Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby LaserGuy » Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:24 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:How relevant is all this?

I thought it was pretty much a given that SCOTUS is going to throw out this amendment anyway?


I don't know. How long does it take for these things to percolate through the court system? What are the consequences in the interim?

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Jessica » Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:59 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
Diadem wrote:How relevant is all this?

I thought it was pretty much a given that SCOTUS is going to throw out this amendment anyway?
I don't know. How long does it take for these things to percolate through the court system? What are the consequences in the interim?
They might not. The scotus has been leaning conservative, and anti-abortion people have been itching to get something to go to them, so they can throw out roe v wade (which they might do, like with citizens united where they went beyond the lawsuit to make new precedent.).
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby podbaydoor » Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:19 pm UTC

Still, SCOTUS isn't the only legal resource. I'm sure that pro-choice forces are already mobilizing to throw themselves at various justices and legislators on the national level.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Tirian » Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:56 pm UTC

It's important to keep in mind that this referendum is relevant even if there is an immediate injunction and the whole thing gets stripped away over the course of years, since the actual reason for the bill is to compel religious conservatives to the voting booth today, who will then support the Republican gubernatorial candidate. (And moreover, it's a proof of concept. If the conservatives find that they did get a bump in turnout, expect this amendment in 20 states next year when there is a presidential race and congressional seats at stake across the nation.)

User avatar
Arancaytar
Posts: 1642
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:54 am UTC
Location: 52.44°N, 13.55°E
Contact:

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Arancaytar » Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:07 pm UTC

Sockmonkey wrote:Silly people. A fetus ia a corporation. :mrgreen:


By importance, politics rank these groups thusly:

1. Corporation
2. Fetus
3. Others

(The first two may be swapped depending on where one falls on the religious<->capitalist spectrum of conservatism.)
"You cannot dual-wield the sharks. One is enough." -Our DM.
Image

User avatar
buddy431
Posts: 446
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby buddy431 » Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:18 pm UTC

Tirian wrote:It's important to keep in mind that this referendum is relevant even if there is an immediate injunction and the whole thing gets stripped away over the course of years, since the actual reason for the bill is to compel religious conservatives to the voting booth today, who will then support the Republican gubernatorial candidate. (And moreover, it's a proof of concept. If the conservatives find that they did get a bump in turnout, expect this amendment in 20 states next year when there is a presidential race and congressional seats at stake across the nation.)


Of course it goes the other way to. It was already mentioned on the first page of this thread that some people say Colorado's personhood amendment was being tacitly supported by liberal groups in order to get voters to come to the polls. Now Mississippi's amendment actually stands a chance of getting passed, so it's a little more dangerous to play that game, but I don't think it's clear that Republicans are going to benefit more than Democrats with the amendment on the ballet.
Gellert1984 wrote:Also, bomb president CIA al qaeda JFK twin towers jupiter moon martians [s]emtex.

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby SummerGlauFan » Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:24 am UTC

glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Qaanol » Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:29 am UTC

Yay‼
wee free kings

User avatar
ShootTheChicken
Best. Cheerleader. Ever.
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:11 am UTC
Location: America's Hat

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby ShootTheChicken » Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:32 am UTC

The Article wrote:"I figure you can't be half for something, so if you're against abortion you should be for this. You've either got to be wholly for something or wholly against it," said Hoover


Least intelligent thing I've heard all year.
SecondTalon wrote:the Hot Freshness of Wicked Classic.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:35 am UTC

Praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby SummerGlauFan » Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:37 am UTC

Yay for me getting the first article that popped up. Man they stunk at interviewing people.
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Ghostbear » Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:50 am UTC

The article said the opposition against it got about 55% of the vote. I assume that Mississippi is probably one of the states with a population most opposed to abortion; would this indicate then that people in general are becoming more in support of it? I was under the impression that abortion support and opposition had remained mostly flat over the years. it would be nice if this indicated a potential increase for pro-choice.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Lucrece » Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:09 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:The article said the opposition against it got about 55% of the vote. I assume that Mississippi is probably one of the states with a population most opposed to abortion; would this indicate then that people in general are becoming more in support of it? I was under the impression that abortion support and opposition had remained mostly flat over the years. it would be nice if this indicated a potential increase for pro-choice.



You can't glean remotely anything representative of the actual population from these voters -- voter turn out in the US is abysmal and only the most vehemently involved in politics or those with little to do (cough elderly) tend to vote consistently.

