Mississippi Amendment Would Force Raped Women to Bear Rapist's Child

[Sunstone]

A fertilized egg is not a "baby". Have you ever seen a "baby" that looks like this?

Sure looks like a person to me.

 

[Drolefille]

True - Don't get me wrong, I know the SCOTUS will eventually strike down unconstitutional state laws or laws that violate SC decisions. But in the interim, there will be a lot of young women forced to become mothers against their will - until somebody decides to put up a fight. And if someone can afford the legal fees to fight the state up to the SC level, they can probably afford to have a baby or go out of state to get "illegal" birth control prescriptions or an abortion. It's up to the women of Mississippi if they want to deny reproductive choice to themselves and their daughters until the law gets overturned. That could take a while.

I am hoping (praying?) that if the amendment passes a lawsuit will be filed - likely the same day - and an injunction granted that will prevent it from going into effect. Even if one individual doesn't have the money to fight the state, organizations like the ACLU do. (I don't know if the ACLU would get involved here or if it would be another org, but someone like them.)

 

[Me Myself]

I agree, no killing babies. Babies are not fetuses. Pre-natal is different than post-natal.

I am sure putting it a different name makes it much easier to digest

Fetuses are 100% dependent on the mother's body to live and there is no way, up until the point of actual viability outside of the womb, to prohibit abortion without restricting the right of a woman to control her own body.

So what? Our rights end where there other people´s rights start.

The fact that she had no choice to what people did to hear is truly disgraceful, but to take away an inocent baby´s right to live should not be considered a reasonable response.

edit: and I don´t consider the woman who does this horrible or anything similar. I can understand the emotional reasons that would lead her to this, the same way I could understand a mother who vegefully kills his daughter´s killer, and I do symphatize for those reasons. This wouldn´t mean I believe this actions be correct naturaly.

 

[Me Myself]

A fertilized egg is not a "baby". Have you ever seen a "baby" that looks like this?

Apparently I am doing so right now.

Point?

 

[Alceste]

Apparently I am doing so right now.

Point?

My point is that that thing isn't a "baby". Is english your second language?

 

[Alceste]

I am hoping (praying?) that if the amendment passes a lawsuit will be filed - likely the same day - and an injunction granted that will prevent it from going into effect. Even if one individual doesn't have the money to fight the state, organizations like the ACLU do. (I don't know if the ACLU would get involved here or if it would be another org, but someone like them.)

I'd put my money on Planned Parenthood.

 

[Sunstone]

The fact that she had no choice to what people did to hear is truly disgraceful, but to take away an inocent baby´s right to live should not be considered a reasonable response.

You don't have a right to live until you're born, in my opinion.

 

[Me Myself]

My point is that that thing isn't a "baby". Is english your second language?

My point is that it is a baby even if it is not called a "baby".

You don't have a right to live until you're born, in my opinion.

I disagree.

 

[gnomon]

I do also. Those against the law can move to another State. The Southern strategy is to Socialise the South using the Bible.

When a right is given to be held by the individual citizen the State doesn't reserve that right for itself. Excepting in needs of incarceration where rights can be limited regarding criminal convictions the States only have those rights not already reserved by the people.

Took a long time, including a bloody war, to get that straightened out. It would be the most impractical move to revert back to any notion that it is the State's that reserve all rights and that the people and federal government only get those rights not already reserved by the State.

Of course, a law defining a zygote as a legal person de facto grants those reserved rights to the zygote. Which will probably far more problematic for the State than just abortion issues. Can't think of any of the top of my head. I'll leave that for the ambulance chasers to dream up.

 

[Darkness]

We probably should have let the Southern States succeed from the Union. Honestly, I do not think of the South as really part of the United States. Its values are so disparate from those of the Northeast that I feel like we live in two different countries. The United States does not work as a unified nation, because Northerners hate Southern values and vice versa. Maybe we should dissolve the U.S. into a confederacy of four regional nations: Northeast, South, Midwest and West.

 

[Falvlun]

Apparently I am doing so right now.

Point?

I have presented this scenario before, but it deserves mention here:

A fire breaks out in a fertility clinic. You have the choice to grab a frightened 2 year old, separated from her parents, or a transport bucket full of 50 fertilized eggs. You can't grab both. Which do you choose?

 

[Me Myself]

I have presented this scenario before, but it deserves mention here:

A fire breaks out in a fertility clinic. You have the choice to grab a frightened 2 year old, separated from her parents, or a transport bucket full of 50 fertilized eggs. You can't grab both. Which do you choose?

Very interesting scenario.

To tel you what I would actually do would be imposible because this hasn´t happened to me. Maybe I just ran in fear and don´t grab any of them (wouldn´t want to think I´ll do that, naturaly )

Now I as a person has always believed one should try the imposible if worthy enough. I might try to grab both even if that might mean none would survive. I would like to think I would give my life if it was needed so both could survive.

 

[Alceste]

Very interesting scenario.

To tel you what I would actually do would be imposible because this hasn´t happened to me. Maybe I just ran in fear and don´t grab any of them (wouldn´t want to think I´ll do that, naturaly )

Now I as a person has always believed one should try the imposible if worthy enough. I might try to grab both even if that might mean none would survive. I would like to think I would give my life if it was needed so both could survive.

The fertilized eggs in a fertility clinic come from donors. They are refrigerated and can't survive outside the lab even if you risk the life of the toddler in order to grab the eggs.

 

[Me Myself]

The fertilized eggs in a fertility clinic come from donors. They are refrigerated and can't survive outside the lab even if you risk the life of the toddler in order to grab the eggs.

