Personhood vote in Mississippi defeated
Tags:
- Politics
Last response: in News & Leisure
l0ckd0wn
November 10, 2011 1:51:56 AM
Oldmangamer_73
November 10, 2011 1:06:50 PM
Gov. Barbour said it best I think.
Gov. Haley Barbour raised concerns last week on national television. The two-term governor, who leaves office in January, said he was worried the proposition was “ambiguous” and worried about how it might affect in vitro fertilization and ectopic pregnancies.
Read more: http://www.sunherald.com/2011/11/09/3565069/personhood-...
Not sure I understand the purpose of the amendment either. Is it a precursor to ban abortion in the state?
Gov. Haley Barbour raised concerns last week on national television. The two-term governor, who leaves office in January, said he was worried the proposition was “ambiguous” and worried about how it might affect in vitro fertilization and ectopic pregnancies.
Read more: http://www.sunherald.com/2011/11/09/3565069/personhood-...
Not sure I understand the purpose of the amendment either. Is it a precursor to ban abortion in the state?
chunkymonster
November 10, 2011 1:14:17 PM
I was glad to see the abortion issue addressed at the State level rather than by a government mandate and Federal fiat. Voting personhood down is Mississippi is an excellent example of the People of Mississippi exercising State's rights, is in the spirit and intention of State sovereignty, and where the decision to condone or condemn abortions should reside.
IMO,Roe vs Wade should be overturned, is an example of legislating morality, any Federal mandate should be stricken. The State's should have a referendum on how the People in that State choose to address abortion. If the People in your State want abortion, and you don't agree, then you are free to move to a State that is in favor of abortion; again, this is in the spirit and the intention of State sovereignty and a case for limited Federal government.
IMO,Roe vs Wade should be overturned, is an example of legislating morality, any Federal mandate should be stricken. The State's should have a referendum on how the People in that State choose to address abortion. If the People in your State want abortion, and you don't agree, then you are free to move to a State that is in favor of abortion; again, this is in the spirit and the intention of State sovereignty and a case for limited Federal government.
Oldmangamer_73
November 10, 2011 1:19:56 PM
l0ckd0wn
November 10, 2011 8:15:03 PM
chunkymonster said:
IMO,Roe vs Wade should be overturned, is an example of legislating morality, any Federal mandate should be stricken. The State's should have a referendum on how the People in that State choose to address abortion. If the People in your State want abortion, and you don't agree, then you are free to move to a State that is in favor of abortion; again, this is in the spirit and the intention of State sovereignty and a case for limited Federal government.
I agreed with both the responses (Oldman, chunky) up to this point and the main reason I disagree with it is a fundamental constitutional issue of the right over one's self.
We already have to many paternal laws on the books dictating the way we live our lives. Roe vs Wade established a baseline for women to make decisions governing their own body, and this fundamental right (IMO) trumps that of the parasitic being that could be growing in her womb. I use parasite as an example of a creature that cannot survive outside of it's host, and only after roughly 6-7 months can that parasite even remotely function on it's own and generally not without intensive medical care. Now I'll come out and admit that I myself knocked up a young woman roughly 7 years ago. We chose to not keep the child for the benefit of both of our lives as we were fairly young and naive about raising a child. This took a lot of discussion between the two of us and still till this day rests in the back of my mind with questions like, "What would your son/daughter have been like?" or, "Where would I be now if (Ms. X) and I kept the child?" One thing for sure did happen though; we never made the mistake again and I have not made that mistake again with anyone else. I learned my lesson and deal with a bit of guilt on the very topic, but it still doesn't trump the right of the woman to decide the best path for her own well being and health. (Just a small bit of personal experience of where my own opinion was cemented into place.)
As for the personhood amendment, I think Mississippians stood up and made it clear that a small fringe isn't going to dictate to the whole state how to live their lives.
As for what the amendment would have done; it would have outlawed abortion in all regards, including rape and incest. It also would have outlawed IVF (in-vitro fertilization) along with a number of medical procedures including some forms of contraception/birth-control. It over reached extremely far into "government nanny" territory and would have made procedures to save a woman's life during pregnency complications, putting the doctors at risk of retaliation by the state.
Oldmangamer_73
November 10, 2011 8:42:18 PM
l0ckd0wn said:
As for what the amendment would have done; it would have outlawed abortion in all regards, including rape and incest. It also would have outlawed IVF (in-vitro fertilization) along with a number of medical procedures including some forms of contraception/birth-control. It over reached extremely far into "government nanny" territory and would have made procedures to save a woman's life during pregnency complications, putting the doctors at risk of retaliation by the state.
I didn't get that from reading up on it. It might have been a precursor to a later court challenge to accomplish that, but this particular amendment would not have done what you say.
Also, it would only affect the state, not the country. At least until other states began posing challenges in court as well. In this day and age, I can't see that many states even willing to take it on.
l0ckd0wn
November 10, 2011 9:24:15 PM
Oldmangamer_73 said:
I didn't get that from reading up on it. It might have been a precursor to a later court challenge to accomplish that, but this particular amendment would not have done what you say.Also, it would only affect the state, not the country. At least until other states began posing challenges in court as well. In this day and age, I can't see that many states even willing to take it on.
This article talks a bit about what I was mentioning earlier. Specifically the birth control ramifications and the possible effect on the national scale.
Had this passed, it could have been the benchmark for an all out assault on Roe vs Wade - That's national scale if there ever was one for the anti-abortionists.
Oldmangamer_73
November 11, 2011 2:31:10 AM
wanamingo
November 11, 2011 11:10:21 AM
l0ckd0wn
November 13, 2011 12:47:52 AM
Oldmangamer_73 said:
Even if Roe v. Wade was over turned it would not make abortion illegal. It would only throw the issue back to each individual state. Which is what monster referenced in his first post.Well aware of that, thus I said "the possible effect on a national scale." Throwing this issue back down to the states would be a pretty big deal, biggest in the last 40 years on the abortion topic.
Read discussions in other News & Leisure categories
!