Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

[Juan_Bottom]

http://yeson26.net/
http://personhoodmississippi.com/amendment-26/why.aspx

• If Mississippians vote Yes on Amendment 26, all human beings would be ensured equal rights in our state & protection under law - regardless of their size, location or developmental stage.
• If Mississippians vote Yes on Amendment 26 - Abortion will be outlawed. Unborn children will no longer be killed "legally". Mothers in crisis will be protected from a harmful medical procedure.
• If Mississippians vote Yes on Amendment 26 - human cloning, embryo stem cell research, and other forms of medical cannibalism would be effectively stopped - which would focus the attention of medical researchers on approaches that have been proven to actually work (like adult stem cells) and do not require the killing of an innocent Person
• If Mississippians vote Yes on Amendment 26 - a legal challenge will be set up to the unconstitutional court ruling "Roe-v-Wade" that allegedly "legalized" abortion. Court decisions do not make law because courts are not given the authority to make law. However, when court rulings are treated like law they have the effect of law. When a court makes a horribly unjust, immoral, and unconstitutional ruling, it should not be allowed to stand in perpetuity - if so, we would still be treating some African Americans as property because of Dred Scott. No, wrong court decisions should be challenged until they are overturned.
  The Personhood Amendment does just that - challenge Roe-v-Wade at it's very core.
  
  Therefore:
• If Mississippians vote Yes on Amendment 26, the rule of law and obedience to the Constitution will be restored in our state in this area of law and the path towards restoring the Constitution across the nation will be advanced
  
  Finally, and most importantly:
• If Mississippians vote Yes on Amendment 26 we will be honoring God and loving our neighbors in our law system.

The amendment is expected to pass and is supported by both parties.

[Metsfanmax]

I didn't see this information in the articles I read -- would the law make it illegal for a Mississippi citizen to travel to another state for an abortion?

[The Fire Knight]

This makes me very happy.

[Juan_Bottom]

I didn't see this information in the articles I read -- would the law make it illegal for a Mississippi citizen to travel to another state for an abortion?

Constitutionally you have the Freedom of Travel, so I think that would be an unwise provision for Mississippi to try to add to the Amendment.

[comic boy]

This makes me very happy.

Shariah law makes some people happy as well

[john9blue]

This makes me very happy.

Shariah law makes some people happy as well

this makes juan sad.

hitler made some people sad too! haHA!

therefore juan is like hitler! it's comic boy logic!

[Army of GOD]

This makes me very happy.

Shariah law makes some people happy as well

this makes juan sad.

hitler made some people sad too! haHA!

therefore jaun is like hitler! it's comic boy logic!

Failed valid comparison.

Juan isn't LIKE Hitler, Juan IS Hitler.

[john9blue]

This makes me very happy.

Shariah law makes some people happy as well

this makes juan sad.

hitler made some people sad too! haHA!

therefore jaun is like hitler! it's comic boy logic!

Failed valid comparison.

Juan isn't LIKE Hitler, Juan IS Hitler.

shut up, i've known comic longer than you and i am very familiar with his way of thinking!

[Juan_Bottom]

Failed comparison.

You said that I'm sad.

You said that Hitler made people sad.

How does that make me like Hitler? You should have said "Mississippi is Hitler" or something.

[The Fire Knight]

This makes me very happy.

Shariah law makes some people happy as well

Yes, and so did Apartheid, Jim Crow laws, the Holocaust, and the Rwandan Genocide. Failing to see your point though.

[Juan_Bottom]

I think that he called you a religious fanatic or something. Literally, the only justification that has been given for the law is the religious one. The State of Mississippi failed to give any scientific or medical reasoning or even proper definitions. Defining an embryo as a Human Being isn't very scientific or sensible. The vote yes website declares that this will not outlaw invetro-fertilization, yet doctors "kill" lots of embryos during that process. Even more spontaneously terminate. It's seems unlawful that they wouldn't face punishment. That's a pretty heavy contradiction written right into the law.

[john9blue]

I think that he called you a religious fanatic or something. Literally, the only justification that has been given for the law is the religious one.

anti-abortionists view abortion as murder. there are many non-religious reasons to outlaw murder.

[The Fire Knight]

I think that he called you a religious fanatic or something. Literally, the only justification that has been given for the law is the religious one. The State of Mississippi failed to give any scientific or medical reasoning or even proper definitions. Defining an embryo as a Human Being isn't very scientific or sensible. The vote yes website declares that this will not outlaw invetro-fertilization, yet doctors "kill" lots of embryos during that process. Even more spontaneously terminate. It's seems unlawful that they wouldn't face punishment. That's a pretty heavy contradiction written right into the law.

