Posted on 11/08/2011 7:53:00 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY
JACKSON, Miss. (AP) -- Mississippi voters shot down a referendum Tuesday that would have effectively banned abortions in the state, rejecting an initiative that said life begins at conception.
The so-called personhood initiative was rejected by more than 55 percent of voters. If it had passed, it was virtually assured of drawing legal challenges because it conflicts with the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established a legal right to abortion.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Yep, you’re now the bastion of virtue in the middle of another iniquitous 49. Tough spot to be in!
Still, a modified measure that would make explicit triage provisions for pregnancy and would delay the positive recognition of life until a heartbeat was present, would probably sail by easily in MS. That would cover most, if not all, common abortion situations without implicating alleged abortifacients.
Of course they spin it like crazy, its what leftists do to defend their “turf”
So, you don’t believe in the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...”
And folks wonder why the country is in the shape it is in.
Figured I needed to clarify because, sadly, even at FR we can be misinterpreted.
Funny how implausible and extreme laws lead to implausible or extreme scenarios.
So, do you have an answer? I mean, if it's two 1 year old babies vs. 1 10 year old girl, I'll take the babies out of the burning building. I wouldn't be happy about it but it's better than letting all three burn.
But I'm not even considering carting the cooler full of embryos out of the burning building, and you, or ANY poster on this thread, wouldn't consider it either.
Admit it. When the chips are down, and it really would matter, nobody ACTUALLY thinks a fertilized egg is a person or would treat it as such.
There is nothing in there that would ban birth control.
You fell for the leftwing propaganda it sounds like.
You would probably join Peter Singer and save the dog and let the kid drown it sounds like.
I do not fault the proposition for what it wanted. But too many are running crazy panicking to sell it. So should we do less, or nothing at all. I’m talking only of positive protections, that the law has no choice but to provide. Skirt the quibbles by stating less than we would want, but enough to get the votes and enough to cover most of the carnage. Taking it to the point of a heartbeat, or even to the point of a functioning nervous system, would be defensible in new arguments against the old Roe v. Wade.
It was an all-or-nothing group from Colorado who came in and pushed this. Haley Barbour said if Miss had formulated this initiative on their own with the correct provisions for a mother’s life, it would have passed.
Do you think Thomas Jefferson thought an embryo was a man?
In 1776 people didn’t even know how fertilization worked; there were people that thought sperm contained an entire embryo well into the 19th century.
So do you think Thomas Jefferson thought a spermatozoa was a man?
Yet their extreme version got what, 45% of the votes in Mississippi?
If anything it served as a trial balloon to suggest that a “legal compromise” is within reach.
What didn't you like about what the poster said? Do you think that women who have tubal pregnancies should die along with their unborn child? Or are you saying that there was no problem with the wording of the bill? Or something else?
Oh go torch your strawmen somewhere private. This didn’t cover spermatazoa.
Still waiting for an answer rather than fabricated ad hominems.
I made it clear I’d try save the largest number of actual human beings I could.
If the 10 year old girl was my niece, and I didn’t know the two babies, in the heat of the moment in all honesty, I must admit I might save my niece.
Since you haven’t answered, based on your support of the Mississippi initiative, I assume you’re lugging the cooler full of embryos out of the building while you hear the screams of the dying 10 year old girl you left behind.
Really? Cross your heart, hope to die, really you’d do that?
EV: “...your rights are not superior to any human being who is currently at that stage.”
Even if I agree with you, the majority do not. That’s the point I was trying to make. Most people simply don’t consider the pill to be a murder weapon. Again, what you or I believe is politically irrelevant if we cannot convince a majority of voters to agree. In the case of abortion, I’d rather save most unborn babies (by enacting reasonable restrictions supported by political majorities) than stand on moral principle and save none.
GeronL: “You fell for the leftwing propaganda it sounds like.”
I simply read the proposed amendment. If a zygote is a person, then it’s entitled to the same legal protections as any other person. That seems commonsense to me and has nothing to do with left or right wing.
Some of these scenarios sound like the high school question, debating the situation of a lifeboat containing “one too many” people to support — so who goes overboard?
The ACTUAL strawman is the implication that the Declaration of Independence had fertilized eggs in mind when it referred to “men” - and it wasn’t an implication made by me.
My point was if they DID in fact have fertilized eggs in mind in the Declaration of Independence, given the state of scientific understanding at the time, it’s quite possible that they actually had sperm in mind in the Declaration of Independence.
In which case, we need to go around locking up masturbating men, don’t you think?
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.