| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| Proposition 26, or 'The Personhood Amendment' https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7502 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | LadyKate [ Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Proposition 26, or 'The Personhood Amendment' |
Mississippi Code, Title 97, Chapter 3, Section 3 prohibits abortion except when carried out by a doctor to preserve the mother's life or in the case of rape. We have ONE abortion clinic in Mississippi. Now, our state is trying to pass Proposition 26, which appears to be, in its entirety, one sentence which leaves doors wide open for speculation and legal gray area: http://www.sos.ms.gov/page.aspx?s=7&s1=1&s2=84 Quote: SECTION I. Article III of the constitution for the state of Mississippi is hereby amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read: Section 33. Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, "The term 'person' of 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof." This initiative shall not require any additional revenue for implementation. The questions arise: What about ectopic pregnancies or other cases where the mother's life is clearly in danger? What about cases where the life of the mother is a gray area such as in cases of chorioamnionitis, pre-ecclampsia/ecclampsia, complications of maternal diseases such as cancer that happen before the baby is viable but the decision/immediate consequences are not absolutely clear? What about situations of mothers with multiple miscarriages...will these be prosecuted as suspected homicides? If this passes, how many more doctors will leave our already defunct health care system in Mississippi? We already have a shortage of doctors because of our high malpractice insurance rates. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like too many people are actually going to look beyond the "this outlaws abortion in all forms" bit....except, as mentioned before, abortion is already illegal in our state except in cases of rape or saving the mother's life. |
|
| Author: | Hannibal [ Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Non doctors regulating doctors. Kinda like senators.trying to regulate healthcare or finances. They just have no fcking clue. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Proposition 26, or 'The Personhood Amendment' |
Doctors triage between persons everyday, but yeah the law is a little vague. |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Does the woman have to prove she was raped? Seems if it was a normal consensual act, she could lie about it to get an abortion. On the other hand, if she does have to prove it and doesn't have the evidence, she is kind of screwed. |
|
| Author: | Killuas [ Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Proposition 26, or 'The Personhood Amendment' |
None of that matters LK the only thing that matters is saving a human life, it is all important and no one should be able to take a life from someone no matter what the circumstances.... oh excuse me I need to run to the pharmacy we are low on our execution drugs I will be back in a bit to continue my explanation on how we cannot let people kill other people. |
|
| Author: | LadyKate [ Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Hannibal wrote: Non doctors regulating doctors. Kinda like senators.trying to regulate healthcare or finances. They just have no fcking clue. No, they don't. No clue at all. Here is a grey area case (real case): Patient goes in to the hospital for pre-term labor, fetus is 19/20 weeks gestation. (Viability isn't until 24 weeks.) For whatever reason, pre-term labor stops with the cervix dilated to 5cm and the amniotic sac is half in, half out of the birth canal. Because of the amniotic sac's contamination by the natural flora/fauna of the birth canal, there is no way to push the sac back in and sew the cervix closed because of the risk of inevitable infection. At 23 weeks and 3 days, the patient succumbs to chorioamnionitis. There is no way to cure this, the baby has to be delivered, viable or not in order to save the mother's life. At this point in our legal system, the mother's life comes before the life of the baby. Now, if Prop 26 passes, this scenario could change...the doctors would have to take into account the life of the fetus as well. It's entirely possible that the doctors would decide to give the fetus the 4 additional days needed to reach viability...it's not definite that the mother would die, but there's a pretty good chance considering that in the original scenario she had a wide-spread infection with a 103 degree fever and needed IV antibiotics for 24 hours after an immediate delivery resulting in the demise of the fetus an hour later due to lung immaturity. The doctors would have to weigh whether it was in the best interest of the life of the fetus to stay in the infected womb for a few more days or not....in cases like these, it should be up to the doctors because there is just NO CLEAR CUT answer...as of right now, it is hard enough as it is to make these decisions. Making doctors have the added weight of wondering if they will be prosecuted for these decisions would be a nightmare. I can think of dozens of more examples, but that's just one of them. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Most execution drugs as you've dubbed them prevent fertilization as I understand it. A lot of sperm and eggs get "wasted" in normal reproductive processes, so I don't think comparing preventing fertilization with destroying embryos and fetuses is valid on all points. Kate, I don't have anything against cases like that. In my opinion that's triage between persons; doctors and patients making a decision based on the realities of that case. If you feel that law is going to inhibit that, don't vote for it and tell your friends. Lex Luthor wrote: Does the woman have to prove she was raped? Seems if it was a normal consensual act, she could lie about it to get an abortion. On the other hand, if she does have to prove it and doesn't have the evidence, she is kind of screwed. I would assume you'd have to fill out a police report and all the crime that goes with that. I don't see people claiming to be sexually assaulted to game the system. This is one of those areas I'm sure how I feel about. I get both sides of that issue, but as I've said before these are the "tail" of abortions in this country right now. |
|
| Author: | LadyKate [ Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Rorinthas wrote: In my opinion that's triage between persons. I do like your term "triage of persons" because it implies that in cases like an ectopic pregnancy, it would clearly be a case of no case at all...the pregnancy would have to be terminated, period. But the amendment doesn't allow for that. Triage of persons does not usually deal with cases where you actually have to kill one person in order to save another. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Then it probably needs to be voted down for clearer language in that area. I like the idea of fetus person hood because of the other benefits, but you have to be able to let doctors make calls in cases like that. We just need to invent the artificial womb and put this whole debate to rest. |
|
