And there is a point to this? Or is this a point? Or has this become the point? Or-----------the hell with it.

Note that there's a slight difference in the constitutional rights of citizens vs persons......

I'm presuming the INS can still deport blastocysts, right? If the mother is a US citizen she gets to stay here, but since the "anchor blastocyst" isn't yet a natural born citizen it can be deported if it overstays its visa.

And what happens if the conception occurs in Mexico? Maybe that will make the heads of the teabaggers in Mississippi explode...........do we try to deport the fetus before it's born, or force the woman to give birth on the other side of the border?

of course it's a law meant to control women. The get government out of my personal life people are all for getting government into the personal lives of people they don't like. The South is so backward. I'm sure there are plenty of intelligent people in the South but they're totally drowned out by the ignorant and stupid. The whole world is watching you so if you want to be looked at as a dumb ass, then pass this law. It will be overrided by the constitution so it's a total waste of tax payer money

Wow really. These are the same people against Shria law. So what's term when is the Christians forcing their religious Laws down other peoples throats?????

I have a question for social conservatives. Why do so many social conservatives have no problem changing the definition of "person" to include a fertilized cell, but have a big problem with gays and lesbians who want to change the definition of civil marriage to include same-sex partners?

Don't try to claim the personhood amendment doesn't change the definition of person on the grounds that you always claimed that "life" begins at conception because I'm not denying that a fertilized cell is the beginning of life, but the word "person" has traditionally meant something very different than a single fertilized cell, or clump of cells. Similarly, the pro-life slogan in the above photo ("ABORTION KILLS CHILDREN") changes the definition of the word "children" which has also traditionally meant more than a single cell or clump of cells.

So the question for social conservatives here is why do you have a problem changing the definition of "marriage" but no problem changing the definition of "person" or "children"? This is not a criticism; I truly want to know why social conservatives care about changing word definitions sometimes, but don't care about changing word definitions at other times?

As someone who has lived in Mississippi by choice for the last 30+ years, received a college education here, worked in the scientific community here, married and remained childless by choice, I've got to tell you this measure makes no sense to me. I've not seen one news story about people getting together to figure out how to help these new mothers, fathers or families out with their new "persons". I've not seen any stories about any increased interest in foster care for these potential "persons" should this measure pass. Hell, isn't Mississippi already on just about every poverty/ low income, high dropout rate, low education level or infant mortality list? We can't take proper care of the people we have now. So how are Mississippians going to handle the influx of new residents should this measure pass? Has anyone in Jackson, MS thought beyond the vote on Tuesday? Or was there a smoke and mirror finish for that portion of the presentation???? I told my husband that I would consider moving to another state if it passed. I don't want to leave. I love Mississippi and her people (not the politicians). But I don't want to live in a state (police or otherwise) where I am not in control and ownership of my body. What's next? Imminent domain body claims for organ harvests? OK, I was just kidding with that one.

If their state constitution defines the word “person” to include every human being, does that mean it does NOT include corporations? They could be on to something.

Or would incorporating fall under the “functional equivalent thereof” (referring to "“from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof”).

This could be interesting.

So, if something goes wrong during the pregnancy, endangering the mother's life, could the fetus be charged with attempted murder or manslaughter? What about trespassing? Would it be considered self defense if the mother has a back-alley abortion? If the mother dies during birth, would that count as manslaughter as well?

Better to let people wonder if you're stupid, than pass a law that removes any doubt.

"“from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof”.... that functional equivalent thereof phrase.... Is that a phrase to give some of these idiot lawmakers in my home state legitimacy? You know, since climbing out from under a rock is usually reserved for lesser life forms?

We have a sign in our yard that says, "Mississippi for healthy families... Vote No on #26"

Wow. All the problems they have in Mississippi with children AFTER BIRTH (bad schools, poverty, homelessness from hurricanes, etc) and THIS is what they focus on? Ole Miss needs to go back and reprioritize...

These morons already tried to pass this twice in Colorado. They got destroyed both times by 3 to 1 margins. So now they move on down to Mississippi hoping to get the poorest, 3rd least educated, and most religious state to bite in order to gain their foothold.

Conservatives always complain about big government over reaching. I guess that only applies when it comes to corporations. But when it comes to real flesh and blood people, they see no problem in dictating what they can do with their bodies because they see it as immoral.

For the record I am morally opposed to abortion, but I see government control and intrusion into individual rights more objectionable. Why is it the the deep concern for the rights of the unborn end at birth? It seems that they want the State to control these lives until birth and then turn around and say "you're on your own". Sounds a little Socialist to me.

Tell you what, if the State can mandate pregnancies to complete term, it should be obligated to care for the children, if the mother is in no condition to do so.

Suppose we know that a child will be born into slavery or worse. Would it not make a mother guilty to bring a baby into such a world? If you can perceive such guilt you should see it in a law that would prohibit a guiltless choice.

