http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/04/us/mississippi-personhood-amendment/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Initiative 26 would define personhood as "every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof."

So all those embryos on ice in fertilization clinics would then be considered people? And why is cloning in there? I thought it was illegal to clone people!! So if some rich dude secretly creates a zygote clone of himself which is illegal, it cannot be destroyed, because that would be murder? Do frozen fertilized eggs have a right to be born? Is keeping them in liquid nitrogen unlawful imprisonment and cruel and unusual punishment? So if you clone yourself and then confess to the crime on your death bed you wouldn't serve any jail time and your clone would have the right to be born?

Is it murder if a woman miscarries? If a fertilized egg is a legal person is a sperm or egg half a person? "Every sperm is sacred" as the old Monty Python song goes.

What if the egg is fertilized, but the woman doesn't realize she is preggo yet and does something that harms the fetus? Is that like, assault?
I thought it was illegal to clone people too....but not sheep. You can clone them all you want.

How CAN they be serious!

briefly. Seems they didn't include all the options considered "human people". The anchorperson indicated that if this goes through [I think Haley Barbour will vote yes], it would go to the Supreme Court and possibly overturn RvW, which would send the abortion decision back to the states. Powerful legislation.

Is there anyone in the Mississippi legislature with a brain?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/05/2011 01:36PM by wine country girl.

Some pro-life groups, including the Catholic Church, are declining to endorse the measure. One reason they are staying neutral is the fear that should the law be challenged, it could lead to a SCOUSA ruling that could STRENGTHEN Roe v. Wade (say, if the Supreme Court had to rule on the issue of a fertilized egg being a human being).

How can the decision from Roe v Wade be strengthened? I thought it was 'liberal' enough? Hm...

Apparently, here in Sweden, it's practice to let a [fetus/child] die, if it is removed from the woman and yet survives. Frankly, it's illegal to do anything to safe the life of the fetus/child once out of the mother. It's not a person then?

I don't understand the reasoning...

Personally, I have in my adult years come from having a neutral position on abortion (itself a very radical position in Sweden, where you're expected to champion the women's right to their own bodies) to a negative position on the subject. And that's a position I developed outside of Mormonism.

I suppose it comes from my liberal leanings paradoxically.

I would never vote for it, and I hope it loses.

I believe that the "fear" of strengthening Roe v Wade is based on the low likelihood that the US Supreme Court---even with George W Bush-nominated conservatives like Roberts and Alito, would never go so crazy as to agree that a fertilized egg is a "person".

So if someone in Mississippi challenged the law, and if it reached the court in Washington, they might overturn (throw out) the law. This would add strength to Roe v Wade and would be a deterrent against trying this strategy in other states. The US Supreme Court can throw out a state law if they feel that it conflicts with the US Constitution or national legal precedents.

From several articles I have read, this is the reason that groups such as the Catholic Church (obviously a conservative group, but not as conservative as some of the right wing evangelical Christian groups) have remained neutral on the issue. Even the governor, who used to be head of the Republican National Committee, avoided the issue for months, and only recently endorsed it, very reluctantly. He mentioned that it might actually strengthen Roe V Wade if it reaches the US Supreme Court.

but this is ridiculous.

The next step is criminalisation of onanism.

A woman sloughs off an egg every month. It has the potential to be a human. (Murderer!)

A man tosses millions of sperm cells all over the place. Each one has the potential to be human. (Massacre!)

But if an egg touches a sperm, all sudden it's a considered a human?

The frustrating thing is that the parties who don't want a woman to have a choice over her uterus and zygote are the ones who are contributing to then need for abortions by pushing barriers for other methods of birth control.

Telling kids to practice abstinence sounds good, but it isn't enough. IMO if we really wanted to decrease abortions we should be be going out of our way to make birth control free and accessible to teens with no hassle or judgement. However if you even suggest this, (most) religions vehemently oppose.

