Calling out "Personhood" supporters

Initiative 26 would define personhood as "every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof." Though the text of the amendment is simple, the implications if it passes couldn't be more complex. If approved by Mississippi voters on Tuesday, it would make it impossible to get an abortion and hamper the ability to get some forms of birth control.

From CNN

^^^For people that have not heard of this

__

A few questions for the supporters:

How can you support abortion in cases of rape, incest and when the mother is in danger?

Who do you think you are, telling young teen girls that if they where to get raped, they wouldn't have abortion available to them (even if there own lives where in danger!)?!?!?!? Who are you trying to save?!?!?


Defining personhood as "every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof." and the effect it will have on women's right is so extreme that it will spit you pro-lifers into two groups.

Abortion is a very controversial topic. I believe people should use protection in order to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. There is no excuse for women who choose to have unprotected sex, they knew what could happen. This is a case where i believe abortion should not be considered. However, there are many other cases that perhaps do warrant abortion.

For example, a woman that is raped obviously has the choice to abort. Why bring a child into this world who will not have a father? However, if the woman feels that she can fill both roles, say she is well off financially and does not need to work, or does work but can afford child care, then it would not be a bad idea to have the child, if the woman chooses to.

Parents who are not in a condition to have a child, say they are not financially well off, may also consider abortion. Why bring a child into this world when you can't even afford the basic necessities for your child?

So in my opinion, use protection. Don't be stupid, you know what can happen when people have sex. Specially if you are not in any condition to be raising a child. Women who are raped have a choice to make, again depending on their own situation and wishes.

Well that is an interesting developpement.

Although my worries aren't as emotional as the OP, I am worried about one small thing. The cloning part.
I wonder if they are trying to use christian groups to pass laws saying that clones are legal people.

This could lead to a whole lot of thing, my mind is a buzz.

Very curious, I don't really care about the abortion issue one way or the other.

The cloning side is interesting though. If this legislation were to pass, we could all go there and get clones..
You could create generations of them, before the law was repealled and as they would be created before that they would be viable people with all rights.

Interesting.

Originally posted by KingAtlas
Well that is an interesting developpement.

Although my worries aren't as emotional as the OP, I am worried about one small thing. The cloning part.
I wonder if they are trying to use christian groups to pass laws saying that clones are legal people.

This could lead to a whole lot of thing, my mind is a buzz

Interesting.

And I'm a MALE!


I find it outrageous that the far right wants to outlaw abortion 100% with no exception. A raped women will not have the option of abortion.

If that passes, it could effect contraceptives, the pill, and all sorts of other things.

The implications are enormous because the word "person" is used in countless laws...

Let me start out that I am very much pro-life. I think abortion is murder and that the only viable excuse for one is when the life of the mother is at stake. That being said I would never impose a law such as this one on anybody.These are my personal opinions and I as cold- hearted as this sounds I'd rather have a child be aborted than grow up with someone who never wanted them or far worse in the foster care service where they are treated like cattle and not people. Laws like this one not only attack abortions but birthcontol that would help prevent abortions. I think people need to stop forcing their beliefs on other people. I'll let you have your abortions as long as you don't try to convince me that it isn't murder.

Originally posted by stinavamp
Let me start out that I am very much pro-life. I think abortion is murder and that the only viable excuse for one is when the life of the mother is at stake. That being said I would never impose a law such as this one on anybody.These are my personal opinions and I as cold- hearted as this sounds I'd rather have a child be aborted than grow up with someone who never wanted them or far worse in the foster care service where they are treated like cattle and not people. Laws like this one not only attack abortions but birthcontol that would help prevent abortions. I think people need to stop forcing their beliefs on other people. I'll let you have your abortions as long as you don't try to convince me that it isn't murder.

Do you think rape / incest is also a viable excuse for abortion?

I'm pro-choice, and I agree with most of what you said (everything after "That being said")

you can count on two hands the amount of women who have become pregnant by rape or in this day and age of modern medicine their life is in danger because they were pregnant.

it's in the 10's of millions that people were killed while still in their mother's womb.

pregnancy is not a terminal condition, despite what the msm want's you to believe.

explain to me how a woman is in danger from being pregnant. it is contrary to the laws of nature.

and in the case of rape, if the woman or girl gets pregnant how can you punish the baby for the sins of the father.

that isn't justice.

Up until Roe, states had the right to set their own policies on abortion. The Roe decision pleased many people, but it did take away the power of citizen's to choose what their state policies would be. Very few lawyers think the reasoning in Roe was sound, whether they like it or not.

