Jump to content
IGNORED

Mississippi's 'Personhood' Law Could Outlaw Birth Control


Shoobydoo

Recommended Posts

I didn't see any mention of this on the front page here, I thought you guys would like to see this one.

http://news.yahoo.com/why-mississippis- ... 09540.html

"On Tuesday (Nov. 8), Mississippi voters will decide whether fertilized eggs qualify as "persons" under the law from the moment when sperm and egg meet. But while the law is designed to challenge Roe v. Wade and outlaw abortion, doctors say that the wording is also likely to outlaw common methods of birth control, including the birth control pill.

That's because some of those methods may work, in part at least, by making the uterus inhospitable to implantation by an fertilized egg, said Pittsburgh family physician Deborah Gilboa. That could mean that some eggs become fertilized and are flushed out in women taking a birth control pill, using an intrauterine device (IUD) or taking "Plan B," the morning-after pill.

"If you have anything that makes the lining of the uterus not hospitable and [the fertilized egg] doesn't attach, the woman won't ever know, because it's tiny, just microscopic," Gilboa told LiveScience."

"Proposition 26, Mississippi's anti-abortion amendment, pushes legal personhood back to the moment of fertilization, a point that is not generally medically detectable. Proponents of the new law saw that it will not ban the use of hormonal contraceptives. However, "Yes on 26" members also write on their website that the group is opposed to birth control methods, "which act to prevent implantation of the newly formed human into the lining of the womb." They include in this category some forms of the pill and other hormonal drugs, as well as IUDs."

:evil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 513
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'd like to hear the response from members who are for abortion rights, to this statement by a mother from Oxford quoted in a recent CNN article.

"If a woman was attacked and her unborn child was killed, it would be fetal homicide. That is considered a person," she said. "But on that very same day in the same area, a woman could go and have an abortion and kill her child, and nothing would happen. So we have a contradiction, and that is what we're trying to fix here."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right off the top of my head: The person who attacked the pregnant woman does not have the right to make reproductive decisions for her, while the woman does have that right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having a "contradiction" in the law isn't the end of the world. Not everything is a black and white issue. They are two completely different scenarios and should be treated as thus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to hear the response from members who are for abortion rights, to this statement by a mother from Oxford quoted in a recent CNN article.

"If a woman was attacked and her unborn child was killed, it would be fetal homicide. That is considered a person," she said. "But on that very same day in the same area, a woman could go and have an abortion and kill her child, and nothing would happen. So we have a contradiction, and that is what we're trying to fix here."

For fuck's sake. A fetus is not a fucking person. There's a reason it's FETAL homicide, and not just homicide. Besides, it is WRONG to attack any woman, including a pregnant woman to the point that she lost a baby that she very much wanted.

An abortion is generally performed very early on in the pregnancy, and is in no way viable.

That is not a contradiction. A woman has the right to her body. Attacking her and making her lose that baby is infringing upon her rights. Forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term, and change her body and life forever, is also infringing upon those rights.

For us pro-choicers, it's not about the fetus, it's about the mother, who has already been born and has begun to contribute to society in some way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is, why is one considered a homicide and one is not?

Homicide is illegal and involves violence, abortion is legal and is not violent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it should be fetal homicide. Under the law in this country, a fetus is not a person. You cannot make a fetus a beneficiary. You cannot claim a fetus as a deduction on your taxes. You cannot put a fetus on your insurance plan. Until birth, they are not consider people under U.S. law. Sorry, that's the breaks. If the state of Mississippi is going to make a fetus a person, then they will have to allow for all of the above mentioned scenarios. Otherwise, their bill is crap.

This is my body and it's my decision if I want to carry a pregnancy to term. Particularly one that threatens my health or was forced upon me. I had to get an abortion for an ectopic pregnancy a couple of years ago. The idiots in Mississippi think I should be dead now because apparently a cluster of cells is worth more than my life. It'll be a cold day in hell before I ever step foot in Mississippi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it should be fetal homicide. Under the law in this country, a fetus is not a person. You cannot make a fetus a beneficiary. You cannot claim a fetus as a deduction on your taxes. You cannot put a fetus on your insurance plan. Until birth, they are not consider people under U.S. law. Sorry, that's the breaks. If the state of Mississippi is going to make a fetus a person, then they will have to allow for all of the above mentioned scenarios. Otherwise, their bill is crap.

