Mississippi about to turn up the stupid?

[Inthemiddle]

Never mind, it'll never survive the Supreme Court. It's just another conservative stand.

This measure, itself, will survive a challenge. This is an effort to amend the constitution to extend personhood rights to the moment of fertilization. I cannot think of anything in the constitution that prevents the state from having such a law. What will NOT stand, however, would be any subsequent legislation that would, based on such part of the state constitution, that would wholesale prohibit abortion. Any such statute would be the actual offending entity.

 

[Mr. H.]

TRUE THAT!

We have twin daughters......When the heartbeats were heard, and both children came into view, we were out of our minds!

Of course, I felt like the total stud, who definitely wasn't shooting blanks, and was loaded for bear!

How anybody can support the cutting up, and sucking of innocent life from the womb is beyond me.......It takes a sick minded individual to support it.

My, you are one prolific SOB.

Mrs. H. miscarried early term- he died in vitro. We lost our child. No two ways about that.

We decided to try again- bingo. She was 40 at the time and we knew of the risks.

During a second trimester ultrasound the doctor noticed indications that pointed to possible Down's Syndrom. He bluntly said "go on down to the coffe shop and talk over your options". I could have cold-cocked the little fucker.

But we did just that. And we looked at each other and had no doubts whatsoever.

17 years later she's a straight A student and an avid dancer. Happy healthy perfect.

At the moment we "discussed our options" we had no idea what the future held- nor did we care. Love conquers all.

And that's what is really fucked up about people today. If we're not guaranteed instant gratification- no problem. Toss your problems in the trash.

Im glad there are alot of people making the right choice. It makes me smile.

We accepted a gift, regardless of its wrappings... or contents.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Never mind, it'll never survive the Supreme Court. It's just another conservative stand.

This measure, itself, will survive a challenge. This is an effort to amend the constitution to extend personhood rights to the moment of fertilization. I cannot think of anything in the constitution that prevents the state from having such a law. What will NOT stand, however, would be any subsequent legislation that would, based on such part of the state constitution, that would wholesale prohibit abortion. Any such statute would be the actual offending entity.

Wrong. Its already a crime to kill a person in Mississippi. THe legislation is already there.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The Mississippi law essentially terminates the person-hood of the pregnant woman.
She wouldn't even be able to get an ectopic pregnancy terminated, the new law would just let her die.

Its pretty fucked up.

It will force doctors to choose between following the law and violating their oaths as doctors.

I'm glad someone gets it. My problem isn't that it's an anti-abortion move. It's that it's such an extreme move that has an incredible amount of drawbacks. Not only does it put women's lives in danger, but it go even farther to the extreme to call into question the legality of fertilization therapies and perfectly acceptable forms of birth control, like the pill.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Since the first amendment guarenteed freedom of expression.

That has nothing to do with it and you know it. Freedom of expression does not justify legislating on the basis of religion. Your religious beliefs are not a valid argument for extreme laws.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Because it is a human being...

And what about people who don't share this religiously based belief of yours? Why do they not have the right to make up their own minds based on their religion?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Wrong. Its already a crime to kill a person in Mississippi. THe legislation is already there.

I would wager that it would take new legislation. The existing state laws undoubtedly never were understood to apply to a fertilized egg. Ultimately, it would be for the state courts to decide if the current murder laws would cover eggs under the new constitutional change. Either way, it would still be the statutes that would be offensive to the US constitution, if they do not allow for such concessions and exceptions as the federal constitution and case law require. My point is that the state constitution, in and of itself, would not be in violation of the federal constitution, because statutes would still be required to give an effect that would become unconstitutional.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Mississippi stupid amp has a dial that goes to 11.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Not a single one? prove it.

That's the issue, isn't it? Medical science is completely incapable of proving when that magical moment that personhood begins takes place. That's why the concepts of FREEDOM and INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY demand that each person be able to make that decision for their own self and act accordingly.

BTW, it's not on me to prove your theory wrong. You want to insist that a fertilized egg is a human being, it's on YOU to prove it. Otherwise, you're arguing from ignorance.

 

[Mr. H.]

Because it is a human being...

And what about people who don't share this religiously based belief of yours? Why do they not have the right to make up their own minds based on their religion?

The good of any human is wasted, regardless of religion- unless it is bestowed upon another life- be it human, animal, plant, or insect.

Humanity has an inherent obligation to protect its own- not destroy it. Nature does not play favorites and nor should we.

 

[Avatar4321]

Because it is a human being...

And what about people who don't share this religiously based belief of yours? Why do they not have the right to make up their own minds based on their religion?

Religiously based belief?

Religious is irrelevant to the fact that the child is a human being.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The good of any human is wasted, regardless of religion- unless it is bestowed upon another life- be it human, animal, plant, or insect.

Humanity has an inherent obligation to protect its own- not destroy it. Nature does not play favorites and nor should we.

Again, what about people who don't share this belief? You are basically arguing that no person has any worth to their existence unless they are "bestowing good" onto fertilized ova. If that's how you feel, fine, you're free to live your life bestowing whatever good on fertilized ova you so wish. But how does that justify legislating that others should not have the freedom and individual liberty to make that decision for their own selves?

 

[Amelia]

Because it is a human being...

And what about people who don't share this religiously based belief of yours? Why do they not have the right to make up their own minds based on their religion?

The good of any human is wasted, regardless of religion- unless it is bestowed upon another life- be it human, animal, plant, or insect.

Humanity has an inherent obligation to protect its own- not destroy it. Nature does not play favorites and nor should we.

Nature plays favorites bigtime.

 

[Mr. H.]

The good of any human is wasted, regardless of religion- unless it is bestowed upon another life- be it human, animal, plant, or insect.