The truth about life and the soul is revealed not just in the Bible, but in statements from God’s prophets. The prophets Edgar Cayce and Paul Solomon acquired access to our birthright in God. They didn’t just have a familiar spirit as channelers do, they went to the Highest. And whenever asked, they both consistently agree that the first breath is the time of a soul’s reentry into the third dimension. Some of their pertinent statements in chronological order are:

From Edgar Cayce reading 541-1, April 28, 1934:

“For, while the physical begins at conception, the spiritual and mental is as the first breath taken into the physical - that becomes then a living soul, with a physical organism for manifestation during the sojourn in that particular experience.”

From Edgar Cayce reading 2390-2, December 5, 1940:

“(Q) Does a soul ever enter a body before it is born?

(A) It enters either at the first breath physically drawn, or during the first twenty-four hours of cycle activity in a material plane. Not always at the first breath; sometimes there are hours, and there are changes even of personalities as to the seeking to enter.

(Q) What keeps the physical body living until the soul enters?

(A) Spirit! For, the spirit of matter - its source is life, or God, see?”

From Edgar Cayce reading 281-53, April 2, 1941:

“God breathed into man the breath of life and he became a LIVING soul. Then, with the first breath of the infant there comes into being in the flesh a soul, - that has been attracted, that has been called for, by all the
influences and activities that have gone to make up the process through the period of gestation, see? Many souls are seeking to enter, but not all are attracted. Some may be repelled. Some are attracted and then suddenly repelled, so that the life in the earth is only a few days. Oft the passing of such a soul is accredited to, and IS because of disease, neglect or the like, but STILL there was the attraction, was there not?”

From Paul Solomon Reading 0327, Virginia Beach, VA, 04/11/1974, Spiritual Education for Children:

“Connected as well with the father, and we would see this soul, this child, that that shall enter the child, as being a bond, a connecting link between the mother and the father, and it is this child, the consciousness of the child, that forms that you have called a sympathetic bond that will allow for the sympathetic illness, you see. Then be aware of His presence during all that time of the development of the fetus. Not that he would be in the fetus, for rarely would it be so until the drawing of the first breath.

But all those thoughts, those images, those attitudes will become a portion of the force field through which he will manifest, and become a portion of his personality, thoughts, and attitudes. Then be responsible for sharing all in love during that time. Know that he is built from the thoughts, from the worship, from your relationship with the Father and let that be the prayer between you, ‘That I might be that vessel, that vehicle through which a perfect expression of God might enter, and let nothing that I do harm or prevent his growth, his perfect opportunity to express Christ in this world.’ So it shall be.”

From Paul Solomon 9054, Astrology:

“When breath through the nose and the lungs is first taken, there is a change in orientation between the
elements in the body and their source in the solar system, rather than these elements relating to their source within the mother's body.

The influences upon the developing fetus up until that moment of birth, breath, those influences had been the influences of heredity, the mother's thoughts and actions, that activity of the mother, father, that which they contributed to the child, the karmic pattern. The thoughts have been impressed upon the soul occupying the body and such, but the influences are not particularly strong astrologically except through the influence of the mother.

At the moment of first breath, the patterns, trends, and the relationships of the heavenly bodies to one,
impress into the self at a final moment the thoughts, the patterns this soul will encounter in this life, this incarnation.

That moment is the important moment for the astrological time, even though this soul has often entered and
left and entered again before that moment. And be certain that after the soul entry, even after this moment of first breath, during the period of the first year in the life of a child, the soul actually spends nearly as much time
outside the body as within it.

During that period, the soul is often not occupying the body, but is working upon and around it, adapting to
it, influencing in many ways, learning to deal with the body and using the presence of the mother, its familiar sphere of influence, and involved with her to build and create about the environs so that the body can then turn itself to the building of its potential purpose in life without the introduction of fear for the loss of it that comes from insecurity. This is given then only that you might observe, and from your observations of the influences about, their value to your perspective.”

From: Paul Solomon Reading 9289 Virginia, November 7, 1988, World Prophecy Reading:

“Question 8: What are the karmic and spiritual responsibilities to be considered by the father as well as by the mother when making a decision about abortion? Also please describe the effect on the consciousness of our country and our planet on the current attitude of increased acceptance of abortion?

Answer 8: Let's attempt to approach these questions not from the current, emotional involvement in
questions of when life begins and such, except to say this. That life usually begins at first breath. The entry of the soul into the instrument occurs about that time, though in some the soul may enter a few weeks or even months earlier.

And during the period of the development of the fetus within the body of the mother, there is often some
communication and sometimes even habitation of the fetus by the developing consciousness. This does not mean a consistent living being which can be destroyed in the sense that you would murder one who lives independently, even in that extent of taking the life of a youth independent of the womb. This is to say that life during the period of the development of the fetus comes and goes, enters and leaves, but generally attaches itself more permanently to the physical body at the time of first breath.

