Editor’s Note: Dr. Freda Bush is an OB-GYN who practices in Jackson, Mississippi. She is a former presidential appointee to the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS from 2006-2009, and a speaker and author on issues connected to sexuality.
On Tuesday, Mississippi voters can decide whether the state's constitution should define personhood as "every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the function equivalent thereof." If approved, it would make it impossible to get an abortion, and hamper the ability to get some forms of birth control. Click here to read an argument in opposition of the amendment.
By Dr. Freda Bush, Special to CNN
(CNN) - As a Christian, a black American woman, mother, grandmother and OB-GYN, I know that every person is valuable and has a right to life.
I know I have become a better person because I sacrificed myself for my four children. Mothers take care of their children, teach and guide them until they can care for themselves. My mother, who had nine children, said, "A mother carries a child under her heart for nine months, then in her heart for the rest of her life."
Mississippi’s Amendment 26 recognizes a human being as a person from the beginning of their biological development to their natural end, regardless of the means by which they were procreated or method of reproduction, thereby giving the person legal protection. No one has the right to take the life of an innocent human being.
Mississippi governor supports amendment to declare fertilized egg a person
Many people say Amendment 26 is taking government too far. They forget that it was only 38 years ago, in 1973, when the Supreme Court ruled that a woman had the “right to choose” abortion through all nine months of pregnancy. That is when government went too far.
I have worked in women’s health for more than 40 years. Every woman knows when she gets pregnant that she is pregnant with child and the child has his or her own body. Whether the pregnancy is planned or unplanned, wanted or unwanted, the initial response to the positive pregnancy test is a surprised inhalation, followed by a rush of emotions and questions: "Am I really pregnant? Do I want this NOW? What are my choices?"
The choice for women is to choose life, not death, for their child. Women can be assured pregnancy is not an incurable disease and is time limited.
Many have expressed fear about how Amendment 26 will affect in vitro fertilization because the process often creates more embryonic human beings than are implanted in the mother’s womb, and the excess are usually discarded. Amendment 26 would not ban IVF. However, it would require ethical standards to forbid the intentional mass production, genetic selection and harvesting of embryos for research.
IVF mothers ought to be fighting for Amendment 26. They know the yearning in their hearts to fill the void that can only be filled by a child. They go through tests and spend thousands of dollars to have an egg and sperm unite. One unique individual will begin to grow to the stage it can be instilled in her womb, where it will implant, continue growth and be born. The expectation is the "fertilized egg," yes, even the "potential person" will fulfill that potential and will one day soon be held in her arms and in her heart.
How can any woman not believe that every child deserves the opportunity to live? Life does not guarantee health and wealth, but comes with an innate and sacred value given by God that is not based upon our circumstances. I am a person who once lived in my mother’s body. Though born naked, poor and disenfranchised in the South, I’m glad my mother chose life for me.
Mississippi amendment on "personhood" divides Christians
Amendment 26 is good for humanity. It causes us to rise to another level where we value and treat each other as equals. It does not pit the woman against her child, but values both. It is not either-or, but both-and. Amendment 26 will not stop doctors from practicing good medicine. In cases of ectopic and high risk pregnancies, doctors would be expected to strive to save the mother and child.Mississippicode currently contains criminal and civil protection to physicians for causing the death of unborn persons in the course of saving the life of the mother.
Amendment 26 will not take away birth control, but it will end abortion as a birth control. The potential for pregnancy should be considered with each act of sex since procreation is one of the purposes of sex. Although recreation is a purpose, it cannot be disconnected from the procreative purpose. Unless contraception is used to cover each act of sex, then conception should be the expectation. Birth control prevents the sperm and the egg from coming together, which results in a single-celled person. Even Margaret Sanger, the mother of the birth control movement, said, “Any attempt to interfere with the development of the fertilized ovum is called an abortion.”
In the case of a pregnancy conceived in rape or incest, all victims will be defended. The choice of abortion hurts women. They risk injury physically and even death. The woman is always affected emotionally and mentally by abortion. That is my experience, and the conclusion of many studies, one study most recently published in the British Journal of Psychiatry.
Amendment 26 will save lives for the greater good of us all. I believe it will make us think before we act, make us as human beings more humane and begin to restore a culture of life in Mississippi.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Freda Bush.
A woman who has already had a baby with a neural tube defect should talk to her health care provider about whether she might need to take a different dose of folic acid. Studies have shown that taking a larger dose (up to 4,000 micrograms) at least one month before and during the first trimester may be beneficial for those women, but check with your doctor first.`..*..
Newest post straight from our new web portal <http://healthfitnessbook.com
That's Barry Woods: #346. Sorry. ....Lady in RedPS: It shocks me!
This is the very things that has always turned me off from religion: the fact that people believe in it for fear of consequences if they believe otherwise. Religion was historically used to control the masses. Keep being controlled people; don't use your brains, God has it all figured out for you. I kind of wish I believed in God because in my opinion I could therefore not have to think for myself, not feel guilty for anything I've done in life because all I have to do is ask for forgiveness, and not take responsibility for my life because I am not the one in control. How about you love life for what it is. Do good because you actually care about humanity and the world we live in.
This of course, is all about people pushing their own religious agenda...
The right-to-life people have had what, over 35 yrs. to establish their own clinics...
Clinics to help women who are in a bad situation keep their baby if they want to...
Help them financially, help job train them if need be, help pay for clothes, food and college 'till the kids 18 if they have to...
See....They don't do that...They don't have courage...They don't really care...
Thank goodenss – They voted it down!!!..
Thank you Mississippians!!
"Oh I forgot, I have some embryo friends on facebook"...
Hhahhahah...Love that line!!
By this logic, anyone who COULD donate a kidney or bone marrow to save another's life is guilty of murder if he does not do so. Donating the use of your body (including the possibility of sacrificing your long-term health) is required, to save the life of another, yes?
I REALLY hope all those who support this bill have gotten all the tests done and been put in the living donor database to donate ANY body parts required to save another's life. Otherwise... you're guilty of murder by your own logic.
Any person using the phrase "as a Christian" instantly loses all credibility in my book.
The very first words put to print in this article are "As a Christian".. Before ANYTHING else, even being a parent herself she makes it very clear that HER position on this is one based on faith and that her FAITH is the most important thing.. The fetus ITSELF is worth less then the faith even.
This is not about the baby, this is not about what is right or wrong.
This is about people forcing THEIR faith on to the rest of a state and forcing the ideologies of the Bible on to others.
AND THAT is unconstitutional.
Her position as faithful was addressed first, and as the most important. And her faith is more important to her then any womans personal right to control what happens to her body.
This issue is and has been 99% about religion trying to control the state. There is no scientific merit to their arguments.
Not sure that is the point of her telling her story. Why do you think they picked a "Christian" couple? Why do you think she was the one quoted? You get off on her "religious faith" ... you pick up on what the writers wanted ... paint this in some sort of religious terms / concept ... you bit huh?
Forget the religious jargon ... forget the right wing stuff ... attack the issue square on with reason and truth. Individuals don’t care for a form of birth control being eliminated.
Read the words written in Roe vs. Wade … read Justice Blackmun’s words … found about ¾ or so into the document where he himself states … “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.”
Those are Justice Blackmun’s words … he knew … now you know … if personhood is established what he said and put forward for the first time is history will be no more! Remember that abortion in all of its forms were illegal in most states to some degree by popular vote.
Was it Justice White who referred to Justice Blackmun’s words as “raw judicial power”? The US Supreme Court has over turned itself now over a 10 times … yes, the court has gotten it wrong … guess what … it must be human and fallible … let’s move forward and be brave … just like our families had to be when slavery was ended … people and circumstance changed … for the better!
I totally agree that this is a scare tactic by "Christians" – there is no way in hell I'd carry a baby conceived by rape or incest.
I may biased, because I've had an abortion – but I knew then and have no regrets now that it was the right thing to do. There are enough children having children in this world – I will state that abortion should not, repeat not be used as a birth control - It's up to the woman if she carries to term, not her husbands, not her boyfriends and not her famiilys, but hers – period.
This "Christian" doctor wrote "In the case of a pregnancy conceived in rape or incest, all victims will be defended."
So it's OK with her for that little 10 year old girl who was molested by her father to be required to carry his baby and give birth??? Because she'll be "defended"??? Or it's OK with her for that woman who was gang-raped to be required to carry her assailants' baby and give birth? Because she'll be "defended"???
What the heck does "defended" even mean to this "Christian" doctor???
Interesting comments ... iwammt takes an interesting stab at the argument ... finding no value in the unborn child ... using medical terms that I wonder if he / she understands?
To hit the nail on the head ... find a point in the human development where the new life begins ... go ahead ... use all the words you can find ... once you do your research you will come to the understanding that after conception nothing is added ... nothing ...
What you and others are speaking / writing about is what value you are placing on the unborn child. Your words give you away ... hitting on medical terms or reaching for "religious term" is a cop out ... when the bible was written the world was believe to be flat ... yes, the world was thought to be flat ... pretty silly from our point of view ...
Look at your words ... you were once a unborn child ... do you have as little value today as you place on the unborn with the words you use? Cluster of cells ... please ... your still made up of a cluster of cells ... but that does not tell us who you are ... you are a person ... always were ... nothing more ... nothing less ...
