LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Mississippi 'personhood' amendment fails

And then there crazy people like this woman's family. I'm happy that there are more of the former than the latter in Mississippi.
Click to expand...
I repeat: the reason this bill did not pass is because so many Baptists don't register to vote.

It isn't that there are more sane and compassionate people in mississippi than otherwise. There are more of those sort that vote, than otherwise.

And depending on where you live, a bill just like this one maybe coming your way.

Be aware. Vote. Sign up for activist newsletters. Emily's List is a good one;
http://emilyslist.org

Also http://credoaction.com

If you can donate money, these types of organisations pinpoint their funds-- five dollars goes a long way when it's going exactly to where it's needed exactly when. Progressives don't have the billions of dollars the new American richocracy is pouring into our government-- but we have been pretty effective with it nevertheless, often beating back the moneybags with our pennies.
 
I'm relieved the didn't pass and I'm Canadian. The misogyny dripping throughout that document sickens me. This goes beyond body policing and shaming into something far worse.

With that legislation a woman in any kind of accident while pregnant would be investigation on grounds of attempted murder. Better not become depressed or ill when pregnant, your necessary medication could have "potentional harmful side effects" for the baby. But hey don't worry, you won't need to make the chose between your definite health and the fetus' potential health, that legislation covers it for you.

I'm not sure why these same people aren't advocating veganism nation wide or working harder to end puppy farms and animal abuse. "All life is precious" is something I'll buy from someone who walks the walk and talks the talk.

Next there will be laws decreeing it indecent to feed your child in public. Or laws stating that women must cover their chests when men are allowed to go bare (don't need the guys getting distracted, everyone knows men are incapable of anything involving will power).
 
Stella_Omega said:
I repeat: the reason this bill did not pass is because so many Baptists don't register to vote.
Click to expand...

Stella, I don't doubt that many baptists don't vote, let alone register to vote. But that can't be the only reason this bill failed, and I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the sole reason this bill didn't pass is because a segment of the population doesn't vote.

There's a reason Mississippi has a reputation for being among most conservative states in the country, and that's because the people who do vote are very conservative. People who don't vote don't matter; people who do vote do, and in Mississippi, this latter group is conservative. This vote shows that a group of very conservative people rejected a poorly-worded and poorly-conceived bill.

I assure you, I am a politically active person in my area, but I choose to find some small degree of comfort from this vote. That said, yes, I realize another reason it may have been defeated is because pro-life people knew it would be struck down by the supreme court, and would have therefore set their movement back.

(And am I the only one who has to spell out Mississippi in my head with a nursery-school-like, sing-songy voice to get it right?)
 
Last edited:
BluebirdDreams said:
Next there will be laws decreeing it indecent to feed your child in public. Or laws stating that women must cover their chests when men are allowed to go bare (don't need the guys getting distracted, everyone knows men are incapable of anything involving will power).
Click to expand...

Well that's already something that is a hot button in the US. Sure, life is precious, but don't feed your kid where we can see it, because we'll be uncomfortable and it's your fault.

I think to an extent, a lot of this -- not all, but some -- is a matter of a smaller group making a ton of noise. That's the problem with being in the middle -- you tend not to make a lot of noise. If you do, then you're perceived as an extremist.

It is ridiculous that under such a law, I might have been investigated for something that was totally beyond my control, something that I had no indication of until I saw a doctor and had an ultrasound performed. And my doctor would have been investigated as well. That's absurd on the face of it. Which makes me wonder if anyone has/could point out the economic cost -- how much it would cost to add staff or construct an office that would have to investigate these matters. Maybe that would sway people against it as well.

No matter how or why it was voted down in Mississippi, one of the most conservative states (and poorest, if I recall), it was, and that's good to know.

What we need are leaders and politicians (which didn't used to be a bad word) to speak up for that middle ground, and rationality. However, at the moment, they're too afraid of losing their "base," despite the fact that the "middle" that they say they want is probably much larger.
 
PennLady said:
It is ridiculous that under such a law, I might have been investigated for something that was totally beyond my control, something that I had no indication of until I saw a doctor and had an ultrasound performed. And my doctor would have been investigated as well. That's absurd on the face of it.
Click to expand...

Several years ago The Times had an article about women in El Salvador, a country where all abortions are illegal. It's been a while since I read it, but if I recall correctly, their bodies become crime scenes, and can be investigated at the discretion of authorities; women can be sent to prison, leaving their children behind without a mother. It's a terrifying look at what could happen:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/magazine/09abortion.html?pagewanted=all

(and hey, to preempt complaints, sorry if this counts as "spam" if it requires registration.)
 
Last edited:
LettersFromTatyana said:
Several years ago The Times had an article about women in El Salvador, a country where all abortions are illegal. It's been a while since I read it, but if I recall correctly, their bodies become crime scenes, and can be investigated at the discretion of authorities; women can be sent to prison, leaving their children behind without a mother. It's a terrifying look at what could happen:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/magazine/09abortion.html?pagewanted=all

(and hey, to preempt complaints, sorry if this counts as "spam" if it requires registration.)
Click to expand...