And even during those first months of life independent of the mother's body, there is often the entering and
leaving of the consciousness or the soul, the self in the greater sense, so that this particular part of the argument might not be the appropriate basis for concern for the considering the karmic effect of abortion. Let us then say that the question is one of depriving a soul of an opportunity to enter, not depriving one who has entered of a life already formed, but of depriving one of an opportunity to enter.”

“One could consider that in the bringing of two bodies together in a union in which there is an exchange of
living tissue there is a resulting bond which can allow for the entry of a third soul. So that, of course, always in such relationship should be considered exceptionally sacred, the most sacred of all acts. At the same time
should be understood that while there is a great responsibility in such an act, allowing for the

Typical Republican move. Rome burns and they talk about abortion! Sounds like the national party!

"Personhood?" Is that a real word? What won't thethey won't come up with in the English language. There are too many pros and cons as far as pro life is concerned to make a good sound judgement. I haven't seen any yet.

Take a bow Mississippi, once again you've shown that you're the most backward state in the Union.

I think vacuum cleaners should be granted personhood. Next session we can grant the right to vote to stand mixers and parrots.

Yes Dennis, you're right.

Conservatives always complain about big government . . . but, they see no problem in dictating what . . . they see . . . as immoral.

No doubt the conservatives see morality as one place where the govt. has to play a big, big role. Being the nation's moral police must take priority over that small govt. thingy they say sometimes when they don't want to pay for something like unemployment insurance for the lazy deadbeats. As the conservatives have long insisted, it's literally a matter of life and death for the aborted clumps of cells murdered, pre-born persons.

The following GOP document is the conservative justification for big govt. spending where morality is involved was found in a trash bin outside a highly-secret GOP meeting hall.

The GOP document - marked "for conservative eyes only" reads as follows: "Who else but big government has the resources to provide the strict control and monitoring of every woman's uterus needed to insure regulatory compliance with our new God's new law, plus the additional resources for law enforcement personnel that must be in place to deal harshly - but justly and righteously, mind you - with that certain percentage of women who the unfoolable morality police anticipate will fail to obey our new God's new law?"

After a stained section of the document that is unreadable (&%$#@#$%%^*%), it continues: "Except for the most hardened cases, secret GOP studies have shown that with severe enough punishment, rehabilitation is possible for those entangled in a web of seeking, committing, or abetting abortion-crime. But that's going to cost us taxpayers a lot of money. And, of course, additional resources will be required to hire and train sufficient numbers of Dept. of Corrections personnel, and build state-of-the-art punishment facilities in every community for this critically important work mandated by the new personhood amendment God (Leviticus, verse xx someone find that that stupid verse number). Religious conservatives who understand moral depravity first-hand, point out that the 50% or so of hardened abortion-crime cases will be a silver lining in savings on unnecessary rehabilitation expenses due to their presumed certain incorrigibility, because as every GOP morality specialist knows, public stoning is very cost-efficient as it is expected that there will be adequate crowds of stone throwers from the religious right eager to carry-out God's justice, and as a bonus, the stones are reusable."

The rest of the fictitious GOP document was unreadable due to what appears to be numerous semen stains that, according to liberal infiltrators who witnessed the disgusting scene, came from the wild party thrown by fundamentalist conferees soon after the 'Prostitutes R Us' van pulled into the mega-church parking garage. Note to readers: Given the highly-sensitive, albeit utterly ridiculous, nature of this information, it MUST NOT be leaked before the election. We trust the MSNBC readers' discretion on this delicate matter.

Better we should work harder at preventing unwanted pregnancies that trying to determine exactly when a person becomes a person and exactly what rights a woman has to her own body.

Next Step... Ideas are people too.

"divides conservative ranks" ...liberal journalistic sensationalism.

It's simple: A person doesn't start at conception. If that were true, there would be too groups of people walking around that wouldn't be a person.

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 under the rule that 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. Under the rule that personhood starts at fertilization, these people are actually two people.

Basically, to say life starts at fertilization is absurd. No one should take this initiative seriously. It makes zero sense.

I believe in the the whole "comes around, goes around" theory. Eventually, one of these self-righteous people who are absolutely above abortion will have to make a decision between saving their baby's life and saving their own. And they might make saving their own life illegal. I wonder what they will do then? It's easy to stand on the sidelines, point fingers, and call people evil. It's a lot different to be faced with a decision yourself.

If you get what you want and it kills you, don't come complaining to me...

Here is how to kill this bill quickly. Every women who supports this bill should be tracked by the government. and used as examples. Let their husbands be charged with "murder" when they ejaculate each time without conceiving a child. Let them be charged with "murder"each month when they have their period. When they do become pregnant, require them to attend daily doctor's/ police appointments so that everyone can interfere with their lives. If they miscarriage, let them be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and make them serve time in jail. Who knows, maybe we can televise this and create a whole new form of reality tv.