Mississippi and "personhood"

[theliloutkast]

Columbus, Mississippi (CNN) -- In the Carpenter home, every meal begins with a prayer. Robin and his wife, Emily, are devout Christians. But they part ways with many other Christians over a measure that would expand the legal definition of human life.

Their son, Luke, now 4 years old, was born through in vitro fertilization.

The anti-abortion amendment being voted on this week in the state could restrict in vitro procedures, and the Carpenters are worried that if they wait too long to add to their family, they may end up breaking the law.

"I don't really want or need anybody else getting involved in trying to limit how that works for us, or stopping it," said Robin Carpenter. "We need to have the same rights to have a family as anybody else does."

The Carpenters fear that if Mississippi Amendment 26 passes on Tuesday, their whole future will change.

The controversial measure, known as "Personhood," will ask Mississippians to amend the state constitution to define life as beginning at conception, which would eliminate abortion, including in the cases of women who are the victims of rape and incest. The law would also outlaw certain forms of birth control and the destruction of embryos in laboratories -- which puts in vitro fertilization procedures in question because it results in unused fertilized eggs.

https://www.cnn.com/2011/11/07/us/mississippi-personhood-amendment/index.html?hpt=us_c2

Searched and didn't see anything about this, thought I would share it.

[El Barto]

Senseless grandstanding.

The highlight of the whole thing was when one of the supporters said that they just wanted to bring the current definition into line with what the founding fathers had in mind.  Given the time in which they lived,  I find it hard to believe that they'd have considered a person a person until he was working the farm or cranking out kiddos. 

[Omega]

Hmmm

I don't see why they just seek to criminalize only abortion and avoid all these unnecessary obstacles.

[Super Dude]

Interesting problem posed to me by a friend yesterday: Mississippi also happens to be one of those states that deports illegal immigrants, and defines a person by whatever state they were conceived in (or some shit like that). So say for whatever reason some Mississippian chick nails a Mexican guy on spring break, and the condom breaks or some shit. Provided she's staying in Cancun for another week, that baby will be conceived in Mexico and therefore be considered Mexican by state law, even if she is a Mississippi resident and legal U.S. citizen, and even if she returns to have the baby in her home state. She wouldn't even know probably until she came back to the States, given how long it takes for conception to take place and then for the woman in question to find out.

She can't get it aborted there, so when the baby is born and it's an illegal citizen, what then? Ship the baby off to Mexico? Arrest the mother?

[El Barto]

Citizenship is determined in accordance with the United States Constitution.  A state has no ability to determine otherwise,  or else,  Arizona would have deported half their state by now.  If the mother is a citizen, then the child is a citizen, regardless of when you decide to pronounce it as such.

I suppose if senor decided to contest the custodial situation,  he could use this silly law to raise some kind of objection,  but since when does anybody care what the Mexicans think, anyway.

[Rathma]

Is it just me or is the idea that the fetus is just part of the woman's body becoming harder to sell? I'm pro-choice but not because of moral or human rights reasons. My reasoning is that the impact of making abortion illegal would have negative social effects... but really, I don't see any clear difference between abortion, infanticide or murder. Most pro-choice arguments seem to focus on the topic of "rights" but is this really persuasive?

[Omega]

Is it just me or is the idea that the fetus is just part of the woman's body becoming harder to sell? I'm pro-choice but not because of moral or human rights reasons. My reasoning is that the impact of making abortion illegal would have negative social effects... but really, I don't see any clear difference between abortion, infanticide or murder. Most pro-choice arguments seem to focus on the topic of "rights" but is this really persuasive?

No, the "arguments" are really just beefed up excuses regurgitated by countless of irresponsible, immature girls who seek to escape the consequences of their "bad choices" in life at any means necessary.

I would argue that abortion is the most vile assault on human life ever encountered.

[sonatafanica]

i am not even pro choice

i am pro abortion

all abortions all the time, who gives a shit



EDIT: SENT FROM MY IPHONE

[73109]

I never understood the outlawing of abortion in rape and incest cases. I can vaguely see the pro-life side in that a baby is a life and abortion is murder. Vaguely. But punishing a woman because some shmuck decided to be a jackass is something only a religious person would do.

[Rathma]

No, the "arguments" are really just beefed up excuses regurgitated by countless of irresponsible, immature girls who seek to escape the consequences of their "bad choices" in life at any means necessary.

lol there are probably just as many men that are pro-choice as women

[Scheavo]

Is it just me or is the idea that the fetus is just part of the woman's body becoming harder to sell? I'm pro-choice but not because of moral or human rights reasons. My reasoning is that the impact of making abortion illegal would have negative social effects... but really, I don't see any clear difference between abortion, infanticide or murder. Most pro-choice arguments seem to focus on the topic of "rights" but is this really persuasive?

