.
November 8th, 2011
05:00 AM ET

Opinion: Why I support Mississippi's 'personhood' amendment

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.

Posted by
Filed under: What we think • Women
soundoff (836 Responses)
  1. Jernau

    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?"

    November 8, 2011 at 4:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • support26inhell

      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?"

      November 8, 2011 at 5:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • Good but not quite

      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...

      November 8, 2011 at 5:53 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Jimbo

    Evangelicals = American Taliban

    November 8, 2011 at 4:48 pm | Report abuse |
  3. Matt in Virginia

    How dare the government involve itself in education, health care, or helping seniors buy prescriptions... so say the tea party members (and many conservatives).

    But the government is perfectly welcome to dictate what a doctor can or cannot do for a patient, and the government should be allowed to storm into people's bedrooms and arrest a consenting couple just b/c they happen to be same-sex. This is the logic of these people.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:48 pm | Report abuse |
  4. TU

    I can only imagine how much better the world would be if the mothers of the pro-abortion savages had chosen to abort. It amazes me how so out of touch and selfish people can be.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • Adam J

      It's "pro-choice" - nobody is actually pro-ABORTION (except apparently you...)

      November 8, 2011 at 4:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • Not All Docs Play Golf

      You are a small minded, judgemental low-IQ moron. If you think rape victims should be made to carry pregnancies just to satisfy your religious perversions, you are far from human. How dare you cast stones from your high self-aggrandizing superior perch.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:55 pm | Report abuse |
      • oleschool

        How dare you Sir!!! I agree with you on one point rape victums should be protected...castrate the rapist!!!
        BUT on the other point...carry the embryo to full term and put up for adoption if you do not want the child...this would solve the intro-fertilization that some people pay thousands upon thousands of dollars to have done to her body
        ADOPTION!!!ADOPTION!!!ADOPTION Stick that 9 iron somewhere and yell "fore" IDIOT!!

        November 8, 2011 at 5:45 pm | Report abuse |
      • TU

        Interesting how you assume I am religious. Not the case. Low IQ, probably not. I didn't say anything about rape either. Let's be real, pro-abortion is what it is. Pro-abortionists (rationalize it anyway you want, it's not a choice) often make the argument that it's about rape and incest. Let's set rape and incest and mother's health aside. I'm open to dialogue there. Now, you call me small minded, but consider that of the millions of abortions committed annually in this country, ~1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient). Think what you want – I'm not casting stones – merely pointing out the obvious. Most (not all) people who abort babies are selfish people looking to avoid the incovenience of an unplanned child. Be grateful your mother wasn't that selfish.

        November 8, 2011 at 5:47 pm | Report abuse |
      • Joe

        All you a-holes screaming about adoption truly have no idea how screwed up the adoption system is. And people get invitro because they want to have a child of their own, not someone else's crackhead baby. If you believe in God and his divine justice so much how about you let him handle it and stay the hell out of other people's business?

        November 9, 2011 at 9:09 am | Report abuse |
  5. DRoc

    "This is what democracy looks like!" If it's good for OWS then it's good for the people of Mississippi. If you don't want to live within the laws on that state move.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • oleschool

      Sounds like good advice!

      November 8, 2011 at 5:46 pm | Report abuse |
  6. kswope1

    Comparing a fetus to a cancerous growth seems kind of cold to me...

    November 8, 2011 at 4:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • bdel08

      Yeah?
      Well I feel like telling a mother that even though the possibility of having a baby could kill her that there is nothing they could do for her.
      Or if the standard of living for the baby would be terrible that she still had to have it.

      This seems like another one of those socio-economic issues. We are saying that all these babies have to be born into this world because we are religious and republican. But we aren't going to adopt them, we don't want to pay for them, and the majority of them will end up feeding the vicious cycle.

      Sad fact of reality. Not all children should be born. Not all humans deserve to be alive. But no one gets to dictate that. And neither should someone be able to dictate what you can and can't do in regards to your own personal medical care if it falls within federal guidelines.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:53 pm | Report abuse |
  7. Jim

    I think we can all agree that the last thing this country needs is more Mississippians. It is for this reason that I oppose this amendment. Lord knows the way those folks breed down there it will only be a matter of a few years before the entire gene pool of the United States is polluted with inbred mongoloids. Say no to amendment 26.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      "Inbred mongoloids"? You clearly behave like a beast. Any "mongoloid" as you so tactfully describe people with a certain condition, has infinitely more dignity, compassion, care and love to be shared than you.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:50 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jim

        Mike- I am sorry if you or someone you know is an inbred mongoloid.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • oleschool

      IF YOU DON'T KNOW US ....SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE YOU CALL YOUR MOUTH...WE ARE GLAD WE DON'T HAVE PEOPLE LIKE YOU IN MISSISSIPPI!!!

      November 8, 2011 at 5:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • IgnoranceIsBliss

      Congratulations to you, JIM. You have just proven yourself to be amongst the most shameful and ignorant of "We the People" (and if you don't know what that means, google it). I am a college educated, middle-class Mississippian, and YES, I have every single one of my teeth. I find it literally sickening that you would say such a thing, as if you are in a superior class. We all live in a United States FULL of idiots, ignorance, and fools....one of which is you. My God, my God....please save us from ourselves.

      November 8, 2011 at 5:56 pm | Report abuse |
  8. BobFromPA

    I don't have a religious bone in my body. Don't believe in god but DO believe in the enduring human spirit which has been made evident to me on more than one occasion. I have always stated that abortion is by definition premeditated murder. Although I would stop short of calling those who have had abortions, my wife being one, and those involved in the procedure murderers, that is not just a clump of cells, but an individual human being, being destroyed. I have also stated that those getting abortions that the first one maybe overlook, the second given a warning and the third you get permanently sterilized because you are obviously an irresponsible person. This is all about taking responsibility for your actions, something that seems to be missing in many facets of our modern day lives. As far as incest and rape, I side with not making a second victim of the baby, it was not their choice, they didn't create the situation, why should they pay the ultimate price, death. To me it all comes down to the simple premise of not holding children responsible for the sins of their parents. If we always used that premise, think about it, the world would be a far safer and better place.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jim

      Because women are just lining up to raise the demon seed of rapists and criminals.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Not All Docs Play Golf

      You owe an apology to every woman who has ever been raped, you backward idiot. Rape is a crime of VIOLENCE. How dare you sit in judgement of a victim of a violent assault and tell them they should have to go through with that pregnancy. You are a sick person, and I hope nobody in your family ever gets raped. As a physician myself, I think your type of thinking about rape victims is nauseating. And that includes Dr. Bush.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:51 pm | Report abuse |
      • bdel08

        Hey take it easy on BobfromPA

        He is obviously highly undeducated on what the difference betwen a conscious human mind, and a clump of cells hanging on to the uterus wall is.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:58 pm | Report abuse |
      • oleschool

        YOU AGAIN...NOBODY IS JUDGING THE RAPE VICTUM...BUT WOMAN DOES NOT OWN HER BODY..SHE IS A PROPERTY OF GOD..WHEN SHE ABORTS A CHILD..SHE IS BREAKING GOD'S COMMANDMENT OF "THY SHOULD NOT KILL" WHEN SHE ABORTS THE CHILD..SHE WILL HAVE TO GIVE AN ACCOUNT OF WHY SHE DONE THIS! SHE CAN BE FORGIVEN OF THIS SIN..BUT THERE IS CONSQUENCES FOR HER ACTIONS.

        November 8, 2011 at 5:55 pm | Report abuse |
  9. Marcia

    She says this is suppose to save lives but what about all the backyard abortions that will kill young girls and women when the legal means disappear. This person is very naive if she believes this will just go away if a law is passed. Than we get to the fertilized egg that in nature implants itself in the womb or is discarded by the female body naturally more often than not. Who is going to go through the discard of all females of child bearing years to look for fertilized eggs? actually who is going to arrest all woman in the state since this has probably happened more than once to every woman who lives? As a person who suffered with endometriosis and had trouble getting pregnant I lost many fertilized eggs. The only cure is pregnancy so I went through a false pregnancy by taking large amounts of birth control pills, that caused the hormone equivalent of a pregnancy. Under this law this cure would be illegal.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • trainwreck

      but by making this law they can say "We were right"" and wash their hands of the blood of the people harmed or killed by the inevitable back alley abortions

      November 8, 2011 at 4:54 pm | Report abuse |
  10. Buy the People

    When do corporations become people....?

    November 8, 2011 at 4:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • will

      that happened during the emancipation proclimation. Lincoln freed the slaves and gave corporations the right to personhood.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:48 pm | Report abuse |
  11. JoeT

    As a wayward Catholic, it is my belief that life actually begins once you unhook the bra.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • trainwreck

      ive heard it said before that if these people get their way kleenex could be considered a weapon

      November 8, 2011 at 4:56 pm | Report abuse |
  12. Jeff Gassman

    The fact that an OB-GYN wrote this is an embarrassment. I wonder how she would advise a woman with an ectopic pregnancy. But hey, it's Mississippi! Why don't we just let them secede anyway?!

    November 8, 2011 at 4:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rebecca

      That's really rude. I'm from Mississippi and I am against the amendment. Not everyone in the state is crazy.

      November 8, 2011 at 5:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • oleschool

      We have been trying for over 150 yrs to secede from the UNION SOCIALIST STATES OF AMERICA.
      IFYOU DON'T KNOW MISSISSIPPIANS....SHUT UP YANKS!!!

      November 8, 2011 at 5:59 pm | Report abuse |
  13. porter

    Pure melodramatic gibberish: "They know the yearning in their hearts to fill the void that can only be filled by a child" – as if "they" are all the same and have a singular concurring opinion. In the absence of any kind of honest and intelligent thought, this is an appalling display of religious dogma being used to propel a weak and emotionally trite argument. There are a few legitimate points made in this editorial, but the argument as a whole is little more than insipid fluff supporting the forced obedience and submission – and *not* intellectual persuasion – of those who disagree.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:42 pm | Report abuse |
  14. bdel08

    An embryo:
    Uses your bodily resources
    Reproduces cells rapidly
    Eventually will cause great pain/strain to be put on the body
    In some scenarios can lead to paralasys or death

    Cancer:
    Uses your bodily resources
    Reproduces cells rapidly
    Eventually will cause great pain/strain to be put on the body
    In some scenarios can lead to paralasys or death

    So what people are telilng me is that because it has living cells even though it has no form of consciousness we have to keep it alive?? Well I'd say stacking the basics together cancer and being pregnant are pretty similar, so maybe we should ban chemotherapy and radiation, as well as biopsy's because you might "hurt a living entity."

    Sorry folks, but scientifically even a baby can't create a cognitive though in the womb that can be remembered, nor can it sustain itself, breath, feed itself, etc. Until it pops out of mother dearest, it is a growth, a cancer, and if a mother needs to have an abortion it should not be up to a bunch of holy-rolling bible thumpers to tell her what she can and can't do with her body. Should there be regulations?? Yes. Should there be a ban?? No.

