News-Record.com

"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."

I can't help wondering whether this law was created by religiously-motivated people who wanted to get their views put into terms that sound "sciency." The legal ramifications of such a law would be a lot more far-reaching than just to make abortion illegal.

Stem cell research would be ended, as cells with no chance of becoming embryos would have to be confiscated and stored in care facilities. The state would need to develop means of detecting the moment any human egg becomes fertilized, so that the new legal entities can be tracked and taxes adjusted accordingly. And of course, all miscarriages would need to be investigated for possible criminal activity.

I wonder what biologists advised the lawmakers in the writing of this bill? I'm guessing either none were consulted, or if they were, their advice was ignored.

...and every impoverished parent who can't afford health care and proper pre-natal nutrition prosecuted for negligence and abuse.

Duhhhh. Of course the egg is human. Or perhaps its a frog, or dog or chimp egg. The very nanosecond that an egg is fertilized it is in-process to become a mature human fetus and baby. It's human from the gitgo. To repsect it as the beginning stage of the imago dei gives it the holiness and nonor that it's due. But the god-less scientific model seems impelled to see it merely as a blob of tissue to be used or abused in whatever way facies the experimentor.

We've seen where the slipery slope of seeing fetuses as mere unbirthed tissue formations leads: partical birth abortion, casual sex, STD's - and a host of other tangential maladies that are now undermining our society. Brave New World here we come!

I think both sides in this argument are overreacting. No one, for instance, will prosecute a miscarriage any more than any other accidental death. As for neglect, plenty of post-birth human babies are neglected and left to die in dumpsters. Should they be rescued or not? After all, they can't contribute any more to society than a preborn fetus can.

But Nikos, while I agree with you that human nature begins at conception, that is not a conclusion of "science" but of philosophy. Science can tell us that conception results in a living being with its own unique genetic makeup and so on, but it does not define what it is to be human. The real slippery slope I see here is not the standard religious-right horror list of promiscuity and "godlessness", but rather defining humanness in terms of ability rather than intrinsic nature. That is, if a human life is valued only for what it can contribute, or the pleasure it can feel, then we all essentially have to earn our continued right to exist, and the murder of Terry Sciavo will spread to other population elements deemed useless, just as in Nazi Germany. The insane, the elderly, the comatose, all become targets, and where will it stop?

Kuranes: "The real slippery slope I see here is not the standard religious-right horror list of promiscuity and "godlessness", but rather defining humanness in terms of ability rather than intrinsic nature."

Well, that's precisely what I did. The fetus, by its VERY nature is human, special, unique, god-shaped - holy. To see it otherwise WILL indeed evenuate in a sub-human view of human life, with all it's attendant corrputions and evils.

The "horror list" is then very real, and will surely continue to undermine our culture and nation. Only the biblical, god-centered view of human life truly defines its intrinsic nature as holy unto the Lord, capable of communion wiht the Creator, self-reflection, scientific inquiry, art, reason, philosophy, love of beauty, LOVE, etc. All part of the imago Dei. But then "liberated" women must have their career options - the hell with the Imago Dei!

Nikos wrote: "The fetus, by its VERY nature is human, special, unique, god-shaped -"

For all you folks who wondered what God looks like, Nikos has solved the mystery: God looks like a fetus.
Seriously, though, a lot of non-Christian scientists, artists, philosophers, and loving family members wouuld no doubt be surprised that all their accomplishments and careers were only made possible by their "Biblical, God-fearing view of human life." So much for secular artists like Mozart and Beethoven, Leonardo da Vinci, Goethe, and a host of others, none of whom had or wanted a Biblical, God-fearing view of anything. Though Newton was an Arian Darwin an apostate agnostic,and Einstein a pantheist, their scientific achievements were still somehow due to their Biblical viewpoints. Well, as they say, it's a point of view. And I suspect that Deborah and Jael (Judg, 4) would be amazed to hear that their careers as judge and savior of Israel implied a contempt for the "imago dei."

Hello namtac

You said, I "can't help wondering whether this law was created by religiously-motivated people who wanted to get their views put into terms that sound "sciency."

Sounds like you object to religion informing the conscisnce. It really sounds a lot more logical than a conscience that is informed by an atheistic worldview.

And just as absurd is the idea, which you seem to exhibit, that antireligous points of view; i.e. the "sceintific" view, are spawned by pure and unadulterated objectivity.

Perhaps you need to be reminded that science cannot function in a philosophical or theological vacuum. There is no science wihtout the scientist and no scientist without a governing worldview.

Tony