This is my body and it's my decision if I want to carry a pregnancy to term. Particularly one that threatens my health or was forced upon me. I had to get an abortion for an ectopic pregnancy a couple of years ago. The idiots in Mississippi think I should be dead now because apparently a cluster of cells is worth more than my life. It'll be a cold day in hell before I ever step foot in Mississippi.

I agree. A perpetrator can be prosecuted on his/her assault on the woman. The fetal homicide thing is just a ruse for the anti-choice folks to get fetuses recognized as persons and that's what that whole law is all about. They really aren't all that concerned about terrible attacks on women, in terms of their reasons for pushing the law, I don't believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are saying its a matter of the method of termination that matters?

A fetus is not a person. In a roundabout way, fetal homicide is more about injury to the mother, not the fetus. Because in order to commit fetal homicide, you have to attack a pregnant woman. there's a huge difference in committing an act of violence against another living human being and terminating a pregnancy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fetus is not a person. Can it smile? Comprehend feelings? Eat, breathe, digest, and develop an immune system outside of being attached to mom? At early stages of development, a fetus doesn't have all the necessary parts to function--it's a lump of cells that haven't fully differentiated and are just beginning to organize into organ systems. Along with all the aforementioned statements about a fetus not legally being a person, it physically isn't a person either.

This is really sickening and enraging to read. A woman's body is her property and she can do whatever the fuck she wants to it. What harm is an abortion going to do to society? Seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are saying its a matter of the method of termination that matters?

No. Much like felony murder, where a death that occurs during the commission of a felony is a homicide where it otherwise would not be, feticide is an act that is not otherwise a homicide but for the fact that it occurred during the commission of a criminal act (I would assume an assault). That "inconsistency" has plenty of common law analogies to back it up - and felony murder is no more a reason to change the homicide statutes than feticide in certain jurisdictions is a reason to redefine the meaning of person.

Any other bad logic you want to run by me? I've got all day.

I should probably start talking about how much I love my new nail polish though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Personhood Amendment is flawed from the very beginning. It supposes that life starts at fertilization, when in reality, science has shown that only about 50% of all fertilized eggs manage to implant and create the possibility of a viable pregnancy. By this logic, is every heavy period suspect as a possible homicide? A homicide committed by a uterus that just wasn't able to receive an fertilized egg?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this law passes, there should be a campaign for all women to mail their used pads and tampons to the governor--just in case they are needed for any criminal murder investigations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another way to think about it: even if you believe that the fetus is a fully functioning human being with certain rights, the mother is certainly providing life support. Abortion would be the withdrawal of life support--the legal decision maker deciding to take a relative off the heart-lung bypass machine. The fetal homicide is the equivalent of someone unrelated sneaking into the hospital room and violently killing someone on life support. These two matters are morally and legally distinct from each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to hear the response from members who are for abortion rights, to this statement by a mother from Oxford quoted in a recent CNN article.

"If a woman was attacked and her unborn child was killed, it would be fetal homicide. That is considered a person," she said. "But on that very same day in the same area, a woman could go and have an abortion and kill her child, and nothing would happen. So we have a contradiction, and that is what we're trying to fix here."

This is all I came up with: :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jericho - what do you think?

Since you asked, my personal opinion is that a fetus is a life and human life is sacred.

I appreciate the feedback to my questions. I like to hear what people on the other side have to say, especially in a kind, respectful fashion. (something you don't see much of normally in discussions about abortion)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you asked, my personal opinion is that a fetus is a life and human life is sacred.

I appreciate the feedback to my questions. I like to hear what people on the other side have to say, especially in a kind, respectful fashion. (something you don't see much of normally in discussions about abortion)

I think a human that has already been born is far more important than one who has not been.