If you want to degrade something you don't care for you call it a name ... correct ... let’s step up and call the unborn child what it has always been ... regardless of who wants or does not want it ... an unborn human being / person!
Also keep in mind that the child did not ask to come here ... figure that one out ...
Yours was a really poorly-thought-out "argument". I think it's because you seem to miss the point that the argument isn't about whether or not a fertilized egg (a zygote) is human but, rather, whether or not it's a PERSON.
Oops... http://www.180movie.com. (sorry missed a letter the first time)
A human being is fully human at the moment of conception. If not, what is it? The terms you use to mean the life is not a human (embryo, zygote, etc) are just stages of development of a human being. The baby has it's own dna... it is a life all it's own. Check out 180move.com and get informed.
and forcing a human to go through pregnancy when they don't want one is wrong.
and not using birth control in the first place is just plain stupid!
The issue is *not* if it's human...which it certainly is...but if it's a PERSON. A zygote that you can't even see with the naked eye is most certainly not a PERSON.
Arguing about whether abortion is morally right or wrong misses the point entirely. The point is, should a single- or multi-cellular organism lacking conscious thought, self-awareness, or the ability to survive independently of its mother be awarded the full legal protections and rights of a “person?”
Even in my evil liberal support of a mother’s right to choose, I can agree that a fetus capable of physically surviving outside the womb should not be aborted. Therein, to me, lies the difference. Up until that point, the fetus cannot medically be considered a separate and independent organism. It cannot survive without the biological support of the woman in whose body it implanted. It cannot be removed and placed in another womb after implantation. Its existence depends wholly on the one unique person it is growing inside, taxing that woman’s physical, emotional, and mental well-being.
In that regard, knowing that not only is the fetus unaware of its own existence, but it is physically incapable of surviving without the mother, how could it possibly be defined as an legally independent “person,” owning all the rights and privileges that entails? Until it is physically capable of surviving outside the womb, that fetus is as much a part of its mother’s body as her heart and lungs. What she chooses to do with her body, and what physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual cost that entails, is her decision and hers alone.
One might argue, embracing science for a change, that the embryo was formed using unquestionably human DNA, clearly different and distinguishable from the DNA of the mother. Tumors, both benign and malignant, also carry unquestionably human DNA that is slightly altered and therefore different from the DNA of the person in which it grows. Should we protect those, too? Why not?
Maybe that sounds a bit harsh, but try to follow me on this. The answer, the only way to make the pro-26 supporting arguments make sense, is to fully recognize the existence of the human soul. That is the only argument that makes the life of an embryo equal to that of a “person.” Our laws certainly recognize the distinction between people, animals, and plants in the regard of legal protection. We regularly slaughter animals for food, though laws do exist to prohibit causing excessive and cruel infliction of pain on animals. Meanwhile, no one’s going to prison for mowing their lawn. What makes human life different from animal or plant life (without resorting to spirituality)? Self-awareness. Dogs don’t lie awake at night wondering what the universe would be like if they didn’t exist.
As such, the only way to argue that an organism that is not self-aware and can’t exist outside the body of another human being is an independent person under the law is to legally acknowledge the existence of the human soul. Whether you believe in the soul or not, it is unfathomable to think that the government should have any say in the existence of the soul and who does or does not have one. That is the real slippery slope.
You act like "it" is an alien that implanted itself in the woman's body. You do realize that this is the natural course of human reproduction? And "it" is a human even in it's earlies stages of development... thought processes or not.
I’m arguing that the only way to say that a cluster of cells is a full-fledged human being, and also the reason a technical discussion of the subject offends you so greatly, is to recognize that that zygote has a soul. No one can argue with you on that point, as it’s a matter of belief. You can call abortion a sin with your last breath and I won’t ever argue you’re wrong or right on that point. My point is that the government has no inherent interest in and no authority to define the human soul or its limitations. It must, by necessity restrict itself to the realm of medical evidence and under that burden of proof, a zygote cannot logically be defined as an independent human being any more than a barnyard rooster can. And the rooster has a far more complex nervous system and higher mental function than an embryo.
No one is arguing that a zygote is human. We are arguing that it is not yet a PERSON.
Whoops...no one is arguing that a zygote is *NOT* human :-) We're just arguing that it's not a PERSON.
God bless Freda Bush! This is a very well written and well expressed defense for the unborn babies of the world. I wish more people valued human life. It is very sad what has happened to our country since Roe v. Wade.... which was based on a lie that Jane Roe was raped. She was not, and has since told of the coercion and lies, and has become an outspoken pro-life advocate. Every person deserves a chance at life. All of you posting against life got a chance, why take it from others?
A classic example of why science and religion are bad "bedfellows," which is a particularly apposite pun given the issues involved I suppose. And, given her abysmal reasoning skills, I don't expect Freda Bush to grasp any humor contained herein, much less any arguments that appeal to the rationally-minded. And reader beware: because Bush has put me in a fundamentalist state of mind, out of MY fundamentalist principles I am gonna with-hold the title "Dr." I just find Bush's opinions too patently dumb, unreasoned and unprofessional to use the word doctor in any reference to her. However, if we can be broad-minded enough to agree to supplement her title with adding the word "witch" immediately before doctor, then I will be more flexible. Indeed, such a designation would be proper given the silly justifications in Bush's mandate, as they are the stuff of a bad fairy tale and have no basis in scientific fact.
But dark humor aside, what is happening in Mississippi is truly no laughing matter: it's another attempt for the state to assert a property interest in women's biological material. Yet we still wonder why women feel "objectified." Given our collective knowledge in human anatomy, you would think by know we would know the proper proportions on the matter and know that a woman's womb is too small to accommodate anything as large as a state. But then again I guess under the State of Mississippi's proposed legislative rubric, that is a matter for them to decide, NOT the woman. Such is the whole point of contention!
It's unbelievable that Bush, who lacks a fundamental grasp on reason, somehow became certified to practice in the medical profession. Her opinions illustrate the dangerous situation that results from allowing one's preconceived PRIVATE beliefs pre-empt rational scientific inquiry. Her fidelity to a female patient's best interest is compromised by her private beliefs, which runs afoul of the whole hippocratic oath thing. She makes no pretense to being objective since the issue has been fully decided in her own small mind. Bush is why many many of us, when finding out someone is a person of "faith," go running and screaming in the other direction. The world view of religious zealots can just seem so warped! For example, in Bush's world, women MUST play host to single-celled organisms once they are formed, even if they were introduced into their body FORCIBLY. If genetic material is human in origin, it must be protected at all costs. This position resonates with a great deal of fundamentalist Christian narcissism, yet avoids considering the complex dynamics at play that can give rise to egg and sperm meeting (ya know, rape, incest and other unpleasant occurrences that often occur because of women's objectified status in life). The reasoning of this position is a lot like the "missionary position": lacking in originality, biblically proscribed and limiting in what one can truly see. Suggesting that single-celled organisms are persons is to ignore scientific qualitative and quantitative differences that are obvious to even the most unsophisticated observer, much less a "doctor." Real doctors, those committed to the scientific method, don't perpetuate myths, or in the common vernacular, lies.
Being a "person" is much more than just a biological fact: it involves possessing basic sensory perception to experience life in any meaningful sense. Yet, in Freda Bush's calculus fully-formed female persons are not able to control what happens in their own bodies, robbing them of the VERY condition of what it means to be a person! What an incredible blind spot! I urge Freda Bush to go to an eye doctor and/or mental health professional at once, outside the state if necessary.
So many people in this country are at a loss as to why so many times Mississippi is on the wrong side of history. They are at a loss as to why, even given the advances in knowledge, that fundamentalists in conservative states blindly assert positions that are demonstrably false. Mississippi, for the sake of your women, ignore fundamentalist views that ignore the basic tenants of logic and finally come into the age of enlightenment! When you do, you'll finally be welcome to the civilized world and be able to finally cast off your reputation for constantly being on the wrong side of history.
You can be prolife and anti-26. This bill is not focused on outlawing abortion, it's about granting personhood to a zygote, embryo, fetus, etc... While this approach may attempt an endrun around the supreme court, it has a series of undefined consequences because we live in a nation of laws and one can't pick and choose when to apply laws.
yes, every person deserves a chance.. until they are born and then you cease to care about them.
reading the responses here tells me exactly why the question of when life begins is not something that should not be taken to vote. There are some very interesting and thoughtful responses left below. But unfortunately most of the comments you will read are ignorant and not very well thought out. These will be the majority who actually decide this issue under our democratic system. We should wait for solid evidence, one way or another before we inflict unsubstantiated beliefs on those who are intelligent enough to make good decisions.
Brian have you read my last comment?
the murder of the innocents has to stop
Which is why we need to end the death penalty and create a universal healthcare system. Oh, AND have bullying legislation that doesn't let Christians or any other member of a religious group treat middle schoolers like crap.
I am sorry, but being an OB-GYN, Black or a grandmother doesn't make you any more qualified than the bag-lady on the street...who incidentally is FAR MORE LIKELY to be from an unwanted pregnancy than the good Dr.. Kudos for raising kids and loving your grandchildren, but what she isn't telling you is the Donohue and Levitt study shows that exactly 18 years after Roe v Wade crime began a precipitous drop, falling by orders of magnitude. Studies show that unwanted children are MANY TIMES more likely to commit serious crimes between the ages of 19 and 25.
