Personhood amendment campaigners vow to fight on after Mississippi defeat

[LemonAndLime]

"…But, more tellingly, it could prohibit a doctor from saving a woman’s life if that meant causing the destruction of a fertilised egg inside her. In the law’s eyes, the woman on the operating table would not matter. She would be disappeared.

This simply does not happen in a country that values women. It’s hardly surprising that Mississippi ranks 49th in women’s medium annual earnings and in the percentage of women with four or more years of college. More women live in poverty in the state than anywhere in America. Inequality is like cancer – when untreated, it spreads.

Conservatives are very adept, however, at cloaking discrimination in good manners, in talk of love, God and tradition. They did that to African Americans during Jim Crow, and now they are doing it to women. They want you to believe that with this initiative, they are protecting the most vulnerable among us by defending a good, moral way of life. But if that’s what this is really about, I suggest we put an initiative on the next ballot that forces parents to pony up a lung if their child needs a transplant or, at the very least, requires them to stop smoking around their children. Something tells me this wouldn’t pass muster with most Tea Party supporters.

The truth is, this isn’t about children. One third of Mississippi’s children live in poverty. No one seems to care what happens to children once they leave the womb. Instead, this is about choking women off at arguably the most important moment in their lives – the moment they decide to become mothers. After all, I can think of no other single decision that has such a dramatic impact on a woman’s economic and social standing. The wage gap between working mothers and working women without children is greater than the wage gap between men and women. "

guardian.co.uk/commentisf…=ILCNETTXT3487

Link to news article about subject - guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/09/personhood-amendment-abortion-mississippi-rejected?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

 

[CMatt25]

"…But, more tellingly, it could prohibit a doctor from saving a woman’s life if that meant causing the destruction of a fertilised egg inside her. In the law’s eyes, the woman on the operating table would not matter. She would be disappeared.

This simply does not happen in a country that values women. It’s hardly surprising that Mississippi ranks 49th in women’s medium annual earnings and in the percentage of women with four or more years of college. More women live in poverty in the state than anywhere in America. Inequality is like cancer – when untreated, it spreads.

Conservatives are very adept, however, at cloaking discrimination in good manners, in talk of love, God and tradition. They did that to African Americans during Jim Crow, and now they are doing it to women. They want you to believe that with this initiative, they are protecting the most vulnerable among us by defending a good, moral way of life. But if that’s what this is really about, I suggest we put an initiative on the next ballot that forces parents to pony up a lung if their child needs a transplant or, at the very least, requires them to stop smoking around their children. Something tells me this wouldn’t pass muster with most Tea Party supporters.

The truth is, this isn’t about children. One third of Mississippi’s children live in poverty. No one seems to care what happens to children once they leave the womb. Instead, this is about choking women off at arguably the most important moment in their lives – the moment they decide to become mothers. After all, I can think of no other single decision that has such a dramatic impact on a woman’s economic and social standing. The wage gap between working mothers and working women without children is greater than the wage gap between men and women. "

guardian.co.uk/commentisf…=ILCNETTXT3487

Link to news article about subject - guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/09/personhood-amendment-abortion-mississippi-rejected?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

Lemon & Lime, I believe you’ve made some good points.

 

[SamH]

"…But, more tellingly, it could prohibit a doctor from saving a woman’s life if that meant causing the destruction of a fertilised egg inside her. In the law’s eyes, the woman on the operating table would not matter. She would be disappeared.

This simply does not happen in a country that values women. It’s hardly surprising that Mississippi ranks 49th in women’s medium annual earnings and in the percentage of women with four or more years of college. More women live in poverty in the state than anywhere in America. Inequality is like cancer – when untreated, it spreads.

Conservatives are very adept, however, at cloaking discrimination in good manners, in talk of love, God and tradition. They did that to African Americans during Jim Crow, and now they are doing it to women. They want you to believe that with this initiative, they are protecting the most vulnerable among us by defending a good, moral way of life. But if that’s what this is really about, I suggest we put an initiative on the next ballot that forces parents to pony up a lung if their child needs a transplant or, at the very least, requires them to stop smoking around their children. Something tells me this wouldn’t pass muster with most Tea Party supporters.

The truth is, this isn’t about children. One third of Mississippi’s children live in poverty. No one seems to care what happens to children once they leave the womb. Instead, this is about choking women off at arguably the most important moment in their lives – the moment they decide to become mothers. After all, I can think of no other single decision that has such a dramatic impact on a woman’s economic and social standing. The wage gap between working mothers and working women without children is greater than the wage gap between men and women. "

guardian.co.uk/commentisf…=ILCNETTXT3487

Link to news article about subject - guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/09/personhood-amendment-abortion-mississippi-rejected?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

I don’t think you’ve made any points.