No, the "arguments" are really just beefed up excuses regurgitated by countless of irresponsible, immature girls who seek to escape the consequences of their "bad choices" in life at any means necessary.

What about women who get raped? Should they be allowed to have an abortion? They're not being irresponsible, or immature... they being, ya know, fucking raped.

And as for the merits of the topic, does that mean forms of birth control should be illegal? That's certainly trying to escape the consequences of sex.

Oh, and I do think that abortion is a rather horrible thing, but horrendous things go on all the time, and life is full of evil. Miscarriages are extremely common, at least early on in pregnancy; so to what extent do we need to hold women accountable for miscarriages? Isn't that manslaughter or murder?

To prevent abortions, I say we education people properly on safe sex. People who know about birth control generally use it, and that means no abortions. We also have to look at the issue socially, such as adoption, and if your child has a kid and isn't prepared, be willing to help them out. Why should men get off easier for their bad choices? Because that's basically what it amounts to, because women are obviously going to carry the child for 9 months, and they're going to be the ones looking after the kid... but the man is just as responsible in the whole situation. Making abortions illegal wouldn't stop abortions, just make them less safe for both parties involved.

[Omega]

No, the "arguments" are really just beefed up excuses regurgitated by countless of irresponsible, immature girls who seek to escape the consequences of their "bad choices" in life at any means necessary.

lol there are probably just as many men that are pro-choice as women

True, but women ultimately make the decision to have the abortion (most of the time).

[Omega]

Is it just me or is the idea that the fetus is just part of the woman's body becoming harder to sell? I'm pro-choice but not because of moral or human rights reasons. My reasoning is that the impact of making abortion illegal would have negative social effects... but really, I don't see any clear difference between abortion, infanticide or murder. Most pro-choice arguments seem to focus on the topic of "rights" but is this really persuasive?

No, the "arguments" are really just beefed up excuses regurgitated by countless of irresponsible, immature girls who seek to escape the consequences of their "bad choices" in life at any means necessary.

What about women who get raped? Should they be allowed to have an abortion? They're not being irresponsible, or immature... they being, ya know, fucking raped.

And as for the merits of the topic, does that mean forms of birth control should be illegal? That's certainly trying to escape the consequences of sex.

Oh, and I do think that abortion is a rather horrible thing, but horrendous things go on all the time, and life is full of evil. Miscarriages are extremely common, at least early on in pregnancy; so to what extent do we need to hold women accountable for miscarriages? Isn't that manslaughter or murder?

To prevent abortions, I say we education people properly on safe sex. People who know about birth control generally use it, and that means no abortions. We also have to look at the issue socially, such as adoption, and if your child has a kid and isn't prepared, be willing to help them out. Why should men get off easier for their bad choices? Because that's basically what it amounts to, because women are obviously going to carry the child for 9 months, and they're going to be the ones looking after the kid... but the man is just as responsible in the whole situation. Making abortions illegal wouldn't stop abortions, just make them less safe for both parties involved.

The number of pregnancies that result from rape are extremely low due to its inherent viscerality. And also, as you mention, rather than aborting that child, why not set it for adoption?

It is also worth mentioning that the argument of "well, the baby will probably have a terrible life, so let's just kill it" is patently pretentious, irrational, immoral and, applied in other situations (euthanasia, etc), illegal.

[j]

Is it just me or is the idea that the fetus is just part of the woman's body becoming harder to sell? I'm pro-choice but not because of moral or human rights reasons. My reasoning is that the impact of making abortion illegal would have negative social effects... but really, I don't see any clear difference between abortion, infanticide or murder. Most pro-choice arguments seem to focus on the topic of "rights" but is this really persuasive?

I've demonstrated several times on this forum that these types of arguments hold no water whatsoever.  It's hard to believe IMO that so many people bought into them for so long, and still do, given that the most rudimentary familiarity with basic biology shows them to be obviously false.  I think there are plenty of sound arguments for abortion remaining legal to varying degrees, but none of them have anything to do with a "right to choose" or "a fetus is just a clump of cells that I can't relate to."  That stuff is mostly just ignorant rhetoric residual from the feminist movement.  Like you said, it seems to me that some of the more convincing arguments are based around the social aspects of the issue.

Regarding the OP, there ain't no way this gets passed.

-J

[Omega]

i am not even pro choice

i am pro abortion

all abortions all the time, who gives a shit



EDIT: SENT FROM MY IPHONE

wut?

