take on this bullshite in North Dakota (and other areas).
It’s one of those damn “personhood” bills that would define fertilized eggs as persons. Even though eggs are what are mentioned, the reality is that bills like this are about granting sperm more rights than women. It’s about making sure that sperm, once released inside women, are not obstructed from impregnating a woman and maintaining that pregnancy. I say that this about sperm vs. women, because men will still have full legal rights to tell their sperm where to go and what to do. Men will be allowed to shoot sperm in socks or condoms or wherever they wish without running afoul the law. But women will not be allowed to interfere with a sperm’s mission once it’s inside her. She may not use contraceptive pills to keep the sperm from finding an egg. IUDs may not emasculate the sperm by ruining its motility and keeping it from an egg. She may not have an abortion to prevent the sperm from finishing its work once it’s fertilized an egg.
I say this bill is about putting sperm over women, because men often put sperm in women without wishing to impregnate them. Duh. I’m sure your anti-choice nuts think men who have sex with women on hormonal contraception are either emasculated or sleaze or both, but the reality-based community realizes this isn’t true. But while sperm don’t really have intentions in the human sense, they’re perceived as having purpose, and these laws are about making sure women have no way to interfere with the sperm’s purpose once the man has relinquished control. The point of these bills is create this hierarchy of rights-bearing beings in the U.S. as such:
Men
Sperm
Women
[...]
Personhood amendments are all the rage because some anti-choicer, many years ago, came up with the brilliant idea that if you repeated the lie that hormonal contraception is abortion long enough, people would believe it. And sadly, it’s worked. Even many pro-choicers blithely, if accidentally, repeat the myth that birth control pills work first by suppressing ovulation and then by expelling fertilized eggs if the former doesn’t work. There is no evidence that this is true.
[...]
The bill declares that “any organism with the genome of homo sapiens” is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws.
See, told you this about sperm rights, especially since people tend to think of sperm---which are actually just cells with only 50% of the DNA of most cells, but seem to be little creatures unto themselves. I’m sure there’s giant issues with the very phrasing of this law, and I hope so, because I think that’s what will probably kill it before it’s signed into law. I only wish that the sense that women are human beings with full rights would kill it.
Another Attempt to Grant Sperm More Rights than Women
It's pretty hard to ignore that "personhood," according to these people (and I hesitate to call them that) should be touted to begin, basically, after a man gets off.
Holy Sperm penetrates an egg, fertilizing it and presto! Instant Person.
Basic fucking biology fail.
We're back on to the Aristotle thread. Women are just inert matter. We're just there. To be shaped by some man's contributed seed.
As much as I might like Victorian fashion and literature...I don't want to go back to their social and sexual morals, alright? We've got enough of them leftover as it is.
And how far before we get back to touting that fucking homunculus myth?
I say this bill is about putting sperm over women, because men often put sperm in women without wishing to impregnate them. Duh. I’m sure your anti-choice nuts think men who have sex with women on hormonal contraception are either emasculated or sleaze or both, but the reality-based community realizes this isn’t true. But while sperm don’t really have intentions in the human sense, they’re perceived as having purpose, and these laws are about making sure women have no way to interfere with the sperm’s purpose once the man has relinquished control. The point of these bills is create this hierarchy of rights-bearing beings in the U.S. as such:
Men
Sperm
Women
[...]
Personhood amendments are all the rage because some anti-choicer, many years ago, came up with the brilliant idea that if you repeated the lie that hormonal contraception is abortion long enough, people would believe it. And sadly, it’s worked. Even many pro-choicers blithely, if accidentally, repeat the myth that birth control pills work first by suppressing ovulation and then by expelling fertilized eggs if the former doesn’t work. There is no evidence that this is true.
[...]
The bill declares that “any organism with the genome of homo sapiens” is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws.
See, told you this about sperm rights, especially since people tend to think of sperm---which are actually just cells with only 50% of the DNA of most cells, but seem to be little creatures unto themselves. I’m sure there’s giant issues with the very phrasing of this law, and I hope so, because I think that’s what will probably kill it before it’s signed into law. I only wish that the sense that women are human beings with full rights would kill it.
Another Attempt to Grant Sperm More Rights than Women
It's pretty hard to ignore that "personhood," according to these people (and I hesitate to call them that) should be touted to begin, basically, after a man gets off.
Holy Sperm penetrates an egg, fertilizing it and presto! Instant Person.
Basic fucking biology fail.
We're back on to the Aristotle thread. Women are just inert matter. We're just there. To be shaped by some man's contributed seed.
As much as I might like Victorian fashion and literature...I don't want to go back to their social and sexual morals, alright? We've got enough of them leftover as it is.
And how far before we get back to touting that fucking homunculus myth?