E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSBy msnbc.com's Tom Curry
On Tuesday Mississippi voters will decide whether to approve a measure, Initiative 26, that would amend the state constitution to define the word “person” to include every human being “from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof.”
On the surface, it would seem to be a favorable advance for the cause of abortion opponents but the nature of the measure has sparked concern among some anti-abortion advocates that the passage of the measure could eventually threaten already-existing abortion restrictions.
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a Republican, told NBC’s Chuck Todd last week that he believes that life begins at conception but “unfortunately, this personhood amendment doesn’t say that. It says that life begins at fertilization or cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.” He said, “That ambiguity is striking a lot of pro-life people here as concerning.”
Nonetheless Barbour later overcame his misgivings and said he voted for the measure when he cast his absentee ballot in advance of Tuesday. He also complained Friday that a group opposing the ballot measure, “has called people's homes and deceived voters into thinking I'm opposed to Initiative 26, the Personhood Amendment. As I've previously stated, I voted for the Personhood Amendment.”
Opinion: Human rights for fertilized eggs? Initiative at odds with science
Despite his vote, Barbour was articulate in explaining why some anti-abortion advocates think the Mississippi measure is either misguided or may lead to unintended consequences.
He said, “Strategically, there’s some national organizations that think this may mess up trying to get more pro-life policies adopted nationally.”
He also said, “I am concerned about some of the ramifications on in-vitro fertilization (and) ectopic pregnancies, pregnancies outside the uterus in the Fallopian tubes. That concerns me, I have to just say it.”
Jennifer Mason, a spokeswoman for PersonhoodUSA, a Colorado group which is supporting the Mississippi measure, said its proponents “were able to answer his concerns and that’s why he voted for it.” Mason cited a study by a conservative group, the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, which determined that Initiative 26 would not outlaw in vitro fertilization.
A statewide vote has a lot of women in fear over the future of certain forms of birth control. NBC's Than Truong reports.
But, in an opinion piece in the Mississippi Business Journal, Jonathan Will, director of the Mississippi College School of Law’s Bioethics and Health Law Center, who opposes the measure, said “If two out of three pre-embryos are lost in the (in vitro fertilization) process, this would seem to be an unacceptable loss of life. If we are committed to pre-embryonic personhood, we should be committed to banning IVF and other similarly risky fertility treatments until such technologies are safe for all persons (including pre-embryos) involved.”
Prominent conservative lawyer James Bopp, who has argued several abortion and free speech cases before the Supreme Court and is the general counsel for the National Right to Life Committee, said that lower federal courts would be likely to strike down the Mississippi measure, if it were enacted, and that the Supreme Court would likely not review the lower court’s ruling.
But if the high court did agree to hear the case, Bopp said, there is a “very substantial danger” that a majority of the justices would adopt a stronger basis for finding that there is a fundamental right to abortion than the due process rationale Justice Harry Blackmun used in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
If that were to happen, Bopp said, the current state and federal restrictions on abortion, such as the Hyde amendment banning federal funding of abortions in the Medicaid program, and laws requiring parental notification before a minor get an abortion, would be swept away.
Bopp sketched out his concerns in a widely circulated memo, pointing to the argument that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made in her dissent in Carhart v Gonzales, the 2007 decision in which the justices upheld the federal law banning the procedure known as partial birth abortion.
A constitutional right to abortion, Ginsburg said, ought to “center on a woman’s autonomy to determine her life’s course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.”
Mason said Personhood USA’s lawyers think Bopp is wrong. “What we’re expecting to happen with the personhood amendment is that abortion will be made illegal in Mississippi. And that is what the pro-life movement has been working for since the passage of Roe v. Wade -- to ensure that all children in the womb have their personhood rights recognized…. This is a definite way to see some actual results.”
A ballot measure similar to that in Mississippi was rejected by Colorado voters in 2010. Proponents of personhood efforts plan to try to get the measure on the ballot in Florida, Ohio, Oregon and Indiana in future elections.
Updating with a comment from Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project:
She said the group is hopeful that "voters will reject this attempt to allow government to interfere in the most personal health care decisions of Mississippi’s women and families. However, should the amendment pass, all options are on the table -- including litigation. We will not stand by while thousands of women and families are placed at risk.”
Leave a Comment:
Seems republicans want to be pro-choice and "choose" which embryo is a person.
"Personhood"
I thought this article was going to be about corporations.
The media that defended Bill Clinton will jump on Cain like hunger dogs.
Best (or scariest) joke of the day, Camino! (I'm not sure which, though.)
I have news for the hack who wrote this typical piece of media tripe: the liberal ranks are also divided over the definition of personhood.....you see, lots of liberals are also catholics, hispanic, orthodox jews, or traditional protestants who believe that life begins at conception. The author seems to presume that all liberals are sheep, who automatically swallow the crap fed to them by the radical left leaders.
Aside from birth control methods (the pill, etc.) being made illegal and miscarriage being scrutinized by Big Brother government, an even more common problem than ectopic pregnancies is the mother being told the fetus is so deformed it won't survive very long after birth. I would never presume to force a woman to go to term in this situation, and neither should these @#$%&! pro-lifers and their "radical right-wing social engineering."
If you think the Terri Schiavo intervention was disgusting, this "personhood" nonsense is worse.
@AM
I'm confused. How can this attempt to make abortion illegal in Mississippi trump Roe vs Wade?
Isn't this a simple case of a Federal precedent trumping a state law?
Does that mean the state will be paying for funerals in the event of a miscarriage?
There's a little too much science in the definition for any Republican to believe or support (“from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof.”)
Vivian-379841
The media that defended Bill Clinton will jump on Cain like hunger dogs.
Not sure what planet you were living on, the media was all over the Clinton BS. However, there's a stark difference between sexual harassment and a consensual blow job. But more to the point, what the hell does any of this have to do with this personhood measure?
-------
spider-737231
I have news for the hack who wrote this typical piece of media tripe: the liberal ranks are also divided over the definition of personhood.....you see, lots of liberals are also catholics, hispanic, orthodox jews, or traditional protestants who believe that life begins at conception. The author seems to presume that all liberals are sheep, who automatically swallow the crap fed to them by the radical left leaders.
Perhaps the..erm.."hack" was writing from the fact that conservatives are the ones making a stink over the measure, and as it is atypical for them to be so heavily at odds over what is ordinarily seen as a pro-life move, wrote about it.
I see nothing at all to suggest that the author is making any assumptions at all about liberals. You're pulling straws. Stop pretending to be victimized, it's annoying to the rest of us.
Did you read the article? Have you followed the story through any other source? It would be superfluous to bring liberals into it, not to mention a waste of space in the article, as they're insignificant to the story.
Fertilization of an egg begins the process of a "person under construction".
Birth is the completion of the process with the emergence of an actual "person" and the start of "personhood".
You cannot have any sense of "personhood" until you actually have a real person, which does not occur until birth.
US1776 - that is way too much of a rational statement for the supporters of this draconian law. Sadly, rationality doesn't apply, they would rather join forces to become the Uterati - the police force that dictates a woman's choice.
While I personally dislike abortion, I would rather see a wanted child 'born' vs. and un-wanted child, something that escapes the anti-abortionists.
Well, well, well! A malignant tumor is a living thing, too. Shall we now form the Tumor Right to Life organization?
Well if corporations are people to— — — — —
Will a woman's uterus be charged with a crime if the fertilized egg doesn't implant and is washed from the body during the menstrual cycle?
