Well, you certainly seem to know a lot about these 300 cases.
Can you provide a source for this information?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Personhood amendment campaigners vow to fight on after Mississippi defeat
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Can you provide a source for this information?
S
seekerz
Guest
You are so correct and that is the reason I am persistent on these threads.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?
I have seen first hand what a culture of condemnation can do in a Catholic community where illegal/self-induced abortions are common. Few/or no women are allowed to experience and grieve genuine miscarriages in peace; everyone is a potential suspect. Women have to deal with not only the loss of their babies, but the whispers and knowing stares of everyone, hospital staff included.
It is so sad and even more so when there is a problem which causes repeated miscarriages - people who operate on their ‘gut’ and not on scientific knowledge, refuse to accept that lightning can strike in the same place multiple times so those women are branded with the reputation of ‘baby killers’ with no proof whatsoever. It is even worse that they are hardly ever prosecuted because at least then the truth might be made public and their reputations salvaged.
I don’t kid myself for a moment that such attitudes could not catch on anywhere.
S
seekerz
Guest
How does one become what one already is?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.
People can certainly decide to become (or not to become) a mother after one is already pregnant.
Thanks to abortion on demand.
There is indeed a connection between family planning and socioeconomic concerns, even for people who eschew artificial contraception. You still have to be sure you can afford to become parents and anything people see as coming between them and that decision could be seen as a problem. That was specifically the reason why some Christians (who oppose abortion but use OCPs) would have seen big problems with the personhood amendment. In the absence of a clearer definition of what the author is referring to, I choose to assume that she means the threats posed by the amendment to the ability to plan one’s family.
S
scipio337
Guest
How does one become what one already is?
There is indeed a connection between family planning and socioeconomic concerns, even for people who eschew artificial contraception. You still have to be sure you can afford to become parents and anything people see as coming between them and that decision could be seen as a problem. That was specifically the reason why some Christians (who oppose abortion but use OCPs) would have seen big problems with the personhood amendment. In the absence of a clearer definition of what the author is referring to, I choose to assume that she means the threats posed by the amendment to the ability to plan one’s family.
Yeah, it really sounds like that was the author’s intent. Again, we’re talking about a US author who has written for Salon and the Nation.We should also not be afraid to put a positive spin on abortion. With its existence under constant attack, it is easy to defend it mostly in those worst-case scenarios of rape, incest, or risk to the life of the mother. But access to safe abortions – particularly when contraception is not easily had, as is increasingly the case – has brought relief and opportunities to millions of women in dire situations…
S
seekerz
Guest
I commented on what was posted in the thread and did not see that second quote. If they are indeed the author’s views then your interpretation makes sense. Mine is based on the comments provided in the OP.Yeah, it really sounds like that was the author’s intent. Again, we’re talking about a US author who has written for Salon and the Nation.
L
LemonAndLime
Guest
Take a look at the ‘Outcry over pregnant women being charged for murder’ thread, it links to a newsarticle which provides a source for the 300 figure.Well, you certainly seem to know a lot about these 300 cases.
Can you provide a source for this information?
Thinking about it, I’ve already provided a link for it to you.
Done, and the thread does not support what you claim.Take a look at the ‘Outcry over pregnant women being charged for murder’ thread, it links to a newsarticle which provides a source for the 300 figure.
Thinking about it, I’ve already provided a link for it to you.
Please be honest.
And support yourself with facts.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
Everyone recognizes that injecting a child with heroin or cocaine is child abuse of the lowest order, and is a grevious crime.What I wrote is correct. The woman was charged because her drug use was deemed abusive (akin to injecting the drug directly into a newborn infant). Notably, the case discussed first in the article involves a Mississippi woman. This is the same state that just failed to pass the “personhood” amendment (that is, there was no “personhood” law in place at the time and there still is not). Therefore, the amendment would have had no effect on the prosecution.
The child inside the womb and the child outside are one and the same child.
The effects of being born crippled through such abuses are devastating.
S
Semper_Zelare
Guest
Here is a video in which Newt Gingrich explains how he would achieve the definition of personhood at conception, on a national level.
youtube.com/watch?v=xB-izbw-6iY&feature=related
Yesterday at a Faith conference in Iowa.
youtube.com/watch?v=xB-izbw-6iY&feature=related
Yesterday at a Faith conference in Iowa.
L
LemonAndLime
Guest
The article does.Done, and the thread does not support what you claim.
Please be honest.
And support yourself with facts.
Please read my posts.
And support yourself with reading glasses.
You claim to know why cases were dismissed.The article does.
Please read my posts.
And support yourself with reading glasses.
The article does not say.
Further, the article does not say what you claim it does.
The article does not at all tell anyone that 300 women have been charged.
This was pointed out in the other thread. You retreated from using this article there, but instead picked it up here. This seems quite disingenuous.
As requested earlier…please be honest, and support your case with facts.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
Interesting.Here is a video in which Newt Gingrich explains how he would achieve the definition of personhood at conception, on a national level.
youtube.com/watch?v=xB-izbw-6iY&feature=related
Yesterday at a Faith conference in Iowa.
It is so simple, isn’t it, but as constitutional as the 14 amendment itself, by the sounds of it.
Just let Congress do their job then.
L
LemonAndLime
Guest
SighYou claim to know why cases were dismissed.
The article does not say.
Further, the article does not say what you claim it does.
The article does not at all tell anyone that 300 women have been charged.
This was pointed out in the other thread. You retreated from using this article there, but instead picked it up here. This seems quite disingenuous.
As requested earlier…please be honest, and support your case with facts.
I said there were 300 cases, you asked for proof. I have given you a link which cites a source (a charity) which has done research and found 300 cases. You can click through to that charity’s website to read their own information if you wanted to. If you can’t get that far on your own, it appears I am going to have to link to it directly so that you can stop being evasive and admit that I was correct.
Also, I am being honest. I am honestly fed up with having to repeat myself.
Edit: Link to the article that quotes the 300 figure - guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges
Link to the charity that did the research and found the 300 figure - advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/
No, I asked you to back what you are saying with facts.I said there were 300 cases, you asked for proof.
This article does not provide facts, but estimations.
And it certainly does not provide the reason any of these cases were dropped as you claimed earlier.
OK, I read the article again, and you are mistaken.I have given you a link which cites a source (a charity) which has done research and found 300 cases.
The article specifies:
These are not cases that have been found, this is not research, it is an estimation.Yet the group estimates there have been up to 300 women arrested for their actions during pregnancy.
The article does not provide what you claimed.You can click through to that charity’s website to read their own information if you wanted to. If you can’t get that far on your own, it appears I am going to have to link to it directly so that you can stop being evasive and admit that I was correct.
Nor does it provide the information you provided us on this thread.
You could be fooled reading through the article.Also, I am being honest. I am honestly fed up with having to repeat myself.
It is written in a very evasive manner, and it would be very easy to read into it that they had 300 cases when they really do not.
But that does not account for your extra knowledge into these imaginary 300 cases you described thus:
So at what point was this leap made in the article?Because it’s later realised there is no evidence to prosecute for murder/child endangerment etc so they have to let them go.
Please be honest, back what you are claiming with facts.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.