Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

subego · Nov 8, 2011, 03:04 PM

"Should the term “person” be defined to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the equivalent thereof?"

Secretary of State :: Elections

This is a constitutional amendment being debated in Mississippi that by some measures I've read will probably pass.

Discuss.

I have issues with it, but I don't want to poison the pool right off the bat.

Shaddim · Nov 8, 2011, 03:24 PM

Well, currently it's a person if someone injures the mother and harms him/her, but it's a thing if the mother herself wants to abort it. The whole issue is a bit of a paradox.

subego · Nov 8, 2011, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Well, currently it's a person if someone injures the mother and harms him/her, but it's a thing if the mother herself wants to abort it. The whole issue is a bit of a paradox.

If you don't object to me asking, do you think abortion should be legal?

iranfromthezoo · Nov 8, 2011, 03:35 PM

Living in MS this has pretty much divided our state. There is so much misinformation being spewed from both sides on this issue. I am voting "NO" on this initiative, but I am against abortion. The language is too vague and there aren't enough answers as to the consequence from the lawmakers of what would happen if voted in. Only the people marketing the No and Yes vote are responding to the questions of what would happen and you know both of them are skewing it for their own benefit.

subego · Nov 8, 2011, 03:41 PM

Apart from it being over-broad (which I agree it is), the ballot question is pretty damn loaded.

iranfromthezoo · Nov 8, 2011, 03:49 PM

We'll find out tonight what the results are.

subego · Nov 8, 2011, 04:06 PM

How does the amendment process work in Mississippi? I get the impression you have a simple majority and BLAMMO, it's an amendment.

ort888 · Nov 8, 2011, 04:45 PM

I think people who are capable of having children but don't are murderers.

Shaddim · Nov 8, 2011, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by subego

If you don't object to me asking, do you think abortion should be legal?

Yes, I'm pro-choice, but I believe that 3 months is plenty of time for a person to make up their mind if they're going to have an abortion. Of course, there are exceptions; if the woman's life is in danger or if it's determined the child will be born with extreme birth defects*.

*If the baby couldn't go on to live anything that remotely resembles a normal life.

subego · Nov 8, 2011, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Yes, I'm pro-choice, but I believe that 3 months is plenty of time for a person to make up their mind if they're going to have an abortion. Of course, there are exceptions; if the woman's life is in danger or if it's determined the child will be born with extreme birth defects*.

Do you have a take on the constitutionality of it, as it stands now?

OAW · Nov 8, 2011, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Yes, I'm pro-choice, but I believe that 3 months is plenty of time for a person to make up their mind if they're going to have an abortion. Of course, there are exceptions; if the woman's life is in danger or if it's determined the child will be born with extreme birth defects*.

*If the baby couldn't go on to live anything that remotely resembles a normal life.

Agreed.

OAW

Shaddim · Nov 8, 2011, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by subego

Do you have a take on the constitutionality of it, as it stands now?

No idea, it just seems to me to be a logical course. No brain function means it isn't actually alive yet, IMO.

hyteckit · Nov 8, 2011, 07:21 PM

Mississippi? Isn't this bible belt state known for having one of the highest teenage pregnancy and abortion rates?

hyteckit · Nov 8, 2011, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Yes, I'm pro-choice, but I believe that 3 months is plenty of time for a person to make up their mind if they're going to have an abortion. Of course, there are exceptions; if the woman's life is in danger or if it's determined the child will be born with extreme birth defects*.

*If the baby couldn't go on to live anything that remotely resembles a normal life.

I agree with that.

iranfromthezoo · Nov 8, 2011, 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Mississippi? Isn't this bible belt state known for having one of the highest teenage pregnancy and abortion rates?