These results hinge on mobilizing political bases and nothing more. Outside presidential elections, this country might as well not have bothered with suffrage or the Civil Rights movement for how seriously people take the right to vote today.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Tirian » Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:22 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:The article said the opposition against it got about 55% of the vote. I assume that Mississippi is probably one of the states with a population most opposed to abortion; would this indicate then that people in general are becoming more in support of it? I was under the impression that abortion support and opposition had remained mostly flat over the years. it would be nice if this indicated a potential increase for pro-choice.


I think it's a reaffirmation that abortion is not a binary issue. If we found out in years past that there are many "pro-choice" people who don't think that counseling and parental notification are unreasonable burdens, then today we are reminded that there are many "pro-life" people who don't want to criminalize fertility clinics and birth control and punish victims of rape and incest.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Qaanol » Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:34 am UTC

Tirian wrote:I think it's a reaffirmation that abortion is not a binary issue. If we found out in years past that there are many "pro-choice" people who don't think that counseling and parental notification are unreasonable burdens, then today we are reminded that there are many "pro-life" people who don't want to criminalize fertility clinics and birth control and punish victims of rape and incest.

Just so long as they do still want to punish women who enjoy having sex, because that’s the important thing right?
wee free kings

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Tirian » Wed Nov 09, 2011 6:23 am UTC

Right, and what's up with the Episcopals and Methodists opposing the referendum? The one-dimensional narrative of Bible Belt Christians hating women isn't going to perpetuate itself, people!

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Lucrece » Wed Nov 09, 2011 6:25 am UTC

Don't forget the bill was poisoned by a likelihood to deter in vitro fertilization for fear of prosecution should an embryo die, and it was so broadly worded that contraception might have been victim.

If specifics had been more finely crafted to deflect those criticisms, it is possible you could've seen this awful piece of shit pass. It says something when a bill so horrendously extreme fails to pass by only the slightest margin. I'm really worried for this country.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Diadem » Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:11 am UTC

That it was defeated is good, but it still almost past. 45% voted in favour of it. That is scary. This wasn't just a ban on abortion, this was a ban on abortion in a way that is so batshit insane even many religious groups opposed it. And still 45% of the population of Mississippi supported it.

How is that not extremely worrying?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Sockmonkey
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:30 pm UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Sockmonkey » Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:45 am UTC

Diadem wrote:How is that not extremely worrying?

Because even in one of the states where it would be most likely to pass, it still got shot down. Worst-case scenario and sanity prevailed.

User avatar
Obby
Posts: 785
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:37 pm UTC
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Obby » Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:53 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:Don't forget the bill was poisoned by a likelihood to deter in vitro fertilization for fear of prosecution should an embryo die, and it was so broadly worded that contraception might have been victim.

If specifics had been more finely crafted to deflect those criticisms, it is possible you could've seen this awful piece of shit pass. It says something when a bill so horrendously extreme fails to pass by only the slightest margin. I'm really worried for this country.


You have to keep in mind, as was pointed out, that this was a bill put forth in one of the most conservative parts of the country. It's not surprising it got as much support as it did, it's the bible belt. This piece of legislation likely wouldn't have even made it off the table in the majority of other states.
The story so far:
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby morriswalters » Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:30 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote: little to do (cough elderly)

Obviously the reason they have time now is because they got finished raising you and others like you, and they now need to rest in a nursing home to recover. And it could be that they have, through vast experience, come to understand that voting matters, something sometimes lost on the young.

Signed SlutShamer and douchbag extraordinaire

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Lucrece » Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:42 pm UTC

You seem to be defensive on a point that wasn't even raised dismissively. College kids could be similarly seen as having little to do (i.e. most of them don't have to work more than 40 hours a week and their schedules are fairly flexible), but they don't take advantage of it like older people do due to social messaging.

If you have problems with the phrase "little to do", it's your own hang ups.

P.S. Don't bring up "lost on the young". If Gingrich, Bush, Cheney, and about every other politician or corporate leader has shown us anything, it's that decency and duty is still lost on the old as well.

