Mississippi voters are now voting on a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion, and possibly in vitro fertilization and many forms of birth control. As explained in this article from CNN, the amendment language states a person is “every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.”
So, if the measure passes, then in Mississippi, a fertilized egg is a person, with all the rights and privileges of a born child. What’s interesting about this bill is that there are no exclusions for rape or incest, or the life or well-being of the mother. So, if a man rapes and impregnates a woman, and she wants to have an abortion, she cannot legally do so. She will be forced by the power of the state to bear her rapist’s child. If an 11-year old girl is impregnated by her alcoholic and abusive father, she too will be compelled by the state to bear his child, regardless of the grave physical risks to herself. It’s worth noting that the bill’s sponsors are aware of these ramifications and simply maintain that a fertilized egg is a person, regardless of the situation in which the egg was fertilized. They are, at least, honest and consistent.
The integrity of the bill’s authors notwithstanding, this amendment exposes the great contradiction of the Republican Party. The GOP is philosophically committed to individual liberty, more specifically, the belief that people should be free to make their own choices, whether the results bear the individual good or ill. The notion of a paternalistic government making life choices for citizens is fundamentally repugnant to the GOP, and its members consistently oppose new government mandates and regulations. And yet, in this important case, the GOP is abandoning that principle. Science has no clear answer to when life begins, and citizen views on the matter vary widely. Nationwide, most Americans are pro-choice. States with pro-life majorities are so only by slim margins. But rather than allow individuals to make the choice for themselves, the GOP wants to use the power of the state to force its own views on millions of unwilling citizens.
These discussions tend to get a bit heated. I’m hoping we can keep it civil, and perhaps our pro-life posters will feel comfortable stating their opinions.
Committed to individual liberty, but cognizant that some individuals are unable to represent themselves – perhaps its better to say unable to choose for themselves – and willing to intervene on their behalf – if unborn, in a vegetative state, a victim of violent crime. I would say, also, something close to willfully blind to other forms of involuntary constraints on meaningful choice: brute luck, birth lottery endowment, etc.
I agree with your take, but think there’s something about the intuitive extension of protection to… some of the victimized… that you’re not giving its due.
If unborn, it is unclear if the fetus is actually a person. The majority of Americans do not believe ova are people.
I would agree, except that Republicans, as a group, oppose removing life support from people in vegetative states, even when those people legally declared beforehand that they would not want life support in such situations. This is yet another case of Republicans using the power of the state to force people to do things against their will.
Protecting victims of violent crime is a priority of both parties. I can’t believe you’d think otherwise.
I have ova to the age of 16. Ova should stay in the womb or be sent to a Swiss boarding school/military facility until they are old enough to be presentable. Perhaps, abortion should be optional to the age of 12? in case the parents change their minds?
Glad to see that logic prevailed. Hopefully, in our countries, where there exist such laws -ban on all abortions and IV procedures- this turn of events will help those that fight for the cause.
If unborn, it is unclear if the fetus is actually a person. The majority of Americans do not believe ova are people. [/quote]
The scientific literacy of the majority of Americans aside. Is this professed belief that there is uncertainity around whether a fetus is actually a person based on actual science or simply just convience.
After all, if you were to recognize that a fetus is equivallent to personhood it forces people to ask some very difficult questions. Where as to deny a fetus personhood allows one to escape such questions.
I tend to believe that when development reaches a point where the natural (maybe undisturbed is better) course of events will lead to birth then any action taken to terminate that process is evectively ending a life. So for me this would indicate at conception is pretty much the starting point.
FWIW, I am athesist in my out look and policitally I am very liberal. However, as far a womens right to choose goes. My tendacy is to think that the choice was made at the point the decision was made to have sex. Conception is merely a consequence of that choice and it is only because of developed knowledge and technology that we have the ability to undo this consequence.
Having developed this technology, whether we have the moral right to use it comes down to the right to life of the fetus vs. the womans right to choose. So it would seem to me the motive behind denying a fetus personhood is merely a means of avoiding this dilemma.
As for those that site cases of rape for example. We are talking about a tiny fraction of the cases in which this is a consideration (I think I saw it was something like 1%). Firstly that’s an awful small percentage to justify denying personhood (or what ever the appropriate term is). Secondly, it’s not like we as a society can’t recognize that such situations occurr and make allowances or accomodations for such circumstances.
In terms of this proposal, I think it’s aim was to serve as a starting point for an attack on Roe vs. Wade, rather than really being about any moral or philosophical questions so I’m glad it failed. I respect that as a society the decision has been made that we don’t recognize a fetus as a person and have legislated accordingly. I’m actually pretty happy with the way things stand (as far as I understand them to be) in the US and in my own country.
While it may seem odd that I support the current status quoa despite it not being consistent with my moral instincts is because I’m not completely comfortable that I’m perfectly informed on the issue and I’m not completely comfortable that my moral outlook on the issue is strong enough that I feel I should have it imposed on anyone else.
I cannot agree that a decision to have sex equals a decision to become pregnant.
I think people should be more careful. And I think they should be financially responsible for whatever consequences they need to deal with. But, the decision to have sex surely is not the same as the decision to get pregnant.
I cannot agree that a decision to have sex equals a decision to become pregnant.
I think people should be more careful. And I think they should be financially responsible for whatever consequences they need to deal with. But, the decision to have sex surely is not the same as the decision to get pregnant.[/quote]