    They don't have to live with the consequence of any action besides their own, so why does it matter if they aren't the ones getting the abortion?? Does it have ANY actual effect on your life whatsoever, or does it just give people another reason to complain and power grab into other people's lives.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Veronica

      Every great crime against humanity has been committed on the excuse that the victims weren't actually "human." It's an excuse that has allowed people to invade, enslave, murder, rape and abort. Think what you want about this, but I'm just glad finally someone is admitting they're human.

      November 8, 2011 at 5:18 pm | Report abuse |
  15. tbreeden

    Dr. Bush,

    The Supreme Court didn't grant the right to choose abortion "through all nine months of pregnancy."

    They ruled that a person has a right to abortion up until "viability," which they defined as being able to live outside the mother's womb, even if artificial aid is needed. They also stated that viability is usually about seven months, and it may occur even earlier.

    Andy

    November 8, 2011 at 4:39 pm | Report abuse |
  16. Matt in Virginia

    What makes this amendment absurd, moral arguments aside, is the fact that it is in direct violation to Federal law, which gives every woman in America the right to choose whether or not to terminate her pregnancy (yes, even women in Mississippi are covered). Supreme Court decisions are not to be trampled on by state laws. If such a thing were allowed, individual states could vote for slavery, or the death penalty for homosexuality (the examples are endless). The Supreme Court will invariably strike down this law, b/c it directly contradicts federal law.

    I'm glad Dr. Freda Bush, in her 40 year career, believes that "mothers take care of their children;" but, as a social worker involved in child protective services, I know that such a statement is naive (and dangerous). Even if this law actually had a chance of staying on the books (which it does not), the outcome will most certainly include illegal abortions, as well as children born to mothers who simply do not want them. I'm all for personal responsibility, and I wish women would not get pregnant in the first place if they did not want to have children, but we simply cannot rely on that in society, unfortunately.

    Finally, since when is it okay in our society to impose one's "Christian" belief system in matters of public policy. I'm glad Dr. Bush is a Christian, and it sounds like she does good work, but not everybody shares her beliefs. As a black woman, one would think that Dr. Bush would respect the concept of not allowing majority rule to dictate how society as a whole should behave. I have a strong feeling that Dr. Bush would not be a doctor today if Mississippi had been allowed to trump federal law on race relations back in the day. She owes a lot to federal law, which protected her rights.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • DJ

      Wow...Well said...well said indeed.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • meg

      Nicely said

      November 8, 2011 at 5:31 pm | Report abuse |
  17. ME

    So when it boils down to it, your argument that personhood begins at conception is "because my Invisible Sky Wizard says so...". Ok, you fail.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:37 pm | Report abuse |
  18. ERin

    If women can have an abortion and "opt out" of pregnancy- under the equal rights amendment- men should have that right also.

    Women can opt out and avoid consequences but men cannot? Didn't they make this choice together? Is not a woman JUST AS CAPABLE of making a purposeful decision. Is she not intelligent enough to be held to the same standard as the men?

    November 8, 2011 at 4:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • ERin

      With the logic many of you use- the man should be able to say- well, it was HER body. She chose to have the baby- I have no responsibility.

      You can't have it both ways, guys. How can the law work for the woman but not the man? Obviously a double standard.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:40 pm | Report abuse |
      • MashaSobaka

        ERin, I will say it again...because the woman's body is on the line, it is her choice whether that body should become pregnant or not. Because men do not have that responsibility that part of any law will never and can never apply to them. Until men are as physically impacted as women from pregnancy, then women do deserve extra rights regarding reproduction. If you can't understand that, then you don't deserve a place in human society.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:46 pm | Report abuse |
      • Male_in_La

        By your logic if a man has equal say about a pregnancy then he would be allowed to consent to it as well or decide to terminate the pregnancy. There is and always has been a double standard since women carry fetuses they get to make the decision.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:49 pm | Report abuse |
      • ERin

        Masha and Male- I am not saying a man has a right to decide for an abortion. (i don't think anyone has that right.)

        What I am saying is that, under YOUR logic, he should not be held financially responsible for the choices the woman makes for HER own body.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:57 pm | Report abuse |
      • MashaSobaka

        ERin, are you saying that men have such low intellect that they should not be held accountable for something that they did? Men contributed to the creation of the fetus. Therefore they're also responsible for it. If you cannot understand that then I sincerely hope that you never reproduce.

        November 8, 2011 at 5:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • ERin

        Masha- No. I am saying EXACTLY the opposite of that. Women have such high intellect and capabilities that they should be held just as accountable as men. Anything else is an insult to us.

        November 8, 2011 at 6:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • ShenShen

      Why is it so hard for some people to realize that, once in a great while, there can be a natural inequality that DOESN'T favor men?

      The fetus is in MY body, therefore I call the shots. When men can carry fetuses, they can have all the abortions they want.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:41 pm | Report abuse |
      • ERin

        I know there are A LOT of men out there hoping the government begins to agree with you so they can hold onto their money and not have to support the children they fathered.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:44 pm | Report abuse |
      • ShenShen

        You miss my point. He's still responsible for his genetic material if it comes to fruition, just as I'm responsible for deciding what to do with my genetic material – abort it or not. Again, sometimes – and I know this is hard to grasp – men can be at an actual disadvantage that they cannot change. Sucks to be them if they slept with the wrong woman. I'm sure most men can comfort themselves against the thought of this heartbreaking disadvantage with their inability to get pregnant, the fact that they never have to menstruate, and the overwhelming amount of privilege they have.

        I love men, and misandry can be real sometimes, but this is so not even an issue worth bringing up.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:48 pm | Report abuse |
      • ERin

        Shen Shen- Under your logic, I ask you, why should any person be responsible for the choices of others.

        A woman chooses to not have an abortion. Once born the woman chooses to not give it up for adoption. Those are 2 choices she can make if she doesn't want to accept full responsiblity- financial and all- for the baby. Are those not HER choices? According to your logic.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:55 pm | Report abuse |
      • ShenShen

        I don't see your point. I'm all about the right to choose – choose birth, choose abortion, choose adoption. All of those are hard decisions that are all about taking responsibilities for one's actions. You forced birthers act like abortions are five minute procedures that end with a lollypop and nothing else.

        The man, if he really doesn't want a kid, is actually lucky in that he may not have to take any responsibility at all or make any choices unless the woman makes him, by deciding to keep the kid and suing for child support. If he wanted the kid, well, he gets to try and convince the mom to keep it, but hey, it's her body, and them's the breaks.

        November 8, 2011 at 5:01 pm | Report abuse |
      • ERin

        ShenShen- I'm trying to figure out why I'm not articulating this clearly. I must not be saying it right. I'll try again.

        If you are all about choice with no consequences- then men should have that right, too. They should be able to opt out of any responsibility to the child because the woman has 2 choices to make- to abort or not, to adopt or not.

        If the woman can't financially take care of the result of HER choice- then why should a man have to pay anything or be connected in any way?

        That is in line with your own logic. I, of course, believe they should BOTH be held responsible for the choices THEY made.

        You are admitting that the choice to have sex has moral or legal obligations. That is what you are saying.

        November 8, 2011 at 6:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • MashaSobaka

      You win the ignorance award for the day. Each of your questions is rendered moot by the simple fact that it is the woman's body that is involved in pregnancy, not the man's. If men were carrying the fetus, if it was their life on the line, if it was their body that was going to be drained of nutrition, rewired, and put at risk for disablement and even death, then it would be their decision. Since it is not, men have no say in the matter after ejaculation.

      Personally, I think your confusion shows a fundamental lack of knowledge about the way babies are even made...perhaps a quick conversation with your mother would have cleared it all up. You might want to give her a call and ask her how it's done.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:42 pm | Report abuse |
      • ERin

        Masha- :). I don't feel any confusion. Maybe I haven't learned how to express my thoughts clearly if it seemed so.

        My point is this- if THAT is your position you have no power to hold any man responsible for a child he fathers. If the child is merely the mother's body and the mother's choice- then why should a man have any legal responsibility at all?

        If there is no responsibility that comes from the choice to have sex- then there is no responsibility. If that choice DOES carry consequences- then it carries them for all involved in the decision.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Matt in Virginia

      The Supreme Court addressed the very issue you discussed. Obviously a pregnancy impacts women far more than it impacts men. Yes, a man might have to pay child support (of course, if he were really that worried about it, he could always have used a condom or not had sex at all); aside from that point, a man's health and body are not impacted by pregnancy as much as a woman's. The equal protection clause does not apply when the situation is unique to a specific group of people. For example, the 14th amendment (equal protection) was broken when a Texas sodomy law as targeting only homosexual couples, and not straight couples. That was a clear violation, b/c sodomy is an act that all people can engage in. Pregnancy however, is exclusive to women.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:44 pm | Report abuse |
      • ERin

        Matt- THANK YOU. That is exactly my point. "If he were really worried about it he could use a condom or not have sex."

        So, you are saying a man is capable of thinking ahead and planning out his choices but a woman, a poor, simple woman, is simply not as capable of this very same thing. Therefore we should treat her choices differently.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:50 pm | Report abuse |
  19. as always, gsl

    We have hundreds of thousands US citizens screaming for LESS government, less taxes and so on to the point that there are citizens (seniors-children) suffering needlessly due to lack of government programs YET the government wants to have the right to control a woman's body. Hmmmmmm curious...

    November 8, 2011 at 4:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • meg

      Totally agree, typically it is the Republicans that want to control women rights but yet they are also the ones screaming for less government, cant have it both ways.

      November 8, 2011 at 5:43 pm | Report abuse |
  20. Adam J

    I guess what I'm saying is that when your best argument in favor of a policy begins with "As a Christian..." then you have failed. Our First Amendment makes us a different kind of country than that.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • ERin

      I see. So if I speak as a Christian- then my view has no validity? What if I spoke as a woman, or as a Muslim, or as a Native American, or as a vegan, or as anything. My identity, chosen or not, does not make my view point any less valid.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:41 pm | Report abuse |
      • Adam J

        When you lead off with stating that identity, it kind of shows where your motivations come from. Why is this person's religion relevant? Being a Christian doesn't make your views on an issue any less important, unless your Christianity is the sole source of your policy views. The Constitution treats religion differently; it's not unconstitutional to make policy to further the interests of women, minorities, etc., but it is clearly unconstitutional to make policy to further religion. The government is supposed to stay neutral in that area.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:50 pm | Report abuse |
      • plaztikjezuz

        I think what Adam is trying to say is that we do not base our government on religion.

        November 8, 2011 at 5:02 pm | Report abuse |
      • ERin

        Adam- Everyone's beliefs come from somewhere. How can religion not be part of your beliefs about government? Just as lack of religion doesn't invalidate a point of view- religion doesn't either. Lack of faith is a body of thought just as faith is.

        She simply giving your her identity and then she goes on to make some pretty logical arguments based on the foundation she lays. You may disagree with her. You can disagree with her premise. You can disagree with her conclusion. You can find fault with her logic.

        But, she still deserves respect, as any other person. She is a person with a view point just as I am, just as you are, just as anyone is.