It is no coincidence that the mostly religious push to stop abortions accompanies making it harder for people to get birth control. These religions know darn well that women will get pregnant. Making the mother feel guilt, judgement, and adding numbers to the population of the church are really what is behind all of this. The religions are about maintaining their influence.

The Catholic Church especially is an influential force in hindering women's reproductive rights. Even though individual Catholic women may ignore their church on the issue, the Church still is influential in politics and social policy prohibiting women's advancement. Obviously it is not just the Catholics. In the USA the Cristian right and Mormons are generally just as active fighting the distribution of birth control and sex education where it might not be under their control.

MS has the highest rate of teen pregnancies..hmmm.... could it be all that abstinence only education bullshit is the problem?

Here in NM, same issue, and a new Board of Education director had the guts to say enough of this abstinence crap is is pushing for actual sexual education in the schools here. It's about time.

If any church is going to involve itself in politics, it needs to be taxed. This is ridiculous. They are going to force desperate women to use hangers and drinking possibly dangerous herbal mixures if this keeps up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-keenan/mississippi-abortion_b_1076387.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/05/2011 03:26PM by Itzpapalotl.

and born to parents ready to provide a loving home for it. Not ensuring that every zygote is born.

Teach the kids about family planning and the real world costs of raising a child financially, emotionally, and the time commitment. It is not like having a puppy. If the conservatives want to get rid of welfare they should start focusing on things that contribute to women needing welfare, like teen pregnancy. Focus on helping kids get a good education and good jobs so they can afford and provide for the children when they have them. Don't keep them in the dark about sex with scare tactics about it being evil and a sin.

We can't take care of all the ones who are here and there are 7 billion already. You'd think the ones protecting zygotes would address that. But no, it's God will.

Another thought on this:

From a biological and historical perspective there is one factor I can think of that contributes to this topic.

Historically, if men cannot control the women who have the children, the men cannot be assured their children are actually theirs. Females biologically want resources from the male to raise the child. Males biologically don't tend to want to invest in the offspring of other males. They want their own genes to win.

I think it stems from men wanting to maintain the power to make the women bear their children and women wanting to force the male to take ownership.

Now that women have the potential to select a genetic partner and raise a child herself, the church's control of reproduction is in jeopardy. Keeping the women dependent and breeding maintains the status quo for religion and the predominantly male leadership of them.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is no coincidence that the mostly religious push to stop abortions accompanies making it harder for people to get birth control.

> The Catholic Church especially is an influential force in hindering women's reproductive rights.

This was a major issue for me in my decision to leave the Catholic church. Sure, most Catholics ignore the church's prohibition on any truly sensible type of birth control. Even so, I did not like the hypocrisy of an organization that banned both abortion and effective methods of birth control for its membership.

I also refuse to be a member of any church that does not fully admit women to the ministry, priesthood, or postitions of church leadership.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/07/2011 10:39AM by summer.

As long as people attend, religions like Catholicism have power in numbers to influence policy and politics. I have to say I respect the people who don't want to be hypocrites even though it means giving up a lot of things about the religion they love.

Back to Mississippi...

On TV news this morning about this story, they said supporters of this measure claim that LIFE BEGINS at fertilization. Therefore, I can now say that man can create life when he artificially performs an in vitro fertilization.

So the supporters of that position will have a conflict. They say that only God creates life. However you can watch it done by a human in a white coat. Presto, watch life being created right under a microscope. Does this mean that man is god? ;-)

From a scientific standpoint, the criteria for defining life is more complicated. Is a virus alive? Is a prion alive? If religion can make arbitrary decisions, so can everyone else. They should not be able to force their opinions on the choices of others, IMO.

As if Mississippi needs less money coming in...women will now leave the state to get the medical assistance they desire.

On TV last night it was talking about the possibility of creating completely synthetic life forms using a synthetic dna created entirely by humans. I wonder how they would classify such "life"? But since they are not interested in protecting the unborn of other lifeforms they would probably feel like these definitions do not apply.