If there is a movement to take back power and rights for the citizens and away from big government, couldn't this just be seen as a return to the way things were? Shouldn't this be Mississippi's call?

Please notice that I'm not taking a position here on abortion, only on what rights the citizens of a state should have.

reply to post by Confusion42


If you want my opinion I will give it you but it's going to make me sound like a complete b**ch, but I'm okay with that. For me the second the sperm hits the egg there is life. A life that has every right as I do to kick,breathe, laugh and suffer as I do. I can sympathize with why a woman who is the victim of rape or incest would want an abortion, but if you break it down in my point of veiw it is still a life being ended. I have wrestled with these beliefs my whole life. I'm constantly told that it's my right as woman to "choose" while the fetus and the fathers have no say. That is why I don't join pro-life rallies or argue the point that often. Laws like these effect more than just abortions and muddy the waters of what life is. I just have my opinion and that's what is.

Originally posted by randomname
you can count on two hands the amount of women who have become pregnant by rape or in this day and age of modern medicine their life is in danger because they were pregnant.

Because they abort!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

it's in the 10's of millions that people were killed while still in their mother's womb.
Personhood would mean NO EXCEPTIONS

pregnancy is not a terminal condition, despite what the msm want's you to believe.

explain to me how a woman is in danger from being pregnant. it is contrary to the laws of nature.
There are many situations in which pregnancy due to circumstances is dangerous for women.

and in the case of rape, if the woman or girl gets pregnant how can you punish the baby for the sins of the father.
What baby? A clump of cells? f the women not even allowed the morning after pill, which according to this initiative may become ilegal. So your giving a clump of cells more rights than the poor woman who is already tramatized.... My point here is that it should be HER CHOICE and if young HER AND HER FAMILIES CHOICE!

that isn't justice.

reply to post by Confusion42


I didnt't think I made any reference to your being female...

I just meant I don't really care about abortion issues.

IMO, there is alot of hypocrasy on both sides.

Anti abortionist- value life and say there should be no abortions, but they don't want to adopt children...

Pro-abortion- Value choice, especially of rape victims, but do not support any actual rape victims or groups that help rape victims. (giving couple f bucks does not count)


So, I don't care.

My concern is with the wording of the law that includes cloning. which is overlooked because when anything about abortions is brought up, everyone picks a side.

The cloning part is actually the most important part. If it were legal that clones could have legal status as a person, it would be most likely that there would be alot of "important people" with money who would take advantage.

The only problem with clones is the environmental factors without the same environmental factors as the first generation, the clone would not have the same outlook on life. Therefor would not neccisarily come to the same conclusions.

Although, it would be interesting. If you could legalise cloning, then the propsect of geneticaly enhanced clones cannot be far behind. When that is legal, the game changes entirely.

Originally posted by KingAtlas
reply to post by Confusion42

 

I didnt't think I made any reference to your being female...

I just meant I don't really care about abortion issues.

IMO, there is alot of hypocrasy on both sides.

Anti abortionist- value life and say there should be no abortions, but they don't want to adopt children...

Pro-abortion- Value choice, especially of rape victims, but do not support any actual rape victims or groups that help rape victims. (giving couple f bucks does not count)


So, I don't care.

My concern is with the wording of the law that includes cloning. which is overlooked because when anything about abortions is brought up, everyone picks a side.

The cloning part is actually the most important part. If it were legal that clones could have legal status as a person, it would be most likely that there would be alot of "important people" with money who would take advantage.

The only problem with clones is the environmental factors without the same environmental factors as the first generation, the clone would not have the same outlook on life. Therefor would not neccisarily come to the same conclusions.

Although, it would be interesting. If you could legalise cloning, then the propsect of geneticaly enhanced clones cannot be far behind. When that is legal, the game changes entirely.

edit on 7-11-2011 by KingAtlas because: G&S

My bad, I thought cause you said emotional you meant female, my bad

Now, about the cloning, I can see why they put it in there.

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


So the "moment of fertilization" is normal baby making.

cloning is at the polar opposite of normal, so they put that in there because they want there person hood definition it last forever and including the cloning part is just preparing for the future from there POV

I agree with you that the cloning part is overlooked; But honestly it's not relevant right now.

If the government defines a person as above, and because many laws use the word person, many unintended side effects will occur.

A woman drinks a few shots over the weekend, not knowing that she is pregnant (lets say conceived a few days before the weekend and a condom was used but it broke)..... so because she drank while pregnant that might be "human endangerment":

A miscarriage? It's murder! A Human (under the new definition) died ... did the woman take her vitamins?