This law is nothing more than a device to attack Roe vs Wade through a Supreme Court decision, because it will never be held up at the lower courts level.
A newborn baby is a person; a fertilized egg is not. How do we decide when the change occurs? There is no simple answer, but this law doesn't even come close.
This from the group of far right idiots that want less government intervention in our lives!
I don't mean to sound stupid but...
What is the difference between fertilization and conception?
Why are they so hell bent on enforcing their views on others to the point where they actually want jurisdiction over the womb? Why? They don't care at all about people after they are born, so what's the real story? Is it really just about controlling women? I don't see how it can be anything else.
This means SMALLER government, right? Less government telling you what to do with your own body, right?
Oh wait... NO... this is BIGGER government.
And still the question remains, who PAYS for these unwanted babies? When welfare and food stamp demand increases, because there are more unwanted babies in the entitlement line, WHO PAYS FOR THEM?
So Republicans hate entitlements... but want to increase the number of people who need entitlements? That must be more of that Republican intelligence.
Republicans complain about people "popping out babies," and then they complain about people NOT popping out babies.
Some unintended consequences of this type of action ...
The lawyers will have a field day with this. And it creates an entirely new field for grant writers, regulators, and new government spending. Lots of money to be made ...
EXACTLY...
Welcome to the land of BIGGER government, brought to you by the party that LIED about wanting smaller government.
Lawyers are going to love all the new manslaughter cases that a miscarriage creates. I only hope that THOUSANDS of Republican women are locked up in prison for manslaughter, each time they have a miscarriage. That would be true, poetic justice.
So UnitedStates1776 let's test your theory. According to your world view a fetus is not a person until actually fully delivered, correct? Its not a person 5 minutes before being delivered? 10 Minutes?
jock59801 asks the most appropriate question. "How do we decide when the change occurs?" Roe v. Wade was the greatest act of judicial cowardess of the 20th century. The ONLY question that mattered in Roe was the question of when we, as a society, believe life begins. However the Supremes decided that they didn't need to answer that question and instead decided that abortion is protected by due process and by a woman's right to privacy in making reproductive choices. That decision has sparked nearly 40 years of the greatest social rift in US history.
The decision of when we ascribe personhood to people decides whether abortion is a fundamentally free reproductive choice or an act of murder. If the embryo/fetus is a "person" than aborting it is an act of murder. If it is not a "person" than the mother is free to make whatever choice she wants. It is a tough, hard, ethically challenging question that goes to our fundamental core as human beings. What is the criteria for ascribing personhood? The Catholic Church would teach that life begins at conception because all of the genetic material necessary for human life is present. Others would argue that fetal viability is the point of personhood. Others, like US1776, think its not until the baby is completely delivered. Even if we avoid the assignment of evil intent and accept that each position is held as an honest, carefully considered ethical decision, its still tremendously hard to resolve these different positions and arrive at a consensus. It is impossible if we continue to believe that people take these positions out of spite and hate.
I fundamentally and at the core of my being, believe that life begins at the instant of conception. Proceeding from that understanding is the belief that this new life is worthy of society's protection and care. I don't hate women. I don't want children to be born into poverty and I don't want people to have to care for children they don't want. I just don't think any of those things rise to the level of warranting a death sentence for the unborn child.
I know there are many who don't agree with this position and your first instinct will be to attack me and my position or silence me with the dreaded "no value" or "inflammatory" buttons. If you must, so be it, but if we cannot at some point stop attacking those who disagree with us and engage in meaningful dialog, then 40 years hence we will still be having the same argument and nothing will have changed.
I am not a liberal, but I find it interesting that Congress makes the health care firms provide pills for men for the hardening of their private parts, but it doesn't provide for bill control.
I guess an errection is more important for male legislators than controlling the population. I guess congresswomen also believe a stiffie is more important, for I don't see any women attempting to change this situation.
Alan, NJ:
You ask an honest-to-goodness question that screams for an answer:
I may not be Anna Molly, but the question(s) you raise does not turn strictly on legal issues. Roe vs. Wade has its foundation in the right to privacy. It has absolutely nothing to do with "personhood" or any other red herring. However, the rabid right is well aware that their best chance for overturning Roe, lies with this court. Inherent in the notion of personhood beginning at conception is the attempt to make the charge of murder the controlling issue, NOT the right to privacy.
It doesn't help that we have laws on the books that on one hand allow a woman to have an abortion, based on the hazy idea that the fetus is NOT a person, and on the other hand we have laws that allow prosecution for murder when a woman has been murdered, as well as the murder of the fetus (a person?) if the fetus is no longer viable.
State law does not trump state law. If these vagina vigilantes manage to get this insane interpretation of reality to the Supreme Court, the primacy of federal law will not be an issue.
joemike
And what about the millions upon MILLIONS of eggs fertilized (conception) that do NOT implant themselves into the uterine wall, instead being passed out of the body to die upon a strip of cotton.
According to YOUR definition, that would equate to MILLIONS of lives killed, because the fertilized egg (conception) did not implant. Shall we charge these women with manslaughter? Can we start with your wife, daughter, mother, aunt?
@former-GOP
You will NEVER get a rational answer to your question...never. Because the proponents of this insanity do not have the intellectual capacity to think it through.
I'm just saying... Asked "Does that mean the state will be paying for funerals in the event of a miscarriage?
I'm asking, will the state require us to pay for a funeral in the event of a miscarriage?
A nonsensical law which can not withstand legal challenge even if it passes. A complete waste of time and money. Alan, NJ and US1776 have it straight.
JoeMike:
Life does not begin at conception. That is a scientific reality. Life precedes conception by countless millions of years.
The cells that are required to create a life form that differs from themselves - spermatazoa and ova - are in and of themselves living cells. They are already alive. The question of when life was created has no more substance than the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. No one knows when life began.
The problem with this issue is that a great number of people simply do not understand that life does not begin again and again and again. Life began long ago, perhaps even more than once. If there was more than one life form, most of them died out, putting an end to their evolution. However, at least one life form survived and gave rise to ALL the living things we see today.
That said, it is entirely possible that new and unique life forms arise even today. However, no one has found an example that would confirm this speculation.
Personhood, in this venue, is an insidious red herring. It has visceral appeal to those who are unable to grasp science. For right-wing propagandists it has the added value of serving as a bright shiny object that keeps their cannon fodder from noting that they are being forced into poverty and subservience to their rich masters.
Right winger---"stay out of my life---but not my neighbor's--or my neighbor's ovaries.
joemike- then you should stick to your beliefs - for your body. But you have no right to force others to believe as you do. If you believe you go straight to hell for aborting an unborn fetus - then don't. But your religious beliefs should not be what law is based on since the country was founded on freedom of religion - not on the Catholic church or any other church. I believe in God but I also know that is my belief and that has nothing to do with our government - or shouldn't.
The definition of is, IS?
Joemike404
That decision has sparked nearly 40 years of the greatest social rift in US history.
"Greatest social rife"......surely that doesn't include things like oh the Civil War, the only rife going on is the one in your head and the heads of the other so called RIGHT to lifers who care alot more about what a person or couple decide to do with their own bodies than they do about the social issues of living people today. It is only you and people like you who are so afraid of contrary actions and beliefs (because it causes you to question your own vision of life and death) that are making this a "social issue" the rest of us don't really care.