[yeshaberto]

i am not even pro choice

i am pro abortion

all abortions all the time, who gives a shit



EDIT: SENT FROM MY IPHONE

seriously...knock it off.

[73109]

Scheavo, you really need to quit it. You are making way too much sense for these parts. You're almost making me respect your opinion. We can't have that, now can we?

[sonatafanica]

as usual j makes a lot of sense

i have always been kinda on the fence about this subject as there arethinga i agree with on both sides

[Rathma]

No, the "arguments" are really just beefed up excuses regurgitated by countless of irresponsible, immature girls who seek to escape the consequences of their "bad choices" in life at any means necessary.

lol there are probably just as many men that are pro-choice as women

True, but women ultimately make the decision to have the abortion (most of the time).

lol if men could have abortions they would be having just as many as women if not more

[Omega]

No, the "arguments" are really just beefed up excuses regurgitated by countless of irresponsible, immature girls who seek to escape the consequences of their "bad choices" in life at any means necessary.

lol there are probably just as many men that are pro-choice as women

True, but women ultimately make the decision to have the abortion (most of the time).

lol if men could have abortions they would be having just as many as women if not more

No argument here

[Rathma]

If you think about this though, what people will really be voting on is whether the human soul becomes linked to the body at the point where the sperm enters the egg. It's not a scientific question, since sperm is life, egg is life, cells are life... living biological stuff. Life never "begins" and a sperm is no less living than a grown person. So if you're asking whether an egg which has just been penetrated by a sperm is a person or not to citizens of 2011 USA you're basically asking whether people think this thing has a supernatural soul or not. I mean, what the hell else could it be asking?

[El Barto]

If you think about this though, what people will really be voting on is whether the human soul becomes linked to the body at the point where the sperm enters the egg. It's not a scientific question, since sperm is life, egg is life, cells are life... living biological stuff. Life never "begins" and a sperm is no less living than a grown person. So if you're asking whether an egg which has just been penetrated by a sperm is a person or not to citizens of 2011 USA you're basically asking whether people think this thing has a supernatural soul or not. I mean, what the hell else could it be asking?

While I think your assessment is sound,  I don't think the people of Mississippi are asking anything.  I don't think they care about the philosophical aspect.  I think they're attempting a legal maneuver, and nothing more.

[Scheavo]

The number of pregnancies that result from rape are extremely low due to its inherent viscerality. And also, as you mention, rather than aborting that child, why not set it for adoption?

Because that woman still has to be pregnant with that child? It's an incredibly emotional process, and from what I've been able to gather, woman don't like the idea of carrying around their rapists child too much... which shouldn't be all that surprising.

Plus, these woman would likely abort the fetus anyways, all you're doing is making it so they have to do it illegally, and in a less safe manner. You're not stopping the abortions, you're just making them worse.

 

Scheavo, you really need to quit it. You are making way too much sense for these parts. You're almost making me respect your opinion. We can't have that, now can we?

  No, no we cannot.

[j]

If you think about this though, what people will really be voting on is whether the human soul becomes linked to the body at the point where the sperm enters the egg. It's not a scientific question, since sperm is life, egg is life, cells are life... living biological stuff. Life never "begins" and a sperm is no less living than a grown person. So if you're asking whether an egg which has just been penetrated by a sperm is a person or not to citizens of 2011 USA you're basically asking whether people think this thing has a supernatural soul or not. I mean, what the hell else could it be asking?

Well, the distinction is that the zygote formed at conception is the first point at which all of the genetic material of a human is present.

But I agree that at some point the question of actual "personhood" arises: an interesting philosophical question which lies outside the realm of science.  Frankly, like Barto said, I don't think any of these people give two shits about either consideration.

-J

[Omega]

The number of pregnancies that result from rape are extremely low due to its inherent viscerality. And also, as you mention, rather than aborting that child, why not set it for adoption?

Because that woman still has to be pregnant with that child? It's an incredibly emotional process, and from what I've been able to gather, woman don't like the idea of carrying around their rapists child too much... which shouldn't be all that surprising.

Plus, these woman would likely abort the fetus anyways, all you're doing is making it so they have to do it illegally, and in a less safe manner. You're not stopping the abortions, you're just making them worse.

I'm quite sure that abortion is an equally (perhaps even worse) emotional process as giving birth to a baby. Rape is tragic, and the outcomes are not always pretty. There is no argument there. But the child did not chose to be born or conceived under such terrible circumstances. Its destruction is unjustifiable.

If a woman decides to murder her unborn child then, frankly, they cannot expect much pity from me if they have to go to a back alley doctor to do so...