No more in-vitro treatment for woman that WANT to get pregnant; Because multiple eggs are implanted in-vitro and only the best are used; the rest through away (under new definition that would mean murder and all eggs would have to be implanted which can lead to sextuplets)

The republicans, they are a funny bunch.

When it comes to a clump of cells, they want to make that a person.

A corporation? Also a person.

Yet when t comes to people people, well, .........

howstuffworks human cloning
^^^^^
okay so just flip through the pages nice breakdown of the process

This from wired
Wired science on viability of human cloning

AND THIS.... OCTOBER 6th 2011
Human clones not far away

Human cloning is NOT science fiction... its not some far away idea.. science is really close...
the money is pushing for it because you can use the stem cells to replace or grow almost anything.

Imagine how much money a company could make if the could build organs for anyone.

Then there is the ethical part of is it right to grow a human clone to harvest for organs?

reply to post by Confusion42


So every woman who has a menses after unprotected sex should be tried for murder? 'Cause, that's what this means. "Fertilization" happens constantly.

Welcome to biology, conservatives! It's not magic. It's a sloppy, haphazard, and flaw-ridden process that auto-terminates more often than not. If you count every fertilized egg as a "person," well, you're going to end up prosecuting every sexually active woman who has a period. You're going to effectively ban all contraceptives (which actually seems to be the point.)

reply to post by charles1952


Why is it whenever anyone crows for "state's rights," the rights being crowed for is always the "right" to oppress people living in the state? From the days of South Carolina invoking its "right" to slavery all the way up to Wisconsin's recent determination that it has a "right" to give assault and battery a pass if done in the name of Christ, it keeps going the same way.

Invariably, people wanting more rights for their state want fewer rights for the people living in that state.

TheWalkingFox,

Thanks for responding but I think you misunderstand me. Fewer rights? Of course not.

States should decide age of consent, seat belt laws, medicinal marijuana policies, school testing standards, what light bulbs you can use, etc, etc. Some government body is going to make all these choices, I'd rather it be at the state level than the federal. Isn't that the point of getting rid of corruption in Washington, taking their power away and returning it to the people?

If you don't trust the states to make the right decisions, why would you trust the feds? And if a state screws up, you can always move, but if Washington does, there's no place to go.

Charles1952

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Confusion42

 

So every woman who has a menses after unprotected sex should be tried for murder? 'Cause, that's what this means. "Fertilization" happens constantly.

Welcome to biology, conservatives! It's not magic. It's a sloppy, haphazard, and flaw-ridden process that auto-terminates more often than not. If you count every fertilized egg as a "person," well, you're going to end up prosecuting every sexually active woman who has a period. You're going to effectively ban all contraceptives (which actually seems to be the point.)

I agree with you i'm on ur side

I made this thread to see if there is anyone out there that's for this parenthood initiative, and why.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by charles1952

 

Why is it whenever anyone crows for "state's rights," the rights being crowed for is always the "right" to oppress people living in the state?

Sounds awefully fimiliar doesn't it?

Slavery? A states issue
Racial segregation? States issue
Barring two consenting adults from marrying based on race? States issue
And monitoring a woman's womb? States issue.

Fascism at the state level, and that's what it is at the end of the day. Apparently it ain't fascism if it's the state government to these folks! But it's one in the same.

Ever heard of an oversized state government?

yep.

Originally posted by charles1952
TheWalkingFox,

Thanks for responding but I think you misunderstand me. Fewer rights? Of course not.

States should decide age of consent, seat belt laws, medicinal marijuana policies, school testing standards, what light bulbs you can use, etc, etc. Some government body is going to make all these choices, I'd rather it be at the state level than the federal. Isn't that the point of getting rid of corruption in Washington, taking their power away and returning it to the people?

If you don't trust the states to make the right decisions, why would you trust the feds?

While I have my criticism of the federal government, state governments have held a bad track record over upholding rights over their citizens. With the exception of Northeastern states that made progressive moves towards upholding rights of Americans, southern states have consistently over history held laws that discrimminated and held away rights of American citizens. There are fundamental rights that no government should step on period.

Personhood is ludicrous, but the real purpose of this law, like every other "life" legislation is to guarantee there will be enough poor, uneducated people to vote republican (and enslave themselves and their kids to the wealthy and the military).

Fetuses don't even physically have brains or hearts until two months, how you could call a mass of cells with no brain or heart a person is ridiculous. You might as well call an acorn a tree.