.
November 8th, 2011
05:00 AM ET

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

Editor’s Note: Kimberly Kelly is an assistant professor of sociology and gender studies in Mississippi. Her research and publication focuses on gender inequality and reproductive politics. She is working on a book, “In the Name of the Mother: Gender and Religion in the Crisis Pregnancy Center Movement.”

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 favor of the amendment.

By Kimberly Kelly, Special to CNN

(CNN) - Ten years ago, when I was a broke graduate student working to become a college professor, I became pregnant. I already worked two jobs to make ends meet and could barely make it. I had no health insurance. Most importantly, I was not ready to be a mother and I wasn’t sure I ever wanted to be. Deciding what to do, whether to risk my education and career and gamble on a life path I was ambivalent about at best, was the single hardest thing I have ever done.

After carefully considering abortion, adoption and parenting, I decided to continue the pregnancy and am a single mother to someone I love more than anything in this world. It was my life and body, and my responsibility to make that call.

It wasn’t an easy choice. It wasn’t easy to make. And it definitely wasn’t easy to live as a single mother working toward an advanced degree.

Until I finished graduate school, I continued to work two jobs. Stress, exhaustion and depression were ongoing problems. Now, I’m struggling to pay off more than $120,000 in student loan debt; about $35,000 of this represents child care costs I paid so I could attend school. My education suffered because of the demands of motherhood and my career continues to be negatively affected.

It was very difficult to reconcile the identity of “mother” with my sense of self without feeling like I was being swallowed whole by an archaic set of gendered rules.

Yet I am a woman, a mother, a sociologist and a  Mississippi feminist - yes, we exist. These identities converge in a sense of outrage and hurt when I contemplate Amendment 26, a proposed change to the Mississippi Constitution that would define fertilized eggs as legal persons. The amendment would ban abortion, many types of infertility treatments and the “morning-after” pill. It has the potential to essentially ban all forms of birth control, except condoms.

Mississippi governor supports amendment to declare fertilized egg a person

Becoming a mother was my decision. I am fortunate to be in a relatively privileged position and can make it work. It is repugnant to even consider having no choice but to completely transform everything I value about my life because of beliefs I don’t share and find morally reprehensible for their dehumanizing treatment of women.

I respect the right of all persons to make their own decisions about contraception, abortion and reproduction, including those who oppose all three. I trust women to make the best choices for themselves, whatever those may be. Anything less is unconscionable.

Gallery: Birth control methods

When it comes to gender inequality in the United States, there are a thousand little pinpricks I may encounter in the course of a day, and then there are blatant slaps in the face. Amendment 26 sends a clear message about the devolution of the status of women in America.

I was pro-choice and pro-woman before I became pregnant and I am even more so now. The burdens of pregnancy and the challenges of motherhood have made it ever clearer that only the person most affected, the woman, can rightfully decide what to do in the event of a pregnancy. The worldviews of those a million cultural light-years away should not dictate my fate to me.

Amendment 26 would circumvent the free will and judgment of women who do not want – for reasons that are no one’s business but their own – to be pregnant. It is an attempt to tell women they are not competent to make the most personal of decisions about their bodies and their physical and emotional health. It reduces women to incubators forcibly stripped of basic bodily integrity. This initiative implies that if any woman in Mississippi does not agree with conservative social and religious gender norms, then she cannot be trusted to make moral or ethical decisions about her own body. It allows the religious beliefs of others to be inscribed upon women’s bodies. It is draconian, oppressive and dehumanizing.

Those who support this amendment seem to believe that if it comes down to a choice between the rights of a living, breathing, thinking, feeling, intelligent human being or a cluster of cells, the cells win. This amendment would pit the rights of women against those of fertilized eggs in a zero-sum game. Trumped and trapped by a cluster of cells produced by my own body – that’s what supporters of this initiative believe should happen to my personhood, simply because I am a woman. If a fertilized egg is a person, then at best I am a lesser person, which means not a person at all.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Kimberly Kelly.

Posted by
Filed under: What we think • Women
soundoff (286 Responses)
  1. Ravi

    Would the so-called pro-lifers out there please explain why you support war hawk politicians, the death penalty, policies that that give the US one of the highest infant mortality rates in the industrialized world, and oppose gun control when a gun is clearly an instrument designed to kill.

    January 29, 2013 at 12:16 am | Report abuse |
  2. Booger McCoy

    "Yet I am a woman, a mother, a sociologist and a Mississippi feminist "

    You know what else you are? Boring.

    November 22, 2011 at 2:18 pm | Report abuse |
  3. Buzzard

    I don't care what it says in the Bible. I'd burn it right in front of God and call the world a better place because of it. Pro-Choice is the only law with respect to morality because no life is so sacred that all women should suffer oppression at the hands of the collective.

    November 11, 2011 at 10:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • Cory (Humanzrstupd)

      Agreed.

      November 11, 2011 at 10:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • Roger

      You would burn it in front of God? Sure you would.

      November 17, 2011 at 5:44 pm | Report abuse |
  4. TeXan

    My opinion is that if people are opposed to Abortion then they should not have an abortion. They should read what the bible says about abortion.. Absolutely nothing! I cannot believe how the republicans have used this issue to capture the religious nitwits in americas

    November 11, 2011 at 9:33 pm | Report abuse |
  5. K

    I want to see the statistics regarding education level and support for this bill. Ignorance breeds ignorance.

    We celebrate birth because that's when people are born.

    Before that, women are terribly powerful. Aren't we?

    Are you scared?

    I'm not.

    November 8, 2011 at 9:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • RRR

      In a country of a constantly intruding government, why do we desire to have government attempt to define what a woman can or cannot do with her body and life? It is none of my business, yours, or the government's what a woman decides to do the day, week, or month after she has intercourse. If this law were to be passed,. does that mean that when she roles over, after intercourse and smokes a cigarette, she is deliberately endangering the life of a minor? what about having a scotch the next day? What about going to the gym and having a boxing workout? All of these activities could be construed as endangering the "life" of a minor.......two cells co-joined do not and should not have the same rights as a living, breathing, heart-pumping, thinking newborn,

      November 8, 2011 at 10:25 pm | Report abuse |
      • K

        Exactly. That's why life begins at birth. That's why we celebrate birthdays. That's how we count how old we are.

        Once a fetus is developed enough to be born, it's gets to be alive. Ta-da!

        Until then, the pregnant woman is in charge.

        November 9, 2011 at 11:21 am | Report abuse |
  6. Lisa

    So if a woman either accidentally or naturally dies while pregnant and her death causes the death of her unborn, is she considered a murderer?

    November 8, 2011 at 7:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • Cory (Humanzrstupd)

      According to pro-life loonies: yes.

      November 11, 2011 at 10:27 pm | Report abuse |
  7. Carl

    I say that we should abort some of the 30 year old fetuses that are nothing but criminals, crack heads and parasites to society.

    November 8, 2011 at 6:38 pm | Report abuse |
  8. Branden

    People are missing the point here. When does the mass of cells become a person? When the brain develops? When the heart starts beating? Or not until it is outside the mother?

    If, at any point, the cells become a person, even if inside the woman's body, abortion becomes the murder of a human being. All human beings have the right to life. I don't care if it's inconvenient or unwanted, society says your rights end where you infringe on the rights of others. And, religious or not, people can make the decision on when to consider them a person.

    What I don't understand is why they pretend that restricting abortion is condemning someone to years of inconvenience beyond the pregnancy. If you don't want the kid, you're not required to keep it. Give it up for adoption, turn it over to the State. What do you care? You wanted to end their life before they were born in the first place, you're not obligated to care what happens to them after birth.

    November 8, 2011 at 6:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • DrJStrangepork

      There isn't a pretty answer to this issue. How about this, if a woman is pregnant then she has the right to have that "person" removed from her body. If that "person" can survive there you go, otherwise the "person" isn't fit to survive. Does that work?

      November 8, 2011 at 6:43 pm | Report abuse |
      • Justin

        Interesting point of social Darwinism, I thought we had moved past these ridiculous thoughts. Should the poor just be left to fend for themselves? Should women be seen as lesser people because men can (and have throughout history) oppress them? Should the elderly be left to die? All laws are ethical; they present an argument for who has personhood in our society. If those cells are a person (which would make sense because if it is just cells let me remind you that is all you are made of are cells and yet you claim personhood) then just as all others have been given rights so to then the unborn child deserves rights. That is coming from a human rights perspective based on the belief that every person is created in the image of God. If that is not the perspective that some wish to take they should still afford the unborn child the status of personhood because there is no scientific, nor philosophical, nor ethical standards by which to deny it such status. But then if it is still the right to put it to death then we stand in a long line of ancient and historical empires that afforded its citizens the right of infanticide. You should be warned though that the pursuit of human rights should not be thrown away so carelessly because it will return us back to, as you show so well, cultural thought process that the weak may suffer and die while the rich and able are the ones with the real right to life. Then we will go back to the "grand" old days of male dominance, slavery, ethnic superiority, and genocide. Human rights are a forward moving concept only. To waver to give them to even children means to forfeit them all together. And lastly, let's not forget human rights don't exist to benefit people but rather to ensure that the personhood of a human being is protected. It really is more beneficial for some to be a master to slaves but we no longer say he has the "right" to slavery. Nor does a husband have the "right" to beat his wife into servant hood while it may be beneficial for him. Something being beneficial for someone does not mean the personhood of another human must suffer. That is exactly what human rights battles against and therefore if that "cluster of cells" is a human it makes no one less a human (that was ridiculous argument that men made when women called for rights you know and it is just as ridiculous that women would now be using the line to stop the rights of others, how ironic) but does mean it should be ensured personhood and historically America has given people the right to live rather than be murdered.

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

      But the bill wanted to say that personhood was established the instant of fertilization...even before the zygote had implanted itself in the mother's womb. THAT is the problem.

      Like it or not, a vote does not determine when a mass of cells becomes a person. (And the Bible even says it's based on breathe, so...:-)

      November 9, 2011 at 4:59 pm | Report abuse |
      • KC

        If you're going to attempt to use the Bible, know what you're talking about.
        Psalm 139:15-16 " My frame was hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them." God has a plan for and loves and cherishes each of us before we begin breathing.

        November 11, 2011 at 4:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Buzzard

      I'm a born killer. Do I have the right to live if my existence is the human equivalent of infringing on the rights of others? My idea of humanity is to feed off the rest to the point of their deaths and the perpetuation of my vacuous existence. Did society make me this way? Yes! because they criminalized abortion and called me sacred. Thank you for your time, can I have your lungs?

      November 11, 2011 at 9:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • vasechek

      when he (she)/(it) completes graduate school

      November 15, 2011 at 5:51 pm | Report abuse |
  9. Realist

    I am not sure they will achieve what they want. Just to be clear, while I would never be able to abort, I cannot judge other peoples’ situation in life or personal positions. However, I believe this measure will create more poverty, which this country cannot afford really. Here is why: a lot of “great clinics” in Canada and Mexico will open their doors for US person (anonymous if a patient whishes to be unknown). So you can have pretty chip (around $1000) trip to Mexico to have your “procedure” and sunbathe a bit… The only persons who would not be able to afford a “chip” trip would be lower income persons. I also would not want to “outsource” medical care outside of the US for US residents. Most of those doctors would not have US license, obviously. Just think….

    November 8, 2011 at 6:07 pm | Report abuse |
  10. jemasii

    If you stop having extramarital sex, this is no longer an issue

    November 8, 2011 at 5:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • RML

      I think what you really mean is "If you stopped having sex then there would be no problem" Being married does not justify having to keep a child, does not mean that the condom did not accidentally break, does not mean your religion dictates what kind of birth control you use, does not mean you have been raped by your husband or someone else... you my friend should live in the real world not some fairy tale...

      November 8, 2011 at 6:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • KC

      Amen!

      November 11, 2011 at 4:47 pm | Report abuse |
  11. MartyM

    See also Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale."

    November 8, 2011 at 5:45 pm | Report abuse |
  12. Baffled by illogic

    The writer says "I became pregnant." which means she knows she had a part in that But then the paragraph ending "My education suffered because of the demands of motherhood and my career continues to be negatively affected" seems to ignore any responsibility she had in getting pregnant in the first place. Yes, getting pregnant and having a baby will mean a demanding motherhood and suffering of education and other goals. Hello! Actions have consequences, regardless of what this amendment does or does not do.

    I fail to see how the action of having sex seems to not be anyone's responsibility once they get pregnant. Actions have consequences.

    November 8, 2011 at 5:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • RR

      Saying 'Her education suffered and her career continues to be negatively affected' is not a bid to ignore responsibility - it is reality. Yes, I'm sure her education did suffer: Not only did she have to study and work, but she had to worry about the care and feeding of her child, and everything that entails from daycare, doctors appointment, food, clothing, the place she found to live, to everything else that goes with rearing a child. Her career continues to suffer because a woman, especially one with at child, is considered less employable than a man, whether he's married or not, and after she found a job, she would find herself passed over for promotions and other benefits her male counterparts would receive as a matter of course.

      What's really strange is that every time one of these bills or laws come out, it's always the woman who must give way, the woman who must give up part of herself for the 'greater good'. It’s always all put on women, as if men were just standing around on the sidelines with their hands in their pockets. What I'd like to see are some laws about a man's responsibility toward his child. After all, it took two to make the baby, and two should have to have the financial and physical responsibility of caring for it. How about some laws that say a man is equally as responsible as the woman. There are DNA tests that can prove who the father of a baby is. If a woman names a certain man as the possible father of her baby, then there should be a law forcing him to have a paternity test to see if it’s true, then half of all the responsibility should fall on his shoulders. And not only the financial part - the easiest part - , all of it. Make him take care of the child, feed it and take it to the doctor’s and the babysitter’s and school, make him curtail his lifestyle to fit the needs of an infant, let his schooling and career suffer because of what he made. How about a law that gives the entire care of any child born out of wedlock to man if the woman doesn’t want it or cannot take care of it. If those kinds of laws were in place, men would change their tunes pretty darn fast on the ideas of contraception and abortion. But those sorts of laws will never happen. It’s much easier to curtail the movements of the woman, while the man just goes about his business, free as a bird, free to make other children whenever ‘he’ pleases, with as many women as ‘he’ wants, until ‘he’ is ready to settle down and take responsibility for the children ‘he’ chooses to be responsible for, and be damned to any of the others out there who might be living in poverty and need.

      November 11, 2011 at 3:58 am | Report abuse |
      • Jake

        What about the rights of the man to have the child if the woman does not want it. If a fetus is part of the woman’s body, then she is responsible for the child. Why is it solely up to the women to decide if she wants to keep the child, without any legal right of the father, yet as soon as the child is born, the father is now financially liable? If women want the child to be 'their body' then the child is their child. If it is her body, it is her responsibility not to get pregnant, not the man involved. Likewise, if the man is responsible for the child, then the mother should have to get permission from the father to have an abortion.