You'd be surprised at historical views of abortion. The Catholic Church did not always condemn abortion. English common law did not consider a fetus to be a life until "quickening," or movement, so abortion was fine at that point. Abortion has always been practiced, and the reason it became illegal in the US was because of how dangerous the procedure was and how pointless it had become- it was, in theory, supposed to make women simply resume their lives and control how many births they needed, but it caused very serious damage instead.

I personally find it ridiculous that should a condom fail, a woman will have to carry a pregnancy to term, and pay for all of the doctor's appointments, not to mention pay for the birth as well, when the reason she and her partner used the condom in the first place was to avoid all of that because it was cheaper. Birth control was banned for married couples until 1965. Even if you are all about abstinence until marriage, it's ridiculous that a married couple cannot control how many children they have according to their income and ability to support children. I don't think a fetus, embryo, fertilized egg, blastocyst, whatever is a life. To me, it's not a life until it is breathing on its own, or at least would survive if born premature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the huge problems I see with the pro-life movement is that it is not pro-life. If the mother's life is threatened, she should die. If her health is threatened, oh well. If her finances and/or the family health are threatened, ditto. And once those kids are born, they are at their parents' mercy.

If you are pro-life, that means you believe that a woman should be forced to provide 24/7 life support to a person she does not know and did not invite into her life, and pay for all of that care as well. Even if that threatens her own well-being and even her life. I just don't see that as reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




  • Recent Status Updates

    • Jinder Roles

      Jinder Roles

      Currently obsessed with Laura Mvula, a musical genius
      · 0 replies
    • Bluebirdbluebell

      Bluebirdbluebell

      I highly recommend Not the Good Girl's Youtube channel. She is making great documentaries about cults.
      · 0 replies
    • BlackberryGirl

      BlackberryGirl

      Ohh jeeze, GrandBerry6 just came to me, snuggled his face in my neck and barfed, all over me. In my neck, in my hair, on my face, down inside my nightie all over the front of my nightie. Ohh FUCK! Bath, washed hair, cleaned sofa. Good times, good times.
      · 2 replies
    • Scrabblemaster

      Scrabblemaster

      I danced through my living room feeling awesome. From time to time I do this. Maybe wine is involved. Good music is definitely involved. It is awesome. I recommend it to you. With or without wine.
      · 2 replies
    • Hazelbunny

      Hazelbunny

      After a few months of trying to decide what kind of new computer to get and my brother telling me a Mac would be the best decision I could ever make and my sister telling me that would be the worst and I ought to stick to Windows.... I now have a used Mac. I am trying to get used to it. Not easy, but the Magnifying program is a lot better than the Windows one (that was the ultimate reason for my decision) and FJ works a lot better than on my 10-year old Laptop, too!!  
      · 0 replies
    • WannabeHistorian

      WannabeHistorian

      Y'all, holter monitors suck. And naturally the palpitations that caused this test to be ordered are remarkably absent today. 
      I'm off to go work out in the hopes that triggers it. T minus 10 hours till I get this thing off. 
      · 4 replies
    • 47of74

      47of74

      Fuck Fornicate.  Glad I got in to see this place before the world went to shit.
       
      · 0 replies
    • PreciousPantsofDoom

      PreciousPantsofDoom

      I frigging hate the toilets at this worksite. Specifically the door locks. Stupid little knoblet that isn't clear if it is locked or not. Door opens right off the main hallway and the toilet is just far enough from the door that I can't just hold the door shut in case I've got the lock wrong. I mean really people, how hard is it to design this? I just want to pee in private with no anxiety. Apparently that is too much to ask for. 
      · 1 reply
    • 47of74

      47of74

      First thing I'm doing when I get to the hereafter is finding the ancestors who moved to the US in the first place and asking them what the fuck they were thinking moving here in the first place.  Along with giving them an epic the reason you suck speech hopefully in the presence of God and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself to all of them for condemning their descendants to living in a shithole.
      · 0 replies
    • feministxtian

      feministxtian

      Its STILL snowing. Its not like I don't have a million things to do and need to take crap to the dumpster. 
      · 2 replies
  • Recent Blog Entries

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.