That and in Nicaragua, where abortion is also illegal, dozens of women have died because of complications during the latter stages of pregnancy. Doctors refuse to do anything to save their lives that might possibly cause or lead to an abortion because of the strict rules that would lead to them possibly being charged with murder So much for being "pro-life."
 
HeyItsDani said:
That and in Nicaragua, where abortion is also illegal, dozens of women have died because of complications during the latter stages of pregnancy. Doctors refuse to do anything to save their lives that might possibly cause or lead to an abortion because of the strict rules that would lead to them possibly being charged with murder So much for being "pro-life."
Click to expand...

See my earlier post (on the previous page) for that one.
 
LettersFromTatyana said:
Stella, I don't doubt that many baptists don't vote, let alone register to vote. But that can't be the only reason this bill failed, and I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the sole reason this bill didn't pass is because a segment of the population doesn't vote.

There's a reason Mississippi has a reputation for being among most conservative states in the country, and that's because the people who do vote are very conservative. People who don't vote don't matter; people who do vote do, and in Mississippi, this latter group is conservative. This vote shows that a group of very conservative people rejected a poorly-worded and poorly-conceived bill.

I assure you, I am a politically active person in my area, but I choose to find some small degree of comfort from this vote. That said, yes, I realize another reason it may have been defeated is because pro-life people knew it would be struck down by the supreme court, and would have therefore set their movement back.

(And am I the only one who has to spell out Mississippi in my head with a nursery-school-like, sing-songy voice to get it right?)
Click to expand...
That makes sense, Tatyana, thank you. :rose:

And yes.:eek:
 
This makes me glad my husband had a vasectomy. My pregnancy was wrought with difficulties; I actually almost died while giving birth. And I've no wish to become pregnant again. Ever.


Eeesh. :(
 
Personally, I think the anti-abortion laws (I am NOT going to say "pro-life.") are an example of threocracy running wild. When churches have almost unlimited power, as in much of South America and in places like Iran, human rights suffer. This is one of the reasons for the Constitutional wall of separation between church and state. I know the First Amendment includes no such words, but it has come to be the way the rights of religion and the limitations on religion are expressed.
 
Last edited:
note to amicus

ami: Infection Details
URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/don-c-reed...
Process: file://C:\Program Files\Internet Explore...
Infection: jsownloader-gen@bhv [Expl]

ami: Warn your friends to avoid this website

===
sounds like a piece of far-right trollery, though perhaps ami did not intend it. i've added another link, to cbs; in any case, the story is available at dozens of sources. righties hate Arianna H with a passion.

===


one little nicety of the 'personhood' debate is that when an egg is fertilized, it's NOT clear how MANY persons (individual embryos) there are, for from 2-7 days. i.e. there may be twins, (triplets, or etc.) which come in several types.

http://www.pennmedicine.org/encyclopedia/em_DisplayAnimation.aspx?gcid=000058&ptid=17

this may be part of the reason that the 'right to life' folks, e.g. amicus, tend to leave 'personhood' go, these days, as a primary argument. (read ami's posts, above, and see his usual term is 'human life.')

also, it's obviously worth mentioning that 'life of the mother' is accepted as a valid reason for pregnancy termination (including life of fetus, if there is such) by most Americans, including such luminaries as Ronald Reagan, and a number of R. Catholic authorities.

to deny 'life of mother' as a valid reason to terminate, is to place mom's life in a subordinate position to that of the fetus she's carrying. hence it's quite laughable if someone intent on sacrificing mom's in such terrible circumstances, gets to label himself as 'pro life' or favoring protection of human life, at all costs. his intent is to deprive her, as a real, legal person, of the basic rights to life and liberty, as mentioned in the Dec'n of Independence.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that in the bible there is something very specific about it being moral to kill an unborn fetus to save the life of the mother.

But i'm not going to look for it-- maybe someone else can confirm or deny this?
 
Not that I can find but under Talmudic law that would be the case. Jewish scholars don't tend to look at things in a binary manner the way certain acephalic Fundies do.
 
stella: It seems to me that in the bible there is something very specific about it being moral to kill an unborn fetus to save the life of the mother.

But i'm not going to look for it-- maybe someone else can confirm or deny this?
====

i do not know of such a passage, but the mainstream of Judaism, including orthodoxy (iirc), generally accepts 'life of mother being in danger' --and a limited number of other grounds--as a valid reason for termination.

one reason--advanced by Maimonides-- [see section VII at the site mentioned below] would be based on making an analogy between the fetus and a 'pursuer' (rodef). and the Torah (as in Tanakh/OT) does give one the right to kill a pursuer, i.e. someone coming after you, who will kill you (see, e.g. Joshua 24:6).

another reason, offered by some, including Rashi [see section II at the site, below], is that the prohibition is of *murder* and of a *person.* and a fetus is not a 'human person.'

the relevant passage is : "If one smite any _nefesh adam_ [then there is a penalty]" (Lev. 24:17)

see the discussion of Rabbi Feldman's analysis at:

http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/cavalier/Forum/abortion/background/judaism1.html#V
 
Last edited:
what I dont get is that if you rape a woman and get her pregnant then you may pay a fine and court cost or spend up to 10 years in prison and you can even demand the right to see the child.

