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

[blackout]

Meanwhile, if it gets passed, women will be convicted of murder while a supreme court decision that has already been made is again rehashed in usual tortoise fashion.

That shouldn't be allowed. The legal battle should have to occur before an ammendment like this is allowed to be passed.

And you know that even the moron residents of the state,
who supported the bill,
suddenly won't be so supportive of it
when it is their own daughter, or niece or wife
who is being charged and thrown in jail.
Well, the ones who actually love their female family members anyway.

It'll be a double win for all the rapists out there though.
And what of the incest rapes and pregnancies?
I dunno. It either traps, or criminalizes the young victims.

I wonder, will they execute the death penalty
on these murdering women?

And what of all of the orphaned children
whose mothers couldn't survive childbirth
and the children of mothers thrown in jail?
or sentenced with the death penalty as murderers rightly are.
Where do all of those children go?

I'd say it's time to move.:yes:

 

[Drolefille]

There's nothing stopping a woman from going to another state for legal services there, right?
(I didn't read the bill)

No, they can't prevent interstate travel even if they wanted to. I would think that would violate federal law or infringe on the federal government's purview at least. That said, the people who need help the most won't be able to afford to drive hours to one of the few clinics in other states. Access is already horrible, this just makes it worse.

 

[blackout]

No, they can't prevent interstate travel even if they wanted to. I would think that would violate federal law or infringe on the federal government's purview at least. That said, the people who need help the most won't be able to afford to drive hours to one of the few clinics in other states. Access is already horrible, this just makes it worse.

Yes, so only the rich will be able to travel for a legal abortion,
and come home with no legal consequences.

The poor and struggling middle class women will go to jail.
What else is new.

 

[Father Heathen]

How come it is only in the USA that states even consider this sort of law making.

Because a sizable portion of our population are christian fundamentalists, but you already knew that.

 

[Falvlun]

Donate to ActionAid | ActionAid

ActionAid: giving

The death of every single child by hunger that you cuold have solved by giving them all your money is in your hands.

The thing is a situation like the one you described is more shocking that the link that I sent you, and there will always be children dying of hunger, and we doing nothing to help them.

If what you say is correct then we have lenty more than the life of one kid at our hands, and that is all of us. Reality is that we don´t have a "moral responsability". It is not a "responsability". We should do it by iniciative, yes, but if we do not we are hardly to be blamed much.

You are absolutely correct in that there are so many children out there that require aid that we could provide for them. And yes, I do think we have a moral responsibility to them, and that we are morally culpable for not aiding them to the best of our ability.

We do, however, tend to feel more responsibility for things which are under our noses, so to speak. I do not know whether that can be considered good or bad; it just is. Generally, people will be much more outraged when you ignore the injured toddler lying in a street, than they will be when you ignore a starving child in Somalia.

Furthermore, your argument seems to be "Hey, look at all these kids we don't help! Therefore, I don't have a responsibility to help any kids!" That reasoning just doesn't fly. Which is worse: to help no kids or to help some kids?

I am sorry that your scenario didn´t manage this.

It was interesting nonetheless.

Let's take a less emotionally loaded scenario. Say you claim that you value your family's photograph albums just as much as you value that expensive Monet original hanging on your living room wall. Alas! A fire breaks out in your house, and you only have to choose to save either the painting or the albums. Which do you grab?

Your choice illustrates which you ultimately value more (assuming you just didn't toss a coin for it). If you give reasons why you chose one over the other, that further highlights the difference in value you actually place on each object.

That is precisely what happened in the toddler vs embryo scenario.

You are confusing killing with not saving again.

To kill a baby so you feel better about yourself is worst than to not give some bucks and save some african children (even when you do are able to save them).

I understand your distinction. Yes, purposefully killing a kid is worse than failing to save a kid. HOWEVER, you gave reasons why you would choose to save a toddler over 50 embryos. So there is a difference in the relative values of life. In other words, which do you think is worse: Killing an embryo or killing a toddler?

You have already essentially gave your answer to this: You believe that the death of the toddler is worse, hence the reason you would save the toddler over the 50 embryos.