It seems to me that most of you RIGHT to lifers have no problem with the concept of sending an 18 boy to die or be maimed for life in a senseless war created to provide profits for War Corporations but you want to take control of the reproductive process so that women can't have options in case they make a mistake. Maybe the real reason is you just want more of the "unwanted children" so you have more fodder for War Games.
If you are going to stand against abortion then you better be standing against war and for welfare handouts, free (non-religious) education, big government and of course socialism as that is exactly what controlling ones choice to make an independent decision is, Socialism.
But as usual most of you RTL's want to have your babies and kill them too.
A Yak in Australia - well said!
It seems that what they are trying to boil it down to is an unborn persons constitutional right to life.
The very same people that claim that the illegals in this country have absolutely no constitutional rights are falling on their faces as these embryos at that point are also illegal aliens as they have not been born yet to have been asserted these constitutional rights and as these same people even go to the length of saying that the children of illegals being born in this country should also not have citizenship status and therefore constitutional rights are now claiming that children not even born yet, in this country or elsewhere, do have constitutional rights.
I guess what I'm getting at is in how can this same group of people deny constitutional rights to illegals and also be pushing for laws to deny constitutional rights to these illegals children that were born in this country but yet on the other hand be supporting constitutional rights for those that haven't even been born yet in order to gain their citizenships and the rights that go with it.
Yes, well said Yank in Australia. I'm afraid the abortion debate will never be resolved. Because both sides are right and both sides are wrong. The problem is you cannot separate the rights of the woman and the rights of an unborn child, they are forever tied together. Which creates this paradoxical question of right vs. wrong. A woman's body vs. an unborn baby, there can be no winners in this debate.
Unfortunately you have people that want to play God. They want to tell us what life is, they want to cast sin upon those who do not agree with them. No one can play God, and those who think they know better are just delusional.
What about JOBS! JOBS! JOBS!???
Get your priorities straight.
JoeMike- No F--KING Problem, DUDE!! You can do away with abortion altogether if it suits you......and every time some young, scared woman has her fetus dug out of her womb with a clothes hanger in a back alley I'll send the chopped-up remains to you so YOU can bury the thing properly........
That's what you want, right?? You want to end the right to have an abortion by medical professionals, but you and every other ignorant right-wing blowhard knows full well that abortions will still be carried out, in secret, by amateurs with household tools.....just like it was back in the good 'ol f--king days before Roe vs. Wade.
I wonder though, if your sister/cousin/niece/daughter/whomever was raped by a man and conceived a "person", would YOU still expect her to carry the baby to term? Or would YOU be the one in some dirty back alley ripping her uterus all to pieces because none of you rednecks could bear the thought of taking her to a real clinic? (We wouldn't want you to have to face reality anytime soon, of course)
I'm so sick of this whole argument. We will NEVER answer the question of abortion ethics. Period.
ABORTIONS have been done since the dawn of civilization. The only choice we have as a society is whether or not we will have it done legally in a clinic, or illegally somewhere else. Personally, if someone I loved got pregnant, and carrying the baby to term was not a valid option (for many reasons), I would choose a professional doctor every time.....
I wonder what the IRS will ay when peole start claiming deductions for expenses related to an unborn child?
Typical conservative myopia.....never considering anything beyond the immediate.
You are right-on. The movement was started here in Colorado by an 18-year-old girl who knows little about life yet apparently feels qualified to tell people how to live theirs. It came up for vote twice in Colorado and was very soundly defeated (78%-22%). The ramifications of this passing are unbelievable. A revamp of the entire state's statutes, inheritance and trust laws, you name it, will be a monstrous disaster.
Thanks Yank and Indy for the typical "I'm angry and won't even listen" responses. You've proven my point admirably.
Thats the choice Indy that the pro abortion folks always use. It really doesn't have to be a choice between abortion on demand as a method of post conception birth control and seedy back alley clothes hanger abortions. But you must present it as that in order to keep women afraid that they will lose everything if they give an inch. Pathetic. You use exactly the same tactics that you decry from the pro-life movement. Indy you know nothing about me and yet your post is full of ridiculous assumptions. You are right though, we will never solve the issue of abortion ethics so long as the likes of you are around because you have no desire to.
Let them pass this bill and then when a woman miscarries through no fault of her own, let the Resmugs try to arrest God Himself for it. If a woman who has a fertilized egg in her is injured by any "act of God," the Resmugs will have to try to arrest God and put Him in Jail for aborting that fetus. I see an epic legal battle: God, the ultimate abortionist, which right-wing pro-life freak will try to shoot God like they have done to abortion doctors???!!!
joemike404
I understand everything you said, but the bottom line point is whatever conclusion you come to according to your own lights should and must have no bearing on anyone else's conclusions and you have zero right to try to legally impose any of it on anyone else. That's freedom of choice.
Medical research keeps improving all the time. Recently they've been able to create "stem cells" from adult cells, and with a bit more improvement it should be possible to trigger those stem cells to develop into body parts or even a complete new human being. That would be cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof.
If that happens and that absurd law passes, then if any living human body tissues are removed - tonsils, gastric bypass, biopsies, etc. - that tissue would have to be put on life support, as it could be cloned into new humans. Failure to do so could be considered murder!
It could get even more bizarre - since the person that tissue was taken from would be bio-compatible with the clones, that person could be forced to give birth to all the clones, and with thousands of cells in some body parts, that could mean a lot of pregnancies.
But now for the amusing part - medical advances could result in the possibility of men being able to bear offspring, so some of those "right-to-life" men could be forced to bear thousands of their own clones if they ever had a medical proceedure...
Perhaps it would be easier to grasp the concept if you think of it in terms of chickens and eggs. Is an egg a chicken? Every time you eat scrambled eggs are you eating scrambled chickens? When you use an egg to make a cake are you baking a chicken in your cake?
Republicans and conservatives want less government for corporations and more government for people.
JoeMike.....not angry, just questioning the viablility of statement that the abortion debate is the "greatest social rife in US History". Or are you just using the example of the Republican Rep. on the floor who made some outlandish claim about abortion....then came back with (and remember this is on the floor of the House not Newsvine) 'that statment wasn't meant to be factual" in your delivery.
Let's see
The Revolutionary War, The Civil War, The Great Depression, The Slaughter of the Buffalo, The Civil Rights Movement, The Viet Nam War......and you would rate the abortion debate against any of those.
Go straight to the head of the class and take the Michelle Bachman award for the day....and you are in the running for the weekly prize.....a refresher course in US History.
There's a lot of debate online about what constitutes a "person".
This is the wrong debate.
The debate should be whether we allow our government to regulate our most personal and private matters.
I think most agree we do not want to live in a Big Brother state. Government: stay out of our frickin' business.
Culheath, I hear what you're saying but I go back to the notion that the crux of the problem is when we define life as beginning and assign personhood to a fetus. If we believe that an unborn baby is a person then do I not have the same obligation to protect that life as I would to intervene if I see a rape or murder taking place in an alley somewhere. Its not about when I decide life begins but when WE decide life begins. When society has answered that question then the debate about abortion becomes somewhat clearer.
Yank, I was referring to the abortion debate as the "greatest..." around 2 points. First, duration. This debate has been waged since Roe was decided in 1973 - 39 years ago in January with essentially no movement on the issue. In terms of duration this debate has lasted longer than all of your examples combined. The second point I know you will seriously disagree with but again from my frame of reference life begins at conception. 4000 abortions per day for 39 years is a lot of lives (to me, unnecessary blobs of tissue to you I guess).