It would be nice to live in a perfect world where we can have our cake and eat it too, but unfortunately many call that socialism these days.
The doctor claims, "Every woman knows when she gets pregnant that she is pregnant with child and the child has his or her own body." As an OB-GYN, she knows this is untrue, since a good 25% of known pregnancies end by spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) in the first trimester. Some pregnancies are ectopic (the fertilized egg implants outside the uterus) and therefore non-viable, but more importantly, are life-threatening for the mother, and must be terminated asap.
Further, the suggestion that a "person" exists before the completion of ANY of the minimum 22 weeks necessary to produce a viable human being with functioning brain and lungs, is absurd. A "person" cannot be frozen for years and survive, yet an embryo can. A "person" cannot split into TWO or even THREE persons, yet a fertilized egg can. A blighted ovum does not contain the genetic material necessary for a viable human being to develop, yet a significant percentage of fertilized eggs are technically "blighted" or fail to implant, and are naturally flushed away by the woman's menstrual cycle, their brief existence never known to anyone.
Every birth may be considered a miracle, in the sense that the odds are against a fertilized egg making it all the way to the live birth of a baby. Yet it is a miracle that women achieve every day, after many months of physical work and sacrifice. To ignore or diminish the mother's role in the creation of a new life is madness, and I question the motives of anyone who would choose to attempt it. Women MAKE new lives; honoring her CHOICE to do so or not, is society's only possible position. To deny her the choice is to take away HER personhood in no uncertain terms, and reducing her to the level of a breeding animal.
That is my point, you have been reading Government Educational books for your entire life and told you were wrong unless you believed it by getting a good grade or a bad grade, so I can understand your point of view brian, it has been crammed down your throat until you believe that everything is about evolution, and "Science" and that everyone should follow science instead of making their own free thinking choices. Everyone, "Science Says: walk off a cliff, so lets follow, you first Brian. 446
Thank G-d someone out there can speak with a sane, non self-centered voice. Not killing the unborn is something all humans already know is right, before they are pressured by authority to accept it as being OK. Abortion is an act of depravity, unless it is used to protect a mother's life. Coming up with a political reason why it isn't doesn't change what all humans already know in their hearts.
"unless it is used to protect a mother's life."
Actually, this law would recognize no such exception
Prove ME wrong, tough guy.
Drew... yes it would... why are you lying? That's so pathetic
Actually, no it wouldn't. Just as you can't murder a person to promote someone else's health, so too would it be illegal to abort a baby to promote the health of the mother if this law were passed.
Fortunately, even if this law is passed, it will be unconstitutional and can never be enforced. Mississipi will wind up spending millions of dollars defending a law that harms women - money it will have to borrow and leave for the next generation to pay. What a perfect illustration of how perverse the "pro-life" movement is; it would be funny if it weren't so tragic.
Why do the very same people who are screaming out Christians are judgemental stand here and judge? Isn't that a little ironic? Don't say I'm pushing my "fundemental agenda" down the goverments throats like you aren't doing the same thing. The very people who point the finger and call others judgemental are the ones doing it themselves. Truth is truth even if you don't like it and it's uncomfortable.
I couldn't care less about people being judgmental. But the movement behind this amendment is just hypocritical. In the name of being "pro-life", they are promoting an unconstitutional law that will cost Mississipi millions of dollars trying to defend it in court - money Mississipi will have to borrow and leave for the next generation to pay. All this work for a law that harms women. This is a perfect illustration of how perverse the "pro-life" movement is; it would be funny if it weren't so tragic.
Louisiana represents typical right-wing political thought: I want to pay nothing in taxes but I want the government to control people's lives.
LOL! This guy is so stupid he doesn't even know where this law is being voted on. Power to the people
I messed up. But Brian, once again, I REALLY recommend you read something about Civics. You seem to be deeply confused as to how America works. Just because a bunch of people want to oppress other people doesn't mean they get to.
sck... still waiting on you to prove me wrong
i would take this topic a little more seriously if conservatives were even half as adamant about protecting life after birth.
anyway, I agree that we should reduce the number of abortions, but not through legislation – we should take steps to make them unnecessary. Contraceptive training in schools, better funding for police that catch rap ists (and murders, for that matter) instead of wasting time with traffic offenders and pot smokers, a much stronger social safety net for new mothers.
It seems to me that these so-called Christians would deter a lot more abortions if they stood outside the clinics with cash instead of picket signs and bombs. These mega-churches and elaborate cathedrals are evidence enough that they have the resources to fix it quite entirely, so their problem with abortions is not the death – it is the fact that some woman is violating their god's law without consequence.
Under the law, you have no obligation to save the life of another person, but if you undertake to do so, then you have to carry through to the end. For example, if you undertake to drive a critically injured person to the hospital, you cannot decide to let them out half-way there. It's the same with abortion. A fetus is a living thing whose claim to all that life offers is not transcended by the whims of any person–not even its mother.
A state cannot vote away a supreme court decision. This is federal law and will be defended by the supreme court (else they become irrelevant).
Put a 20 in that collection plate to help pay Louisiana's losing legal fees.
adm1... so in other words... if the government/supreme court doesn't agree with your point of view, they are irrelevant?
So in other words... you demcorats are against democracy?
Actually, its more accurate to say you right-wingers are trying to overturn the constitution
Drew... where in the Constitution does it mention abortion?
It is unconstitutional for a state government to overturn a decision made by the supreme court, which this law attempts to do
Drew... really? That's interesting. Then why don't we have slavery anymore when the Supreme Court ruled it legal?
Brian-since you seem to have read EVERY biology textbook in the US, I might suggest you move on to a political science/civics textbook next. Quite fascinating, really.
sck... prove me wrong... I'll give you one hour
Brian- you are clearly a deeply religious person. You demand science ACTUALLY backs you up in everything you think (despite what science says) and you just asked me to prove a negative (stupid!!). Once you move past your superstition a new level of intelligence and caring for people will be available.
sck... HAHAHA! You can't prove me wrong... how pathetic
This law is silly. This has nothing to do with anything. Everyone knows a human fetus isn't human until 2 days before birth, up until that point it is an alligator.
Brian, prove me wrong. You have one hour.
Dr. Bush's article is an abuse of her medical degree. Everyone has the right to their opinions, but to use a medical degree to support personal opinions of a very religious and spiritual nature is wrong. Abortion is clearly not ideal, but if she has done any research into the history of abortion and women's rights, there is a good reason why abortion is legal in this country. Taking this option away from women does little to change the number of women who receive abortions. It instead becomes a black-market business where it becomes unsafe and unregulated. Safe and legal abortions are key to providing the best possible health care to women.
That's a really ridiculous statement considering most pro-abortion people man the battle cry that science backs them up. This is a doctor showing that science and her personal knowledge of being a doctor for years backs up the fact that an unborn baby is a human being and deserves protection...and you still cry foul. What exactly do you want here? You don't want the opinion of someone in the medical community and you don't want religion. You wan to be your own lawgiver and make it up as you go along. Good luck with that. Check out the www(dot)180movie(dot)come and get informed.
This woman may be reliably pro-life, but she knows absolutely nothing about human biology, American law, or even the proposed amendment that she's advocating for. I would like to hear from a pro-lifer who is actually informed about the issues under consideration.
This was not my point. I am in the medical community, and with that position you have certain responsibilities regarding what you publish. There is no part of medical training that teaches you when life starts. This is a definition that we all have to come to on our own. Her title as a doctor makes her no more qualified to answer this question than anyone else. With a passing of such a law there will be health consequences for women, and as a women's health care provider she glossed over these consequences completely with statements such as, "Women can be assured pregnancy is not an incurable disease and is time limited." If she is going to use her medical title to lend credibility to her argument she should at least acknowledge the potential harms that women will face as a result.
The Government wants more. talk about greed. wants more of your money. wants more of your life. its worst then any corporation I know of.
The far right wants more- more control of personal lives. The Republicans talk about less government but want to invade personal freedoms and lives. Government is not the problem when it serves people; it is the problem in Mississippi and other regligious right states when personal life is dictated by zealots.
Which is why the far right voted to take over your healthcare... oh, wait a minute...
Just imagine going to heaven and trying to have conversation with a "saved" naturally miscarried fetus. No sight or language or any feelings or memories except being inside the womb. God would have to create a completely artificial growing up experience for it have any concept of life at all.
Wonderful message and a motivating one at that. Thank you for your courage on behalf of the unborn. May God bless you and yours.
Great here go the republicans again. They preach how they want less government but when it comes to their religious beliefs they want the government all up in our personal lives I am all about you all having your beliefs that is what this country is about but I don;t need your religious beliefs infringing on my beliefs especially in the form of laws. Stay out of my body and my bedroom and I promise to stay out your church
Why would you protect illegal aliens and not children? So much for the liberal argument.
