Talk:Personhood laws

Probably need to talk about Personhood USA, a group based in Colorado that's writing all these bullshit laws. -- Seth Peck (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

yeah, i forgot about them. damn. are they still around. ;-) There's tons to write. i hadn't intened to make this its own article till the second day in a row, we pass these totally bs laws. so... i was angry enough to start one. I'll de stub it tomorrow, to the extent others don't. The whole ramifications section is going to be fun, cause laws like this mean women will be tried as murderers, manslaughter for doing things like falling down the stairs. Cops will have to check with women each month to make srue they are not preggers, and keep a tally - just in case. we don't want anyone running off to NY to commit a crime, do we. ;-) I don't think i've been this ticked off in a long time. GodotGrow a vagina 05:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Text of the bills

Does anyone have the text of the first two? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 22:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

yep. I just havent finished them. It's a bit of a lengthy process. There's still 5 more states to do, too. GodotGrow a vagina 23:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Are any longer than just a "zygotes are people too!" one-liner? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 01:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The two actual laws are fairly complex. Not surprising since they are written by the house and senates who all have specific agenda to bring up and their own amendments to add. The others placed up to state vote are basically all the same simplistic text. I also want to show that even in missispi, the voters shot down their personhood amendment something like 40 to 60 against. but i stopped caring for a day. burn out on right wing wars on women. :-)GodotGrow a vagina 02:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I've found the VA one, and it's fairly long. Mind if I make a Text of the Louisiana Academic Freedom Act-style 'reference' page for it? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 02:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

works for me. as i said, i'm taking the night off from the anti women shit. cause i was getting too pissed. GodotGrow a vagina 03:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough - I need to get back to my own thing now, as it happens, after taking a break that lasted a little too long.

There we go—I put the voting in as well, btw. Is it a 'bill' or an 'amendment' (or both)? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 04:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

“”02/13/12 House: Speaker ruled floor Substitute by Delegate McClellan not germane 12105413D-H1

Wait, what was actually passed? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 04:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The VA and Okie are bills, and in each case 1/2 of the legislature has passed them. (senate in Ok, house in VA). in both cases, the other house is expected to pass them, and in Okie's case, the gov is expected to sign it. There is some question if the Gov of VA will sign or not. GodotGrow a vagina 04:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Bicameral legislatures confuse me... (As do veto powers)

So was it the original Bill or the floor substitute that was passed in VA? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 05:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

yah. Those are teh amendments that are thrown in while on the floor. most bills run this way. and the bi-cameral thing had me all lost last night, cause the media was saying "passed", but not which house or who else had to pass it. Anyhow....GodotGrow a vagina 05:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh what the fuck

[1] -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Am i going to hate you, if i click this link? and get all mad and all? Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 00:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Big time. Тy^{sic semper} 01:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a technical issue. Colorado has a law that you can only have one issue per ballot question. the Planned parenthood were trying (rather illogically to me) to argue it was two issues... but it's gone DOWN IN FLAMES two times in a row. why they keep trying??? who the f knows.--Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 02:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It;s what they do. Maybe they're hoping people will automatically assume it will fail and thus not vote in it. Тy^No 02:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Given that it's 2012 Presidental Elections, in a state that is *strongly* in play, with at least one important tax question being floated out there (may or may not make) -- there is no f'ing way this passes. why waste your money? unless they hope it will somehow bring out more repukes to vote - but aren't they going to, anyhow?--Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 02:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe they're just crazy. Тy^No 02:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is it that Americans are only able to shake off the wingnuts with technicalities? I mean, you can't teach creationism not because it's bullshit but because it violates the constitution. Here we don't have that clause: we also don't have the problem. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 03:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Duties of a person

So I was reading the section of the duties and it has a number of logical fallacies associated with it. Whether or not the fertilized eggs are persons or not is a completely different debate than the duties of being a person. One is still a person even if he does not perform any of the duties. He might be a criminal but a person nonetheless. So let me begin with the first point: 1) Taxes; only the people who earn something, buy something or own something pay taxes to the government. So just as a one day old baby does not pay taxes but still a baby, the fetuses, under these acts are people who do not pay taxes. According to writings of Thomas Pain, who delved into the subjects of state and person deeply, first there was person and then the state. So any obligation to the state does not determine whether or not someone is a person or not. 2) No one needs to add to society to be a person. e.g. Justin Beiber, like it or not, he is still a person. Also it can be argued that being in the uratus of the mother, thereby increasing the satisfaction and happiness of the parents and family is adding to the society. 3) Trespassing: Only adults who can control their actions and can understand the consequences are liable for criminal action. So just as a mother cannot tell her week old bay to vacate the house or call the cops for trespassing, same thing applies to a fetus. Being a person is different from being an adult who has control over his actions and who can understand the consequences. If this were not true, non of the babies, the mentally challenged or the handicapped would be 'persons' 4) I accept the fourth point. But this arises out of technical legal jargon and has nothing to do with whether or not a fetus is a person. Like I said about first point, personhood surpasses legality. Think of Nazi Germany. They denied personhood to jews legally, that did not make them any less persons than they were. Nor does accepting personhood make them any more persons in today's germany. Or same sex marriage is recognized by some states but not others, creating a jumble of contradictory laws. --192.189.128.13 (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Personhood and 'Freeman on the Land'

So how 'could, would or should' the two concepts of 'personhood' and 'freeman on the land' interact? When should 'official reference numbers' be assigned? Anna Livia (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Logical consequences

• Pollution has to be reduced and the environment has to be improved.
• Guns have to be controlled (to avoid accidents and incidents).
• Healthcare has to be increased.
• Financial and other support for pregnant women and new mothers.
• Politicians, pastors and others that harass and harangue women have to stop doing so, as it stresses women, which might lead to damage to the unborn child.

And all persons in the last group should adopt/foster as many children whose parents cannot support them as they can (and not claim any benefits). Anna Livia (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)