Put families at risk??? I thought the point of abortion was to NOT have a family - it seems like abortion puts families at risk!
While I can't say with certainty I agree or not with the proposed law, I must say the author of this article did not use very good logic in supporting their opposition to the law. The fight for and against abortion has two very rational sides to it. That is why it is so controversial. From what little I know of the law, I would not support it, but only for the reason that the author makes it out to cover too many different situations with one blanket answer. No situation is the same and blanket laws always find a way to try to fit a square peg into a round hole.
I think the debate of when human life begins should be over. The big question that is cause for so much controversy is when does that life hold enough value that we should protect it by law. We can debate that question for a million years and never find a conclusion that everybody will agree upon. But determining the value of life based on the chance of successful reproduction is a terrible argument. Determining the value of life based on brain function or a heart beat or some other factor is a much better platform to work with. Using the authors argument, we could stretch some and say it isn't of value till the chance of SIDS has passed. I doubt anybody here would agree with that.
Very simply, abortion is not and should not be a political issue. If one chooses to make this choice, and since we are "united under God", then that person will face the penalty later.
I don't tell you you can't smoke, drink, do drugs, cut, tattoo or pierce yourself. Should you and your partner decide it is not right to bring a child into this world at this time, that is your choice and you will need to live with it and answer to a higher power at some point.
Nuff said.
A human life does not begin at fertilization. That is crystal clear to anyone who knows anything about biology.
There are two kinds of people walking on this Earth who were not "around" during fertilization: identical twins and people who resulted from chimeric embryos.
Identical twins come from a single fertilization event--one sperm, one egg. After the blastocyst forms and its cells start dividing, it collapses and produces two identical blastocysts, each resulting in a person. So if personhood starts at fertilization, identical twins are one person, with each individual twin a half of a person.
Blastocysts not only split into two, sometimes two merge into one. The result is a chimeric embryo with cells with different sets of chromosomes. It's rare but it does happen and there are people walking around that came about from these embryos. So here we have two fertilizations, two sperm, two eggs, but the result is one human being. If personhood starts at fertilization, these people are actually two people.
We don't call identical twins collectively one person and we don't call anyone two people in one body. Therefore setting the start of human life at fertilization is an absurd position to take.
No one is capable of saying when 'life begins'. The reason for this is that life never ends, it just recycles itself. This measure is totally, completely off base, and will be a disaster if passed. No law should be passed based on what someone says that 'God' wants.
As far as I know, we do not live in a theocracy. 'Thank God'. (pun intended)
Does anyone have a website to follow this vote?
MADNESS! Once a blastula is legally considered a "person", what is to prevent prosecution for manslaughter/murder of women who do not complete their pregnancies? An invalid or an infant could die of neglect, and the caregiver or parent would be guilty...what's the difference here if the mother fails to sustain the bundle of cells? We'll need a series of new laws to protect the rights of women carrying non-viable fetuses...maybe a panel of medical or religious experts, like a Life-Or-Death Supercomittee or an ordained Fetus Czar, to determine if that "person" can be allowed to perish naturally without invoking God's wrath or damning the mother to hell. This is the kind of misguided feelgood law that can only be passed by undereducated and religion-obsessed reactionaries during an election cycle, when hysteria and overstatement trump careful forethought and reasonable discussion. This isn't a red herring...it's a red whale! Here's a more productive idea: pass a law requiring all reproductive rights protesters to adopt a child, preferably an abused crack-baby. Put your charity where your mouth is, Mississippi! Stop hampering the elections of potentially serious candidates by tying the entire Republican party to this contentious religious litmus test.
Joemike404,
I think the refresher course in US History will do you good. The Civil Rights debate/issue has been going since well before the Civil War and continues to this day and The Viet Nam War lasted nearly 15 years cost 50,000 LIVES (and that is US Forces alone) and the cost and collateral damage is still being felt today.....need I go on.
The Abortion issue, as you have recognized, has been decided in 1973 according to the Laws and Constitution of the USA, you have a problem with that but most don't. You and yours want to inflict your beliefs on those who do not believe the same as you and science is not on your side. My position is that the more unwanted unloved children that there are the more problems we have going forward, so unless you and yours are prepared to put your hands up to care for and fund all of the unwanted children that are a result of your campaign against legal abortion then I suggest you just leave it right there.
As I noted previously you and your kind want to have your babies and kill them too.
The Catholic Church's position that contraception is sinful, is based on exactly the same argument that abortion foes use: the "bible" (no consensus on what exactly that is) says that it thwarts God's will. I want to hear the justification for prohibiting abortion while allowing contraception. The argument would be entirely religious in nature, therefore inappropriate for legislation by our SECULAR government.
Am I the only one who is amazed by the fact that some conservative legislators who supported the concept of corporations being people, also support the notion that a blastula is a "person"? What's next, dead people are "persons" too? How about Artificial Intelligences? Or avatars? Or sock puppets?
If it can be argued that a woman getting pregnant (after she CHOSE to have sex) was somehow God's will, then I can similarly argue that it was God's will that another woman terminated her pregnancy by choice. This subject isn't about the definition of life; it's about philosophy, Free Will versus Fate...again, an entirely inappropriate discussion for lawmakers either way.
Here's a thought;
Why doesn't the uterus police focus on the 100+K children in the US currently eligible for adoption instead of squabbling over cells?
Becuase it's easier to demonize a woman who makes the choice to have an abortion.
Or concentrate on giving animals 13th Amendment Rights.
I say we stone people to death for fertilizing a woman's egg, which is smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.
If the Re-pubs thought it through, you'd think that they'd figure out that most of the unwanted babies brought to term through forced legislative actions would most likely be from poorer households (meaning Democrat).
I bet this fact alone would somehow make them think twice about their pro-life stance.
What I don't get, is they believe the government is too intrusive, except for this one cause. I think Cain's idea of being pro life makes more sense. It's up to the woman and their family to choose. Not the Government. It's the one thing he got right (although he's trying to walk that one back now).
It's a shame that there are 100,000 children waiting to be adopted when there are so many parents wanting to adopt.
Thaks for shining a light on that, Fiesty!
Well, Feisty, if you didn't spend your entire life sitting in front of a computer anxiously waiting for the next piece of First Read crap to appear, you'd realize that there are innumerable religious and conservative groups out here doing just what you advocate. Go ahead, leave the Chuckie Todd Channel alone for a minute, and Google "adoption advocacy groups". It will open your tunnel vision eyes!
The weird part is that once children are born, the Republicans stop caring whatsoever for them. Live birth? Take a hike, little scum!
Kinda sad. In the eyes of conservatives you are a person if you are a fertilized embryo or corporation, but a sub human if you can't find a job.
Feisty, this is always it, isn't it? These jerk-offs are not pro-life AFTER birth. They don't care about single mothers living in poverty (children in poverty has skyrocketed and is one reason for our poor education ranking), or assistance with day care so single mothers can work for the low wages the 98% now earns, or food stamps to feed children in poverty, etc., etc. -- Heck, they don't even care if a douche bag like Rep. Joe Walsh skips on his child support.
The reason the crime rate has gone down despite population growth and increasing poverty is because women currently have the right to use birth control and if necessary the right to an abortion. The crime rate has gone down because poor women no longer are forced by law to give birth to an unwanted child.
