Missisippi Constitution, Possible Amendment 26

...positivism means something different to me than it probably means to you, Savage. I suggest you PM me if it concerns you, though, since it's not exactly relevant...

I am now known as Flyboy.

I know I brought this argument up at least once in that thread, but I wouldn't be surprised if you missed it in the multi-pronged tennis match that dominated the rest of it.

As for this "ella" you mention, I've never heard any such thing, and I follow a number of blogs that follow the reproductive health situation pretty closely. It also doesn't track with what I know about Planned Parenthood.

And it's also off-topic.

Mississippi isn't the first state to pull this sort of BS, by the way. A number of states have either voted on similar laws and amendments before or have them waiting in the wings to be voted on. They tend to either fail—often because enough legislators realize exactly what I pointed out above about the feasibility of treating the unborn as citizens—or get struck down by a federal court.

Personally, although I still consider myself as anti-abortion, I really don't think banning it will do us any favors anymore. I'd rather just attack the reasons for making it necessary, as per the mother, so as to reduce the overall need for it to happen in the first place.

Sex ed, birth control, and proper welfare and wage/labor reform. Materialism and Karl Marx: fix the economic system and you fix society.

Well... Weber and Durkheim complicated things, but...

/sociology derail aversion.

Anyhow, I think this is idiotic because it won't actually help in the matter. Such is why I disdain the vast majority of the pro-life movement: they want to destroy abortion while destroying everything that limits abortion... o_o

Edit:

I found it randomly while researching for a paper on the FDA, so I didn't save it. I regret that, now. I'll go see if I can dig it up...

edited 14th Oct '11 12:01:15 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

...

I'm having trouble formulating a response to this topic. I'm just kind of flabergasted. I'd probably do okay living in the Bible Belt, but... no. No, I don't think I'd want to live there. Ever. I wouldn't enjoy living amongst modern-day legalistic Pharisees.

My wife chooses to use the Norplant shot thing, as it stops eggs from leaving the ovaries, thus preventing fertilization. It was her decision based on her religious convictions (which I share), and I support her decision to use it. No mess, no fuss, nothing to forget, and it's not terribly expensive (but it's partially covered under my health plan, so eh).

I'm sure some really right-wing conservatives would have a problem with that, even.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

If these polticians were smart they should have made an order that their should be a possible shelter for women who are pregnant and of need of a home in every town/city.

If they were smart, they wouldn't be doing this at all.

Really, reducing abortion is merely a matter of swallowing pride. The pro-life movement, as a generality, refuses to accept that birth control significantly reduces the number of abortions that happen. Instead, they try to have their cake and eat it too.

It doesn't work like that.

Either the pro-life movement accepts that they must reduce wealth disparity and uplift the poor, as well as provide sex ed and birth control cheaply (if not for free), or they accept that abortions will continue.

Considering there's been upwards of forty million abortions since Roe vs. Wade, I sincerely doubt they want it to go on as such. Last I saw, it's about 900,000 a year, give or take, too, so every year they stall is about a million more fetuses destroyed...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Well, then Roe vs Wade has been a bulwark against overpopulation. Why'd anybody want to break it?

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

...that's not a very good argument, Savage.

I am now known as Flyboy.

I could get behind that position. I was thinking about starting an over-population solutions thread soon.

Please.

Preventing a pregnancy and ending a pregnancy are equally effective when it comes to slowing population growth. But prevention is much cheaper and less painful for everyone involved. Even the most adamant pro-choicer (*waves*) prefers prevention.

I wonder how the proponents of this bill would want to handle cases of human chimerism, when two or more early embryos fuse in the womb and continue as a single normal*

embryo. There was a case once where a blood test revealed that a woman's own children were not genetically hers. Obviously this is ridiculous, so they did some more testing and discovered that she was a chimera, and her blood had a different genome than her ovaries. I suppose she should have promptly been arrested for murdering and devouring her twin sibling in the womb.

edited 14th Oct '11 12:58:27 PM by Karalora

Nope. She just now needs to pay taxes twice in Mississippi.

Please.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Does she also get to vote twice?

Of course not, that would violate the principles of "one person, one vote!" We sure would like the extra money, though!

I am now known as Flyboy.

That's why the court systems need to be able to challenge these sorts of things; aren't there medical procedures for inducing a miscarriage when the mother's life is threatened? This is a thing that happens; the case WILL have to go before the Supreme Court (of Missisippi) sooner or later.

This is the latest step in a string of pro-life getting passed because of fears a court challenge before the current SCOTUS was reverse Roe V. Wade, with Bush having appointed a few justices and Obama only having replaced the "liberal wing".

Dumbo

God damn is that amendent stupid as fuck. It's honestly less intelligent than wrapping one's dick in foil and thrusting into a damned light socket.

Hopefully that amendment will fail.

Okay so they're gong to state that life begins at fertilization and that once fertilized, it's a human being entitled to protection.

Is that basically the gist of the bill?

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

Yes.

And any attempts to abort or PREVENT fertilization is as good as murder, while accidental miscarriages will be equated to manslaughter. Because it's not INTENTIONALLY killing the fetus, but they still need to hammer home that "Miscarriage is Murder."

Well, I have no problem with the bill itself. It's the follow-on effects that will cause a bunch of problems.

I suspect that they'll have to regulate or ban contraceptive methods that are abortive in nature, rather than those methods that prevent fertilization from taking place at all.

So things like the IUD won't fly there, while a cervical cap would.

Also, yeah - how will they differentiate a natural miscarriage (they happen), from "eeeevil abortion" stuff? Will they freak out over a stillbirth?

edited 15th Oct '11 12:39:56 PM by pvtnum11

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

Pvt: The very wording and nature of this bill ignores common sense and reason. I am dissappointed someone had the gall to propose this. The strcuture of this bill seems to only support the bad ideas and force an ideology down the throats of others.

Wow sorry there lost my thought and accidentally sent it.

edited 15th Oct '11 6:45:22 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

Wait wait wait, I'm a little confused here. Since when did preventing conception from happening in the first place (via condoms or birth control) become the same as ending an existing conception?

So if I could have gotten a woman pregnant, but didn't for a reason I chose to make, does that mean I killed the baby that never happened?

Byte Me

This bill is pretty much the definition of Insane Troll Logic.

I may have exaggerated things; they're hinting at plans to regulate contraception because I'm guessing they think it interferes with THE NATURAL ORDER OF THINGS.

Yes.

By definition, a contraceptive method cannot be abortive in nature. If conception has been contravened, there is nothing to abort.

Actually, even something like an IUD is not abortive per se, because it operates before pregnancy begins. Abortion being defined as the termination of a pregnancy, and pregnancy beginning at implantation (not conception)*

, an IUD is a non-contraceptive, non-abortive birth control method.

Not that I imagine any of this will change the opinions of people who think zygotes are people. But I wanted to clear up the terminology.

By the way, some people do consider the regular, everyday birth control pill to be "abortion." Google "The Pill Kills" for some of their nonsense.

edited 15th Oct '11 9:17:14 PM by Karalora

So, here's my question here.

If I just decide to marry someone, and we never have sex (hypothetically speaking) would that make me a murderer under this law, because we "could have" had children? ._.

go ahead and do every stupid thing you can imagine