        November 18, 2011 at 1:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kenya

      I'm late, but Amen, Amen, Amen!!

      December 1, 2011 at 4:31 pm | Report abuse |
  13. MashaSobaka

    The amendment in unconstitutional in two ways: First and foremost, it violates a woman's right to have an abortion, which was granted to ALL American women years ago. Second (and perhaps just as important), it is a violation of separation of Church and State. If this law passes it is opening up hundreds of doors to put this country back in the Dark Ages. I'm willing to fight to the death to keep that from happening, but me and my little circle of liberal humanists might not be enough. We're going to need some help. Who's with us?

    November 8, 2011 at 4:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • Evan

      I am with you. This is a path down the road to the dark ages. If this passes I will be very surprised and will protest Mississippi's statehood. I would much rather be down a state, then have them a part of our great nation.

      November 8, 2011 at 5:28 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jim

        Evan: Residents of Mississippi did not start this initiative. A group out of Colorado brought this upon us because they have failed repeatedly to get this passed in their own state. Please study history. Mississippi TRIED to leave the Union. The Union army was dispatched and kicked our butts. Y'all are stuck with us!!

        November 8, 2011 at 5:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kenya

      Um, separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. Any powers not expressly given to the federal government are retained by the states so that the people of each state can decide for themselves how to best govern in their state. Lastly, religious reasons are not the only reasons that people sight for opposing abortion. I have a moral objection to abortion. If you don't want to/aren't ready to be a mother, then you aren't ready to have unprotected sex. AND please don't start an argument about the less than 1% of abortions that are the result of rape or incest. It's a waste of time, and those should be dealt with on a-case-by-case basis. All of this nonesense about abortions being a human right or the lack of reproductive freedom for women being dehumanizing studiously ignores the fact that for 99% of the women who "decide" that they aren't ready to be mothers, they had complete reproductive freedom, and they chose to reproduce. What the law is saying is that after you have made your reproductive choice, you aren't allowed to kill the resultant life that you created. You have your choices. Make them wisely and this wouldn't even be a debate!

      November 8, 2011 at 5:57 pm | Report abuse |
      • Ethiopia

        Actually it is in the Constitution as our First Amendment. Since this amendment has been incorporated, it applies to the states as well

        November 8, 2011 at 6:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • Branden

        Big difference between Separation of Church and State and Establishing a Federal, State or Municipal Religion.

        November 8, 2011 at 6:43 pm | Report abuse |
      • fintastic

        um, yes it is....... ...

        November 8, 2011 at 6:51 pm | Report abuse |
      • AgnosticAnonymous

        You're right about 'separation of church and state.' It does say 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof', but I think that if you put that in context of the time the document was written, and by examining other primary sources indicating the intent of the writers, one can infer that if the founders could have predicted today's religious/political environment, they would have phrased it more similarly to the common paraphrasing of the supreme court's ruling. I think that even as its written now, its important to consider the role of government in preserving the rights of the minority from imposition of values by the majority.

        November 8, 2011 at 7:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • Branden

      A Supreme Court ruling is not irreversible and the Constitution can be changed. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. People need to stop invoking separation of Church and State as well, you obviously don't understand what you're talking about. Just because people consider it a "moral" issue, does not make it automatically religious. Even atheists have morals and moral lines.

      November 8, 2011 at 6:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • RRR

      a whole lot of us

      November 8, 2011 at 10:35 pm | Report abuse |
  14. ME

    I was thinking this would sound rational when compared to the nonsensical ramblings of the opposition, but this one fails as well. At least, I couldn't make it to the rational argument portion when the entire first segment is, effectively, a selfish whine. Stop making this about yourself.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bec215

      To everyone who is prolife: if you ever knew adopted children, and how devestated they are as adults to learn that they were unwanted; if you ever saw the vile living conditions, violence, neglect and abuse that drug addicted women expose unwanted children to; if you ever experienced or had a daughter, sister,or mother be unfortuante enough to be violently raped and impregnated...you would not be so cavalier in your simplistic view of the world.

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

        I, myself, was adopted and experienced none of those feelings. I was wanted, loved and cared for by my adoptive parents. What a load of crock!

        They have government agencies to take children away from unfit mothers and frankly it should be a crime to subject an unborn child to drugs and alcohol in the womb. Have you ever had to take care of one of those children (or adults)?

        Research indicates that abortions can be just as, if not more devastating for some victims than the rape itself. Just like the rape, the decision to abort can't be undone and there are some I know who are far more haunted by their abortion than their rape.

        November 8, 2011 at 7:08 pm | Report abuse |
      • leatherneck001

        To everyone who is pro-choice, ask yourself this question. Would you support your mothers right to abort you?

        November 21, 2011 at 12:07 am | Report abuse |
    • Apa

      Except it IS about her. And every other woman in Mississippi. If this passes, because she is a woman, Ms. Kelly would be subject to all the draconian measures the amendment puts in place. If she wouldn't want it for herself, why would she want it for anyone else?

      November 8, 2011 at 5:10 pm | Report abuse |
  15. BH

    I would have liked her report to include what her criteria would be for declaring personhood status because I think that is the central issue of the amendment. If it is not a person, then absolutely a woman should have complete discretion over her body, but if it is a person, then that person's rights should also be considered. Of course the baby's right to life should not overrule the mother's right to life and I believe the amendment makes that exception in that if a baby dies during the course of medical attention given to the mother to save her life, then neither the doctor or the mother could be liable.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bec215

      Actually, that's the problem – too many people here not knowing the Amendment text. THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT DO ANYTHING TO PROTECT OR EXCEPT ANYTHING... IT ONLY DEFINES WHAT A PERSON IS. PERIOD. The supporters of the amendment claim they do not INTEND for it to do more than that – but their intentions are not what is written or what will be upheld. In fact, a woman who miscarries under certain circumstances could be charged with murder, and a doctor who saves a woman's life CAN be charged with a crime. There are NO exceptions – the amendment only defines what life is, no exceptions. Please, read the amendment before you decide!!!

      November 8, 2011 at 4:54 pm | Report abuse |
  16. carol

    I don't want the Government or churches or religious nuts in my bedroom. It's MY body and MY business.
    Lets STOP letting men have surgery when they have prostate cancer just in case they can still fertilze an egg Hmmm?

    November 8, 2011 at 4:37 pm | Report abuse |
  17. Diane M

    Perhaps before the state of Mississippi legislated religion to everyone by granting a zygote person status, they should do something about the SHAMEFUL rate of infant mortality. Yep, they are at the bottom of the list on that one...pro-life? I think not. pro-ideal is closer to the truth. Lets call 26 what it is, the means by which to legislate and enforce a state religion.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:20 pm | Report abuse |
  18. Rick McDaniel

    Women's rights, are at risk in this issue, and while I support the GOP fiscal policies, I am totally opposed to their religious based social policies, as they trample the human rights of people.

    Voters should firmly defeat this measure, and preserve the rights of the individual.

    November 8, 2011 at 4:15 pm | Report abuse |
  19. mb

    Amendment 27 – ban masturbation.
    Amendment 28 – no dirty thoughts.
    Amendment 29 – missippi a state of the Taliban

    November 8, 2011 at 4:15 pm | Report abuse |
  20. Barbara

    If self-righteous politicians are planning to adopt all the children who could result from a law such as this, more power to them. But if they are looking for a way to turn the abortion clock back to the early 20th century and backstreet abortion clinics and shady doctors, or worse yet dangerous self induced abortions, they couldn't pick a more perfect way to go about it than this proposed law. It is my fervent hope that this is resoundingly voted down.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:50 pm | Report abuse |
  21. Cinnabon

    For those who oppose abortion as a Christian stance, how do you reconcile your viewpoints with Exodus 21:22-25? It is written in this second book of the Bible that the loss of a fetus/embryo is not the same as the loss of a 'person'.

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

      AMEN.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • B.C.Chase

      Exodus 21:22-25 states that if they hit the pregnant woman and she gives birth and there is "no harm," they shall be fined. Otherwise (meaning there IS harm), the one doing the injury shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

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

        No, if the WOMAN is killed, the offender is to be put to death. If the woman survives but only the the embryo or fetus is killed, he is simply required to pay a fine. This passage in the Bible is actually quite clear on the status of the embryo/fetus as non-equivilent to that of a living adult. That's why pro-life advocates never reference this particular passage.

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

        This verse is a perfect example of why the Bible should not be used to back up ANY viewpoint. It is way to vague and open to interpretation. Here we see to people reading the same verse and reaching very different conclusions. Actually it all depends on the translation you read. Some King James translations use the word "miscarrage" and there is no doubt that the fetus is killed. This supports the pro-choice argument. More modern translations use the terms "give birth prematurely" which seem to indicate the fetus doesn't die. This seems to support the pro-life argument.

        Who do we believe? I thought the Bible was supposed to be direct wisdom from God, divinely inspired and a clear, simple guidebook for morality. It appears that it is not. It has been edited and translated and changed and interpreted and reinterpreted by mere mortals so that it can be shown to support anything.

        We have to rely on our own judgement to determine the best course of action in a particular situation. And who is best capable of making these often tough and life altering decisions? The women and doctors involved. Not the government. Not religious zealots.

        I live in Mississippi and I voted NO on 26. But I fear what the outcome of this will be.

        (By the way, the original Hebrew in that verse translates most closely to "lose her offspring" indicating that the fetus is indeed miscarried. Even if it means "premature birth", in ancient times, that was practically a death sentance.)

        November 8, 2011 at 5:42 pm | Report abuse |
      • mga

        Josh you are right about the translations and interpretations, but you wrong about the original Hebrew. The original Hebrew supports life.

        November 8, 2011 at 5:50 pm | Report abuse |
      • snowbunny

        Wow. That biblical quote alone is enough to convince me never to become a Christian. What a sadistic, cruel passage.

        November 8, 2011 at 6:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • mga

      Explain to me how saying that if hitting a woman and causing premature birth will result in a punishment sought by the husband and then going on to say that if more harm is caused then a life for a life, etc, is relegating the unborn to subhuman status?

      This is not a political "new" interpretation. Ancient Judaism saw the fetus as "a man (human) within a man (human)" and considered abortion to be murder; to be punished by "a life for a life". Abortion was allowed in labor: only to save a mother's life. The ancient Septuagint made exceptions between a "formed" and "unformed" fetus. Only an abortion of a "formed" fetus was punished with death. Abortion of an "unformed" fetus was still a crime, but punished by heavy fine. And "formed" was considered to be at the time of quickening, around 40 days gestation, about 6 weeks into the 40 weeks of pregnancy.

      Also, a reading of the original Hebrew does not support the pro-Choice rendering of Exodus 21:22. The Hebrew word for miscarriage is shakol. The words in Exodus 21:22 are:

      "...so that her fruit depart from her,..."

      The word translated "fruit" in the King James Version is yeled; which means:

      "something born, i.e. a lad or offspring:–boy, child, fruit, son, young man (one)."

      The word translated "depart" in Exodus 21:22 is yatsa, and means "to go out", "to shoot out", "begotten" and "bring forth".

      Nowhere is the word shakol used. This was not a "miscarriage", but rather a pre-mature birth of a living child. Thus, the verse actually says:

      "If two men are fighting, and a pregnant woman is accidently struck in the fight, and she has a pre-mature birth of a child, but neither the child nor the woman is dies afterwards, then a fine must be levied against the men, to be determined by her husband and the judges. But if the woman or the child later dies, then "life for life".

      November 8, 2011 at 5:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • jemasii

      actually, it doesn't say anything about a fetus or embryo. it says if a woman gives birth to a pre-mature baby, and either the mother or child are injured, there will be fines or penalties based upon the extent of damage...doen't talk about a miscarraige

      November 8, 2011 at 5:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • RML

      Bible written by man , not woman, certainly not by God... Amen

      November 8, 2011 at 6:41 pm | Report abuse |
  22. Dakota

    It is so clear that those nuts who want to declare eggs people do not know anatomy. Nor do they know the Bible.

    1/ I know that men like to think that the minute their "cannon" goes off, an egg is fertilized; but nothing is further from the truth. It takes 3 – 5 days for the tadpoles to swim up the fallopian tubes and find an egg. But by then it may be too late for the tadpoles only are viable for a couple of days.

    2/ If fertilization takes place, it then takes 10 – 12 days for the ovum to make its trip to the uterus.

    3/ If the ovum makes it to the uterus, it attempts to implant itself into the uterine wall.

    4/ Only if the a fertilized ovum implants itself successfully.....about 14 days after the 1812 Overture.....does the medical community consider a woman pregnant with a zygote which may or may not be carried to term. Many, many women naturally abort (they just think that their period is late).

    Now, let me address what the bible says and does NOT say about abortion. I will compare the punishments laid out by the Bible for 1/ murder and 2/ causing a woman to lose a fetus.

    KJV
    1/ Exodus 21:12 reads

    Whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put to death. If it was not premeditated, but came about by an act of God, then I will appoint for you a place to which the killer may flee.

    2/ Exodus 21:22 reads:

    When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman's husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine.

    I hope that the reader can see the difference:

    For murder of a person, the punishment is death.
    For causing a miscarriage, the penalty is money because the fetus is NOT considered a person.

    Additionally, we have written records of abortion that predate Jesus by 1,500 years. Yet, God never spoke against abortion and Jesus, who certainly knew about abortion, never spoke against abortion. Either you believe in the divinity of the bible and Jesus or you don't. You can't have it both ways. As to women choosing: why should this burden be left on the slim shoulders of a 14 year old girl who is seduced by a man? Yep, you read that right. Most pregnant 14 year old girls are victims of male predators 19 years old and up. Check out the stats. Why are these predators not using protection?

    By the way: EGGS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM......S.P.E.R.M IS !!!!!!

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

      posted at the same time as you.

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

      Dakota: You need to get a better and more accurate translation of the Bible that takes in the 400 years of scholarship that has been produced since the writing of the KJV. In the NASB, considered to be the most accurate, word for word translation of the Bible, Exodus 21:12-13 reads, "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. 13. But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hands, then I will appoint you a place to which he may flee.
      Likewise, verses 21:22 reads, "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no other injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide." Premature means that the baby is alive out of the womb. The chapter continues to say if anything else happens to woman or child, then the penalty shall be an eye for an eye.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:05 pm | Report abuse |
      • will

        William, it is in the Torah, which is the original document and in its english version, the most accurate translation. Dakota is correct. Modern translaters who want to twist Hebrew literature to support their christian ideals are the ones making these corrupt translations.

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

        You're right William; the Bible is constantly being changed to fit the political needs of the people changing the translation.

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

        http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2021:22&version=NASB
        Note the footnotes.

        Additionally, premature means before reaching maturity. (Plus the question of what 'mature' means. Does it mean pre-viability?) What are the chances of viability for premature babies today with all of our medical advances. What were the chances of viability for a premature baby when that scripture was written? If the child lived, why would the mother's husband seek damages through the judge?