The real answer is to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, you know like educational and birth control services provided by Planned Parenthood (which is the majority of what they do). No we can't have this either -- We must enforce Christian Sharia Law of abstinence. If they had their way, they would stone these women to death too.
Remember Terri Schiavo.
My question is, How will this affect thr Citizens United decision?
You know, defining a person in this way definately rules out a corporation, which then provides a valid argument to relitigate that case... Right?
So, does this change the definition of when a child is eligible for the various welfare programs?? Will we have natural fertilized citizens?? Will a fertilized egg have more rights than a corporation??
Sounds like self made talking points. Abandoning children to poverty after birth is not enough.
Just ask Repubs what to do with a baby that is born who does NOT have medical insurance.
What do the Repubs say? Oh ya... LET HIM DIE!
Spider - again, no one is forcing anyone to have an abortion so those of you who find it unacceptable should not have one. However, until you find a way to make the father stay with the mother during the nine months and bond with the child; then make sure that child is supported in a loving and caring home; that the child doesn't go hungry or want for clothes, education or shelter; then don't force your beliefs - which you are entitled to - on others. Again, you want less government intervention until it is control over a woman - which the far right seems to believe they are entitled to.
Feisty - your first problem was voicing a "thought" to a group so out of touch they refuse to think.
@W.Goin: North Carolina (bastion of conservatism, bible belt, etc.) forced women to be sterilized, based on being young and black. Very interesting for conservatives to be proactive so there are no abortions.
LMAO
You have a valid point! ;o)
JFK 2112.....I just hope they don't give them Second Amendment Rights or were gonna have a real problem on our hands lol.
While you remember Terry Schiavo don't forget Caylee Anthony....unwanted children.
All the above comments in regards to the RTL's concern for the unborn and thier respective lack of concern for the already born are spot on and never ceases to amaze me.
I don't understand the logic of a group of people wanting to force an unwanted child into a life that will likely be filled with pain and abandonment. Related, the study linking abortions and lower crime rates around 16 - 20 years later is pretty relevant.
Saying that poorer households are Democrat is so not true and a complete distortion of what it means to be Democrat.
I live in Arkansas. Some of the poorest, dirt rag people I know are hard core Republicans. Barely a high school diploma among them, but they believe anything they hear on Fox News.
I wonder will there ever be a time when people will look back and realize just how divisive and destructive Fox News has been ....
Uterus police? Â Would that be another Government agency?Â
Â
That would be the Republican Jobs Program.
Good Dennis.....
I almost lost a keyboard to soda over that one, Dennis.
The office is down the hall and take a hard right ...
The door has a card swipe for entry. All majors accepted ...
Good one Dennis.
Thanks for reminding me - to buy keyboard condom!
Feisty,
Haven't forgotten about your request from September. I've been on the road for the last 8 weeks or so. I believe it was something about plagiarism? Now do you want me to post the link or post what your friend wrote and what I have to include the website or we can just let it go. Either way is good with me.
I'll check back later, need to pick up the little one from school.
Good luck on your way, Paul.
What does that mean wcrititquing? You mean the War?
I take it you want to drop it? Good choice!
No! Those Arakees are evil Moose Slims (TERRORISTS) who want to impose SHIARRHEA LAW FROM LYBIA with activist judges. MOSLIMS ARE PRO-DEATH. We should bomb Iran and stop them before they get through the Mexican border and bring their babies in berkas!!!!! DO YOU REALLY WANT TO SEE BABIES IN BURKAS? THEY HIDE BOMBS AND CURRANS AND DIAPERS IN THEM!!!!!!!!!!
</sarcasm>
If the Re-pubs thought it through, you'd think that they'd figure out that most of the unwanted babies brought to term through forced legislative actions would most likely be from poorer households (meaning Democrat).
I bet this fact alone would somehow make them think twice about their pro-life stance.
What I don't get, is they believe the government is too intrusive, except for this one cause. I think Cain's idea of being pro life makes more sence. It's up to the woman and their family to choose. Not the Government. It's the one thing he got right (although he's trying to walk that one back now).
Tom, only a left loon would say something so vile. This has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans it has to do with Life. Question, do any of you have family members who are Republicans. Do you hate them also?
Actually I was a Reagan democrat. The GOP went to far to the crazy side. They're the vile ones of which you speak. Voter suppression by pushing through laws to stop non-existent voter fraud is proof that if they thought it through, they'd think twice on this issue too.
As Michael Moore has mentioned, if you're going to define a 1-minute old microscopic pinprick as a "human life," you have to call sperm a "human life" too. Neither can live outside the body, and sperm has far more movement and interesting biochemistry going on than a few-celled fetus.
If aborting a pinprick-sized fetus will be a punishable offence, you'll also have to punish male masturbation. Each one of those sperms was a "potential life" after all! What, guys? Think that's going overboard? No more so than punishing abortion. If the fetus can't live on its own (or very nearly so), it should not be a punishable offense to abort it at a doctor's office, any more than it should be a punishable offence for men to waste the "potential life" of their sperm.
Tom Tamarac Fl
JFK 2112
That isn't vile. In fact it is the CURRENT GOP strategy. Just check out all the republican governors and state house that are ensuring that millions of people (mostly democrats) are marginalized at the polls by changing voter requirements to eliminate nonexistent voter fraud.
They will Do ANYTHING to ensure they keep POWER. A fetus means only a hot button for their base to keep them drooling in line with their bid to retain power. Once they're born that fetus is on it's own. They couldn't care less about it.
As to whether I hate people because of their political affiliation, I don't.
As far as Republicans go I follow the old adage; Hate the sin, Love the sinner ;)
Bet if Herman Cain got one of his SEXUAL ABUSE VICTIMS pregnant, he'd have them ABORT his INDISCRETION in a HEARTBEAT...er I mean before a heartbeat!!!
If this passes, will the 'person' have to have some sort of certificate of birth (existence?) and death? Will a funeral be required so as to insure proper 'disposal' of the 'remains'?
Does this mean MORE government intrusion into lives?
Are Republicans f___ing stupid, or is that a question only God can answer?
So many questions....
If they're conceived in the United States, does that make them US citizens? The new anchor baby.
Will they also need Social Security numbers?
D-B-O; don't forget the autopsies that will be needed to diagnose cause of death. And oh my, the prosecution wrongful death lawsuits and murder cases which will increase the cost and size of goverment portion of the judicial system (isn't government reduction suppose to be the conservative agenda?).
If this passes, buy stock in the newspaper business. Obituaries are going to be the single biggest source of funding for that business.
D-B-O, if you are fertilized in Kenya, and "born" in Hawaii, will you have dual citizenship?
And if any visiting foreign couples have sex in the US and happen to conceive, is that baby then automatically a US citizen? Wow, those rich Chinese couples can now get anchor babies without having to go through a live birth here in the US. All they need is a weekend in Mississippi.
Try the other way around, fertilized in Memphis, and born in Kenya.
Or what is the immigration status of a fetus with US parents? the constitution says anyone born here is a US citizen, but if life begins at conception, I wonder what is the status between conception and birth? Do they get an automatic visa (a lot of paperwork), are they illegal immigrants?
I wonder what this will mean for Life Insurance. Will pre-born children be covered now?