        November 8, 2011 at 5:04 pm | Report abuse |
      • ERin

        Plaz- we do base our government on our beliefs. That is the foundation of government- what do we believe?

        Lack of religion, just like religion, inspires certain values. As a people we have to come together and find common ground- that means we bring all our beliefs to the table. Why is non-religion a more valuable school of thought than religion?

        November 8, 2011 at 5:06 pm | Report abuse |
  21. Jeb

    Religious fanatics are always trying to force their beliefs on everyone else.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • ERin

      Just as un-religious fanatics – non-religion being a religion – a system of belief and values- do the same.

      November 8, 2011 at 5:07 pm | Report abuse |
  22. state property

    Person is a corporation by legal definition so your fetus will be property of the state. this is more of the issue.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • ERin

      Not property- resposiblity to protect. Just as we all are.

      November 8, 2011 at 5:08 pm | Report abuse |
  23. drbill

    this debate brought to you by the most backwards, illiterate state in the union. this is a non-issue in most states, despite what the sensationalist news service wants you to believe. if passed it will quickly be overturned by our court system. as a Christian i'm not big on quoting marx, but he had a point when he said "religion is the opiate of the masses (paraphrased)". as long as the politicians get people fired up about some religious idea these people will continue to ignore their plight in life. go on mississippians, ignore where you rank in the union, ignore the fact that poverty is common in mississippi, don't worry about your children's education or the fact that their future is bleak, you've got embryos to save!

    November 8, 2011 at 4:37 pm | Report abuse |
  24. Carol

    The question on CNN is do you believe human life begins at fertilizatlion? If it is humans and not animals who came together to start a life, the answer has to be yes, human life does begin, but many people believe religious or not religious that the soul or spirit that will exist in this human body will not attain the soul or spirit until being born. My reason for being pro-choice. I believe God made us this way because of all the myriad of reasons that babies may not be carried to term. We are diverse humans and the state government should not be allowed to pass laws that are personal and everyone feels differently about.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • as always, gsl

      Well thought out! Thank you.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • will

      When developers and financiers get together to build a house is it a house at that time or after completion of construction?

      November 8, 2011 at 5:01 pm | Report abuse |
      • ERin

        Once an agreement is entered into- it is binding. Even if the house in not finished.

        The question is what is the point of binding choice? The choice to have sex? The choice to abort or not abort? What is the choice that commits us to the process.

        November 8, 2011 at 5:11 pm | Report abuse |
      • will

        ERin, the choice is to have sex. Pregnancy is the unintended result. Yes, some people have sex to have babies, but most sexual acts are for pleasure. My question was, when is a house a house as an analogy to the original comment. If a house is not yet completed then it is not habitable therefore it is not yet a house. An embryo cannot live until it is born, therefore it is not yet a life.

        November 8, 2011 at 5:19 pm | Report abuse |
      • ERin

        A baby is not completed either. It is still being developed and built. So, until we are fully developed- we don't count as people?

        November 8, 2011 at 6:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • ERin

      Is your argument that a baby could die at any stage in the development so we don't count it as a life?

      Any of us could die at any moment. It doesn't mean we don't yet have a soul.

      November 8, 2011 at 5:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • tim

      While I agree with your end thought, I don't believe God made us at all. We are the same damn cells that float around in the sea, the same atoms that came from exploding stars and everything is part of the same fabric. Life doesn't begin at conception, it began billions of years ago and has never stopped. Aborting an unwanted life is emotionally sad for some involved but isn't any different than killing anything. Cells live, die and are repurposed as new energy in other organisms. It was a mere 150 years ago that Mississippi didn't consider Africans human life. I wouldn't take their science too seriously.

      November 8, 2011 at 5:22 pm | Report abuse |
      • ERin

        Tim, according to your logic, murder should be legal, too. We're all just a mass of cells and murder is just rearranging us to to speak- not really destroying anything.

        November 8, 2011 at 6:12 pm | Report abuse |
  25. The Proper Response

    http://i.imgur.com/bcxbH.gif

    November 8, 2011 at 4:36 pm | Report abuse |
  26. MashaSobaka

    "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." Women die as a result of pregnancy and childbirth too. One would think that with your 'extensive' experience in women's health you would know that. Women are affected emotionally and mentally by rape and incest and forcing them to become pregnant after that horrific trauma is one of the most brutal ideas mankind has to offer. The fact that you support it disgusts me.

    "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." Amendment 26 does not outline these so-called 'ethical standards' and does not provide explanations for the aftermath of IVF. If fertilized embryos are "people," can their mothers and fathers claim them on their taxes? Require the state to pay child support? Require the sperm donor to pay child support? "Mass production and genetic selection" are ingrained in the IVF process...what if one of the embryos isn't viable? Many parents with congenital defects choose IVF and then select the only embryo capable of surviving. Should the other embryos be implanted only to die? Isn't that premeditated murder? Have you considered these issues *at all?*

    "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." This is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I have read in years. This is not "good for humanity." This is putting the mother's right to life behind the right of an undeveloped cluster of cells to parasitically consume her body and potentially kill her in the process of its birth – and there is nothing that a doctor will be able to do to save her. As for ectopic and high-risk pregnancies, what happens when mother and child can't be saved? What happens when the fetus *must* be aborted, or the mother *and* child die? Families will be expected to sit back and watch their daughter die a potentially horrific death because the state says that the embryo inside of her, which feels no pain, which has no cognition, which couldn't even survive outside of her body should it be removed and thus has no viable, sustainable existence of its own, is more important than the living, breathing woman who has a family, who may have more children, or who may have been brutally raped by her own family. And you say that she should be allowed to die for the good of humanity.

    So, my question after reading your argument: What kind of monster are you, and what happened to you to make you such a heartless and cruel despot who supports negligent homicide practiced in the doctor’s office?

    November 8, 2011 at 4:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Not All Docs Play Golf

      As a physician myself, I can tell you Dr. Freda Bush is blinded to reality by her personal religious choices. Rape is a crime of VIOLENCE, not a sexual crime. To force a rape victim to be subjected to an unwanted pregnancy that resulted form a violent assault is a concept that I cannot even get my mind around. How could Dr. Bush advocate for victimizing rape victims further just to satisfy her chosen interpretation of her chosen religion? The right to legal abortion is settled law in the U.S. since 1974. Nipping around the heels of that law with these little backward pieces of back-door legislation is just wrong. But even people who are strongly against elective abortion, if they are sane, understand the need for exceptions, like rape. Dr. Bush apparently doesn't fit the sane category.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Nefertiti

      Hear, hear – couldn't have said it better myself! This amendment is the most ludicrous step backward I've ever heard in my life. Hypothetical situation (that happens all the time): a woman is pregnant and carrying the baby to term and going into labor will absolutely kill her. She can't have a life-saving abortion, because it's illegal, so she carries the child until she dies, leaving the father (if he's even involved) with huge medical bills and a child to raise without the mother. How is this protecting every human life??

      Once a woman becomes pregnant, her life is permanently changed no matter what the outcome. If she has the baby and gives it up for adoption, she is likely to have bouts with depression for the rest of her life. Read "The Girls Who Went Away," by Ann Fessler, if you want to hear this from the horses' mouths; Ann interviewed over 100 women who were forced to give up their children before Roe vs. Wade. They were ostracized by society and their own families for having become pregnant, often not even knowing that the event that caused their pregnancy was intercourse until they found out later that they were pregnant.

      Talk to an ER doctor who treated women who'd had illegal abortions in non-sterile conditions – not one would wish to go back to those days. Making abortion illegal will not stop abortions, it will only make them far more dangerous. If a woman is able to have a life-saving abortion, she can go on to produce more children.

      If this amendment passes, we will be heading back toward the dark ages.

      November 8, 2011 at 5:01 pm | Report abuse |
  27. ItSOnLyME

    So Mississippians need to continue to advertise their backwardness and ignorance? If that's what they're trying to do, great job guys! Will the last person with more than two brain cells to rub together leaving Mississippi please cut out the lights?

    November 8, 2011 at 4:35 pm | Report abuse |
  28. Strand

    I'll support the right for a fetus to designated a person, when the Catholic Church stops telling millions of people they can't practice safe sex. Or maybe when we can make all teen agers sterile until the age they are emotionally, financially and well prepared to bring another "person" into this over crowding world. And since we are defining them as persons, maybe then they will actually get health care from the time they are born.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:34 pm | Report abuse |
  29. Concerned,CentralOklahoma

    Should this pass, how does MS propose to monitor every fertile uterus? Will women & girls have to report every month whether they are, or are not, pregnant?

    If a woman miscarries, will she be charged with murder or even manslaughter? Did God/Nature play a part in the miscarriage, or was it something the prganant female did? How would a court judge that? Would the female's defense team need to present evidence that the female had never taken any action that was even a miniscule risk to her fetus?

    I think it will be a law enforcement nighmare to ensure that every pregnancy in MS is carried to a delivery, so they can charge any female that didn't deliver a new-born with a crime!

    November 8, 2011 at 4:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • ItSOnLyME

      See that you go, thinking again. You have to remember that apparently nobody in Mississippi is capable of that, so they wouldn't have thought of these things. I can't figure any other way something this dumb could have gotten onto a ballot.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:36 pm | Report abuse |
  30. SteveM

    So if an embryo is a person, why don't people have funerals after miscarriages?

    Also, why should IVF participants be allowed to commit murder by disposing of unused embryos?

    November 8, 2011 at 4:33 pm | Report abuse |
  31. Adam J

    I knew religion would come into this argument at some point, but man, I thought it would take longer than three words to get there... Pretty much tells you what you need to know about the real "justifications" behind this amendment.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:33 pm | Report abuse |
  32. My Shame

    Dr Bush,
    As someone who has had rape hit our family more than once, I will tell you there is a place for abortion. My grandmother was raped, the result was my father, he and she never got over it. My sister was raped at the age of 10 by four neighborhood teens. What it did to her and us was and still is immeasurable 40 years later and cost my father his life. Having gotten her period at 9 she had an abortion at 10. We kids of course didn't know that until we were older. Would your really expect a raped woman, much less a child to bear the emotional, physical and social shame of a pregnancy. Do you want to explain to that child how they came to be and watch their life shatter. Abortion in the case of all concerned is compassionate and humane.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • Anonymous

      I can't help but make the observation that you wouldn't be alive to make your post if your grandmother hadn't carried your father to term. Does anyone else see the irony?

      November 8, 2011 at 4:39 pm | Report abuse |
      • ERin

        I would also ask this person- are you less valuable of a person because of that history? Do you not deserve the same amount of protection of your life than everyone else does?