Yes but before you throw that out there please understand the condition of our state. If you take out the delta counties of our state, we would rank in the middle for education, healthcare, teen pregnancy and obesity. We have a huge problem in the delta where farming is now mechanized (for the most part). There is no such thing as internet, people don't have cars and there are no doctors. People live there because thats the status quo and the government takes care of them and gives them a check. They work when it is time for cotton harvest or some other labor intensive crop that you can't use a tractor. That is just once a year. The delta is really backwoods and unfortunately there aren't enough jobs for the population albeit small. I'm not blaming my states problems on this one area of the state but it is in large part what is wrong with our state. People grew up getting hand outs from the government and people expect that. It is a cycle of poverty. They see the people who leave and get an education that never come back...because there is nothing here for them. Sorry for being off topic but thought I'd shed some light on why MS is in that particular situation.

ebuddy · Nov 8, 2011, 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Mississippi? Isn't this bible belt state known for having one of the highest teenage pregnancy and abortion rates?

Yes, and poverty.

hyteckit · Nov 8, 2011, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Yes, and poverty.

And forcing all those pregnant teenagers to have their babies would only make the poverty situation there worst.

iranfromthezoo · Nov 8, 2011, 11:43 PM

Personhood fails in Mississippi.

Personhood initiative fails in Mississippi | The Clarion-Ledger | clarionledger.com

Mississippi voters Tuesday defeated a ballot initiative that would've declared life begins at conception, a proposal that supporters sought in the Bible Belt state as a way to prompt a legal challenge to abortion rights nationwide.

The proposal was pushed by a Colorado-based group, Personhood USA. The group's co-founder, Keith Mason, says he intends to renew efforts in Mississippi, either through legislation or through another ballot initiative.

The group is trying to put similar initiatives on 2012 ballots in Florida, Montana, Ohio and Oregon, Nevada and California. Mason said the group plans to pursue life-at-fertilization legislation next year in Alabama, Wisconsin and Michigan.

Voters in Colorado rejected similar ballot initiatives in 2008 and 2010.

In Mississippi, the measure divided the medical and religious communities.

olePigeon · Nov 8, 2011, 11:49 PM

Good. The bill was so broad it actually would have made IVF clinics illegal, and doctors that perform emergency abortions to save the life of the mother because of rare pregnancy complications could be prosecuted for murder.

Now they can go back to more important issues, like teaching their children that pink unicorns created people.

ebuddy · Nov 9, 2011, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

And forcing all those pregnant teenagers to have their babies would only make the poverty situation there worst.

Really? How do you know the prospect of child-rearing wouldn't lead to either less sex or in the least, safer sex?

iranfromthezoo · Nov 9, 2011, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Good. The bill was so broad it actually would have made IVF clinics illegal, and doctors that perform emergency abortions to save the life of the mother because of rare pregnancy complications could be prosecuted for murder.

Now they can go back to more important issues, like teaching their children that pink unicorns created people.

Actually in Mississippi there is a law on the books that kept IVF clinics safe and protected doctors from being charged for homicide to protect a mother. (Source: MScode of 1972). But there was so much misinformation about this from both sides it was annoying. I got tired of hearing about it.

subego · Nov 9, 2011, 09:32 AM

Wouldn't a constitutional amendment override current legislation?

CreepDogg · Nov 9, 2011, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Really? How do you know the prospect of child-rearing wouldn't lead to either less sex or in the least, safer sex?

Because horny teenagers never think that far ahead!

CreepDogg · Nov 9, 2011, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Yes, I'm pro-choice, but I believe that 3 months is plenty of time for a person to make up their mind if they're going to have an abortion. Of course, there are exceptions; if the woman's life is in danger or if it's determined the child will be born with extreme birth defects*.

*If the baby couldn't go on to live anything that remotely resembles a normal life.

I think this is a reasonable approach to a difficult issue.

As for the people behind this initiative - I don't agree with their answer, but I'm glad to see they're at least addressing the right question (personhood).

iranfromthezoo · Nov 9, 2011, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by subego

Wouldn't a constitutional amendment override current legislation?

No, this would just define that life begins at conception. It never stated that anything would become illegal and the MS Code would not become irrelevant according to our legislators.

besson3c · Nov 9, 2011, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Yes, I'm pro-choice, but I believe that 3 months is plenty of time for a person to make up their mind if they're going to have an abortion. Of course, there are exceptions; if the woman's life is in danger or if it's determined the child will be born with extreme birth defects*.