Over Christmas last year I was screamed at telling me I am going to hell, not because I am not a good person but because I didn't accept their Jesus Christ as my saviour... I can take that. I constantly have to endure the pressure to join this cult with sky writing and bumper stickers. I can take that too. But when they push their beliefs to this level, where they diminish the rights of sentient individuals, where some branches admonish contraception causing millions of deaths worldwide, where they would force raped women to full term... Its time to take a stand, each and every person who wants to stop this outrage.
This has nothing to do with religion... no matter how much CNN wants to make it about it. Grow up
Hmm... Go read the billboards as you drive along the I-20 through Mississippi. They must all be CNN readers too
Brian- more Lies for Jesus. This is ONLY about religion.
And the right of the child that is murdered every time an abortion takes place?
sck... it's only about religion for people like you... who can't argue with scientific fact
The scientific fact that science has not determined, and will NEVER determine, when life begins. What part of the fetus is the cutest for you? For me, its the tail. I LOVE the tail!! SOOO human-like!!
Anyone can argue with scientific fact, they have been crammed down our throat since we were in kindergarden.
P.S. My point was that I do not decide with religion, re-read my comment.
suck... that's interesting... every biology book in the U.S says otherwise
Brian- why are you lying? You know that is not true. Clearly, abortion is just another scientific conspiracy. Those pesky scientists!!
alright sck... here's your chance... find me a single biologist or single biology book who disagrees with me. I'll give you one hour. PROVE ME WRONG
That is my point, you have been reading Government Educational books for your entire life and told you were wrong unless you believed it by getting a good grade or a bad grade, so I can understand your point of view brian, it has been crammed down your throat until you believe that everything is about evolution, and "Science" and that everyone should follow science instead of making their own free thinking choices. Everyone, "Science Says: walk off a cliff, so lets follow, you first Brian.
The more I read the more it might make sense to act before 24 weeks, but in terms of science a fetus is not concious. To quote Scientific American...
"What is fascinating is the discovery that the fetus is actively sedated by the low oxygen pressure (equivalent to that at the top of Mount Everest), the warm and cushioned uterine environment and a range of neuroinhibitory and sleep-inducing substances produced by the placenta and the fetus itself: adenosine; two steroidal anesthetics, allopregnanolone and pregnanolone; one potent hormone, prostaglandin D2; and others. The role of the placenta in maintaining sedation is revealed when the umbilical cord is closed off while keeping the fetus adequately supplied with oxygen. "
Now I realize that a lot of people do not plan well enough before-during sex and this should be no excuse. Listen, I was raised "Southern Babtist," as well as a free thinking-not a group thinking person. I cannot understand how anyone can criticize a woman for getting an abortion if they are not willing to adopt or raise the baby themselves.
Secondly, what should really be the number one concern about this or similar laws of this type, when someone gets raped they deserve to be cleansed of any memory of the event, including the fetus. If you dont agree, then let someone rape your daughter, wife, or mother and if you dont change your tune, then I will listen to your comments without laughing out loud.
Chris, you are correct in your first sentence. There's no excuse for irresponsibility. Perhaps we should close all abortion clinics and open rape clinics. This will probably end the argument. If a woman is raped, report to the rape clinic along with a police report. This will prevent pregnancies, possible diseases, and also help law enforcement capture the perpetrator. The only Real reason people are arguing in favor of abortion is for convenience and for not exercising any responsibility in their actions. They are only doing it as a form of birth control instead of using condoms or abstinence. The key in this big debate is responsibility and everyone wants to disregard this important element.
Why is everyone talking about later term abortions where the fetus is already formed??? We are talking about a fertilized egg. If you've ever seen your wife's tampons or maxi pads, you've seen an egg. Does that look like a human being?
An egg isn't a human being... quit using petty arguments that aren't even arguments. A human being's life begins at conception. That is what it says in every biology textbook across America, that is what every biologist agrees on. It's about morality. If you think it's morally acceptable to kill somebody for your convenience, go ahead, just not in Mississippi
But a fertilized egg...while human...is *not* a PERSON!! And that's what this is all about. The difference between being human and being a person. It's only a potential person...and 1/3 of those potential persons abort naturally. Should we have funeral services for those zygotes that spontaneously abort? Most women don't even know when it happens or that they were, at least for a brief while, pregnant.
The idea that zygotes and embryos should have equal rights with living, breathing people is absurd.
sck... f*** jesus, f*** religion. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION. If you think it does, you're simply ignorant. You're petty arguments don't weigh much against FACTS
YEAH profanity for JESUS! The best kind, of course.
Presidential appointment 2006-2009, eh? So you were appointed by one of the dimmest president's and left when a scholar entered. It's difficult to believe that an OBGYN could take her medical background and believe the morning after pill should be illegal, or that society can benefit from the prevalence of coat-hanger abortions and overflowing adoption agencies, simply because some people have the addled belief that a single, fertilized cell has the same rights as the full-bodied woman the cell resides in. Why I Am Not A Christian, chapter 2,537: Because religious beliefs override medical science. Only a bible thumper could look at a petri dish of an indistinguishable SINGLE cell and say 'that's a person.'
definition of person: "individual that is defined by the knowledge of its existence as a biological human being as well as moral and social". Which research showed embryos having the knowledge of their existence? Even better, has anybody shown they have social and moral values? Oh I forgot, I have some embryo friends on facebook...
If I were a woman forced to carry an unwanted child I would:
1) ask to have all my medical bills during and post-pregnancy as well as the child's health insurance paid for life
2) ask to have my food and clothing paid during and post-pregnancy as well fitness club subscription or SPA appointments to get back into shape (and it can take a loooooong time)
3) ask for a minimum of 200,000$ up front since it is the average cost to raise a child until 18
3) sue the government and the association who decided this law because they caused harm to my body and must pay for it.
Still thinking adoption is a good deal ? term 1) and 2) are still valid but adoptive parents will pay for my insurance for life and 3) as well. OK so conservative people, if no more taxes are needed, who is ready to pay for it?
Adopt kids that are alive NOW...don't try to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want THEN hope it gets adopted. Also, help people get birth control so they aren't put in that position of having to make those choices.
Non- religion is a school of thought, of belief, that motivates people morally and politically. JUST AS religion does. All of us vote based on our beliefs. Why should we consider non-religion to be superior than religion as a motivating factor? It's the SAME THING!! What you believe about God determines what your political views are. There is no way around this. Atheist, agnostic, Mormon, Muslim, Christian Scientist- ALL are systems of belief that motivate.
I used to be Pro Abortion (Pro Choice) until I saw what a aborted fetus looks like. The arms and legs torn apart just didn't look like a glob of tissue to me. I challenge those to take a look at an aborted baby and tell me if you see a glob of tissue.
What was most surprising was also learning that a baby's heartbeat starts just 22 days after conception. So little of what I have read hear refers to rights of that baby.
So according to some of you a child that can't live apart from breathing and feeding tubes is not a person at all and if a stranger went in and smothered them to death they would not be a murderer since there is no life to that child?
I don't get it...is it really that hard to wait until marriage (I waited 26 years), or if you don't want to wait to put a condom on or buy some pills? The problem is people are selfish and constantly thinking about "my life" and "my body" but the moment you join your body and soul with another person you made a deliberate decision to ignore all of that. There are consequences to choices.
I know a lot of ladies- good friends and family- who have had abortions and I can tell you there is NOTHING that will tear your heart and soul out more. Every single one of them deeply, deeply regret it.
Umm, Not every body WANTS to get married. Not everyone who wants to get married will get married. And some of us been there, done that and don't care to repeat the experience. Not all married people are thrilled with every pregnancy. BC can and does fail and married folks got married to have sex and are not likely to practice abstinence.
hmmm, so to you the only ways to not get a woman pregnant is through artificial means or abstinance? Have you ever heard of self control? You must be one of those 2 minutes and I'm done fellas.
Uh...what does "self control" have to do with this? Sounds like just another form of abstinence to me.
I've been reading the comments below and I think most of my concerns have already been addressed eloquently: problems in the adoption system, lack of funds to educate/feed/support the now forced to exist child in a state that is already pretty destitute, legal implications of something like a miscarriage, rights of the victims of rape and incest. The entire thing just reeks of a rush to results by religious fanatics that is not at all well thought out. The fertilized egg is no more than a seed that has the potential to become a tree. You would not call the seed a tree any more than we should the fertilized egg a human being.
Another person who makes sense :)
Very well thought out response. Thanks for this logic.
If a fetus is an individual, will women have to apply for a social security number every time they miss their period?
or can IVF patients claim frozen fertilized eggs as dependents? on insurance if the pregnant wife has an accident?
Right, and you'll have to have a "pregnancy police" responsible for making sure every pregnancy is recorded.
Human life is not less valuable because someone else doesn't appreciate it. Someone's worth is not based on the money they will have, or the education they will get, or what social status they will attain. Greatness cannot be measured in those terms. Not true greatness.
Also- women are just as capable of men of making rational decisions about sex and birth control. Rape excluded. If men are held accountable because they made a choice that had consequences, women, who are just as capable, should be held to the same responsibility. We are acting like a woman has no power to think or reason or make decisions looking toward the future. Let's show a little more respect than that.
Does it follow that a miscarriage will result in a charge of manslaughter?
Its absolutely does follow. This is a really horrible idea
Please, what a stupid answer Drew.