 

[scipio337]

I posted in your original posting of the story, which was locked.

The brain trust at The Guardian has uncovered an insidious conservative plot to kill women.

That, and they got their political designations switched around regarding who supported Jim Crow.

Bon fait!

Edit: Ohhh, it’s an American who wrote the story. That explains it. What’s that? She wrote for The Nation and Salon??

 

[Suudy]

The truth is, this isn’t about children. One third of Mississippi’s children live in poverty. No one seems to care what happens to children once they leave the womb.

Ah, the usual “Better dead, than underfed” argument. As convincing now as it ever was.

Instead, this is about choking women off at arguably the most important moment in their lives – the moment they decide to become mothers. After all, I can think of no other single decision that has such a dramatic impact on a woman’s economic and social standing. The wage gap between working mothers and working women without children is greater than the wage gap between men and women. "

Are a woman’s wages are more important than the innocent life growing in her womb? Apparently…

 

[scipio337]

Lemon & Lime, I believe you’ve made some good points.

Yes, Matt, at least one very good one.

The point is that anytime legislation is posed restricting abortion, those on the left cart out the appeal to emotion fallacy “this means women will be DYING in the STREETS!!! WON’T SOMEBODY THINK OF THESE POOR WOMEN???” canard, and some use logical gymnastics to convince themselves it’s true.

Rinse, repeat.

 

[SonCatcher]

Though you’ve now linked a news article, it looks like you still want to discuss the opinion column.

The charges are false. The personhood amendment would have been no more misogynistic than passing a law that only women could bear children. The opinion article is mainly a pundit’s taking of the language to an extreme, unfounded conclusion.

 

[CMatt25]

Ah, the usual “Better dead, than underfed” argument. As convincing now as it ever was.

Are a woman’s wages are more important than the innocent life growing in her womb? Apparently…

Is a woman’s life less important? What if Mississippi were to ever outlaw all abortion even to save the life of the mother? And another state allowed abortion to save the mother’s life? A woman’s life in one state would be less important than in another? And yes the same can be said about the unborn. Which merely shows it can be a very difficult process to balance these rights to life in a society of plural beliefs.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Ah, the usual “Better dead, than underfed” argument. As convincing now as it ever was.

No, that’s not her point. Her point is that Tea party supporters don’t put as much effort into caring for children out of the womb as they do inside. Which is definately how they come across.

Are a woman’s wages are more important than the innocent life growing in her womb? Apparently…

No one said that either. Which post are you responding to?

 

[LemonAndLime]

Lemon & Lime, I believe you’ve made some good points.

Thank you.

 

[_Abyssinia]

The Guardian again, what a surprise, first they trash fetal homicide laws that protect women and unborn babies and now they trash the Personhood amendment. The author is completely biased! What does the wealth of individuals in the states have to with protecting the unborn!? What is the author saying, that because people in Mississippi are in poverty it would be better abortion was legal and children would die so not as to live in poverty!? Reminds me of what Democrat Gwen Moore said, that abortion was better for unplanned babies than a life of eating ‘‘mayonnaise sandwiches’’ and ‘‘ramen noodles.’’

Jim Crow comparison is ridiculous, according to Ballotpedia, the Personhood ammendment got “106,325 signatures [from registered voters], exceeding the minimum requirement of 89,285 signatures to qualify for the ballot:”
ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Mississippi_Life_Begins_at_the_Moment_of_Fertilization_Amendment,Initiative_26%282011%29

Mississippi has a 37% Black population: quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/28000.html

It is likely a significant portion of the ballot signatures where from Black voters.

My opinion on the Personhood amendments is that although the heart is the right place of those promoting the amendment, the amendment won’t ban abortion, what is needed is a pro life President who will enact pro life Supreme Court Judges who will then repeal roe vs wade. Pray this will happen in in 2012.

 

[torch621]

No folks, the author’s point is that those conservatives are EEEVILLLLL and they HATE WYMYN and want them DEEAAAD! That’s what all pro-baby murder arguments boil down to nowadays.

Abortion is never justified, no matter what the circumstance, and I fully support personhood initiatives.

 

[LemonAndLime]

No folks, the author’s point is that those conservatives are EEEVILLLLL and they HATE WYMYN and want them DEEAAAD! That’s what all pro-baby murder arguments boil down to nowadays.

