Do you support Mississippi's Personhood Amendment? (Pope: condo, live, law)

[90sman]

Would..."classify every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof." and outlaw abortion.

And do you think it'll pass?

Personhood Mississippi | Home

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/a...WS01/110160343

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-09/u...dment?_s=PM:US

[joebaldknobber]

Originally Posted by 90sman

Would..."classify every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof."

How does the "functional equivalent thereof" work. Please include pictures.

[gametime]

Originally Posted by joebaldknobber

How does the "functional equivalent thereof" work. Please include pictures.

that means, If it gets up off the petrie dish and walks, it's human.

[An Einnseanair]

The amendment is way too broad. My main opposition is that it will effectively ban in vitro fertilization in Mississippi. If you say "no it won't", then you don't know how IVF works. A successful first-round IVF pregnancy usually leaves several fertilized eggs behind, languishing forgotten in some cryogenic freezer. This would be unacceptable for a human life. Would the couple be forced to continue paying to implant and keep having babies until all the eggs are gone? Or be forced to implant all the eggs at once and risk more "octo-mom" circuses?

There are many other "problems" I've seen on other web sites. Some are legitimate, most are borderline to downright ridiculous and will never occur, but they do make you think:
- Many types of birth control (IUDs, the "morning after pill", etc.) stop pregnancy by preventing the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall; these would be illegal.
- Say a pregnant woman develops a life-threatening condition (disease, car wreck, abnormal pregnancy, whatever.) before the point of external viability (say, at 4 months pregnant). If the surgeon realizes during the resulting operation that there is no way to save both and decides to abort the baby in order to save the woman's life, can he be charged with murder?
- If a pregnant woman causes a car accident through carelessness which results in the miscarriage and death of the human formerly inside her, can she be prosecuted for manslaughter?
- If a pregnant woman is in prison, can the innocent human in her womb sue the state (through a legal caretaker) for unlawful imprisonment? Yeah, this is ridiculous... but if a pregnant woman REALLY wants out of prison, don't you think she will try it?

[JacksonPanther]

Originally Posted by jwkilgore

The amendment is way too broad. My main opposition is that it will effectively ban in vitro fertilization in Mississippi. If you say "no it won't", then you don't know how IVF works. A successful first-round IVF pregnancy usually leaves several fertilized eggs behind, languishing forgotten in some cryogenic freezer. This would be unacceptable for a human life. Would the couple be forced to continue paying to implant and keep having babies until all the eggs are gone? Or be forced to implant all the eggs at once and risk more "octo-mom" circuses?

There are many other "problems" I've seen on other web sites. Some are legitimate, most are borderline to downright ridiculous and will never occur, but they do make you think:
- Many types of birth control (IUDs, the "morning after pill", etc.) stop pregnancy by preventing the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall; these would be illegal.
- Say a pregnant woman develops a life-threatening condition (disease, car wreck, abnormal pregnancy, whatever.) before the point of external viability (say, at 4 months pregnant). If the surgeon realizes during the resulting operation that there is no way to save both and decides to abort the baby in order to save the woman's life, can he be charged with murder?
- If a pregnant woman causes a car accident through carelessness which results in the miscarriage and death of the human formerly inside her, can she be prosecuted for manslaughter?
- If a pregnant woman is in prison, can the innocent human in her womb sue the state (through a legal caretaker) for unlawful imprisonment? Yeah, this is ridiculous... but if a pregnant woman REALLY wants out of prison, don't you think she will try it?

I could go through this point by point, but it's all a bunch of hooey anyway. Here's how it breaks down if 26 passes:
- Those with resources who want an abortion will go to another state to have it.
- Those without resources will stay in MS and have the baby.

Basically it's a law that targets the poor and ignorant.

[nomadslove]

I think it's wrong that a woman pregnant by rape or incest would be forced to carry and deliver. I have never had an abortion, and would do anything to keep from doing so, but I think the option should be left open for women. I do not believe that women should use it as a birth control method either. This law would intrude on women's rights severely.