What's stupid is trying to pass a law that is CLEARLY unconstitutional, and carries all sorts of strange legal implications besides
Not only will it cause husbands to accuse their wives of manslaughter if they have a miscarriage, which I have, but think of the divorce rate. Women will soon be unable to work for liability reasons because the family can sue the workplace for all sorts of crap if there is a miscarriage. The average facts (I looked it up) are that 1 in 4 or as high as 1 in 3 pregnancies end in miscarriage. Production of medicine will decline if not come to a complete halt. Doctors will be unable to practice medicine because of lawsuits caused my "natural terminations" or miscarriages. Mass tort lawyers will be in short demand, along with judges, doctors, medicines... Eventually women will be forced to stay home and will end up in jail when their husband accuses them of manslaughter. Women will become a commodity bought and sold to the highest bidders. We have fought hard for the small amount of rights we have, I mean we don't even get equal pay yet... Plus, I've read article after article about this, all of the others were better written than this garbage, and it puts the life of the baby ahead of the mother, abortions will basically be made illegal. That will mean a LOT of women will die as a result of complications, which will usually kill the baby also.
I don't really like abortion but I think it should be a woman's choice until the fetus starts developing a brain and nerves and such. I could go on about this forever but... I think I've made it clear that this is a TERRIBLE idea. a terrible, terrible terrible thing. This will set women back... like 500 years... maybe not immediately but it will as soon as people start suing everyone under the sun for manslaughter.
Women with complications will have to leave the state to have done what needs to be done to save their life. Ridiculous.
I believe in Jesus and all that but, the Bible is ridiculously sexist. Of course it was written by MEN... enough said.
I can't imagine having an abortions, especially after my miscarriage, but I believe that it is MY right. No one else's. It's my body, my life, my right.
Abortion is the the shameful spot on our society. Its time for it to end.
And you think making it illegal will cause it to end? Really? How's that working out for drugs and anything else people want?
So, are you suggesting that we turn a blind eye like the people at Penn St. Based on your logic Sandusky from Penn State should then continue having relations with young boys. It is illegal to sexually abuse young boys, but that hasn't stopped the problem. So therefore, as you have suggested, we should just accept it. This is so wrong and immoral.
Its funny that you think making it illegal will keep people from doing it. Drugs are illegal, people still do them. Speeding is illegal, people still do it. Stealing is illegal, people still do it. See where I'm going with this?
Based on your logic Sandusky from Penn State should continue having relations with young boys. Even though it is illegal to sexually abuse young boys, its still going to happen, so it should be made legal. Your logic is flawed, very very wrong, and immoral.
Also, this is easily the dumbest and most ridiculous way of going about ending abortion.
I agree with you. The "Everyone Still Does It" excuse is lame. People need to step up, get a backbone, and do what is Morally right.
For years I have got a big kick out of hearing religious people trying to justify their abortion stance. It is clear to me now that the beginning of belief is the end of reason. These are some of the silliest an unfounded pro life comments I have ever read. Do people in Mississippi really think their opinion will change America? I think most Americans prefer to evolve rather than devolve.
Exactly, which is why abortion should be illegal, killing your own babies sounds like devolution to me.
If killing babies sounds like de-evolution to you, then you don't know what evolution is.
One hint: there is no such thing as de-evolution.
Abortion has nothing to do with religion... if you think it does, you are simply ignorant. Abortion is about science and morality. IT IS SCIENTIFIC FACT that HUMAN LIFE begins at conception. There is 100% consensus in the scientific world about this. It is up to PEOPLE to decide if they believe it is morally acceptable to kill an unborn person
Show us this consensus. Show us this proof. Bunch of BS you spouting fool.
Josh... open up a biology book... YOU CAN'T FIND A SINGLE ONE, OR SINGLE BIOLOGIST THAT SAYS OTHERWISE... But I'll give you an hour to find one just for fun
The name Brian is the word brain misspelled.
Sorry I had to do this. My husband is a biologist and reading this I decided to ask him the following question without mentioning this article: "Hey babe, as a biologist, do you believe human life begins at conception?" His answer: "Nope." I press on: "Hey babe, have you ever heard any of your colleagues say that human life begins at conception?" His irritated answer: "I've already answered you. No biologist believes that." (goes back to playing Arkham Asylum in our living room and wonders why I'm LOL'ing from the office).
Non- religion is a body of belief just as religion is. You are trying to justify yours with your beliefs HOw is that any different.
Sorry ERIn, atheism is the opposite of belief. You are confused, put some thought into it.
will... I thought you liberals were all about democracy? Isn't that why you keep cheering "this is what democracy looks like" at your Occupy mob movements? This is democracy, and this is why we have states. If you don't like a state law, move to another state, or just drive 2 hours east/west and get an abortion in a neighboring state. State's have the right to do this, the federal government doesn't
What makes you think I am a liberal? Do you have some sort of chrystal ball that tells you who I am and what I believe in? Chat about what you know, not what you fantasize.
Moving to another state is *not* an example of democracy in action. At best, it's an example of free market principles at work.
Yea, mangling a baby is evolving eh Will? Your clueless.
Don't you mean "you're"? Just a clue.
If a fetus is NOT a person, when DOES a person become one? We're not talking about protecting the rights of women, or protecting them from rape (although that would be nice of course). We're talking about the "rights" of a fetus who cannot choose to live or die. Why does it scare so many people to think that a person becomes a person at conception? Can anyone support any evidence either way, person or otherwise? If not, wouldn't it be prudent to assume the safest route and conciser the unborn to be a person with full rights?
What about the right of the women carrying the child? I remember a really neat (fictional) story that was given to me. In a doctors office, a women with a 1-year-old child in her arms and a 2 month old fetus in her belly tells the doctor "I cannot afford to have another child! What could I do!?" The Doctor then tells her to kill her 1 year old child in her arms as it poses no safety risk to herself, and it would be cheaper as she is worried about money. The women was of course horrified, and questioned the sanity of the Doctor. But of course the Doctor asked the question "What is the difference? Clearly the 1-year-old in your arms would be a better choice because it poses no risk to your safety and is much cheaper. Since your wanting a way out and you conciser the possibility of a abortion, would it not be better to kill your 1-year-old instead for the stated reasons?" The women in the end realized his point.
That is of course a short version of the story, but makes you think.
Now, without insulting me, nor involving the rights of the woman (which, if the fetus IS a person is completely irrelevant) can anyone tell me when a fetus DOES become a person? And please don't tell me "because the scientists said_____!" because I seriously doubt that anyone here is gullible to believe that the scientists know all there is to know about human life, and they do not rule over human rights.
Here's a link to a movie if you dare watch it (I pray that you do, but doubt that you will..): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI
Uh... OF COURSE THERE IS EVIDENCE ONE WAY... It is SCIENTIFIC FACT; a 100% consensus in the scientific community that HUMAN LIFE begins at conception
No it isn't. And saying it doesn't make it so.
Josh... prove me wrong... FIND ONE biologist or biology textbook that says human life doesn't begin at conception. I'll give you an hour
Brian, you're the one making extraordinary claims that require some proof here. Why don't *you* cite some sources to back up the BS you've been spewing?
Sure, smart guy. Here's your reference: "The genetic significance of fertilization is that haploid ovum and haploid sperm come together to form a diploid zygote, bringing together genetic information from the maternal and paternal genomes." Let me translate for you: an egg and sperm come together to form a zygote which is what a fertilized egg is called at conception. At this stage, it isn't even an embryo. I'll even give you the textbook definition: zygote – The first cell of an embryo, formed by fertilization (comes from Greek word for 'yoke'). Reference "Asking About Cells", authors Allan J. Tobin and Richard E. Morel. Published by Saunders College Publishing and Harcourt Brace College Publishers, copyright 1997. Taken from my biologist husband's library for reference.
because I can take out an insurance policy on my unborn and punch my pregnant wife in the stomach.....need more examples of what could happen
Once you factor in the medical costs of another birth and after care keeping the already paid off one is the cheaper choice, you'd also have to shell out for another year of diapers and formula just to get to the point the current one is at.
My body went through hell during my pregnancy, and to force a woman (any woman) to risk going through that simply because people who have no stake or care about her and her potential offspring,(just her womb) is the worst kind of ugly self righteous evil I can imagine.
I will not support it.
You don't believe in abortion, don't have it. You want to stop abortion? then start with hearts and minds. If all women are elated to be pregnant, then this wouldn't be an argument at all. But ironically thats not true is it? You want to blame the world? or really, why don't you just blame women... its a very popular stance, happens all the time. lol. sorry, I don't buy it.
I want wanted babies, wanted families, not women forced to be and do something they don't want like slaves... I am pro-choice.
Yes a fetus can be considered a person when it achieves its first thought, no brain no thought no person... is that easy enough for you...
It's difficult to argue for the rights of spec of cells smaller than the brain of a fly. They may indeed be human cells but it's a stretch to say they are a human beings. We are talking about a clump of cells incapable of thought, incapable of feeling pain, incapable of simple awareness let alone self-awareness. You would have to be from Mississippi to think it a good use of time to pretend such a clump should be afforded identical rights to a fully self-conscious human adult. Does anyone really think that when an embryo fails to attach to a uterine wall that there is something out there that is disapointed that it didn't get a chance to exist? You would have to be from Mississippi to consider legislating on such a bizare notion.