Abortion is never justified, no matter what the circumstance, and I fully support personhood initiatives.

If you want me to take you seriously its a good idea to take part in a more mature fashion, thank you.

 

[torch621]

Who mentioned abortion?

That’s what it all boils down to, the imaginary right to murder a baby in the womb.

 

[SonCatcher]

No, that’s not her point. Her point is that Tea party supporters don’t put as much effort into caring for children out of the womb as they do inside. Which is definately how they come across.

Which is a greater injustice? Summary execution without having even been accused of a crime or the possibility of missing an occasional meal?

I’m not sure how Tea Party supporters (not a political party, mind you, but an ideological movement) fit into this as I understand they are primarily focused on taxes and government spending.

The conservatives the author attacks, however, certainly do care for those who are in poverty. They just find it difficult to express that concern when a greater injustice is going on. They do support the impoverished by donating to non-governmental organizations that provide the services needed.

 

[Suudy]

No, that’s not her point. Her point is that Tea party supporters don’t put as much effort into caring for children out of the womb as they do inside. Which is definately how they come across.

I don’t see that at all. She is contrasting children living in poverty with the financial and social well-being of women. It is better to have the option to kill the child in utero in order to maintain or improve that standing than to save the life of the child. She is saying that it is better that the child be dead, than the woman add herself and another child to the poverty rolls. In other words, “Better dead, than underfed.”

And where do you get the reference to the Tea Party supporters? It’s not in the article. Unless you are saying “Tea Party” == “conservative”. And if you are, you are way off base.

No one said that either. Which post are you responding to?

Sure she did. I quoted form the article. Here, I’ll quote it again:

After all, I can think of no other single decision that has such a dramatic impact on a woman’s economic and social standing. The wage gap between working mothers and working women without children is greater than the wage gap between men and women. "

To what decision is she referring? What decision can have such a “dramatic impact on a woman’s economic and social standing”, more than any other? According to her, pregnancy. And her example of the impact it could have on her standing? A large “wage gap between working mothers and working women without children”. In her opinion, having children more than any “other single decision” affects wages. In her opinion, a woman’s right to avoid large “wage gap” is more important than the life of the child. If it is a valid reason (and according to the author it is) to avoid/end pregnancy to avoid the wage gap for some women, then in some cases “[a] woman’s wages are more important than the innocent life growing in her womb”.

 

[Suudy]

Is a woman’s life less important? What if Mississippi were to ever outlaw all abortion even to save the life of the mother?

This isn’t at all what the OP’s link addresses. This isn’t about saving the life of the mother, but about women avoiding economic and social ramifications of being pregnant and having children.

And yes, the child’s life is more important that the woman’s economic or social standing. Right?

And another state allowed abortion to save the mother’s life? A woman’s life in one state would be less important than in another? And yes the same can be said about the unborn. Which merely shows it can be a very difficult process to balance these rights to life in a society of plural beliefs.

A “society of plural beliefs” is irrelevant. The mother’s life vs the child’s life is a complex issue. But that is not what the OP’s link is about.

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

The amendment is not against women, it is against IMMORAL women.

Now, I’m going to say something against the pro-life movement.

These laws against abortion are like trying to save a patient on an operating table with a main artery torn wide open, by simply pumping pint after pint after pint of blood into the patient, without any remedial surgery. Eventually, you would run out of blood. Making law after law after law against abortion is not going to keep people from having abortions when you have the rampant immorality in society that we have. Conservatives don’t care about pregnant woman, and how did these women get pregnant? Not rape and incest, but rather, no morals. These are not more examples of the Virgin Birth!

But we’ve gone ahead and made laws legalizing immorality BEFORE Roe v Wade that made that decision necessary.

The resources to help pregnant women are limited, just like a hospital has limited stock of blood.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I posted in your original posting of the story, which was locked.

The brain trust at The Guardian has uncovered an insidious conservative plot to kill women.

That, and they got their political designations switched around regarding who supported Jim Crow.

Bon fait!

Edit: Ohhh, it’s an American who wrote the story. That explains it. What’s that? She wrote for The Nation and Salon??

Where do people get the idea that ‘conservatives’ don’t care about pregnant women? Hmm, The Nation… Salon…

 

[chipeto]

Making law after law after law against abortion is not going to keep people from having abortions when you have the rampant immorality in society that we have.

Perhaps not, but it may greatly diminish the number of abortions, and it will move us closer to having a just society, one which does not openly countenance the slaughter of children.

Conservatives don’t care about pregnant woman

That is not true.