[An Einnseanair]

Originally Posted by nomadslove

I think it's wrong that a woman pregnant by rape or incest would be forced to carry and deliver. I have never had an abortion, and would do anything to keep from doing so, but I think the option should be left open for women. I do not believe that women should use it as a birth control method either. This law would intrude on women's rights severely.

I disagree with this. A life is a life. You could make the same argument if a teen was talked out of her pants by a smooth-talking classmate. The act was consensual, no forcible rape or incest. Then the next week he's talking trash about her, about how easy she was, and has moved on to his next conquest. I see little difference between this emotionally induced rape and physically forced rape. And now she's pregnant. Should she be forced to carry the baby to term, and a friend of hers who was physically raped be allowed to abort?

Again, a life is a life. If it's a human, then no killing it. If it's not, then abortion should be legal. If you're finding reasons to allow abortions in "special cases", then deep down in your heart you don't really believe that the fetus is human.

One thing I DO like about this bill is that it attempts to legalized what I've always believed to be the core issue behind abortions: When does life begin? It's not about "my body, my choice", or any of the other distractions. Few people would "choose" to kill what they believe to be a human, so they simply define a fetus as not a human. So when do individual sperm and egg cells change from two separate cells into a human being?

On the far right, you have people (the Pope, for one, plus supposedly all his followers) who believe that once sex occurs that you are not allowed to interfere with natural processes. No birth control of ANY kind is allowed. The next step would be those who believe that life begins at fertilization of the egg. This is popular with many Protestants, who conveniently ignore the fact that any of their friends who have a child through IVF have left a dozen or so "human lives" frozen in a test tube somewhere. On the extreme other end of the spectrum you have people who believe that life doesn't begin until the fetus/baby draws its first breath. Enter so-called "partial birth" abortion proponents who cut off the fetus's oxygen supply and wait for it to die before exposing it to air (no breath, no human).

In my opinion, life begins somewhere between these extremes. But my personal beliefs are immaterial to the discussion about whether this law should pass.

Back on topic, I still disagree with this law on the basis that it is too broad and will affect LOTS of things that the good voters of Mississippi haven't realized yet.

[Tama]

[quote=jwkilgore;21347056] If you're finding reasons to allow abortions in "special cases", then deep down in your heart you don't really believe that the fetus is human.

.[/QUOTE

This is absolutely true. Why would one allow a "life" to be destroyed dependent on how it was conceived and why would the mother's emotion or health outweigh the "new life". It is totally ridiculous that MS has to become the poster child around the country for this idiocy.

This is a philosophoical question and, for some, a religious question. It is not a question with a universal answer nor a "truth". Many see an embryo as potential life as is the sperm and egg prior to conception. Many don't see cells and embryos as human. Do we have to hold a funeral for every miscarriage? How about manslaugther charges for the woman who rides a horse and loses a fetus?

I just wish these people would stop imposing their philosophies or religion on others. It is just too bad these latter-day inquisitioners can't stay within the boundaries of their own jurisdiction--which is their own bodies.

For those supporting this personhood embarrassment--I happen to believe cows are sacred. Should I petition, form committees, and elect ony like-minded people to push for a "vegetarian only" country? After all, my sacred cow is as important to me as yours is to you.

[nomadslove]

It's easy to make assumptions about what's right or wrong when you've never been through it yourself or know someone who has. Like I said, I would not personally have an abortion, but It's not my business who does. I just think it's funny how the people who propose such controlling, restrictive laws are the same ones who claim there should be "smaller government".

[AB1234567]

This amendment would make birth control pills illegal since they could be used as a morning after pill. If this passes, guys, be ready to use a condom all the time.

If a woman gets cancer and is or could be pregnant, she will not be able to get chemo until she has the baby, no matter how aggressive and deadly the cancer is.

If this amendment passes, the government is making women's health care decisions instead of decisions being made by doctors and the patients themselves. This amendment isn't about abortion; there is only 1 abortion clinic in the entire state of Mississippi. It takes rights away from women.