If youth doesn't vote today, it's because we live in a society that likes to tell them that their input and participation is meaningless and undesirable. Despite a clear record that old people, who have governed for the entirety of this nation's history, have put the country through countless financial and social quagmires despite their "vast experience".
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby morriswalters » Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:15 pm UTC

Not to put to fine a point on this. They made most of their mistakes when they were young by not voting and participating. Some did participate and some didn't for much the same reasons as you just gave. In retrospect they didn't make good choices. I would hope your goal is to be better.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Lucrece » Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:41 pm UTC

It's silly to expect people to be better when what you constantly communicate to them is that you expect no better from them.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
M.C.
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:06 pm UTC
Location: South of the equator.

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby M.C. » Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:15 pm UTC

Compulsory voting ftw!
Nobody likes Milhouse!

User avatar
Kulantan
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:24 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere witty

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Kulantan » Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:24 pm UTC

But what about FREEDOM!?
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

phlip wrote:(Scholars believe it is lost to time exactly which search engine Columbus preferred... though they are reasonably sure that he was an avid user of Apple Maps.)

Blog.

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Radical_Initiator » Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:50 am UTC

Kulantan wrote:But what about FREEDOM!?


Just another word for nothing left to lose.
I looked out across the river today …

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Ghostbear » Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:14 am UTC

Just read that the amendment lost by a much wider margin than earlier posts had assumed; it was apparently 16%. I know Lucrece brought up voter turnout (which is usually quite bad in the US), but I think it's interesting to see the amendment fall by such a wide margin, especially in a state as socially conservative as Mississippi. Though I guess I already said that with respect to it losing at all.

User avatar
Aikanaro
Posts: 1801
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:43 pm UTC
Location: Saint Louis, MO

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Aikanaro » Thu Nov 10, 2011 11:58 am UTC

Odd thought, dunno if anyone has posted this before.....
How about if we declare it to immediately be a person, put it up for adoption immediately, and then the mother simply "evicts" it and/or charges it with squatting? It's not killing it, it's simply forcing it to find its own home, or making the the government agencies find one for it! If they want it to survive, it's up to them to provide proper accommodations for it, same as if you put a child with diabetes or some other condition up for adoption.

I'm sure there's legal precedent for a parent fighting for their right to NOT have to raise a kid....
Dear xkcd,

On behalf of my religion, I'm sorry so many of us do dumb shit. Please forgive us.

Love, Aikanaro.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5933
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Angua » Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:12 pm UTC

Because they'd probably legalise the who thing to make it too long before you reach the cut-off point when abortions are normally no longer allowed except in exceptional circumstances. Also, if you did extend the cut off point to allow this, you'd probably end up with inducing labour at 24/25 weeks or even later, which would then mean that the child is extremely likely to have all sorts of problems that extremely premature babies are very likely to get, which would emotionally blackmail a lot of people into leaving the pregnancy full term anyway, as just because some women don't want a child doesn't mean that if they are being forced to bring one into that world anyway, they want it to be horribly disfigured if they had a choice in that matter. (we've already had a similar argument in one of the abortion threads in SB and someone was advocating only using induced labour as a method of abortion, and seemed to think that if you were signing away your right ot be a parent, you wouldn't care about the state of the child).
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Aikanaro
Posts: 1801
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:43 pm UTC
Location: Saint Louis, MO

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Aikanaro » Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:20 pm UTC

Angua wrote:Because they'd probably legalise the who thing to make it too long before you reach the cut-off point when abortions are normally no longer allowed except in exceptional circumstances. Also, if you did extend the cut off point to allow this, you'd probably end up with inducing labour at 24/25 weeks or even later, which would then mean that the child is extremely likely to have all sorts of problems that extremely premature babies are very likely to get, which would emotionally blackmail a lot of people into leaving the pregnancy full term anyway, as just because some women don't want a child doesn't mean that if they are being forced to bring one into that world anyway, they want it to be horribly disfigured if they had a choice in that matter. (we've already had a similar argument in one of the abortion threads in SB and someone was advocating only using induced labour as a method of abortion, and seemed to think that if you were signing away your right ot be a parent, you wouldn't care about the state of the child).

No, no, I'm not talking about doing the eviction/adoption thing once it's far enough along, I'm talking about doing it immediately, when it should theoretically have a zero chance of survival regardless (though the onus is on the government to try, not on you). Hell, put a planned parenthood clinic next door to a fire department, since I believe many states allow you to leave an infant there without repercussions, no questions asked. They said you can leave an infant there, and the law says a cluster of cells is an infant. Q.E.D.. Not your fault the infant in question has to be surgically removed from your body first.
Dear xkcd,

On behalf of my religion, I'm sorry so many of us do dumb shit. Please forgive us.