Let me be clear: I do not agree with the author of this article at all. I would like to know what sections of the article readers agree with and what aspects they disagree with...and of course, why?
CNN is so biased it's crazy... this has NOTHING to do with religion and anybody with a brain knows it
I'm sorry, but if a 'person' cannot survive outside the woman's body then it's not a person! I do believe having a late term abortion is a different matter.. the fetus may very well be able to be sustained with medical equipment.
There is a lot of evidence showing countries that are anti-abortion have a much higher rate of crime as well. These 'persons' are unwanted and like Kate says from her very own experience, many parents take this frustration out on their kids, in turn many of these children grow up in a world that is unkind, unloving and harsh. To me, this is FAR more a tragedy than having an early-term abortion. A child should NEVER feel they are to blame for their parents problems. It's heartbreaking and totally avoidable if people are truly given a choice.
Adoption is a fair option too.. I understand this.. However from women I know (including my own mother) giving a child up for adoption leaves much deeper and longer-lasting scars than abortion does.
Whatever your belief is, pro-life, pro-choice, pro-abortion.... the government should NOT have any say. A blanket response to ALL people is utterly inadequate. A healthy society embraces its diversity, whether or not we agree with each other. I am 100% pro-choice and I do honestly respect Freda's ideals, however her and others that are like-minded should NOT push this onto other persons who believe differently. Likewise, I'm sure Freda and her peers would agree that forcing women to have abortions (like in China when a women knows she's having a female child instead of a male) is totally outrageous and against their core beliefs.
In summary, Keep your laws off my body.
Step 1: Load wife up and go get a few dozen eggs fertilized and put in frozen stasis
Step 2: Claim all fertilized eggs as dependents and claim them on taxes and other government agencies
Step 3: Profit
The bill is too vague to pass.... stuff like this can happen
I'm confused, why is a conservative state like Mississippi considering such a liberal law that puts government directly into family life. Next thing you know they will be passing an amendment against spanking or stopping anyone from expressing their sexual orientation. Wake up Mississippi and stop this liberal agenda.
a LIBERAL law would be something like this: "All people should have this, this, or this"
keeping people from killing babies isn't a liberal law
Sure it is. When you are stretching the definition of what a person is and when life begins just to suit your beliefs.
You are confusing liberal with authoritarian. But not all authoritarian laws are bad. Take murder, for example.
The government has no business telling me what should or should not happen in my uterus. I don't think anyone is actually "pro-abortion", however sometimes, especially in situations of rape or incest, abortion is what is best. The decisions that need to be made and the reasons for them are between a woman, her partner and her god and no business of anyone else.
yep but under your argument prostitution should be legal.....not that I disagree with you or with prostitution but weigh all arguments under the same measurement
Yes, I agree with you. Regarding prostitution, it's the world's oldest profession, right. I'll probably get a lot of grief for this, but I think we'd all be better off if we legalized prostitution, made sure all workers had health care choices, etc. That's a conversation for another day, though.
agreed we deny ourselves easy money that will always be made by someone (no matter how hard you try) by objecting to things we find morally offensive...if someone wants drugs they get them...if they want a prostitute they get them.... protect the weak not the ignorant
Why shouldn't prostitution be legal?
It needs to be understood that rape and incest make up less than .01% of the pregnancies. It's a child. Not an "organism", not a disease. A BABY!
Sorry, Larry. You get a say when you are raped and forced to carry, give birth to and possibly raise a child which is the product of such a blatant violation of your body and soul. Please let me know when that happens and I'll reconsider your point of view.
Which is all well and good, until you're that 15 year old rape victim carrying an unwanted baby.
If the government has no buisiness telling you if you can or can't have an abortion then the government shouldn't help pay for your abortion.
its all political. The last time i checked the conservatives believed in "less government the better" so how come they are interfering in personal lives of people? Contradictions, that's what it is. Politicians play these games and people dont even see it.
Because 'conservatives' don't really believe in any core principles. They give them lip service when it is convenient to their message, and then discard them when it's not. They hold simultaneously contradictory beliefs and can't see it. They try to paint liberals with inaccurate characterizations of their own poor understanding of liberal principles. Conservatives are anti-government when looking for soundbites to rally the base, but utterly authoritarian when it comes to pushing their own agenda. It would be sad if it weren't so sickening.
so now if a woman has a miscarrage she could be subject to manslauter? If she is with child, then that counts as two for bridge toll or commuter lane. If she smokes of drinks then she can be brought to court for child abuse. They get a tax break of state and federal taxes to count the unborn child on the taxes. What age is the child when it is born?
I'm in Mississippi and just so you know, it is a group from Colorado behind all of this. They failed repeatedly to get this passed there so they came here. Of course the republican politicians are eating it up and most of the bible beaters too but this whole thing started due to people from Colorado.
Smart people from Colorado, if what you're saying is true.
Yes the ones that voted this garbage down are. The idiots pushing it certainly aren't.
I believe we still have a democracy in this county. That said the citizens of this country should be the ones deciding when life begins. If the majority of society vote that life begins at conception then so be it. It also works just the opposite. If the majority of society votes that life begins sometime else, we have to live with that as well. I’m tired of people in our country letting the minority rule over the majority. Guess what…life is not fair and we are not all equal. We all come from different backgrounds that mold who we are. Some people have it a lot easier than others and others have to work harder. That’s life folks. We can’t make a choice like this as a society without having some spirited discussion. If it was up to me, there would be no abortion and every child would be born into a happy home with loving parents. The truth is that does not happen. I would agree that some of these children may be better off not coming into this world but that does not mean they shouldn’t. I say let the citizens of this country decide.
They already decided...Roe vs wade...
Well if you believe that we should go with the will of the majority, then this WILL NOT PASS BECAUSE THE MAJORITY DOESN'T BELIEVE HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION. Get this through your head: YOU ARE THE MINORITY.
for people who offer "adoption" as the alternative let me clue you in on a little something.. It costs MONEY to adopt, and that money is due to the paperwork it requires to get the adoption in movement and get everything in order. Are you aware that per page of said paperwork is $1000.
do you really think in this economy people can afford to adopt?
Adoption is cheaper than in vitro, and folks have plenty of money for that.
There are many people who believe in reincarnation. The death of an embryo is no big deal because the life will be born again. This is a christian amendment intended to force christian ideals on non christians.
Jains believe in reincarnation, and their monks sweep the ground in front on themselves so as to not hurt any bugs.
it's so amusing reading your counter argument. so how did you get from "alive" to "person" again? care to reiterate your arguments? oh wait, there wasn't ANY! lol. if you forgot already, here is your exact words. "SO they are alive ..it is an person!!!" hmm, i c, your arguments were in the form of "..."
looks like nothing worked on you when you were a baby, not even the most mind-engaging toys. so sad.
Insane. So any form of BC that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg will be banned? No morning-after pill, no IUD? A pregnant woman with a life threatening condition will have no choice? A pregnant woman who needs treatment that would damage or kill a fetus would be denied treatment? Dr. Bush may have been raised poor...but it was by a mother who WANTED her. What would her opinion be if she'd been raised by someone who didn't?
Can we maybe dust off the abortion thing in a few years so we can focus on fixing the economy now? Congress is easily distracted by bright sparkly objects, so we should put as little as we can in front of their ADD infected brains.
Maybe we should wait until we can actually take care of all the children that manage to get born before we start worrying about the rights of those that haven't.
I 100% support this amendment. I cannot believe so many people are willing to kill an innocent child just because it isn't all theirs. I understand the view point some people have if the women was raped, but the child, no matter who's child it is, should have the right to live.
Yes and then when the mother's of those unwanted babies decide they don't want them we can mass produce Casey Anthony's all over the nation. Its none of your business whether or not a woman wants to have a child. Government gave its answer to abortion in Roe v. Wade and that decision gives an American the right to choose, which is what America is built on. Liberty.
so your saying Murder is fine as long as we still have our Liberty?
I've never seen a child with an embilicle cord still attached to it's mother. We're talking fetuses, not children.
yes, but aborting the fetus is terminating its chance of ever living. Terminating life is murder.
100% of unborn fetuses pay no income tax. Fact.
And they DEFINITELY won't be able to if they are killed now.
So, are you saying that instead of raising taxes we should just allow more people to live so we can collect their taxes?
Not a bad thought. :)
Isabelle. Just because the parent feels no love for their child does not mean the child is undeserving of love. If a parent were to beat a child does that make the child less valuable because they probably will not pay taxes?
Who would have ever thought Oprah Winfrey could have achieved what she has? Her circumstances were bleak. But we are more than our circumstances.
Here's another thought...include "Those who vote FOR this Amendment SHALL adopt an unwanted child, each in their turn. Once all who voted FOR the Amendment have adopted one unwanted child, the process shall begin over again with the first person(s)."
"In the case of a pregnancy conceived in rape or incest, all victims will be defended. The choice of abortion hurts women." This is a non-answer and the author knows it. Who will raise the child? The woman has already been violated and now they are forced to bear the child of this awful act? And have the genes of the perpetrator forced on them – and the rest of the world? While most humans would agree that abortion as birth control is awful – not giving a woman choice in a situation where she had none in the first place perpetuates that rape in the form of government control of her body.
