Mississippi 'personhood' amendment fails

[TE999]

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.

Acknowledged; yet it is still legislation intended to contravene other proposed legislation forbidding abortion. I advocate a total lack of any governmental involvement ... although I admit that is unrealistic in today's society, divided on the issue as it is.

 

[mikey2much]

I think you misunderstood

You apparently also don't "see any evidence" of what PP really does. Planned Parenthood has done more to prevent abortions than all of the other organizations in this country combined. PP is the single largest provider of birth control and family planning services in the country. The more money you take away from them, the higher the abortion rates are going to go up, at least in the short run.

What JBJ means is that if you would help pay the bills many of the abortions would b canceled. Most of the people who get abortions , get them because they can't afford a baby, whether because they are single workers or because they are in school and have no income. Offer them a monthly payment they can live on and support their kid and a lot of them would take it.

I hope I am not stepping on JBJ toes by saying this but I think that is what he meant.

 

[Boxlicker101]

What JBJ means is that if you would help pay the bills many of the abortions would b canceled. Most of the people who get abortions , get them because they can't afford a baby, whether because they are single workers or because they are in school and have no income. Offer them a monthly payment they can live on and support their kid and a lot of them would take it.

I hope I am not stepping on JBJ toes by saying this but I think that is what he meant.

That probably is what he meant, although I can't speak or write for him. What you are describing is Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and you are old enough to remember when the money was handed out by the bucketfuls, ever since the days of LBJ, and even before, to a lesser degree. This was probably the most hated form of welfare in American history, because it was said, with much justification, to encourage immorality and laziness and irresponsibility. There were some girls and women who made a career out of getting knocked up and collecting money from the taxpayers to support the results. To these females, getting an abortion would be like a farmer burning his crops in the field instead of selling them.

Fathers were held responsible for supporting their offspring, but the females would say they did not know the names of the fathers, thereby sticking the taxpayers with the bills. Sometimes the mothers would be fifteen or sixteen year old girls who would drop out of school and never hold a job or even try to find one. Sometimes the children who were being supported by AFDC would themselves get pregnant in their early teens, with the result being three or four generations of welfare recipients.

These are stereotypes I am describing, but they were common enough until the 90's, when the Reps., with their "Contract with America" took control of Congress and eliminated or curtailed many of the abuses. Of course, there are also persons who find themselves in need of temporary help because of loss of jobs and other difficult circumstances. These people can get help, but it is with the understanding it was temporary and they would have to go to work and be self-suupporting, like most people, after a short period of aid.

 

[PennLady]

Well, here's an interesting article from Slate.com, which contains links to studies and other sources. The central idea is that women with children account for the largest number of abortions. And we're not (necessarily) talking women in trailers or ghettos on welfare. We're talking women in stable relationships, who opt not to have more children.

People need to pay the bills, but you know what? People need education. I've seen the stat in many places (and I'll have to find a link) that women with less education have more children, women with higher education have fewer, generally speaking. Much of that is because less education means jobs that don't pay much, which means not-great insurance, and many insurances don't cover things like the Pill in the first place (unless it's prescribed for reasons other than birth control, such as regulating one's period).

So, let's see, Viagra gets covered (sometimes, at least), but the Pill does not. Let's cover the pill that could increase the likelihood of pregnancy, and not the pill that would reduce it. Yeah, that makes sense.

Obviously, the solution for not having kids is not to have sex. That's not going to work, we all know that, so we need education out there. And we need to support places like Planned Parenthood, which is NOT the abortion factory many people want to believe. If people could indeed plan parenthood a bit better, we'd all be better off.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Oh, please.

the real point of these bills is that the men who author them hate women, in exactly the way the men who comment on the loving wives section here demonstrate.

They want the hoors and sluts to pay for their sins. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

So, let's see, Viagra gets covered (sometimes, at least), but the Pill does not. Let's cover the pill that could increase the likelihood of pregnancy, and not the pill that would reduce it. Yeah, that makes sense.

If it isn't already, the pill should be "free" to those with insurance by 2013 at the latest (unless that portion of the health care reform bill is repealed). The morning after pill should be free, too. Yeah, I know; it would be nice if it were free to everyone, but that's why we donate to things like planned parenthood.

(And those quote are there because we end up paying for it anyway in our premiums . . . sigh.)

 

[Stella_Omega]

If it isn't already, the pill should be free to those with insurance by 2013 at the latest (unless that portion of the health care reform bill is repealed). The morning after pill should be free, too. Yeah, I know; it would be nice if it were free to everyone, but that's why we donate to things like planned parenthood.

The GOP wants to repeal that portion.

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

The GOP wants to repeal that portion.

*fingers in ears* la-la-la-la-la

Let me live in happiness through 2012, ok?