| Author: | LadyKate [ Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ror, I like Prop 26 and the idea of personhood for a fetus, but I don't like the gray areas. Many people want to stop all abortions, but they don't want the amendment to pass because of it preventing birth control methods like the IUD...what they fail to realize is that if they believe that abortion is wrong, then by the same token, they should agree that things like the IUD which effectively prevent the fertilized egg from implanting (thereby causing it's death) are just as wrong....but these same people want abortion to be illegal but be allowed to have IUDS and the "morning after" pill...their argument would seem to be then, that they don't think of the fertilized egg as a person but then at some point within a week or so (when you'd have to have an abortion to terminate the pregnancy), it has all of a sudden become a person? I like the clear cut idea of defining personhood at conception...it jives with my personal beliefs, but I dislike the lack of legal definitions for the matter of enforcement. |
|
| Author: | Müs [ Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
"Personhood" at viability outside the womb. Other than that, its not the government's business. |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Müs wrote: "Personhood" at viability outside the womb. Other than that, its not the government's business. So, if we kill it, you can never prove to me that it was really viable...? |
|
| Author: | Hopwin [ Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Completely unrelated: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/ ... GK20111027 Not for the sensitive: Spoiler: |
|
| Author: | Müs [ Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Kaffis Mark V wrote: Müs wrote: "Personhood" at viability outside the womb. Other than that, its not the government's business. So, if we kill it, you can never prove to me that it was really viable...? Shouldn't have to prove a thing to you. Its none of your business. |
|
| Author: | Sam [ Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Proposition 26, or 'The Personhood Amendment' |
This will probably derail into the old abortion arguments as usual, but I will simply add my view since I'm a resident of this state. It wouldn't surprise me if it is passed. I do not agree with it. I also don't agree with personhood begins at conception. I believe "personhood" begins once the fetus is delivered with a heartbeat, and becomes a baby. Lots of women don't know when they conceived. Some in this dumbass state don't know they are 6 months pregnant. There are simply too many things that can happen before the fetus exits the body with a heartbeat, to make me consider it warrants "personhood" status. I understand others feel different, and some (even here) are emotionally attached to this topic. I will respect their views and not argue mine vs theirs. And with that, I will exit this thread. |
|
| Author: | Khross [ Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Proposition 26, or 'The Personhood Amendment' |
Can anyone here tell me when they became a person? Hell, does anyone here have any idea what separates a person from a human being? |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Proposition 26, or 'The Personhood Amendment' |
Khross wrote: Can anyone here tell me when they became a person? Hell, does anyone here have any idea what separates a person from a human being? When they have lots of cells? |
|
| Author: | Khross [ Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Proposition 26, or 'The Personhood Amendment' |
Just seems to me that if people are going to dismiss the forms of study and discourse that deal with this subject, they should just probably give up on the abortion debate itself. |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
There is no line at all when someone becomes a person after the time of conception. It is completely arbitrary to make one. Abortion is a lesser form of murder, but there is a persistently high demand for it because it improves the quality of women's lives. Getting accidentally pregnant is an all too easy mistake. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Proposition 26, or 'The Personhood Amendment' |
Khross wrote: Can anyone here tell me when they became a person? Hell, does anyone here have any idea what separates a person from a human being? You're treading on some dangerous territory there. Some people would happily tell you that severely retarded people don't count as "persons" because they don't know any better if they aren't treated as such. If we, say, confiscate money they are entitled to for the benefit of others as long as their physical needs are met, that's perfectly ok. This sort of person will usually go on to tell you that we should regard chimpanzees as persons before the severely retarded in order to be "consistent". |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Fri Oct 28, 2011 2:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Personhood is a legality, nothing more. It just happens to be the legality that determines your legal rights, however. There's nothing special about being a person or a human being that grants you any kind of inherent value above or beyond the other bits of stardust in the universe. The universe doesn't care if you're human. You're just a collection of elements in chemical reaction with each other. However, other persons/human beings (that's us) do place a subjective value on our lives and the lives of those around us. However we choose to subjectively define personhood is rather up to us. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Fri Oct 28, 2011 2:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Proposition 26, or 'The Personhood Amendment' |
Khross wrote: Can anyone here tell me when they became a person? Hell, does anyone here have any idea what separates a person from a human being? I have thoughts, but I can't be sure. Can you? |
|
| Author: | Killuas [ Fri Oct 28, 2011 2:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Proposition 26, or 'The Personhood Amendment' |
Maybe this could work in a good way. If a fetus is declared a person, then no more abortions. So now the doctor can just remove the fetus unharmed and send it on its way, its an emancipation not an abortion. The law has declared it a person and a person should be able to survive on their own right? End the tyranny of the womb free the person. |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Proposition 26, or 'The Personhood Amendment' |
Killuas wrote: Maybe this could work in a good way. If a fetus is declared a person, then no more abortions. So now the doctor can just remove the fetus unharmed and send it on its way, its an emancipation not an abortion. The law has declared it a person and a person should be able to survive on their own right? End the tyranny of the womb free the person. So a mother can abandon her infant whereever she wants? |
|
| Author: | Taskiss [ Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Talya wrote: Personhood is a legality, nothing more. It just happens to be the legality that determines your legal rights, however. There's nothing special about being a person or a human being that grants you any kind of inherent value above or beyond the other bits of stardust in the universe. The universe doesn't care if you're human. You're just a collection of elements in chemical reaction with each other. However, other persons/human beings (that's us) do place a subjective value on our lives and the lives of those around us. However we choose to subjectively define personhood is rather up to us. ^Truth. That doesn't mean people will accept it though. My opinions are sacred, yours are fallacious. Sucks to be you. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|