She can give up the child for adoption. Um, duh.
So you people are saying that life is only 'life' if you deem it worth investing in. If you decide it's just too much trouble to be responsible for; then it's just a life not worth living (but yours is worth living, just not someone else's).
K- I see that happening, too. People seem to be saying if someone is unwanted, poor, likely to be uneducated, they are worth less than other people.
Our worth is not dependent on what other's deem it as. Many parents beat their children. That says nothing about the worth of the child.
This is a terrifying article posing as compassion. Abortion is legal and should stay that way. It is the parent's choice, not the government. Life doesn't begin at conception, it began several billions of years ago and these cells we are talking about belong to the mother, not some hypothetical State law. I'm so glad to live in a state where this nonsense isn't being pushed on the population. And, let's wake up from the dark ages and stop talking about God when this is a political issue 100 percent.
I agree with you 100%! well said
There is no such thing as a "political issue 100%."
Politics is about morality. That's actually ALL it is. Government is about morality. That's ALL it is. You just have a different morality that you believe is more correct or more valuable.
"Politics is about morality."
When is THAT going to start? Some of the most immoral of all Americans roam the halls of Congress, and many other political offices. No matter what your views on this particular issue, you are shooting yourself in the foot by putting this statement forth.
Kelly- The fact that you believe it's wrong to have immoral politicians shows that you agree with me. Otherwise you wouldn't care.
What is politics about? It's about shaping government- the laws we live by as a society. That's the purpose- to make and uphold laws. Having immoral politicians doesn't change that. Our job is to root them out.
What are laws about? Morality. NOTHING ELSE. What is something a law? Because we believe, for whatever the reason, that something is right or wrong.
"A person's a person, no matter how small."
It's laughable to vote on a self-evident truth like this amendment.
Next, we'll be voting on who the first President was?
When right-to-life groups tried to use this quotation in their campaigns in the past, Dr. Seuss threatened to sue them. He considered it slander because this isn't a matter of size, it's a matter of development.
A Who's a Who, no matter how small.
Horton could hear the Whos.
It never is a "matter of development."
When you declare 'truths' to be self-evident, most often it means 'un-examined'. Think of all the 'self-evident' truths that people have believed in at various times in history and have subsequently been disproven. Not that quotes out of a children's book trying to educate kids on the fallacy of prejudice through simplistic rhyming schemes and simpler examples are irrelevant...
It is so easy to create life, but caring for kids to make them grow into balanced adults in the main challenge. So I am pro abortion, if that helps to make sure that the kids who do get born are properly cared for. This whole personhood attempt is yet another attempt by the religious to get their way. When do they give up? Roe vs Wade was decided over 30 years ago!
Joop- So you are saying let's just get rid of people who aren't properly cared for.
Oprah wasn't. And look at her greatness. I know many people who have risen above circumstances because of the greatness inherent in them. People are not less valuable because they are poor, uneducated, or don't live the life you do.
Conservative game plan: Outlaw abortion. Restrict access to contraceptives and eliminate sex education in public schools. Make sure same-sex couples can't adopt children. Cut government funding to basically everything, including charitable and social service organizations like foster homes... Yep, that should work out. Absolutely no foreseeable side-effects whatsoever.
II propose a new law that would require doctors to show fetuses pictures of Mississippi so the fetus can make an informed decision whether or not it actually wants to be born in that god forsaken state.
That is a GREAT idea!
Jill, thank you for the best laugh I've had all night. Even if I did just bust out with it in the middle of a University library.
So basically when a woman gets raped and becomes pregnant, SHE is sentenced to nine months of mental hell, major physical alterations (many that are painful), followed by hard labor. Sucks to be her then, according to this "doctor," the baby is more important. Not to mention how that baby will feel when it grows up and is able to be told "sorry little Johnny, I was raped by this *blanking blank* but was forced to have you. But don't worry, I don't hate you as much as I hate your sperm donor."
That was the most ill-concieved, un-intelligible rant I may have ever read. It had little point but to reiterate, adnauseum, what could have been stated in one or two sentences. You BELIEVE a person begins at conception and want to FORCE the rest of us to ive according to your beliefs. FINE, I believe (as it clearly states in the Bible) that a woman is a man's property, and therefore, has no legal standing in the community.
So sit down, shut up and stop telling me how to live my life!!!
You believe a life doesn't begin at conception. That is the basis for YOUR argument. She believes a life does. That is the basis for hers.
Your logic is exactly the same. You simply have different assumptions to begin with.
You are saying your beliefs are more important than hers. That's what the issue is. Which assumption is the truth?
Her beliefs contradict scientific fact which is sad considering she's a doctor. I want to see what happens when she stops believing fire can burn her and the laws of gravity doesn't apply to her because she doesn't believe in them. She has every right to believe what she wants, but held to pure fact, it doesn't make her correct and should therefore never be imposed on the public. "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." – Socrates quoted by Diogenes Laertius.
The many (but still a minority) who are so anti-abortion are still willing to go along with the "Bush wars" that killed so many innocent people (including children), and the fact that those wars were and are financed by borrowing from our good friends in China - where abortion is often mandatory to maintain the one-child policy.
I am mostly concerned with the complications of child birth; especially, ectopic pregnancies (fertilized egg implanted outside the uterus, usually the fallopian tubes). In most cases the fertilized egg will be dissolved back into the mothers system with little or no complications. But there are those that will require surgery (laparotomy or laparoscopy) due to life threatening bleeding (rupture of the fallopian tube) or shock. Some women can be treated non-surgically with a drug (methotrexate), but this drug kills the growing fetus causing a miscarriage. It should be noted that almost all ectopic pregnancies are not viable.
If the measure passes in Mississippi it will be impossible to save the life of the mother if a person is defined as "every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.” For all women of child bearing age I just hope your close enough to another state to receive the health care that will save your life; especially, if a fallopian tube ruptures.
my mother had me because "abortion is wrong" in her words and blamed me for ruing her life my whole childhood. Trust me, you aren't doing anyone any favors having a child you dont want.
She should have taken it a step further and gave you up for adoption. That way you could have been cherished instead.
So you not only advocate for forcing all women to carry all pregnancies to full term, you also advocate for breaking up families that don't meet you standards? Now we know the kind of dictators we are dealing with.
You are reading more into my statement than what I said. I said if she believed so strongly that abortion was wrong than she should have done the right next step and given her to someone who loves her. I made no mention of forcing anyone to do anything. I am merely speaking about this particular mother's choice. If it is wrong to have an abortion in her eyes than it should have been equally wrong to treat a child that way.
Assuming of course she would actually have been adopted...thouhg, THAT is a whole 'nother can of worms
Do you know how many children are waiting for adoption?? There are thousands that never find a home. I wish people will stop pretending that this issue can be solved with adoption. People would rather go to other countries and adopt kids.
There are loads of people waiting for a baby to adopt. My sister-in-law has adopted three and I plan to adopt at least one. My point was that if she is going to follow her beliefs than she should follow it all the way through. At least if she kept her, she should have treated her better.
And no I do not plan to adopt outside the U.S. Nor did my sister-in-law. One of her children is special needs. I know people who want to adopt that have been waiting to get the call.
Even though you might know some who want to adopt there aren't enough people willing to adopt.
Ann- You stated the problem with adoption unknowingly. You wrote "There are load of people waiting for a baby to adopt." What about all the children above the age of 2 in foster care waiting for a family? There are all the "loads of people" waiting for them? What about all of the red tape and hoops to jump through for potential parents who would like to adopt children but are unable to because of their sexual orientation or single parent status?
Good for you and your sister for choosing to adopt children I hope you are all very happy, but don't tell this woman what her mother should have done. There is nothing she can do about it and she is making the point that sometimes children suffer when they are born into unloving and neglectful homes.
Kate- Your mother's misunderstanding says NOTHING about your value.
You are just as valuable as any other person here. If someone was trying to kill you, I would try to save you.
It's confusing as a child- but I hope with all my heart that by now you have learned that your worth is not based on someone else's estimation. Even if that someone is your mom.
Your greatness is because of who YOU ARE. Not the circumstances of your life. I am so glad you are here to share your voice with us. It would have been a tragedy to have that voice stamped out.
"Though born naked, poor and disenfranchised in the South, I’m glad my mother chose life for me."
What the author fails to mention is that her mother did not have a choice as abortion was illegal then.
"In the case of a pregnancy conceived in rape or incest, all victims will be defended. The choice of abortion hurts women. They risk injury physically and even death. The woman is always affected emotionally and mentally by abortion."
There is also a risk of physical injury and even death with carrying a pregnancy to term. The term "died in childbirth" does not exist because it has only happened once or twice. In fact, the rate at which women die in childbirth in this country is unacceptably high.
Moreover, women are affected emotionally and mentally by being forced to incubate the seed of a rapist too.
I do not see how anyone can make a law regarding stuff like this. There is no way to compromise between one set of people that feel it is murder to destroy a fertilized egg and the other set of people feel it is just cells that were discarded. No matter the law, one side will feel moral objection from their standpoint. This is completely a stand off with no real solution.