On the flip side, the rape victim is forced to endure the rape the trail and the pregnancy and all that goes with it. then the labor and then either give it up for adoption or abandon it or raise it with the same hate and ignorance that caused its birth until CPS get involved and takes the child away putting it in the welfare system where all manner of horrors befall the child and the knowledge of how the child came to be ever present in the records for all the good people who passed the bill and believe in bad seed can forever and alway lord it over the child that he or she is evil and destine for hell!

yes Way to go! nice bill that! the rapist, gets off with a slap on the wrist while his spawn bare the brutality of his actions!

after all its the American way right? o_O

AH! and they call me pervert because I read erotica! AH!
 
another reason, offered by some, including Rashi [see section II at the site, below], is that the prohibition is of *murder* and of a *person.* and a fetus is not a 'human person.'
Click to expand...
Ah, that's where our problem is, these guys want to declare the fetus a *human person*
 
Isn't that only in a case where the fetus has developed to where it could survive outside the womb? I realize that depends on the state, of course, but I mean 'in general'.
 
box Sometimes a fetus is considered a person. Somebody who murders a pregnant woman can be charged with two murders.

box is somewhat accurate here, in that federal law, and the law in some states, will consider murder to apply to causing the death of an 'unborn child' while committing another crime, often, the crime of murdering the mother. according to wiki, about 2 dozen states haves such laws, but in 10 instances, they apply only to the late-stage fetus

that said, the federal law (and i surmise, the state laws) contains this exemption for abortion with the mom's consent:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—

(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

===

so the 'unborn child' is not quite a legal person. declaring it to be such, has a number of odd consequences, though obviously there is a case for it (protection) in the late stages of pregnancy. in scott peterson's murder of his pregnant wife, laci, he was convicted, correctly IMO, of two murders.

as an odd consequence, consider this true story:

http://www.indystar.com/article/201...mom-who-ate-poison?odyssey=mod_sectionstories

Charges filed against mom who ate poison

An attorney on Wednesday denounced murder and attempted feticide charges formally filed against an Indianapolis woman who tried to commit suicide while she was pregnant. Her child died as a result.

Attorney Linda Pence, who's representing Bei Bei Shuai, 34, said the charges are not only unwarranted, but they could prevent other troubled mothers from seeking the help they need.
...

Shuai admitted to ingesting rat poison during the late stages of her pregnancy in December
 
voluptuary_manque said:
Isn't that only in a case where the fetus has developed to where it could survive outside the womb? I realize that depends on the state, of course, but I mean 'in general'.
Click to expand...

I think that is the case over here.
Of course, there is a bit of a grey area, particularly bearing in mind that modern medical science can do much for the prematurely-born child.
Opponents of Abortion often quote this in their favour.

Stella, could it be that the non-voting citizens of Mississippi just do not want to argue with the vociferous rest ?
 
Boxlicker101 said:
Sometimes a fetus is considered a person. Somebody who murders a pregnant woman can be charged with two murders. :eek:
Click to expand...

There are distinctions in those laws that stipulate the act has to be performed by another person against the mother's will (or in the absence of her consent - something along those lines). And in many states,the fetus does not have to have reached the point of viability.

Oops - I hadn't fully read Pure's response before I posted this, so what I said duplicates what s/he said. My bad.
 
Last edited:
The decision to have an abortion is between the mother and her conscience. The state, the church, whoever, has no business interfering through coercion or arbitrary laws. Period.
 
TE999 said:
The decision to have an abortion is between the mother and her conscience. The state, the church, whoever, has no business interfering through coercion or arbitrary laws. Period.
Click to expand...
I think so too, but it's taking a hell of a lot of effort to keep it that way because there are a hell of a lot of people spending a hell of a lot of time and a HELL of a lot of money, to deprive us of those rights.

So, my friends, I would like to ask you to add your name to the petitions, and toss five bucks towards the costs-- when you can.
http://emilyslist.org
Also http://credoaction.com
also http://couragecampaign.org

If you do charities at Christmas, consider adding Planned Parenthood to your list. A hundred bucks can keep a bunch of teenaged women from becoming teenaged mothers, and give them a chance to grow up into adults. You can choose to give it locally, or to the nationwide organisation.
 
note to TE

TE The decision to have an abortion is between the mother and her conscience. The state, the church, whoever, has no business interfering through coercion or arbitrary laws. Period.

Roe v. Wade, with which a majority of murkins agree [last i saw], recognizes the validity of the state's involvement in a decision to terminate in the latest stage of pregnancy. note i said 'involvement,' not necessarily 'interference.' IMO, the mother's right to her life is always there--and always the predominant right-- at all stages, unless she herself, of sound mind and voluntarily, waives it. this is more or less the murkin and canajun law, afaik.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top