        November 8, 2011 at 4:18 pm | Report abuse |
      • Bec215

        It appears that your definition of "more accurate" is actually "a translation that supports my personal beliefs"...

        November 8, 2011 at 4:59 pm | Report abuse |
      • ripvanwillie

        sorry bec, I am not a jew so it does not support my beliefs. I am simply aware of the hypocricy christians are putting forth when it comes to translating other cultures writings.

        November 8, 2011 at 6:03 pm | Report abuse |
  23. AZLib

    I subscribe to the thought that if a Man was able to get pregnent then abortions would cost 49 cents at circle K. This is just one more get out the vote for the GOP. If a bill has Guns, Gays, Abortion just know that its the GOP geting out their base. Fact is the 1% who are all GOP will just take their spoiled brat daughters to France for their abortions. Its one thing to stop abortions its another to deal with the children that are born. Who is going to provide health care, education, etc. NOT YOU... or at least you don't want to... Go ahead Mississippi pass this law and start building new prisons... Young girls with no hope will turn back to the coat hanger and back street untrailed abortion providers... Wait until your daughter dies from a bad abortion or killing herself becuase she became pregnent... There was a good reason that the US started to allow abortions... go ahead turn back the clock becuase the past is not always as rosey as you might like to dream.

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

      It's true. Laws against abortion succeed in criminalizing abortion but they do NOT succeed is stopping the practice. They cause women to resort to more dangerous ways to abort pregnancies.

      Thus the problem is not in the abortion it is in the unwanted pregnancy. Stop the unwanted pregnancies and you don't have to worry about abortion! <– to do this children need more than abstinence only sex 'education'

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

      No no, they'll let their child have their baby out of wedlock and then go around charging $30,000 an appearance to preach at schools about how god says you should remain abstinent until marriage.

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

      If man was able to get pregnant, then you're probably correct, but more for the reason that the birth would be pretty much guaranteed 100% fatal for the man - have you seen a man's "birth canal"?

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

      If men were the ones who got pregnant…they would be women. The exploitation and subjugation of women is rooted in the fact that we have only recently gained control over our own bodies. If men were the ones carrying the fetus, then they would have been in the same position. Gender roles are tricky, huh?

      November 8, 2011 at 4:52 pm | Report abuse |
  24. Teddy

    When and if there is a possibility to transfer a fertilized egg from one woman into another and have it take hold, I will reconsider my position on abortion. Until such time no other person should be able to require any woman to carry a child. I don't care if your religion dictates that you to believe that it is a life. The point is at that point in time the fetus cannot survive outside the womb. Until such time as it can, the woman has the right to deicide what to do with her body. I wish politicians would stop regulating people's bodies.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Cinnabon

      What Teddy said!

      November 8, 2011 at 3:47 pm | Report abuse |
  25. Da Man

    This is not about abortion. It is all about religious control of sex. Sorry, but I do not intend to allow religious fanatics to control the sexual life of my female partners. They can decide for themselves. They don't need their choices made for them by the same people who used religion to justify slavery, Jim Crow, and prohibiting inter-racial sex and marriage.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • Alexa

      BRILLIANT.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • Elsie I

      AMEN!!

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

      I agree 100%.
      More Bible Belt Bullshit. One step closer to a Fascist Religious state. Soon we will have no individual rights, unless the Zealots Radicals give us permission. Having an abortion is a highly personal matter, but the religious fucktards are determined to stick their self-righteous noses into the neighbor’s uterus so that they can direct all decisions regarding HER pregnancy, because God told them to.
      Soon, there will be no wall that separates “Church and State.” We are in big trouble when the Extremists take over our lives completely. Yes there is a separation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson clearly said so to the Danbury Baptists. Thank you Thomas Jefferson for your wisdom.
      Nice Job.

      November 8, 2011 at 8:50 pm | Report abuse |
  26. jj

    (put this in the wrong place so I'm reposting)
    Another thing:
    If a prosecutor in a court of law has to prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that somebody murdered another person, shouldn't these people need to prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that a fertilized egg is person before they can call somebody who had an abortion a murderer?

    November 8, 2011 at 3:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kay

      Except that they do NOT have to prove anything "beyond a shadow of a doubt"...just "beyond a reasonable doubt". Big difference. But, then, I have reasonable doubts that a fertilized egg is a person with equal rights to those of us out here in the non-womb world.

      November 9, 2011 at 5:19 pm | Report abuse |
  27. will

    I think the vote itself is unconstitutional. This is a religious issue. Those who don't believe in religion may be affected differently than those who do. Separation of church and state is the issue in my mind.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • MCJNY

      Agreed. The reason why this state was chosen as the focal point is that Miss is very poor, poorly educated, and majority religious to a fault. This is the beach head on a much larger attack on personal freedom. The very same republicans who are telling us that they want to the government out of our lives wants to bring it thru the back door of the church. If you believe that abortion is sinful then let the sinner take it up with god when they die. It's not the christian right's job to police "sin" on earth. And to have the government hand in hand is a prelude to the end of anything resembling liberty.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:34 pm | Report abuse |
  28. DontMindtheFacts

    A classic example of why science and religion are bad "bedfellows," which is a particularly apposite pun given the issues involved I suppose. And, given her abysmal reasoning skills, I don't expect Freda Bush to grasp any humor contained herein, much less any arguments that appeal to the rationally-minded. And reader beware: because Bush has put me in a fundamentalist state of mind, out of MY fundamentalist principles I am gonna with-hold the title "Dr." I just find Bush's opinions too patently dumb, unreasoned and unprofessional to use the word doctor in any reference to her. However, if we can be broad-minded enough to agree to supplement her title with adding the word "witch" immediately before doctor, then I will be more flexible. Indeed, such a designation would be proper given the silly justifications in Bush's mandate, as they are the stuff of a bad fairy tale and have no basis in scientific fact.
    But dark humor aside, what is happening in Mississippi is truly no laughing matter: it's another attempt for the state to assert a property interest in women's biological material. Yet we still wonder why women feel "objectified." Given our collective knowledge in human anatomy, you would think by know we would know the proper proportions on the matter and know that a woman's womb is too small to accommodate anything as large as a state. But then again I guess under the State of Mississippi's proposed legislative rubric, that is a matter for them to decide, NOT the woman. Such is the whole point of contention!
    It's unbelievable that Bush, who lacks a fundamental grasp on reason, somehow became certified to practice in the medical profession. Her opinions illustrate the dangerous situation that results from allowing one's preconceived PRIVATE beliefs pre-empt rational scientific inquiry. Her fidelity to a female patient's best interest is compromised by her private beliefs, which runs afoul of the whole hippocratic oath thing. She makes no pretense to being objective since the issue has been fully decided in her own small mind. Bush is why many many of us, when finding out someone is a person of "faith," go running and screaming in the other direction. The world view of religious zealots can just seem so warped! For example, in Bush's world, women MUST play host to single-celled organisms once they are formed, even if they were introduced into their body FORCIBLY. If genetic material is human in origin, it must be protected at all costs. This position resonates with a great deal of fundamentalist Christian narcissism, yet avoids considering the complex dynamics at play that can give rise to egg and sperm meeting (ya know, rape, incest and other unpleasant occurrences that often occur because of women's objectified status in life). The reasoning of this position is a lot like the "missionary position": lacking in originality, biblically proscribed and limiting in what one can truly see. Suggesting that single-celled organisms are persons is to ignore scientific qualitative and quantitative differences that are obvious to even the most unsophisticated observer, much less a "doctor." Real doctors, those committed to the scientific method, don't perpetuate myths, or in the common vernacular, lies.
    Being a "person" is much more than just a biological fact: it involves possessing basic sensory perception to experience life in any meaningful sense. Yet, in Freda Bush's calculus fully-formed female persons are not able to control what happens in their own bodies, robbing them of the VERY condition of what it means to be a person! What an incredible blind spot! I urge Freda Bush to go to an eye doctor and/or mental health professional at once, outside the state if necessary.
    So many people in this country are at a loss as to why so many times Mississippi is on the wrong side of history. They are at a loss as to why, even given the advances in knowledge, that fundamentalists in conservative states blindly assert positions that are demonstrably false. Mississippi, for the sake of your women, ignore fundamentalist views that ignore the basic tenants of logic and finally come into the age of enlightenment! When you do, you'll finally be welcome to the civilized world and be able to finally cast off your reputation for constantly being on the wrong side of history.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • double sided heads

      your comments also argue for the oposite those who oppose also are involving their own personal view point of when an egg start, the common argument among most that are pro-amendment say that its a living human the moment of conception but thats personal belief all these view points are personal choices. Science have proven both that you can consider conception to be a human as well as conception doesn't necessarily mean its a living human being. In my own person belief the same way we have a personal belief of when life starts is the same way we should let our personal beliefs decided to have an abortion. For those who believe that life starts at conception can choose to go through a possibly unwanted pregnancy and those who want an abortion can abort a gift of joy so either way they are making their own personal choices and beliefs, but food for thought if we do not consider miscarriages as a death then how can we believe that there is a life during that time period, my belief is that up until the moment when you can declare a child still born is the time that the child can not be alive if we do not classify its lost as a death.-if that makes sense to you

      November 8, 2011 at 3:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • RML

      Bravo ... very well said, so happy to know there are still some intelligent people out there who are able to intelligently say what needs to be said, the sad thing is that those who believe in this nonsense Bill are not able to read or understand your point of view...

      November 8, 2011 at 7:11 pm | Report abuse |
  29. TAK

    This being Mississippi, would black fetuses count as 3/5 of a person?

    November 8, 2011 at 3:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • mga

      You do realize that the 3/5ths was to minimize the political influence of southern plantation owners by minimizing the effective size of their household?

      November 8, 2011 at 6:21 pm | Report abuse |
      • Kay

        Regardless, it still legally defined blacks as 3/5th of a person.

        November 9, 2011 at 5:21 pm | Report abuse |
  30. Cynthia

    I trust, then, that women will have more leeway for permanent sterilization? My husband and I never wanted children. I tried for over 20 years before I found a FEMALE ob-gyn who would perform the procedure – every other one said I might "change my mind". I was over 40 and my insurance wouldn't cover the surgery for the same reason, yet my 29-year-old associate had no trouble because she had two kids. The biggest irony is that I work for the insurance agency providing my coverage. Strange that I can be trusted to make decisions on client assets in the multi-millions, but when it comes to my own personal health, I'm a little puddin' head who hasn't got a clue, just like all women in MS apparently are when it comes to reproductive choices.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • Thorne

      I went through a similar situation. They made me wait until I was 35. Then I still wasn't old enough to make the decision about tying my tubes. I finally at 37 found a female OB-GYN who would do the procedure but I had to pay for it fully out of pocket. Ridiculous.

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

      Weird. I had no trouble getting a tubal ligation when I was in my early 30s (almost 40 years ago). However, it may have made a difference that I was a single mom and sure that I wanted no more children.

      November 9, 2011 at 5:23 pm | Report abuse |
  31. Choice

    I rarely ever post a comment or reply to any article I read on CNN; however, in regards to prop26 I feel, as a young woman, I must. What is being proposed here is a prime example of religious doctrine being pushed down a non religious person’s throat. Those that support this think a zygote is a human, I ask, have you ever studied biology? A zygote (what exist from the meeting of the sperm and egg up till implantation in the uterine wall) has 0% chance of surviving out side of the mother. After implantation the embryo is a very basic building block for life but still could spontaneously be aborted by the mothers own white blood cells, remove it from her and it "dies". I use quotations here because the embryo is little more then a parasite (albeit fairly benign) so there is no life of its own. let it grow a little and get to the fetus stage where all the organs are in place and it could in theory, with lots of help mind you, survive outside the womb then you have a person. Trying to push the person definition any further back in development is insane because there is no self sustaining life. Trying to take the early pregnancy abortion decision away from anyone, under any circumstances is cruel. If my sister, daughter, or I were to be raped and we didn’t want to be reminded of it everyday for the rest of our lives then we shouldn’t have to be forced to deal with the extra psychological stress associated with pregnancy. Killing a child wrong, cruel and unimaginable; I agree. However a zygote is not a child. An embryo is not a child. Don’t deny science and say it is.
    Taking away birth control away from women is not anyone’s right. Sex is a natural part of life and we, being human animals, are going to do it. But if I’m not ready for a child I will use the necessary and available means to prevent getting one. Neither the government, nor your churches has any right to make that decision for me.

    Dan,
    Constantly bringing up the one doctor you know of that is a nut job doesn’t really help you. Just because Hitler was crazy doesn’t mean I think all half-Jewish Germans are crazy.

    Ladydi,
    I beseech, on your behalf, whatever higher powers there are that you never faced with the possibility of caring the child of someone who defiled your body, your trust and in some ways, your mind.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:05 pm | Report abuse |
  32. KiraWylok

    I can't believe in this day and age that this is even on a ballot. It is absolutely terrible that young girls will go back to desperate methods for an unwanted pregnancy. Just like back before abortion was legal. Why don't we just have the girls back in the stone ages. Are all of you people who are FOR this amendment waiting in line at the adoption agencies????HMMM,why do we have so many in foster care and so many in bad homes if all of you are stepping up to the plate on this one. There is an article on the BBC right now about how we have so many young children being beaten to death in the United States. So all this law will do is have even more people who don't want or shouldn't have children putting actual living, breathing, feeling children into harms way....I hope you all feel very proud of yourselves when this issue gets worse.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:03 pm | Report abuse |
  33. kurtinco

    Republican, tea party, christian-taliban BS. They want capital punishment (i.e. the blatant murder of a living, thinking, breathing individual human beings), but they want to outlaw the destruction of dozens of undifferentiated cells that can no more live outside the womb then they can think and breath. They say they want less intrusive government, but what they really mean is less intrusion into corporate interests, but its still a-o-k to get all up inside a women's womb. If Mississippi passes this law, I encourage all enlightened Americans to locate the nearest Mississippian...and smack'em up side their head. If you can't find a Mississippian, a born again christian will do.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jamie

      I'm from Mississippi, come on and smack me. I dare ya!

      November 8, 2011 at 3:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jamie

      Oh I forgot, I voted No.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • BankerLady

      Do you not understand that your ignorant generalizations make you sound just like the groups you're railing against? I'm a Christian, I lean pro-life, I live in Mississippi, and I voted "No" on this initiative this morning.

      By the way, this initiative was started in Colorado.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:20 pm | Report abuse |
      • Bob

        So? You think that makes you a better person, because if this one instance? You want a medal or something?

        You when you anti-Choice punks learn to mind your own business, THEN we can talk. Until then, "pro-llife" means pro-doctor murder and pro-terrorism.