Hence, when women choose to abort a fetus, they are doing something that is not the same as killing a child. To equate the two is dishonest, based upon your own answers in this thread.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Good reasons why Southerners should not have the right to make laws.

They sure have screwed the pooch out here in Texas. And just when we think it can't get any more brutally stupid, something like this pops up in Arizona or Mississippi.

It's refreshing that the extreme Republican stupidity is not sequestered in Texas.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

**If these inhumane religious wackos are so concerned about raped women not getting an abortion, they should stop raping people.

Then all will be well with the world.

 

[Me Myself]

You are absolutely correct in that there are so many children out there that require aid that we could provide for them. And yes, I do think we have a moral responsibility to them, and that we are morally culpable for not aiding them to the best of our ability.

We do, however, tend to feel more responsibility for things which are under our noses, so to speak. I do not know whether that can be considered good or bad; it just is. Generally, people will be much more outraged when you ignore the injured toddler lying in a street, than they will be when you ignore a starving child in Somalia.

Furthermore, your argument seems to be "Hey, look at all these kids we don't help! Therefore, I don't have a responsibility to help any kids!" That reasoning just doesn't fly. Which is worse: to help no kids or to help some kids?


Let's take a less emotionally loaded scenario. Say you claim that you value your family's photograph albums just as much as you value that expensive Monet original hanging on your living room wall. Alas! A fire breaks out in your house, and you only have to choose to save either the painting or the albums. Which do you grab?

Your choice illustrates which you ultimately value more (assuming you just didn't toss a coin for it). If you give reasons why you chose one over the other, that further highlights the difference in value you actually place on each object.

That is precisely what happened in the toddler vs embryo scenario.




I understand your distinction. Yes, purposefully killing a kid is worse than failing to save a kid. HOWEVER, you gave reasons why you would choose to save a toddler over 50 embryos. So there is a difference in the relative values of life. In other words, which do you think is worse: Killing an embryo or killing a toddler?

You have already essentially gave your answer to this: You believe that the death of the toddler is worse, hence the reason you would save the toddler over the 50 embryos.

Hence, when women choose to abort a fetus, they are doing something that is not the same as killing a child. To equate the two is dishonest, based upon your own answers in this thread.

1-I very clearly said that one day I might rescue the toddler the other the magicaly sustained by pixie powder embryos

2-It´s not "exactly" the same, but it still is the same. Methods of killing change things, a killing without sufering is not the same as a killing with suffering and a killing with suffering is worse (even if we are talking about the same "amount" of life value) .

Also the fact that the mothers do something that most society tells them is okay aliviates the "wrongness" of it in the same way racism and slavery would be "less wrong" in the times they were common because everyone was raised to think they were okay. They were still wrong, but you can hardly blame too much the people that did so in their time because their society had blinded them to what they did then.

So a mother would not be as bad a person as a common murderer because she has been **** to believe she is just chosing about her body as if her child was a disease. It is also not as bad because there is no suffering by the baby. In this regards it is different.

the reason your other example is not the same as this one is because human beings suffer and protraits don´t (besides, in this time photos are digital, I care little about paintings and photos a like! )

About being responsable to the african kids, well, then you too lost "moral grounds" for arguing

But I do disagree with that posture. I don´t feel we have moral obligation, I feel we should have the desire, but we are hardly to blame if we don´t help.

 

[Falvlun]

Most killers have had very *** lives too and kill as a result of all the pain they had through their lives. Killing makes them feel better, who are we to say that the pain that they heal in themselves is not greater than the pain that they cause?

Are you seriously equating the mindset of women who seek abortions with that of serial murderers?

Are you seriously equating the death of a child or an adult with that of an embryo or fetus? Even after you yourself felt that the death of 50 embryos wouldn't cause the same amount of pain as the death of a single toddler?

You think everyone should make their own opinions about every moral rule? Then everyone should be allowed to kill anyone. Who are you to tell them they should not kill? If it´s all just opinion then I think the opinion of the murderers in question should have more weight than your own.

We weren't talking about moral rules right there. We were talking about your opinion that abortion will cause more emotional damage than it prevents. That is something that is exceedingly subjective, and would vary from person to person. It is not for you or I to dictate how a woman will feel if she does or does not have an abortion. It is for the woman to determine that for herself.