Justifications? Here are a few...

1. "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." ---The Declaration of Independence
The rights are unalienable and can not be taken away. Unless I suppose, you are an unwanted baby and are powerless to stop someone from killing you. Our government is supposed to defend these rights, not stand by on the sidelines.

2. For those who say that abortions don't actually kill humans, and make out that believing embryos are human is some kind of religious belief...here is a science lesson in genetics. Sperm and eggs are both haploid cells. They do not contain enough genetic information to form a human. No matter how long you wait, and how much food you feed a sperm cell, it will never become a human. Once these combine though, a zygote is created and the cells become diploid and begin to divide and grow through meiosis. They now have all the genetic information needed to "become human". These are now genetically human, and that is a biological fact, and not a belief.

2.1 Another argument against embryos that I have heard is that they are completely dependent, and not intelligent. Well, perhaps dependency varies inversely with your humanness? So a 21 year old is more human that a three year old. So maybe it is not as bad to kill three year olds? Or maybe we can set an age limit in the U.S. to limit the amount of money spent on Social Security? How about 70? After that we can just send them in a culling facility. Or Perhaps humanness varies inversely with Intelligence? How about we conduct a mass genocide of autistic kids? Or maybe if you don't score above 1800 on your SAT it's off to the gas chambers. Then we can genetically improve our population. No. These are all wrong. They are not rational, and are just plain evil. What is different about a baby one day before it is born that one day after? Take a baby in its 100th day alive. Can you kill it now? What about 105th? Now is it wrong? No, it's wrong both times. The only biological change already occurred 105 days ago.

3. Murder is agains the law. If you accept that they are human, then logically, according to U.S. law, abortion is already forbidden.

4. I have also heard the argument that we should not impose our morals on others. The only morality I see hear is whether or not murder is right or wrong. If you personally think that abortion is wrong for you, you think so b/c it is murder. But the idea that you should not "impose" a no murder law on all of society is absurd. That's like telling Hitler you don't support gassing Jews personally. But hey, if it works for him, I have no right to stop him.

[natty dread]

Fetuses are not persons and this law is an appalling piece of crap.

Do you people realize this law can theoretically be used to outlaw all contraception and birth control?

It's the patriarchal right-wing christian hypocrites at work again. They just hate the idea that women are able to control their own bodies, they long for the days when they could legally consider women to be their property, and this legislation is just an attempt to go back to those days.


Excuse me, I'm now going to go hold a funeral for the sock I just wanked into.

[john9blue]

Justifications? Here are a few...

1. "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." ---The Declaration of Independence
The rights are unalienable and can not be taken away. Unless I suppose, you are an unwanted baby and are powerless to stop someone from killing you. Our government is supposed to defend these rights, not stand by on the sidelines.

2. For those who say that abortions don't actually kill humans, and make out that believing embryos are human is some kind of religious belief...here is a science lesson in genetics. Sperm and eggs are both haploid cells. They do not contain enough genetic information to form a human. No matter how long you wait, and how much food you feed a sperm cell, it will never become a human. Once these combine though, a zygote is created and the cells become diploid and begin to divide and grow through meiosis. They now have all the genetic information needed to "become human". These are now genetically human, and that is a biological fact, and not a belief.

2.1 Another argument against embryos that I have heard is that they are completely dependent, and not intelligent. Well, perhaps dependency varies inversely with your humanness? So a 21 year old is more human that a three year old. So maybe it is not as bad to kill three year olds? Or maybe we can set an age limit in the U.S. to limit the amount of money spent on Social Security? How about 70? After that we can just send them in a culling facility. Or Perhaps humanness varies inversely with Intelligence? How about we conduct a mass genocide of autistic kids? Or maybe if you don't score above 1800 on your SAT it's off to the gas chambers. Then we can genetically improve our population. No. These are all wrong. They are not rational, and are just plain evil. What is different about a baby one day before it is born that one day after? Take a baby in its 100th day alive. Can you kill it now? What about 105th? Now is it wrong? No, it's wrong both times. The only biological change already occurred 105 days ago.

3. Murder is agains the law. If you accept that they are human, then logically, according to U.S. law, abortion is already forbidden.

4. I have also heard the argument that we should not impose our morals on others. The only morality I see hear is whether or not murder is right or wrong. If you personally think that abortion is wrong for you, you think so b/c it is murder. But the idea that you should not "impose" a no murder law on all of society is absurd. That's like telling Hitler you don't support gassing Jews personally. But hey, if it works for him, I have no right to stop him.

Fetuses are not persons and this law is an appalling piece of crap.

Do you people realize this law can theoretically be used to outlaw all contraception and birth control?