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

        Colorado votes rejected this initiative multiple times. The votes weren't even close, something like 70% against. So even though it "started" in Colorado, that was only by the personhood group, which apparently feels the need to farm out their agenda to other states. Maybe they finally got the message that Coloradoans were not interested.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:51 pm | Report abuse |
      • jarrett622

        @ A: No, the group from Colo saw a chance to get their foot in the door by using Mississippi. If they can get this passed in even *one* state all hell will break lose. But, even if this passes I believe it would be immediately challenged in the courts. Miss. has a reputation of being ultra-religious, poor and uneducated. What better place to try and push an amendment that has so many hidden agendas as to be criminal?

        Personally, I also object to my body being defined as little more than a baby making machine/petri dish. Why should those cells have more rights than I, as a living, breathing, talking, fully formed human have?

        November 9, 2011 at 12:28 am | Report abuse |
  34. independentlyowned

    I have a solution to people who don't want to get in car accidents and KILL innocent drivers.... DON'T DRIVE! Walk everywhere, like our ancestors did. DEFINITELY don't drive for recreation. Even if your life is miserable, not abstaining from driving is the only 100% way to make sure you never kill someone in an accident.

    Don't want to drown? DON'T GO SWIMMING! Even the most apt swimmers can get a cramp and drown, or get caught in a riptide. Who cares if it's fun? You must abstain from swimming if you really don't want to drown.

    Don't want skin cancer? DON'T EVER LEAVE YOUR HOUSE! Black out your windows, get all food delivered. Even small exposure to the sun can cause lasting damage, sun abstinence is the ONLY way to go!

    November 8, 2011 at 2:59 pm | Report abuse |
  35. jcbb

    amen

    November 8, 2011 at 2:54 pm | Report abuse |
  36. DCD

    The government should not DICTATE weather a woman can or cannot have an abortion. This is a personal and moral decision for an individual to make. They are the one that has to live with that decision! Where is the seperation from church and state. This is not something the government should even be considering. What's next? When we let the government decide things like this it only gets worse as they will start deciding other things like what time you should go to bed at night.

    November 8, 2011 at 2:53 pm | Report abuse |
  37. jj

    This is ridiculous. A freakin' fetus is not a person!! It's a fetus. People give the time the heart starts beating like that has something to do with a person??? People, worms have hearts too. A beating heart doesn't make them people and it doesn't even make them a separate entity yet. A fetus is attached to the mother and therefore PART OF THE MOTHER until birth.
    THERE IS NO WAY a fertilized egg is a person. That's why it's called birth. Sorry, churchies. I don't care what you think. There is no doubt in my mind about this. Abortion is necessary in our society and IS IN NO WAY MURDER!!! Would you stop with this killing innocents crap? It's ridiculous. That couldn't be further from the truth. You can go ahead and believe all the stories about Santa Claus and the big bearded guy who lives in the sky and watches over you and does all the things you don't understand because you don't understand them. That's fine. I understand people need religion as a crutch for life. I don't care. Use it as much as you want. But stop pushing your naive beliefs on the thinking people of this country. Keep your stupid religion out of my legislature.

    If you want to take the opposite stance, this is akin to a law that would necessitate abortion under certain situations. Raped? Not enough income? Well I believe it is IMMORAL to bring a child up in that situation. Given the fact that I in no way consider a fertilized egg a person (because it isn't), I think we should make a law making abortion necessary in these situations because I don't believe religious people are ABLE to make the morally correct decision. In my opinion, their idea of morality is simply WRONG. So, I will MAKE them have an abortion to make sure they are acting morally. How would you religious sheep feel about something like that? Oh, does that upset you because you believe something different? Exactly. Stop with these Nazi ideals of controlling people according to your belief system. Not everybody feels that way. This is America. In the 21st century.

    Besides, I don't see how this is still an issue. We all know this will not eliminate abortions, just make them unsafe and unhealthy. (It's not like there isn't history on this) It's a shame people who decide for whatever stupid, made-up, arbitrary reason, they have "morality on their side", don't actually think about things. I understand that's the point of religion, so you don't have to think, but it still makes me sick.

    November 8, 2011 at 2:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • jj

      And it is not a "person" until it is born. Period. I don't care what it can do in the womb. IT"S STILL IN THE WOMB. That is not a person.
      You can give me all the cute little stats you want. That certainly doesn't make it a person by ANY means. Sorry, but there's no question for me here. When somebody asks me how old I am i count from my birthday.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • Voiceofreason

      Good points; they sum up precisely what is so wrong about legislation like this.

      There has been some grumbling on here about people not understanding why this is being turned into a religious debate, but that is exactly what it is. While I have no doubt you could find a pro-life atheist, the vast majority of the arguments for this bill come from a decidedly religious perspective. It would actually be much more interesting, and productive, to hear an objective line of reasoning free from any sort of mythological influence.

      But that is not what you will hear. The dominant narrative is coming from the Bible thumpers who, well meaning or not, want to have their beliefs legislated on everyone. It demonstrates one of the pitfalls of democracy where the majority opinion may not necessarily be the correct one. Fortunately, the founders of this country foresaw that risk and put safeguards in place in the form of our constitution to ensure that while by and large we are able to shape our own future through collective aggreement it cannot be carried so far as to create an oppression of the masses.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dana52

      Science has shown that only 20% of fertilized eggs end up attaching to the uterine wall. And then many of those don't end up deeloping into fetuses. So, this law woulld effectively give constitutional rights to the 80% of those who never would have "life" anyway. But here's the bigger queston: Are those who aim to have thousands of more unwanted children born into the world willing to support them in foster care for at least 18 years?? It's pretty much only healthy white infants that get adopted in this country, so the thousands of unwantd mintority babies will no doubt incure even more irrational public wrath as taxayers are forced to pay to build more foster homes an foster parents, and then for more prisons as many of these aged-out foster young adults cannot find jobs and are compelled to do crime to survive. It's amazing how much cultural values determine who is worthy of "life" after being born–far more than any "worth" attached to a possible potential human being.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • Cedar Rapids

      11 weeks, almost 3 months. Thats a bit further along that a fertilized egg isnt it and yet that is what they want to call a person.

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

      1 MONTH- ONLY HAS HUMAN CONTACT TWICE A DAY FOR A DIAPER CHANGE BECAUSE THE ORPHANAGE IS OVER CROWDED
      4 YRS OLD- IS FOSTERED OUT TO AN ABUSIVE FAMILY THAT LOCKS HIM/HER IN THE BATHROOM (FLORIDA 2011)
      8 YRS. OLD-AT BEST VISITS SANDUSKY'S HOUSE FOR A MEETING OF TROUBLED FOSTER KIDS, AT WORST GETS SOLD INTO HUMAN TRAFFICKING
      18 YRS OLD- IS HOMELESS AND ADDICTED TO DRUGS TO ESCAPE THE PAIN OF AN ABUSIVE CHILDHOOD

      YOU- COMPLAIN YOUR WHOLE LIFE ABOUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING THAT PAID THIS KIDS ENTIRE MISERABLE EXISTENCE AS THE CYCLE CONTINUES ACROSS AMERICA

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

      It isn't a "person" until it is born. Stuff the rest of your tripe.

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

      If it is not murder, why is it that if somebody murders a pregnant woman, they are then charged with 2 murders?

      November 9, 2011 at 3:03 pm | Report abuse |
      • Buzzard

        Because you can't punish a murderer enough.

        November 11, 2011 at 11:26 pm | Report abuse |
  38. WutTheFrell

    I my self think abortion is wrong and would never have an abortion for myself. I don't think it is a valuable choice, especially when there are so many people who want children that can not have them. BUT that does not mean that other women should not have the choice to make for themselves. No one should have the right to tell me or any other American citizen what they can and can not do with THEIR OWN BODY, If they wanna do drugs, get a tattoo, and pierce every thing pierce able. It's THEIR BUSINESS and not YOURS, so stay the hell out of it...

    November 8, 2011 at 2:48 pm | Report abuse |
  39. trish291

    Here's a thought: Since no man will ever have to be faced with this dilemna, how about they don't get a vote on it at all! It's just another way for men to keep women "barefoot and pregnant"!

    November 8, 2011 at 2:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • Voiceofreason

      Interesting thought, and I can't say I disagree with it.

      November 8, 2011 at 2:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jay Dee Are

      I've heard it described as "knocked up, locked up, and barefoot."

      November 8, 2011 at 4:01 pm | Report abuse |
  40. Mageen

    Ofepetessake!!! If the pro-natalists were really all that gung ho for their position they would give a pregnant woman not only 1 vote for herself but an extra 3/5's vote for the fertilized egg. For multiples, add all the 3/5ths necessary. Then when there is a recall of any pro-natalist legislation, think of all the women carrying multiples at 3/5th each who could crush that legislation. Hence, the protnatalists who realize this will never do so but omigoodness they will insist that a fertilized seed is a person. No matter if that seed is in a woman who will die because of the pregnancy, or if its in an 11 year old girl victim of incest or a rape victim of fecund age. This is an end run by the pro-natalists who think that rape is the diety's preferred method of reproduction.

    November 8, 2011 at 2:32 pm | Report abuse |
  41. Sophie2114

    Reading all of these comments and the article bring this statement to mind.

    First they came for the communists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left to speak out for me.

    I'm a mother who struggled to become pregnant, I believe in life but I hold true to the belief that my gov't cannot choose what happens to my body and make anything I do to my body by choice illegal. What will be next? I'm charged with murder because I miscarried? This is a slippery slope and passing this is like opening Pandora's box for history to repeat itself.

    SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE PEOPLE!!!!

    November 8, 2011 at 2:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • leatherneck001

      Then they came for the unborn, and I said nothing.

      November 20, 2011 at 11:39 pm | Report abuse |
      • kelly

        because the woman carrying the cluster of cells told me to mind my own business, it's her body, not mine. So I decided to respect her rights to privacy and personal choice and went home to enjoy the rest of my evening.

        November 21, 2011 at 6:03 pm | Report abuse |
  42. autumn

    All I got to say is that if this amendment passes and is upheld, then ethically and legally it seems that capital punishment should also be made illegal. I don't know how conservatives can't see the hypocrisy here.

    November 8, 2011 at 2:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jamie D.

      Not all conservatives are for voting yes on this. Just sayin......

      November 8, 2011 at 2:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • Voiceofreason

      Even if it passes it will not be upheld. State Law vs Federal Law. Federal Law says abortion is legal. And if people want to turn it into a state's rights debate, then I do sorely hope they are doing everything in their power to remove the federal government's meddling in medical marijuana laws.

      November 8, 2011 at 2:47 pm | Report abuse |
      • Katie K

        I like the way you think, Voiceofreason...hope to see your posts often!

        November 8, 2011 at 2:53 pm | Report abuse |
  43. Janeen

    2 Corinthians 10:3-5
    New King James Version (NKJV)

    3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,

    November 8, 2011 at 2:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mary

      And your point would be....

      November 8, 2011 at 2:19 pm | Report abuse |
      • Voiceofreason

        Mythological quotations are a fine basis for rationally conducting a debate, obviously.

        November 8, 2011 at 2:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • jj

      Another thing:
      If a prosecutor in a court of law has to prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that somebody murdered another person, shouldn't these people need to prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that a fertilized egg is person before they can call somebody who had an abortion a murderer?

      November 8, 2011 at 3:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • jj

      "captivity to the obedience of Christ"
      Haha! That's a perfect! Exactly the mindlessness I was referring to.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
  44. slippery

    Stupid Mississippi legislature. Stay out of the bedroom and the results thereof.

    November 8, 2011 at 2:04 pm | Report abuse |
  45. take it from me

    Abortion is never easy; it's never something someone chooses as a first option for birth control. (even the crack heads can't afford that). Those of us who have had to make this decision should be the ones talking. Those of us who had to choose between a baby who was going to die as soon as he/she left the womb or a simple medical procedure that ended the pain for both. Dan has no right to call this murder, this was a medical procedure. This isn't someone stabbing children, or flipping a switch to fry a convicted criminal. This is a woman who has had to make the worst decision of her life because of natures cruel game. So Dan unless you are put into this position you have absolutely no idea what it feels like. I don't wish this on anyone.

    As for people who choose to abort for other reasons, that is their decision. Dan and others like him have no right to be in the medical room with them, so really they have no right to make that decision for them. No one asked Dan or the men out there to sterilize themselves for the sake of humanity; we don’t make simple medical decisions for you. It seems that society only wants to put the burden of child rearing on women. No repercussions are being discussed on the men. After all it takes two to tango, and two sets of DNA to construct an embryo. So please stop trying to make them for us.

    November 8, 2011 at 1:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • GodLovesUs

      Abortion is murder, no matter what anyone person thinks or believes. It is Gods law that matters, not what you think or feel is right. I pray you will read the bible and find Jesus, The only true way to salvation

      November 8, 2011 at 2:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • Pete H

        Hey 'GodLovesUs'. You ever hear of freedom of religion? Separation of church and state? I'm glad that you follow Gods law and His law only, but NOT EVERYONE DOES. And not everyone who DOES follow God's law agree with you either. I'm not a religious person and I don't let religion make life decisions for me. Please leave all of us who don't believe what you believe be and go enjoy your own religion in private. I don't understand why Christians have to be so forceful with their religion. Do you honestly think that its right for everyone? Or are you just insecure with your own religion and scared about what you don't understand that you have to justify your beliefs by forcing others to accept them?

        November 8, 2011 at 2:22 pm | Report abuse |
      • WutTheFrell

        feel free to believe that. That is your right as an American, but since America was founded on the principals of Separation of Church & State... The constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The proposed law is unconstitutional...

        November 8, 2011 at 3:15 pm | Report abuse |
      • Bob

        Shooting doctors in church is MURDER.

        Terrorizing doctors families and children is TERRORISM.

        "pro-life" = TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.

        Hang randall terry for the terrorist punk he is.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:26 pm | Report abuse |
  46. Lynn

    Question for those strong pro-lifers who say that a fertilized egg is the same as a person and should have the same rights: Scenario (not mine originally)
    You see a building in flames. You realize you will only have time to get into the building one time and rescue as many people as you can. When you get inside, you see two doors- One door on the left opens into a fertility center, where there are no humans present, except for a few trays which contain a batch of fertilized eggs/humans.
    The other door on the right leads into a nursery school, where there are 6 little crying two year old who you can lead to safety.

    Which do you rescue?

    November 8, 2011 at 1:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • MathUHenry

      Lynn, I've wasted far to much time reading through the comments, but your comment is actually quite thought provoking (the only one I found). I suggest expanding that a bit: two screaming babies in one room and two unconscious men in the other; two unconscious men in one room and two unconscious women in the other. I don't know about you, but I actually don't find it at all difficult to chose in these situations. When I think about it, I find that this is not based on any kind of moral value system or even a hierarchy of human value. It follows from my cultural intuition of which decision those left to die would be more likely to agree with me on.

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

        Cultural intuition? Seriously? I notice that you didn't state what obvious, simple choice you'd make. Is that because you'd actually have to offer a defense of your choice and verify your intuition?

