Personhood amendment
- Thread starter tartarman
- Start date
I'm voting against it because of the poor wording in the bill which could lead to the following:
- causing women to potentially be investigated after a miscarriage
- the potential to outlaw some forms of birth control like the morning after pill
- possibly preventing couples from receiving vitro fertilization or other forms of fertility treatment
- this bill puts the fetus' life above the mothers' life. If there are medical issues which could put the mother's life at major risk, then tough luck.
To me, this amendment has nothing to do with me being for or against abortion. It has everything to do with me not being able to support it in it's current form. However, I don't think it's going to matter because of Roe vs Wade.
This post was edited on 10/12 10:28 PM by ctmoore
- causing women to potentially be investigated after a miscarriage
- the potential to outlaw some forms of birth control like the morning after pill
- possibly preventing couples from receiving vitro fertilization or other forms of fertility treatment
- this bill puts the fetus' life above the mothers' life. If there are medical issues which could put the mother's life at major risk, then tough luck.
To me, this amendment has nothing to do with me being for or against abortion. It has everything to do with me not being able to support it in it's current form. However, I don't think it's going to matter because of Roe vs Wade.
This post was edited on 10/12 10:28 PM by ctmoore
ct, you've clearly given it a lot of thought and I applaud you for that.
The only thing I'll add is that there a lot of liberal special interest groups out there hoping that anti-abortion people will vote against the measure based on those very concerns you express.
I'm not suggesting that you're just being taken by their talking points, because for all I know, you've never even seen them. But I can tell you that I know that there are some of these social justice groups who are putting out a lot of misinformation about this issue in the hopes they can sway the outcome.
But regardless of how you vote, all any of us can ask is that people can become informed about the issue before they vote on it, and it certainly appears you have done that.
The only thing I'll add is that there a lot of liberal special interest groups out there hoping that anti-abortion people will vote against the measure based on those very concerns you express.
I'm not suggesting that you're just being taken by their talking points, because for all I know, you've never even seen them. But I can tell you that I know that there are some of these social justice groups who are putting out a lot of misinformation about this issue in the hopes they can sway the outcome.
But regardless of how you vote, all any of us can ask is that people can become informed about the issue before they vote on it, and it certainly appears you have done that.
I haven't read the proposal and I am pro-life. But if it contains anything in it about limiting forms of birth control or fertility treatment or access to abortions in limited emergency situations, then I will not vote for it. Let's not overstep our bounds here.
People can say a woman should have the choice of what to do with her body, and I my response is that she has made that choice by deciding to have sex, whether it be protected or unprotected. Only in the case of rape would this not apply.
However, I am not for limiting birth control or telling couples who cannot conceive naturally, that they shouldn't have access to fertility treatment.
People can say a woman should have the choice of what to do with her body, and I my response is that she has made that choice by deciding to have sex, whether it be protected or unprotected. Only in the case of rape would this not apply.
However, I am not for limiting birth control or telling couples who cannot conceive naturally, that they shouldn't have access to fertility treatment.
I've tried to be as informed as possible Catfish, and I've tried to steer clear of anyone that is pushing this from either side in order to see it for what it really is. However, I'm not a lawyer and there's a lot of "lawyer speak" in the amendment and that also makes me nervous about it. I could be totally wrong on this, and if I am, I hope somebody can prove me wrong.
As a mod, I see no reason to pull the plug on this yet. I'm curious as to what others say about the topic. Plus controversial topics make for good traffic flow to the site. So in my view, it's good for BGN, that is, until the first numb-skull who acts like a 12 year old and calls somebody a name because of their beliefs.
The amendment itself is very simple and seeks only to define the word "person" in our constitution as the moment of fertilization. At that point, if you're a person, then if you're killed intentionally, it's murder. No exception for rape, etc. So if you're one of those guys who belive there should be exceptions for.... stop right there this bill is not for you.
You should review it and make a decision for yourself, not what others tell you (church or otherwise). Only YOU are responsible for YOUR vote -- so make it count.
My opinion: I'm Pro-Life all the way, but it is NOT for me to make a decision related to someone else's body -- that is THEIR personal decision. And law or no law, they will do what they decide, potentially at great risk. It is not my place to tell them what to do with their body.