 

[Stella_Omega]

*fingers in ears* la-la-la-la-la

Let me live in happiness through 2012, ok?

Nope, sorry. Not if we all want to live in happiness AFTER 2012.

Friends don't let friends vote against their own best interests.

 

[Pure]

mostly myth

box What you are describing is Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and you are old enough to remember when the money was handed out by the bucketfuls, ever since the days of LBJ, and even before, to a lesser degree. This was probably the most hated form of welfare in American history, because it was said, with much justification, to encourage immorality and laziness and irresponsibility. There were some girls and women who made a career out of getting knocked up and collecting money from the taxpayers to support the results. To these females, getting an abortion would be like a farmer burning his crops in the field instead of selling them.

[...] Sometimes the mothers would be fifteen or sixteen year old girls who would drop out of school and never hold a job or even try to find one. Sometimes the children who were being supported by AFDC would themselves get pregnant in their early teens, with the result being three or four generations of welfare recipients.

These are stereotypes I am describing, but they were common enough until the 90's, when the Reps., with their "Contract with America" took control of Congress and eliminated or curtailed many of the abuses.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

women (receiving aid) as career baby machines is pretty much a myth. do you have any evidence as to prevalence of that phenomenon (before Rep'ns saved the day, in 1994)?

it is true that certain 'welfare approaches', esp. those in the US, and esp. those unrelated to job getting, education, and job training, have created cycles of dependency and a 'generational effect.' but this is not the same thing as your stereotype image of slut, career baby-popping women with lives devoted to exploiting forms of aid to dependent children.

 

[Stella_Omega]

your stereotype image of slut, career baby-popping women with lives devoted to exploiting forms of aid to dependent children.

It's that good old Republican slogan; SERVES YOU RIGHT. It's Limbaugh's lie.

 

[stephen55]

Handley_Page, the 'Right to Life', in our basic documents, means all life. Medical science has determined that life is created at the instant of conception.

Amicus Veritas

Bullshit!!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

What JBJ means is that if you would help pay the bills many of the abortions would b canceled. Most of the people who get abortions , get them because they can't afford a baby, whether because they are single workers or because they are in school and have no income. Offer them a monthly payment they can live on and support their kid and a lot of them would take it.

I hope I am not stepping on JBJ toes by saying this but I think that is what he meant.

You hit the target.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

box What you are describing is Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and you are old enough to remember when the money was handed out by the bucketfuls, ever since the days of LBJ, and even before, to a lesser degree. This was probably the most hated form of welfare in American history, because it was said, with much justification, to encourage immorality and laziness and irresponsibility. There were some girls and women who made a career out of getting knocked up and collecting money from the taxpayers to support the results. To these females, getting an abortion would be like a farmer burning his crops in the field instead of selling them.

[...] Sometimes the mothers would be fifteen or sixteen year old girls who would drop out of school and never hold a job or even try to find one. Sometimes the children who were being supported by AFDC would themselves get pregnant in their early teens, with the result being three or four generations of welfare recipients.

These are stereotypes I am describing, but they were common enough until the 90's, when the Reps., with their "Contract with America" took control of Congress and eliminated or curtailed many of the abuses.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

women (receiving aid) as career baby machines is pretty much a myth. do you have any evidence as to prevalence of that phenomenon (before Rep'ns saved the day, in 1994)?

it is true that certain 'welfare approaches', esp. those in the US, and esp. those unrelated to job getting, education, and job training, have created cycles of dependency and a 'generational effect.' but this is not the same thing as your stereotype image of slut, career baby-popping women with lives devoted to exploiting forms of aid to dependent children.

I've known females to stay pregnant for steady income. What they do is associate with multiple partners, get pregnant, and manipulate all the partners for income. Then they put the baby up for adoption and get pregnant again.

 

[SlickTony]

The people who conceived the Personhood amendment don't seem to know much about biology. Sure, egg and sperm can combine to form a zygote, but if it happens to be too early or late in a woman's cycle, it won't implant--because the uterine lining isn't ready yet or because it's senescent--and will get passed out with the menses.

So, by the logic of the Personhood Amendment, any woman who's sexually active should have a memorial service conducted over all her used napkins and tampons--and I guess the contents of her Keeper or whatever, as well--just to be safe.

I might have said this before, but evidently I didn't say it enough or disseminate it in enough places.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The people who conceived the Personhood amendment don't seem to know much about biology. Sure, egg and sperm can combine to form a zygote, but if it happens to be too early or late in a woman's cycle, it won't implant--because the uterine lining isn't ready yet or because it's senescent--and will get passed out with the menses.

So, by the logic of the Personhood Amendment, any woman who's sexually active should have a memorial service conducted over all her used napkins and tampons--and I guess the contents of her Keeper or whatever, as well--just to be safe.