Humanity has an inherent obligation to protect its own- not destroy it. Nature does not play favorites and nor should we.

Again, what about people who don't share this belief? You are basically arguing that no person has any worth to their existence unless they are "bestowing good" onto fertilized ova. If that's how you feel, fine, you're free to live your life bestowing whatever good on fertilized ova you so wish. But how does that justify legislating that others should not have the freedom and individual liberty to make that decision for their own selves?

I see the logic in this and I somewhat admire your pragmatic approach to the subject.

But try to understand that my reasoning isn't based on belief so much as respect.

Respect in myself.

And it's my contention that there is little to no self-respect in society today.
Only self ish ness.

Freedom isn't legislated so much as it is self-regulated. At least that is it's pure intent.
And liberty isn't granted. It is assumed as a self-regulated responsibility.

My wish isn't to see freedom legislated or liberty dictated. My wish is to see humanity treat itself in humane ways.

We are not doing that. We are not behaving as a human race, but as a human racetrack.
And we are on a racetrack to moral ruin by disposing of ourselves like so much garbage.

 

[JoeB131]

Once again, it falls to me to apply some common sense here.

First, most abortions are not done for good reasons. It's become another form of birth control, which is not what was being argued for in Roe v. Wade.

that said, making it illegal at this point is a practical impossibility. Prohibition didn't work. The War on Drugs is a failure. Cities with gun bans often lead the country in gun violence. You can hire a hooker off the internet as easily as buying a used car.

The reality is that Roe didn't open any floodgates. The birth rate did not drop in 1973. There were as many abortions happening before Roe as after.

So if the people who are so concerned with abortion really want to have less of them, they should concentrate their efforts into providing real alternatives.

 

[jillian]

Once again, it falls to me to apply some common sense here.

First, most abortions are not done for good reasons. It's become another form of birth control, which is not what was being argued for in Roe v. Wade.

that said, making it illegal at this point is a practical impossibility. Prohibition didn't work. The War on Drugs is a failure. Cities with gun bans often lead the country in gun violence. You can hire a hooker off the internet as easily as buying a used car.

The reality is that Roe didn't open any floodgates. The birth rate did not drop in 1973. There were as many abortions happening before Roe as after.

So if the people who are so concerned with abortion really want to have less of them, they should concentrate their efforts into providing real alternatives.

my thing is no one can say what a "good" reason is. roe is not about abortions being desirable or undesirable. it is about when the governmental interest exceeds the interest of the individual woman in exercising dominion over her own body. that case was, rightly, decided based on a continnuum, because "life" exists on a continuum. most normal people agree that what exists at the moment the sperm meets egg is not a baby. we can all agree that by the end of the gestation period, there is very definitely a baby there. therefore, roe picked an arbitrary point at which to say, ok... this is where the woman's interest ends and the governmental interest in protecting the being in utero begins.

it's really not that complicated.

ultimately, i always remember that i'm not wise enough to determine other people's morality on this issue. each of us has to determine our own.

 

[Katzndogz]

If Sam kills Sarah and Sarah was pregnant with a child she chose to have, did Sam commit one murder or two murders?

If Scott Peterson kills Laci, and Laci was pregnant with Connor, a child she chose to have, did Scott commit one murder or two murders?

Even in abortion friendly California it was two murders.

 

[JoeB131]

my thing is no one can say what a "good" reason is. roe is not about abortions being desirable or undesirable. it is about when the governmental interest exceeds the interest of the individual woman in exercising dominion over her own body. that case was, rightly, decided based on a continnuum, because "life" exists on a continuum. most normal people agree that what exists at the moment the sperm meets egg is not a baby. we can all agree that by the end of the gestation period, there is very definitely a baby there. therefore, roe picked an arbitrary point at which to say, ok... this is where the woman's interest ends and the governmental interest in protecting the being in utero begins.

it's really not that complicated.

ultimately, i always remember that i'm not wise enough to determine other people's morality on this issue. each of us has to determine our own.

Except we do that all the time.

Your party wants to tell us how much water we should have in our toilet bowls and what kind of light bulbs we have to buy... It's only on the subject of abortion you all become doctrinaire libertarians.

The government has dominion over a woman's body all the time. She can't take drugs. She can't be a prostitute in 49 states. She can't sell her kidney on EBay. The government tends to frown on these things. So the whole "Body as property" argument kind of falls flat on its face. Now I think that a lot of these laws are unworkable as well, but the notion that there shouldn't be a law falls flat on its face.

I knew a gal once who intentionally stopped taking birth control so she'd get pregnant and her fiance (who was kind of a jerk) would make good on his promise to marry her. He didn't, they broke up and she had an abortion. Then they got back together a year later and guess what. Same thing happened. (I stopped talking to either one of them after that.) That was not a good reason to have an abortion.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Religiously based belief?

Religious is irrelevant to the fact that the child is a human being.

That's a flat out lie and you know it. The reason you believe that a fertilized egg is a human being is because of your own religious beliefs, and you've established as much yourself already. You're entitled to your belief. But others are entitled to theirs as well. It is an abuse for government to legislate extreme measures that can be justified on nothing but religious belief.

 

[Full-Auto]

Not a single one? prove it.

That's the issue, isn't it? Medical science is completely incapable of proving when that magical moment that personhood begins takes place. That's why the concepts of FREEDOM and INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY demand that each person be able to make that decision for their own self and act accordingly.

BTW, it's not on me to prove your theory wrong. You want to insist that a fertilized egg is a human being, it's on YOU to prove it. Otherwise, you're arguing from ignorance.

Nothing to prove. Once that sperm burrows in, Life has started.

Prove it doesnt!!