Posted on 11/08/2011 7:53:00 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY
Look, this got 45% of MS’s votes.
The rednecks are angry at the baby killers! (Who mostly kill NON rednecks, by the way.)
If you do not want this kind of a fundamental chaos, well then propose some kind of legal compromise, that would set a firm floor to the gestational age of a “person.”
Because the rednecks are angry.
Grunthor's point which you sadly missed is that Mississippi is already the most restrictive state over abortion in the union and there are actually very few abortions performed there...a few years ago there were no clinics left though I heard some black lady doctors have started one up again in Jackson under a chain abortion provider...and they were big in this fight where they drummed home the flaws in the law with national pro abort funding
hence if you can't get a personhood referendum passed in Mississippi then good luck elsewhere...shame...it needed to be tightened up..with exceptions or clarifications about in vitro and tubal etc...
chances are it will be back..
By the way, I think Roe vs. Wade is one of the stupidest decisions in the history of the Supreme Court from a legal standpoint, and it should be overturned.
In an ideal universe, I might like to ban late-term abortions.
I honestly would strongly urge someone I knew who came to me for advice about an abortion (which, I must say, doesn’t seem to happen very often)to consider adoption.
But I’d never actually vote to ban abortion in a state initiative, or as a legislator. or as a National Constitutional Amendment, because of definitional problems.
It is indeed ridiculous to consider a fetus not a person at the end of the second trimester, for example, but a person at the beginning of the third trimester.
However, it’s infinitely more ridiculous, and clearly not an answer, to then proclaim a zygote a person in the full force of law, and results in a wide variety of unenforceable and ridiculous implications.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
On one hand, it is very saddening that this measure did not pass. But on the other hand, if the majority can "rule" that life begins at conception - or that it does not - majority can also rule that life ends at 60, or 70, or if someone is so ill they cannot speak, etc. Mob rule - pure democracy - is not the way our Constitutional Republic is meant to run. Of course, it would be a good sign if the majority of voters in Mississippi understood the difference between life and a lifeless stone, but considering how ignorant many people are about life, and also how many people are easily swayed by leftist propaganda, this vote should not be surprising.
Who knows what it would have taken to get the 5% more votes to pass it? Triage provisions (life of mother/siblings)? Firm floor at either appearance of heart beat or operational nervous system? The difference between legal and moral compromises has to be kept very clear here. Asking too much legally, you get nothing and get a big bust morally.
Umm, no. An embryo by definition has been fertilized. Frozen embryos are people under the Mississippi initiative.
You're just not putting two and two together. The same US Constitution that protects the rights of persons also protects against unequal treatment under the law. Constitutionally, you couldn't say it's OK to murder a one-celled zygote person but protect others. You'd have to give that single cell the same protection as any other person, and that, my FRiend, opens up a slew of complex legal issues. You shouldn't go around demonizing everyone who voted against this amendment simply because they correctly see the issue as more complicated than what you're willing to admit.
you forget ,in your inane example, to mention what year it was.....it was the year zero and you know that one of the embryos belongs to a gal named Mary. You save the cooler, Jesus, as an embryo saves the 10 year old, and everyone lives happily ever after (I think that the kid was Mary Magdeline)...That is clearly pointed out in the bible somewhere
Theodore R. wrote:
It sounds like the anti-Obama feelings from the 2009 and 2010 elections are gone even in conservative states.
**************************************************************
How do you figure? Voters overwhelming upheld Issue 3 on the Ohio ballot, which rejects the federal government from requiring Ohio residents to participate in Obamacare. In a major swing state necessary to win the presidency, that’s a huge blow to Obama!
SILLY
I think you must be thinking frozen eggs, not embryos...because the latter is most certainly fertilized and has developed beyond the zygote stage.
Until they can figure out who broke the law (doctor, mother...both?) and just what the penalty will be, you will never see a change in Roe v Wade.
How about this example:
If there is a clear contradiction between life of mother and unborn such as in the case where a mother needs chemo to survive, will a court need to rule on which one should live or die?
“it was the year zero and you know that one of the embryos belongs to a gal named Mary.”
What if one of the embyos grows up to be Charles Manson?
What some people are doing on the thread is focusing on fertilized embryos that were conceived via IVF.
Even though most fertilized embryos live inside the mother’s body.
It’s a disgusting de-personalizing technique.
When life begins should not be subject to majority vote. The proposer of this measure should, IMO, re-think how they’re going to go about this. I wish them well.
Strategerist wrote:
“Umm, no. An embryo by definition has been fertilized. Frozen embryos are people under the Mississippi initiative.”
**************************************************************
Ok, fine... But you never addressed the rest of my point. If in your case scenario, I only have time to rescue the unconscious 10-year-old girl, that wouldn’t necessarily mean I value the embryos I had to leave behind any less. That’s a very poor analogy at trying to argue the case for abortion, if that’s you’re intention here, because if given the opportunity I’d probably try to save both.
And again, if you had to choose between rescuing an unconscious 10-year-old girl or unconscious 1-year-old baby boy in a fire, but not both, and you choose to save the baby, would it be fair to deduce that you value the lives of 10-year-olds or girls in general less?
That’s why I am speaking of a floor, a point at which it becomes unambiguous in statute the law must act. All statutes are “subject to majority vote” — does that mean we should genteelly refrain from passing laws that ban shooting your neighbor to death?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.