I might have said this before, but evidently I didn't say it enough or disseminate it in enough places.

it's too complicated for them. Not only do they not know anything about biology, but they don't want to know anything about biology.

You mistake the intention of these bills.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Exactly. Politics is never about what it says it is. Politics is for its own sake, the quest for power.

 

[SlickTony]

it's too complicated for them. Not only do they not know anything about biology, but they don't want to know anything about biology.

You mistake the intention of these bills.

Oh, I agree that the people who are trying to get the Personhood amendment passed don't know much about biology--this was for people whom might have been capable of thinking things through.

 

[Handley_Page]

The people who conceived the Personhood amendment don't seem to know much about biology. Sure, egg and sperm can combine to form a zygote, but if it happens to be too early or late in a woman's cycle, it won't implant--because the uterine lining isn't ready yet or because it's senescent--and will get passed out with the menses.

So, by the logic of the Personhood Amendment, any woman who's sexually active should have a memorial service conducted over all her used napkins and tampons--and I guess the contents of her Keeper or whatever, as well--just to be safe.

I might have said this before, but evidently I didn't say it enough or disseminate it in enough places.

Thank you for the lesson.

Stella: Re: Serve you right.
What about the Fathers paying for their mistakes ?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Thank you for the lesson.

Stella: Re: Serve you right.
What about the Fathers paying for their mistakes ?

I guess they are not allowed to have abortions either.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I believe the approved approach is to garnishee about half of his wages until the child reaches eighteen and forbid him to further his education in order to meet the required payments. Oh, and he doesn't get visitation, either.

 

[Handley_Page]

I guess they are not allowed to have abortions either.

You mean that the Court does not automatically order some form of payment for his (stereotypical) stupidity ?

 

[mikey2much]

The republicans had enough power to fuck this law up also

box What you are describing is Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and you are old enough to remember when the money was handed out by the bucketfuls, ever since the days of LBJ, and even before, to a lesser degree. This was probably the most hated form of welfare in American history, because it was said, with much justification, to encourage immorality and laziness and irresponsibility. There were some girls and women who made a career out of getting knocked up and collecting money from the taxpayers to support the results. To these females, getting an abortion would be like a farmer burning his crops in the field instead of selling them.

[...] Sometimes the mothers would be fifteen or sixteen year old girls who would drop out of school and never hold a job or even try to find one. Sometimes the children who were being supported by AFDC would themselves get pregnant in their early teens, with the result being three or four generations of welfare recipients.

These are stereotypes I am describing, but they were common enough until the 90's, when the Reps., with their "Contract with America" took control of Congress and eliminated or curtailed many of the abuses.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

women (receiving aid) as career baby machines is pretty much a myth. do you have any evidence as to prevalence of that phenomenon (before Rep'ns saved the day, in 1994)?

it is true that certain 'welfare approaches', esp. those in the US, and esp. those unrelated to job getting, education, and job training, have created cycles of dependency and a 'generational effect.' but this is not the same thing as your stereotype image of slut, career baby-popping women with lives devoted to exploiting forms of aid to dependent children.

I think this was the law that destroyed so many black families. The right wing could not stand the thought of some black guy laying around the house when he should be out looking for work. So part of the law was that there could be no man in the house, if the woman was drawing money. This was the beginning of the single mother culture that we are fighting to change now.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I think this was the law that destroyed so many black families. The right wing could not stand the thought of some black guy laying around the house when he should be out looking for work. So part of the law was that there could be no man in the house, if the woman was drawing money. This was the beginning of the single mother culture that we are fighting to change now.

First, this had nothing to do with race. From what I have always read and heard on the subject, although I have no first hand knowledge, there were more white women collecting AFDC than there were black or brown. However, the nulmbers for the latter two groups were disproportionate to their percentage of the population.

Legislators had the quaint notion that people should support the children they had produced the way people had done throughout recorded history. The problem is not so much the law itself as it was the steps some people took and are still taking to circumvent it.

 

[mikey2much]

You are correct Box

First, this had nothing to do with race. From what I have always read and heard on the subject, although I have no first hand knowledge, there were more white women collecting AFDC than there were black or brown. However, the nulmbers for the latter two groups were disproportionate to their percentage of the population.

Legislators had the quaint notion that people should support the children they had produced the way people had done throughout recorded history. The problem is not so much the law itself as it was the steps some people took and are still taking to circumvent it.

I shouldn't but said anything about race in that last post. forgive me, I was having a Herman Cain moment. Race had nothing to do with it although I was living in Jackson Miss. when the law was passed and the people who voted for it, that lived around me, had blacks on their mind when they cast their ballots.