        November 8, 2011 at 4:56 pm | Report abuse |
  47. Father-Of-Three

    I grew up in a divided family. What I mean is that on my father's side, most were Republicans, and on my mother's, Democrats. That made for some interesting get-togethers. What really get's me (and I do not claim one party over the other because I believe that there are good and bad candidates on both sides and that 50 years ago, you could tell one from the other) but the thing that really get's me is that the conservatives (which I am more and more alike, in SOME respects) say that they do not want government interferance in their lives. They do not want the government making choices for them on their guns and other things. Then in the next breath, they are trying to force their issues on EVERYONE by demanding that abortion be outlawed. Yes, I know that there are several different people with varying degrees of this, but basically, that is it. Now, for the people stating..."there are SO many people who cannot have children..." Look at the sheer numbers of children that are NOT adopted each year and are in foster homes and group homes. Then there is the issue if the woman was raped and became pregnant. This clearly is a choice for the women. It took me 25 years of marriage to understand this. This issue has already been decided in 1973 so I just do not see the point in keeping hammering it out EVERY time there is an election. There are issues that need addressed NOW. If we do not fix our economy and address illegal immigration then we will not have to worry about electing anyone. I heard the other day that small pox is coming back. There are SO many illegal immigrants in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California that you cannot tell me that it has negatively affected the economy. In Texas, you go to the grocery store and struggle every week to pay for groceries for your family, and a person in front of you that does not speak English and has ten kids with them has two carts full of steaks, and other expensive groceries and then pulls out the Lone Star card (food stamp card) and pays for them by that. Then what is not covered, they pull out a roll of cash (and I am not talking about ones and fives) and pays for the video games and computer printer ink! Come on America, pull it together!!!

    November 8, 2011 at 1:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jamie D.

      This didn't initiate from the Mississippi legislature or from it's residents. There is a group going around the country trying to get a state (any state) to pass this. They have tried and failed twice in Colorado so they decided to hit the most religious and conservative state in the US. There are a lot of conservative residents who are not necessarily "bible thumpers" here. To get this on the ballot there was a petition passed around, although I never saw it, that basically said "do you think abortion should be banned". None of the other stuff was mentioned. This is how it got on the ballot. It's ridiculous to lump everyone in this state into the "religious" and "conservative" categories. There is and can be a separation between the two. I am mostly conservative, I live in MS and though I consider myself a Christian and I do not force my views or beliefs on anyone. I also voted NO on this initiative.

      November 8, 2011 at 2:44 pm | Report abuse |
  48. iminim

    Fallacies perpetuated by many in this debate....
    1) Only loose, irresponsible, "bad" women have unwanted pregnancies.
    2) Women only seek abortion because they want to "murder babies" and do so on a whim.
    3) People who are pro-choice or pro-life are deviant, morally bereft and have alternative, hidden agendas.
    4) Everyone who is pro-life or pro-choice must be of a certain religious or nonreligious background.
    5) No one ever uses laws and consitutions for purposes other than the reason they were enacted.
    6) The solution to having an unwanted children is adoption.
    7) Lack of birth control & abortion options leads to more responsible sexual behavior in a population.
    8) Responsible sexual behavior is the sole responsibility of the woman.

    November 8, 2011 at 1:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • iminim

      Not sure how the smiley face popped up. That should be "8)" instead.

      November 8, 2011 at 1:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Pete H

      That last point is huge...With the exception of one person on this thread, all of the pro-life arguements here, and pretty much everywhere else are sexist. Its always, "She needs to keep her legs closed.", "Shes a murderer." , "She should have used birth control" etc etc etc....( The last one is especially crazy because this bill will BAN most birth control systems)

      Notice how theres nothing about "HE needs to keep it in his pants", "HES a murder", "HE should've used a condom." , "HE shouldn't rape people." Somehow, men have been completely left out of this conversation and its all on the women.

      November 8, 2011 at 1:52 pm | Report abuse |
      • Pete H

        ** Maybe not sexist, but the rederick is very anti-woman. Its very subtle and whether people want to admit it or not, it exists.

        November 8, 2011 at 1:55 pm | Report abuse |
  49. blf83

    To be in support of this bill is to expose one's misunderstanding of law, science, and, yes, even the Bible. The Bible mentions abortion only once in a manner that requires a person who inadvertently causes the women to lose a child to pay what the potential father demands. Otherwise, the Bible is SILENT about abortion.

    The law will be declared unconstitutional as the ramifications are spread far and wide.

    November 8, 2011 at 1:34 pm | Report abuse |
  50. Bob

    So here's a thought....If a man gets a woman pregnant and she doesn't want a child she has to carry it to term but the father gets it to care for and he gets a vasectomy for getting her pregnant to begin with

    November 8, 2011 at 1:33 pm | Report abuse |
  51. JusDav

    So, when a woman has a miscarrage, will they be charged with murder? will there be an investigation to see if she ...A: ate the wrong foods, thereby causing the termination? B: led too stressful of life C: did not take proper care of herself? D: test her to make sure she did not ingest some drug or other purposeful means of terminating? I believe if the law passes those are good questions and need to be addressed.... at the cost of big bucks to the tax payers, which we really do not need right now.

    Please excuse spelling errors as I am not a linguist. nor am I an English teacher, nor do I care if I mistype a word or two... if you get my meaning, lay off the mis-spelled words please

    have a spectacular day today
    JusDav

    November 8, 2011 at 1:29 pm | Report abuse |
  52. Sr

    THIS IS NEW FORM OF SLAVERY. YOU CANT ENSLAVE WOMEN IN THIS FASHION. THIS IS NOT YOUR CALL.

    November 8, 2011 at 1:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • blf83

      I agree completely.

      November 8, 2011 at 1:50 pm | Report abuse |
  53. Janet Scyrkels

    what is it with so many men wanting to stick their noses in women's vaginas and wombs....those in power refuse to take care of problems of their own making, let alone–children, the elderly, infrastructure, but have all the time in the world to worry about a women's body...these men ??? really need to check into their local mental health wards, then go buy themselves some fake plastic dolls and worry about those body parts....what a bunch of jerks....

    November 8, 2011 at 1:25 pm | Report abuse |
  54. Michael

    ......... (I hope you are being sarcastic)
    What kind of solution is that? That's not going to happen. If it was that easy, we wouldn't be in this conundrum.
    Also, I have no beliefs against sex, so why should I be forced into celibacy because I'm not a Christian? Also, its a freaking egg. EGG! It does not have the ability to survive outside the mother, it has no feelings, and NO SOUL. (Hopefully you can handle the bold.)
    So how about we handle this like intelligent human beings and let people control THEIR lives. I don't give a flying f***k if you don't want an abortion for an unwanted pregnancy, but I am not you. I do not live in Mississipi, as I I left the South when I left the Army for a reason,
    ALso, I live in the semi-civilized state of California where we try not to enslave our women to a revisionist-Christian agenda. Because, you know, like, I think I kind of love my girlfriend so I'm not going to slap her with an 18-year charge (that will force her to drop out of college) if the condom breaks.

    November 8, 2011 at 1:25 pm | Report abuse |
  55. Ravi

    1) You forgot to say "DON'T GET RAPED" and "DON'T GET MOLESTED BY YOUR PRIEST/BROTHER/FATHER/GRANDFATHER/UNCLE".
    2) God (Mother Nature for secular folks) chooses to implant under 50% of fertilized eggs. What does that make HIM?
    3) Grammar correction: they have the CHOICE to KILL them.

    November 8, 2011 at 1:24 pm | Report abuse |
  56. Cranberry

    YOU GO GIRL!

    November 8, 2011 at 1:23 pm | Report abuse |
  57. TRUEprolifer

    Kimberly, I am truly pro-life, meaning that I care about all life (the baby and the woman, you). You make some very good points that are just slightly misguided. I agree with you that it is unfair that you must raise the child by yourself. There are more "boys" today than there are "men". A real man does not run when he impregnates a woman. That child is his responsibility just as much as it is hers. It takes BOTH a man and a woman to create a baby, so the responsibility for raising the child should not fall completely on the woman.

    In the same sense, both the man and woman must RESPONSIBLY decide whether they want to have a child. However, this decision comes before the woman is pregnant. You mention several times that this amendment would strip women of "choices" and "free will", but you still have a choice. Men and women have free will to decide whether to have sex or not. I think what you mean is that this amendment would give you less choices. With this amendment, you only have one choice: have sex or don't have sex. But you still have a choice and free will.

    So the amendment does not encroach on your free will, it merely seeks to protect life. Biologically, an embryo (or fertilized egg, as abortion advocates say) is alive. The year is 2011 and there is no denying that life begins at conception, SCIENTIFICALLY.

    Finally, God bless you for having your baby. You made the right choice.

    November 8, 2011 at 1:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • lh

      "With this amendment, you only have one choice: have sex or don't have sex"

      Nope, this amendment wouldn't allow abortion in the cases of rape or incest, which have removed the woman's choice about having sex.

      November 8, 2011 at 1:28 pm | Report abuse |
      • TRUEprolifer

        Let me begin by saying, good point. You are correct. Rape and incest are terrible, violent acts which strip a woman of her free will.

        I have heard women speak who have had abortions after being raped and I have also heard women speak who have been raped, but did not abort the child. From what I have heard, it seems that women who abort their child later regret it and feel like they let their rapist win by aborting the child. I cannot explain exactly what they meant by this, because I cannot even begin to imagine the emotions and terror they went through. All I know is what I have heard from the women who have gone through it. Also, the women who had their babies after being raped said that they felt like it brought a sense of closure and peace to them. Many people say that if the woman gives birth to the child, she is reminded of that terrible act for the next 9 months. I remember one woman responded to that by saying, "9 months is a long time, but the rest of your life is even longer." As I said, I've heard many women who have had abortions speak. Every one of them regrets that decision every day of her life.

        My last point would be that the baby inside the woman is still a life and adoption is a great option if the woman doesn't feel she is capable of raising a child at that time.

        November 8, 2011 at 1:43 pm | Report abuse |
      • iminim

        TRUEprolifer: If you heard these women speak in the context of a prolife event, then you got a skewed viewpoint. Ditto, if someone only hears the pro-choice side of things. Just because some women regret abortion does not mean we should remove that option from them post-rape. While you or I might make different post-rape decisions about pregnancy, we should be allowed to make them for ourselves.

        Rapists aren't known for their responsible birth control use & this amendment would eliminate the option of post-rape pregnancy prevention that stops implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterine wall. Under this amendment, if you get raped while most fertile, whether you get pregnant would be entirely up to the man by how he raped you & whether he chose to use a condom. You would have no way at all to prevent pregnancy, not even the morning after pill. If you become pregnant, them all your education, job, travel, marriage, etc plans would have to be re-evaluated in the context of a pregnancy forced upon you against your will.

        November 8, 2011 at 2:05 pm | Report abuse |
      • TRUEprolifer

        iminim: Did you see my last point in that post? The last sentence?

        Also, are there pro-choice events where women get up and declare how happy they are that they had abortions and that they don't regret it? I'm not trying to be rude or sarcastic, I'm honestly curious because I've never heard of any. Have you?

        November 8, 2011 at 2:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • Pete H

        A pregnancy in itself is enough for some women to choose abortion. Some women aren't capable of being pregnant mentally or physically. You can't just use adoption as a blanket solution.

        November 8, 2011 at 2:30 pm | Report abuse |
      • iminim

        TRUEprolifer: Yes, I did read your post, including the last sentance, but adoption does not solve the total life upheaval that carrying a rapist's child would cause. For 9 months, your romantic relationship (marriage or dating) would be severely altered. Your career, travel, and/or education plans would be affected. Even with impending adoption, during the time when you were obviously pregnant you would have to deal with the public knowing you were pregnant & the questions about naming, delivery options, etc. If you had been planning a family with your spouse, then your other reproductive plans would be put on hold. Adoption may be a way to have the baby leave your life, but it does nothing about the pregnancy issues.

        I do not attend pro-choice or pro-life rallies, but I do know that neither is known for their unbiased presentations. I do work in a medical field & have encountered many women who terminated a pregnancy. Some were raped and a few became pregnant due to the rape. None are "happy" about their decision to abort post-rape, but all who were open about the rape felt like they had done the right thing for their families under the circumstances and would make the same decision again . I have not encountered any women who took the pregnancy to term & admit they had a rapist's child. Maybe because they see the child as solely theirs, maybe carrying to term is rarer, or maybe they gave the child for adoption and do not discuss it. I have no way of knowing which, if any, is this case.

        November 8, 2011 at 2:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • dirtpuddle

      Consent to sex does not equal consent to be pregnant.

      November 8, 2011 at 1:30 pm | Report abuse |
      • TRUEprolifer

        "Consent to sex does not equal consent to be pregnant."

        Are you sure? Having sex means there is a possibility of becoming pregnant. So as a woman, if you are consenting to sex you are consenting to the fact that you may become pregnant. As a man, if you are consenting to sex you are consenting to the fact that you may impregnate the woman.

        November 8, 2011 at 2:09 pm | Report abuse |
      • independentlyowned

        TRUEprolifer, I really thought we had evolved past the oppressive, patriarchal belief that sex = procreation? That's like saying, "Every time you get in a car you should expect to get into an accident, so we shouldn't have auto insurance to cover us since we deserve it."

        November 8, 2011 at 2:52 pm | Report abuse |
      • meaghan

        "Having sex means there is a possibility of becoming pregnant. So as a woman, if you are consenting to sex you are consenting to the fact that you may become pregnant. As a man, if you are consenting to sex you are consenting to the fact that you may impregnate the woman."

        All the more reason to support the availability of birth control, which this amendment would destroy.

        November 8, 2011 at 3:30 pm | Report abuse |
      • independentlyowned

        Contraception fails. Even with perfect use of the pill, there's a small chance of pregnancy. Condoms break. IUD's fail. "Pull out" (while not a method I personally would recommend) is inaccurate because there's some sperm released beforehand. Rapists don't often use contraception. Even so, does every person who doesn't wear their seat belt DESERVE to get into a life altering car crash? No. Abortion shouldn't be used as a method of birth control, but it's also our responsibility as a society to make sure everyone knows their contraceptive options and have them readily available, 2 things which this country is failing at thanks to abstinence only "education."

        November 8, 2011 at 4:03 pm | Report abuse |
      • independentlyowned

        So because contraception fails 1% of the time, we shouldn't use or teach it at all? Or because we have 99% effective birth control we shouldn't allow abortions? Which is it? Again with the car analogy, that's like saying don't even bother with wearing a seat belt, since people still die in car crashes while wearing them. That's just asinine.

        Trying to control people's sexual behavior is not only ineffective but against human nature completely. Sure we should encourage people to wait until they're ready, but even married women have abortions, too.

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

        independentlyowned, where do you get your stats? Contraceptives fail WAY more than 1% of the time. They are NOWHERE NEAR 99% effective.

        November 8, 2011 at 5:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bob

      So here's a thought....Manditory Vasectomys

      November 8, 2011 at 1:38 pm | Report abuse |
      • DG

        lead the way Bob..