        November 8, 2011 at 5:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • JMysh

      Dear MyShame:
      You said, "Abortion in the case of all concerned is compassionate and humane." Really? I wish there was some way you could ask the baby that while the doctor is mutilating it's body during the cruel act of abortion.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:41 pm | Report abuse |
      • ERin

        Here are the words of someone who faced that cruelty as an unborn baby and lived to tell about it. Powerful. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ

        November 8, 2011 at 5:18 pm | Report abuse |
  33. NewYorkGirl

    Again the south will never rise again! The North is superiror LOL. I am born and raised Roman catholic and was taught that life begins at conception. Now as I have gotten older and wiser I have started to see what wonderful gifts IVF and other types of medical things are for women and men. As someone who might face fertility issues herself it is not fair for them to set this precedent its horrible. I worked in an abortion clinic for awhile and saw reasons many people were getting them and it is the hardest choice a girl or woman has to make. Although I am personally pro life and believe its a life when it has a heartbeat this law is going too far

    November 8, 2011 at 4:32 pm | Report abuse |
  34. DrJStrangepork

    I ask where the laws are that force pregnant women not to drink or smoke, or eat fish. Where are the laws that require prenatal vitamins and doctor checkups? We must also have ways of finding out who is pregnant so we can make sure what happens with these unborn people. I don't like the concept of voluntary termination of pregnancy, but I don't get to make the decisions for everyone and neither does the state of miss. or this doctor. You can't force women to be mother's (good or bad) and expect happy results.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:31 pm | Report abuse |
  35. Ariandis

    Wait, isn't this the party for smaller government?

    November 8, 2011 at 4:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • ItSOnLyME

      No, this is the party of hypocrisy. They're all for smaller or no government until it has an impact on something they care about. They're about getting rid of FEMA until the hurricane hits their beach front property. They're all about getting rid of the EPA until some big oil company pollutes their water. See how this works?

      November 8, 2011 at 4:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tiffany J

      They want small government – except when it is for the sake of large religion... Then they want huge government oversight to push this crap on all of us. F- every one of you that would try to tell me how to live my life and whether or not I should be having babies. My body. My choices. My consequences. Go mind your own dmn business.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:43 pm | Report abuse |
  36. adam

    Why are folks so worried about this "26" bit? Its a symbolic gesture and can not be enforced. It would be as if the MS government wanted to reinstate slavery it cant happen & the Fed law of the land has made "26" no way to be made real. The supreme court will probably not even hear this case if they try and take it that far.

    People focus on this but the fact MS is the poorest, fattest, and least educated state in union we can stomach? Bring up abortion and well then they must protect the children but not the ones that have already been born here.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:29 pm | Report abuse |
  37. Jim

    "The way things stand, things in the Deep South almost have to get better. Otherwise, the people who live there will devolve into preverbal, overall-wearing sub-morons within a century," said Professor Dennis Lassiter of Princeton University. "Either Southerners will start improving themselves, or they'll be sold to middle-class Asians as pets."

    November 8, 2011 at 4:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • Terre08

      LOL! I might steal that.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:40 pm | Report abuse |
  38. Xgirl360

    I was just looking into IVF this weekend. They had on their list a $600 charge for the 1 time freezing process of the additional eggs/embryos that are not used in the first course. There is a $450/year charge thereafter to keep them frozen. If the first course is successful, then obviously my husband and I would want to pace out the pregnancies and might want to use the rest later. But, what if the unthinkable happens and we can't afford to do the second course or we lose our jobs and can't pay the $450? Are we guilty of murder? Are the embryos taken from us like a labratory run Foster Care? Are we forced to give our children to another? Are we forced to pay for them if they are born through a surrogate that we did not agree to? Maybe we decide 1 is enough?

    I'm sorry, this goes too far. IUDs, some birth control pills, etc do not prevent egg/sperm meet ups. They prevent implantation. I would love to see a reform of Adoption services to make it affordable. Then you could use education and incentive to get these women to chose adoption. But, this personhood nonsense is just too much. And that goes from someone that would gladly take any child that a woman facing this decision would give up. I just can't afford $30K for adoption fees.

    Besides, with 14 million Americans out of work and the world population at 7 billion, do we really think the extra 60 million that would have been born in the last 38 years is a good thing??

    November 8, 2011 at 4:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bob

      You should get child tax credits on frozen embryos if it passes. You might need to get each of them social security numbers, though.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:32 pm | Report abuse |
  39. Self-righteousness is a mortal sin

    Outlaw masturbaition! It's a sin in the Bible too!

    God made spermatozoa as living cells.

    Don't you support the Right to Life for a precious little sperm?

    Masturbation is like mass murder!!

    November 8, 2011 at 4:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • Self-righteousness is a mortal sin

      Before the zygote came the precious little spermatozoon – the true living cell where life begins.

      Ergo, the use of condoms, spermicide and the practice of masturbaition are all the same as murder.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • JoeT

      "Every sperm is sacred,
      Every sperm is great.
      If a sperm is wasted,
      God gets quite irate!"

      November 8, 2011 at 4:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • Terre08

        "Bloody Catholics with their bloody children" "I can go down the road any time I want and walk into Harry's and hold my head up high and say in a loud, steady voice, 'Harry, I want you to sell me a condom. In fact, today, I think I'll have a French Tickler, for I am a Protestant.' lol

        November 8, 2011 at 4:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bob

      With cloning a possibility, each sneeze makes you a mass murderer.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • Strand

      Classic Joe T. Wasn't it also "God will show his hate?"

      November 8, 2011 at 4:35 pm | Report abuse |
  40. Richard K MD

    Here is the basic text of the amendment: "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof." As pointed out by a previous writer, the text does not support Dr. Bush's claim that "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."
    Dr. Bush writes "Mississippi code 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." Would not a constitutional amendment directly at odds with this code take precedence?
    She claims "Birth control prevents the sperm and the egg from coming together." Certainly she knows that birth control pills work not only by preventing fertilization but also by preventing implantation of the fertilized ovum onto the placenta. So prescribing or taking that medication would be murder of those zygotes (persons) as they try to implant after beating the first line of defense.
    "The choice of abortion hurts women. They risk injury physically and even death." Fact: the risk of physical injury or death is less in abortion than in continued childbirth and delivery.
    I have no argument about the God part. This is ultimately what this is about.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • Self-righteousness is a mortal sin

      Well said, and it shouldn't be too complicated for the Bible folk to understand.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:32 pm | Report abuse |
  41. Chris

    I'm not sure why (Christian) religious groups are pushing this. Individuals receiving abortions are likely non-religious since the religious ones live in fear of a hateful god that will punish them and their entire family line for their sins otherwise. With that established, wouldn't it do you good to allow the "sinners" to go on with their immoral actions long enough that your god interjects, kills us all and lets his Fav-5 party with Jesus for 100 years before he elects to vote the majority off his island and only let the true martyrs of faith into his fluffy white kingdom for the rest of eternity? Really, go back to that excessively large and exceedingly poorly-translated book you claim to follow and take a few pointers. It's really in your best interest to mind your own darn business and let the rest of society hold their own point of view on such a blurry and touchy subject.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • Hooligan

      that is pretty much what I said too.

      and I concur

      November 8, 2011 at 4:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • r schier

      Bravo !

      November 8, 2011 at 4:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • AgnosticAnonymous

      Frankly I agree. What amazes me is the current perception that the US was founded as a Christian society. We are a pluralistic representative democracy with a large proportion of the population considering themselves 'Christian'; but not even this defines the US as a 'christian' society. In a democracy, the purpose of a centralized government is to protect the minority against mob rule; thats why we have 'separation of church and state'–one of the most significant issues our founding fathers fought for (i love alliteration). So how should we define personhood? Groups such as those supporting this legislation say fertilization is the magic point–but why? Is it because the zygote has a diploid nucleus? Does 46 chromosomes equal life? What does that say about trisomic individuals (eg. down syndrome, klinefelter's syndrome)? And if we say that a zygote is a person, why don't we mourn spontaneous abortions as we do the death of a post natal person? I would suggest that personhood shouldn't be granted until the point at which the embryo is viable (about 22-23 weeks). The drawback to this definition is that the point of viability is likely to retreat towards fertilization as technology advances. I think ultimately, since even viable embryo's are completely dependent on a caretaker (for purposes of this discussion: mother) really a viable pre/peri/post-nate is an extension of the personhood of that caretaker until a point at which independent function and survival is possible. Postnatally, caretaker can be juxtaposed and so neglect or harm of an infant is still considered ethically indefensible, but prenatally, the gestational mother is the obligate caretaker and therefore has the right to rid herself of what is essentially a mass of proliferating tissue much like a tumor (although more regulated and usually cuter). If the mother happens to be a christian, she has the right to forgo her right to an abortion; however if the mother is not christian or has no ethical qualms concerning abortion, then her right to abortion is reserved by the government and should be respected by all who believe in a life of liberty. This is America; you don't like it: get out.

      November 8, 2011 at 5:37 pm | Report abuse |
  42. MaryM

    I sincerely hope the people of Mississippi can see thru this crap and vote no on this already failed amendment. The citizens in Colorado REJECTED a similar type of amendment TWICE

    November 8, 2011 at 4:23 pm | Report abuse |
  43. MadMom

    Some "expert"
    "Birth control prevents the sperm and the egg from coming together, which results in a single-celled person" actually birth control doesn't always prevent the spem and egg coming together. Sometimes it just keeps it from "sticking" so how would this "law" not prevent women from using the B/C of her choice.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:23 pm | Report abuse |
  44. sbk

    This "doctor" should be ashamed of herself. Why would CNN let someone post an article so full of logical flaws and inherently stupid ideas?

    Oh, never mind. It's CNN.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • ERin

      Because it's an opinion and this was an opinion article. Are you saying you only think things should be published if you personally agree with them?

      November 8, 2011 at 6:15 pm | Report abuse |
  45. Casey

    Yesterday I watched my baby (just 9 weeks since prenancy) in the womb. The baby was not planned and it's really a bad time though abortion never crossed my mind. The babies heart at 9 weeks can be seen on the ultrasound beating (160 bpm) and would occasionally wiggle and flutter around.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • ab77

      Good for you, are we supposed to be impressed?

      November 8, 2011 at 4:25 pm | Report abuse |
      • ERin

        ab77- Don't be a total jerk. This sister was just sharing with us a miracle that she is experiencing. The miracle of life. Actually I AM impressed. How can I not be impressed with this miracle?

        November 8, 2011 at 4:35 pm | Report abuse |
      • ShenShen

        ERin, isn't 7 billion miracles enough?

        November 8, 2011 at 4:44 pm | Report abuse |
      • ERin

        Life is the miracle. Trees are miracles. Flowers are miracles. Animals are miracles. Life is the miracle.

        There is a process happening that is beautiful. Are we done with it?

        We are not in charge of it. It just is. Winter is coming, spring is next. It just is. Can you feel the miracle?

        November 8, 2011 at 6:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • Hooligan

      and as it is YOUR choice to keep the child... no one should be able to tell you that you MUST have the child if you didn't

      this is not about what YOU would do this is about those that choose NOT to.

      YOU are not the world.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • ShenShen

      You know what else has a heartbeat and wiggles around? Goldfish.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jenn

      I am pro-choice. Abortion should be used in cases of where the woman's health is in extreme danger (the woman could die) Let's say the woman has children and there is only a husband left to raise them and it would take 2 to raise these kids. Rape or incest-very painful to the victim. But no matter what the case is-there are psychological affects. Most women go through counseling with their doctors. Doctors who perform abortion, ask the person if this is what they really want.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:37 pm | Report abuse |
  46. ab77

    Brilliant take on ectopic pregnancy, doctor. So rather than abort an embryo to prevent such complications as severe pain, life-threatening hemorrhage, and infertility, you prefer to put your patients at risk and hope someone else can clean up the mess. Where did you get your MD, from a cereal box?!?