This post was edited on 10/12 11:13 PM by Traveling Eagle
My opinion: I'm Pro-Life all the way, but it is NOT for me to make a decision related to someone else's body -- that is THEIR personal decision. And law or no law, they will do what they decide, potentially at great risk. It is not my place to tell them what to do with their body.
This post was edited on 10/12 11:13 PM by Traveling Eagle
My point is women who are raped didn't choose to have sex which led to the conception of a child. Now, I definitely believe other options should be sought, but those would be the only ones who haven't intentionally put themselves in a position to become pregnant. I also don't think a woman should be forced to give up their own life for that of their unborn child, in that case it should be their choice. But again, these are just my opinions and no doubt there are circumstances that I haven't considered that could sway my opinion, in these limited circumstances, either way.
This post was edited on 10/12 11:17 PM by Eagle has landed
I don't think this thread needs to be locked, but it probably should be moved to the Hub at some point.
I know this is very touchy subject, but I wanted to mention something that caught my attention.
I listened to a very good presentation a few years back about the incidence of conception during rape. There was an extensive study done on the issue, and there were several conclusions made.
I can't quote the study exactly, but one of the conclusions was that the incidence of conception in the case of rape is very minuscule to almost nonexistent. There were a number of medical reasons given for this, including the factors stress plays on a woman's reproductive system and the ability to conceive.
Now, please don't think I'm saying that there's never been a case of pregnancy from rape. I know that's not true, and I know of specific cases where it's not true.
But I do think it's a valid point to remember that we don't see tons of cases where legal abortions have to be performed in cases of rape or incest. Also, if the rape is reported and the woman is taken to the hospital, there are a number of things that can be done to ensure conception does not occur.
So I think it begs the question, even if we are anti-abortion, should we vote to protect abortion rights based on a very minuscule number of cases of rape or incest, when the vast majority of abortions are elective procedures that come as a result of unplanned pregnacies that were obtained "normally"?
It's up to you whether you think those cases should be protected under law, but I think sometimes those "exceptions to the rule" are used by people in a way that overstates the magnitude of the issue.
All of this research can be found online, so look it up if you're interested and make your own mind up about where you stand on the issue. I just wanted to throw the information out there for discussion's sake.
I listened to a very good presentation a few years back about the incidence of conception during rape. There was an extensive study done on the issue, and there were several conclusions made.
I can't quote the study exactly, but one of the conclusions was that the incidence of conception in the case of rape is very minuscule to almost nonexistent. There were a number of medical reasons given for this, including the factors stress plays on a woman's reproductive system and the ability to conceive.
Now, please don't think I'm saying that there's never been a case of pregnancy from rape. I know that's not true, and I know of specific cases where it's not true.
But I do think it's a valid point to remember that we don't see tons of cases where legal abortions have to be performed in cases of rape or incest. Also, if the rape is reported and the woman is taken to the hospital, there are a number of things that can be done to ensure conception does not occur.
So I think it begs the question, even if we are anti-abortion, should we vote to protect abortion rights based on a very minuscule number of cases of rape or incest, when the vast majority of abortions are elective procedures that come as a result of unplanned pregnacies that were obtained "normally"?
It's up to you whether you think those cases should be protected under law, but I think sometimes those "exceptions to the rule" are used by people in a way that overstates the magnitude of the issue.
All of this research can be found online, so look it up if you're interested and make your own mind up about where you stand on the issue. I just wanted to throw the information out there for discussion's sake.
If this thread is not moved I swear I'm going back over to the Hub and bring my Male flag twirlers thread back over here.
Two things, one I was only joking about locking the thread.
Two... I'm not commenting either way about how I feel about this ammendment or any prior comments. I'm just stating what I see as the facts and that is that there are NO exceptions for an allowable abortion in this ammendment. None. Zero. Nada. So... IF, you belive there should be exceptions (and I'm not saying whether I do or not or whether you should or not) then you should probably vote no on this bill.
I don't see the concerns about contraception though. If personhood begins at fertilization, then you haven't murdered a person by wearing a condom.