        November 8, 2011 at 4:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • starlight_22

      "The year is 2011 and there is no denying that life begins at conception, SCIENTIFICALLY."

      Note, voting on something does not make it scientific, that makes it legally defined.

      "With this amendment, you only have one choice: have sex or don't have sex. But you still have a choice and free will."

      Except you know when your rights get trampled on and you get raped. In which you would now be subjected to at least 9 more months of god knows how much psychological damage having to raise a kid that was conceived by a pretty horrific event that you then either have to raise by yourself, with your rapist, or give away into a foster system overburdened with children as is. No you are right, totally was their choice and they totally deserve to keep being punished as a victim.

      This law goes to far and will do more harm then it ever will do good.

      November 8, 2011 at 1:38 pm | Report abuse |
      • TRUEprolifer

        "Note, voting on something does not make it scientific, that makes it legally defined. "

        I completely agree with you. However, when biologists say that life begins at conception, then it is scientific. According to the textbook "Basics of Biology", there are five characteristics of living things:

        1. Living things are highly organized.
        2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
        3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
        4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
        5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

        Ask any accredited biologist how many of those 5 characteristics apply to an embryo. That is what I meant by SCIENTIFIC.

        Please see my response to the comment by "lh" for your comments about rape.

        November 8, 2011 at 1:50 pm | Report abuse |
      • starlight_22

        Sorry, I was going off you very limited phrase about voting in 2011 making it scientific.

        "I completely agree with you. However, when biologists say that life begins at conception, then it is scientific. According to the textbook "Basics of Biology", there are five characteristics of living things:

        1. Living things are highly organized.
        2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
        3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
        4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
        5. All living things have an ability to adapt."

        I'll give you some of those for a fertilized egg but it has no chance for survival unless it implants on a wall. Even taking BC out of the equation, many fertilized eggs will not implant. I guess the better question is it a human cell or a human life? A cell alone is a living thing yet we do not give blood cells the same rights as a person. I think that better clarifies what I mean.

        As for the rape suggestions, I'm sure you can find plenty of women who also say they were ok with an abortion and not having to continue dealing with the issue. I also cannot speak as to experiencing it but anecdotal evidence alone should not be enough to force every single other person who experiences it to go through with what someone else decided was best for them. While adoption can be great for some people, you have the problem of lots of kids being already in the system. Not to mention all the health complications that can occur to a pregnant women who was not a willing participant in the first place. I honestly can't say what I would choose to do in this situation but to actively force someone to maybe have to continue suffering is not acceptable for a supposed free society.

        November 8, 2011 at 2:20 pm | Report abuse |
      • starlight_22

        Thank you for the attempted biology lessons but I'm not confused on how this process works and was asking you more of a philosophical question on when is it a human life versus just a human cell. If you want to be technical and conception is the point of life, then yes, it is a single zygote cell. "The genetic material of the sperm and egg then combine to form a single cell called a zygote and the germinal stage of prenatal development commences." ~www. healthofchildren .com/ P /Prenatal-Development. html (remove spaces, heck even wikipedia it)

        So yes, my question still stands, at that moment of conception that is the beginning of a new cell, one that is different than the egg or sperm which is also alive, is that a human person or a human cell? Where does that distinction begin to get drawn?

        November 8, 2011 at 2:48 pm | Report abuse |
      • independentlyowned

        So, unlike my eggs, every single one of my blood cells has the full set of 23 pairs of my chromosomes, complete set of my DNA, and can reproduce new blood cells. Every single blood cell, skin cell, liver cell, etc, has life by your definition, and as according to everyone from my 6th grade science teacher to the most renowned PhD in biology.

        Now my questions is... if it's murder to end human life, and all life should be protected, should it be illegal to bleed?

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

        To be human and to have life are 2 very different things. Not all zygotes have the ability to grow into a human being, many have defects and are naturally aborted/miscarried. Not even all fetuses have the ability to grow into a human being since they're 100% dependent on the mother for survival. That's like saying, every single pee wee football player has the ability to grow into a professional athlete. It's entirely dependent on a multitude of factors and isn't actually THAT easy. If you think having human life is having human DNA, then yes, my blood cells are human life.

        November 8, 2011 at 3:59 pm | Report abuse |
      • independentlyowned

        TRUprolifer, No, I would not. Just as I wouldn't consider a pee wee football player to be a professional athlete. I would define life as the scientific community has, which would thus include all plants and animals. I would define human as a life form with human DNA, such as my blood cell. I would define human being as an entire living creature with human DNA that can sustain itself, such as a later term fetus or a 30 year old. We've started focusing too much on the molecular level and lost sight of what's important in the actual world, like making sure children have good homes and healthcare and are fed properly and not being abused.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:17 pm | Report abuse |
      • starlight_22

        I'm pretty sure we will not be agreeing, which is fine, it is just good to know the definition you are working off of. I do not believe it is legal responsible to give a ball of cells (assuming this is when most BC would kick in) the same rights as the person that is a vessel holding those cells. The zygote has the ability to multiply in cells but until it implants and becomes an embryo it does not have the ability to become a person.

        I guess I'm confused by this: "Philosophically speaking, how can BEING come from NON-BEING?" Neither the sperm cell, nor the egg cell, are human beings yet through coming together and implantation leads to a human being. Non-beings were added to become beings. If you want to stretch even further back, depends how you think human life on this earth started.

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

        So you're "proving" that a religious God exists by using religious definitions of "being"??? That's not exactly something a real philosopher would take seriously. Besides, sperm and egg cells do exist, it's not like a baby pops out of thin air from combining 2 non-life forms.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:47 pm | Report abuse |
      • starlight_22

        Aristotle was a Greek who lived long before the formation of Christianity. I think you would be more referring to the works of Rene Descartes. Furthermore, I have yet to see a philosophical argument that actually follows the rules of philosophy to prove that god either exists or does not exist, including Descartes. Your argument also does not follow for a variety of reasons, but just because two non-being from does not mean that a being is the result. So no, a zygote still does not automatically become a human for reasons I listed post before. It is an alive cell that becomes multiple cells but it has no chance to become a human person until implantation.

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

        This thread has gotten ridiculous. Once we start going into "What if's" it's only downhill from there. What if we developed a rapid aging technique? What if space aliens came down and had our babies for us in high tech pods? Just like every pee wee football player should have the potential to become pro, some with more potential than others, are we really going to spend exorbitant amount of time and resources trying to assess each one and push them to their limits? Seeing as we just reached 7 billion people on the planet, I don't think there's a risk of humanity going extinct if we DON'T fully invest in every single embryo. This will be my last post.

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

        "So you're "proving" that a religious God exists by using religious definitions of "being""
        -independentlyowned, Aristotle lived and philosophized hundreds of years before Christianity and I am only using his words and ideas, not my own. So I wouldn't call them 'religious' definitions

        "Aristotle was a Greek who lived long before the formation of Christianity. I think you would be more referring to the works of Rene Descartes. "
        -starlight, Nope, I am referring to the works of Aristotle. Trust me, I've read them. I know he lived long before Christianity, that's what makes his proof so astonishing. He proved the existence of a God without Faith. Thomas Aquinas loved Aristotle's works and actually has a better argument for the existence of God without using faith. You should look into it. I wasn't sure God existed until I read Aquinas' proof.

        "Your argument also does not follow for a variety of reasons, but just because two non-being from does not mean that a being is the result."
        -Fine, but wouldn't you consider YOURSELF a BEING? Even if you believe life begins at birth, there is some point when NON-BEING becomes BEING.

        November 8, 2011 at 5:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • Pete H

      People don't have sex for the sole purpose of reproducing. Its not just for making babies, its an act of passion and a physical manifestation of one's love for their partner. Reducing sex down to these simplistic terms is unreasonable, I feel.

      November 8, 2011 at 1:43 pm | Report abuse |
      • TRUEprolifer

        "Reducing sex down to these simplistic terms is unreasonable, I feel."

        I couldn't agree with you more, Pete. In fact, reducing sex down to those terms is offensive (which is why I never said that). I was merely pointing out that with sex comes the possibility of pregnancy. Sex is such an amazing and powerful gift from God. It is the CLOSEST we can ever get to God while on this Earth because we are LITERALLY CO-CREATORS with God in this act. We are CREATING human life with God. At the same time, we are fully and completely giving ourselves to our spouse. It is the greatest gift we can give and is meant to be POWERFUL and AMAZING. God made sex pleasurable for a reason. He wanted people to populate the Earth.

        November 8, 2011 at 1:55 pm | Report abuse |
      • Pete H

        Glad we agree on that. You've actually got a head about you, unlike other people who would lump sex down to simplicity. Didn't mean to lump you in with them. But I also disagree with your last statement about biology.

        "1. Living things are highly organized.
        2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
        3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
        4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
        5. All living things have an ability to adapt."

        Firstly, we have to watch what terms we use. You said that these apply to "embryos". Well, the cells dont become an embryo until later in the first trimester. Fetus isn't until later in the second. (Let me know if I'm wrong on that, but its something along those lines.) What if a womanw ants to get an abortion in the first month when its still technically just a bunch of cells? Do those 5 stipulations apply to that situation?

        Also, I'm not for abortion after a certain point, but even still, I don't see how all five of those things apply to an embryo.

        November 8, 2011 at 2:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • Pete H

        I looked it up and I understand what youre saying. But still, I don't think that those five things apply. I think some of them depend on whether or not the being is consciously carrying out those acts. I think it could go either way though, and thats not really the main arguement. And even if they all did apply, I still think that the whole "sanctity of life" thing is bogus because pro-life people only apply it to abortion. If they consider this murder, then why aren't there people up in arms every time someone gets taken off life support? Or when a criminal is put to death? Or even when a vet puts down a dog? In some cases, when it comes to very early abortion or the morning after pill, you can equate the destruction of those cells to scraping your knee or cutting your hair.

        November 8, 2011 at 2:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tom

      TrueProLifer says "Biologically, an embryo is alive and there is no denying that life begins at conception, SCIENTIFICALLY." Sperm cells are alive, Ovum are living human cells, but these cells are also not persons, they are not viable human beings – the process to turn them into a human baby is not complete at conception. Half baked bread dough is not bread. If and when a living breathing baby is made in a test-tube, only then will I agree with your ridiculous statement.

      November 8, 2011 at 2:15 pm | Report abuse |
      • TRUEprolifer

        Tom, how much do you know about fetal development? It is amazing how quickly the baby develops in the mother's womb. Please see my comment above with the 5 characteristics of life and the ensuing conversation I'm having with Pete H. Also, for more about how quickly a baby develops, I want to recommend a website to you. No, I'm not going to share a link to a pro-life website. Just search "embryo" on wikipedia and look at the "human embryo" subsection.

        November 8, 2011 at 2:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • Anne

      I don't know where you get your "scientific" facts from, but life does not begin at conception. Until the fertilized egg attaches to the uterine wall, it is just a clump of cells, and many times is spontaneously and naturally aborted by a woman's body.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:25 pm | Report abuse |
      • starlight_22

        @TRUEprolifer, we are talking on the time scale of days before implantation occurs. Assuming things go well and implantation occurs in the uterus, about 6 days.

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

        "Assuming things go well and implantation occurs in the uterus, about 6 days."
        -So you think that abortion should only be legal for the first 6 days of a woman's pregnancy?

        November 8, 2011 at 5:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tom

      TrueProLifer says "Philosophically speaking, how can BEING come from NON-BEING? If the zygote becomes a human person, it must already be a human person." SCIENTIFICALLY speaking the zygote becomes a zygote at conception, and then becomes a Blastula. The Blastula becomes an embryo. The embryo becomes a fetus. And at birth the fetus becomes living breathing human being we call a baby. Clearly a zygote is not a person – it is a single cell formed by the union of a sperm and ovum. The Blastula is a zygote that has undergone cell division – clearly not a person. The embryo is a Blastula that has implanted on the uterine wall – clearly not a person etc. When an embryo becomes a fetus, it finally has at least the beginnings of what it takes to become a living breathing human being – a person almost. Clearly, pregnancy is a process with multiple stages. When a ball of dough is shoved into an oven, it begins to rise, then the crust begins to form etc. It may look done but it is not a loaf of bread until all the dough in the middle is done. A fetus is not a person until it is viable – can live and breathe on its own.

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

      You do realize that married women have abortions too right? Also some married women that have abortions have had their tubes tied. So, you are saying that a woman that is married and has taken the necessary precautions to prevent pregnancy should not be able to have an abortion or at the very least take th emorning after pill. What if that woman or man carries a gnetic trait that gives a likelyhood that the child would be born with a life threatening, degenerative disease that the child will not be able to live past the age of ten? It happens everyday. Do people like you ever think of things like these? What if your teenage daughter got pregnant by her history teacher. You would want her to keep it? But what would the neighbors think?

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

      An unplanned pregnancy is one thing an unwanted pregnancy or child is quite another. Birth control up to and including tubal ligation has a fail rate. I'm one of the lucky ones I never wanted kids. I never got PG never had an abortion . But I do know women who did get PG post Tubal. You don't want abortion but you are also anti birth control but lets get real its not just single or young people having sex. How many married people are going to practice abstinence? Hell, even celibate nuns, old ladies and toddlers have been raped; so much for abstinence.

      November 8, 2011 at 5:22 pm | Report abuse |
  58. Chang

    If this vote is passed, if fertilization will be considered birth of human life, how will the date of birth for people born in Mississippi be determined?

    November 8, 2011 at 1:15 pm | Report abuse |
  59. Dave

    It does not matter what you think because it its not your choice, and it never will be. The decision is that of the two people that made the baby and NOT the decision of anyone else. The decision should never be made by anyone outside of the parents. Worry about your own problems and stop trying to make decisions for others

    November 8, 2011 at 1:14 pm | Report abuse |
  60. tribecagal

    Hey Dan..What's your position on Capital punishment? And wars? And guns?

    November 8, 2011 at 1:14 pm | Report abuse |
  61. Mary

    What about ectopic pregnancies?
    These pregnancies WILL kill the mother long before viability can be reached.
    This amendment does not allow for any exceptions.
    Is a woman with an ectopic pregnancy supposed to die along with the "person" who is killing her?
    Again, as the amendment reads right now, there are no exceptions for ANYTHING granted. It is a person with full legal rights from the moment of fertilization.

    Would Dan call a mother who has an ectopic pregnancy terminated a murderer? Because techincally it's the embryo that is the murderer. It implanted in the fallopian tube where the only outcome if not medically removed is the murder of the host woman.

    November 8, 2011 at 1:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • TRUEprolifer

      Mary, this is a very good point. I'm not exactly sure how the Mississippi doctors would handle ectopic pregnancies if this amendment passed, but let me give you the pro-life stance on an ectopic pregnancy (or for that matter, any pregnancy that puts the life of the mother in danger).