    November 8, 2011 at 4:21 pm | Report abuse |
  47. Jernau

    If we consider a fetus is a person at the point of conception then we have to ask what makes it a person? Is it that it is an experiencing subject of a life? If so there are many creatures around us who are certainly experiencing subjects of life who have a much greater capacity to do so which we have no problems taking the life of. A 5 week old fetus is just starting to develop a nervous system. Can we honestly say that a 5 week old fetus which it is doubtful can experience pain is more deserving of life than a full grown adult chimpanzee, dolphin or pig which without question experiences life and pain? At what point during this argument do we acknowledge that we are speciesist.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jim

      Mmmmm.... Bacon.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:22 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jernau

        Alright, well using that analogy. Mmmm .. sex without fear of accidental pregnancy.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • Richard K MD

      Very good point, but an uncomfortable one to bring up.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:27 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jernau

        Thank you Richard. Its important we understand that when you dig deep enough, many of these questions are all tied in together. Answering one has a compound effect, unless we are ok having completely inconsistent ethics. For example if abortion is wrong then wouldn't allowing famine in the world be more wrong? Famine without doubt causes more suffering than abortion, which prior to week 5 causes no physical suffering at all. If we are pro-life, then this means we are equally obligated if not more obligated to use our economic and voting power to prevent famine.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • Billy

      Mmmm, fetus

      November 8, 2011 at 4:33 pm | Report abuse |
  48. Dennis11

    This could backfire on them – the 13th Ammendment to the Constitution explicitly forbits involuntary servitute or slavery – if the fetus is a person and the mother does not want to be the food/shelter of said person – then the law will mandate the removal (and science can do what they can). This could mandate "advanced birth" all the way up trhough 9 months – and the state can take care of the child. And if the state mandates that a woman must carry the child, then the Third Ammendment might be involved – yes a child is not a solider – but I daresay there is little leap from Government mandating shelter to a civilian as to a solider (that the 3rd covers). In making a fetus a person – they may be making it easier to get rid of a fetus, not harder.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • Really?

      Wow.. I understand you're pro-abortion, but your argument is an abortion...

      November 8, 2011 at 4:39 pm | Report abuse |
  49. LittleBearCB

    ... Additionally, abortion is very traumatizing to the carrying mother. Also, the potential mother jeopardizes having children later in life...

    November 8, 2011 at 4:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • pastmorm

      Good. That trauma will keep us from having to deal with the idiots that are overpopulating our planet!

      November 8, 2011 at 4:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • Richard K MD

      Actually continued pregnancy and childbirth are riskier than abortion. Fact.
      And of course birth control is less risky than either.
      Just fact, not value judgement.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • ShenShen

      You know what else is traumatizing? Being forced to play host to a parasite you don't want for nine months, then expelling it from your body in one of two traumatizing fashions. Plus things like gestational diabetes, effects on your work, etc. And oh no, it might affect my fertility?! I'm childfree; idgaf.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:39 pm | Report abuse |
  50. Scott

    So everyone knows this, and to be clear – SOME OF US DO NOT FOLLOW YOUR RELIGION OR YOUR GOD, LEAVE MY RIGHTS, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES ALONE!!!!!!!

    Also, with all these babies going to be born due to this, how many of these people are going to pay for my daycare, diapers, food, school, clothes that I can't afford????? So If my wife gets raped and pregnant, I get stuck with the bill because of these jesus freaks?!?!?

    November 8, 2011 at 4:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • PANIRUD

      Your a man so you should sit thisone out chief. Let the ladies work it out.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:22 pm | Report abuse |
      • Billy

        That is a very lame statement. Answer his question.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:35 pm | Report abuse |
  51. LittleBearCB

    I am liberal, but this issue is not a political issue. A life is a life. Upon conception, this is life. There is nothing contradicting this fact. Abortion is a pore excuse for birth control. There are plenty of people wanting children who would adopt (yes, even homosexuals!)...

    There are exceptions for abortion (life of the mother, etc, etc) but this is between the person and their Church....

    November 8, 2011 at 4:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • PatSJ

      You are not a liberal, so stop lying. If you were a liberal, you would be better educated and 1) know how to spell poor, 2) realize the law does not make any exceptions even for the life of the mother, and 3) realize that it would not be between the person, their church, and their god because the government would control women's wombs.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:22 pm | Report abuse |
      • LittleBearCB

        'poor' rebuttal.. You still cannot debate the core issue. A life is a life....

        November 8, 2011 at 4:26 pm | Report abuse |
      • pastmorm

        AMEN PatsJ!!!!!

        November 8, 2011 at 4:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • p

      If there are exceptions a life isn't a life as one life is decided to be worth more than another.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • RachelC

      Unfortunately the 21 words used in ammendment 26 do not allow exceptions for rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • sbk

      How is abortion a decision between a person and their church? What does a church know about life that people don't?

      If anything, churches and religion have historically undervalued the lives of many people, and some still do. Keep the religious nutjobs out of public policy, state or federal.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • r schier

      LittleBearCB = another self inflated religious whack job that attempts to display a dubious authority. You
      have absolutely NO authority to opinionate, for anyone other than yourself.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:36 pm | Report abuse |
      • LittleBearCB

        not an opinion... Fact is a life is a life.... Explain how this is 'opinion' ... Yeah I thought so....

        November 8, 2011 at 4:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Don Sowell

      "A life is a life" is not an argument. It is a tautology. Additionally, it is not what this law is about.

      This law is about choosing an arbitrary moment in the life cycle and claiming that particular and medically indetectable instant will be dividing line between not being a person and being a person. Then all legal punishments and penalties can be enacted against those who now stand in violation of other laws that, retroactively, can be applied to a zygote, blastocyst, fetus, and so on.

      That these stages are part of the life cycle is not a dispute. Your claim that this boils down to "a life is a life" implicitly makes the claim that someone is disputing that these stages are not life. It is that implicit claim that makes your argument not apply to this situation. Rather it is where in the life cycle that the human should rightfully receive legal protection that is the heart of the dispute.

      Nature has no bright line to tell us where life begins and where it ends. Rather life is a continuum that, on the individual human level, starts when a given human's egg is formed in the mother and the other half begins when that human's sperm is formed in the father.

      Is the moment of fertilization the proper dividing line to enact legal protections? I don't think so because it isn't medically detectable, the odds of that fertilized egg becoming a baby are still so low that the legal assumption that it will make it there is groundless, and it forcibly removes human rights from every woman.

      One can dispute the relative values of those concepts. What is not being disputed is that all of those other laws that were written and passed by the legislatures were not vetted for their impacts on zygotes. No one screened those laws to make sure that they made sense when applied to a blastocyst. No congress voted for those laws thinking about how they would apply to fetuses.

      It is exactly that problem that makes this amendment so nonsensical. Expanding the definition of a person to a category that has never been covered by the laws that protect people and instantly claiming that those laws now will be enforcable to that new category creates an unending array of rediculous results. Those silly results range from pregnant women driving in the carpool lane to certain kinds of birth control – but not others! – being labeled legally as murder 1.

      A realistic solution would be to choose a medically detectable moment of the life cycle and, if birth is not that moment, a complete rewrite of every law that included the word person. Until Mississippi does those two things, this amendment will remain a foolish idea.

      November 8, 2011 at 6:23 pm | Report abuse |
  52. Jimbo

    Black market back alley abortions, teenage girls dying from infection from clothes hangers and flash wounds, fetal alcohol syndrome all coming more prevelant in Mississippi in the near future. The sad part is the evangelicals would think the girl that got an infection from a back alley abortion deserves to die.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:16 pm | Report abuse |
  53. Freedom

    Having only one option does not a "choice" make.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • HZ

      What about fairness? A man cannot opt out of creating a baby after he's had sex. For equality between the sexes women should not be able to opt out either. But I'm sort of playing here because as a Christian I don't actually see anything in the bible that says parents don't have the right to kill their children. Parents used to kill their children for being disrespectful, regardless of age for example. I suppose it can be argued either way. But let's not pretend that some people are only pro choice because it's a way to make a lot of money.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:24 pm | Report abuse |
      • HZ

        Meant: let's not pretend that some people are not pro choice.........

        November 8, 2011 at 4:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • ERin

      I can choose, as a woman, to have sex or not. (excluding rape.) That is my choice. I have the power to make that choice. And if I do, I have the choice to use birth control or not. I am fully capable of making both of those choices. I am rational, I am in control of myself and my life.

      What I cannot choose are consequences of my choices. That is the freedom you are advocating. That is not freedom.

      People are "free" to break the law. They can choose to do that. But they can't avoid the legal consequences if they do. Their choice has already been made.

      Why do people act like women don't have the power to choose their life and their actions? No one else makes those choices- they are MINE. (excluding rape) But if I bring another person into this world by MY choices- they still have the right to live. I don't have the right to take an innocent life because I want to avoid the consequences of choices I made with purpose and control.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:30 pm | Report abuse |
  54. support26inhell

    ms. freda bush, you're one naive individual, and self righteous to say the least. you want to impose your will and your viewpoint on others, no matter how nicely you put it. you make yourself sound like mother teresa, a saint who "values life" more than anything else, but you're nothing but a control freak who want everyone else to abide by your morality. even if i take your arguments at face value (which i don't), the legislators who will shape this law and "fill in the blanks" will not be so kind-hearted. they will NOT allow for exceptions in cases of rape or incest, they WILL persecute every doctor who opt to save the mother's life over the unborn, they WILL find every excuse to prosecute miscarriages, they WILL spy on those who go across state lines to get an abortion and put them in jail. dr. freda bush, please, get out of the bubble that you live in and start seeing the real world around you. and then you'll see how pathetic your viewpoint really is.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:15 pm | Report abuse |
  55. as always, gsl

    If every child born was assured of a life with caring parents I would agree with no abortions – believe me no mother really wants an abortion – but that is not the case. Thousands of children are suffering needlessly in children's homes, foster care and the streets. All who advocate not having abortions should also make sure those parent-less children are taken care of properly even to taking them in if they are homeless – so Mississippi has a big job ahead of them if they go through with NO abortions – they NEED to make sure ALL children are really taken care of fairly!!!!!

    November 8, 2011 at 4:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • Hooligan

      while I do not agree on the emotional aspect, I agree with the practical.

      there are too many kids and not enough families.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:15 pm | Report abuse |
      • robg8r

        this is absolutely untrue. this is a lie that planned parenthood would like you to believe.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • Popcorn Papa

      There's a waiting line years long for newborns. Your argument fails.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:17 pm | Report abuse |
      • PatSJ

        White newborns. With no deformities. And from well-educated parents. YOUR argument fails.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:24 pm | Report abuse |
      • as always, gsl

        I have to agree with robs8g and pats5 – There are families waiting for beautiful babies - not too many want toddlers and up and the new trend is babies from foreign lands. NO our unwanted children are NOT being provided for in a caring and loving way – many go from foster to foster family of which there aren't enough AND there will be less as the $'s for programs dwindle and the fosters lose their jobs. Note unless fosters have lots of kids they are not making a living from taking care of kids. Look at the real world – the reports don't really show what's going on in our country – how easy it is for a bunch of dudes to sit in their conference rooms/courts and decide what's best for women and not the effects!