Well, things get very simple then

 

[Drolefille]

I am sure putting it a different name makes it much easier to digest

You're eating fetuses?

OHhhhh you meant the moral consequences? No, putting the correct name on things keeps people from thinking the egg they eat for breakfast is the biological equivalent of a baby chick. (Of course since most people eat unfertilized eggs these days, it's actually the equivalent of menstruation.)

So what? Our rights end where there other people´s rights start.

So you agree with me?
Any rights that a fetus might have ends where the woman's begin. She has the right not to feed and support anything with her body for any period of time. She has the right to have any medical procedure that she and her doctor of choice think necessary.

edit: and I don´t consider the woman who does this horrible or anything similar. I can understand the emotional reasons that would lead her to this, the same way I could understand a mother who vegefully kills his daughter´s killer, and I do symphatize for those reasons. This wouldn´t mean I believe this actions be correct naturaly.

So, a murderer is a murderer except when a murderer isn't a murderer?
Either it's murder or it isn't.

 

[Drolefille]

Well, things get very simple then

Which is our point.

 

[Me Myself]

You're eating fetuses?

But I was so careful! How did you found out!

OHhhhh you meant the moral consequences? No, putting the correct name on things keeps people from thinking the egg they eat for breakfast is the biological equivalent of a baby chick. (Of course since most people eat unfertilized eggs these days, it's actually the equivalent of menstruation.)

The language can be used in many ways. Mother that love their childs always talk about the "baby" inside them and do so with love because they understand aliving being inside her. To fight over a word which is specificaly put there to convey human value and emotional meaning is basicaly to fight against this human values and emotional meanings for the case that they are being refered to (in this case, what I would indeed call a baby)

Language has been made for human beings, not human beings made for language.

So you agree with me?
Any rights that a fetus might have ends where the woman's begin. She has the right not to feed and support anything with her body for any period of time. She has the right to have any medical procedure that she and her doctor of choice think necessary.

No, we have different definitions of where the line is put.

If I had a siamesse twin that I wanted to get rid of but also know that the surgery would only make me survive and him die, it doesn´t matter how much right I have over my body,my body is being shared and another human being´s life depends onmy body, so proceding with the operation would be homicide.

So, a murderer is a murderer except when a murderer isn't a murderer?
Either it's murder or it isn't.

....so?

Maybe I wasn´t clear. I said that I can symphatize with the reasons why they could do that, not that the act is okay. Other words "Condemn the sin no the sinner"

 

[Falvlun]

Very interesting scenario.

To tel you what I would actually do would be imposible because this hasn´t happened to me.

Never having been pregnant and having to choose whether the best option would be to abort it or not hasn't stopped you from declaring an opinion on that.

Maybe I just ran in fear and don´t grab any of them (wouldn´t want to think I´ll do that, naturaly )

Now I as a person has always believed one should try the imposible if worthy enough. I might try to grab both even if that might mean none would survive. I would like to think I would give my life if it was needed so both could survive.

Humor me. Make it perfectly simple: Nothing you can do will allow both to survive. You have the moral fortitude to grab one of them before you flee. If you choose to grab the embryos, with my magic fairy powder I will make sure that they survive until they can be safely placed back into a non-burning fertility clinic.

You see the point, surely. It would be a pretty strange person that would be able to ignore the life of a terrified two year old, and a pretty normal response to not give a second thought to the cooler. This demonstrates that we clearly don't view embryos as people-- or at least, not nearly as valuable-- as a child that has already been born.

 

[Father Heathen]

States rights

It's funny how conservatives push for states rights, but then change their tune when it comes to gay marriage.

 

[Drolefille]

But I was so careful! How did you found out!



The language can be used in many ways. Mother that love their childs always talk about the "baby" inside them and do so with love because they understand aliving being inside her. To fight over a word which is specificaly put there to convey human value and emotional meaning is basicaly to fight against this human values and emotional meanings for the case that they are being refered to (in this case, what I would indeed call a baby)

Why assume that the mother is correct and that biologists are not? Emotional reality isn't reality. A fertilized egg isn't a baby by any definition but the most stretched, and if so, then every woman's body is a murderer.

Until it is a separate entity or capable of becoming one I don't have any real concerns with a woman not wanting to raise it off of her body. If there were an artificial womb that a fetus could be transferred into, I'd probably support that over an abortion that destroys (or kills if you prefer) a fetus. But I don't support requiring a woman to nourish something from her own body without her consent.

Language has been made for human beings, not human beings made for language.

And yet, embryo and fetus are far more accurate words. Using the word 'baby' can be emotionally manipulative in the same way you accuse scientific language of being emotionally distancing.

No, we have different definitions of where the line is put.

Indeed, but we share the concept.

If I had a siamesse twin that I wanted to get rid of but also know that the surgery would only make me survive and him die, it doesn´t matter how much right I have over my body,my body is being shared and another human being´s life depends onmy body, so proceding with the operation would be homicide.

There was actually a case where two conjoined (not siamese, please) twins would have died were they not separated. The parents did not want them separated, because if it were done, one would die, though the other would have a chance to live. The court ordered the surgery be done to save the life of the one child who could survive.

Without the surgery, two deaths. With the surgery one life, one death. This law would prohibit a similar course of action, even with consent fully and freely given, to save a woman's life.

....so?

Maybe I wasn´t clear. I said that I can symphatize with the reasons why they could do that, not that the act is okay. Other words "Condemn the sin no the sinner"

I really hate that line. "I hate what you do but I still love you!" can wear really thin.

But would you support charging mothers who get abortions with some form of murder? What about mothers who use drugs while pregnant and miscarry? What about mothers who participate in aggressive sports and are injured and miscarry? Manslaughter?