      The goal should never be to destroy human life. We must first realize that both the woman's life and the baby's life are precious gifts. So we would never say that it is ok to "kill" the child in order to save the life of the mother. With an ectopic pregnancy, the goal should be to save the life of the mother. The mother's life is clearly in danger, so an operation should be performed to save her life. If, in the process of saving her life, the baby is killed, then that is a very tragic loss. However, this should be viewed as a "side effect" of the woman receiving life-saving treatment. It should never be the INTENTION of the doctor, to kill the baby. Miracles happen that science and doctors cannot explain. If the doctor sets out to kill the child, the child will certainly die. However, if the intention is to save the life of the mother, the doctor still allows the possibility of a miracle to happen. Remember, not even the best doctor in the world is correct all the time.

      November 8, 2011 at 1:32 pm | Report abuse |
      • Pete H

        But the question is, will religious fanatics and crooked politicians share that viewpoint? I'm glad that you feel that way, but I'm not convinced a large group of people do. If they did, then why is the amendment so vague?

        November 8, 2011 at 1:38 pm | Report abuse |
      • TRUEprolifer

        "I'm glad that you feel that way, but I'm not convinced a large group of people do."

        Pete, there IS a large group of pro-lifers who feel EXACTLY the way I do. The problem is, we get no publicity because we aren't doing crazy stuff that the media cares about. We line up in front of abortion centers week after week and guess what we do? We pray silently. We don't yell at people or throw things. I promise you that for every radical pro-lifer you hear about there are 100s of us who work peacefully to promote the dignity of all human life.

        November 8, 2011 at 2:03 pm | Report abuse |
      • Bravo

        TRUEprolifer, I can see that you are deeply religious and utilize your beliefs to guide your principals. How would your feel if a majority of Mississippi were Muslim and an amendment were proposed to enact Sharia law? Would it seem fair to you to be told by the government what you can only go outside completely covered up? Why would it then be fair to have the government determine for you that a clump of cells have more legal rights than you do?

        My wife and I have been trying to have a child for a very long time. During this time we experienced one miscarriage and three ectopic pregnancies, and I can assure you that there is no "miracle" that would save the child's life in an ectopic pregnancy. The simply fact is that if the embryo is allowed to continue to grow, both the mother and child will die. A doctor cannot go in, remove the embryo from the fallopian tube and just place it in the uterus and hope it grows. This isn't a plant.

        So, as part of the course of really wanting a child we went the route of IVF. Under this Amendment, our doctor and ourselves would be culpable for 10 murders. 1 miscarriage, plus 3 ectopics, plus 1 failed IVF round (that is three fertilized eggs) and one successful IVF round (four fertilized eggs, but only one took).

        This amendment is simply unconstitutional and a violation of not only a womans right to her own body, but a doctors ability to do his/her work. I mean, why bother trying to help a woman with an ectopic pregnancy when you are going to have to tangle with the law every time. Better to say that the woman is in God's hands now, so let's pray for a miracle.

        November 8, 2011 at 2:22 pm | Report abuse |
      • Bravo

        TRUEprolifer: Everybody is well aware that pregnant women do not carry zombies in their uterus for nine months that miraculously come to life when they get out. So the term that it is scientifically proven makes absolutely no sense because any scientist will confirm that life begins at conception, as a matter of fact, life begins at conception for all animals,....however I am absolutely sure that you would not advocate for the government to fine or imprison a vet that aborts the unborn life within a pregnant dog.

        What you are trying to say is not that life begins at conception,...you are trying to say that the soul is formed at conception. In your beliefs, the lives contained with in a pregnant dog are empty vessels, so aborting the life within a dog is of no consequence, whereas aborting the life within a woman is of consequence. You are then misusing the term scientifically because while it IS scientific that life commences its path forward at conception, it IS NOT scientifically proven that the soul commences at that time. Why? Because the soul is an intangible, unmeasurable and an improvable concept that owes its "existence" to belief and one cannot apply tangible laws to real physical people based solely on what one believes. That is done all over the middle-east and look at how much freedom and rights women have there.

        People have every right to formulate their own opinions, and within the microcosm of your existence, what happens with your body, within your family and amongst the people that share your views is perfectly fine. When those views are then forced upon other people so that they are subjugated to live as you do, then you are crossing the line. That is what this amendment is advocating and that is what you are advocating.

        You would protest any laws that infringe upon your beliefs and yet turn around and happily support laws that force your beliefs unto others. You never commented on what you would feel if Mississippi passed laws that were Islamic in nature,...I can only imagine because your narrow view only allows you to focus on what you believe in.

        Thank you for your prayers by the way, but I can assure you that they are of no avail, because if it were up to God, my wife and I would not be pregnant right now. It was the advent of science that allowed us to circumvent God's roadblocks and get to where we are today. So, thank you Science and Technology for creating life where God could not.

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

        "Any scientist will confirm that life begins at conception, as a matter of fact, life begins at conception for all animals"
        -Well put, Bravo. Now could you please tell this to all these pro-abortion people who keep arguing with me, saying that life DOES NOT begin at conception?

        "Because the soul is an intangible, unmeasurable and an improvable concept that owes its "existence" to belief and one cannot apply tangible laws to real physical people based solely on what one believes."
        -So... what are laws? Do you think murder is ok? That is based on the belief that you shouldn't kill someone? Do you think that murder is wrong but hunting is ok? If yes, then clearly you believe there is SOME distinction between humans and animals.

        "You would protest any laws that infringe upon your beliefs and yet turn around and happily support laws that force your beliefs unto others."
        -Well, now you're just making assumptions. I would not protest ANY laws that infringe upon my beliefs, only the ones that really matter to me. But isn't that how our country was formed? Free speech so that we can voice our opinions and beliefs? Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "beliefs". I do support laws that force some of my beliefs on others, but not all. I support laws against murder, because I BELIEVE murder is illegal. That is a belief. However, I WOULD NOT support a law saying that everyone must go to Church on Sunday, even though that is what I BELIEVE.

        As for the prayers, I am sorry that you feel that way but I'll still send my prayers anyway.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:58 pm | Report abuse |
  62. Sy2502

    Not many people know that the fertilized egg develops into TWO things: the placenta and the fetus. Just like the fetus, the placenta is made of human cells, that is cells containing the full complement of human DNA, and that those cells are alive, because they replicate and metabolize. So just to be clear, the fertilized egg is a person. The fetus is a person. But why isn't the placenta a person?

    November 8, 2011 at 1:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dreamer

      First of all, the placenta is not a "separate entity" from the development of the child, so it would be ridiculous to put those in opposition to one another. But even if you did, a placenta doesn't develop to have a brain (or, more philosophically, a "mind"), which is necessary for "personhood" ergo, a placenta is not a "person".

      November 8, 2011 at 1:24 pm | Report abuse |
      • RR

        I beleive that is what Sy2502 was saying.

        November 11, 2011 at 7:59 pm | Report abuse |
  63. Kate

    Okay, so what you're suggesting is that women should just keep their legs closed or use birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies...well, you are aware that this amendment intends to make most forms of birth control illegal, right? Kinda shoots a huge hole right in your argument...Also, as someone that works in this field I can tell you that the majority of women that have abortion procedures do not do it as a convenience and do not use it as a form of birth control. You should check statistical information before you start popping off about something that you are completely ignorant of. And ladydi? As a women, I'm more ashamed than I can say of your approval to undermine women's rights.

    November 8, 2011 at 1:03 pm | Report abuse |
  64. Go vote.

    If you're eligible to vote, you live in Mississippi, and you care about this (one way or the other), go vote!

    November 8, 2011 at 12:47 pm | Report abuse |
  65. lisa

    Most women would never want to have to choose to get an abortion, and there should be laws concerning how far into a pregancy an abortion should morally be performed (ie: If a baby can survive the birth). However, to say that a group of cells is a human is ludicrous, and to put the rights of a pregnat woman ahead of that of a group of cells is even more ludicrous.

    November 8, 2011 at 12:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Go vote.

      The U.S. Supreme court already determined the point of viability – 22 weeks. Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992). So, legally, you really CAN have it both ways!

      November 8, 2011 at 1:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Go vote.

      Actually, the heart begins beating ~ 21 days, but we see your point!

      November 8, 2011 at 1:03 pm | Report abuse |
  66. StupidHicks...

    SO whoi can see the drug dealers selling birth control instead of drugs now?

    November 8, 2011 at 12:34 pm | Report abuse |
  67. Pete H

    People like Dan are lazy and ignorant, and will never understand what its like to be in someone elses shoes, let alone accept that person's views and rights. I keep seeing the words convenience/inconvenience, innocent, and murder being thrown around. People don't have abortions out of convenience. Its not like losing your car keys. Sure there are crackheads that treat it as such, but they don't speak to the overwhelming majority. Accidental childbirth/abortion is a very real and very serious choice that includes a level of emotion and perspective that most pro-lifers and males will never EVER be able to comprehend. Its not black and white.

    And its not as simple as "keeping your legs closed" you imbeciles. Again, the crackhead type abusers aside, how do you boil this down to "keep you legs closed." Yeah, ok, because everytime someone has sex they say, "Lets get pregnant so we can have an abortion!" Condoms and birth control can fail, you know. And what then? Do I have to be forced into a huge life decision just to comply with a group of people whose beliefs I don't share? And even if before we talk about birth control, the whole "dont have sex" argument is dumb. Ok...If I don't want to have a baby that means that I'm supposed to deny my innate human urges (WHICH GOD GAVE ME, BTW) and ignore any type of physical relationship with my lover, AGAIN , to stipulate a belief I don't have? Call me crazy, but won't bottling up sexual emotions just lead to more rape, and more abortions? And theres ANOTHER thing wrong with the "close your legs" argument. WHAT IF THEY'RE FORCED OPEN!? And again, a male will NEVER know what its like to live the life of pressure that a teenage girl lives.

    Also, calling it murder is stupid. If you call aborting a month old clump of cells that isn't even technically considered a fetus yet murder, than you are lazy and hypocritical. If this is true, than everytime I cut my hair I'll have to be tried in a court of law. Everytime a scrape my elbow I'll have to be tried for involuntary manslaughter. Every time I kill a bug or a plant I'll have to go to jail. And again, the decision involves a level of thought and emotion that is so much more profound than "Lets kill a baby"

    People like Dan would be fine if they just kept their views to themselves...But apparently that is too much to ask. I accept and understand his view, but don't wish to impede it. This isn't about pro-choice Vs God or anything liek that, its simply about reproductive freedom, and the fact that people like Dan can't see that is pretty telling.

    November 8, 2011 at 12:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dan

      Touched a sensitive spot did we! You name calling defies logic but then so do your arguments. When you kill something in other then self defense or war it's called murder. Again, when does that clump become a viable life, according to you, never or at least until it's given birth? The law begs to differ: 'This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors. The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels – and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths. Over the years, many people came to know that something was going on here. But no one put a stop to it.'

      I fail to see what "god" has to do with fact; according to you and your learned ways, when does life begin? What gives any person the right to kill a person no matter how small?

      November 8, 2011 at 12:43 pm | Report abuse |
      • Austin

        I find it utterly hilarious people like you believe that a fertilized egg cell is a person and claim you are conservative.

        Guess what , you are pretty liberal in comparison to your "conservative roots" . In the olden days to which you claim to want, life began at BIRTH. Most prominently from the newborn's first breath of air. There were no "life begins at conception" bullcrap. You either had the kid or you miscarried.

        If you get raped and are pregnant, aborting a mess of cells which has no conscience, no soul you claim it has is not a wrong thing to do.What's worse? A mother not able to raise the child and it becomes a killer or freeloader off the state , or it dies early on, or perhaps the woman graduating and creating a fit opportunity for a child to be raised at the right time with both parents accounted for to raise it fully.

        How about we eliminate men from this discussion and only allow women to vote on what they want the government to do with their bodies. Chances are they will vote against it, even Tea Party logic says the government should stay out of our lives.

        Unless fetuses can talk, think and respond as effectively as human beings ,they are just merely parasites which women allow to grow in their bodies for nine months due to the culture's disposition that babies are desirable and cute for the future.

        November 8, 2011 at 1:27 pm | Report abuse |
      • Pete H

        Dude, you're talking about partial-birth abortions...WHICH ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL. You in no way responded to any of my claims. And I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by calling you an imbecile....Jeeze, I wasn't aware that you have been completely devoid of offending people in this entire thread.

        November 8, 2011 at 1:34 pm | Report abuse |
      • Pete H

        And also...God has everything to do with it apparently...Pro-life and religion are synonymous, i brought it up in that one instance to point out hypocrisy in the religious aspect of this issue.

        November 8, 2011 at 1:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • GodisaPlacebo

      Well said

      November 8, 2011 at 6:03 pm | Report abuse |
  68. mjd

    To DAN. You're an idiot and someone should take you to a vet and have you fixed! Women don't need to keep their legs closed. Men need to keep their pants zipped! And if abortion is so abhorrent to you make sure you NEVER cause an unwanted pregnancy. Or be prepared to pay for that child.

    November 8, 2011 at 12:16 pm | Report abuse |
  69. Clay Colwell

    What a fantastic business opportunity! Think of the new feminine hygiene products, so that sexually-active women can catch fertilized ova that may slough from their womb, and the little tiny caskets for those "persons". It'll make zygote burials a new cottage industry!

    November 8, 2011 at 12:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • J-Zero

      I've been reading these posts and its interesting to hear from each side, but the tiny caskets for the zygotes just about made me die laughing. This is such a ridiculous bill and i'm so glad someone could see a little humor in it. I agree completely, so are women sinners for having periods mississippi? Cause it sounds like it. Do excuse me i have to strap on some painful heels, some cheap pearls and get back to the kitchen where apparently mississippi feels i belong.

      November 8, 2011 at 2:34 pm | Report abuse |
  70. Jeff

    I see this as another step toward an overall theocratization of America. Religious undercurrents aside (although one could argue separation of church and state, if you dig deep enough), passage of this legislation might begin to put us on a path toward modern-day witch hunts...something that would make our founding fathers roll over in their graves.

    November 8, 2011 at 12:14 pm | Report abuse |
  71. Anna

    These people are not pro-life, if they were, they would care about life once it's out of the womb, not just while it's in there. So to them, apparently life begins at conception, but ends at birth? Out of the womb, you're screwed? Really. If they were truly pro-life, they would care about the lives of every human being, regardless of age or gender, and not just about the lives of those who haven't been born yet.

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

      Anna, if that is truly how you feel about children, by all means take precautions to not be inconvienced. Recognize your limits and take steps to avoid them that don't involve murder. I look at my children, oldest being 42 and the youngest being 10 and I can't imagine what life would have been without them, that if we'd been inconvienced we could have killed them and avoided their birth. I don't know if there is a god, don't really care but the loss of having these people in my life because we choose or my wife choose to kill them just is to difficult to imagine. So no I will never change my attitude that the killing of innocent isn't murder and those who condone or agree with it are somehow more enlightened. You have the choice to kill or not to kill and thinking of what has entered your body, be it by a moment of passion, rape or incest; that little tiny creature doesn't have a vote except in the back of your mind. There is one comment that there are women out there who use abortion as birth control and in my life I have known such a person and I often wonder how she sleeps at night and what haunts her dreams. Who would want to choose this person as a life partner? I suppose another "enlightened" one!