        November 8, 2011 at 4:36 pm | Report abuse |
      • belladonna

        Eoic fail,, Papa – If people really want to adopt children, they do not have to get on a waiting list for a newborn. There are over 408,000 children languishing in foster care in this country. Oh, wait...they're not "newborns". Or white. Or perfectly healthy physically/emotionally/mentally.

        The American Taliban needs to just come right out with it: this has nothing to do with "life" or when it begins. It's all about control, especially control of women's sexuality. As far as they're concerned, women have no right to decide whether they want (or even should) become a mother, it's their biblical duty to produce as many soldiers for God's army, even if it kills them. After all, according to Martin Luther, that's all we're for. Or per the RCC, if a woman doesn't have as many babies as she is capable of, she's guilty of that many murders (I forget whidh sainted idiot came up with that one.) It's always been about putting women back in the kitchen, pregnant, barefoot, illiterate, nothing but chattel.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • as always, gsl

      AND we have hundreds of thousands US citizens screaming for LESS government, less taxes and so on to the point that there are citizens (seniors-children) suffering needlessly due to lack of government programs YET the government wants to have the right to control a woman's body. Hmmmmmm curious...

      November 8, 2011 at 4:25 pm | Report abuse |
  56. DG

    People..please, it's not complex. Abortion as an issue is a'derivative' effect.. the real issue is that people do not want to accept the consequences of their actions. If we have sex..there could be a baby... so ... if you do not want to have a baby ...do not have sex. Stop this waste of human bickering...

    November 8, 2011 at 4:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • ShenShen

      What kind of fantasy world do you live in where all sex is consensual, for one thing?

      November 8, 2011 at 4:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • pastmorm

      Birthcontrol is a more reasonable and safer option.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:16 pm | Report abuse |
  57. Popcorn Papa

    Why is it a woman's right to make these decisions but not an individual's right to self-medicate? I mean that argument can't be right for one and not the other.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • ShenShen

      What are you even talking about? Legalizing drugs? Well, see, I'm glad you said that. Keeping heroin, meth, and cocaine illegal is good for society. Abortions are ALSO good for society!

      November 8, 2011 at 4:18 pm | Report abuse |
      • Popcorn Papa

        Take a look around. Look at the entertainment industry and the messages it sends to the youth. The casual attitude toward sex and the objectification of women and girls. And you don't think not having to face the consequences of their actions when it comes to sex has anything to do with this? Keep your blinders on.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:25 pm | Report abuse |
  58. joe

    Abortion – Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster ...
    Definition of ABORTION. 1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a ...
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion Anyone know what a PREGNANCY is?

    November 8, 2011 at 4:12 pm | Report abuse |
  59. Hooligan

    The final reality in all this is one group of people are against it solely because they BELIEVE it to go against their christian morals and are using law as a way to progress their goals.

    Not everyone is Christian, not everyone believes as you do, and to force people in to following practices you believe by manipulating the law is not only unchristian as you are forcing your faith on to them it is also judging them which is not your place. If we are sinners FINE, we are sinners... according to your faith we are going to hell and that is GODS choice... ALL the babies that died so far were apart of gods divine plan and all of us who do NOT follow were destined to be cast in to hell before we were born as god knows everything that has ever been or will be.

    Stop acting like gods mouthpiece

    November 8, 2011 at 4:12 pm | Report abuse |
  60. fensel

    This article uses an "appeal to emotion" at a ridiculous rate. It begins by trying to get the reader to find some common trait with the author (most likely the Christian trait), then using soft words to try to emotionally attach the reader to the concept of pro-life.

    Here's the problem: this law would override a women's right to body. That is a very serious right, and there are no doubts that women have that right. So you need a damn convincing case that the fetus has a right to life, and the author offers emotionally loaded drivel.

    Here's another problem: for anyone on the pro-life side, please read J.J. Thomson's article on Abortion, focusing on the case of the violinist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion for anyone who wants a brief summary). Even if the fetus has a right to life, it doesn't override the woman's right to body.

    Abortion is, an always will be, a personal choice. No one has the right, especially on the basis of religious belief, to take away that choice from those who do not agree with you.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • HZ

      What laws get passed, and politics are all about emotion. Do you think society ever changes based on decisions made without emotions?

      November 8, 2011 at 4:26 pm | Report abuse |
  61. joe

    This law is going to pass, in Mississippi. And it's about time, and it's a good start. Murder cannot be tolerated. We can not turn a blind eye toward it, and rationalize it away. This law may create some problems, but it will stop the slaughter of millions of developing human beings, that have no way to speak, and no one to speak for them. The way to avoid an abortion, is to not get pregnant. What a novel idea! There are plenty of available birth control methods. People need to show some responsibility, and restraint, instead of no regard for human life. How selfish we have become.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • pastmorm

      Joe, what insane god do you worship? What part of OVERPOPULATION AS THE WORLD REACHES 7 BILLION last month is confusing????

      November 8, 2011 at 4:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • Hooligan

      lol

      as you rationalize taking away a persons right to their body in the name of a giant man who is invisible

      November 8, 2011 at 4:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • support26inhell

      joe, did i read that right? you think women who want to make decisions about their own bodies are "selfish", and at the same time, you're imposing on other people your will, for your believe, so that you can go to heaven and live happily after...?! LOL

      November 8, 2011 at 4:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • Allie

      Let me know when that uterus shows up in YOUR body. Then you can put your Christian values all over my rights and my body.

      November 8, 2011 at 5:01 pm | Report abuse |
  62. pastmorm

    This so called doctor is saying that when the government gave women the right to choose over keeping a child or not (abortion) it (the government) went to far. Yet the government only gave women another right. It didn't take any away. So we have this woman that is arguing for this insane "personhood for an egg" amendment and she comes from a family of nine herself. Well of course she's going to fight for the over-breeders! Why are we even questioning this? No goverment gets to decide that a person becomes a person before they ACTUALLY become a person from birth.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:07 pm | Report abuse |
  63. Patrick

    They need to adjust the "daffinition": would protect the "rights" of the "person", in cases on rape, incest, wanting more welfare, or if planned contraception fails. In case people haven't realized we are not (nor never have been) a Christian Nation, a Muslim Nation, a Buddist Nation, a Hindu Nation, an Athiest Nation, or a Diest Nation(althought that is the closest to the actual fore fathers). Religion is a personal belief, that affects how YOU behave. Your Religion should not be forced upon anyone else. George Carlin said that the 10 Commandments should be reduced to the two "Thou shalt always be honest and faithful especially to the provider of thy nookie". "Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course they pray to a different invisible man than you". and one new one "Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself."

    November 8, 2011 at 4:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • pastmorm

      Patrick, words couldn't be truer. Thanks man!

      November 8, 2011 at 4:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • joe

      Religion has nothing to do with a law against murder.Here is a definition of "abortion". Abortion – Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster ...
      Definition of ABORTION. 1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a ...
      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion

      November 8, 2011 at 4:11 pm | Report abuse |
      • pastmorm

        Who cares what the dictionary says of abortion Joe??? Do you respect all life? Every man and woman of color, religion, sex (including gays) and social status (rich and poor)? Do you really hold yourself above everyone else in morals or are you just spouting what your preacher tells you every Sunday? Anti-abortionists are far more hateful than any run-of-the-mill Christian I've ever met.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • MarkinFL

      Abortion ends the life of a fetus, not a person. There is no scientific basis for calling an early term fetus a person. A human, yes, a person, no. The mother absolutely should have the right to determine her genetic reproduction. Frankly if Zygotes were so important to god, why would he allow most of them to terminate automatically? Clearly he designed our system to create zygotes easily without concern for each individual one. Until it has higher cognitive brain function it is not a person, just a good possibility of becoming one.
      Just as death is not defined by your heart stopping, life is not defined by your heart starting.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • Patrick

      Do I think think there should be less abortions-Yes
      Do I think that the Govenment/Church should dictate, what happens with a Women' body-No
      Men should some say in the prolonging (I want a baby/adoption) or termination (abortion) of the pregnancy, but the ultimate decision maker is there person who has to carry the child, and often time care for the child.
      I think that there should be a waiting period between when the women tells the Dr. she wants an abortion, and the time it is performed. I would suggest 24 hrs, so she can think about the pro' and Con sides of both (physically, emotionally, spiritually, socially). That way the options can be made clear. Often times the pregnancy isn't planned/expected, and the girl may rush into the decison. The procedure will continue regardless of legality-you might a well keep it safer for the women' health. Otherwise you go to coat hangers, physical violence or suicide

      November 8, 2011 at 4:32 pm | Report abuse |
  64. DG

    CraigC... actually God wants us to be like Jesus...he gave us the choice to let Jesus be your savior...

    Men want control.. not God. Dont be confused

    November 8, 2011 at 4:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • Hooligan

      I'm not confused at all as GOD IS NOT REAL

      November 8, 2011 at 4:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • Voiceofreason

      Right, "God" just wants you to behave exactly as he says or you can burn in hell. Nope, no control there...

      November 8, 2011 at 4:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • anobody

      Your logic is flawed. I seem to recall the mantra is "God is in control" seems you missed an important workshop. You should move far away from civilized society and completely reexamine your belief system it's what is best for you.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • Richard

      Be like Jesus? Wish we really knew what Jesus was like, particularly the time between when he was a kid and shortly before he died, the half of his life that isn't addressed in the holy scriptures. What did he do all those years? Makes you wonder if he behaved like Augustine and Buddha, having offspring and abandoning them to be a holy man? I don't know, just wonder....

      November 8, 2011 at 4:40 pm | Report abuse |
  65. Joe Thompson

    I thought it typical of a person (the author in this case) that is against abortion to explain why a fertilized egg is a person and state that "unless contraception is used to cover each act of sex, then conception should be the expectation", then totally gloss over the rape and insest issue only saying the victims will be "defended." Please tell me of one poor women or in the case of insest, a child that was given the oppotunity to use contraception before they were brutally abused by another human being. If the author had a 12 year old daughter that was brutally raped and got pregnant as a result, I have a feeling her tune would change.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • MashaSobaka

      That depends on how religious he is, actually. There are plenty of cases of Christian parents who believe that it was God's will that their daughter be raped (they'd probably use the same excuse if their son raped someone) and that the fetus doesn't deserve to be punished "for the crimes of his father." The mother's right to life comes second; the cluster of cell's right to parasitic development, birth, and *then* life comes first. It's not a particularly pleasant religion.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:25 pm | Report abuse |
  66. Jimbo

    McDaniel's Estimated Average IQ Score gives Mississippi the lowest average IQ score in all 50 states at 94.2. It's no wonder this group and Dr. Bush are trying to pass this bill in this state. The people in Mississippi can't comprehend beyond the abortion part of the bill.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Richard

      That's a low blow. Even if your data are correct, "average" is just that. No doubt Dr. Bush and many others are well above average for Mississippi. And by definition half the people are below average. D'Oh!