So a woman who has embryos put in her uterus but fails to get pregnant because they don't implant is guilty of murder?

I don't want to be in a position when I'd consider abortion as the only option but as a woman I will fight for the right to do so and for it to be my choice.

Women died and die in countries where abortion is illegal or inaccessible. Abortion still happens, only now in unsanitary conditions by unqualified individuals and associated with guilt and shame.

There is something horribly flawed about laws that care more about the life of an embryo than the life of a productive woman ...

I'm not advocating wide spread abortions in all stages of pregnancy, just having a choice. I know there are plenty of families who want to have children and cannot, myself included, but forcing someone else to go through pregnancy and delivery when they don't want to so that these families can have a child to adopt is not right. There are so many things that can happen in early pregnancy on their own ...

Do they even realize that this renders certian forms of birth control illegal? IUDs and some birth control pills do not prevent the egg and sperm from joining. They just prevent the new cluster of cells from taking purchase in the Uterin wall.

I just think that most people who propose defining life as begining at conception haven't thought it through completely. And don't realize the possible practical implications.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/07/2011 10:55AM by peregrine.

You are spot on. At first it seems weird that the Catholic church---which opposes IUDs for the reason you mentioned---isn't on board for this ballot issue. There is actually a Catholic majority along the coast of MS (three coastal counties), so a Catholic endorsement carries more weight there than one might think in the Deep South. My guess is that their legal analysts concluded that this measure---if challenged and taken to the SCOTUS---might inadvertently strengthen Roe v Wade if SCOTUS throws out the MS law.

This has always been my problem with abortion. I'm not full-on against it, but for me it depends on at what point you consider something human? Is it the moment it emerges from the birth canal? 6 months? 3 months? Conception? I can't bring myself to slap on an arbitrary cut-off point. The only one that can actually be considered a real cut-off is fertilization, but that seems pretty silly. Surely a single-cell isn't human! But then again, some conscious act always has to precede that feritilization, so then maybe the impetus is on those people.

Wherever you draw the line, I'm totally against killing a human for convenience's sake. For instance, I don't think many people would oppose killing infants in the hospital who aren't entering good family situations. I just have no idea where to draw that line.

So my husband and I were chatting about this with a woman from our church the other day. Of course it evolved from mindless chatter about this particular piece of legislation into a debate about abortion, birth control and the like as a whole.

This woman is vehemently opposed to abortion in all situations. Including rape. Her argument was that "pregnancies only occur in about 1% of rape cases."

To which my husband responded "that may be true now, but that low percentage number is due mostly to the fact that Plan B is given as a part of rape kits performed at ER's and OB offices. Which this law would make illegal because of the way Plan B works. It's impossible to predict how high that 1% will jump up if that law passes. Do you really want to increase the number of rape pregnancies?"

Her mouth shut pretty quickly.

Why should a rapist be allowed to pass on their genes? Isn't that a trait we as a society should be trying to get rid of? Should the victim be forced to endure 9 months of gestation of her attackers child? Each day being reminded of the horrible event?

So if the victim doesn't confess that her child is the product of rape until the child was 5 years old, would you still be in favor of killing the child to avoid passing on the genes to future generations?

Not that I'm opposed to abortion in such cases. It just seems like the age cut-off definition for humans is what is on trial here.

That's why I think people should be able to draw that line for themselves in a pretty broad definition.

For me, the way I draw the line is to not have an abortion myself. That's what "choice" is about to me. I'm not about to tell some other woman what she has to do.

I think we can all agree about issues involved in killing a baby after birth as you describe.

However, even that is not black and white. If I had a baby born, for example, without a brain stem with no chance of survival, I'm not sure the right thing to do is keep it alive. There are humane ways to keep the baby from unnecessary suffering.

Plus, consider the situation some cultures face with overpopulation. They want a male so they kill the female babies. Would it be better to use science to implant one that would not have to be terminated if it was the wrong gender?