It's the patriarchal right-wing christian hypocrites at work again. They just hate the idea that women are able to control their own bodies, they long for the days when they could legally consider women to be their property, and this legislation is just an attempt to go back to those days.


Excuse me, I'm now going to go hold a funeral for the sock I just wanked into.

one of these posts is well thought-out and logical, and the other one is an anti-intellectual piece of shit.

i'll let you guys decide which is which.

[natty dread]

an anti-intellectual piece of shit

Come on now john, don't be so hard on yourself.

[Metsfanmax]

1. "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." ---The Declaration of Independence
The rights are unalienable and can not be taken away. Unless I suppose, you are an unwanted baby and are powerless to stop someone from killing you. Our government is supposed to defend these rights, not stand by on the sidelines.

Circular reasoning. That principle (which is part of a document that's not actually directly responsible for legal doctrine) applies to organisms that we recognize as people in the first place. If we read it literally we might decide that women don't deserve the right to life, after all.

2. For those who say that abortions don't actually kill humans, and make out that believing embryos are human is some kind of religious belief...here is a science lesson in genetics. Sperm and eggs are both haploid cells. They do not contain enough genetic information to form a human. No matter how long you wait, and how much food you feed a sperm cell, it will never become a human. Once these combine though, a zygote is created and the cells become diploid and begin to divide and grow through meiosis. They now have all the genetic information needed to "become human". These are now genetically human, and that is a biological fact, and not a belief.

I don't think reasonable people believe that a fetus is not genetically a member Homo sapiens. That's not what's up for debate here. Coming up with arguments against a couple of common reasons why people are pro-choice does not justify the pro-life position.

2.1 Another argument against embryos that I have heard is that they are completely dependent, and not intelligent. Well, perhaps dependency varies inversely with your humanness? So a 21 year old is more human that a three year old. So maybe it is not as bad to kill three year olds? Or maybe we can set an age limit in the U.S. to limit the amount of money spent on Social Security? How about 70? After that we can just send them in a culling facility. Or Perhaps humanness varies inversely with Intelligence? How about we conduct a mass genocide of autistic kids? Or maybe if you don't score above 1800 on your SAT it's off to the gas chambers. Then we can genetically improve our population. No. These are all wrong. They are not rational, and are just plain evil. What is different about a baby one day before it is born that one day after? Take a baby in its 100th day alive. Can you kill it now? What about 105th? Now is it wrong? No, it's wrong both times. The only biological change already occurred 105 days ago.

Being a biologically independent organism is a requirement to be viewed as deserving of the full rights of humans, in this perspective. The fact that a baby would probably die if left on its own has no real connection to the moral question of whether it's acceptable to kill a fetus. You might conclude that in addition to being biologically independent, the organism must be self-sufficient, but there's no requirement for you to conclude that (and it would be silly, for the reasons you suggested).

4. I have also heard the argument that we should not impose our morals on others. The only morality I see hear is whether or not murder is right or wrong.

Then you're ignoring the implications that this has on the mother. One interesting argument made in this debate (which I am not bringing up because I necessarily agree with) is that criminalizing abortion is a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment because it requires involuntary servitude on the part of the mother, who, once pregnant, has no choice in the matter of whether she must spend the next nine months and 18 years after that raising a child. That is an extreme viewpoint perhaps, but they do have a point.

[john9blue]

an anti-intellectual piece of shit

i know you are, but what am i?

thanks, pee-wee

edit: the post above me is great. i'll let TFK respond though if he wants to

[Army of GOD]

[natty dread]

I'm so sorry all threads can't be about pokemon and ice hockey. Or hockey-playing pokemons.

[The Fire Knight]

To Metsfanmax:

"Circular reasoning. That principle (which is part of a document that's not actually directly responsible for legal doctrine) applies to organisms that we recognize as people in the first place. If we read it literally we might decide that women don't deserve the right to life, after all."

Not really sure what you're trying to argue here. I would consider the Declaration of Independence pretty fundamental to the founding of America, regardless of whether or not it is "directly responsible for legal doctrine". As to literally reading it, if you want to nitpick at the men part then I suppose that's fine. But either way, I'm pretty sure Jefferson wasn't being allegorical and metaphorical when he said life, so I'm not sure where that gets you. And either way, as you said, the Declaration isn't law. But the law does give the right to life, so...

"I don't think reasonable people believe that a fetus is not genetically a member Homo sapiens. That's not what's up for debate here. Coming up with arguments against a couple of common reasons why people are pro-choice does not justify the pro-life position."