So how is this going to work, is every doctor going to have to report every woman that comes in for a pregnancy test or check up so the state can monitor her to make sure she still has that "person" in her uterus and if she miscarries will the ME have to make sure she did not "kill" this person? Can we take a tax deduction from the moment of conception as well as get a SS number for this "person" so the state can start tracking this "person" and how many police are we going to need in this special "Uterus Squad"? Of course we can start stripping the shelves of any kind of birth control except condoms and we all know how good men are at using them...........we could just eject them from the union for being too stupid for words.
... and what will "birthday suit" (as in "come in yours") now mean? Maybe a big egg shell, huh? (guess it'll be changed to "fertilization day suit"). And the new definition of when life begins means that everyone will reach retirement 9 months sooner, and be eligible for Social Security 9 months sooner - and Medicare, too. Not to mention driving 9 months sooner.
But, perhaps worst of all for the Republicans, young people will be able to start voting 9 months sooner.
Happy Fertilization Day to you. Happy Fertilization Day to you. Happy Fertiliza-a-a-ation Day Dear Eggo, Happy Fertilization Day to You.
THANK YOU for bringing up the issue of taxation! If it's a person from fertilization, then of course that means a tax deduction!! That should get lawmakers nervous! I wonder if anyone's ever tried to claim a fetus!?
LMAO! GreenTimer, I could not have said it better. Thanks for that.
How about a constitutional amendment to allow the unborn person to run for public office?
So I'm wondering how long it will take for people to start discussing the obvious implications of this.. shall we say, extreme, legal concept.
For example, are you ready to start prosecuting women for behavior which could possibly have triggered even an extremely early miscarriage? I mean that would become some form of involuntary manslaughter now wouldn't it? I'm not even going to continue walking down that path and pulling out more situations which would become ridiculous crimes.
Come on people, seriously? I've always said these pro-life people are really just pro-choice--as long as it's their choice everyone has to live by.
I took a genetics course in grad school and learned that something like 2/3 of all fetuses are reabsorbed before the woman even knows she's pregnant. It's the body's way of stopping the pregnancy if things are going abnormally, or if there are too many stress hormones or whatever. So will these reabsorptions now be punishable by jail time?
Really, all of these initiatives ought to be punishable by jail time. I mean seriously, they rant about redefining marriage because it might let someone they think is some kind of deviant have the privileges they have, despite zero real-world effects on their own lives or marriages, but casually throw out an amendment (the implications of which they can't even guess at) to redefine what it is to be a human, so they can enforce their views on everyone.
Hypocrite much?
Good question on absorptions - but I do smell a ridiculous new conservative movement in the works; the Anti-Reabsorptionists.
RedDevPS- I laughed so hard at your statement!
Why is it that so many of these proposed regulations are initiated by MEN?? Do they just not get it? It's our bodies!
The possibility that a woman could be prosecuted if her unborn embryo dies is insane enough. But let's take it one insane step further: if the embryo dies because of defective genes, will genetic testing be required so the law knows which parent to prosecute?! This is nuts! But the really scary thing is... the law may actually pass!!
Maggie. Unfortunatley, there are women in the Republican Party who have been brainwashed into thinking they're second class citizens and as such, they don't think they have a say in their reproductive rights.
As for what you say, you're right. Its very scary what may happen if the Republicans of today have their way. Lincoln is spinning in his grave. Heck - even Nixon is.
Maggie...my question is...why aren't women out in the streets protesting this? They think it's OK for imbecilic, fat, old white guys to tell them what they can and can't do with their bodies?
Second Class Citizens enjoy the company. The brainwashed women who support being 2nd class, also think that other women should be 2nd class too.
It's the crabs in a bucket theory. If one of the crabs attempts to crawl out of the bucket, the other crabs reach up and pull them back in.
The human infestation has reached 7 billion. A little population control is necessary.
Also, the definition of "person" needs clarified - it needs to include "[...] and ends the moment the individual joins a terrorist organization, tea party, or GOP.".
Your partisan politics belongs nowhere near this argument. Claiming one is a "non-person" simply for political affiliation with a group you disagree with -- where have I heard this sort of thing before... right, used during "purge" tactics under both Hitler and Stalin.
How about leaving your politics at the door and focusing on the issue -- there is currently a push to even further limit reproductive rights. Why not champion liberty instead of resorting to baseless political attacks?
What are you talking about? - This issue could be more political. This all about sexual politics and a woman's right to control her own sexuality and physicality. Does a woman own her body or not?
What the people of Missouri "believe" about personhood has zero basis in scientific or provable reality and therefore should have an equivalent legal standing, ie, zero.
This is a monstrous fascism couched in ignorance and being foisted on us by people who cannot and will not recognize that their vote is unconstitutional to begin with.
Culheath,
Well said!
From now on, when I bring up a political issue, I'll thank you to not state your political views.
@culheath: The statement was regarding nonsense vitriolic attacks on political affiliations not even remotely related to the argument at hand. Not keeping politics entirely out of the issue, but reserving the forum for comments with any value.
The comment made by Indigo-Rage was akin to the following. (Re: an article about gun violence) "Kill all democrats before they take your guns." See the ridiculous, worthlessness of that statement? It has no relevance to the actual issue, but instead is inflammatory rhetoric we most commonly see coming from both sides when they have no ability to debate an issue in a civil manner.
@culheath: This admendent is not up for vote in Missouri but in MISSISSIPPI!
I read the article and I wonder if the law would allow prosecution of doctors for murder if they know a woman is going to die from an ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage and did nothing to save her life because of the embryo which he cannot destroy. First line of the Hypocratic oath is "First, do no harm". So now, we have the question: Do no harm to whom? A real catch 22 for the medical profession.
According to the oldest version of the Hippocratic oath, the life of the fetus is irrelevant. Only the health of the mother should be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to administer a abortion.
To carry this even further, will you be able to take a dependent state/fed income tax deduction ?
posted twice--sorry
To give personhood to a group of cells is to de-prioritize the personhood of the woman carrying them. This whole movement is an attack on the rights of women.
Questions about the legal ramifications of stating that a fertilized egg is entitled to the legal equality of a human being, as it's mother:
1.) If legally a fertilized egg has the same rights as a human being, wouldn't that mean miscarriage can be counted as involuntary manslaughter as technically someone has died, and some miscarriages can be caused by accidents the mother was involved in (such as a fall) and therefore is her fault?
2.) If a miscarriage has occurred the government would have the right to open up a investigation into the cause of said miscarriage- WITHOUT knowing what caused the miscarriage, there is the potential of foul play- and the only way to determine that the embryo/ fetus that has the same rights as adults was NOT deliberately/ involuntarily killed is to have the police determine the cause of the miscarriage. That fetus is now a baby- you wouldn’t let a neighbor with a sudden death of their infant just bury it and say it was SIDS- it could have been something else.
3.) If a fetus is officially a child before it is born and abused children/ children at risk of neglect and abuse can be legally taken away by the government- why could the government NOT remove or control women who are pregnant if they feel the fetus is at risk? It has the same rights as children now. What will be established as "at risk" to a fetus? Things as obvious as drug/ alcohol abuse, and making poor choices in diet, but what about traveling abroad or using the example of a pregnant woman who gave birth after running a marathon? How will you control the pregnant women and at what point will the right to privacy and liberty of the mother by inhibited by the government?
4.) If a fetus is equal to a human being- what if during prenatal care or child birth something happens to the fetus and it dies. In our sue-happy country- what will happen to hospitals and doctors who could find themselves liable to the damages caused to a fetus when it now equals a human being before birth? Will costs to lawsuit insurance go up, will the cost of prenatal care go up, will hospitals be reluctant to help with childbirth if it's considered a huge liability?