Two... I'm not commenting either way about how I feel about this ammendment or any prior comments. I'm just stating what I see as the facts and that is that there are NO exceptions for an allowable abortion in this ammendment. None. Zero. Nada. So... IF, you belive there should be exceptions (and I'm not saying whether I do or not or whether you should or not) then you should probably vote no on this bill.
I don't see the concerns about contraception though. If personhood begins at fertilization, then you haven't murdered a person by wearing a condom.
Good points, Gold Talon.
I think we'd be hard pressed to find many folks who think conception occurs during or immediately following the act. I know there are always radicals on every side of an issue, but for the most part, birth control is a safe, legal and widely accepted in our society.
This bill DOES NOT seek to impact birth control in any way, shape or form.
As for legal exceptions, you're essentially correct. There's been a lot of debate on the issue, and some folks want to outlaw abortions in all cases with no exceptions.
This bill doesn't say a woman can't have an abortion. It's just a precursor to saying she can't legally have one in Mississippi. But we have no constitutional authority to regulate what happens in other states.
I think we'd be hard pressed to find many folks who think conception occurs during or immediately following the act. I know there are always radicals on every side of an issue, but for the most part, birth control is a safe, legal and widely accepted in our society.
This bill DOES NOT seek to impact birth control in any way, shape or form.
As for legal exceptions, you're essentially correct. There's been a lot of debate on the issue, and some folks want to outlaw abortions in all cases with no exceptions.
This bill doesn't say a woman can't have an abortion. It's just a precursor to saying she can't legally have one in Mississippi. But we have no constitutional authority to regulate what happens in other states.
I believe this is the actual language:
The entire proposed Amendment is as follows:
Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Mississippi: SECTION 1. Article III of the constitution of the state of Mississippi is hereby amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION TO READ: Section 33. Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof." This initiative shall not require any additional revenue for implementation.
The entire proposed Amendment is as follows:
Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Mississippi: SECTION 1. Article III of the constitution of the state of Mississippi is hereby amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION TO READ: Section 33. Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof." This initiative shall not require any additional revenue for implementation.
I lack a lot of medical knowledge, but I'll try.
One contraception method is the morning after pill. The egg may have been fertilized, but not implanted in the uterus (necessary for birth). The morning after pill basically prevents implantation. Thus if it is defined at fertilization, selling of the morning after pill may be illegal. If not illegal, companies and pharmacists would not want the threat of a legal burden (let alone the bad publicity). They would stop selling the product in the state.
This post was edited on 10/13 7:37 AM by EagleRaider94
I agree the morning after pill would be illegal under this bill. Is this pill really "contraception" though? It doesn't prevent conception, it destroys it after it's occurred.
I have a new tool for "merging" threads together.
I almost merged this one with the Male Flag twirlers just for fun....
I have never understood those that are pro-life but respect a woman's right to choose on the basis that it is their own body and they have the right to decide what they do with it. I just don't get that line of reasoning. If you believe that a fetus is just a piece of tissue then it works. If you believe that there is a human being involved then how can anyone say that it is the woman's body and she can do what she wants. If there is another human being involved it is not just her body. So I guess those that are saying that are stating that the fetus is just a piece of flesh no different than if I cut off my finger? That is the only thing I can conclude. Those that believe that must never have seen the movie Silent Scream.
Good Article NYTimes 10-25-2011
I'm sure some will enjoy this read---
A constitutional amendment facing voters in Mississippi on Nov. 8, and similar initiatives brewing in half a dozen other states including Florida and Ohio, would declare a fertilized human egg to be a legal person, effectively branding abortion and some forms of birth control as murder.
Ny Times
I'm sure some will enjoy this read---
A constitutional amendment facing voters in Mississippi on Nov. 8, and similar initiatives brewing in half a dozen other states including Florida and Ohio, would declare a fertilized human egg to be a legal person, effectively branding abortion and some forms of birth control as murder.
Ny Times
I cannot lie. I'm MORE than surprised.
Great step into the 21st century for MS. That prop was so loose that to me it was hard to really argue for.
The potential that a woman could be raped by a stranger and FORCED to carry the child...that's just wrong. And costly! That woman would not only be raising a child by herself for years more than likely, but will probably have to accept aid(s) and waivers and benefits. It could hinder her education, her work experience, and her abilities to further her life in general. It could breed resentment towards society. Etc, etc, etc.
