Personhood amendment campaigners vow to fight on after Mississippi defeat

[LemonAndLime]

That still doesn’t make the law itself misogynistic. Even if they are being “twisted to punish women,” the law itself is not targeting or hateful to women, rather the DA’s bringing charges are.

Well if it is possible to twist the law to attack women, then the law in practice is hateful to women as clearly a loophole is being exploited. A law which was meant to be prosecute men and “3rd parties” as it were ending up being used against pregnant mother themselves? That’s not right.

I understand what you mean, its not meant to be used against women, but clearly it left the gate wide open and also clearly the DA knows about it and is using it to their advantage.

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

the DA knows about it and is using it to their advantage.

What advantage is there to the DA?

 

[LemonAndLime]

What advantage is there to the DA?

Locking up these “evil, naughty women”? I don’t know. Maybe it’s more to the benefit of lawyers. Someone considers these cases in the public interest.

 

[SamH]

I think the several hundred women being prosecuted for miscarriages counts as harm against women.

Source for the several hundred number?

 

[SamH]

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.

Time to repeat

 

[seekerz]

Irrelevant. Real or perceived threats to economic or social status do not justify the killing of anyone, especially the innocent.

It is not irrelevant and was not put forward as a justification for abortion. A woman’s socioeconomic status is her baby’s socioeconomic status and directly affects it’s life (or death). Sorry if the facts don’t suit your ideology.

 

[SamH]

It is not irrelevant and was not put forward as a justification for abortion. A woman’s socioeconomic status is her baby’s socioeconomic status and directly affects it’s life (or death). Sorry if the facts don’t suit your ideology.

So killing people for money is now socially acceptable?

 

[seekerz]

So killing people for money is now socially acceptable?

You cannot be responding to me, so I will assume you are talking to yourself. Your statement is in no shape or form related to what I am saying.

 

[SamH]

You cannot be responding to me, so I will assume you are talking to yourself. Your statement is in no shape or form related to what I am saying.

Maybe you should read your post.

Originally Posted by Suudy
Irrelevant. Real or perceived threats to economic or social status do not justify the killing of anyone, especially the innocent.

Then you said it did:

It is not irrelevant and was not put forward as a justification for abortion. A woman’s socioeconomic status is her baby’s socioeconomic status and directly affects it’s life (or death).

If you can justify one murder why not another?

 

[Suudy]

It is not irrelevant and was not put forward as a justification for abortion. A woman’s socioeconomic status is her baby’s socioeconomic status and directly affects it’s life (or death). Sorry if the facts don’t suit your ideology.

Of course it was! I explained that earlier in the thread (see here).

What do you think the author meant by “After all, I can think of no other single decision that has such a dramatic impact on a woman’s economic and social standing.”? What other decision could she be referring to besides terminating a pregnancy (remember, the topic is pregnant women)? And if it isn’t being used as a justification, why bring it up at all? Why link it to personhood amendments?

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

Locking up these “evil, naughty women”? I don’t know. Maybe it’s more to the benefit of lawyers. Someone considers these cases in the public interest.

Locking up evil, naughty people is hardly what a DA usually calls an advantage, it’s a DA’s occupation. He gets elected and paid to do that.

There’s no advantage to finding a “loophole” to prosecute decent, innocent, law biding women.

 

[seekerz]

Of course it was! I explained that earlier in the thread (see here).

What do you think the author meant by “After all, I can think of no other single decision that has such a dramatic impact on a woman’s economic and social standing.”? What other decision could she be referring to besides terminating a pregnancy (remember, the topic is pregnant women)? And if it isn’t being used as a justification, why bring it up at all? Why link it to personhood amendments?

It all depends on your perspective. I may be wrong, but what I interpret from the statement is that the decision to become a mother dramatically affects a woman’s socioeconomic status.

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.

That decision, as far as I can tell, is still made before conception - so I assume the writer was referring to the use of contraception. Once a woman is pregnant, she is already a mother and so the question becomes one of whether she will allow the life inside her to grow and develop, not whether she will choose to become a mother.

I am not posting this in support of contraception, though I do think the personhood amendment went too far in that regard (we have to accept that not everyone is Catholic and there has historically been disagreement even among us as to when personhood - ensoulment - begins; we can’t very well legislate our beliefs onto others). All I was validating is the close (well-documented) connection between socioeconomic status and fetal well-being. It is possible to fully support the dignity of life from conception and still acknowledge that important reality of life. I know this, because I do.

 

[scipio337]

It all depends on your perspective. I may be wrong, but what I interpret from the statement is that the decision to become a mother dramatically affects a woman’s socioeconomic status.

Right. And since the article is regarding a “personhood amendment” that would restrict abortion, this article is quite obviously addressing contraception.

Seriously, seekerz, I have no idea why you would twist the impetus of the article in a weak attempt to justify your own position.

Quite clearly, the authors is stating that the decision to have or not have an abortion (bringing a baby full term) has a signifigant impact on the financial life of the mother. And that right shouldn’t be restricted (since it has such a large impact on the mother’s life).

Period.

 

[seekerz]

Right. And since the article is regarding a "personhood amendment that would restrict abortion, this article is quite obviously addressing contraception.

Seriously, seekerz, I have no idea why you would twist the impetus of the article in a weak attempt to justify your own position.

Quite clearly, the authors is stating that the decision to have or not have an abortion (bringing a baby full term) has a signifigant impact on the financial life of the mother. And that right shouldn’t be restricted (since it has such a large impact on the mother’s life).

Period.

Any attempt to claim otherwise is just cognitive dissonance on your part.

And dismissing the rest of my post is what kind of dissonance? What’s the word for dismissing someone’s argument because you have already decided that they’re wrong?

Regardless, it doesn’t change the biological fact that the decision to become a mother cannot be made after one is already pregnant.

 

[scipio337]

And dismissing the rest of my post is what kind of dissonance? What’s the word for dismissing someone’s argument because you have already decided that they’re wrong?

If the post is made on a false premise (that the author was talking about contraception in its listing the decision to have a child being the most impactful economic events), then I’m not sure what you would be tying to prove.

seekerz:

Regardless, it doesn’t change the biological fact that the decision to become a mother cannot be made after one is already pregnant.

People can certainly decide to become (or not to become) a mother after one is already pregnant.

Thanks to abortion on demand.

 

[vz71]

 

[LemonAndLime]

Locking up evil, naughty people is hardly what a DA usually calls an advantage, it’s a DA’s occupation. He gets elected and paid to do that.

There’s no advantage to finding a “loophole” to prosecute decent, innocent, law biding women.

There is to lawyers who want to make a living, or have certain beliefs.

What other reason can you give for a law being twisted to bring charges against 300+ women for having miscarriages? Like the fetal homicide law.

 

[SamH]

There is to lawyers who want to make a living, or have certain beliefs.

What other reason can you give for a law being twisted to bring charges against 300+ women for having miscarriages? Like the fetal homicide law.

Except when 300 women have not been charged.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Except when 300 women have not been charged.

Because it’s later realised there is no evidence to prosecute for murder/child endangerment etc so they have to let them go. This personhood law would make it easier for them to prosecute.

Also I think “well they only arrested you” doesn’t quite cut it though when we’re talking about mothers who have miscarried and have already had enough trauma, don’t you?

 

[vz71]

What other reason can you give for a law being twisted to bring charges against 300+ women for having miscarriages? Like the fetal homicide law.

Please provide a source for this.
The number 300 is going around a lot lately, but I have yet to see any evidence that this is accurate at all.