I don't know the answer to these questions but I'm pretty sure I don't want some science illiterates and their preachers in Mississippi making rules about it.

There is a lot to think about from this topic. This is why choice for me is important. I don't think some people can get past the black and white thinking. Pro life does not allow for people to make important decisions they feel are moral for themselves.

I get what you're saying.

But I still think there's a problem, in that there are laws to protect children and minors because they have not developed enough to make their own decisions. For instance, parents don't have the right to decide if their 14-year-old daughter can engage in sexual activity with a man like Joseph Smith. That law clearly removes parental rights, but it's there to protect children, and I agree with it. Parents are also not allowed to decide if their children should be killed or not. I've seen plenty of examples of breaking that law in the news.

If, then, you allow the parents the right to decide the age cut-off when it's allowable to terminate their child's life, what's to say they can't make that age 18 years? You still have to legally draw the line somewhere, don't you? Whether that line is conception or birth, it's still going to cuff the parents hands one way or another.

Or you can be pro-life and not wonder about any of these problems. Makes sense to me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/07/2011 01:30PM by kimball.

Didn't Hitler also mandate mandatory births ?

Are they going to imprison women who miscarry ?

"Are they going to imprison women who miscarry ?"

That's a subversive argument. No they wouldn't, just like they don't imprison doctors who have patients naturally die.

And calling this a "war against women" is exactly the point being discussed, and bypasses consideration of the child's rights in abortion. What it should be called is the "war between women and unborn children."

Should the child have rights or not? Don't call the argument irrelevant by assuming the child doesn't have any.

You really think a zygote should have the same rights as an adult woman?

To me this means you value their intelligence to be equal.

One way to think of it is that a fetus is basically a parasite until after birth. It cannot live on its own. It requires the woman, not the other way around. This demonstrates they are not equal.

Not that I don't understand because I value rights of animals as well. Still, it's kind hard to hear someone think a little cluster of cells should get the same consideration as a full functioning woman. This makes it seem like women are just vessels for creating more humans.

I'll bet that in most cases once that zygote matures into a human adult it will make the decision that it wants to have stayed alive. But even if it doesn't, you'll never know until it gets there. That's why we have laws protecting minors.

But your argument might be valid if you find a neural connection, not just a skin/blood one, between the fetus and the mother. If their thoughts are separate, they are two separate people. I don't see how you can argue otherwise.

So you have no argument other than "I'll bet".

Your whole diatribe is bunk.

except that you must have stopped reading after "I bet" because I covered all my bases with the subsequent phrase "even if it doesn't"

I'll bet every sperm wants to create a person too.

Are you being sarcastic, or are you starting to understand why we must create a legal definition of when matter begins to be "human" and thus receive legal human rights?

and doing it rather badly.

Are you saying that you want better rationalization in saying that a neural connection must exist to define the fetus as a separate human from the mother? Or are you saying that you want me to give a stronger argument connecting fetus rights with minors rights? Please explain yourself.

I'm envisioning a man's wife getting in an accident and going to the ER. The man hooks up for a blood transfusion, then in the middle says "I want you to let my wife die." Then, when the doctors object, the man says "look, we're biologically connected right now, she's dependent on me, not the other way around, and she's not capable of making her own decisions (because she's unconscious). So legally you have to do what I say." Then the doctors say "but if we help her she'll make a full recovery, though she'll probably have emotional damage. Besides, I'll bet she will have wanted us to save her."

Then the man says "So you have no argument other than 'I'll bet?' Your whole diatribe is bunk."

I say preserve the right of the family and doctors to make a choice. I don't want some religious life nanny to make the rules for my deeply personal decisions. My husband knows I would want him to pull the plug in certain situations.

With choice, I would fight for your right to decide for yourself. Unfortunately the pro life folks do not extend the same courtesy. They want to decide for me.

It seems that some people who want government out of things are perfectly willing to put government into these kinds of decisions.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this flies in Mississippi. My guess is that it will pass.