This bothered me though:
"Mississippi's Gov. Haley Barbour questioned the amendment, but eventually supported it.
"If they had come to the Mississippi legislature and said, 'look, we want to change the constitution and say life begins at conception our legislature would have passed that," he said on CNN's John King USA."
(http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/09/politics/mississippi-election/?hpt=hp_t1)
Seems like political jargon for saying "if they paid us enough...we could have found a way...."
Great step into the 21st century for MS. That prop was so loose that to me it was hard to really argue for.
The potential that a woman could be raped by a stranger and FORCED to carry the child...that's just wrong. And costly! That woman would not only be raising a child by herself for years more than likely, but will probably have to accept aid(s) and waivers and benefits. It could hinder her education, her work experience, and her abilities to further her life in general. It could breed resentment towards society. Etc, etc, etc.
This bothered me though:
"Mississippi's Gov. Haley Barbour questioned the amendment, but eventually supported it.
"If they had come to the Mississippi legislature and said, 'look, we want to change the constitution and say life begins at conception our legislature would have passed that," he said on CNN's John King USA."
(http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/09/politics/mississippi-election/?hpt=hp_t1)
Seems like political jargon for saying "if they paid us enough...we could have found a way...."
I am pro-life and did not disagree with Prop 26 on moral grounds.. I disagreed with it from a political standpoint.. I believe they tried to do too much with one piece of legislation.. You can't propose a bill that would force a woman to carry a child after being impregnated during a rape and expect those voters on the fence to be in favor of it.. Although I agree with the basic premise of the amendment, it went way too far..
IMO the best way to handle the abortion issue from a legal standpoint is to propose a 2-exception law.. Under this law, abortion would be illegal EXCEPT in the case of 1) Rape/Incest and 2) The mother's life being in jeopardy
As Catfish pointed out, the number of abortions involving babies conceived during a rape are few and far between.. I would imagine the same might be true of abortions performed to save the life of the mother.. the vast majority of abortions stem from unwanted pregnancies/irresponsibility..
Outlaw abortion except in those particular situations and I believe the rate of abortion would decrease dramatically..
I'm not saying I agree with abortion under ANY circumstance.. I'm just saying that politically you've got to find that middle ground.. You can either compromise a little and actually make some progress.. Or keep trying to eliminate the problem all at once and keep getting shut down..
Once that law is passed, it buys time to keep the discussions going and make more progress while the problem of abortion decreases..
Again, that's just one man's opinion
IMO the best way to handle the abortion issue from a legal standpoint is to propose a 2-exception law.. Under this law, abortion would be illegal EXCEPT in the case of 1) Rape/Incest and 2) The mother's life being in jeopardy
As Catfish pointed out, the number of abortions involving babies conceived during a rape are few and far between.. I would imagine the same might be true of abortions performed to save the life of the mother.. the vast majority of abortions stem from unwanted pregnancies/irresponsibility..
Outlaw abortion except in those particular situations and I believe the rate of abortion would decrease dramatically..
I'm not saying I agree with abortion under ANY circumstance.. I'm just saying that politically you've got to find that middle ground.. You can either compromise a little and actually make some progress.. Or keep trying to eliminate the problem all at once and keep getting shut down..
Once that law is passed, it buys time to keep the discussions going and make more progress while the problem of abortion decreases..
Again, that's just one man's opinion
You mean the number of abortions will drop like it did when it was illegal before? Just in case you don't know, abortions didn't stop. Instead, some doctors made extra money on the side. However, there weren't enough doctors who would risk getting caught so many women went to "back alley butchers" to get abortions. Many of those led to the death of the mother in addition to the fetus.
One can't regulate morality so laws should be limited to actions performed against other people against their will. People should be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves provided they do not directly harm another against their will in the process. Fetuses don't qualify as viable humans at least not in the first trimester. I am in favor of a woman's right to an abortion in the first trimester. If she waits too long to decide (into the second trimester) then she gives up her right to abort.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
What happened to some of these baseball signees for the 2024 season?- Latest: Heath Hinton
-
-
-
-