5.) Will all women of childbearing age have to take pregnancy tests before being prescribed medications because they may harm the fetus? If insurance has to cover it rates will go up for everyone, what if the woman is poor and take tests for medications all the time? Will the tax-payer cover the tests? What if the test is wrong and a miscarriage occurs? Can the woman sue the clinic or the government punish the miscarrier?
6.) Hypothetical situation: A rape victim is being forced to have her rapists baby. This horrible situation snowballs and she tries to kill herself. If a pregnant woman attempts suicide should she be punished? What if she harms or kills the fetus in the process? What if she didn’t know she was pregnant during the suicide attempt?
7.) During pre-natal care it is discovered that the fetus has a disease/ illness requiring extensive medical care for a short-term life or for the rest of it’s life. Parents previously could have the option to terminate the pregnancy. If they are forced to deliver that child how will the family cope with rising medical costs and if they can’t- will they surrender that child to the state and have those short/ long term medical costs passed on to the tax-payer?
8.) During the pregnancy or childbirth the mother’s life is in danger. Because the fetus is now equal to the mother, the family can no longer decide who should be saved. The doctors with the permission of the government will be the judge of who is worth saving if only one can live.
9.) A law is only as good as it is enforced. A woman could get away with a abortion even if it's illegal by not reporting or telling anyone she is pregnant. Will you want women to register that they are pregnant? Will you change health privacy laws to allow physicians working with a pregnant woman to report that the pregnancy is terminated or could be? Since a fetus is a human being will they be required to get prenatal care? Who will pay if the pregnant can't? Should citizens be good samaritans and report that someone they knew or saw appeared pregnant and they feel the fetus's life is in danger and the police should intervene?
10.) Despite the “assurances” of the personhood initiative that the birth control pill will NOT be outlawed- this law will open up that possibility because the birth control pill can prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall and therefor will kill them. LOL you honestly think they’ll stand for that and let a few hundred or thousand precious babies be killed in such a malicious manner?
11.) FINALLY are you guys happy with the additional tax money it will take to enforce such a law? You could always cut back on WIC, unemployment, welfare and food stamps- but you still have more costs with investigation, prosecution and jail time for women who purposefully/ inadvertently harm a fetus, controlling pregnant women to protect a fetus, and in most cases the tax payers picking up the tab for prenatal care as a fetus is now a child and most states have social welfare programs for children.
Would there be some good out of this? Well less kids will die, granted most of them are still unwanted and they'd prolly end up in our wonderful foster care/ adoption system. And we'd need more lawyers and police to make the enforcement work- but I like them. :)
Will rapists be let out of prison early to take care of their offspring?
Don't hold your breath for an answer, bru. These people have never listened to a dissenting view in their lives, much less asked these very important questions themselves.
Well technically they are already let out early due to overcrowding. Methinks there would be questionable parenting quality with a rapist and it's more likely they'll owe the mom/ state child payments-if they can catch him and prove he's the father.
Here's a reply from Larry a few pages back:
Larry Robinson-1323081
inadaze
1 a fall is an accident by definition
2 Doctors almost always investigate the cause of a miscarriage. In part to determine if there is a similar risk in a subsequent pregnancy
3 this is already part of state law in many states
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/03/6/gr030603.html
4 doctors and hospitals should be liable for causing the death of a unborn child
5 it makes common sense to test- or don't you think an expectant mother would like to know if a medication would jeopardize her pregnancy
6 got's lot's of red herrings- if you attempt to commit suicide and while unsuccessful, your effort causes the death of another human being you would be held liable under our current laws in all 50 states
7 so you think that you should make the same kind of decision if your existing 1 year old contracts a debilitating disease? I see no difference
8 beyond stupidity- no doctor who actually adheres to their hipocratic vows would choose one over another.
9 some people get away with murder every year. God will take care of that judgment
10 preventing conception is NOT the same as protecting a human life. Only when a zygote is formed does human life exist
The zygote "...is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life:
metabolism,
growth,
reaction to stimuli, and
reproduction."
11 the true solution to this problem is for people to value all the unborn as much as the ones they decide to “keep”.
All of your questions really serve to sidestep the real issues on how we value innocent human life.
Your questions show you devalue (as most liberals do) human life unless you can put some kind of monetary exchange in the question.
As a father, grandfather, and a pastor I choose to value all innocent human life as requiring each of us to protect, not cast away as something that interferes with lifestyle choices.
And here are my responses back at him:
Inadaze
Back at Larry- with responses to some of your responses to my questions:
1.) It's now an accident that killed a person. In most states if you accidentally kill someone who can be held criminally liable depending on the situation, or be charged with gross criminal negligence among other things, and once again- you would have to PROVE it wasn't an accident- and for that doctors will not do that- it will be the police who do.
2.) But now it won't be doctors who do the investigating- it will include the police because a death of a human being has occurred- and with so many, MANY reasons why a miscarriage happens you open up the possibility of the police deciding that an accident was really a homicide. No=one in the United states has ever been innocent of crime they didn't commit and got punished for?
3.) Yes I was already aware of that. But now things will change- because it's no longer a fetus but a human being. You're telling me that there won't be an expansion of what is a threat is a unborn fetus? What if a pregnant woman goes on a plane late in pregnancy- that's a risk to the fetus- should she be forced to be house-bound? In some drug addictions going cold turkey could harm or kill the mother depending on the drug dependency- but the drugs to help control withdrawl can still harm a fetus. How are you going to stop smokers and drinkers from doing that during pregnancy? Locking them up?
4.) If Doctors and Hospitals are liable for the death of a person will less actually engage in deliveries or prenatal care? You see in WA state it is lawful in some terminally ill people go get a medical suicide assistance, but in the ENTIRE STATE only 1 doctor will due it, all because of liability issues. And seeing how conservatives are complaining about paying more for their insurance costs for someone else or tax dollars for Medicade- if these costs go up it is a completely relevant question to ask about rising costs due to lawsuits.
5.) My question was about women in GENERAL. Not all women are trying to get pregnant or want to be pregnant when they are. If a fetus is a human and more liabilities emerge- then women of child bearing age would AUTOMATICALLY have to get pregnancy tests for medications to avoid liability for the clinics and physicians. Keep in mind tests are not always accurate, but they could be mandatory.
6.) Glad to hear you'll further punish someone for the misery they tried escaping! Just imagine how many more "temporary insanity" pleas we'll be getting in court. :)
7.) There is a difference in the LAW. Under our current law you can get a non-late term abortion if you knew your baby would suffer it's whole life- with this passing now you cannot. I am talking about knowing of a pre-existing condition BEFORE birth- not after.
8.) Yes they would- the Hippocratic Oath is protect and serve a person. Previously a fetus was not always counted as a person, therefore it was justifiable for a family to decide if it's better to try and save the mother. Now BY LAW they have to take both into account equally- meaning the decision is taken away from the mother and the family.
9.) If people get away with murder and abortion is legal in the law then why are trying to change things? Are you saying we shouldn't use Law Enforcement to PREVENT murders? At what point do we infringe on personal liberties to keep ourselves safe? When will it end if this law begins?
10.) Once again, birth-control is NOT 100% effective. You can still have a fertilized egg form- and the pill can either prevent that egg (which is now a person) from attaching to the uterine wall- and therefore someone dies. If the egg attaches to the uterine wall but the woman does not know she is pregnant she could still miscarry due to the hormones. There is still the possibility of you folks opening the door to banning because of these reasons!