Roe vs wade is good enough. The people that are pro choice can choose an abortion if that is the right option for them. The people that are against abortion dont have to ever have one. Problem solved. People need to realize they can't push their beliefs on others. We all have lives to live...people need to mind their own business.
I agree with that!!
And in saying this... you are "PUSHING" YOUR BELIEFS ON ME! Stop with the contradictory actions.
Abortions for some, miniature american flags for others!
you're a liberal wanna-be, but you failed the entrance exam. so let's not kid ourselves. you only started your post with "i'm a liberal" because you want to make your argument more appealing to other liberals – like "i'm an open-minded liberal, and so should you".
as to your argument about "a life is a life", use your brain a little! no one is even arguing that an embryo is NOT a life. of course it is. abortion is a way to end a life while still in the form of an embryo. but an embryo is NOT a person!
okay, maybe this is beyond your level of comprehension. think about this, a cow is life, right? so are chickens, and fish, and brocolli, and apples, according to science at least. oh don't forget your furnitures come from trees, which are lives as well. ever had any regrets eating beef or chicken, or apple? they're all life and yet you never give it another thought when you ate them, did u?
Even in the Bible it states that God even knew you in the womb..well support26inhell an embryo is a person when conceived in the womb. I will break it down so even YOU can understand..are cells alive YES..EMBRYOS ARE CELLS..SO they are alive ..it is an person!!! All those you mentioned cows, trees,chickens, and fish..YES they are alive
by the way that Fisher Price toy is paying off for you if you know what each sound those mention make. GOOD JOB!!!
EMBRYOS = ALIVE=PERSON=VOTE YES FOR 26 ...IT WILL PASS IN MISSISSIPPI!!
Sooner or later jacking off will be on the Mississippi ballots. Jacking off will be 500,000,000 counts of first degree murder due to the potential people the could have existed if an egg were fertilized.
Reminds me of Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life" song: Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good... :-)
You must be a product of your comments!!! Think about it...it will come to you!!!
Here is a question I would like answered... How many human beings have been killed in the name of God versus in the name of Buddha? Please don't respond by comparing the two philosophical believes, that is immaterial in this instance. The question only requires a simple numeric comparison.
Those who say they kill in the name of God- are not killing in His name. He decides who is acting in His name, or in His place, on His behalf, with his authority.
People who don't live their religion have no authority to represent it. Simple as that. No matter what they claim.
This whole thing just makes me sad...if people would choose to do the right thing from the begining then this wouldn't even be an issue. Children deserve a chance. It's just not fair that they don't have a voice.
I am not afraid of god, I have no fear in the devil. But, the US government scares the hell out of me. Less government is almost always better, especially in this circumstance.
Amen to that, brother!
I would be lying to you if I said I had visual proof of heaven/hell/god/satan/etc.
But there is no proof saying they DON'T exist either. The universe is MASSIVE, and humans have only seen probably less than .000000000000000000001% of it, so you can't rule the existence of heaven/hell/god/satan/etc. yet
There is no reason to prove something doesn't exist if there is no evidence to suggest that it does. We all have fantasies but they do not need to be tested and proven.
Considering we have telescopes that see light years from earth in all directions with no indication of heaven or hell, or god or whatever, where do you suppose these places are hiding? How far does one's disembodied soul have to travel to get there? Do souls travel faster than the speed of light as to make the journey seem almost instantaneous? Perhaps heaven is at the center of the sun, and hell is under the frozen crust of Europa?
@JilllC- do you think if there was a God and He was all He said He was- huge and infinite with the nations being like a drop in a bucket...do you really, honestly think you'd be able to spot Him in a telescope? Come on now. That's silly. He is there, trust me. Open your eyes and really see.
Of course I don't think we'd be able to see god in a telescope, we can only see things that EXIST in telescopes. We need imagination to see god, because god is imaginary!
Will, I will ask you one question, though: what if (even if no evidence is found before you pass away) and it turns out there is a God?
And its name is Brahman...
Good question sonic. The bible says the last will be first and the first will be last. That tells me if there is a god he/she/it respects those who wait for proof more than those who simply believe out of ignorance and fear of the unknown.
Yes sonic, Fear should be the motivating force behind your faith. Its more valid that way.
For those who havent noticed that america is a communist country. How much wealth is held in the hands of the government.
None. We are in fact trillions of dollars in debt, and the government is using money they don't have. Also, you really have no concept of what communism is.
Yes, the religious are typically pro-life, but the non-argument "stop forcing your religious ideas on me" is stupid. Fact of the matter is people, religious or not, have to decide when a mass of cells becomes a human being and at that point you are guaranteed a right to life. I disagree that personhood starts at conception, but at some point in the first six weeks, when the brain begins to develop and function, it's very likely they become a conscious and feeling being.
This also isn't taking away a woman's right to choose (yes, there may be some unfortunate exceptions). Idiots of both genders need to learn to use birth control and if they don't both the man and the woman should be prepared for the consequences (and there should be more for the man). You can choose whether or not to have sex and you can choose whether or not to risk pregnancy. Your "rights" end where they infringe on the rights of others. And when personhood begins, you have no right to take their life simply because you weren't responsible enough to take precautions and don't want to suffer the consequences.
You say this, and then the people who purport to write principled, logical articles in favor of the new law start off with the words "As a Christian..." I don't know, I think people have the right to be skeptical in that situation.
@This has little to do with religion
hm, i wonder what shaped this world view of yours. i bet you'll say "it's not religion". but the fact is that religious upbringing is exactly why you think this way. no atheists would be so "morally compelled" to go as far in saying to after the first few weeks, the mother will be "infringing" on the rights of the embryo if she chooses abortion. your subconscious is more powerful than you give it credit for. maybe time for a checkup with a psychiatrist.
let me ask, are contraceptive devices (such as condoms) 100% effective as far as you know? if you realize that it's not, then what happens to your argument about taking preemptive measures? i realize that this scenario may only account for 1% of pregnancies, but that's a big hole in your argument.
You say "no atheist would be morally compelled." You are conceding that an atheists sense of moral obligations comes from his or her belief about God, or a lack of a God. That is a RELIGIOUS belief that motivates morality that motivates political view.
Why is that religious belief (that there is no God) considered more valuable or fair than any other religious belief that motivates morality that motivates political viewpoint?
I once asked a group of medical students, my friends, what their views are regarding this issue. I asked them, "When do you think a mass of cells turn into a child". They answered unanimously, "When the heart starts beating". Clearly there is a few weeks between conception and having you're child's heart beat, if there is ever a bill that is passed I hope it doesn't define life upon conception. (Religion should play absolutely no part in this debate from either side, and I hope all issues get addressed this way)
I don't see how IVF can be legal under Amendment 26. Amendment 26 states that life begins at the point of fertilization. The process of IVF intentionally fertilizes more eggs, sometimes dozens of eggs, even though it is known that only one or two will be carried to term. If Amendment 26 doesn't require heroic measures to ensure that the lives of all of the eggs fertilized by IVF be saved, then Amendment 26 is treating IVF eggs differently than other human life, which is the exact opposite of its stated goal to not treat some humans as "non-persons".
There's a great thought experiment that provides some potential insight into this subject.
Taken directly from the wikipedia article on this:
Judith Jarvis Thomson provided one of the most striking and effective thought experiments in the moral realm. Her example is aimed at a popular anti-abortion argument that goes something like this: The fetus is an innocent person with a right to life. Abortion results in the death of a fetus. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.
In her thought experiment we are asked to imagine a famous violinist falling into a coma. The society of music lovers determines from medical records that you and you alone can save the violinist's life by being hooked up to him for nine months. The music lovers break into your home while you are asleep and hook the unconscious (and unknowing, hence innocent) violinist to you. You may want to unhook him, but you are then faced with this argument put forward by the music lovers: The violinist is an innocent person with a right to life. Unhooking him will result in his death. Therefore, unhooking him is morally wrong.
However, the argument does not seem convincing in this case. You would be very generous to remain attached and in bed for nine months, but you are not morally obliged to do so. The parallel with the abortion case is evident. The thought experiment is effective in distinguishing two concepts that had previously been run together: "right to life" and "right to what is needed to sustain life." The fetus and the violinist may each have the former, but it is not evident that either has the latter. The upshot is that even if the fetus has a right to life (which Thomson does not believe but allows for the sake of the argument), it may still be morally permissible to abort.
"One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous violinist who is connected to you with various tubes and machines.
To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist.
If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected? And is that an obligation you would feel comfortable applying to everyone else?"
that's a very good thought experiment. i think to make it more relevant or anologous to abortion scenario, another part needs to be added. "after nine months, the violinist will be saved, but he'll depend on you for everything for the next 18-22 years while recovering. he'll be part of your household, you'll probably need to bath him in the first few years, and teach him potty. will you do it?"
Great analogy but flawed in that this situation is being forced upon you and there was nothing you could do to prevent it. It works in a rape scenario but fails in others...
Evangelicals = American Taliban
What defines you? Maybe it’s the shade of your skin, the place you grew up, the accent in your words, the make up of your family, the gender you were born with, the intimate relationships you chose to have or your generation? As the American identity changes we will be there to report it. In America is a venue for creative and timely sharing of news that explores who we are. Reach us at email@example.com.
Send Feedback | Subscribe