Love, Aikanaro.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5933
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Angua » Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:30 pm UTC

Aikanaro wrote:
Angua wrote:Because they'd probably legalise the who thing to make it too long before you reach the cut-off point when abortions are normally no longer allowed except in exceptional circumstances. Also, if you did extend the cut off point to allow this, you'd probably end up with inducing labour at 24/25 weeks or even later, which would then mean that the child is extremely likely to have all sorts of problems that extremely premature babies are very likely to get, which would emotionally blackmail a lot of people into leaving the pregnancy full term anyway, as just because some women don't want a child doesn't mean that if they are being forced to bring one into that world anyway, they want it to be horribly disfigured if they had a choice in that matter. (we've already had a similar argument in one of the abortion threads in SB and someone was advocating only using induced labour as a method of abortion, and seemed to think that if you were signing away your right ot be a parent, you wouldn't care about the state of the child).

No, no, I'm not talking about doing the eviction/adoption thing once it's far enough along, I'm talking about doing it immediately, when it should theoretically have a zero chance of survival regardless (though the onus is on the government to try, not on you). Hell, put a planned parenthood clinic next door to a fire department, since I believe many states allow you to leave an infant there without repercussions, no questions asked. They said you can leave an infant there, and the law says a cluster of cells is an infant. Q.E.D.. Not your fault the infant in question has to be surgically removed from your body first.
Maybe I wasn't clear about what I meant with the bolded bit - basically, in order to 'evict' the foetus, they'd probably twerk it so you have to go through a court case first, which would then take long enough for the pregnancy to make it to the later stages.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Aikanaro
Posts: 1801
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:43 pm UTC
Location: Saint Louis, MO

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Aikanaro » Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:20 pm UTC

Ah, fair point.
Dear xkcd,

On behalf of my religion, I'm sorry so many of us do dumb shit. Please forgive us.

Love, Aikanaro.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby sourmìlk » Thu Nov 10, 2011 11:21 pm UTC

Then you have a 14th amendment argument, where prenatal tenants are treated differently by the law.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Whimsical Eloquence
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 2:29 am UTC
Location: Ireland

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Whimsical Eloquence » Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:39 am UTC

You can almost troll Anti-Abortion'ers with honest statements of opinion. "I don't object to giving a foetus the same Rights as a person - they should", "Really?!", "Yeah, just not Rights over another person..."
“People understand me so poorly that they don't even understand my complaint about them not understanding me.”
~ Soren Kierkegaard

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Belial » Mon Nov 14, 2011 6:09 pm UTC

Interesting article about the long-game at play here and why this wasn't a loss for the anti-choicers per se

Pro-lifers don't actually believe that a fertilised egg is the moral equivalent of a newborn baby – if they did, there would certainly be major pushes for research on why more than half of all these cellular human beings are flushed out of the body and die. (Imagine if more than half of all three-year-olds suddenly dropped dead – we wouldn't just shrug our shoulders and say, "Well that's nature!") What they do believe is that birth control has given women too much freedom. And they realise that if they can change the terms of the debate – just as they did when they rebranded an embryo as a baby – they might make some headway in the long run.

Enter personhood amendments. It's a great strategy: you say that birth control kills fertilised eggs, then you try to pass a law that would make killing fertilised eggs murder, and then your opponents (logically) respond by pointing out that the proposed law is purposed to outlaw many forms of birth control. Voilà, you've just made the fantasy that birth control kills fertilised eggs a political truth. The Mississippi personhood amendment might have lost, but the anti-choice pseudo-science machine had a big win.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Decker
Posts: 2071
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:22 pm UTC
Location: Western N.Y.

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Decker » Mon Nov 14, 2011 6:15 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Interesting article about the long-game at play here and why this wasn't a loss for the anti-choicers per se

</snip>
Enter personhood amendments. It's a great strategy: you say that birth control kills fertilised eggs, then you try to pass a law that would make killing fertilised eggs murder, and then your opponents (logically) respond by pointing out that the proposed law is purposed to outlaw many forms of birth control. Voilà, you've just made the fantasy that birth control kills fertilised eggs a political truth. The Mississippi personhood amendment might have lost, but the anti-choice pseudo-science machine had a big win.