11.) I'm glad to hear that! Therefore all of you pro-birthers should have your churches taxed to pay for the unwanted children and their needs seeing that it's more likely they will be given up to state care or being raised by a mother unable to do it on her own. You should going to protests to improve education for children, health care for children, opportunities for children and take it upon yourselves to see all of those kids get adopted into loving homes instead of rotting away in foster care.
That's right Larry- liberals only care about the monetary value of people. Why is it conservatives spout "life at any costs" for a fetus but decry social programs as un-American? Is it the liberals who are constantly complaining about insurance costs going up or a public funded option for people who are alive right now? Are they saying that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme? Was it the conservatives who decried the war and the loss of life on both sides?
That's right, it's all about money. In reality, it's all about YOU and your religion interfering on the lifestyles who don't think like you.
TWO MORE QUESTIONS!!
A woman was using contraceptives but accidentally gets pregnant. In her line of work she cannot be pregnant and do her job- what then? She would have to take a leave of absence (if they allow it) and will probably not get paid leave. If she is gone for 9-6 months there is a good chance she can lose her job entirely, because she can’t get a abortion. Are you going to change employment laws to help her? And if you do what will you do when employers start trying to NOT hire women for this reason?
If a fertilized egg is a person- is it automatically a citizen? The constitution states that citizenship is automatic at birth on American soil- but if being a person begins while still in the womb the argument can be made that citizenship should also start in the womb. Thoughts?
Another question! Quite a lot of sharp people on this forum asking good questions!
And what changes for the facilities that own frozen embryos- both for in vitro fertilization and scientific research? Technically you now have little frozen people laying around. If they have a right to life and destroying them is destroying a human being, now what? Are we going to pay women in third world countries to grow them in their bellies and deliver them? What then? Won't they become wards of the state?
Since the vast majority of fertilized eggs do not attach to the uterine wall and thus die, this will make every fertile woman in Mississippi a murderer. Any woman who has a miscarriage will be investigated by the police and potentially sent to prision. Is this what the people of Mississippi want?
I have not read the personhood measure, so I have a question. Does defining persons as human beings mean that corporations would not be persons in Mississippi if this passes? Is that the real source of opposition by a faction of conservatives? That latter faction may be anti-choice, pro-controling women's lives, but wants to insure the political power of corporations in Mississippi even more. Apparently, they are willing to let reproductive totalitarianism go for now, to make sure corporations can continue to make unlimited and unreported political contributions.
In Mississippi, corporations will be recognized as living entities as soon as its incorporation papers are filed with the Secretary of State. No longer any need to wait for the application for incorporation to actually be processed, reviewed and approved.
Plain and Simple "birth" is the birth of life......so that's it plain and simple this is just people wanting to control everyone around them to act and be like them because if they are not they are bad people and are wrong. The one major wrong here is that this is just an attempt to control women and control the non-Conservative from ruling the USA like they should be doing. Instead the Conservatives want to say less government and they should stay out of your business unless it comes down to abortion then the government can control your body. THAT IS TOTAL BS! Save the USA and vote against a conservitive because we want to move forward not backwards.
The notion behind this law (which I do not agree with) is actually more appropriate than the "life begins at conception" idea. There are all kinds of "life", so the notion that "life begins at conception" is silly. Sperm and eggs are living cells. Human cells can be cultured in a lab dish indefinitely, each "potentially" capable (with lots of tweaking and technical manipulation) of becoming an actual human being. The difference here is the addition of "fertilization" and using the term "person" instead of "life". Very clever. It will backfire, if voted into law, as so many of the astute posters have observed. But it's a better tactic, politically.
The Earth is overpopulated - Society and the Environment can't take the strain. The World needs free and legal abortions. Politicians and religious nuts stay out of a woman's business.
A woman is unique in that she can carry another human being. Therefore, it is not only her business but hers and her unborn child's business.
tdm - "it is not only her business but hers and her unborn child's business." Ok....so, it is NOT the government's business what a woman decides...it is between her and her unborn child. If the governement decides it IS their business, I propose that every woman who chooses not to carry a child, should be allowed to have that microscopic fertilized egg removed from her body just like any other parasite or tumor. Then, the government can pay to either implant that parasite into a willing woman, or figure out how to grow it in a lab.
There is a profile in courage, Gov. Barbour---I don't think this provision is the right way to go, there are many unanswered questions, it may have unintended consequences but what the heck, I voted for it.
That's great! Democracy at work- so you are fine with people voting for Obamacare when they *really* didn't know how it would work or go? If there would be financial or Constitutional issues? Glad to see someone went with their gut and doesn't run around criticizing others doing the same!
Weird heaven, little winged blastulas floating around...all those microscopic persons that never implanted. What would constitute a soul in a little ball of cells that never had anything even remotely approximating a human experience?
And what happens when those cells split into identical twins? Did one soul just split in two? Or how about chimeras, wherein two separate zygotes meld together? Does that individual now have two souls?
No, Toasty ... in the case of chimeras the surviving twin would be guilty of murder since they killed and absorbed the other embryo/zygote.
Not quite. There are chimeras that literally are half and half. It's not like one twin consumes the other, they literally become two sets of genes in one individual. It is illustrated best in chimeras with two genetic codes with different skin tones, as they look like holstein cows.
Cat and Toasty - don't go there. I see another Republican law in the making....
The personhood law proposed in Mississippi is all about denying 50% of the adult population of the State the right to privacy where their own bodies are concerned.
Brought to its logical conclusion, this law will:
1) cause the deaths of thousands of women through back-street abortions
2) cause women to be forcibly tested for pregnency by the state
3) force women to give up their most basic civil rights when they becomne pregnant
4) force hundreds of rape and incest victims to give birth to the progeny resulting from these violent and perverse crimes
5) Place the rights of unborn children above those of their adult, voting, working parents.
6) criminalize millions of citizens.
This law is evil.
chaos99972 - but don't you get it? Republicans don't think of women as important anyway. In their eyes, we're 2nd class citizens with no rights. It's totally a control issue.
Yes, making abortion illegal, been there, done that, Marcus Welby MD showed us what happens to reluctant mothers who abort in the back alley.
How ironic - Republicans want less government and yet they want to control a woman's right to her own body. Hypocritical liars.
Ahhh, hypocrisy--the hallmark characteristic of humanity. No political party has a monopoly on that one. And lying, well, that would be exhibit 1A, wouldn't it? I hear Guantanamo is still taking reservations...
Repubs don't understand and accept the science of global warming but now believe themselves the experts of the science of women's bodies and reproduction.
Amazing how Repubs are so concerned with reproduction yet immediately after the birth - it's pull up your boot straps, your on your own and not our responsibility. And as John said, they habitually speak of 'smaller government', yet this would increase it as they'd then having to monitor and peek up 'lady parts'.
This issue isn't one about "right to life" so much as it is about "right to choose". If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.
Nothing says "small government" like throwing every woman who has a miscarriage into an interrogation room to be grilled by a police officer. Nothing says "limited government" like putting an armed officer in every hospital maternity ward to force women at gunpoint to go to term with their pregnancy. Nothing says "libertarian" like forcing women to report to the government their sexual activities so as to keep track of when they get pregnant, lest they be arrested on the suspicion of being a serial killer.
*Waves a tiny American flag* ^.^