      November 8, 2011 at 4:43 pm | Report abuse |
  67. seth

    Assuming this law passes it will be declared unconstitutional by a Federal Judge. The State will appeal and the 5th Circuit will most likely have the same holding. If the Supreme Court does hear the case – and many think it won't – it will be a 5-4 decision declaring the law unconstitutional. The swing vote, Justice Kennedy, has been pretty clear in his position that any undue burden on a woman's ability to procure an abortion is unconstitutional. Period.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:04 pm | Report abuse |
  68. Nicole

    A friend of mine declined the offer from her physician to induce labor since he was leaving for vacation, opting instead to go into labor on her own and have another doctor deliver the baby. Two days later the cord wrapped around the baby's neck and the baby died. Would Dr. Bush argue that manslaughter charges be brought against this mother?

    Dr. Bush's argument is faith-based and has no place in the laws of our country. She should instead work with children in the foster system. Our country has far too many children that are already unwanted by their parents without laws such as this.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:03 pm | Report abuse |
  69. Popcorn Papa

    First abortions should be free but some type of safe sex education should be mandatory to receive this benefit. Second abortions should cost the price of both abortions and require more extensive safe sex education. Anything over a second abortion should be illegal. IMO

    November 8, 2011 at 4:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • cm1966

      With other words the first child would not count and could be aborted. But the second child is more important. What if, later in life, the first child could come up with the cure for cancer. The second child could grow up to be a mass murderer. Would you still feel the same way? You are all about punishing the mother, not about saving the child.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:20 pm | Report abuse |
      • Popcorn Papa

        *Educating, not punishing. And not much can be done to save a baby who's mother doesn't love him/her.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • Richard

        Ridiculous argument. You could say (half) that about every wasted sperm cell (or egg cell). What we do know for sure is that every additional person born, saint or criminal, is one more consumer of finite resources.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • RandomOne

      It makes sense if you're dealing with people who use abortion as a form of birth control. However, you can't put a limit on the number of abortions a woman could have because what if the first two are just mistakes, but the 3rd is a result of rape? Or what if it's a young girl being abused by an older man who paid for the first two abortions? You're going to make her carry out the 3rd pregnancy? Or if a 3rd pregnancy will result in death to the mother or a very sick/disabled baby? I agree that there should definitely be education involved, but putting limits on abortion gets too tricky with all the "what ifs" out there.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:27 pm | Report abuse |
      • Popcorn Papa

        I believe there shoud be exceptions to these rules but you're wrong in saying there are too many "what ifs." There is actually a very limited amount of "what ifs" that, like I said, I totally believe there should be exceptions for. Please don't try to lump me in with the extremeists, I'm not one of you.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • jgjg

      As long as that safe sex counseling is for MEN (you know, the ones who have the most effective means of birth control at their disposal that causes the least amount of physical risk...last I checked, the condom didn't up your chance for heart attack and stroke the way most birth control does) and women

      November 8, 2011 at 4:42 pm | Report abuse |
      • Popcorn Papa

        That's a great idea. Fathers should be included in the education.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:44 pm | Report abuse |
  70. joe blowsky

    obviously roe v wade did not forbid restriction all the way through pregnenacy. all states have restrictions. there is no limit to the restriction that a state can put on after 6 mos gestation. i don't know why she would say something that is so transparently wring. very disappointed.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:57 pm | Report abuse |
  71. MaryM

    This same group the "personhood" people try to pass this same type of amendment in Colorado. IT FAILED TWICE.
    I guess the Colorado citizens were way to smart for these personhood fools. Now they, the personhood fools are trying again in Mississippi. I sincerely the people and especially women in Mississippi can see thru this attack on their rights.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • A

      I've been wondering why the media was so silent in that case and never mentions the Colorado vote, but is absolutely all over the same vote in Mississippi. I guess the personhood group has to farm out their cause to other states now. Not only do Coloradoans continue to reject this issue, the vote wasn't even close!

      November 8, 2011 at 4:49 pm | Report abuse |
  72. Tron

    I'm genuinely embarrassed for the women who wrote this article.

    "Birth control prevents the sperm and the egg from coming together, which results in a single-celled person." Aside from the obvious point that birth control does not prevent the sperm and egg from coming together but Ummm...RESULTS in a SINGLE-CELLED PERSON?!? Wow...

    I can only assume CNN candidly posted such a ridiculous article to try and discredit the movement. Well done.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lizabeth

      Before you start condemning anyone for being ignorant maybe you should go back to simple grammer 101. A womAn wrote this article, not a womEn. It's quite simple, even for someone in MS.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:15 pm | Report abuse |
      • Terre08

        Grammer? Pot calling the kettle black?

        November 8, 2011 at 4:29 pm | Report abuse |
      • Allie

        Grammer lessons are the best. Outside of Mississippi, we prefer grammar. Also, we are big fans of syntax and spelling. Hold on to that pot, darling.

        November 8, 2011 at 5:07 pm | Report abuse |
  73. repntenn

    So, if an evangelical, Republican white husband beats his pregnant wife and causes her to lose the baby, who gets arrested?

    November 8, 2011 at 3:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • Hooligan

      uh... the husband

      November 8, 2011 at 3:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sam Walworth

      Ofcourse, The woman, because she CHOSE to get beaten by the man, hence causing an abortion.

      She must be tried for murder and given the needle in the jail.

      End of Story

      (sarcasm, please)

      November 8, 2011 at 4:09 pm | Report abuse |
      • repntenn

        As was the question.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:10 pm | Report abuse |
  74. Hooligan

    The very OPENING of this article says it ALL "- As a Christian".

    She automatically admitted HER faith takes priority over everyone else rights.

    Mind your own business and keep your faith out of it.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:51 pm | Report abuse |
  75. Sean

    I have to agree with some of the "populationists." Abortion, birth control, morning after pills and anything else that prevents or averts an unwanted pregnancy will help to curb a population that is simply going to be too much for the earth to handle. I think, in my lifetime, we will see great tax incentives to families with fewer children.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:50 pm | Report abuse |
  76. LPowers

    There seems to be a lack of understanding, regardless how much it is believed the proposed change is not even biblically based so pushing for it is actually non-christian. The bible defines life as being in the blood and physiologically blood doesn't form until around the seventh day.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:50 pm | Report abuse |
  77. Bryan

    Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but, your rights end where mine begin right? So how is this legally, and constitutionally justified to take away one's right to choose?

    November 8, 2011 at 3:49 pm | Report abuse |
  78. Cedar Rapids

    "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."

    and where exactly does it say that? anywhere in the text at all? we arent allowed to ask because thats scare tactics to do so apparently.

    "IVF mothers ought to be fighting for Amendment 26."
    why? they can get IVF now, why fight for something that could remove their rights?

    November 8, 2011 at 3:48 pm | Report abuse |
  79. Not Fat

    We need to send in the Marines and liberate the people of Mississippi from the Christian Taliban.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • PAPatriot

      Amen! ...and here is the best example of that way of thinking "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." ~ Dr. Freda Bush.

      Really? Choosing to abort a pregnancy that is the result of a rape hurts the woman? Which trauma is worse, the rape of the abortion to rid the body of the result/reminder of the rape? Only someone who has not gone through such a traumatic experience would have the unmitigated gall to make such a statement!

      November 8, 2011 at 4:44 pm | Report abuse |
  80. Thinker's Dam

    If a married woman has a late period, do the police have to get involved and find out whether there was a fertilized egg involved, and then arrest her if she did anything that affected it, like having a beer? Will she be arrested if she doesn't report a late period to the police, because she concealed a crime, the death of her fertilized egg?

    November 8, 2011 at 3:45 pm | Report abuse |
  81. state property

    A person is legally defined as a corporation in legal land. The fetus will be owned by the state if this law passes.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Cedar Rapids

      "A person is legally defined as a corporation in legal land"

      No they are not.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:49 pm | Report abuse |
      • state property

        Look it up and look up your name in all capital letters.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:01 pm | Report abuse |
      • Cedar Rapids

        How about you actually look it up, and i mean really look it up rather than spout some nonsense from a fringe nutter site that thinks that Capitus Diminutio Maxima means signing away your rights because you write your name in capital letters.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:27 pm | Report abuse |
  82. MS Citizen

    Do not govern me based on your religious beliefs. I do not force my views upon anyone else, and I do not expect yours to be forced upon me or my family.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • AAA

      I agree. This argument is based on the religious belief that life begins at conception. This is the author's belief (which she has a right to), but not mine. I do not believe that life starts at conception, so why should my personal family planning decisions be dictated by her religious beliefs? I respect her views as personal choices for her, and I would never support legislation that would force anyone to terminate a pregnancy for any reason against her will. I do not share the author's beliefs and I deserve the same respect for my beliefs, even though they are different. I am mother to two beautiful children and I know the joy they bring, but I also know the costs. I deserve to decide along with my husband if and when we have more children. This is not the governments decision, nor anyone else's.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:20 pm | Report abuse |
  83. AL in West Palm Beach

    If thise Dr. feels that way then I must assert myself as an expert in scientific matters.

    Let's agree that "dead bodies don't swim."
    with that premise I say that conception start way before the sperm enters the egg. As my sperm had to swim up the tube in order to reach the dormant egg. Thus my sperm was alive and well in doing so. Therefore, my sperm has rights as well.

    If you agree with me, then those people should use black lights and scold their sons for masturbating because that is a blatant destruction of life itself.

    I'm, of course, not serious about this; however, this example can be used to show how far the religious right will go to ask the government to enter my private bedrom, my doctor's consultation room while in the same breath ask that we make government so small it would be out of my hair.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Michael

      First of all, this sarcastic point that you made, that I'm sure you are patting your back over, is really baseless. I know your point isn't that your sperm should have rights, but that because some, including myself, saying that a ferterlized egg should have rights is silly. But, your saracastic point doesn't even compare. Sperm in and of itself does not have capacity to become a human being, because it needs the egg to do so. Same with the egg, but once a sperm fertelizes an egg, it now has the capability of becoming a human being and thus is a human being.

      You are never going to put a human sperm with a human egg and get anything other than a human...period. You can not argue that fact. You can have sperm without having a human baby. You can have an egg without having a human baby, but put the two together and you can have a human baby and provided the baby survives will be in the mother's arms in 9 months, give or take a few weeks.

      And to save your arguement about how only half survive or not every fertilized egg becomes a baby that is born into the earth, while this may be true. What gives us, humans, the right either as scientists, doctors, or otherwise, to choose which ones are allowed to see if they will survive and which ones are not allowed. What if the doctor takes the fertilized egg and destroys them and they were one of the ones that could have survived and been a productive citizen in this country. Why do we say in our constititution that every person has the right to life and the pursuit of happiness. Then say in is unconstitutional to not allow doctors, scientist and politicians decide which life will have an opportunity to be born and which life doesn't. That is obsurd!