[kirksnosehair]

The number of pregnancies that result from rape are extremely low due to its inherent viscerality. And also, as you mention, rather than aborting that child, why not set it for adoption?

Because that woman still has to be pregnant with that child? It's an incredibly emotional process, and from what I've been able to gather, woman don't like the idea of carrying around their rapists child too much... which shouldn't be all that surprising.

Plus, these woman would likely abort the fetus anyways, all you're doing is making it so they have to do it illegally, and in a less safe manner. You're not stopping the abortions, you're just making them worse.

I'm quite sure that abortion is an equally (perhaps even worse) emotional process as giving birth to a baby. Rape is tragic, and the outcomes are not always pretty. There is no argument there. But the child did not chose to be born or conceived under such terrible circumstances. Its destruction is unjustifiable.

If a woman decides to murder her unborn child then, frankly, they cannot expect much pity from me if they have to go to a back alley doctor to do so...

Well, fortunately, for those of us who value freedom and NOT having the state make highly personal and emotional healthcare decisions for us, the people of Mississippi have now spoken and this absurd law was rejected.

[Omega]

The number of pregnancies that result from rape are extremely low due to its inherent viscerality. And also, as you mention, rather than aborting that child, why not set it for adoption?

Because that woman still has to be pregnant with that child? It's an incredibly emotional process, and from what I've been able to gather, woman don't like the idea of carrying around their rapists child too much... which shouldn't be all that surprising.

Plus, these woman would likely abort the fetus anyways, all you're doing is making it so they have to do it illegally, and in a less safe manner. You're not stopping the abortions, you're just making them worse.

I'm quite sure that abortion is an equally (perhaps even worse) emotional process as giving birth to a baby. Rape is tragic, and the outcomes are not always pretty. There is no argument there. But the child did not chose to be born or conceived under such terrible circumstances. Its destruction is unjustifiable.

If a woman decides to murder her unborn child then, frankly, they cannot expect much pity from me if they have to go to a back alley doctor to do so...

Well, fortunately, for those of us who value freedom and NOT having the state make highly personal and emotional healthcare decisions for us, the people of Mississippi have now spoken and this absurd law was rejected.

The freedom to murder? Doesn't seem like a freedom the populace should be allowed to make.

Besides, this law was clearly flawed in more ways than one. Of course it was bound for rejection.

[Scheavo]

The number of pregnancies that result from rape are extremely low due to its inherent viscerality. And also, as you mention, rather than aborting that child, why not set it for adoption?

Because that woman still has to be pregnant with that child? It's an incredibly emotional process, and from what I've been able to gather, woman don't like the idea of carrying around their rapists child too much... which shouldn't be all that surprising.

Plus, these woman would likely abort the fetus anyways, all you're doing is making it so they have to do it illegally, and in a less safe manner. You're not stopping the abortions, you're just making them worse.

I'm quite sure that abortion is an equally (perhaps even worse) emotional process as giving birth to a baby. Rape is tragic, and the outcomes are not always pretty. There is no argument there. But the child did not chose to be born or conceived under such terrible circumstances. Its destruction is unjustifiable.

If a woman decides to murder her unborn child then, frankly, they cannot expect much pity from me if they have to go to a back alley doctor to do so...

So a woman get's raped, and then they're forced to, for the next nine months, go through pregnancy? Pregnancy causes all sorts of problems for a woman, and could very easily get in the way of their work. So you're now effectively punishing the woman even more for being RAPED. You're putting financial, social, and other pressures on the woman, because she was RAPED. And then, after all that, you think it's justice that they have to go see a back alley doctor, putting more risk on them in the process?

Also, what if the mother's life is in danger? You seem to be forgetting those instances where aborting the fetus is the only way to save the mother's life, and the fetus's would be lost anyways. So you'd rather have two people dead, instead of one? These cases are common, and is the reason behind a LOT of abortions. It's not an easy decision for them, it's not some irresponsible teenager getting an abortion; it's a woman facing her own death if she doesn't get an abortion.

And what about a double whammy, a woman who get's raped, and then their life is in jeopardy because of the pregnancy? Talk about punishing a rape victim!

[kirksnosehair]

The number of pregnancies that result from rape are extremely low due to its inherent viscerality. And also, as you mention, rather than aborting that child, why not set it for adoption?

Because that woman still has to be pregnant with that child? It's an incredibly emotional process, and from what I've been able to gather, woman don't like the idea of carrying around their rapists child too much... which shouldn't be all that surprising.

Plus, these woman would likely abort the fetus anyways, all you're doing is making it so they have to do it illegally, and in a less safe manner. You're not stopping the abortions, you're just making them worse.