*If the baby couldn't go on to live anything that remotely resembles a normal life.

That's my current position too. Maybe you should be a mod?

Uncle Skeleton · Nov 9, 2011, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Yes, I'm pro-choice, but I believe that 3 months is plenty of time for a person to make up their mind if they're going to have an abortion. Of course, there are exceptions; if the woman's life is in danger or if it's determined the child will be born with extreme birth defects*.

*If the baby couldn't go on to live anything that remotely resembles a normal life.

So is this different from the status quo? IOW do you think any new law is necessary to bring this about, in practice?

ebuddy · Nov 9, 2011, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by CreepDogg

Because horny teenagers never think that far ahead!

At least some of them are getting and using birth control. I think many more would consider it if there were a "far ahead" in the equation.

CreepDogg · Nov 10, 2011, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

At least some of them are getting and using birth control. I think many more would consider it if there were a "far ahead" in the equation.

Possibly, but then again, it's not like there's a currently dearth of education about and availability of birth control.

I'll maintain, horny teenagers don't think about the 'far ahead'. They think 'it won't happen to me'. And even if they do consider the 'far ahead', well, it's not like it's a pleasant 'far ahead' even with abortion in the picture.

Bottom line - if you're looking to curb teen sex by outlawing abortions -- FAIL.

subego · Nov 10, 2011, 04:10 AM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

At least some of them are getting and using birth control. I think many more would consider it if there were a "far ahead" in the equation.

It seems to me the people this policy would have the least effect on are the same people I want most to have accessibility to abortions (i.e. impulsive and/or stupid types).

ebuddy · Nov 10, 2011, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by subego

It seems to me the people this policy would have the least effect on are the same people I want most to have accessibility to abortions (i.e. impulsive and/or stupid types).

This argument strikes me as a tinge genocidal.

ebuddy · Nov 10, 2011, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by CreepDogg

Possibly, but then again, it's not like there's a currently dearth of education about and availability of birth control.

I'll maintain, horny teenagers don't think about the 'far ahead'. They think 'it won't happen to me'. And even if they do consider the 'far ahead', well, it's not like it's a pleasant 'far ahead' even with abortion in the picture.

Bottom line - if you're looking to curb teen sex by outlawing abortions -- FAIL.

I disagree and have a little more optimism with regard to teenagers, that they absolutely can make good decisions and not necessarily lead in all things by their horniness. Before we become too jaded here, remember most teen girls are not pregnant.

CreepDogg · Nov 10, 2011, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Before we become too jaded here, remember most teen girls are not pregnant.

Correct. And whether or not abortions are legal won't change that (thankfully).

subego · Nov 10, 2011, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

This argument strikes me as a tinge genocidal.

Just a tinge. Mostly, I'd call it teal.

CreepDogg · Nov 10, 2011, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I disagree and have a little more optimism with regard to teenagers, that they absolutely can make good decisions and not necessarily lead in all things by their horniness.

And just for the record, I'm not talking about 'all' teenagers. Of course there are many who think ahead and make smart choices (though many of them get horny too and engage in sexual activity, albeit with appropriate precaution). By 'horny teenagers', I'm talking about those who engage in risky behavior. By the very nature of their behavior, they're either not thinking ahead or they're thinking it can't happen to them.

This is not a matter of optimism or pessimism, just realism.

ebuddy · Nov 10, 2011, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by subego

Just a tinge. Mostly, I'd call it teal.

Opps, nice catch.

hyteckit · Nov 10, 2011, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Really? How do you know the prospect of child-rearing wouldn't lead to either less sex or in the least, safer sex?

I don't see how initiative 26 is going to lead to less sex or safer sex. It's not like the prospect of child-rearing didn't exist before initiative 26.

If those at-risk teenagers have thought that far ahead, they'll would've worn a condom or taken some sort of birth control or morning after pill.

Maybe we should make it illegal for teenagers under 18 to have sex, punishable with jail time? Or fine them $1000 for each sex act?