      To conclude, though you personally did not say this, I see a lot of people commenting on this blog saying don't impose our religious believes on the rest. Rather than writing again to address this, I will address it here. Though I am a Christian, the arguement to protect life can absolutely and logically be made without even bringing anyones religion into the arguement. I made one above, but my belief that God creates human beings and has a purpose for us, doesn't hurt the argument, only adds to it. This is not about imposing my believes on you, this about allowing those babies to have a chance to live to develop their own personal believes.

      November 8, 2011 at 5:10 pm | Report abuse |
  84. chakabura banpako

    "The state of Mississippi has the highest percentage of its population — 24 percent — on food stamps of any state in the country."
    For a state that cant afford to buy their own food; its ridiculous that they are making these amendments that will probably add more to the people needing the food-stamps.
    Fix the livelihood first then worry about personhood.
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2011/11/07/142110548/mississippi-leads-u-s-in-reliance-on-food-stamps

    November 8, 2011 at 3:44 pm | Report abuse |
  85. NYNature

    Religion has nothing to do with it. Science shows that the fetus is much more than a lump of cells. It is a person, a life, and should be afforded the same rights as a person outside of the womb.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • ktb515

      Science does not confirm anything. Rather the whole aim of science is to narrow the playing field of possibilities to get to a probable conclusion. We call it 'rejecting the null hypothesis' or 'rejecting the alternative hypothesis'. So where is this study that conclusively states, "a lump of cells is much more than a person"? Science does not make absolute judgement calls, and the studies that attempt to are shot down by peer review.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • jessejayallen@gmail.com

      So, the fact that a fetus has Gills and a Tail and no consciousness helps the case that it's a "human being"? Do remember when you were in your mom's belly? Does anybody? A fetus is not a person. End of story...

      November 8, 2011 at 3:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rob

      Well unless that collection of cells becomes something else, like say a frog, you guys are just dead wrong. Any doctor or scientist will tell you, human life is not possible without conception. And the product of which is always human. You are grasping at straws.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • Richard K MD

      This is what is known as a straw man argument. Yes, a fetus is not a lump of cells. Any of us who has studied embryology knows that. But that doesn't make the fetus, or the embryo, or the not-yet-implanted fertilized ovum the same as a fully developed human. Or the same as a frog.... The argument here is about abortion, and simple answers to complex questions are almost never the best. Even Mitt Romney, who has claimed to not believe in evolution by natural selection (he was obviously lying for votes–he's not stupid), has made this statement.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:58 pm | Report abuse |
  86. Barbara Bunce

    This is ridiculous! No birthcontrol, no abortions for any reason, how many children will die after they are born because there is no one there to take care of them, who will pay the bill for the ones with disabilities, government needs to get out of our personal lives...it is my choice not someone elses believe it or not the greater population practices responsiblity.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:43 pm | Report abuse |
  87. jennifer

    Interesting that she hit every point but where the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman. Does that mean that the life of the unborn is worth more than the born? Doctors are supposed to above all "do no harm," and that is exactly what forcing an unhealthy woman or woman with a high risk pregnancy to take it to term would do. The American Taliban has gone to far with this.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • NYNature

      Force a women to take it to term? So, killing the baby is okay in that instance? I think not. If a women can undergo an abortion, which is either surgery or stress to the body, then she can go through a C-section to save both the mother AND child. Abortion is just the excuse you all like to use when you wish to rid yourself of the responsiblity of child.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:46 pm | Report abuse |
      • durundal

        you need to stop forcing your 'moral' compass on other people's lives. The world is not a sterile place which operates according to your silly notions of 'good' and 'evil'. Grow up, get out of our bedrooms, and stay away from our homes. If you dont want to have an abortion then dont. If you want to push your sad little views on the rest of us, then perhaps we better start expecting 'support' checks in the mail. Vote your wallet, your mind has already turned out empty

        November 8, 2011 at 3:53 pm | Report abuse |
      • MadMom

        Oh cuz a C-section is just so easy and totally not risky for the mother at all. Please. Forcing a woman into a C-section just so the pregnancy won't kill her. What about the fact that she will likely develope PPD or PTSD or other medical complications from the surgery. Or worse, dies and leaves any other children without a mother.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:18 pm | Report abuse |
  88. AB

    So, will the government pony up costs and resources to raise the unwanted people? Will the government make adoption processes easier for birthparents and adoptive parents?

    November 8, 2011 at 3:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • MT

      AMEN. I love how republicans hate to have the government pay for people on welfare but want people on welfare to have more babies that will eventually end up on welfare. I also love how republicans talk about small government yet they want BIG government monitoring every pregnancy in the US...
      Give me a break!

      November 8, 2011 at 3:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tom

      With that logic, how about all the money spent on abortion be used to support adoptions and raising of children?

      November 8, 2011 at 4:02 pm | Report abuse |
  89. Jim Dandey

    THE PROBLEM IS BIGGER THAN YOUR BELIEFS. The world population just hit 7 billion; we have to take that into consideration before we populate ourselves right off the planet...

    November 8, 2011 at 3:40 pm | Report abuse |
  90. MCJNY

    In a time were people are having problems feeding themselves much less their children, over population on the earth has become a pandemic, we have a group of people who are determined that no matter what we will get more children. Maybe that isn't as bad as it sounds. Aren't these the same republicans and their followers who want to get rid of welfare and any help from the state. So the government will get involved to make sure that you are born, after that you're on your own! Anybody else buying this?

    November 8, 2011 at 3:40 pm | Report abuse |
  91. William Lee

    This is on par with giving one the rights over anothers rights... Many States have Capital punishment but oh how awful should someone suggest corporal punishment. Lindsey Lohan would be a great start for corporal punishment! It would probably end over crowding in jails too! Maybe privatized prisons would not like corporal punishment because of profits! What if the unborn child shows that it will have downs syndrome?

    November 8, 2011 at 3:39 pm | Report abuse |
  92. Mike H.

    Thank You Dr. Bush for publicly supporting this amendement because it is totally grounded in SCEINTIFIC FACT!

    Unfortunately, many Americans not ready for the consequences of admitting scientific TRUTHS that get in the way of their lifestyle and/or worldview.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • jennifer

      What scientific FACTS are those? Please help us understand how women who miscarry would be protected from having to endure the added trauma of trial after loosing a pregnancy or how women whose lives are threatened can feel that their lives are worth something too.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jim Dandey

      First, learn to spell "scientific". Second, it's not about SCIENCE; it's about womens rights and, ultimately, overpopulation issues.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • Cedar Rapids

      and what scientific fact is she talking about here?

      November 8, 2011 at 3:48 pm | Report abuse |
  93. Thinker's Dam

    When does a blueprint become a building? I think the whole problem is that people want to find a definite point in time at which the sex act results in a human being, and fertilization is just so EASY! We like EASY a lot! But a fertilized egg may split up to two weeks after fertilization, resulting in twins. Does that mean that the original fertilized egg was two babies? Maybe it isn't so easy after all.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:39 pm | Report abuse |
  94. Claire B

    "The choice of abortion hurts women. They risk injury physically and even death. The woman is always affected emotionally and mentally by abortion."

    This is a terrible argument. The same can be said for pregnancy, which carries risk or physical injury and death as well as emotional changes.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Richard K MD

      Not only that, but even more risk with childbirth than abortion....

      November 8, 2011 at 5:01 pm | Report abuse |
  95. Tryna13

    Its unfortunate that one person has sparked such a debate, I'm not saying that I support this doctor's point of view. But, seeing as it is just that, I hold no real contempt toward her. The idea of this law going through, even though I live in WI, is horrifying. If one state passes it, whats to say that others don't? And the women in that state now have to chose between having a child or endangering their legal lives is just abserd (spelling error I know). I hope that this isn't passed, though the the basic Idea of the Amendent might have been a good one, the way the politicians and Dr. Bush have talked about it makes me, and obviously a lot of other people quezy about the whole idea.
    I plan to start my own family in the coming years and I hope that this doesn't spread to any other states or to our national law makers.

    Remember, a woman's body is her own. The life inside her is it's own, but being apart of the woman's makes it her responsibility to take care of, not the governments. The government has no right to say what we do with our bodies, but has a right to warn us of harmful things. What a woman does is her own choice. She is her own person.
    Abortion though...a huge, HUGE no-no.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • MaryM

      Not to worry Try, If the amendment passes, it will be overturned in the Supreme court. case closed. Seems like a waste of money.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • will

      debates are a good thing!

      November 8, 2011 at 4:30 pm | Report abuse |
  96. CraigC

    Plus, religion has attempted to control people since it came about, that's their goal, control over people, what they think, how they think, what they do, how they do it and it never ends. Nothing more delusional and irresponsible toward human life (since religion has killed more than all wars combined) than belonging or believing in some invisible guy in the sky and all that goes with it.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:37 pm | Report abuse |
  97. Can you believe this?

    Just wait until they start charging mothers for manslaughter after they have a miscarriage. A young mother that cannot manage stress causing her to miscarry will go to prison for manslaughter or murder. The brightside is at least she'll be able to use the carpool lane.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • bgrant

      Wow...that's an intelligent leap.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:57 pm | Report abuse |
      • Voiceofreason

        It is also exactly what is implied by this legislation

        November 8, 2011 at 4:02 pm | Report abuse |
  98. notbobUSA

    Why not let those states that think this way have anti-abortion laws but then do not expect the rest of the country to pay your welfare/medicare bills. Mississippi has a huge problem with poverty and teenage pregnancy as well as meeting their anti-poverty goals. All of the unintended consequences of allowing government to interfere in peoples choice will haunt them for a very long time. It is only an either or choice when it is applied at the federal level, lets states decide for themselves and the debate is much less critical.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • durundal

      you assume that people will be able to relocate to suit there preferences, which is wrong. You also twist the states rights arguments to push conservative agendas which is wrong. It is the responsibility of the government to preserve the people's rights to choose, meaning if you do not believe in it then you have the right not to practice it. That does not give you the right to demand that no-one else around you can. what you propose is an example of a minority hijacking the rights of the majority and violates everything Americans have stood for

      November 8, 2011 at 3:49 pm | Report abuse |
  99. mjluck

    one thing can solve all this blo_ Jo_s

    November 8, 2011 at 3:36 pm | Report abuse |
  100. Whosgonnapay

    So let's say this legislation goes through. Let's say thousands of women in Mississippi are now forced to bear children that they didn't want. What then? Mississippi is already one of the poorest states in the U.S. Who is going to take care of all of these unwanted children? Will they be adopted? With all the legal loopholes prospective parents have to go through, the system will be caring for a significant number of them for quite a while. And many born with birth defects, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, or diseases such as HIV, likely will remain in the system until they turn 18. To the good Christians who are posting about the merits of this legislation - are you willing to step up and help out? Rather than burden the taxpayers who oppose legislation like this, are you going to buy diapers, formula, etc.? Are you going to pay for the health care, mandated vaccines, schooling for these children? Will you subsidize their childcare or watch them yourselves?

    November 8, 2011 at 3:36 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3