Not really liking your euphemism here. When you say genetically a member of the species Homo sapiens, why don't you just say they are a human being? And if reasonable people know that fetuses are human beings, why are they allowing them to be murdered? Also, if I have not already made my pro-life argument and progression of thoughts clear ("justified the pro-life position"), here it is, really simplified:

1. Murder of people is against the law
2. Abortion is murder
3. Abortion should be against the law

"Being a biologically independent organism is a requirement to be viewed as deserving of the full rights of humans, in this perspective. The fact that a baby would probably die if left on its own has no real connection to the moral question of whether it's acceptable to kill a fetus. You might conclude that in addition to being biologically independent, the organism must be self-sufficient, but there's no requirement for you to conclude that (and it would be silly, for the reasons you suggested)."

I mean, you can say that you need to be biologically independent to be a full human. But do you have any justification for that? Why is that true?

I say that a requirement of being human is having the genetic makeup of one. I think everyone here, including you, would agree with me on that. This is evident, provable, and objective.

You then add more qualifiers onto being human (being biologically independent), w/o any sort of justification. Why is that required to be human? What if I say that You aren't human unless you are able to remember things? Now babies aren't human. What if I say you aren't human until you can talk, and justify that interaction is necessary to be human? What if I say that you have to have basic morality to be human. Now serial killers aren't human. What if I say that You have to be Buddhist to be human, with the justification that you aren't getting the full life experience unless you are Buddhist? What if I say that you have to be Aryan to be fully human, and all others are only partially human, except for Jews, who aren't? All of these are subjective. Genetics is objective and obvious.

"Then you're ignoring the implications that this has on the mother. One interesting argument made in this debate (which I am not bringing up because I necessarily agree with) is that criminalizing abortion is a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment because it requires involuntary servitude on the part of the mother, who, once pregnant, has no choice in the matter of whether she must spend the next nine months and 18 years after that raising a child. That is an extreme viewpoint perhaps, but they do have a point."

Hmmm... This has brought up a common argument against making abortion illegal, and I should have originally addressed this in my first argument.

5. Many people argue that making abortion illegal is sexist, patriarchal, and discriminatory. They argue that this does not allow women control over their own bodies, and forces them to have and take care of children when they don't want to. I think that the idea that men are not equally responsible for raising their children is completely wrong. A child is the product of both men and women, and they should be held equally responsible for decisions regarding them. But if a woman does not want to have children, abortion is not the answer.

... back to what you said. I think the basic flaw in the argument above is the assumption that only the woman is put into "involuntary servitude", when in fact both parties are equally responsible. Also, not really sure how raising children is indentured servitude. Perhaps we should outlaw having kids b/c of this? Which only leaves that 9 months a woman is pregnant. Which, yes, I suppose if very discriminatory. How dare God make us different, and make women have to be pregnant. Perhaps we should invent insta-babies? I don't know. Might be something scientists ought to look into.

[Army of GOD]

1. Murder of people is against the law
2. Abortion is murder
3. Abortion should be against the law

This is like...the EXAMPLE people use to describe what circular reasoning is.

[The Fire Knight]

Fetuses are not persons and this law is an appalling piece of crap.

Do you people realize this law can theoretically be used to outlaw all contraception and birth control?

It's the patriarchal right-wing christian hypocrites at work again. They just hate the idea that women are able to control their own bodies, they long for the days when they could legally consider women to be their property, and this legislation is just an attempt to go back to those days.


Excuse me, I'm now going to go hold a funeral for the sock I just wanked into.

I could reply seriously, but perhaps you should read my post first and get back to me when you do. However, I do have a comment. Do you throw those socks away, or do you reuse and wash them? Cause if you reuse them, that's kind of gross. And if you throw them away, how very wasteful. Many people in the world could use a good sock, so why not donate them instead? Maybe use your hand? Just a thought.

[The Fire Knight]

1. Murder of people is against the law
2. Abortion is murder
3. Abortion should be against the law

This is like...the EXAMPLE people use to describe what circular reasoning is.

I'm not seeing the circle. It looks more like a Y to me. One argument comes down and slants to the left, while the other comes down and slants to the right, leading to the conclusion which is just the straight downward stroke. Draw a few Y's and you will see what I mean.

[Army of GOD]

1. Murder of people is against the law
2. Abortion is murder
3. Abortion should be against the law

This is like...the EXAMPLE people use to describe what circular reasoning is.

I'm not seeing the circle. It looks more like a Y to me. One argument comes down and slants to the left, while the other comes down and slants to the right, leading to the conclusion which is just the straight downward stroke. Draw a few Y's and you will see what I mean.

You're creating a premise (2) that you're assuming is true. If you can get Metsfan to concede that "abortion is murder", then yea, you're right. But I highly doubt anyone for abortion will accept that to be true. It's a matter of opinion, bra.