      November 8, 2011 at 12:35 pm | Report abuse |
      • anonymiss

        Your beliefs are your beliefs and you are welcome to them. This law does not attack your right to raise your children so you have nothing to worry about. This law does force YOUR belief on someone else, in a way that potentially endangers their health, life, and livelihood. Make no mistake; this argument IS a religious/ethical one, because it is NOT scientifically based. And thus, this law is absolutely in conflict with the basic beliefs of both our atheist and Chrsitian Founding Fathers of religious freedom.

        Humans must make a choice where they draw the line between what is "human" and what "is not human". K. Kelly is absolutely correct that because of the very nature of childbearing, to give a bundle of cells human rights is to take those away from the mother, because control of her body is forcibly taken from her by the state. I can assure you, I want to believe that America is the single greatest country on Earth. But the day someone tells me I have no choice but to deliver a child against my will or be jailed for murder? That's the day I start reconsidering that stance. Because it sounds like something out of a sci-fi novel. Not something from the Constitution.

        November 8, 2011 at 1:22 pm | Report abuse |
  72. Laura Adama

    Having had two miscarriages, which were very hard to go through, I cannot imagine the additional torture of being investigated as being a potential criminal. Our prisons are overcrowded, state governments don't have the money they need anyhow.....why spend additional money prosecuting women who became pregnant by rape or who just couldn't handle bringing a baby to term? It is a lot of hard physical and emotional work. A fetus that cannot survive outside the mother is not yet a person. If anything, I think it would also delay needed prenatal care, because if no one knows you're pregnant, then it is harder to be investigated.

    November 8, 2011 at 12:12 pm | Report abuse |
  73. GodisaPlacebo

    It seems like every argument against the opinion expressed within this article will be based on gross exaggeration of certain terms. An "inconvenience" is having to wait a few minutes in line to buy gas at a gas station.

    Pro-lifers, or force-you-to-live-as-I-believe'ers, seem to wield the word "innocent" as with its use, it some how makes their stance undebatable. Oh, it's such a sweet, emotion-filled word. Fortunately, those that don't let emotion dictate their every decision can see past that crap. If a bundle of cells is "innocent", at what point is that innocence gone? Since innocence is so easily defined by you, it'd be nice to know when that innocence is gone, and when we can no longer value those who don't have it.

    November 8, 2011 at 12:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • JP

      Dan, it must be soooo nice to be able to see things as cut and dry as you do. How's the air up there on that high horse?

      November 8, 2011 at 12:17 pm | Report abuse |
  74. Pita

    Abortion always needs to be an alternative. I for one ( and I am not alone) do not consider abortion murder. No one has the right to tell me what to do with my body.

    November 8, 2011 at 12:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dan

      Just because you don't like the name doesn't change the crime!

      November 8, 2011 at 12:11 pm | Report abuse |
      • Todd in DC

        Says the guy who can never be a 16 year old girl who fell in love with the one, only to find he felt differently.
        Says the guy who can never be a rape victim and pregnent as a result, and having to look at the baby and think, the dad is an animal.
        Says the guy who can never be inches from death, and only be rescued by terminating the pregnancy.
        Says the guy who can never have to decide if a severly deformed baby needs to be terminated or not.

        November 8, 2011 at 12:46 pm | Report abuse |
      • Bob

        f Mississippi was serious about every life being sacred they would ban the death penelty. Weather this passes or not it is direct conflict with Roe VS Wade and will be struck down by the courts. No Body if forcing anyone to have an abortion and it is not right to force someone to carry an unwanted baby to term. I recomend that these people give classes on parenting we have too many juveniles now who don't have caring parents. An unwanted Baby becomes a burdon on scociety or a criminal in many cases. Rather than passing a law to stop people from ending an unwanted pregnancy how about getting people to agree to adopt babies that can't be cared for by their parents?

        November 8, 2011 at 1:06 pm | Report abuse |
      • Bob

        Of cource it's easy for Dan a man in his 60's and well beyond the age of getting a woman pregnant to see the truth.
        Since this won't affect you dan why dont we leave this up to the people it will affect? women of child bearing age

        November 8, 2011 at 1:13 pm | Report abuse |
  75. Bryan T

    I think the funniest thing about this whole deal is how ironic conservatives and right wingers are. They preach and preach about smaller government and less legislation getting in the way of the every day choices they make, and yet... they work so hard to get legislation passed that puts government directly in the way of choices. I would ask where the logic in that is, but logic went out the window long ago with conservatives.

    November 8, 2011 at 11:56 am | Report abuse |
  76. North00

    If this becomes law, isn't the State going to have to investigate every miscarriage to determine whether the mother's life style caused it, and therefore such conduct was an act of voluntary or involuntary manslaughter? Is their next step to outlaw menses because the egg is a potential life/person and shouldn't be thrown out with the trash?

    November 8, 2011 at 11:54 am | Report abuse |
    • Todd in DC

      It will provide many hours of work for lawyers. That helps the economy, right?

      November 8, 2011 at 12:49 pm | Report abuse |
  77. rstlne

    How very sanctimonious of you! As your name implies that you are a male, I must say that it is extremely judgmental of you to even mention "keeping your legs closed" as a viable method of birth control. Can you honestly say that you have never, even when a teenager, tried to convince a female to do just the opposite from that? Considering the pressure that I and my friends were under from teenage boys in high school, I find it extremely hypocritical of any male to take such a position. In addition, you never have to worry about having your own body invaded and forever changed by a pregnancy.

    If males were the ones getting pregnant and giving birth, we all know that abortion would not only be legal, it would also be paid for by the government! Climb down off of your high horse and just try to see the other side of this issue. No male should ever be allowed to tell a female what to do with her own body; you simply cannot understand the ramifications.

    An unborn fetus is a parasite – plain and simple. Until it can exist outside of the mother's body, a fetus drains her nutrition and her energy and literally always poses a risk to her life. A male has nothing to lose in this equation, therefore they should have no say over it.

    November 8, 2011 at 11:53 am | Report abuse |
    • marie569

      Right on, rstlne.

      November 8, 2011 at 12:17 pm | Report abuse |
  78. Garry

    So Dan, I hope you and those like you are ready to stand in line at the adoption clinic and take in these unwanted children of rape and incest that women will have no choice to do but carry them to term. This bill is ludicrous in what it does and to those who keep saying murder, murder, murder...I DARE you to be the first in line to adopt..otherwise keep your sanctimonious remarks to yourselves. Women should NOT be dictated to by what others believe in or what the backwards government of a backwards state thinks!

    November 8, 2011 at 11:50 am | Report abuse |
    • ladydi

      IF IT'S GROWING, IT'S ALIVE!!!!! DAN – YOUR RIGHT – ITS MURDER!!!!

      November 8, 2011 at 12:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • GodisaPlacebo

      I guess I'm OK with this kind of "murder", as are many others.

      November 8, 2011 at 12:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • Deborah DeVane

      By you and Ladydi's standards then you can't in good conscience have a brain tumor or any form of cancer removed ... or even a wart or a mole. Hey... they are 'GROWING' cells and that would be MURDER MURDER MURDER!!!!!!!!!!!

      November 8, 2011 at 12:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • alumette

      funny some of these people who refuse to accept abortions are happy to send inmates to death row. Many of them actually being innocent. About them apples....bubba ?

      November 8, 2011 at 12:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • korihawk

      I work in the medical field. Not every conception will lead to a viable pregnancy. Now do we charge the doctor and mother with murder if she has an ectopic or a hydroform pregnancy. What if the pregnancy is going to produce a child that has no brain or will not live outside the womb. Do we force an individual to carry that child and give birth do it. Pregnancy has risks and health consequences and moral implications that are best left to the patient and doctor.. I have seen many many of the above cases. We don't hear about them because it is often very traumatic to the mother and family. Some of these cases results in the loss of fertility.

      November 8, 2011 at 12:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bob

      Dan you keep throwing around the MURDER term, Murder is a legal term with certain requirements.
      maybe you think it's murder but it isn't yet.

      November 8, 2011 at 1:16 pm | Report abuse |
  79. Johnson

    This is so typical of stupid southern attitudes. Women need to come up north when they need an abortion or in vitro. Minds are so small with their distorted view of the bible and insistance on imposing their will on others.

    November 8, 2011 at 11:46 am | Report abuse |
    • korihawk

      Abortions are safer than pregnancy. Its estimated between 50 to 70% of all all conceptions end in a natural abortion. HMM now I wonder how much that is going to cost the state to investigate every natural abortion. This amendment is dangerous and infringes on the rights of women. This should be a personal not a state decision.

      November 8, 2011 at 12:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • korihawk

      Get your facts straight dan. Less than 1% of all abortions happen after 20 weeks and almost all are due to health of mother or a non viable fetus. Most abortions happen before 10 weeks after conception.

      November 8, 2011 at 12:54 pm | Report abuse |
  80. us1776

    The GOP cannot win a straight up vote on abortion so now the GOP is trying to get "personhood" amendments on state ballots in order to trick people.

    .

    November 8, 2011 at 11:45 am | Report abuse |
  81. us1776

    If men could get pregnant then abortion would be a sacrament !!

    .

    November 8, 2011 at 11:44 am | Report abuse |
  82. jordan

    Mississippi’s Amendment 26 is an assault on all Americans who believe in Freedom.It is a woman's choice whether she wants to go thru with a childbirth.No one has the right to tell her what to do.This Mississippi’s Amendment 26 is a waste of time in these days.Why does this government not fix the Economy and stop arguing between the two Parties.There are more important issues than hassling women who have the right to freedom.

    November 8, 2011 at 11:43 am | Report abuse |
    • Pete H

      Yeah, those are living, breathing, walking, talking, human beings with all of their organs bones and muscles fully developed to the point where they can be self sustainable. But somehow you equate week old clumps of cells that cant think to human beings.

      November 8, 2011 at 12:09 pm | Report abuse |
  83. us1776

    Fertilization does not constitute a "person" it just begins the process of a "person under construction".

    Birth is the completion of the process with the emergence of an actual "person" and the start of "personhood".

    .

    November 8, 2011 at 11:43 am | Report abuse |
    • Deborah DeVane

      awwwww... can't win a 'reasoned' argument so you start getting snarky? tsk tsk tsk.

      November 8, 2011 at 12:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • Hey

      GOOD ONE, DAN. I see what you did there. Anal.

      November 8, 2011 at 1:19 pm | Report abuse |
  84. us1776

    The GOP wants all life to be born so that the GOP can promptly abandon that life.

    .

    November 8, 2011 at 11:42 am | Report abuse |
  85. us1776

    GOP = American Taliban

    .

    November 8, 2011 at 11:42 am | Report abuse |
  86. sush

    Dan, you are a guy and will never have a child. You get no say.

    There is joy in being a mother and there is a lot of burden being a single mother.

    November 8, 2011 at 11:40 am | Report abuse |
  87. Concerned woman

    If a fertilized egg is a person,what happens to a mother who has a miscarriage? Will she be charged with murder. Or will she be charged with the lesser offense of "failing to provide the necessities of life" which is child abuse? This is a very dangerous position.

    November 8, 2011 at 11:34 am | Report abuse |
    • Dan

      Assume you are aware that a miscarriage is a biological event caused by a number of things that are out of the control of the mother. Abortion on the other hand is a thought out process to terminate a life. Any questions!

      November 8, 2011 at 11:37 am | Report abuse |
      • sush

        Dan. Read the whole amendment. She will be charge with murder because there is no area for that.

        November 8, 2011 at 11:41 am | Report abuse |
      • Jennifer

        Yes, miscarriage is a biological event, but Prop 26 could potentially allow for criminal investigation over whether a miscarriage was caused by the woman's actions. This law is just too vague to vote yes on, regardless of whether you are pro-life or pro-choice.

        November 8, 2011 at 11:50 am | Report abuse |
      • Pete H

        First off, Dan, you need to learn how to write.

        Assume you are aware that getting raped or having birth control fail is out of your control. Assume you are aware that a woman's financial and social stability isn't affected by things that are out of her control. Assume you are aware that a woman's mental and physical health are things that are out of their control. Assume you know that having a choice IS NOT a black and white, clear cut decision. Choosing to have an abortion doesn't involve going, "Hmmmm, lets murder this baby." As the author said, it is one of the most painful and emotional things you'll ever go through in your life. Ulttimately, the woman chooses the best path for her, assuming she's still at the point where she's just carrying a clump of cells only a few weeks in the making. The women, before they go down the road of pregnancy or abortion, that simply have to go through the process of making the choice, is something that you, all males, and all pro-lifers will NEVER EVER be able to comprehend. For you to lazily classify that decision as murder or the women as murderers shows how dogmatic and cynical you are.

        November 8, 2011 at 12:03 pm | Report abuse |
      • Conrad

        Dan- If only the world and its issues were as black and white as you imply. The issue of pro-life vs. pro-choice is as complicated as, well, life. There are no easy answers. Sorry.

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

      Its cool females have no rights now, i guess cells are what matter, and woman dont.
      Then again thats what happens when a bunch of nut jobs get together and start plotting on how to bring woman down even more. i mean pssssssh woman are not people now are they. Or at least that seems to be the case here....

      November 8, 2011 at 11:41 am | Report abuse |
  88. Kirsty

    Welcome to the new dark ages sadly....

    November 8, 2011 at 11:34 am | Report abuse |
    • Dan

      Not nearly as dark as the murder of innocences; don't want to have a child then don't have sex. Lots of artificial ways to relieve ones selfs sexual tensions that don't involve the potential for murder. Simply put, you take an innocent life you commit murder, plain and simple.

      November 8, 2011 at 11:40 am | Report abuse |
      • Kirsty

        And you sir are a nut job.

        November 8, 2011 at 11:42 am | Report abuse |
      • sush

        I will lol if that unwanted child turns out to be the states problem or a savage murderer.

        You prolifers turn you back on the mom as soon as the child is born and call her unfit and inadequate when you se fit. You make me sick.

        November 8, 2011 at 11:44 am | Report abuse |
      • Sandra

        Dan, your responses on here make it absolutely clear that abortion MUST be an alternative.

        November 8, 2011 at 11:46 am | Report abuse |
      • Michael

        So Dan, how long should a 13-year-old girl raped by her father go to prison for? Or a woman with an ectopic pregnancy? Or is some "life" less equal than others?

        November 8, 2011 at 1:04 pm | Report abuse |
      • Bob

        instead of trying to justify your position dan why dont you sign up to adopt some of these babies as an alternative to abortion. maybe some poor lady would give you her sick child she never wanted to have

        November 8, 2011 at 1:25 pm | Report abuse |