I'm quite sure that abortion is an equally (perhaps even worse) emotional process as giving birth to a baby. Rape is tragic, and the outcomes are not always pretty. There is no argument there. But the child did not chose to be born or conceived under such terrible circumstances. Its destruction is unjustifiable.

If a woman decides to murder her unborn child then, frankly, they cannot expect much pity from me if they have to go to a back alley doctor to do so...

Well, fortunately, for those of us who value freedom and NOT having the state make highly personal and emotional healthcare decisions for us, the people of Mississippi have now spoken and this absurd law was rejected.

The freedom to murder? Doesn't seem like a freedom the populace should be allowed to make.

Besides, this law was clearly flawed in more ways than one. Of course it was bound for rejection.

Sorry, I don't consider abortion murder.  I'm highly uncomfortable with it, especially at late stages of pregnancy, and I think adoption is a better, and much more morally sound decision, but I'm staunchly pro-choice and we have almost 3 decades of legal precedent now that support it. 

[73109]

I came here to post things, but then I realized that Scheavo said all that needs to be said and any attempt to add to what he has to say or any possible attempt at a counterargument is fruitless. So...why am I typing?

Also, Mr. Omega, what say you about the fact that abortion decreases crime? I'm assuming that because you are anti-murder, you are in turn anti-murder on an adult scale...or does it only apply to the unborn?

[Omega]

The number of pregnancies that result from rape are extremely low due to its inherent viscerality. And also, as you mention, rather than aborting that child, why not set it for adoption?

Because that woman still has to be pregnant with that child? It's an incredibly emotional process, and from what I've been able to gather, woman don't like the idea of carrying around their rapists child too much... which shouldn't be all that surprising.

Plus, these woman would likely abort the fetus anyways, all you're doing is making it so they have to do it illegally, and in a less safe manner. You're not stopping the abortions, you're just making them worse.

I'm quite sure that abortion is an equally (perhaps even worse) emotional process as giving birth to a baby. Rape is tragic, and the outcomes are not always pretty. There is no argument there. But the child did not chose to be born or conceived under such terrible circumstances. Its destruction is unjustifiable.

If a woman decides to murder her unborn child then, frankly, they cannot expect much pity from me if they have to go to a back alley doctor to do so...

So a woman get's raped, and then they're forced to, for the next nine months, go through pregnancy? Pregnancy causes all sorts of problems for a woman, and could very easily get in the way of their work. So you're now effectively punishing the woman even more for being RAPED. You're putting financial, social, and other pressures on the woman, because she was RAPED. And then, after all that, you think it's justice that they have to go see a back alley doctor, putting more risk on them in the process?

Also, what if the mother's life is in danger? You seem to be forgetting those instances where aborting the fetus is the only way to save the mother's life, and the fetus's would be lost anyways. So you'd rather have two people dead, instead of one? These cases are common, and is the reason behind a LOT of abortions. It's not an easy decision for them, it's not some irresponsible teenager getting an abortion; it's a woman facing her own death if she doesn't get an abortion.

And what about a double whammy, a woman who get's raped, and then their life is in jeopardy because of the pregnancy? Talk about punishing a rape victim!

The only instances were I would deem abortion "tolerable" is if the woman faces serious or mortal threat / complications in the event of birth.

And yes, if a woman gets raped, I would expect her to place the baby for adoption. Is that not preferable to murder?

[kirksnosehair]

You keep using the pejorative term "murder" as if it's an established fact that abortion is murder.  I hate to tell you this, but it's not an established fact.

[Scheavo]

Making a woman suffer for getting raped isn't my definition of justice. If the woman wants to keep the baby, and put it up for adoptions, all the better for her. But considering if a woman doesn't want the baby, she's going to do something about it anyways, I'd rather make the situation as best as possible, and not cause more problems than there already are.

And are miscarriages murder?

[73109]

Personally, I think this entire situation perfectly represents the inherent sadism and misogyny in religion and its followers.

[Omega]

I came here to post things, but then I realized that Scheavo said all that needs to be said and any attempt to add to what he has to say or any possible attempt at a counterargument is fruitless. So...why am I typing?

Also, Mr. Omega, what say you about the fact that abortion decreases crime? I'm assuming that because you are anti-murder, you are in turn anti-murder on an adult scale...or does it only apply to the unborn?

Abortion decreases crime? What?

1) Less people on the planet will logically lead to less crime (statistically speaking)
2) Lack of abortion does not lead to more crime; Bad parenting does

I'm assuming that because you are anti-murder, you are in turn anti-murder on an adult scale

Yes...