As a society we vote and make rules (least in democracies). We rule murder out. As a society, the people in any place have the right to democraticaly say no to the murder of inocent baby childs in their mother´s womb.

to kill a baby inside the belly might not be "the same" than to kill a baby outside, but the principle of devaluying human life is there crystal clear and in the worst permisible ways: killing of the most inocent, vulnerable being allowed by she who is supposed to love him the most.

To protect the unborn is a noble call to protect for any society.

I agree that morality is often determined by culture. But this is a case where there is no general consensus. You call it murder, but other people simply do not consider it in that manner.

Everything that people believe moral or immoral is not legislated, or should be. For example, should we make it illegal to eat meat?

I do not think human life is devalued by allowing women to determine whether it is smart decision to bring another person in this world or not. As you yourself pointed out, we are not taking care of all the children that are already born. Let's focus on them, if we want to value human life.

compassion is independent of responsability. Compassion trascends responsability. I told you I would feel a moral impulse to save the child or the 50 babies, but a moral impulse and a moral responsability are not the same.

I wouldn´t do it because I "have" to. Compassion canonly happen because one WANTS to.

People that contribute here

Donate to ActionAid | ActionAid

Are not moraly responsable for those african kids, but they can help, and they feel the impulse/need/desire to do so.

Interesting distinction, and what you are saying makes sense in a way.

I suppose I personally feel that a moral impulse ("I feel that this is the right thing to do") is the same thing as a moral responsibility.

 

[Me Myself]

Are you seriously equating the mindset of women who seek abortions with that of serial murderers?

Are you seriously equating the death of a child or an adult with that of an embryo or fetus? Even after you yourself felt that the death of 50 embryos wouldn't cause the same amount of pain as the death of a single toddler?

My post previous to this one you are making should answer all of that i would believe.

We weren't talking about moral rules right there. We were talking about your opinion that abortion will cause more emotional damage than it prevents. That is something that is exceedingly subjective, and would vary from person to person. It is not for you or I to dictate how a woman will feel if she does or does not have an abortion. It is for the woman to determine that for herself.

ALL morality is subjective. Which one is "more subjective" than the other depends on consensus indeed. I am stating my opinion that is based on the indeed subjective feeling of how it should be.

You call it murder, but other people simply do not consider it in that manner.

Everything that people believe moral or immoral is not legislated, or should be. For example, should we make it illegal to eat meat?

Yes, I would love that meat eating became ilegal. Hopefully it will happebn eventually, the same way slavery and women discrimination or religious persecution became ilegal

You know in other times comparing the killing of a slave to the killing of a "citizen" would have been laughable. There would have not been a majority consensus that killing the slave was wrong or even as wrong as killing the master.

Yet we feel differently.

Again and for further specification, I am not saying that the killing of a baby in her mother´s belly is as bad as the killing of a person, because of all the suffering implicated in the latter manner exceeds the first. But I do still see it as a grave form of life de-valuation that shjould stop in times to come.

Interesting distinction, and what you are saying makes sense in a way.

I suppose I personally feel that a moral impulse ("I feel that this is the right thing to do") is the same thing as a moral responsibility.

I am glad you can see the inner workings of such conceptualization

I do understand what you are saying in a way too. We´ll agree to disagree in that regard then

 

[Awoon]

Defeated

 

[Drolefille]

Defeated

Thank the gods.

 

[Me Myself]

Defeated

?????

 

[Awoon]

?????

People voted it down.

 

[Alceste]

People voted it down.

* the sound of every woman of child-bearing age in Mississippi quietly breathing a sigh of relief *.

 

[Me Myself]

Sad decision for humanity everywhere u_u

 

[Alceste]

Sad decision for humanity everywhere u_u

Except for women.

 

[Me Myself]

Except for women.

Especially for women

 

[blackout]

Especially for women

Well we can all sit back and be thankful you won't be passing any laws.

 

[Father Heathen]

Sad decision for humanity everywhere u_u

How many poor, hungry, abused, neglected and/or unwanted children have you adopted? If you could have would be aborted fetuses implanted inside of your body for full gestation in order to save them, would you?