I don't know. It's interesting, but it seems like quite a leap of logic to me.
I was angry with my friend. I told my wrath. My wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe. I told it not. My wrath did grow.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:25 pm UTC

Pro-womens-shelters don't actually believe that a woman is the moral equivalent of a man – if they did, there would certainly be major pushes for research on why more than 12% of all these "cellular human beings" contract a gender-specific life-threatening cancer. (Imagine if more than one in eight men contracted cancer from their man parts - we wouldn't just shrug our shoulders and say, "Well that's nature!") What they do believe is that homelessness has given women too much freedom.

Therefore advocates of women's shelters are liars and don't really believe that women are people. LOGIC!

The unstated (asinine) assumption is that anyone who doesn't give all of their money to SIDS research thinks that infants aren't people. You don't personally research breast cancer? You must hate women. Never mind that you're actively trying to stop others from killing them. I reject your reality and substitute my own.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby omgryebread » Mon Nov 14, 2011 11:45 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Pro-womens-shelters don't actually believe that a woman is the moral equivalent of a man – if they did, there would certainly be major pushes for research on why more than 12% of all these "cellular human beings" contract a gender-specific life-threatening cancer. (Imagine if more than one in eight men contracted cancer from their man parts - we wouldn't just shrug our shoulders and say, "Well that's nature!") What they do believe is that homelessness has given women too much freedom.

Therefore advocates of women's shelters are liars and don't really believe that women are people. LOGIC!

The unstated (asinine) assumption is that anyone who doesn't give all of their money to SIDS research thinks that infants aren't people. You don't personally research breast cancer? You must hate women. Never mind that you're actively trying to stop others from killing them. I reject your reality and substitute my own.
It took me like 3 minutes to read this, then I figured out that I should stop, since it's not me being stupid, but your metaphor not working at all.

Find me someone who supports women's shelters who thinks breast cancer is an acceptable part of life, and not something we should work very hard to cure. Want to bet that people pushing for more breast cancer research intersect pretty strongly with the people who support women's shelters? Huge deals are made out of cancer! Breast cancer is probably the most high profile disease in the US, if not the world.

Extremely little is made out of that the majority of fertilized eggs don't even result in pregnancies. If we counted fertilized eggs as people for legal purposes, why not ethical, medical and scientific purposes? Did you know the average american lives to be 25 years old (since most die when they are negative 9 months)? It's fine if you're not making a big deal about SIDS. But if you start a serious crusade against what you consider to be the horrible problem of infant-murderers, and meanwhile, SIDS starts killing over 50% of the infant population, I'd at least question your motivation.


Stepping out of weird metaphor land, the original article was very good (Jill Filipovic is consistently awesome). Conservatives and liberals both understand that there are two truths, but for some reason liberals never seem to get which one actually matters. Thus conservatives get to run circles around us on the name-game.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

Torchship
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:17 pm UTC

Re: Mississippi's Personhood Amendment

Postby Torchship » Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:20 am UTC

omgryebread wrote:Find me someone who supports women's shelters who thinks breast cancer is an acceptable part of life, and not something we should work very hard to cure. Want to bet that people pushing for more breast cancer research intersect pretty strongly with the people who support women's shelters? Huge deals are made out of cancer! Breast cancer is probably the most high profile disease in the US, if not the world.


Urm, I believe Heisenberg was speaking of testicular and other male-specific cancers, rather than breast cancer. Since, y'know, ze specifically said "...cancer from their man parts".

A slightly better analogy illustrating the absurdity of Belial (and their article's) position would be Bush and the Iraq war. Millions of people, both in the US and elsewhere agree that Bush lied to the American public in order to launch an unjustified war which resulted in the deaths of millions. Their reaction to this? Nothing. Before, during or after the fact there were no serious attempts to kill Bush, or otherwise punish him for his crimes. Before, during or after the fact, there were no serious attempts to impeach Bush or otherwise remove him from a position of power so that he could not perpetuate further crimes. Before, during or after the fact there were no serious attempts at changing the US government's foreign policy, so as to make a repeat more unlikely. Nothing. By Belial's bizarre logic, this therefore means that all of these millions of people (hirself included!) do not actually care about the murder of millions of Iraqis and the waste of trillions of dollars, they just do it because they are evil and hate Bush.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests