90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
The New Abortion Battlefield

A controversial amendment on the ballot in Mississippi to say life begins at conception. We’ll look at the next abortion battlefront.

"Personhood" supporters gather at a prayer rally Monday, June 6, 2011 at the Capitol in Jackson, Miss. (AP)

"Personhood" supporters gather at a prayer rally Monday, June 6, 2011 at the Capitol in Jackson, Miss. (AP)

The abortion battle goes deep next Tuesday in the state of Mississippi. Voters there go to the polls to decide whether to write into the Mississippi constitution an amendment stating that life begins at conception. Sperm meets egg and you would have a legal person.

It would make abortion in any circumstance virtually impossible under the law. Backers of the so-called “personhood” movement hope to take it national. Use it to batter down Roe v Wade. Mississippi may be their first big victory.

This hour On Point: defining life from conception, and the future of abortion rights.

-Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Randall Hines, physician and head of Mississippi Reproductive Medicine, a reproductive medicine and infertility clinic.

Jennifer Mason, Communications Director and national spokesperson for Personhood USA.

Dr. Beverly McMillan, Obstetrician and Gynecologist and President of Pro-Life Mississippi.

Jeffrey Hess, capital reporter, Mississippi Public Broadcasting.

Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Highlights

Mississippi voters will consider an amendment to the state constitution next week that would legally define a person as such from the moment of conception. That would mean that abortions – and several methods of birth control – would constitute the taking of a life.

Supporters of the bill see it as just a first step within a larger push to end abortion. “I want abortion to go away from Mississippi,” said Dr. Beverly McMillan, an obstetrician and gynecologist and President of Pro-Life Mississippi.

Opponents, meanwhile, see it as an infringement on a woman’s constitutionally protected right to secure an abortion, as well as an intrusion of the government in the relationship between the doctor and patient – one that could make life-saving medical procedures, and even types of birth control, illegal.

“This is a real shift in the way that health care decisions are made,” said Randall Hines, physician and head of Mississippi Reproductive Medicine, and a supporter of the amendment. “If we pass this amendment, we’re going to insert state government into the medical decision making process in a way that’s never been done before.”

Enshrining personhood at the state level is a nationwide effort, but one that has been controversial even among anti-abortion groups. Some prominent groups have opposed the personhood movement; for fear that a failure could set back the anti-abortion cause.

Supporters of the Mississippi effort reject those criticisms. “Those groups have had over 30 years to do something about abortion,” said Jennifer Mason, Communications Director and national spokesperson for Personhood USA. “We’ve recognized that there is a loophole in Roe v. Wade, where Justice Potter Stewart said that if a case could be made for personhood, the case for abortion collapses.”

“There’s no loophole in the constitutional law,” argued Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “The court decided clearly in Roe v. Wade that “person” does not include the unborn. It’s in the decision; it’s clear. This is an attempt to reverse Roe v. Wade.”

“Mississippi is both a socially conservative state and a religious state,” said Jeffrey Hess, capital reporter, Mississippi Public Broadcasting. “It is fertile ground for a movement that wants to end abortion nationwide.” He said that the anti-abortion measures often enjoy bi-partisan support in the state. “There’s a real likelihood that it will pass,” Hess said.

From Tom’s Reading List

The New York Times “A constitutional amendment facing voters in Mississippi on Nov. 8, and similar initiatives brewing in half a dozen other states including Florida and Ohio, would declare a fertilized human egg to be a legal person, effectively branding abortion and some forms of birth control as murder.”

CBS News “JACKSON, Miss. – A scientist who has worked for more than a quarter-century in reproductive medicine says a Mississippi ballot initiative could hinder the use of in vitro fertilization that helps some couples become parents.”

Salon “Mississippi debates a “Personhood” initiative that could ban the pill — but ultimately aims at Roe v. Wade”

More

You can find the Vote Yes on 26 page here.

The pro-choice critique of the personhood movement can be found here.

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Does this mean that Mississippi young adults will get to drink when they turn twenty and three months?

    • Winston Smith

      What a moronic, typically cynical comment.  Nothing more needs to be said.

    • Four Elements

      A terrific comment – it was meant to show the absurdity of the proposal

  • Michiganjf

    Hopefully all genius Republicans will soon adopt their new hero Cain’s idiotic, contradictory position on abortion:

    “I’m 100% pro-life… no, abortion should not be legal… it should be a woman’s choice made in the privacy of her own family and government should not impose itself on a person’s private life.”

    Good God these people are brilliant!

    • Zero

      I think Cain meant that it is a woman’s right to choose back-ally abortion or baby.

    • JustSayin

      A position statement constructed to appeal to Evangelicals plus the Libertarian Tea party.  It like saying rule of law and Liberty. Or I’m for the war, it will bring us peace.

      Politics… run by… populated with… believed by… idiots.

      • Dave in CT

        Libertarians a far more anti-war than your beloved DNC.

        • Dave in CT

          But we are all still waiting to hear why you are against the Rule of Law or Liberty.

          If you can’t handle a lengthy and substantive response, just try “Anarchist” or “Communist”.

        • JustSayin

          Did you consult your Ron Paul crystal ball ($9.99 at K-Mart) to attribute “your beloved DNC” to me?  And you wonder why I don’t engage you in deep thoughts….

          Arguing with ideologues is a waste of time. You are the libertarian version of ED. Nothing anyone writes is ever going to make any change in him or you. You both write in the hope of changing others to your way of thinking. …and that’s the limit of your scope.

          You are one of the few people who keeps replying to his own posts, if no one else takes the bait!  Yikes!  Try some decafe.

          Rationality is beyond you and Ed.  Way… way beyond….

          • Dave in CT

            What is my way of thinking anyway? (See if you can turn this into an ad hominem attack rather than point/counterpoint exchange)

          • Dave in CT

            …and of course, still waiting to hear what your objection to liberty and the rule of law is. Such wacky ideology. So abstract, living and let living, within a clear, evenly applied set of boundaries to protect each other from the worst tendencies of human nature, while trying to maintain as much freedom, and least coercion as possible.

            Radical stuff.

          • Dave in CT

            The ideas were consistent, as or more consistent than Republican or Democratic ideas, on todays show, the Black show on lack of Wall St prosecutions, the Greenwald show on lack of rule of law for the elite…. and so many others.

            Its not an ideology, its more like an observation that we have strayed from the foundations and, ok, I must admit, IDEALS, or our nation, that want liberty and justice for all. Whether we have/had it or not, it is worth pursuing, especially when nobody is describing a viable alternative.

            But perhaps you like the status quo.

        • Gina M

          I suppose the stridently anti-choice stance of Ron Paul, the libertarians’ great hero, is the exception that proves the rule?

          • Dave in CT

            From the card carriers…..

            http://www.lp.org/platform

            “1.4 Abortion

            “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”

    • William

      Unlike Kerry? or Gore or Biden?

  • Yar

    Good Morning Ed, Today is your day.
    But before you get going, the egg is alive, the sperm is alive.  To say life begins at conception is counter to the Bible, for scripture says: I knew you before you were in your mothers womb. Every egg has potential, every sperm has potential; not the same potential for a long life, but potential never the less.All life has potential what bothers me most about evangelical conservatives positions is that it seems their value for that potential life ends at birth.  Why else would conservatives attempt to cut education, or access to healthcare, or support for poor families?  I support helping all children to live in a safe, loved  and well educated environment.  If to provide a good environment to raise our young requires allowing some potential mothers to choose to end a pregnancy, then I support their choice, however most mothers to be will choose to keep their babies if they know they they will have the support of the society at large.  In other words mother usually knows best, at least in terms of raising their children. Any other position, such as giving up a child as soon as it is born, puts a woman in the rent a womb business, and I am pretty sure the Bible is against that.

    Don’t pray like the hypocrites do, pray in private, you will receive you rewarded in private. 

    Ed, I am praying for you.

    • Zing

      You’re not praying for Ed at all…you’re hitting him over the head for his beliefs.

  • Winston Smith

    Concerning when life begins, how can anyone argue that it is ok to terminate the life of an unborn child one day before it would be born? It very obviously is a viable human life that could live outside of the womb.  And if that is wrong, then is two days before birth ok?  How about three?  Four?  You see my point.  You can back up one day at a time and quickly realize that any date other than conception as the start of that life is an arbitrary, convenient date to simply justify abortion.  Signs of life such as a beating heart, sensing of pain, movement of limbs, etc. in fetuses just a few weeks old are well documented.

    I bet many of these same people would protest the same act if committed against endangered species still developing inside an egg or their mother’s womb.  

    • Winston Smith

      In my second paragraph, I was of course referring to people who aruge for abortion who would at the same time object to the same act if committed against an unborn offspring of some endangered species.  

      • Anonymous

        First, the animal in question is not the one deciding whether to bear her child in your endangered species case.  And said species is almost certainly endangered because of human actions!  So morally, it’s entirely different.  Second, we don’t prosecute our pet rat or eating her baby, do we?  Or other animals who neglect their offspring?  Planning to set up a CSI unit to investigate endangered birds who push their chicks out of the nest too early are we?

      • Brett

        Name five of those people? …Wait…you mean “liberalzzz” don’t you?!?!

    • JustSayin

      Time for inter species child bearing. Science enabled Bestiality?

      Would it be against Gods law for a human female carrying a pig to have a late term abortion? 

      Quick to the Bible Robin! Yes Batman, the answer will be there for sure….

    • Anonymous

      Of course choosing a date to decide on “personhood” is arbitrary.  Just like choosing a date to decide when people can vote, be tried as an adult, drink, or serve in the military is arbitrary.  Nature doesn’t give us clean boundaries.  You’re arbitrarily choosing the point of conception, and for a host a reasons not the least of which is a woman’s right to autonomy and individual freedom, I prefer a point sometime after conception.  The pain threshold is not a bad one, as far as I’m concerned, unless the mother’s life is at risk or there are other exceptional circumstances.
      But your statement on when fetuses can feel pain is factually incorrect.  First, we don’t really know, but given what we do know it is almost certainly not before 18-20 weeks and possibly not until 26 weeks.

      If you don’t believe in some sort of magical moment of ensoulment, there is no reason to arbitrarily choose an earlier date.  As is clear from the “What is personhood” website, they are presenting a specifically religious point of view (quote “Personhood USA desires to glorify Jesus Christ in a way that creates a culture of life so that all innocent human lives are protected by love and by law”), which makes adoption by the government all the more problematic.  If you have religious objections to abortion, don’t get one, but do not attempt to impose your myopic religious view of morality on the rest of us.  Take your theocracy elsewhere, I prefer living in a free country.

      • Winston Smith

        You of course did not speak to my argument about backing up a day at a time and choosing when the magical day is when it is not ok to perform an abortion one day but it is ok the day before.  And of course the reason is is that my argument is correct and irrefutable.  The only arbitrary date is the one that pro-abortionists used such as the second trimester, etc. so that they can make the murderous act of abortion look like is somewhat scientific.  In the day of judgment, they will be have no excuse when they are asked why they murdered millions of children each year.

        • Anonymous

          I addressed it head on.  “Personhood” is partly a social construct, just as “adulthood” is.  There is no obvious point when a child becomes an adult, just like there is no obvious point when a fetus becomes of person, just like there is no obvious point when one animal evolves into another animal.  Nature enjoys a continuum, but for purposes of law, we have to choose a line.  Your choice is based on religion.  Well, that is your right, even though I consider your position immoral.  But what is not your right is to impose your religious morality on the rest of us.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

            We can provide a medical definition–fetal viability.  When the fetus can live on its own, it’s a person.  That usually happens at the end of the second trimester.  After that point, abortion could only be legal when the mother’s life is in danger–i.e., self defense.

        • Terry Tree Tree

          So far, NONE of the millitant anti-abortion has answered to any degree, with honesty, the following question.  I’ll check for your reply Winston, Ed, and any of the few others that might give an honest reply!
               “How many seriously-handicapped, minority children, that are the results of rape, are YOU raising?”
               Any answer but a reasonable number, shows your HYPOCRACY!!

    • http://twitter.com/trevzb Trevor Bauknight

      Your question assumes that one must “back up” from the date of birth. I don’t share that assumption.

  • Ensa

    Polls show that a majority of Americans are now pro-life.
     
    In time, Roe V. Wade will be rescinded and the 1973 Supreme Court sanctioning of abortion (infanticide), will be over-turned.  A great victory for the unborn awaits!

    • Margbi

      Surely you’re aware that over 50% of fertilized eggs never implant and are lost naturally. How would this affect any woman of childbearing age?  Would she be considered guilty – of what? And how – or why – would she be punished? This is so unfair. 

    • http://twitter.com/trevzb Trevor Bauknight

      A majority also favors ending the wars and taxing the wealthy more. So what kind of government do you want, a democracy, or one that responds only to your personal religious beliefs?

    • Terry Tree Tree

      Are you a HYPOCRITE?  Are YOU raising a LOT of the children that are unwanted by those that produce them NOW.  If NOT, where is your moral authority, as a HYPOCRITE, to DICTATE to someone else?

  • AC

    I think it’s interesting that they include ‘cloned’. They have now cloned a human embryo, but I don’t believe it is capable of ‘quality’ of life… 
    I recently mentioned it as a joke that they would soon begin ‘cloning’ just for spare parts, but it’s scary idea to joke about in retrospect.

    • Anonymous

      We will almost certainly began cloning for spare parts, but the organs will be grown in animals, not other people.  We’re just about there, as far as I know.
      http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/9600/

      • AC

        ah yes, the ‘super’ pigs. I thought this was an already established form of organ transplant?
        but I don’t know too much about the biology industry…
        So, if you grow an ‘organ’ (no matter the host) from a human embryo, then by definition of this proposed law – it would be illegal to transfer it from the host to the patient, no?
        Which organs are considered ‘housing’ a being? The heart? the brain?

        • Anonymous

          I don’t think human organs grown in animals are being used therapeutically, yet, but I could be wrong.

    • Modavations

      Check the movie,The Island(?)with Scarlett Johansen.The Clones won

      • Anonymous

        So?

  • Anonymous

    What I find so interesting is how the so many of the pro-life faction are the same conservatives who want less government and yet they no problems with government telling women what to do with their bodies.

    Regarding the argument of when life begins, well that’s an absurd argument that ends in saying as soon as a girl becomes a woman she’s potentially fertile. What amazes me is how the right to life crowd are so interested in the unborn and yet turn a blind eye to the suffering of children after they are born. Mississippi has one of the worst records of child services and education in the nation. Not to mention one of the worst poverty rates.

    • Modavations

      Now Jeffe,leave the girl alone.

      • Anonymous

        I could say the same, leave me alone.

        • Modavations

          I checked my dictionary of “leftist “gooble de gook”,then checked with a linguistic expert and we haven’t got a clue.Does anyone speak “Jive”?

          • Anonymous

            I thought you were the expert on jive BS.

    • Modavations

      Callousness is it?Why don’t you have a problem with the 70%(90% in the ghetto)”OUT-OF WEDLOCK”BIRTHRATE IN THE bLACK population.I’m for abortion,by the way and you’re critique of Republican “Big Brotherism”,is spot on.You’re damnable welfare system,however,has led to the pathology

      • Anonymous

        Bull dung.

  • Anonymous

    Would this mean that an expectant mother could be prosecuted for murder if her conduct contributed to a miscarriage?

    Will doctors be required to report all known conceptions like they currently do for births?

    Could trial lawyers now sue for damages for wrongful death to a fertilized human egg?

  • CORY

    This isn’t really about whether abortion is right or wrong, it is about forcing others to live as you wish them to live.  If you are Catholic or a hard core evangelical, that’s fine.  Why should an atheist who disagrees with you about th origin of life and when it begins be forced to bend to your will and live as you wish?  When life begins seems not to be a settled argument, so settling abortion using that as your linchpin seems illogical.

    For the record, I’m Catholic and would believe life exists at conception.  I also believe it is not my place to tell a stranger from far away who does not share my belief what they have to do in this matter.

    • JustSayin

      I give this comment the American Patriot Award. Five stars for acknowledgement of secular freedom based governance. 

      Social and government policy by religious beliefs is a theocracy. If you think that works well, then just look around the world and see how much it is disdained… even by its believers.

      Throughout history human sacrifice has been viewed a a way to bring Gods attention to your needs.

      Batman when is it acceptable to God to take a life? Quick Robin! to the Bible for answers on when taking a life is OK…

    • Drew You Too

      Great comment Cory, this is probably the most rational statement that will come from this discussion. Glad to see we’re focusing on such crucial issues On Point. Will tomorrow’s show be about single sex marriage?

    • Zing

      Oh please….

  • Ed

    The goal is to care for the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child.

    We have lots of laws telling others what to do whether they like it or not: no stealing, no killing, etc.

    Roe v. Wade left an out here: ‘If the society ever decides that life begins at conception, then plaintiff’s case falls to the ground under the Fifth Amendment’ (abortion is illegal).

    • JustSayin

      …and if abortion was illegal, what would be the prescribed punishment be?  Since its a religious law being broken, should the ‘secular government??’, be meting out jail time? Death sentences? a good ole stoning perhaps? 

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo

    • pajpaj

      Do you mean Fifth Commandment?

    • Terry Tree Tree

      YOU FAILED miserably on taking care of the children and the mothers!!! 
          Catholics want more VICTIMS for the molesting and abusing priests!! 
           Prove me wrong.

  • Ed

    In response to YAR’s thoughtful comment:

    - ‘I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb’ refers not to sperm and egg but to God’s having an idea of his creation before he actually brought it into being.

    -Of course we need to care for life at every stage and way, but we can’t do evil to reach good ends. Evil begets evil.

    -Children whose mothers have aborted siblings, far from having a better life, often sense that someone is missing. And sometimes their parents tell the child what they did … and the child is horrified … it could have been them.

    -If economic circumstances don’t allow for another child in prudence, then natural family planning can be used to avoid pregnancy (far more effective than contraceptives), and if a child is conceived, the child can be given up for adoption. (If I have a neighbor who is an inconvience, can I kill him or her?)

    • Brett

      “-If economic circumstances don’t allow for another child in prudence, then natural family planning can be used to avoid pregnancy (far more effective than contraceptives)…”

      Your “far more effective” solutions are what? Abstinence? The rhythm method? No sex unless pro-creating? What, pray tell? 

    • Yar

      “-Of course we need to care for life at every stage and way, but we can’t do evil to reach good ends. Evil begets evil.”

      I agree that we need to care for life at every stage, that includes a living wage for all work.  Life is precious, I expect you agree.  Abortion was preformed even when it was against the law,  lives were lost including those who were recipients of those abortions.  Which life is more precious?  That of the mother choosing to end the life of her unborn child or the life of that child?  I believe we are to have compassion for the guilty, God will care for the innocent.  I am pro-life therefor I am also pro choice, even though choice may cause the loss of life, it prevents the loss of more life by providing a safe way to end a pregnancy.If we do everything we can to provide resources to families, then we will go farther toward ending abortion than simply passing laws to punish women.Universal health care would be a really good start.   
      Good begets good!

    • Terry Tree Tree

      PROVE that you take care of the children and the mothers, without ANY priests, or anyone molesting or abusing the children!!

  • Ensa

    Even Nazi Germany and the God-less Soviet Union made abortions illegal.

    That says a lot about the moral-depravity of present day America.

    • JustSayin

      I see it as the moral depravity Nazi Germany and the USSR.  I guess it all depends on who loves freedom and who loves totalitarianism. 

    • pajpaj

      When I see someone comparing anything to Nazism, I have to step back and say… way out of bounds!

    • Brett

      Or, another way of putting it, if you support a woman’s right to choose, then you are worse than Hitler!! 

    • Anonymous

      Head for the hills, America is full of moral-depravity!!!!

      Are you an anti-big government type? If so you are a hypocrite.

    • Dpweber83

      Even Nazi Germany and the God-less Soviet Union drove four-door sedans.

      That says a lot about the moral-depravity of present day America.
      -dan
      Boston, MA

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

        Of course, Hitler was a teetotaler, a vegetarian, and a non-smoker.  Makes me want to have a cigar and a brandy with my steak. . .

      • Terry Tree Tree

        Good One!!!

    • http://twitter.com/trevzb Trevor Bauknight

      That we aren’t more like them?

      I don’t get the joke.

    • Terry Tree Tree

      To produce baby-factory babies, to be raised from birth as Nazis, without a mother’s love, even for the babies WANTED by their mothers!!   YOU need to read more history!!  I haven’t read, or heard of the Soviet plans for the children, but I’ll bet it was nearly the same.  Just as Catholics want all those children for more victims of molesting and abusing priests!

  • Hidan

    Crazy abortion freaks want government in people personal lives, while most are the same people screaming to get government out of there personal lives.

    Pre-born they love them, born they chastised the mother and don’t give two craps about the kids. One top of the above many are against using condoms.

  • Hidan

    I love for the host to ask these anti-women people if they would glady pay a increase of there taxes by 20%+ to prevent abortions. That would fully fund the child first 18 years of life?  If someone is going to force a women to have a child they can’t physically,emotionally or financially afford then ante up.

  • Soli

    What always gets me in these arguments is the idea that by making abortion illegal it will go away. Find me a country where it’s illegal and I bet anything there’s going to be a high rate of illegal (and unsafe) abortions happening.

  • Brett

    Why stop there, what about the senseless killing of spermatozoa? All you masturbators out there [and you know who you are] seem to invite so much of God’s wrath with just the stroke of a hand; we must save you poor sinners from yourselves! …And what about all of those women wasting their ovaries? …I know, I know, we don’t want to put any more prison personal on the government dole…so let’s privatize our prison systems?!? We should make all non-procreating sexual activity illegal, enforce the laws, and criminalize anyone who’s not married and having children! Think of how many jobs in the private sector we can create if we privatize our prison systems! Making all of these acts illegal will be good for our economy! 

    As far as Mississippi goes, shouldn’t they resolve their cousin-marrying-cousin problems first?!?! ;-)  

    • Drew You Too

      “Why stop there, what about the senseless killing of spermatozoa?”

      I completely agree, why not go even further? Why not use the point that someone has thoughts about having sex as a point of conception? After all: “As in thought, so in deed”, right?

      Ridiculous

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

      To borrow from Monty Python:

      Every sperm is sacred.
      Every sperm is great.
      If a sperm is wasted,
      God gets quite irate.

      Let the heathen spill theirs
      On the dusty ground.
      God shall make them pay for
      Each sperm that can’t be found.

      Every sperm is wanted.
      Every sperm is good.
      Every sperm is needed
      In your neighbourhood.

  • Brett

    Sorry, Mississippi, federal law trumps state law…

    • Modavations

      And that’s the problem.We had “checks and balances” .If I were B.Jindall of Louisiana,I would have reopened the oil fields and claimed state’s rights.

  • Anonymous

    This legislation doesn’t go far enough.  These cell murderers need to be put to death. 

  • AC

    I mentioned this earlier, but now I want to ask it of the guests: Why was the word ‘cloning’ included?
    Do you mean to say that organs cloned from a human embryo are also protected by this law? How is ‘personhood/pschye/soul’ being defined exactly? In which organ does it reside?

  • UUclouds

    If these folks are sincere about wanting to prevent abortions, then when will they propose a law to ban Viagra — which men can get with a script from their doctor and paid for by their health insurance. This enrages me! WHY IS THE DISCUSSION ALWAYS ABOUT THE VAGINA BUT NEVER AOBUT THE PENIS?? It takes 2, fellas!

  • Boston mom

    Sure, legislate abortion, and contraception, and then cut funding for people who have kids beneath the poverty line. Pick yourself up by your bootstraps and oh, right, poor people shouldn’t be having themselves kids anyway… this nation is increasingly making me sick.

  • Anonymous

    What is interesting about the photo of the people from Mississippi in favor of this draconian amendment is that they are all White, mostly middle aged women and men. I’m not sure about the children, who probably know more about the ideology than they do about sex, and how the human body works.

    The sad thing is that these extremist are in the minority, and yet we let them dominate the political debate. Do Conservatives really think that taking this nation back to the days of illegal abortions is prudent?
    As far as the pro-lifers are concerned, I’m not even sure it’s worth engaging with any discussion as you folks are bent on getting your way even if a thirteen year old has been raped by her father.
    You people make me sick, you really do.

    • Modavations

      I was in a restaurant in Waterbury,Vt.last month, when a middle age guy entered.He looked around and said,” this is the Whitest Place I’ve ever seen”.This is not one of my attempts at levity

      • Anonymous

        What does eating in Waterbury VT have to do with this topic.
        Also what does this have to do with abortion?
        By the way Vermont is mostly Caucasian so it comes as no surprise that most of the people would be white in a restaurant in Waterbury.  

        • Modavations

          To my friend from the “ministry of truth”.Reread your 1st sentence and report back

  • Dpweber83

    This is so dumb…abortion is not murder.  William Saletan laid out an airtight argument to that effect: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2009/06/tillers_killer.html

    “If you don’t accept what [Tiller's murderer] did, then maybe it’s time to ask yourself what you really believe. Is abortion murder? Or is it something less, a tragedy that would be better avoided? Most of us think it’s the latter. We’re looking for ways to prevent abortions—not just a few this month, but millions down the line—without killing or prosecuting people. Come and join us.”

    -dan
    Boston, MA

    • TFRX

      Good link.

      But it shouldn’t go without saying that Saletan is very much the mushy middle on womens’ health. He is always trying to find a “compromise” with “stamping out abortion, reality-based sex ed, and birth control” being one of the absolutes to be given in to.

      There is something about “a tragedy that would be better avoided” which rankles me. I don’t read him all the time, but I don’t remember him beating the drum as fervently about the tragedy of, say, every teen who got pregnant at 15 because they got abst-only sex “ed”, and got forced into marriage and divorced before 20. (And, no, adoption isn’t a major solution to this.)

  • Modavations

    Bill Cosby said he has the right to abort his kids up to the age of 18..I agree.

  • ca_brit

    Welcome to the GOP’s idea of small government.

  • Modavations

    Margaret Sanger,the High Priestess of NOW,was a eugenicist.She taught the NAZIS,how to do it.She wanted to clean out the riff raff.Is this why the clinics are predominantly,in the ghetto?.If you want to knock down the # of abortions,eliminate Welfare.

  • UUclouds

    Don’t like abortion? Get a vasectomy.

    • AC

      good point!! this made me smile!!

      • UUclouds

        I think it would make a good bumper sticker!

    • Terry Tree Tree

      Did!!  Over 30 years ago!!  NO regrets!!

  • mundy

    separation of church in state.

    this proposition is an example of how the far right is attempting to set up a THEOCRACY.

    let’s take care of the people we have.  women’s health first.

    • mundy

      church AND state

    • Modavations

      Giai(?) is the goddess of the left and held in thrall.What’s the diff?

  • TrollCollector

    Here’s an idea:

    Take Monday off and let the trolls play with themselves in their own sandbox.

    Have you noticed the story lines at On Point have increasingly pandered to the more reactionary types of subject matters?

    Not only that, the associated comment pages to these stories have attracted more than the usual ignorant belligerents.

    No need to foil with these fallacy suppliers – besides their comments being unworthy of a reply – it might make for an interestingly demented read.

    While listening to NPR lately, have you notice how ‘dumbed down’ the narratives have become and how simplistic the delivery of information has become?

    • Modavations

      Orwell had problems with guys who want to restrict speech.Would you tell me why Free Speech”is the 1st amendment.Do you work for Orwell’s Ministry of Truth”?

    • Modavations

      Mr.Thought Policeman,all I hear are crickets

  • Anonymous

    And we hit 7 billion today . . .

  • Modavations

    The Roe(?) of Roe vs. Wade, said she made an awful mistake.I may have the plaintiffs reversed.I’m with B.Cosby.Abort till age 18.

  • Margaret/Omaha
  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    The State of Mississippi is 170 miles wide.  This is a law that will apply to the poor only.

    • Anonymous

      Of course.  This is part and parcel of the religious right’s war on the poor and on women.

  • http://twitter.com/tati_per Tatiana P

    Just because people take a vote on something, it doens’t make it so. If it did, why can’t we take a vote deciding the economic crisis is over, everybody will have a good job, and creationism is a fact? 
    Simply because people get together and vote that a fertilized human egg is a legal person, it doesn’t make it a fact. 

  • jim

    I don’t understand. There is so much hypocrisy. I lean toward pro-life. but if many of the people support pro-life, why is there a different standard for capital punishment??? If because someone did something bad, these people and the government have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO TAKE ANOTHER PERSON’S LIFE. so for the pro-life supporters… please do me a favour and stop associating yourself as PRO-LIFE… you not only disgust me but you also make the term pro-life to shame.

  • RCW

    How can a state who’s population largely believes in Creationism, be defining such scientific terms? Seems a bit contradictory. 

    Is miscarriage now legally a suicide or just accidental death? 

  • Anonymous

    This country is falling apart and we are focused on this foolishness. 

    • Anonymous

      Here here.

      • Modavations

        Beacon Power ,another phoney baloney, Green Energy co., just declared bankruptcy(That’s two “phoney Baloney” Mass. co.s).I hear ya dude.

  • Drew You Too

    I can’t stomach this garbage. I’m going to read some NEWS. Have a good day everyone.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

      You say this every day.  Why don’t you stick around and contribute?

  • Crzyforusa

    Why don’t they protect new born babies?  10.6 deaths per 1000 births, and the only higher area is DC.  So, we’ll protect a cluster of cells that may not be viable, but we’ll let newborns die?

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

      Life begins at conception, and the age of responsibility is one day.

    • Ray in VT

      Because it often seems that many such groups only seem to care about the welfare of children until they are born.  Then they’re someone else’s problem.

    • Mathews

      Because the right believes that life begins at conception and ends at birth.

  • Ray in VT

    I take issue with Dr. McMillan, as well as the pro-life movement as a whole, taking it upon themselves to make such personal choices about my family.  Who are they to reach into my family’s doctor’s office in order to impose their views upon my wife and I?

  • Skeptic

    It’s good to know the generous people of Mississippi are so in favor of heaping out their tax dollars to support the poor who will be born at even faster rates under a “personhood” law.

  • John

    Guided as ever by ignorance, racism, provincialism, and religiosity, Mississippi has always specialized in making itself look stupid in comparison to the rest of the nation and, indeed, the rest of the modern world. It looks as if some things will never change. 

    • JustSayin

      LOL
      Give them a break…They are using the Bible as their guide… It’s the only result possible.

  • haley

    How can you grant personhood to a small group of cells? It is not a person. At that point it is more like a parasite than anything else – it can’t live outside the host. A person is a person when it can live as a separate entity.

    Fertilized eggs are not yet people. Women, however, ARE people and should have rights.

  • Enavetta

    This represents legislated misogyny as the men who impregnate their partners-including rapists who are not caught- remain free and independant while women are forced to complete an unwanted pregnancy and delivery putting their health, mental health and future in jeapordy.

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Good question, Tom Ashbrook.  The marathon runner would be accused of murder because she’s a woman out on her own doing something without a man giving her orders.

  • Dave in CT

    People need to go take a few classes in biology, cell biology and developmental biology, let alone chemistry.

    There is no black and white in the world, its all a continuum.  “Life” is a human construct. Self-propogating chemicals.

    Are viruses alive? Are prions alive?

    Why do right to lifers eat animals, or plants?

    Pro choice, pro -deciding how to see these unanswerable questions, is pro-liberty.

    If libertarian or tea party types would dump the social conservative authoritarians as they should, we would have a whole new direction in which to vote.

    http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/12/where-do-libertarians-belong

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

      Just so.  Republicans want to control me in my home, while Democrats want to control me in public.

    • JustSayin

      Agreed. Imposing political, legal and governmental positions based on ignorance, or ideology is a formula for disaster.

    • Dave in CT

      The tricky stuff comes in wanting to be able to “choose” how you see this issue, but being so against letting individuals choose so many other issues, ie. libertarian economics vs more socialistic economics.  Modern liberals are just too self righteous and hypocritical about liberty issues, wanting to choose about what they think is best, but choosing for everyone else they disagree with.

      Pro-choice is Pro-liberty, but  “liberals” need to let go of alot of other control issues.http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/diversity-ends-rules/

  • Yar

    What does Mississippi plan to do to hold fathers of these ‘unwanted’ children accountable?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cya-Samura/100000175393320 Cya Samura

    I am so tired of “religious” people forcing their dogma into our lives. A woman should be in control of her own body. PERIOD. This new wave of pro-lifers is a result of declining public education and the effectiveness of right wing propaganda. Why else would this position be initially gaining traction in Mississippi of all places?

  • http://twitter.com/trevzb Trevor Bauknight

    So is everybody in Mississippi going to age 9 months overnight? How many 20-year-olds are fighting alcohol possession violations because they’re really 21? What will this do to the state’s retirement system? What are the practical implications of declaring everyone in your state almost a year older than they physically are?

  • Jess

    This seems like a legislative and logistical nightmare. I understand what they are trying to do, but it is short-sighted. What would we do with embryos created for fertility now that they all have legal rights as persons? How does one store them? What about burials for all these new persons should fertility treatments fail?

    In the end, I don’t believe that this will stop abortion.  America also once thought that simply by outlawing alcohol through a Constitutional Amendment would solve all of its social problems, but it failed miserably. It would be a better use of resources to alleviate the reasons why women get abortions — social shame, lack of contraception, lack of sex education, lack of family-friendly work environments, lack of social support, rape, etc. to reduce the numbers performed each year.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

    This is the most disgusting Topic since 1993. I am sick and tired of this debate. We are not in Afghanistan where women’s rights does not exist.

    We are in America. It is a civil liberty for a woman if she wants the baby or not. It is right to use fetus for the better of mankind to find cure.

    THE PROBLEMS IS THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PRO-LIFE!!!!! A VIOLENT
    FACTION THAT DESTROYS THE FABRIC OF WOMEN’S RIGHTS!!!

  • Dave in CT

    Too bad we have to choose between religiously-influenced authoritarians and centrally-managed economy authoritarians.

    Depressing. But you’ve all had it with this liberty crap……

  • Cynthia

    Considering that Mississippi ranks at the bottom in health care, education and income, aren’t there issues that have more moral expediency to those living in that sad sad state than abortion?

    • Anonymous

      It isn’t fair to compare Mississippi with other states’ education levels as including the illiterate cells in their statistics lowers their average. 

      • Cynthia

        Thanks for clarifying that J_o_h_n. I just thought it was because they had selfish, stupid and greedy people like this woman doctor running the show.

  • joeblue111

    We have these dumbos and uneducated right wingers determine the agenda. They do not care about the children that are already hungry in this country; contrary they protect the rich and the greed. They have no business in our families and lives and granting this would make the so called free country a hostage of the right wing crazies.

  • Anonymous

    Cells aren’t children.  This fool is a doctor?

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Drs. Hines and McMillan:  Define human being.

  • rbl

    Most of these people take this position because of religious beliefs, not scientific analysis.  Between 15% and 30% of known pregnancies end in clinically apparent miscarriage – even more go unnoticed or unreported- making nature/”god” the biggest “abortionist” in existence.  This aspect of “abortion” should not be ignored in this discussion.
    As much as the founding fathers tried to keep this country from becoming a theocracy, the ignorance/arrogance of the religious (mainly Christians) has been dissolving the wall envisioned to separate church and state for the past one hundred years or so.  Let’s see this for what it really is- Christians yet again trying to impose their views on others. 

  • Sean

    This woman has a medical degree? Seriously?

  • Andres Darcy

    My concern is for “unwanted” children. After 35+ years in child protective social work and special needs adoption I’d welcome a society that supports, defends, and protects those children born unwanted.  We are well short of the mark at this time and since so many want to “reduce government” not likely to hit the mark in my lifetime…

  • guest

    What about the hypocrisy of conservatives not wanting government meddling in their lives?  

    • JustSayin

      I think they always cite the; “one is mans law and the other is God’s law” escape clause. This is usually how they justify the massive carnage of warfare as well.  Somehow God always wants people killing other people when there is power or profit to be made.

    • Jasoturner

      “Conservative hypocrisy” is redundant.  Of course if it was men who had to have abortions, you’d be able to get them in your local shopping mall…

      • Yar

        Maybe not at the mall, but for sure at all sporting goods stores.

        • Jasoturner

          I can picture it now:

          “Hey, I gotta tee off in three hours.  Can we get gong here?”

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    I do acknowledge that it is an intellectually respectable position to argue that a genetically complete fetus is a human being.  I disagree, but there are better ways to defend the other side than what Dr. McMillan is giving.

  • Guest

    Would any prosecutor actually bring charges against a woman?  The doctor?  Who would testify at trial?  I would think that doctor-patient confidentiality would mean the doctor’s staff couldn’t take the stand against him/her.

    • Modavations

      Any idea why they destroyed all the documents at the Kansas abortion clinic.Something about late term abortions.

  • John – Williamstown, VT

    If you are pro-life be assured we ALL are. If you ban legal abortions they don’t go away. Abortions have been done for centuries and will continue to be done.

    If you ban legal abortions you move them to the back rooms and alleyways where they have been done.  You move them into the hands of failed medical students, delicensed  doctors and untrained persons. Worst of all, you put the lives of mothers AND babies at risk.

    At a time when population threatens to out strip the Earth’s resources to support it we need more birth counseling.  Most counseling centers such as Planned Parenthood concentrate of preventing pregnancy.  They do this not to prevent births but to have them planned.

    If you are pro-life but don’t want abortion to be mentioned as an option start your own counseling center.  Put an emphasis on prevention and on adoption/ adoption support.  There are many childless couples who now have to adopt overseas who would love (literally and figuratively) to adopt a US baby.

    If you are pro life work for life – ALL life.

  • TFRX

    I can’t believe that Dr McMillan is a genuine OB-GYN.

    I feel sorry for any teenage female with a pregnancy scare who uses this woman as her only source of information. She sounds dangerously uninformed.

  • Margaret Omaha

    Mississippi  #s
    Number of children adopted from foster care 306
    Number of grandparents raising grandchildren 50,130

  • Atlemmon

    If these people want to give rights of the fetus over the mother, then they should think about giving children already born rights from neglect and abuse, in some states they will not consider it abuse unless there are physical marks, a child can be forced to live in filth, hunger and verbal abuse. I think people should fight for a child rights to have a safe  and violent free life.

  • Amandatakemoto

    I find it interesting to hear the guest say it’t wrong to kill “our” children.
    A child is the creation of 2 individuals, they are the only “our” in the equation.  They are the only people who have a right to decide what is best for them.  No one likes abortion, it is unpleasant to say the least.
    But many like me do like choice, and I respect the right to choose for every individual on this planet!

  • Plantagenet

    Just another example of the backward bible thumpers of the worst state in the nation. Highest infant mortality rate in the 50 states. The flat out worst education system in the country. Poverty out of control, teen pregnancy rates at one of the highest rates in the 50 states and this is the best they can come up with?  

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1816544 Dan Trindade

    Though I do not personally like or agree with the concept of abortion I do not believe that it is within my rights as an American citizen to deny another person their right to have one. Just as it is not within the rights of another American too force me to get a vasectomy though they may not like how many kids I have or how I raise them.

  • Epearlstein

    The proposal would define abortion as murder. And not only
    the doctors would be murderers, but also the women who hired them.  One-third of American women have had legal
    abortions.  So there would be a lot of
    murderers running around.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

      If the woman is pregnant for 9 months and has a complication of the uterus and if she deliver the baby BOTH WILL DIE.

      Doctor suggest to abort the child. Save the child and skip the mother? it cannot be done.

  • UUclouds

    So, I ask again — when will these men, who want to regulate women’s health care — ban Viagra and other ED drugs? It takes two and I don’t see the medical necessity of having an erection….

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

      some husband need Viagra to have kids it is not only for sex pills but to bare children.

      • UUclouds

        but if you’re going to regulate women’s health care, then you must regulate men’s health care. Make a man prove that re REALLY needs ED drugs.

  • Margaret, Omaha,NE.

    available as of January 2011. For data sources, please visit
    http://www.childrensdefense.org/cits
    For more information

  • JM

    Since this appears to be a church driven issue- why not allow the church and its members to care for and pay for the birth and up-bringing of the child.  This will remove the costs from tax payers and allow those against abortion step up and care for those they proclaim to want to protect. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

    Religion? Why is religion are dominating women’s rights.

    From Taliban to American Christians they want to control the lives of women not only America but all over the world where women’s rights does not exist.

    The Philippines and Britain already embraced women’s rights I think the most powerful country in the world SHOULD DO THE SAME.

    • Geri

      Stop killing innocent babies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Jim

        they are not babies.

      • Anonymous

        I empathize with your point of view, but it’s difficult to perfectly control the damage from those drones.  Collateral damage and all that.

  • Toonpang

    What would be the immigration status of an embryo conceived by illegal aliens? 

    • Anonymous

      anchor cells

      • UUclouds

        LOL!!

      • geri

        Stop killing innocent babies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • Jim

          they are not babies.

  • PghMom

    Terrifying proposal.

    I like the current comment about “breeders”.  Sounds like “A Handmaid’s Tale.”  Excellent book in reference to this discussion.

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Dr. McMillan, define human!

    • Geri

      Stop killing innocent babies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

        Define innocent baby.  And lay off the exclamation mark.

      • Jim

        they are not babies.

      • Anonymous

        Stop posting inane comments!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Corb

    If they pass this, then where is the equal pressure on men for the responsibility of the embryo?   Publicize  that men who abandon their fertilized embryos will be criminals, and still materially responsible for rearing the child.  Men will oppose any law that restricts their behavior.

  • David Kiros

    I’m willing to bet that this “life-loving” lady is a strong proponent of the Death Penalty. How does that fit into her disingenuous philosophy? I also hear undertones of religious fundamentalism and thus leads me to believe that she also believes that Evolution is somehow a myth. Where did she get her medical degree?? Keep the Government out of women’s vaginas!
    David
    Boston

    • Geri

      Stop killing innocent babies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Anonymous

        I thought they were guilty according to Original Sin.  When does that take hold?

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

          Excellent point–we’re talking about unsaved sinners here.

      • Jim

        they are not babies.

  • Guest

    What does the gender of the fetus have to do with anything? Is Dr. McMillan serious?? 

    • Geri

      Stop killing innocent babies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Jim

      they are not babies.

  • PghMom

    Remind me never to go to that gyn as a patient.  I wouldn’t feel safe; she would value a pregnancy above my own health and well being.

  • Quadraticus

    Ugh… two hours of waste On Point today…

    • SomMom

      What do you mean?

      • Quadraticus

        Two topics I have absolutely zero interest in. And the first hour: let’s rehash the two irreconcilable positions for the umpteenth time, hoping that *this* time one side will change their minds! As I said: ugh.

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

          So why not just go quietly away?

          • Quadraticus

            Because negative feedback might encourage the producers to choose more interesting topics…? Believe me, I already shut off the radio and put on the Economist podcast instead.

          • Joyce

            Somehow I don’t regard the stripping of women’s rights a boring issue!!

          • Quadraticus

            Yes, thank you for proving my point. :-P

  • Susan C

    Mandating that a woman continue a pregnancy against her will is the only time we require a person to donate her body for another person.  Why do we not require parents to donate a kidney to their child?  No question that the child is a human being.  

  • http://twitter.com/tati_per Tatiana P

    Women have had abortions even before hospitals were invented. They will continue to, no matter what the law says. The only difference is whether or not they may die trying, go to jail (if they’re poor), or travel to a less religious country to have a safe abortion (if they’re rich).

  • American #1234

    Wow..I’m starting to get flashbacks of the “The Crucible”. I feel these two doctors would be well seated on the board of a puritanical witch trial.

  • Daniel Glasser

    I am enraged at the representative for Mississippi’s “Personhood” movement’s complete lack of compassion, along with her lack of comprehension of the science her own field of medicine.  As written, the proposed amendment will make any woman suspected of being pregnant a guardian of a person with no rights.  The state is not proposing to provide comprehensive pre-natal care, but if a fetus aborts, that woman is liable for criminal negligence charges because she failed to keep the person alive.  This is not speculation — women have been executed for miscarriages in some islamic countries.

    What the national “Personhood” movement is pushing for is equivalent to imposition of Sharia law on all american women.  I view it as the rise of the American Taliban.

    By the way, the Old Testament defines the beginning of human life as being with the first breath of air.  The New Testament does not redefine it.

  • Cindycb

    ProChoicers are extreme in their views. WE the American people do not want your views imposed on our bodies. WE have a right to choose.

    Conservative types tend to want their cake and eat it, too. Their typical views are “government” shouldn’t tell them what to do, let people decide how to “run their lives,” they want less government. But heavens forbid this ideology extend to religious and private choices concerning a woman’s body.

    For the ProChoicers: You keep your views, you spread your word, you offer your own solutions and assistance to these personal choices in life, but keep the government out of it. Your role is to help people, if you have this religious calling and fervor, not to impose “your way” on the entire country! And it is exactly the separation of church and state that will allow you to spread your word, influence people, and the government should not be your target.

    Additionally, you should concentrate just as much if not more on helping to find a solution to educating, nurturing the children we do have. How many children now in poverty with no parents to care for them, abuse and neglect. Why do you even have time for this abortion issue when we need so much help with our children today.

    http://www.americanhumane.org/children/stop-child-abuse/fact-sheets/child-neglect.html

    _Cindy Barnard

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

      Uh, which side are you on?  Pro-choice people are in favor of abortion rights.

    • Cindycb

      Right, I do truly mean ProLifers are extreme… This is an issue I haven’t discussed in a while, obviously, and these labels can be so confusing, purposely obfuscating the issue. For me, Prochoice is a “pro” in “life”, in living your life.

  • Anonymous

    More than half inceptions end as miscarriages without the woman even noticing.  It is God’s way of rejecting an unviable fertilized egg.  How do the right to life speak to this if they define the start of life at inception?  Should they send God to hell?

  • Aaron in Tennessee

    To what extent would the male be held responsible for the pregnancy and how would the new law deal with him in comparison to the female? 

    • PghMom

      I hope Tom asks this question…

  • angie

    Mississippi leads the nation in rates of poverty, illiteracy, obesity and disease. Clearly, they have problems taking care of the actual humans they have now?! The time, energy and resources these people have spent getting this lunacy passed into law would be better channeled towards the state’s more urgent issues!

  • Glenn Pollock

    I feel this is  religious driven. A wonder how the supporters of this issue feel about the death penalty. I would not be surprised to find out the majority of supporters support the death penalty. 

  • Bostonlisterner76

    With our world population just hitting 7 billion, I can’t believe we are still having conversations about banning birth control and abortion.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

      Because some people does not want to live the past, they are stuck in the past.

  • TFRX

    Have this show mentioned the point yet that the great number of women who use IVF or the Pill (what, 80%) will be criminals?

    Have we had statements from every GOP hopeful about how they can tell the difference between fertilization and implantation?

    It sounds like we are making a molehill our of a mountain. Is this just too drastic a change to be treated in the Nice Police Republicans manner?

  • Fleurdelivre

    We desparately need to develop a TIME MACHINE to send some people back to the Dark or Middle Ages (their “choice”) when they would be much happier. There would be no abortion (HA!), no Darwin and they could own slaves.

  • Ken in Malden

    Laws like the one being proposed in Mississippi are slowing turning this country into Margaret Atwood’s “Handmaiden’s Tale.”  Life does not begin at conception.  It begins at birth.  So  many things can happen during a pregnancy making the foetus an unviable life.

    • Jasoturner

      Slippery slope alert.  Is it okay to abort one day before birth?  One week before?

      These are the grey edges the pro abortion crowd likes to play with.

  • UUclouds

    Re: “breeders” —There are some who think that forcing women to give birth are just looking for cheap laborers — since all the hispanics and others are being chased out of the country, who will pick the lettuce, and clean the toilets of the wealthy? And who will work for those wages? Force people to have kids and then refuse to fund health care and education — because you don’t need educated people to wipe your baby’s butt abnd you don’t really need healthy people who live long lives, ’cause you’ll just make more of them.

  • Rayage

    In Western societies, especially the U.S., the condemnation of forcing people to live by Muslim law is a constant. What is so different about another religion demanding we live by their strict laws? It seems that the minority extremists are controlling the agenda of the masses.

    • Jasoturner

      Indeed, the religious motivation is obvious.

  • Yar

    This is a democracy, I am willing to compromise on some rights to  abortion in exchange for universal healthcare for all residents in our nation. 

    Is abortion a polar argument intended to divide our electorate or are we trying to advance quality of life for everyone?  

    Or is this issue used to pander to some voters in order to win public office?

    Universal healthcare will prevent  more abortions than any law banning the practice.  With universal healthcare any woman will have access to good contraceptive methods.

    • Steve

      Answer to questions.

      Yes and yes, but what of the underlying issue?

  • Ann

    Why, I ask, in all of these debates regarding abortion and birth control, do I NEVER hear any discussion regarding the male’s responsability towards this?? Why are women the only one’s held responsable for the conception, birth or termination of a child? If the laws held that in the event of the conception of a child the male partner would be LEGALLY responsable- financially if nothing else- for the child, then I think that the the tone of these discussions would change drastically!!

  • http://twitter.com/tati_per Tatiana P

    Ok, here’s a practical question: Who the heck will be in charge of checking whether or not an egg has just been fertilized??? Will women be required to report to a doctor the morning after sex to be examined and make sure they have a person inside or not? If so, then what? Will she be obligated to report every week to make sure that “person” is still safe and secure inside her womb? If this is not part of the plan, then what’s stopping a women from drinking, smoking, doing drugs, playing sports, horseback riding, eating sushi, etc after just having become pregnant?

  • Berghaus

    Is this for real? The proposal is to have 2 separate rights within one body and the guardian of those rights is the government and not the mother?   Do we not trust individuals to make decisions for themselves and want the government to make our most basic and private decisions for us?  What kind of country are we living in?  This is too scary for words.

  • Jtpaden

    I’d like to ask a question of Dr. McMillan. If life begins at conception, why would you make an exception for rape or incest? How conception takes place doesn’t affect personhood, does it? So why is it OK to kill a person who was conceived in terrible circumstances? If you are fine with making those exceptions, then you are making the same type of decision that other young women have made. Why do you have choice, but they don’t?

  • Joyce

    When can we talk about these attacks on women’s rights in the context of the Dominionist movement? When can we admit that the evangelical christian movement REALLY is trying to take over our government from the inside?

    When will we talk about how many Americans are NOT evangelical Christians or even Christians!!

  • Timykel

    Why is so much focus on fertility when there are many children here in the US in need of adoption

  • Witterquick

    We set up our government to separate church and state for many very good reasons.  So, why do religious agendas keep being pushed to the forefront of public policy debates?  When religious beliefs are attempted to be made into government policy, they should be dismissed immediately.  By giving them credence, they only cloud the primary issues that government should be involved with.  I also thought the majority of people wanted less government, not more?? 
    Also, if someone is on vacation in the US and determines later on that they were impregnated during their stay; does that make their fetus a US citizen?

    • Joyce

      Also, if someone is on vacation in the US and determines later on that
      they were impregnated during their stay; does that make their fetus a US
      citizen?

      EXCELLENT question!

    • Timykel

      I’m with you

  • Masozaha

    If the amendment passes, then all embryos would be considered people, correct?  If so, then we will have to assign Social Security numbers to all of them.  I’ll get to list “my” embryos on my tax returns as dependents.  If I receive supplemental assistance from Mississippi or the Federal Government, I will receive additional benefits for each of my embryos.  Each embryo will have to be officially added to the State’s population records…and listed as a death when the embryo is destroyed or unsuccessfully implanted.

    Has anyone backing this amendment thought any of this through?

  • Bill

    It’s interesting that opponents and supporters of abortion always pull out the most extreme examples to demonize the opposition. I want to live in a world where abortion is unnecessary. I don’t. The abortion discussion is about the fundamental respect for human life, but so is the discussion about poverty, low birth rates, substandard education, crime, etc. Highlighting one aspect of the argument without working toward the equity in the underlying problem oversimplifies an incredibly complex issue. 

  • Rachel Cambridge, MA

    Dr. McMillan mentioned that everyone has a right to dignity. Why do women not get the dignity to have the privacy of control of their body? The thought that a woman could be prosecuted for a miscarriage is a slippery slope that should be avoided at all costs. Women should be educated about the consequences of pregnancy and parenthood and encouraged to be smart about their sexual behavior.  

    • Joyce

      I agree, but so many of these people happen to be opposed to comprehensive sex ed as well. It’s not about the babies it’s about controlling women!!!

  • Gary

    In an era when the Supreme Court confers personhood on corporations, one can understand why some want to confer personhood on fertilized eggs. However, but positions are ridiculous.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

      I’m pro-choice with regard to aborting corporations.

    • Zing

      It’s the law: get over it.

  • Cynthia

    It isn’t fair to compare Mississippi with other states’ education levels
    as including the illiterate cells in their statistics lowers their
    average.

    • Dave in CT

      Are they too big to fail?  The states were meant to be laboratories in democracy. Let them suffer the consequences of their choices.  If you want to volunteer to help get pro-choice poor people out of the state, go for it. They can’t forbid them from crossing state lines to more classically liberal states.

      • Anonymous

        Civil rights shouldn’t be subject to majority rule.

        • Dave in CT

          In case you haven’t noticed, we are having trouble defining when civil rights begin. Whose civil rights are you protecting? I disagree with the conception argument, but it is not an indefensible idea. Its a very controversial idea, but if we are forced to define things, its one way to do it.

          These unanswerable questions are to be left to the people, as long as they don’t infringe on others liberty. IMO the liberty position comes down on the choice side, as the debatable issue is happening inside an undebateable individual with a right to liberty.

          • Anonymous

            The woman’s.  Cells aren’t people.  How would banning abortion not infringe on a woman’s liberty?  At what point a human life begins might be an unanswerable question but the Constitution doesn’t give cells rights and the states should not have the right to undermine constitutional rights. 

          • Dave in CT

            We are agreeing. I was saying the woman is clearly alive, and an individual with an unalienable right to liberty. Especially in the early pregnancy, the liberty position is choice. You could argue even later if you want, and we could argue for euthanasia for the elderly or for thieves, but we will rapidly lose mass acceptance of these positions.

            Liberty allows the most diversity of views without conflict.

            http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/diversity-ends-rules/

            I’m just using this topic to highlight the case, and the hypocrisy of modern liberals, who are anti-choice/liberty on other issues, such as economic issues, granting great power to elites.

  • Scott B, Jamestown

    I’m sick of seeing the reproductive rights of women taken away and the women treated like they don’t know what’s best for themselves medically, morally, spiritually, financially, physically, and any other word ending in “ly” that the anti-abortion faction sides on.

    It’s not going to stop abortion. Even George Will, no liberal by ay means, says that those that want it will find it, especially those that have the financial means to go elsewhere or pay for “private medical treatment”.

    In my critical reasoning class (aka “logic”) were taught that side have to be drawn to be mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive. So,looking at who this effects, which is women that are able to get pregnant,  that are of voting age. So why are men allowed to vote on this? Or women that are far past child bearing age?

    Many of these same people that want to ban abortion are the same ones that don’t want to have sex education taught in schools or have free birth control available.

    ***

    If this is religious-based then the Bible says that until the child is out of  the mother and breathing, that child doesn’t have a soul, and without a soul isn’t a person.

    ***

    On a personal level – Let every one of the people that vote for this have to adopt one of the millions of kids that are needing parents, or in foster care; or have to get pregnant from a frozen embryo; or get pregnant from being raped, or knocked up by a relatives…  Then lets see them h

    The woman Dr also says that slavery  is (not “was”, “is”)guaranteed to the Constitution, but neglects to say that slavery was later Constitutionally outlawed.

    ***

    Someone show me the ear, fingers, brain, or anything resembling a human on a blastocyst/zygote.  Then I might say that life begins at conception.

    ***

    BTW – I am an adopted child, and glad for it, but that option isn’t for everyone. Not every woman can bear to give up her child. Bless those that can, for they are very special people.  But how do you make someone go through something they might find, or will be,  unbearable, such as going full-term with a child of rape? Or ectopic pregnancy? Or horribly deformed or encephalitic (water on the brain) that is going to be stillborn or die soon after death?

    How, as a man, could I make a woman, or anyone else for that matter, medically do something to their body merely because I say so?  It’s not my body. I couldn’t morally, nor legally, justify making a woman have an abortion, how could I also deny them their right to their body to have an abortion?

  • Dave in CT

    Authoritarians have no shame.

  • Guest

    Personhood advocates: why is this focus important right now? Why focus, as a previous caller mentioned, on UNBORN individuals when there are plenty of ALIVE and STRUGGLING individuals to whom your efforts can be directed? 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

    The problems are not Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

    It is Religion.

    • Dave in CT

      Liberty.

      How not? You aren’t proposing gassing all believers are you? Just defend the rest of our liberties to not be controlled by them.

  • American #1234

    I just want to know why this matters to the pro-lifers?, they live their happy lives unaffected by some woman going through the painfull decision to have an abortion, it’s easy if you don’t agree don’t do it, we aren’t in China where there are forced abortions.

  • Guest

    Is this a potential double standard? If men were the ones who ore children, would we even be having this debate? 

    • Zamboni’s Mom

      No, we wouldn’t.  Termination clinics would be in every Jiffy Lube and Home Depot, and RU-486 would be next to the Slim Jims at the 7-11.

  • Julia

    Oh the irony of social conservatives who advocate intrusion/regulation into women’s bodies, lives, religion and relationships but woe unto you if you attempt to regulate their precious corporations or guns.

    Pathetic.

  • Catherine

    How can we define a fetus as an independent and separate “person” with alienable rights when that fetus cannot LIVE outside the womb of the mother until a minimum of 24 weeks?  By this logic, how can this stop at a fetus?  This suggests even unfertilized eggs and sperm are separate and independent persons, which is of course outrageous.    

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Caller,

    Tax dollars shouldn’t go to sex-ed classes, but you also oppose abortion?  Ignorant and pregnant is what you prefer?

    • Dave in CT

      Discretionary, unprincipled authoritarians are scary. In this issue, and socioeconomic issues too.

  • Kate Hladky

    How do these people who support this initiative in MS feel about war? How is that protecting human life?  I would like to take the religion out of our government.  Kate in Iowa

    • Scott B, Jamestown NY

      These people only worry about life before birth and when they can go fight, and drawing up red voting districts. Otherwise they seem to want to not care so much, wanting social services slashed, reduce the budget for the VA caring for the thousands of wounded vets, reducing voting, personal, and medical rights.

  • Laurie

    I think Dr. McMillan is either disingenuous or incredibly naive when she asserts that there wouldn’t be legal consequences for fertility treatment or for women who miscarry, should a personhood amendment become law. Women have already been prosecuted in other states for taking actions that other people have deemed responsible for causing miscarriage. I think it’s patently clear that Mississippians are not more enlightened than that!

    I’m typing this as I sit here listening to the show and watching my beloved 16-week-old son play. He is the result of my third pregnancy. My first was a chemical pregnancy; my second was a blighted ovum that was never destined to result in a baby, even though my body reacted as though it would. In fact, I was forced to take medical action to end that second pregnancy, because my body was not doing what it should have…namely, miscarrying. According to personhood amendment theory, that would have made me a murderer. Gee, THANKS, personhood advocates!

    And no, having had a baby has not made me a forced-birth advocate. If anything, going through a full-term pregnancy, a difficult 34-hour labor, a C-section, and caring for a colicky baby has made me certain that no woman should be forced to do this if she doesn’t want to or doesn’t have the means to handle it!

  • http://twitter.com/trevzb Trevor Bauknight

    So the unborn are not just persons now, but “citizens” as well? What if they end up being born in Mexico?

  • Guest

    No sex ed classes, seriously??

  • Dave in CT

    Tom, you need to respectfully challenge people to admit their notion of where life begins, is an opinion.

    On the other hand, people are entitled to their opinions and a democratic legislative voice.

  • Zakyak

    Another dangerously retrograde proposal from supposed “pro-life” forces. Best response to “personhood” movement remains Barney Frank’s observation that conservatives “believe that life begins at conception & ends at birth.” Nowhere did your “pro-life” guest explain this rank hypocrisy, not even in response to direct questions from callers — that’s because they can’t.

  • Boston mom

    And then we have the majority of the conservative voters constantly saying, “Oh, abortion will never be made illegal, so I don’t pay much attention to how my candidate feels about it.” Wake up pro-choice conservative voters! 

    Does this caller who thinks sexual HEALTH education socialism want her dollars going to pay for these children who become born? Or would she just rather watch them starve on the streets? This extremist Puritan throwback movement is so nauseating, I would bet that half of them are hiding porn under their beds. 

    (Way to stump her Tom.) 

  • Janet K Lawson

    Does the Personhood supporter believe that the parent(s) have an obligation to take care of the baby once born or can the unwilling parents put the baby out the door and say “You’re an individual – take care of yourself!” Would such parents still be subject to prosecution for failure to care for their children? or, would society recognize that by forcing unwilling mothers to bear children then society itself is ultimately responsible to care for these new persons?  Remember Romania?  Babies are not just individuals, they are part of society.  They need more than food and shelter, they need love.  Can you make loving unwanted children a legal requirement?

  • Cynthia

    The woman who said she was for the personhood amendment was a perfect example of Mississippi being at the bottom in education.

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Again, define human being!

  • Boston mom

    How does the Personhood Movement stand on the death penalty?

  • American #1234

    So if a woman is caught trying to arrange an abortion, so the woman and fetus are sent to jail right? Well I think the fetus should be able to sue for false imprisonment. Yep, thats how silly this is going to get.

  • UUclouds

    Caller doesn’t like her taxe $ to pay for sex ed, etc. I don’t like my tax $ to pay for wars.

  • Jasoturner

    Do pro-life advocates maximize their effect by contributing generously to aid programs that serve countries struck by disaster, war, and genocide?  Where they can be assured that many human lives will demonstrably be saved by their generosity?  Or do they focus primarily on their local abortion clinic, where, comparatively speaking, a tiny fraction of lives will be lost, and where the pro-life activities are likely to be far less effective in directly saving life?

    I often wonder if the American abortion debate isn’t about life, but about American life.  Because there is plenty of global death and suffering that could be readily prevented if people turned their attention to addressing it.  No protesting American abortion clinics required.

  • Guest

    I had my tubes tied when I was 21 years of age. I removed all choices from others who are ignorant. Ignorance is the sole topic of this discussion. Having children is solely a woman’s choice. We will protect our choices, one way or another.

  • Sheryl Trainor

    Why do anti-abortion groups persist in calling themselves pro-life?  Most of them have no qualms about calling for the execution of convicted criminals.  There is no controversy about whether or not they are human beings, and they seem to have a total lack of respect for their lives.  They are hypocrites through and through.

    • Jasoturner

      They are more than hypocrites.  They are attempting to vilify those with whom they disagree.  They are, consequently, un-American and tyrannical.

  • Julia

    Jennifer, you are horribly misinformed concerning these legal issues. Yikes!

  • Dave in CT

    People struggling with where they want to come down on liberty here.

    Authoritarians when it suits us. And we wonder why we are divided and gridlocked.

    The Lifers are going against Liberty here.

    Liberals and leftist go against it in many other ways.

  • John Falcone

    What are the consequences of this proposed amendment?   No morning after pill in rape and incest?  Outlawing pregnant women smoking, drinking, taking communion wine?

  • SteveV

    These people are scary.

  • Frenchyt

    I am reminded by Barney Frank’s pithy comment:  For right to lifers, life begins at conception and ends at birth.

  • Dave in CT

    What scientists say life begins at conception?

  • Anonymous

    Listening to Jennifer speak is an act of violence…against our intellect.

  • John

    The anti-choice people seem unable to present one consistent rational argument in support of their position. Anybody surprised

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Women are glad when they give birth to a rapist’s child?  Oh, please.  Why not leave the choice up to that woman?

  • Joyce

    Does Jennifer know anything about OB care in the united states?? She has no credit with this post partum RN with 10 years in the field!!

  • Vacrowe

    I am so sick of anti-abortion activists spouting out about abortion being legal up until delivery as though women are aborting perfectly healthy babies at 9 months in utero. That’s utter trash and NOT TRUE!!! Late term abortion is only done for life of the mother and or if the baby is so deformed that it will not live past delivery. These scare tactics are repugnant.

    • Scott B, Jamestown NY

      It’s not just for the life of the woman. Many times the fetus isn’t viable. It’s grossly deformed, often encephalitic (water where the brain should be), or already dead.  

      The women that have these are crucified by the “pro-lifers”, who seem only to think of their lives upon their high horses.

      These women don’t take the decision and procedure. This isn’t a tooth extraction or a coffee and cake party.

      I think it’s a mercy that these women don’t have to rick their lives, and/or go through hours upon hours of labor to give “birth” to a dead child, or one that will die soon after. For those that are willing, that’s their decision, but that’s their decision, as the decision to have a late-term abortion should be for those that seek it.

  • http://twitter.com/beardbrain Yohan John

    It’s truly offensive to hear conservatives talk about the sanctity of life. These are the same people who approve of the death penalty and send US troops off to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people around the world. 

    Are any of these sanctimonious people anti-war activists? They seem more interested in saving a handfull of cells that thousands of full-grown humans!

  • earth_woman

    You’ll have to pry my IUD from my cold dead uterus!

  • joeblue111

    I doubt that someone wants an abortion would go to this doctor. Why would any women go to a so called “pro-lifer”? These people are revolting and put their religious belief on banner and everybody should follow? We do not want them to direct the American peoples choice.

  • Eric

    It is interesting how this conversation contrasts the overpopulation discussion from last week.

  • Dr. K

    Beverly McMillan had a very revealing remark about making decisions first and thinking about their consequences later. there are good reason, why even the most backwards and religiously controlled societies have not adopted such a law. A few consequences of the proposed legislation:1. Since police is required to attend to every case when a murder of a person could be suspected, a policeman has to go through every woman’s menstrual discharge looking for the remains of fertilized egg. Remember, that the wast majority of fertilized eggs do not develop and are discharged. 2. “Molar pregnancy” is when a fertilized egg develops into a tumor. Not only will it be illegal to remove, but the doctors will be obliged to keep the tumor growing. McMillan was coy, claiming that dealing with molar and extra-uterine pregnancies was not a problem before Roe vs Wade: a fertilized egg was never given a full personal rights even then. 3. If a a fertilized egg is given the rights of an individual, monozygotic twins will be legally one person. 4. No one would dare to practice in vitro fertilization, because of high rate of loss of fertilized eggs. Remember, any case of a lost fertilized egg would be treated as a possible homicide.

  • Tina

    Will the existence of these cells as persons allow TAX DEDUCTIONS for these women/families for the EXTRA DEPENDENTS even if the cells can be proved to have eventually spontaneously aborted?  The conservative governments that have seen these laws passed will lose income if the tax deductions are allowed.  

  • Catherine

    A small group of religious believers should not be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on an entire population.  This is as anti-American as it gets. 

    • everyspermissacred

      Unfortunately in some states they are not the minority… and then they by voting get to impose their views on everyone in their state.

      • notafeminista

        Sure, use the courts to get your agenda heard/passed.  Proposition 8 anyone?

        • Zamboni’s Mom

          Civil rights should never be up for a vote.  

    • notafeminista

      Why not?  Every other special interest group does.

  • Dave in CT

    Abort our way to sustainability! That’ll bring us together…..

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Ah hah, biogenesis–she’s a creationist.

  • Julia

    So will natural miscarriage result in criminal charges against a woman?!

    • TFRX

      Who’s to say it’s natural? Only the cops, that’s who.

      Maybe we’re just working our way to the spinoff “Law & Order: Special Embryos Unit”.

  • Dave in CT

    Challenge that!

    BS. I’m a developmental biologist.   We have no “life” definition!!

    • ram

      so I guess that means your dead

  • Fern in Vermont

    Please read on air.

    Full personhood clearly does not begin at conception.  If it did, we sould HAVE to “protect” every single fertilized egg from passing out of the body without implantation.  To let it pass out would equal manslaughter.  Similarly, when the body, through its God-given wisdom, has a late period due to rejected pregnancy or a later miscarrieage or even stillbirth – in all of these cases, it would be incumbent upon parents and all of society to take whatever measures necessary to save the fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus.  If you argue against this, and say, oh, well that is different, then you are arguing against the full personhood from conception.  Period.

    • Dave in CT

      ….all that sperm wasted by our teen boys. They should be in prison.

      • Scott B, Jamestown NY

        I’m due for about 30 centuries in purgatory, then straight to Hell.

  • Solarmal

    While biologically life may begin at conception, I believe life believes at cognition.   A woman can feel and comprehend rape, an embryo cannot comprehend an abortion.   I was adopted, not aborted, and had my biological mother chosen to abort me, I NEVER WOULD HAVE KNOWN and I am at total peace with that.   How dare you compare rape with an abortion.

  • Ernest mandel

    What I don’t understand is how the issue of when “life” begins does not raise church/state issues. Judaism, Islam, and branches of Christianity each have different definitions. How then is choosing one, the catholic/Christian view not unconstitutional. Frankly insee the same argument applying to both the Defense of marrige act and the proposed bans on circumcision.

  • Ray in VT

    My sister was compelled to terminate her fourth pregnancy due to severe complications.  It was the determination of the medical staff that it would not survive and that to continue the pregnancy was medically riskier than an abortion.  Would Personhood USA have compelled my sister to carry through with a pregnancy only to deliver a dead child?

    • Zamboni’s Mom

      Yes, they would.

  • Jennifer Jackson

    I’m surprised that no one jumped on Jennifer’s comment about the government of Mississippi protecting it’s “tiniest citizens”. What a ludicrous notion! Are we going to be handing out Social Security cards and passports to unborn babies? Will parents be able to claim their unborn children as dependents on their tax returns?! How can an unborn child ever practically be a person in the eyes of the government?

    • Brett

      If that unborn child becomes an unborn corporation, then…

  • Yar

    Does this mean that if an illegal immigrant is pregnant in Mississippi then the child in their womb is already a US citizen?

    • Anonymous

      And I expect supporters of this proposal would demand the person in that illegal immigrant be afforded the best medical care possible to protect their right to be born.  If necessary, at government expense.

  • Dave in CT

    Sperm seems pretty alive, without a full complement of chromosomes. Time to jail teenage boys for their murderous ways!

  • everyspermissacred

    I would just like to say that life begins before fertilization. Every sperm and egg are technically alive by scientists’ definition and human as well. I think we need to protect them too!

    • Julia

      Every sperm is sacred.

    • Scott B, Jamestown NY

      “Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. And if a sperm is wasted God gets quite irtate” – Monty Python song from “The Meaning of Life”

      If that was true, then why does biology waste eggs every month? 

      Also, every teenage boy with  hands is going to hell.

      • everyspermissacred

        unfortunately religion is a product of society, not of evolution

      • Boston mom

        Girls are spared though, because we can pleasure ourselves without the spilling of seed. Sorry fellas!

      • notafeminista

        I thought they just went blind.. ;)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

    I worked for Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts. As far as I know majority of who are having abortion are 13-18 years of age.

    Those patient are not Women but young girls WHO MADE A MISTAKE for having a baby at their age and their rights to decide. To continue to have the baby, to have financial diffeculties,physical and mental problems or abort the baby to avoid those consequences.

    • Dave in CT

      too little to fail?

      Why is that natural consequences (which by the way does not have to be a failure) have to be denied?

      I think if anything was going to dissuade you from behaviors that lead to teen pregnancy, it would be seeing unhappy, difficult examples around you.

      Our lack of accountability, from teens, to Banks, has really destroyed the fabric of our society.

      If we have no consequences, what do you expect?

      I’m pro-choice early, BTW, just making a devils advocate, but valid point.

    • TFRX

      “As far as I know majority of who are having abortion are 13-18 years of age.”

      I thought the majority of women getting abortions in the USA already had at least one chilld.

      Now I’m sure there’s some intersection between “13 to 19 y.o.s” and “already has one child”, but someone will have to run the numbers.

      (And that “someone” doesn’t include Dr (sic) McMillan, Ed or Winston Smith.)

    • Mandalin98277

      Having an abortion at that age does cause mental problems, I would know I had one when I was 16. If I could have done it again I would not have had an abortion and given my child up for adoption. I would have liked to have more options and encouragement to do so but I think since abortion is so supported that it’s not a big deal to any one if some one has it. It’s just another procedure, but really it affects the person that is having it in ways that the doctors and nurses will not see because they never have communication with the person having the abortion again. I think there should be support groups for women who have had an abortion and then maybe the world would really know how it affects the mother. Otherwise who would know.

      • notafeminista

        What does having an abortion at that age do?

        • Mandalin98277

          Well I was not perfectly capable of making decicions that adults should be making as far as pregnancy goes. The affects did not come till later in life and they were emotional that led to mental.

  • Scott B, Jamestown NY

    A few short years ago South Dakota voters voted a referendum to ban abortion down. In one of the most conservative states in the nation, if not THE most conservative state, the voters (and let’s not forget that half the voters are women) clearly stated that they wanted a woman’s right to chose.

    ***

    That one caller made my point – The ones that want to outlaw abortion are also the ones that don’t want to pay for programs that would cut down on the need for abortion services.  How much is it going to cost when these women and new children have to drop out of school, go on social services, even the cost of the birth is astronomical for those without insurance.

    ***

    So many pro-lifers make it sound like these women are all brainless, amoral, teens that are getting knocked up right and left – multiple times,  having abortions on the public dollar (which they by law can’t, and isn’t happening), and think of having an abortion like they were going to an icecream social. They “forget” that many, if not most, women are married or in a stable relationship, and already have at least one child.  It’s never a decision that any sane person takes lightly – It’s not like they’re getting a tooth pulled or their nails done. It does weight on them, but just because some women have deep regret doesn’t mean that all women should be forced to go full term. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

    In the Philippines Abortion is Illegal but there are abortion going on all over the Philippines but there is a Loop Hole as long the woman who had an abortion does not complaint to the authorities there will be no arrest.

    It is a weird law but probably just to shut-up the dominant Catholic church in the Philippines.

  • Steve

    To the men posting on this show.

    Are you personally willing to take responsibilty for the possibility of  unintended children everytime you engage in intercourse?

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

      smart men can usually do it at night when the kids are sleeping or in school.

  • Jack Bliek

    This morning I heard part of the On Point program about the Personhood ammendment in Mississippi.  No one mentioned the young men who get these young women pregnant.  Can we encourage these young to use a condom?  Can we get them to be more respectful to the women they see?
         Since half of all pregnancies in rthe United Stwates are unintended, we could expect serious public health consequences if abortion were not legal.  These include a higher rate of infant mortality, more birth defects and more children in foster care. 
         Did you know that 80% of families that have a serious birth defect diagnosed during pregnancy, choose abortion.  When pregnancy is unintended, a woman is more likely to smoke or drink during the early month of pregnancy and may use illegal drugs as well, especially if she feels stressed about the pregnancy. 
         Is there a shortage of foster parents in Mississsippi?  If abortipon were not legal there would be more children in foster care. 
         How many families reject their daughter, if she gets pregnant out of wedlock?
          You mentioned an abortion clinic in Jackson, Mississippi.  I believe there are at least 3 abortion clinics in Memphiss, Tn and no doubt some women from Mississippi travel to Memphis for an abortion.
                                     Jack Bliek

  • Dogbydog123

    I am amazed at the “Christians” who use religion to support an anti-abortion stance.  Don’t they know their own Bible?  Adam was not “alive,” didn’t have a soul (spiritus) until God breathed into him and Adam took his first breath.  A human being is not a person until they take their first breath. 

    • Mandalin98277

      And when did anyone in this word enter life like Adam did after Adam did. Do you know your bible because I would reccomend you read Psalm 139:13-17, I know the bible very well and abviously you only pick and choose to make it what you want it to say which is entirely incorrect according to the Bible.

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

        How exactly do you get an anti-abortion message from that passage?  It’s a song–in other words, it’s lyrical, not legal or biological language.

        • Mandalin98277

          Psalm 139:13-17 For thou hast compassed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.
          I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and my soul knoweth right well.
          My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiosly wrought in the lowest parts of the earth (mothers womb).
          Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in contiuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
          How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them. 

          2 Timmothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…..That is exactly why. 

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

            All you did is quote what I’ve already read.  I asked for explanation, not quotation.

          • TFRX

            Not to mention the reins of power.

            Hey, if I were a King back then I’d love to have my own guys rewrite the Bible. Something about “he who writes history controls it” or such.

  • justme

    I didn’t catch the phone number, but I really wanted to ask the panel how many of them took birth control pills.  I find it very hypocritcal that there are many “pro-life, anti-abortion” people that do, as part of the fuction of most birth control pills is to thin the lining of the uterous, so that a fertilized egg will not attach.  So, if life begins at conception, when the sperm enters the egg, can you say hypocrit much???

    • Mandalin98277

      And how would you know if they do, can you say judgemental much??? Two wrongs don’t make you right..thank you.

      • justme

        I said I wanted to ask, not that they did… altho I do personally know quite a few people who are anti-abortion that did not realize that was one of the ways in which birth control pills and the depo shot worked.  Didn’t stop them from taking it, so yes, I said those I know are hypocrits.   Sorry if you misunderstood my point. 

  • Carl Christian

    I find it terribly ironic — as well as deeply irritating! — that many of the supporters of such Personhood initiatives are perfectly willing to reject scientific evidence and methodology when it conflicts with their Creationist beliefs but accept without any hesitation the scientific ‘evidence’ declaring that a human being is sentient and worthy of full “person”-hood after fertilization/conception. I’m certain that in a more perfect world there would be many of us who would hope that abortion would never need to be invoked except when the mother’s life is endangered — but we do not live in a perfect world and I just wish that all of the earnest zealotry of the anti-abortion groups could be spent on the currently living who need their compassion, time, and money right now. Why is it so easy to deny the real consequences of forcing the birth of unwanted babies who will absolutely not get the resources, health care, and love that all children should expect as the birthright in a so-called moral society.

    • Anonymous

      I suspect that they are more anti-women and anti-sex than they are pro-unborn.  These are the same people who hate gays too (and they don’t have many abortions).   

    • notafeminista

      Even more to the point, why is it so easy to remove the consequences and responsibility (an unwanted pregnancy) from someone who created the thing in the first place?

      Out of sight, out of mind right?  Never really happened.

  • Mca_811

    I believe that unwanted pregnancies and abortions can be prevented through a proper sex education program. These programs are effective when they target teenagers during the time they are “most sexually active.” Most classes teach both young men and women how to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, and reproduction; they do so by giving real facts about the re-precautions that happen when an individual is unprepared, and the possible solutions. These classes are essential to a lot of individuals, and were essential to me personally. I am glad that these classes are still been provided to students, I know from experience that most teens do not get the “talk” from their parents; if they do they do not do a though-rough job at it, only offering the condom as a contraceptive method. It is inexcusable for a parent to teach their child only one method of contraception, and it is not enough to tell a teen “… you better not get yourself(someone) pregnant!” This does not speak to a teen, what does help is to encourage a teen to be a safe as can be, make them feel secure and safe to talk to you the parent. Like most education, sex education and pregnancy prevention begins at home, through a well informed family that encourages their children to have strong personal values and self respect. If parents can not take the time to do that then I believe that they should at least invest their tax money into sex education classes.

  • Boston mom

    My best friend has suffered through three heart-wrenching and physically traumatic miscarriages, and under such legislation she would have been treated like a criminal. Does Jennifer think that interrogators should have been sent to her house to further compound her personal tragedies? This misogynistic mindset is literally sickening. 
    Meanwhile, will we interrogate the sperm providers? (“Sir, was this in fact the penis that was in this woman’s vagina?”) And if it is determined that said penis entered said vagina, does he get charged with personslaughter too? Not everyone gets to sign a big payout book deal to support their child born out of wedlock like Bristol did. That poster child is a white girl born in the nearly defunct middle class. (Ah, but those Palins will end up in the filthy rich, I predict..) She is an exception, not a rule.

    • notafeminista

      So right, because the fertility donors (meaning both the male and the female)made bad choices and cannot support the result of said choice, it is the result of the choice who is penalized for their bad choices?

      Brilliant.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=503339418 Hunter Parent-Wetmore

      Hahaha, we made the same comment literally at the same time. It’s insane that this legislation implies that a recently fertilized egg possesses the same rights as a living breathing human being. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=503339418 Hunter Parent-Wetmore

    So, I would love to know what happens under this definition in the case of a miscarriage? If I kill someone with my car, even if it’s an accident, I’ll still get charged with manslaughter. Is that going to happen if say a newly pregnant woman fall and diminishes the viability of the zygote? There are just so many things wrong with this concept, I don’t really know where to start.

    • Anonymous

      No you do not get charged with manslaughter if someone dies as a result of an accident. You are innocent until proven guilty.
      In the case of car accidents there are a lot of variables. Was it your fault? Was the other drive intoxicated? Was speed a factor or weather?  To many variables to deal with.

      • notafeminista

        Difference between charged and convicted.  Yes he might well be charged with it..meaning there will be a trial and so forth.  Whether or not he is convicted is a different question.  And of course he brings a up good point.  If the unbord entity is not alive, how can one be charged for killing something that is not alive.

        See Peterson case in Calif.  The husband was actually convicted of ending two lives as Lacy Peterson was pregnant at the time she died.  So.  You tell me.  Is the unborn entity alive or not?

        • notafeminista

          “unborn”

          • Modavations

            e only reads censored press.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=503339418 Hunter Parent-Wetmore

          My point was that defining a zygote as human being with all the same rights as a living breathing human being is ridiculous. Obviously, there is a difference between accidentally hitting somebody with a car and enduring a miscarriage. Yet, under the definition of this new legislation they would legally amount to the same thing. Doesn’t that seem more than a little crazy?

          • notafeminista

            The same legislation already exists, as referenced with the Scot Peterson case.  Assuming when you refer to miscarriage you mean of the spontaneous type (as opposed to deliberate abortion)  – if it’s not a life it’s not a life.  Think of it in the reverse.  Isn’t it crazy to charge someone with ending two lives if he/she accidentally hits a pregnant woman with a car thus ending (presumably) both her life and the life of her unborn entity?

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=503339418 Hunter Parent-Wetmore

            So it’s only a life in cases of abortion? Is that what you’re getting at here? That’s sounding a heck of a lot like misogyny and is de facto hypocritical. Let’s check to be certain…

            Situation #1. A woman drives under the influence of a legally prescribed Vicodin (or a similar pain killer with the “no-driving” warning) she’s taking to relieve back pain. While she is not obviously intoxicated, it slows her reflexes down enough that while she’s driving a toddler runs into the street and she’s unable to stop in time and kills the toddler. When the police do an investigation they find out she was under the influence of Vicodin and if she hadn’t been, she would have been able to stop and the child would have lived. She is charged with vehicular manslaughter for killing a child while driving under the influence.  

            Situation #2. A 12-weeks pregnant woman is driving and is also under the influence of a legally prescribed pain killer for similar medical reasons. Her reflexes are also slowed, while driving a car stops suddenly in front of her. She rear-ends it with enough speed to set-off the airbags. The impact causes her body to reject the otherwise viable embryo and a miscarriage occurs. Should she be charged with vehicular manslaughter for killing a “child” while under the influence? 

            Obviously this isn’t an ideal example, but I’m sure you get my point. If you believe in Situation 2 that the woman *shouldn’t* be charged with manslaughter, then you are valuing the life of the toddler more than the unborn child thus devaluing the anti-choice argument. If you still stand by the argument then you are essentially stating that your biggest concern is abortion, not the human rights of the embryo; meaning that you’re more concerned with taking away a woman’s reproductive choices than with saving “human beings”. 

            Think on that. 

          • notafeminista

            No, what I’m getting at (and apparently is difficult to grasp) is that it is a life when it suits us.  Scot Peterson was convicted of ending TWO lives. Not one.  However, should she have chosen to do so, Laci Peterson could have aborted her unborn entity with no repercussion.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=503339418 Hunter Parent-Wetmore

        There are a lot of variables walking down the sidewalk pregnant. Did you not wear your glasses that day? Maybe then you wouldn’t have tripped and broken the fertilized egg from uterine wall. Did you have cough syrup? You know that’ll make you dizzy! My implication was that treating a zygote as a human being is utterly ridiculous, obviously they’re not the same thing. 

        Yet under this new legislation, we would logically have to launch an investigation into every miscarriage in the same way there has to be an investigation into every lethal car accident. Whether or not the woman would be found guilty isn’t the point, it’s how obviously ridiculous that sentiment is. 

  • Female Listener

    I believe that a fertilized embryos is a potential life, the beginning of a potential human being but not a full or actual one. A single-celled organism is the start of a human life, but it has not become viable yet.  

    I agree with the others who point out the hypocrisy of those who wish to protect the unborn while not caring what happens once the pregnancy comes to term. I feel like the anti-abortion energy is better spent on making adoption easier and more affordable as well as improving health care and social services for women who do choose to raise their children. 
    Also, one of your speakers mentioned IVF and other infertility procedures–what implications would this law have for fertilized embryos? If you have IVF and then freeze remaining embryos (usually about 5-6 days old), would these embryos have human rights? 

    • everyspermissacred

      There are some people suing the NIH about funding research on human embryonic stem cells. They tried to sue on behalf of the “embryos” although I think the court threw that part out.(Sherley v. Sebelius)

    • notafeminista

      I agree with you about the hypocrisy…it’s almost like those who demand free universal healthcare but refuse to take elderly indigent people into their homes because they can’t afford it. 

      Boggles the mind does it not?

      • Anonymous

        What boggles my mind is your complete inability to parse social issues. The whole point of universal health care is to spread the cost and make it more affordable. The point being that good decent health care should negate anyone taking in elderly indigent strangers.

        Your other comment makes no sense whatsoever.

        • Modavations

          I represent the “Ministry of Truth”and you can not say,or think that

        • notafeminista

          No the whole point of universal healthcare is to sock it to the people who have money to make sure they pay for the people who don’t have money.  Having done that, most people (being rational minded and self interested) will figure out a way to (at least on paper)have no money.    If in fact, the supporters of universal health care wanted to make it more affordable for those who cannot, they would offer to take in and/or support those are unable to afford adequate healthcare.  But they don’t.  They demand the state pay for it.

          Just as they demand pro-lifers to pay for and/or support every unwanted pregnancy.

          • Dave in CT

            It’s easier to believe in a magical money-tree in D.C. that way.

          • Anonymous

            I give you all those countries that have a form of universal health care and even with some of the problems that such countries have, (all systems have problems) they have better outcomes than the US. By the way another example of how you have little understanding of social issues and how to parse them. Your comment based on conjecture and nothing else.

            The US has the worst rate of infant mortality than any other industrial nation. You just post misinformation and hope it sticks.
            Kind of silly methinks.

            Facts are stubborn things.
            John Adams 

          • notafeminista

            Well except every country measure infant mortality differently as the UN and WHO don’t have a standardized measurement thereof.  The US counts stillborns as part of their infant mortality rate while Sweden (?) I think it is, does not count infants who die before 12 months of age in their mortality rates.

            You are so right.  Facts are stubborn things.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

    Pro-Life people must be a pain in the butt to be neighbors with.

    Just imagine if they want to dictate someone’s life for not having an abortion just imagine being their neighbors. They must have harassed a lot of people.

    • Max Stirner

      I disagree with them, but don’t think they’re necessarily bad neighbours.  It is possible to be tolerant of things your neighbours do that you dislike, but to draw the line at murder. 

      Pro-lifers live in a world in which they are surrounded (except on picket, or in church, or en famille) by people guilty of or complicit in the murder of human beings.  That must be horrible, so have pity for them even as they make themselves obnoxious, which is often a symptom of intractable pain.

      (Of course, they do have the recompensing pleasure of feeling more righteous and better informed than the masses, these who believe in the words, “There are none righteous, no not one.”)

  • justme

    I know this sounds incredily petty, but has anyone else noticed that the post coming on defense of the “personhood” movement see to come from a 10 year old in relation to their spelling and grammar?  I know we all misspell things, especially when trying to make a point when we are a bit fired up about a topic, but the phonetic spelling is too amusing.  Makes it very hard to take their comments seriously.

    • Gerald Fnord

      I tend to feel the same way, but seeing enough posts by people with whom I agree but who also are deficient in spelling or grammar moderates this somewhat…though posts nominally agreeing with things I believe that seem poorly reasoned make me go back to examine my own.

  • Gregg

    Viability is one thing but I don’t know how it can be argued that life does not begin at conception.

    I think 3rd trimester abortions should be banned. I don’t think tax payers should be forced to fund abortion. I support parental consent. Beyond that, I’m pro-choice. I believe I am with the majority. 

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

      Doesn’t Federal law ban Federal tax money supporting abortions already–the Hyde Amendment?

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=503339418 Hunter Parent-Wetmore

        Yep! Further proof that the anti-choice movement has no idea what they’re talking about.

        • Gregg

          I already stated I was pro-choice.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=503339418 Hunter Parent-Wetmore

            I know! I was agreeing with you :)

          • Gregg

            Opps, sorry my bad.

          • Gregg

            Still embarrassed about that one, I’ve gotten too defensive lately. It’s a survival thing.

      • Joyce

        Correct.

        Further I cannot imagine an abortion preformed after 24 weeks in a case that didn’t involve one of the following circumstances, a severe threat to the mother’s physical or psychological well being or a fetus who’s situation wasn’t futile for one reason or another. As in, anomalies incompatible with life.

        • Gregg

          That’s the rub but it’s a bit vague for me. For instance, “anomalies incompatible with life” can be interpreted many ways. To the best of my knowledge any of those circumstances could be detected within the first 24 weeks. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Another vagueness is the “psychological well being” of the mother. A little nervousness and a note from a doctor doesn’t justify it in my opinion. Abortions are also hard on the “psychological well being”. I just think it can be worked out sooner than the 3rd trimester.

          I agree with you about the physical well being of the mother. But I would posit there is no scenario where turning the baby around in the womb, delivering all but the head, jamming a hole in the back of the skull and sucking the brains out would be for the benefit of the mother’s physical well being.

          I would ask if you would support a ban in instances when your stated criteria were not met?

      • Modavations

        Lord Obama, vacated it by executive decree.

      • Gregg

        That’s was my understanding, but Obamacare changed that.

        http://www.nationalreview.com/critical-condition/250356/obamacare-and-abortion-facts-william-l-saunders

        Earlier this month the House passed a measure to address it.

        “The House approved legislation, the Protect Life Act, to stop abortion
        funding in Obamacare. Senate Democrats are not expected to approve the
        bill and, pro-abortion President Barack Obama is expected to veto the measure if it reaches his desk.”

        The issue seems to be in flux with momentum heading towards funding. Apologies for not being clear, I was just trying to make my position known and suggest it is not uncommon.

        • TFRX

          Uh, yes, let’s all take the National Review’s word on it.

          For a non-Christian, you really do a good job of blending in with the worst of them.

          • TFRX

            Let me rephrase: For a pro-choicer, why are you taking the National Review’s word for it.

          • Gregg

            There’s a river in Egypt…

    • Gregg

      Since it is impossible for a woman to get an abortion without the participation of a man, I think his voice should be a factor. However, I don’t know how to implement it .

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

        You mean that it’s impossible for a woman to get pregnant without a male being involved, right?  If the man had to go through nine months of pregnancy and then give birth, I’d understand your argument better.

        • Gregg

          I chose my words carefully but yes. Since it impossible to get an abortion without first getting pregnant, it’s really the same thing. You are also correct about the nine months of pregnancy that’s why my point was largely and admittedly rhetorical. That’s why I made it separately. Obviously it’s the woman’s body but what’s inside is the result of both the mother and the father. I do not believe a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion or not have an abortion precisely because it is the mother’s body. It still seems wrong if a couple agree to have a baby and the mother can abort it even if the father is opposed to abortion and desperately wants a child. those two concepts a diametrically opposed with the former (IMO) trumping the latter. So as I say, I don’t know how you could legislate it.

      • Anonymous

        Look to the Bible – cut the fetus in half.

        • Gregg

          Why would I look to the Bible, I’m not a Christian.

    • Modavations

      The requested,” late term abortion” data,from the Kansas climic,has dissappeared.Just like the Solyendra documents,me thinks

  • Gerald Fnord

    Do pro-life people frantically swerve their cars to avoid hitting acorns?  

    • notafeminista

      Do pro-choicers deliberately stomp on them?  C’monnn

      • Gerald Fnord

        No, though I wouldn’t stop anyone else’s doing…but the swerving would be to save _human_ life: the acorns are dangerous to the people in the cars, given that they are same as towering oaks.

        • notafeminista

          Yeah, I understood your analogy thank you.  It’s why I asked you the same question.   What if the acorn were in an inconvenient place, say the middle of your street, or driveway or patio or some such?

          • Gerald Fnord

            Pardon my misunderstanding—I realised that my original post might be taken to claiming that they would be concerned for the life of the acorn.

            I wouldn’t likely find an acorn in the middle of the street or driveway or patio inconvenient, because it were but an acorn, and not in fact an oak.  I would likely kick it aside if I did find it so, though it might also end up on my desk.  I would prefer to plant it somewhere, but anywhere good for oaks one will generally already find a lot of acorns, and one is not that different to the other.

            If an oak were to suddenly appear in the middle of my driveway, I would call a biologist because that would be worthy of study, because that’s the sort of thing an oak doesn’t do.  Ignoring that consideration, if it offended me (e.g., if I drove a car and needed my driveway therefor), I would transplant it if I could, or cut it out (and try to find a use for the wood).

          • notafeminista

            Sounds a lot to me like you would adopt the acorn rather than abort it.  Go figure.

          • OhReally

            Sounds a lot to me like you have the compassion of an acorn.  Go figure.

    • Mandalin98277

      No

  • Brett

    Are there no chastity belts?!

    • Charles Dickens

      Plenty of chastity belts…and most of our prospective presidential candidates would cheer on the re-introduction of the Workhouse.

  • Psalm 139:13-17

    First I just want to ask have any of you concerned about this topic ever had an abortion or known some one who has. If so I think that you have more of a right to leave a comment. Honestly to me it seems that most people are more concerned about upholding an idea rather than supporting the person or people who are going through a difficult decision and situation. Abortion has been so widely overturned and objected that there maybe more acceptance to the mother concidering because she feels the majority feels it’s right or a right. Maybe if the mother felt some objection she may feel apt to other decisions. I feel like I can give these statements without hipocricy because I did have an abortion when I was sixteen. The mental and emotional ramifications were enormous. It has been over ten years now and time does heal all wounds, but as you can tell I am still very concerned about the topic. I think there should be more support and maybe personal testamonies in a abortion clinic so that a yong woman can make a decision that would be her own after consideration of all her options. I also believe that there should be a grace period from the time a woman goes into a clinic, then given option material as long with testamonies, support group information, then a decion appointment.  If I could go back I would have carried my baby full term and given it up for adoption. This is just not another procedure, it is a decision a MOTHER makes on the fate of her unborn CHILD, weather or not the pregnancy was unwanted or an accident there will always be a mother and child involved. 

    • justme

      I believe, personally, in the judge not method.  I could never tell a rape victim that ended up pregnant what to do, as I know the horror of reliving that moment is bad enough, but to have the physical reminder for 9 months inside of you could be devastating, and it takes a very strong person to go through that (and I do know those that have had the child, and KEPT the baby and loved them, while I also know those that carrying the baby and putting the child up for adoption really took away the joy in subsequent, wanted, pregnancies).  It’s a PERSONAL decision.  What I have a problem with is any law that treads on that very personal decision.  I also foresee a host of problems, as the panel was talking about, in regards to IVF, unviable pregnancies, etc., and think that a little logic and forethought would go a long way to reduce the amount of amendments and legistlation that is going to go on should this pass.

      Personally, I had a child at 17, and felt that it was my responsibility to raise her and be the best parent possible.  Then, after she fell ill and suffered brain damage, not only was I sure to use protection (with her father whom I married a few years later), but left the decision open as to what I would do if there was an “oops”.  I had a very time consuming, special needs child, who may not understand the other childs needs, deal with them well, and could pose a potential risk.  Yeah, there is adoption – but that goes back to the mental state of my first child – oh, I had a sister, but I’m so messed up that they gave her away, THAT’D be great for her development, don’t you think?  We did eventually have another child, but it was after a lot of work with our first child so it would be a good situation for everyone, and no it wasn’t planned.  But, given what I went through, and the thought process, I’d never tell a women she had options, as you never know her reasons, and to assume she didn’t put thought into the decision is assinine, judgemental, and uncalled for. 

      As for the religious side that gets thrown in here from the personhood front, it’s there a great diddy by the man upstairs “Judge not, lest you be judged”, and so on that basically goes to the point that it isn’t YOUR place, but rather the holy father ya’ll worship’s, to pass judgement??  So, perhaps you should sit back and let people make their decisions, because even their own “rules to live by” have a clause in there… just saying. 

      • Steve

        As a man, personally opposed to abortion, I would like to thank both of the the people above for their responses and the courage it took to live and make them.

  • Andrew Martin

    Can we agree that these pro-personhooders are making a fundamentally religious argument, and that this seriously undermines their credibility? 
    It is my opinion that all this fervor for preserving life is a public-relations screen for a deeper motive: the desire to see women suffer the traditional consequences for their sins. I think these so-called Christians resent the fact that a woman is now able to circumvent God’s sentence for Eve’s transgression: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; / In pain you shall bring forth children” (Gen 3:16). The caller who made the comment about breeders was right on. This is a deeply misogynistic philosophy.
    The systematically self-serving nature of this group’s arguments was also beautifully illustrated by the personhood advocates. First, the Mississippi doctor sweepingly discredited the constitution by claiming that it sanctioned slavery, which she believes is wrong (how progressive). Second, in response to the question of whether or not this kind of law would represent an unconscionable intrusion by the government, the other woman argued that it would not be the government stepping into peoples’ bedrooms and doctors’ offices. Rather, it is “the people of Mississippi standing up for what they believe.” Well, thank the lord for the conscience of the people of Mississippi. I seem to remember other occasions on which they have stood up. Once in the 1860s to protect the constitution from meddling big-government abolitionists, and again in the mid-twentieth century to preserve segregation. 
    I’d better leave off. Thank you for an extremely interesting show.

    • Gerald Fnord

      Good points—that is to say, I agree.  But also please do not eliminate the extent to which people who have unsatisfying sex-lives may feel an inherent interest in noöne else’s having much fun.  

      In the case of those so because of bad luck, it is simple ressentiment, in the case of those limiting themselves in the hope of gaining an Heavenly crown, it is the resentment of their own intentional sacrifice.

      • Andrew Martin

        Thank you for responding, Gerald. Can you elaborate that second point? When you say “limiting,” do you mean married, religious people choosing not to have sex as the only means of birth control?  

      • notafeminista

        I hope I am misunderstanding….you aren’t suggesting that people who are pro-life …are simply pro-life because they are…frigid?

    • Anonymous

      Good points. I liken this amendment to the Jim Crow laws.
      This is a Jim Crow law against women.

      • Modavations

        Jim Crow was an invention of the Democrat Dixiecratss.You guys love to rewfrite history.I know,I know,Hitler,Pol Pot,Mao,Stalin weren’t socialists,either

        • Anonymous

          Republican Strom Thurmond was a Dixiecrat.  Most of them switched parties. 

        • Anonymous

          Yes, I remember all those Southern Republicans fighting for racial equality against those evil Democrats.   Hundreds, literally hundreds I tell you, gave their lives in the fight.  Read it right here in “The History of the World” by that famed historian, Modavations.

          • Modavations

            Jackie Robinson was called an Uncle Tom,because he was a Republican.Lincoln was the father of the Republican Party,Eisenjhower liberated Little Rock,20 % more Rep.,then Democrats voted for LBJ’s Civil Rights Laws,Robert Byrd was the last of the Grand Dragons.Why is Wheeling,W.Virginia,Americas most difficult drive,you ask?.It’s Because every road and school is named Robert F.Byrd.The reasons you won’t afford Blacks a School Voucher, is because the business of the Dem.Party, is keepuing Poor people,poor.

          • TFRX

            For anyone playing along at home, Modatroll has been asleep since 1960.

        • Anonymous

          I’m not sure if it’s worth even trying to deal with your nonsense.
          Let me think for a second… No it’s not.

  • Cassrs

     I want to make a comparison between killing an unborn child and
    killing a dangerous person who is stalking someone.

    If a person is stalking and threatening you, you are in danger. It is
    inconvenient. Your rights as an individual are being infringed upon. Yet
    you are still not allowed, by law, to kill the stalker, because we have
    decided as a country that it is wrong to kill another person.

    I think the same standard should apply to an unborn child. A pregnancy may
    be inconvenient. Your rights as an individual are being infringed upon.
    But you should not be allowed to kill the unborn baby, because it is wrong
    to kill another person.

    I believe that there should be two exceptions where an abortion should be
    allowed. I think abortion should be allowed when the life of the mother is
    in danger if the pregnancy were to be continued. I also think there should
    be an exception for rape. I personally would not choose to kill the baby
    if I was impregnated due to rape, but I would not want to force another
    woman to have to carry to term in those circumstances. The case of rape is
    an exceptional circumstance.

    I think there are logical reasons and comparisons for allowing the killing
    of an unborn child in these two circumstances. In the case of a pregnancy
    endangering the life of the mother, a choice must be made between two   
    lives, the life of the mother, or the life of the unborn child. I think in
    this circumstance, the choice to kill the unborn baby or not should be
    given to the mother (and father) in question.

    A comparison could be made to the legal status of a person who kills in
    self defense. We do not punish a person who kills an attacker who was
    obviously trying to kill them, because there was a choice between two
    lives- the victim’s, or the attacker’s. A person has a legal (and moral)
    right to protect their own life.

    In the case of rape, I believe the victim must have the choice whether or
    not to kill a possible unborn child, because in this case, the victim was
    forced into the pregnancy. It could be extremely difficult both psychologically and spiritually to carry on with such a pregnancy, and I would not want to force a person to do it.

    I think we must remember that we, (both men and women) can make choices
    that lead to pregnancy or that avoid pregnancy. We can choose to have sex 
    or not, and choose to use contraceptives or not. Our behavior has
    consequences. Yes, sometimes contraceptives fail. We must take this into 
    account when we make our choices. If we have a 100% desire NOT to have a
    child, and we are responsible and moral, then we must choose an option
    that will result in a 100% chance that we will not become pregnant. Our  
    choice not to be responsible in our sexual behavior is a sad excuse for  
    killing another human being.

    I advocate sexual education for children. Sex education should include
    instruction in contraceptive methods. Sex ed programs should always teach
    that there is the choice of abstinence from sex. Abstinence should be
    presented as a very possible, normal choice that a teenager can make. I
    believe a parent should have the choice to give this instruction to the  
    child themselves, and/or let the school educate their child. I think the
    best solution would be for both the parents and the school to offer sex
    ed.

    We must, as citizens realize that bringing a baby into the world is a
    decision that should not be lightly made. Our personal choices about sex
    should reflect that knowledge. Let us put our efforts towards encouraging
    responsiblity in our sexual behavior, and responsiblity for its results,
    so that we do not continue to legalize an illogical and immoral double
    standard in allowing killing of unborn children.

    • Anonymous

      This is one of the most ridiculous comments on this issue I have ever read. To equate stalking to a woman making a choice about her body is the height of absurdity. I have to ask, are you a man?

      • Cassrs

         Nope. I’m a woman. I think it’s a fair comparison.

      • Modavations

        How can one person be so wrong,so consistently.A two year old, would know the poster is a woman

    • Anonymous

      Your argument is what we call “begging the question”.  We have to accept your definition of personhood as part of the premise.  No one is arguing that killing a person isn’t wrong (although most people argue it is not always wrong, ie, in war, in self-defense, etc.), we are arguing that a fetus is not and should not be legally defined as a person.  That a potential person should not trump an actual person, that and that having human DNA is not equivalent with personhood. (As was mentioned elsewhere, what about growing human organs in animals?  If personhood is linked to DNA, and not, say, having human consciousness, would that mean those organs have rights?)

      Furthermore we are arguing that it is not the appropriate role of government to insert itself into something so incredibly personal as a person’s family planning and medical care.  And it isn’t the proper role of government to impose religious morality, which is what this amounts to.

      Personhood Mississippi’s leader, Les Riley, is a far right religious nutjob, who has supported a secessionist group that wants to create an independent theocratic state.  That’s who you are supporting if you vote for this crap.
      http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/huckabee-keynote-fundraiser-personhood-mississippi

      • Cassrs

        You are right, of course. My premise assumes that an unborn child is a ‘person’.

        I personally, do not see any difference between a fetus and a born baby except for time elapsed. Ergo, in my opinion, a fetus is a person.

        There is a difference between a developing fetus and organs/DNA/eggs/sperm. All of the previous are of course alive, but only one, the fetus, will become a person if left alone to develop. I don’t believe DNA is equivalent with personhood. But I do believe that a fetus is a person.

        I personally support cloned organs, stem cell research (as long as the cells are not harvested from embryos grown on purpose to get those stem cells.)
        I also support birth control of all types. I prefer to use only those types that prevent fertilization, but realistically, I think we have to have other options available as well.

        I don’t think I would support the proposed Mississippit amendment because from what I heard, it has no exception for rape. I don’t know what provisions it makes for where medical issues impact ethics. It sounds to me like the proposed amendment goes too far, even for me, who is anti-abortion.

    • justme

      Putting limitations on a delicate subject such as this is going to create more problems.  For instance, every woman who has the legal right to abortion now, for whatever their reasons, is stuck in a situation where lying about the conception is a possibility, as is seeking out shady/dangerous means of receiving an abortion.  If you don’t believe abortion is right, then don’t have one.  But there are many situations where a woman might feel it is the best route for her, and no one has any business judging her (and the father) for making those choices.  There are also home situations, such as my own with a special needs child.  No, I don’t agree with young girls using abortion as a form of birth control, and I feel it is idiotic.  But, that is my opinion, and mine alone.  My opinion shouldn’t be law.  If it was, whinny men would be castrated and kept 100 miles away from me, the person who took the last cup of coffee without making a new pot would be drawn and quartered, and the cleaning fairy would be fined tremedously for her slacking at my house….

      Also, I noticed the morning after, or plan B pill being brought up.  Seriously??  Yes, it is an abortion, but basically, so is your birth control… you are stopping a fertalized egg from implanting.  Doesn’t mean you are stopping fertalization 100% of the time. 

      • Cassrs

         You make a very good point about the morning after pill and many forms birth control/contraception. No real difference! (And I am anti-abortion.)

  • Scott B, Jamestown NY

    Back in Dubya’s days on office he touted “snow-babies” and that by having the frozen embryos implanted, and not  (and I paraphrase) “killed through their use in research” or destroyed, was the moral thing to do.  But thousands upon thousands, if not millions of fertilized embryos are frozen and few are used.  They don’t jut harvest one egg, or fertilize one at a time. They do it
    in multiple, and often excess embryos are removed in the uterus (that’s
    still an abortion) so that one baby is achieved and “octomom” isn’t a
    common occurrence.  Go read what the doctors that criticized the Dr that
    let “Octomom” go to term said about it, and how it’s often resolved.  There was no criticism of those Doctors that did that

    Many of these embryos are going to be nonviable for anything, if not just plain go unneeded. To the pro-lifers, it’s somehow better to just do nothing and let the embryo
    “die”, than to use it for stem cell research that can save lives, than destroy them on purpose. But they get destroyed every day, not just because it’s standard procedure to destroy embryos (as well as eggs) that are becoming nonviable for use, but at the request of the parents who don’t want more kids or others having kids with their embryos. But isn’t “doing nothing”, and letting the embryo become nonviable still a decion (In the words of Rush’s “Free Will” – “if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.) To their own logic that’s leaving a baby to die on the side of the road. They didn’t stop to tend to it, or even look at it, but they let it be to die on its own (though they would like to inflict it onto someone else, but of course not with their precious money) and somehow that’s not the same?

    We have living breathing children in the country that need good homes with adoptive parents. I am adopted, and I’m deeply thankful my parents adopted me.   So who pays for the millions upon million of these “snow-babies”, that by their own reasoning, are fully human children?  Do we put the doctors, nurses, lab techs, and receptionists of the fertility clinics in jail for destroying them? Or for letting them “die” by no implanting them in someone?

    .

    • Zing

      You’re splitting stupid hairs as usual.

  • Jen

    One important point that was lost in the radio show this morning is that there’s a difference between when an egg is fertilized, and when an embryo has successfully implanted into the wall of a woman’s uterus. Implantation is conception.  Not fertilization.  Many times, women who very much want children will have an egg successfully fertilize, and then it won’t implant.  They’ll get their period and not even know that they were almost pregnant.

    This is the case with natural conception, and with IVF.  One can do everything right, go through many cycles of IVF, and still not end up pregnant.

    I think that the ethical considerations really come into play when you have an implanted, fertilized egg (an implanted embryo, that is), that’s thriving.  If pro-life people want to legislate when a ‘person’ is a ‘person,’ that’s where it makes sense.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

      IVF is very expensive compared to IUI. insurance companies don’t pay for IVF.

  • Rpx47

    People like Dr. Mcmillian are dangerous people. How dare she compel any woman to carry to term an unwanted pregnancy. How dare she seat back all the progress the women movement has made.

    For all the pro-lifers out there, how about you step up and adopt all those children out there who are unwanted, unloved and uncared for. Instead of sentencing more children to a life of misery and poverty.

    • notafeminista

      Just as soon as all the folks who want universal free health care agree to take 2 or 3 elderly indigent folks into their home…k?

      • OhReally

        What does your irreverent comment have to do with Rpx47′s?

      • Anonymous

        I understood that those needs would be met by their families, or by charitable and religious organizations.  So are you claiming that expectation is unrealistic?

    • Modavations

      What progress.You swallowed the whole NOW agenda,waited till you were 40 to have you’re kids and they all have Autism

      • everyspermissacred

        Autism is only linked to the age of the father not the mother. Check your facts please.

        • Modavations

          You are so wrong.Men’s sperm is viable into the 60′s.It’s the absolute opposite.Did the scientists of NOW teach you that?

          • justme

            Autism isn’t related to either.  Downs Syndrome is related to the age of the eggs.  Men continually produce sperm.  Women are born with all the eggs they will ever have.  There are serveral suspected factors for autism, and one is linked to the father, but it has nothing to do with age, as far as I’ve heard – perhaps I missed something?  But, Modavations, you are incorrect, as well.

          • everyspermissacred

            I think we are both right actually if you look into it. I was thinking of older studies about father’s age, while newer studies have implicated mother’s age. There are mutations and changes in gene control that occur in the cells that make sperm with aging. And with mothers since the egg development is stalled until ovulation there are issues with chromosomes that can result later in life that can also cause mutation leading to diseases like downs and perhaps smaller mutations that can lead to autism.

          • justme

            The only thing they “know” about Austism is – they don’t know.  It’s been linked to areas, electrical flows, IT genius fathers, now eggs and sperm.  But, it is so wide spread, across education levels, income levels, and areas, it’s going to be very hard to get a hard grasp on.  I have not heard any studies on a womens age and the increase in austism, and since my child is special needs and in school with several, and has been for the last 7 years, from expierence, I’ll tell you the ages vary from very young to middle aged with the parents.  Actually, there are more young parents in our area with Autistic children. 

            What is NOW?? 

          • everyspermissacred

            National Organization of Women – feminist group

            More study needed on autism please! Causes, preventions, and helping people with autism integrate and succeed.

          • everyspermissacred

            actually National Organization FOR Women (don’t want to uninclude the men!)

          • Modavations

            But I thought you were so convinced.Listen dude,I convene class daily, to teach you the unexpected.

          • everyspermissacred

            it has nothing to do with the viability of the sperm. autism is likely caused by an accumulation of spontaneous mutations and the older men are the more they are likely to get in their gametes. I have studied biology for over a decade. those are the facts. and for the record heck yes i support NOW. in fact i presented on NOW in high school for a PAC project just before the girl who did the pro-life poster. 

          • Modavations

            Go do some more studying.It is the female egg that wanes.If you are an older mother and your child has autism,you have NOW, to blame.

          • everyspermissacred

            it is true we evolved to reproduce best at younger ages like the 20′s. i’m not sure NOW was fiddling around in evolution…

          • Modavations

            Not evolution,but niave womans heads

          • notafeminista

            However it does infuriate them they have no control of evolution.

          • Anonymous

            Wrong, the sperm in men does change with age.

            http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/004017.htm

          • Modavations

            How can someone be so consistently wrong,about absolutely everything.Women over 40,have a  50% higher incidence then the 25-29 crew.Read NYT,Reuters,but disregard the Nation and Pravda.John Corzine’s new venture, just got delisted because of outrageous losses.Goldman Strikes again

          • everyspermissacred

            Ok, here is a NYT article talking about how BOTH parents age is linked to autism. BOTH!!!!! http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/health/09autism.html

          • Modavations

            So wrong,so wrong.Only applies to old guys and young chicks.Keep reading and quit spiining.Women over 40, have a 50% higher incidence of Autism.Good work NOW!!!!

          • everyspermissacred

            ok – so i take it back, autism may also be linked to maternal age. But studies also show father’s age also contributing for the reason i mentioned.

          • Modavations

            Only relates to old guys and young women,but I thank you for having an open mind.The left’s parochial views and lack of tolerance, are offensive.I am called and a–hole 50 times a day

          • everyspermissacred

            i am done with this conversation. you are not on topic, make so sense, and obviously only care about some political right wing agenda instead of the issue

      • SB

        Learn correct grammar, then learn how to get your head out of your ass.

  • Wizard400

    Something like 80% of all fertilized eggs do not attach to the uterine wall but pass through the vaginal canal.  If those fertilized aggs are human beings, what does the pro-life movement propose we do to harvest these “babies?”

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

    Pro-Life means to mind the life of women.

    • notafeminista

      Pro choice means to remove rights and responsibility from men.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

        Pro-Life means to suppress the rights of women,men and children.
        Pro-Choice is to give women,men and children a chance to choose their destiny in life.

        • notafeminista

          Well except the children you are aborting.

      • everyspermissacred

        an unwed father’s consent is not required for adoption if he does not legally establish paternity. we don’t require paternity to be established for adoption, then why should we for abortion?

        • notafeminista

          Fair point, if she keeps the unborn entity, then she doesn’t get to show up on the father’s doorstep 2 years later with Junior in tow to demand both retroactive and future child support.  Either he is responsible or he is not.  What’s it gonna be?

          • everyspermissacred

            well then we agree this point about the father either needs to be one way or the other consistently so i don’t think it should be used as an anti-choice argument

          • OhReally

            You’re so snide, you tell us.

          • Modavations

            Get ready N.A.Fem.,you’re about to be called a Trollette

          • notafeminista

            One can only hope.

        • notafeminista

          I think we should for both.  Don’t you?

      • OhReally

        How’s that?

  • monktavist

    Legislating philosophy/morality is crossing the church state boundary. The spirit of the constitution is that a small group cannot legislate the beliefs/actions of others. 

  • Modavations

    Speaking of abortions,let’s speak about the “Main Stream Press”.Two, unattributed women(probably from Anita Hill’s office)have accused Cain of inappropriate gentures,22 years ago.Just what the hell is an inappropriate gesture?The chief aparatchiks of the Democrat Party, are worried that the escaped chattel, are getting way too Uppity.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

    Pro-Life means to suppress the rights of women,men and children.Pro-Choice is to give women,men and children a chance to choose their destiny in life.

    • notafeminista

      ProChoice means to deny men their parental rights.

      • OhReally

        Since when?

        • notafeminista

          Ok, so we’ll do this.  We know that abortion is claimed as a “women’s issue” – in part because men don’t carry the unborn entity (never mind his role in creating said entity) and that women are the ones left behind with the unwanted pregnancy and must find a way to support herself and said entity.  So rather than celebrating life, or the potential of, she chooses to terminate the entity and father is none the wiser.  Unless of course had he been fully apprised of the situation, he may have elected to keep said entity himself.   Can’t have that no no as we know women bear the physical burden of the entity and she doesn’t want it.  Again ignoring his role in creating said entity.

          However, should this scenario occur and the man is unaware of her condition, should she decide to keep the entity, she can show up on his doorstep two years later with Junior in tow and demand child support for a child he neither knew about or wanted.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

        IN YOUR WORLD.

      • Sam Walworth

        exactly, just like the Octomoms and Hexamoms and Pentamoms

  • Amber52255

    If this is a religious thing, the Bible says that God knew us before we were even conceived.  so, now, maybe just a thought of having a baby could be considered a person.

    • Zing

      Amber…you have put into words the crux of the whole dilemma as well as the solution.  May God bless you.

  • Grannie

    I realize that I am out of touch and unrealistic, but what stops a woman from becoming pregnant.  She either does not have sex, she uses birth control pills or her partner wears a condom.  Most of the people who have written act as though you are an automoton and have no control over whether you have children or not.  I was 25 when I married and had not had sex before I was married.  No, I dated and did not have “to put out” on my dates.  If they asked, I said no and maybe they never called again. Obviously that is why they dated me.  During my marriage   we practiced birthcontrol by the calendar. It did not always work, but we have four lovely children and loved them all.   No one has to have sex.  It they have no self control, why should a beby be punished.  Suck it up, have the baby and  put it up for adoption.  If you can’t pay, don’t play.  

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

      how about rape victims and victims of incest?

      • notafeminista

        Quick, which comprise exactly what percentage of all US abortions?

        • OhReally

          Since it’s you tell us.  Or don’t you know?

          • justme

            I would say any information that is obtained from a fill out form in a doctors office would be sketchy.  If the woman didn’t report the rape or incest, which is quite common, she sure isn’t going to put that on the form for fear the staff will report the crime for her…

          • notafeminista

            I do know.  Do you?

        • Sam Walworth

          Heck, even if 99.999999% of abortions were carried out by females who want to use abortion as a measure of birth control, should we ban abortion altogether?

          Its like punishing everyone going 1mph over the speed limit by an automatic speed limit enforcer

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

            but 99.999999% of women DO NOT KILL THEIR CHILD.
            Who wants to kill a child NO ONE except for those who are plain evil.

          • Sam Walworth

            FAX68,

            Killing a child? you mean even the IUD is killing a child?

    • Dave in CT

      With all due respect Grannie, accountability and personal responsibility is so 20th century.  We prefer reckless hedonism, rapacious materialism, no patience, and full entitlement to every good thing produced by you and your forefathers. Thanks for the stuff, but screw your sanctimonious lessons on restraint!

    • justme

      Grannie, first: if you follow the logic of the personhood movement, birthcontrol is right up their with abortion, even if they aren’t saying it out right – they feel at the time of conception, as clarified on the show as when the sperm meets the egg you have a person, and it is wrong to terminate that fertilized egg.  Birth control, can stop an egg from being fertilized, but the other thing that it does is make the lining of the uterous inhospitable by thinning it, so the fertilized egg will not implant and will be flushed away.  Second: Yes, you are unrealistic.  Birth control fails, women are raped or victims of incest, too young, or have a living situation that is not ideal for birth or birth then adoption if their methods fail.  I don’t agree that abortion is a form of birth control by any means.  The point I think everyone is missing is that is not your place, my place, or anyone elses, let along the governments, to tell a women (or a woman and man) what to do.  As for late term, partial birth abortions that came up in the threads, I don’t understand a medically necessary reason for them (if it’s that bad, typically that is found early on), and I cannot imagine a woman voluntarily having one.. I could be wrong.  I can’t get past the whole process to research it more, so I’ll leave that topic alone. 

      Having said that, we had an “oops” too young, and I took the stance you stated above.  But that was me, and I couldn’t begin to judge someone else for their choices having not been in their place, and I hope everyone remembers that. 

    • Anonymous

      I got pregnant when I was married and on birth control and had taken antibiotics, which reduces the effectiveness of birth control (which I did not know at the time, it wasn’t highly publicized). Sometimes people get pregnant even though they have followed the “rules” and there was failure of some part and sometimes being pregnant is the very last thing the want or need to be, but according to you they should just suck it up? For 10 months, a woman is supposed to just suck it up?? The physical & emotional trauma, the medical expense and loss of work, the effect pregnancy has on every part of your life during that time? Really glad I don’t live in your world of suppression.  

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

    Pro-Life next campaign is to Force everyone to attend Church.

    • Dave in CT

      Wait long enough and they’ll get around to enforced spreading the wealth……

  • notafeminista

    And speaking of social issues and rational mindedness…the number of men who claim to be pro-choice I suspect really don’t give a hoot one way or other except that they’ve figured out this gets them out of the responsibility.

    After all the “women’s movement” has been telling us for decades that men are selfish thoughtless pigs who will (at the first available opportunity) abandon a woman he’s had the bad luck to make pregnant.

    Along comes the pro-choicers and makes it allllll go away for both him and her.  Brilliant.

    • Anonymous

      Weird, I didn’t get that memo from the “women’s movement”.  Perhaps it was only addressed to you.

      • notafeminista

        Well perhaps, but is it not an argument of the pro-choicers that women need the choice of abortion because a man gets some poor hapless woman pregnant and then disappears never to be seen again. 
        Poor hapless woman, having no education and no income and no means to support herself, needs the choice of an abortion no?

        • Anonymous

          I have no idea if that is an official position of any pro-choice advocacy groups.  It is not my position, I think there are far stronger arguments for getting the government out of people’s sex lives and wombs.  But I have never heard anyone argue that there is an epidemic of fathers-to-be running out on their pregnant girlfriends/spouses and that is why we must leave the option of abortion open.

          • Modavations

            70% of black women have children out of wedlock.It’s 90% in the ghetto.The business of the Dem.Party is “keeping poor people poor

          • Anonymous

            Modavations, please do not respond to me ever.

          • Modavations

            The open minded left!!!.Half of America(or more)is laissez faire.We pay for a half of NPR(I donate),but you want to keep it the exclusive perview ,of the limosine liberal.CPR gets $400 million in taxpayer money.How many poor guys go to Opera,how many to Symphony.For that matter,how many listen to NPR.;We’re here,get used to it

          • Anonymous

            No, Eric here is responding to your disgusting rhetoric. Then you go on to hide behind the 1st Amendment.

            Free Speech comes with responsibilities. Something you clearly do not understand as you post vile comments and then cry wolf when someone calls you on them.

          • Modavations

            Mr.Minister of Truth,”disgusting and vile”, are subjective.Over 50% of America is on my side.We pay for NPR,it’s not the exclusive perview of the Limosine Liberal.

          • Anonymous

            No, I want to keep it the exclusive purview of people who live in reality.

            And I’m a poor guy.  High school dropout as well, despite the fact that I can spell “purview”.  Not a huge opera fan, but I do enjoy the symphony.

          • Modavations

            It was the Public Schools that done it,but I do appologize

          • Dave in CT

            Why do you guys attack him when he simply posts facts? Why don’t you speak to the facts? If you don’t like what he is saying with the facts, lay it out…..

            From NPR:
            “Forty years ago, a government report on the state of the black family in America warned that almost one out of four black children were born to unmarried mothers. Recent figures suggest that now, almost 70 percent of black children are born out of wedlock.”

            http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4865449

            Are we not allowed to talk about this?

          • Anonymous

            It’s not the statistics or subject matter, but lack of coherence.  If you have the patience to wade into it, by all means have at it.  I’m just not interested and I’d rather he didn’t address the things I post directly.
            You want to talk about the high rate of out of wedlock births in the african american community, great.  What’s the relevance to this topic?  Lack of access to abortion services + religious prohibitions against abortions + lack of decent sex ed in public schools is contributing?  Probably.

          • Anonymous

            Loathsome, you are hitting an all time low pal.

          • notafeminista

            Ok, then why is the abortion option available to women then?

          • OhReally

            Instead of hypothetical questions, why don’t you make some informative comments to the discussion?

          • Anonymous

            Because there is no a priori reason, in a purportedly free country, the government ought to have the power to legislate reproductive choices.  Defining personhood at the moment of conception or implantation is an arbitrary and primarily religious position and has no place in a pluralistic society, and the measurable harm of increases in violence and economic costs outweigh the imagined harm of a potential person not being born.  As mentioned elsewhere, every time I commit the “sin of Onan” there’s a few hundred million potential lives not being born.  The only difference with fertilization is that it’s a wee bit further down the path of potentiality.

          • notafeminista

            So you’re saying abortion is legal because it can be.  Not because of any potential danger to the mother or because she’s been raped or molested or maybe just doesn’t feel like having a baby right now.  Do I understand you correctly?

          • Anonymous

            I’m saying that we should have very very strong reasons for granting the government power over the most personal and intimate details of our lives, and the default position should be that it is not the place of government to interfere this deeply in our lives.  That is the fundamental reason why abortion should not be illegal.  Safety of the mother, pregnancy from rape, etc, are all justifications for why getting an abortion could be a moral decision, but that is up to the individual’s conscience.

          • notafeminista

            But that is not the party line. …First thing out of any pro-choicer’s mouth is one of two things…either she’s been abandoned by some ne’er do well who knocked her up or that she’s been raped/molested.  Whichever one flies out first, the other is sure to follow.

          • Anonymous

            Apparently another memo I missed.  Perhaps your caricature of the left is too simplistic?

          • notafeminista

            Beats me.  You can read the rest of the comments on this board as well as I can.  Look at the discussion between Ed and Patrick regarding a woman who has been impregnated as the result of rape.

        • Anonymous

          Oh please, what a load of complete crap.

          • notafeminista

            pay special attention to numbers 2 and 3

            http://www.amplifyyourvoice.org/u/Pheo152/2009/1/26/10-Arguments-in-Favor-of-ProChoice-Policy

            Margaret Sanger said, “No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her own body.” This concept is fundamental for women.

            make sure you read them all kids:
            http://www.choicematters.org/articles/legal-abortion-arguments-pro-con/

          • notafeminista

            Furthermore, I direct you to Jane’s post right here on this very board, who apparently is concerned that if abortion is somehow compromised that the KKK will rise again and women will be treated as cattle.

          • Modavations

            Magaret(high priestess of the left)was a Eugenicist.She taught the NAZI’s(National Workers Socialist Party)all the dirty tricks.She wanted to eliminate the riff raff.Why are all the clinics in the ghettos.

          • Anonymous

            Are the liberals trying to “eliminate the riff raff” or keep people poor to exploit them for their votes as you also claimed here?  Pick one silly conspiracy as you can’t argue for both as they are contradictory. 

          • Modavations

            After a stint in the public schools(how many in the Black Caucus, send their kids to public school)one third of all black men are in jail,probation,or parole and up to 90% of all births are out of wedlock.We spend 580billionish on Welfare.If not for the abortion mill,we’d be paying 1 trillion.You eliminate enough kids to keep the budget from imploding,but allow enough to reach voting age, to keep the left in power.This is Eugenics.By the way,a black guy who makes money,becomes a Republican

          • Guest-22

            According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, white women have far more abortions, in number and in percentage of pregnancies, than do African American women. African American women tend to keep their children.

            Note that nobody says what will happen to all the “Post-birth fetuses” –of any color–who will wind up in foster homes when their mothers and fathers surrender them to authorities or for adoption after their parents are forced to go through childbirth. Are the foster homes all empty now? Are we trying to fill the beds? We need to acknowledge that many children are not wanted by anybody. We are not doing a great job of taking care of all the ones in foster care now, so adding more kids to the mix adds more “persons” who will need tax dollars to support  and educate until they turn 18 (or, in some states 22).

            Thousands and thousands kids never get a permanent loving family. Who’s going to care for them? The state of Mississippi? Who’s going to force people to adopt all those kids? Just sayin’. 

      • Anonymous

        Funny I did not get that memo either. This person just posts a lot misinformation and hopes people don’t check her on it.

        • Modavations

          To our representative of the “Ministry of Truth,why are you so petrified by a difference of opinion.Please tell me why Free Speech ,is the first amendment?

    • OhReally

      Why don’t you provide some statistics for your socially wayward comments? 

      Oh, that’s right, it’s just your style.

  • Kentchris

    A question for those who support a “personhood amendment”?
    What will the penalty be for a woman who decides to break the law and have an abortion thus taking the life of an unborn person? Keep in mind this would have to be premeditated murder by your definition.

    • Ellen Dibble

      I guess it’s unpremeditated murder when a child is stillborn or miscarried?  Or is that the fault of the doctor/medical community?  Where does the law come down on that?  I believe it’s considered murder, regardless of the woman’s religion, if a pregnant woman is, say, in an automobile accident and the experience provokes a miscarriage or an in-utero death.  Murder not by the woman but by the situation and all that goes into it (was somebody driving drunk?  if so, who?).  Actually who is legally culpable if a child is born with fetal alcohol syndrome or other disabilities, foreseeable or unforeseeable?  This area of the law seems fraught with ambiguities.

      • Kentchris

        Not sure where you are going with your response Ellen. I just asked the question because I think it would be good to know what is going to happen to all the women who have abortions or use birth control if fertilised eggs are considered a person and abortion and birth control are outlawed. I assume Lousianna has the death penalty for first degree murder. Are they going to apply the same punishment to a woman who has an abortion or uses birth control. If not why not. After all the supporters of this amendment claim abortion is murder.

  • Jane

    I assert that this movement is a frightening assault on women who will be reduced to a status equivalent to farm animals.  Note that the South, and Mississippi in particular, has a history of institutionalized ignorance and hatred vented through the KKK.  Hatred only needs a target, be it racial or gender based.  

  • angie

    I tried to call in today, but lines were busy.  All the calls I heard 30-40 minutes into the show were pro-abortion and seemed to espouse “making life easier” for those living whether inconvenienced or impoverished.  Preventing poverty among future children was mentioned as one justification.  That just doesn’t hold water because so many youth in situations with plenty money are troubled, dropping out of school, in treatment, drug-, alcohol-, or sex-dependent.  Money is not the issue.  Some mentioned lack of insurance for children as a justification for abortion of future children.  That doesn’t work either since so many states have existing programs for helping with medical costs, so many already go without insurance, and since for the many who do have health insurance it does not solve all their problems either.  No, the real issue here is ethical and one of integrity.  If in fact a democratic society requires its citizens to practice responsible behavior in order for democracy to flourish, then responsibility requires one to think of the needs of others as highly as their own.  This responsibility throughout time has first been practiced within the nuclear family, and then radiated out to the village and community.  If our society was truly concerned with protecting children, including the unborn, responsibility would be accepted for one’s behavior.  Instead, people want to do what they want for their own sexual gratification with no strings attached to be responsible for the gift of life that comes with sex.  Then they want to say everyone including children 13, 14, 15 years old should be free to choose.  Well, it is not surprising then that they want to kill the embryo/fetus/unborn child.  Trying to free people from unwanted consequences of irresponsible behavior only weakens them in resolve to live in such a way as to build a strong foundation for the future.  At the very least, it seems like both sides should be able to agree on no abortions after 20 weeks when life outside the womb is possible.  But that won’t happen because it’s a power struggle, pro-abortion powers that be would see that as a loss when it’s really at the very least the responsible and right thing to do.  If talking about the right thing to do is not possible due to some thinking it’s imposing beliefs, then we’re really at a very sad low.  There must be some constitution to do right for the children we conceive.

    • justme

      I know that planned parenthood in my area does not do abortion after 13 weeks.  Where would they allow it after 20???  that is too much… unless there is something seriously, medically wrong, I think that is too far to be save, as well.

      • Guest-22

        There are serious conditions, such as when the fetuse’s heart or brain develops outside the rest of its body, so in no way could it survive if born. The most humane thing to do is to allow the woman–if she chooses–to have an abortion, even at that late stage. This happened to a close friend of mine. She was heartbroken, because she wanted a baby, but she felt this was the best, most moral decision she could make for her sake, her husband’s, her other children’s, and the baby she wouldn’t have. But carrying this doomed fetus for two more months made no sense.

      • http://www.facebook.com/perlstein.josh Josh Perlstein

        Usually, late abortions are permitted in most states only if there is a medical complication.

    • Anonymous

      The world according to your moral viewpoint is not something that people should be slatted with. By the way how do you account for the fact that abortions and unwanted pregnancies have been going down.
      Here’s another interesting tidbit: Children who get good sex education are less likely to become pregnant. What is also interesting is that states where they have better sex education there is less teenage pregnancy and STD’s.

    • Sam Walworth

      Exactly Angie,

      I want to go to the next level, lets make fornication, adultery and rape  a punishable offense by capital punishment, just like in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and there wont be any abortions, problem solved.

      May we move to the next issue please.

      • Guest-22

        Let’s just be sure to put all the guys who fornicate, adulterate, and rape women and cause pregancies into a prison, or cut off their . . . hands. Capital punishment kills grown up fetuses.

    • Anonymous

      You need to get your head out of where the sun doesn’t shine so you can see the world around you a little more clearly.

      Mississippi is one of the poorest states in this country.  They should have $50.00 abortions doled out at every shopping mall and a forced 1 Child Limit.  That way they can use the very few resources they have to… I don’t know… how about Educate their kids for a change.

      Having an abortion is making the Ultimate Responsible decision.  Deciding not to bring a child into the world when you can’t feed yourself because you’re uneducated and have no potential to make any money ever is the definition of responsibility.

      Unwanted pregnancies happen.

      Civilized countries do not make women take them to term.

      If you want to live in the world you describe, move to Africa.

      • Andrej Kocev

        Is your life worth more than on of these poor hungry uneducated kids?

        • http://www.facebook.com/perlstein.josh Josh Perlstein

          Yes, *I* have *made* it worth more by becoming the person that I am today. 23 years ago, no, I wasn’t. I was expendable, I was nobody.

  • everyspermissacred

    Just FYI this discussion has been hijacked by a couple of trolls. No longer a productive conversation about the issue. Have fun folks.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

    My father said the child is always belongs to the mother or woman.
     
    yes the child is part of man’s life but the relationship between a baby and the mother is unseparable. Even a man cannot equal the bond and relationship between a mother and her child.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

      Blind fold a mother inside a nursery and that mother will still know who is her child. That is the power of love from A Mother. the power to know her child even though she is blind folded.

      • Solarmal

        Sorry to tell you, I am a loving mother of two and if you put me in a room with a bunch of babies and they were crying and I was blind folded I would NOT be able to pick mine out as easily as you assume.  You are clearly a man.   

  • worried_husband

    Look at this picture closely. Four men, three boys, and 6 women most likely past their childbearing age, and only one young looking woman. The picture just represents the main problem behind this poor conceived initiative. I’m sure the women that could die from ectopic pregnancies, that can’t conceive without IVF, that were raped, and that are in their childbearing age didn’t conjure such an absurd idea that a zygote is a person. Why not consider gametes people while you are at it. Yea I beat most

    Maybe make abortion over a certain gestation age illegal. I would understand that very well. But to make legal that a zygote is more valuable than a woman is the most misogynistic idea I ever heard.

  • Pingback: The Bay Stater

  • worried_husband

    ….Most people do not realize all the negative consequences of this amendment.

    • Anonymous

      Does “people” include fertilized egg people too?

      • Gregg

        I don’t know if they are “People” but they are a life.

        • worried_husband

          What life is more important to you, a woman’s or a cell’s?

          • Gregg

            The woman’s.

          • Gregg

            … but I also have trouble saying it’s nothing more than a “cell”.

        • Anonymous

          This issue is whether or not they have rights as a person not if they are some form of life.

          • Gregg

            The top of the page says: “A controversial amendment on the ballot in Mississippi to say life begins at conception.

            So, I guess I disagree about the issue being irrelevant.

          • Sofia

            Well, actually, life begins before conception. An individual’s life begins when it can live individually, not as part of somebody’s body. That can’t happen, even with technology, much before 20 weeks of gestation. Maybe it’s life, but it’s not individual human life, just as skin cells, though alive, are not, and they cannot develop further without the human body in which they grow.

          • Gregg

            I am assuming you meant after conception.

            A skin cell can never develop into an “individual human life”. In a normal pregnancy a zygote/cell/fetus will. So, I get your point about viability (and it’s a good one) but as you said it’s a life. It began at conception.

        • worried_husband

          Also you just said it yourself. You don’t know if a zygote is a person.  The whole point behind 26 is making a zygote a legal person, and you don’t know of they are. What are you voting?

          • Gregg

            I am inclined not to support the amendment but to be honest, it’s above my pay grade. So much debate centers around whether life begins at conception and I don’t think it can begin anywhere else, that was my only point.

            Please correct me if I am wrong on the following, I’m not sure. It is my understanding a murderer can be charged with two murders if they kill a pregnant woman. I think a certain amount gestation has to occur first, I’m not sure of the exact amount. It’s a murky issue.

            It has always been my belief that medical technology and ethics are on a collision course and will force the issue.

        • Anonymous

          I don’t know if they are “People” but they are a life.

          So are skin cells. In terms of the legal ramifications it seems to me that it’s pretty clear what this law is about. It’s about making abortion illegal, period.  The very idea of a zygote being a person is ridiculous.

          • Gregg

            The very idea of a zygote being a person is ridiculous.

            I don’t know if I would say ridiculous, but I agree it’s not a person… just a life… unlike a skin cell.

          • Anonymous

            A cell is the functional basic unit of life, that’s a definition one can find in any biology book.

            So I’ll say it again, skin cells are a form of life.

          • Gregg

            Okay, I’ll sharpen it. A skin cell is not a human. I was thinking we were talking about humans.

  • Mary Ellen

      I wish the intense fervor of the so-called “pro-life” crowd could move beyond the womb.  We have evidence that innocent people,usually poor and uneducated, are killed at the hands of the state by capital punishment.  What about their selfhood? How many people die for lack of proper health care services? And so it goes.  Can we not respect and nourish ALL life instead of targeting the one area that robs a woman of control of her own body?

    • Gregg

      With all due respect, I think there is a bold line between a guilty murderer and a child, there is nothing more innocent.

  • Anissahargis

    Why are you giving a voice to the lies this right-wing extremist is spewing?  She is NUTS!

  • s4n31

    What if the mom is carrying twins and one twin absorbs the other. will that fetus be brought up on manslaughter charges or be accused of slavery by “stealing” the organs of the other twin? what if the mom gets in a car accident on the way home from a one night stand will she or the other driver be brought up on manslaughter charges? if life begins at conception does that multi cellular cluster get all the rights and privileges of being a human? does the mom have to claim the zygote on her W-2?

    • Sofia

      How many millions of tax deductions is that–would that affect the tax revenues of the USA? There are a great many miscarriages (aka spontaneous abortions). So each one of those could be a tax deduction, if the fetus is/was a person.

  • Gregg

    A handsome rich man meets a woman and asks if she will sleep with him for a million dollars. After the initial shock and some consideration she says, “Well, I suppose I would”. He replies, “How about for $5?”. She slaps him in the face and says, ” What kind of girl do you think I am!?”. He answers, “We’ve already established that madam, now we’re just haggling over the price”.

    Sorry about the crudeness, I think it’s funny. I do have a point. Isn’t that what we’re talking about here? Unless someone can explain when besides conception it’s possible for life to begin (not personhood or viability), we are just haggling over a timeline, a timeline that is in flux because of technology. I think we need to play God and decide when in the pregnancy it’s no longer acceptable to end a life. Playing semantics with words like “cell”, “zygote” or even “fetus” is a cop out.

    So, let me be the first pro-choice Conservative to say I believe it’s acceptable to end a life in the first trimester. I think it’s unacceptable in the third. That’s as specific as I can be at this point. 

    The amendment instigates an important debate if nothing else.

    • Sofia

      You are on track with the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. They permitted abortions during the second trimester until the point where the fetus was viable (could live separately from the mother’s body). This point of viability has moved to earlier weeks of gestation because of technology and ways to treat newborns to increase the odds of survivability. This is now about 20 weeks. Viability is a pretty good bright line to use.

      • Modavations

        Roe,or Wade(I forgot who the plaintiff was)said she was so wrong.I’d have a few sleepless nights knowing I was responsible for the greasing of millions of kiddies

        • http://www.facebook.com/perlstein.josh Josh Perlstein

          Why? Think of all the lives you’d have made better because of it.  Think of all of the economic burden you’re relieving from your country.  

          Me, personally, I wouldn’t much like living in poverty because I couldn’t finish school or work full time because I had a kid.

          • notafeminista

            Because it’s all about you right?  It’s hilarious to see these comments and then have a pretty good hunch these are the same folks who carry on about the greed of the 1%

            You brought the life into the world.  You.are.responsible.for.it.

          • notafeminista

            oh.  well that wasn’t supposed to happen.  thats not a link to anything btw.

  • aa

    life is life until it’s dead.

    • Patrick

      Animals and plants are alive.  Gametes are alive, but we don’t consider them people.

  • Loisamcnulty

    Tom, I was so proud of you for asking one of the anti-choice advocates of the Mississippi proposal if it isn’t “government intrusion in our lives” to force a rape victim to carry a pregnancy against her will.  While we waited for her to come up with a response, (She had none!) there were several seconds of silence.  Best dead air I’ve listened to in a long time. Thank you!

    • pjh29

      Tom is the best interviewer in the media. He doesn’t let people wriggle out of their statements and his followups keep the topic moving in an interesting direction.

  • Modavations

    I don’t live in Sommerville,or Cambridge,so Halloween is still legal in my “neck of the woods”.Please excuse me while I prepare for the kiddies.To my lefty friends,remembber the days when you could still laugh and have fun?

    • Anonymous

      I do laugh when I read your comments.
      I don’t live in Sommerville or Cambridge either.
      I’m not a big fan of Cambridge and avoid going there unless it’s really necessary.

      • Modavations

        That’s the point of most of my posts.Making you hand wringers, laugh again.You’re whole lives are a crises,or the pursuit of the next.We live in a Golden Age.

        • Gregg

          Amen.

    • Laurie

      Uh, one of the biggest Halloween kiddie-attracting streets I know of is in Somerville, near Davis Square, now the heart of lefty-liberal activity in the town. Guess what, they still laugh and have fun. Sorry to mess with your stereotypes!

      • Modavations

        Gee whiz,you must have missed the story about the principal in Sommerville,who banned the festivities.It did,however,make it into the “rags” in London>Gotta run,I hear the sound of laughter outside the door.Remember Thanksgiving,remember Christmas.Some one said they call Thanksgiving,Fall Day,or something ,in Cambridge.Why I still remember the excitement of going to the Boston Commons and seeing Creches and live Reindeer.Poor Rudolph,just a fading memory

        • http://www.facebook.com/perlstein.josh Josh Perlstein

          Because it’s a distraction in school? So? My best Halloween memories of a kid involve me going door to door with my friends and family at night, not me being in school.

  • Patrick

    A missed opportunity – any discussion of “personhood” requires us to define the term, and in doing so the differences between the sides are laid bare.  What is a person?  With respect to the law, what are the attributes of personhood?  The pro-life guests used “life” and “personhood” interchangeably, which is a mistake.

    For example, if we agree that a first-trimester fetus is a person, then another thing that has the same characteristics as a fetus (alive, able to feel pain but not capable of abstract thought and with an undeveloped brain) should also be considered a person.  Animal fetuses, and adult animals themselves, meet some or all of these criteria.  So, are animals people?

    Alternatively, you could say that, because the fetus has the potential to be an adult human, then it is a person (this disqualifies animals).  However, no such potential exists independent of the mother’s body.  If the mother dies, or if the mother fails to support the fetus’s development (through alcohol use, improper nutrition, etc), then the fetus cannot become an adult human being.  And presuming that the mother is an adult human being with choices and “free will” (a subject for another time), then it is a basic fact of the first-trimester fetus’s existence that the actions or omissions of the mother can negate it.  A fetus does not, on its own, become an adult person.  How, then, can it be said that the fetus is a person?

    This kind of philosophizing can go on and on, but the notion of a theory of personhood is at the core of the issue of abortion, and the concepts involved were utterly ignored and confused by the participants in today’s discussion.  Like I said, missed opportunity.

    • Psalm 139 13-17

      Just one question, while in your mothers womb would you have considered yourself a person? Considering you are one right.

      • Patrick

        The answer to your question is that, prior to growing a brain, I would have been unable to consider myself anything.  I could not think, therefore I was not.

        What is your definition of “person?”  Surely something without a brain is not a person.

        • Psalm 139:13-17

          what about the hear,t it’s beating without the brain and is present in most 8 week exams

          • Patrick

            So anything with a beating heart is a person?  Then you must agree that animals are people.

          • Sofia

            The Supreme Court decided the Roe v. Wade case by choosing the point of viability. A fetus is a person when it is viable –capable of living on its own– outside the mother’s body. At the time, that was about the 24th week of gestation. Now it is sooner, because machinery can help keep fetuses delivered before they would be naturally born alive more frequently than was possible than in the past. The Supreme Court’s decision was and is still a wise one.

            St. Augustine and other Catholics in earlier days thought a fetus was a person when it was “ensouled,” at the point of “quickening,” when the woman could feel the fetus moving around. This typically occurs at about 16 weeks. Before that, the fetus was not considered a person. The Catholic Church does not baptize fetuses, even when the child is wanted and is born very prematurely, and in fact, the church has often waited 40 days after a child was born, in part to see whether the child would survive (since many didn’t).

            Sperm cells are “alive,” and so are egg cells, as are bone and skin cells. Cardiac (heart) cells can beat while in a solution in a Petri dish. That doesn’t make them human, or a person, even though they are human living cells. Same with a fetus that is not viable. It is simply not a person.

          • Patrick

            And, as technology advances, the date of “viability” will become earlier and earlier.  This question of the rights of the fetus vs. the rights of the mother will continue to be a problem, with respect to who pays for the incubator (not to mention the surgical procedure that, due to its availabilty and the illegality of the alternative, would essentially be compulsory).

          • Sofia

            I think this is a fine and excellent project for the Right to Life groups. Let them pool their resources and develop artificial uteri (hey, can we lose the “womb” lingo?), and then tie down women, extract their “pre-born” fertilized eggs and fetuses, etc., into incubators. Then take the women’s houses and other property to make them pay and pay and pay for the incubators and all the care the pre-born fetuses will need until they graduate from high school.  But not the men who got them pregnant, of course. Only the women have to deal with the “pre-born” person and associated costs.  That’s only fair, right? Even when the woman was raped.

          • Sofia

            oh wait. Test tube pre-borns?… Where did I read about that?  O, Aldous Huxley, where are you now?

            As we speaking newspeak yet?

          • Patrick

            I think it’s all very necessary.  The transition to a baby-based economy will not be without shocks and dislocations, but in the end it’s what the great and terrible Baby Jesus commands.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            The Pro-life-ers will GLADLY pay for ALL of them!!  Haven’t they been paying ALL the related expenses for ALL the years that abortion has been possible? 
                Or, are they HYPOCRITE Dictators?

          • Patrick

            One could imagine an artificial womb that is capable of nourishing an embryo from conception until true, independent viability.  Would abortion then be illegal?  At some point, viability by other means is not a good measure, because it ignores the real question of the personhood of the zygote, embryo, and fetus.

          • notafeminista

            But is it a life?

          • Mandalin98277

            No a person is a person because a beating heart is a part of our anatomy. I don’t believe an animal is a person. I believe an animal is an animal because they have their genes which make them what they are meant to be likewise a person has their own genes that make them a person.

          • Anonymous

            You need to study biology. Really, you need to crack a book or two or three.
            All basic life begins at the level of cells.

          • notafeminista

            Guess you answered the question of when conception begins then huh?

          • Patrick

            Additionally, if you’re saying that the heartbeat is what makes a fetus a person, then you must have no problem with the morning-after pill, since it would be taken prior to the development of the fetus’s vascular system

          • Psalm 139 13-17

            No that really was not my point. My point is that there is more to making a person a person than a brain. I also agree that a vascular system would be something that would identify a growing human as a person. This is great we are getting somewhere, all these functions of the body should recognize the growing baby in the womb as a person.

          • Anonymous

            What? There is more to making a person a person than a brain.
            Without a brain we are not functional human beings. You have heard the term brain dead, have you not? Please read up on biology a little.
            Human beings are more complex than the Scarecrow from the Wizard of OZ.

          • Anonymous

            What?

    • notafeminista

      Newborn infants cannot survive on their own either.

  • david

    Is it alive, is it a blog of tissue, my right, your right, when or when not does life begin??? The pro-choice crowd struggle to justify their position, one guest suggests only God knows when life begins.

    I can solve this problem for the pro-choice crowd with one simple test!
    This test will prove them either a hypocrite or a fool.

    I will sit any pro-choice person in a chair behind a table.
    I will give them a hammer.
    Next, I will let the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service set a Eagle egg in front of them on the table.
    I will then say, PROVE YOUR POINT!  When does life begin??????

    • Patrick

      In form typical of those espousing your position, you refuse to engage with the actual scientific and philosophical issues.

      The issue is not whether life begins, but rather whether the fetus is a person whose rights supersede the authority of the mother to decide what to do with her body (without which the fetus, it its early development, has no independent existence).

      This is a complicated issue.  If you’re not interested in understanding the complications, then you must not care that much about the issue.  If you don’t care that much about the issue, then you should be asking yourself if your opinion should be the basis for authorizing the state to dictate to a woman the proper use of her own body.

      • david

        Patrick,
        I do understand the issue.
        Are you willing to take the test?????????

        • Patrick

          Sigh.  Your question is, essentially, if the egg of an endangered species of bird should be considered to be a representative of that species.  It should.

          So please, explain what that example has to do with the question of the legal personhood of a fetus.

          • david

            Explain to me what choice you would make with your hammer????
            You know the meaning of my example, you are trying to evade the question with your reply.
            The eagle fetus is given legal protection while in the egg.
            If we give a bird that much importance, why not a human???? 

          • Patrick

            So, what you’re saying is that the eagle egg is a person?

            I understand that you’re trying to show that endangered species have more legal protections than human embryos,  but you’re using an example that’s not relevant to the Mississippi amendment.

            There’s no stage in human development that corresponds to the “egg” stage of bird development.  For the entirety of human gestation, the zygote-embryo-fetus is inside a human mother, who, you might be interested to know, is a legal person whose status as such is beyond question.  Thus, the separation of the legal rights of the mother and the fetus (if the fetus is understood to have such rights) implied by your example never exists.  It is not possible to talk about the legal rights of a human fetus without weighing them against the legal rights of a human mother.

            The warped and wrong thing about your way of thinking is that you don’t acknowledge that the fetus, being an organism that, for the first 2 trimesters, is entirely dependent on the body of the mother for its survival, cannot be considered to have a legal personhood independent from the mother, whereas the eagle egg in your example can.  As Herman Cain says (when he’s not sexually harassing women), “it’s apples and oranges.”

            As I said before, if you’re not interested in understanding the complications surrounding this issue, then you must not care that much about the issue.  If you don’t care that much about the issue, then you can’t expect anyone to take you seriously.

            Incidentally; I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but using three question marks in a row all the time gives the impression that you’re bug-eyed and raving.  Know what I’m saying???

    • Guest-22

      If the fetus is a person, and its presence in the woman’s body causes her to die (for example, it causes extremely high blood pressure and toxemia, or it prevents a cancer from being treated), can the woman’s other children sue the one that caused their mother’s death? Can the husband of the woman who died disown the fetus-person for causing his wife’s demise?

      Also, would we have to give fetuses Social Security numbers and cards? And would each one have to be registered at a town hall, in order to count in the census? The Constitution requires a count of all persons.

      • Gregg
      • Fleurdelivre

        And what about corporations? Do they have all these rights and responsiblities too?

        • http://www.facebook.com/perlstein.josh Josh Perlstein

          Let’s not get into this.

      • david

        Guest-22
        Are you willing to take the test??????

      • david

        In the case you describe, the mother’s life and I mean life or death in your case, not getting rid of a unwanted pregancy, the mother’s life takes first choice.

      • http://www.facebook.com/perlstein.josh Josh Perlstein

        This, last I checked, constitutional rights don’t mean jack unless you’ve got your papers.  

      • http://www.medicalmalpracticenj.com/practice-areas/wrongful-death Alexis

        Actually, there’s a thing called mercy killing for those who suffer fatal illness. Before pregnancy, doctors advises the woman on all the possibilities and risks of the pregnancy, so why bother to sue unborn person? It’s just that it all depends on the situation and what matters most, life or death? 

    • http://www.facebook.com/perlstein.josh Josh Perlstein

      And I’ll smash that egg with my fist and proclaim “not today”.

      • david

        And the world will know you as a fool, because you will then go to prison for knowingly killing a unborn eagle, so declared by our Government.

  • Zing

    The beauty and truth of this segment is its predictability…thanks for another day of nothing…tomorrow we will discuss what a pervert Cain is.

    • Gregg

      I thought the same thing about Cain, if it doesn’t happen tomorrow it will before weeks end.

      • Modavations

        In the cloistered rooms of the DNC they’re saying,”our chattel are getting way too Uppity”.

        • Ggergmusic

          Hadn’t seen you in a few days, where’d you go and what did you buy? Amethyst, Glass, Opals, Diamonds?

          • Modavations

            nada,nada,los mercados estan muy lentos.Where’s my emeralds Gen.G., and what’s up with Zing.What’s the point of sarcasm,if you can’t make “hide nor hair(?)

          • Gregg

            You’ll have to come here to get them. I’ll be in Charlotte Wednesday night playing the grand piano at the Dunhill for a Bonnie Raitt “Meet and Greet”. Meet me out back.

          • Modavations

            Rock Star!!!

          • Gregg

            Nah, she’s the rock star. I’m looking forward to meeting her.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            Same place my “few hundred dollars”, for listening to a speech is, probably!!   
                Want to talk about credibility and truth?

          • Gregg

            It was a few K. Did you not get my check?

          • Modavations

            Sorry TTT,this went right over my head.But keep listening and keep learning.I’ll bill you for my wisdom,later.

      • Zing

        “Thought” is a relative term in your case…

        • Gregg

          Gee wiz, why the hate? 

          • Gregg

            Just to be clear Zing (maybe I wasn’t), I don’t think Cain is a pervert but I do think there will be a show on it because liberals don’t need hard evidence to spread bias across the airways. If it helps their cause the condemnation will begin… this week. 

          • Modavations

            It took the friggin National Enquirer to break the Edwards story.The NYT had been sitting on the story for months.They also ran the story of McCains affair, on the front page.What affair,you say?That,mon frere,is the point.

          • Gregg

            That was when I realized the National Enquirer was more credible than the NYT. Actually a little before that.

  • Fleurdelivre

    Mississippi  – “The Troglodyte State”

  • great grandma

    Saying that this amendment is about biology and not religion is the greatest lie I’ve heard.  All religions make birth control difficult because they want women to have more children and bring them up in that religion.  Therefore the heads and leaders of those religions become more powerful.  I’m also not hearing anything about the equally irresponsible man. If the woman is forced to bear a child, then that male must also share in the punishment.  He can wear a belly bag with increasing weight, he can be given drugs to make him sick if the woman suffers from morning sickness, and drugs to give  him cramps during labor.  If she loses a day’s pay because of the pregnancy, he also loses a day’s pay.  And if you take this to the extreme, if she dies from pregnancy complications, Good Bye to him. 

  • Kirby

    When asked what potential conflict with the U.S. constitution this law could present, Dr. McMillan claimed slavery was a right afforded by the constitution, too. I suppose her point was that there are many items in that document that we now find reprehensible, but this is clearly a logical fallacy. More importantly, SLAVERY DOES NOT APPEAR AS A RIGHT IN THE CONSTITUTION. The ONLY PLACE SLAVERY IS MENTIONED  is in the 13th amendment, which PROHIBITS slavery. The 14th amendment overturns the only other language of the federal constitution which is even obliquely related to slavery (Article 1, section 2) which is known as the three fifths doctrine. Face palm! 

  • Sy

    There is a very important difference between “human life” and “person”. Technically, every single cell in our body is alive and contains full human DNA. Through cloning, hypothetically, every single cell in our body could be turned into a fully formed human being. Nevertheless I challenge these people to consider every cell in the human body a “person”. 
    It is entirely obvious that this is just another attempt to impose religious principles as law of the land, and dressing them with scientific-sounding words is disingenuous. If I wanted to live under a theocracy, I’d emigrate to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or Iran.

  • Flidhaish

    If the fertilized egg equals personhood with all the rights deemed by the Constitution, what about those human beings in the womb that mothers are on drugs, alcohol, smoke, do not eat healthy AND what about the right of the infant who are not breastfeed.  What about their quality of life. wolf

  • Wm. James from Missouri

    We have been arguing with this issue for over 30 years. Men and woman have often been at odds over sexual issues since the beginning of the great ,with / without, divergence. The “for” and “against” groups argue from emotion without regard to the totality of the issues. Did we not just have a program on  ‘ 7 Billion and counting’ ? Do you not understand the word “ DEAD ” ? As in dead from starvation, or eco-disaster , or over fishing or war over limited resources or war over clean water or…. ? Do you wish to live ( and die ) as those that are in Somalia  ? (And  NO, overpopulation doesn’t justify abortion, just because we need less people but it IS a major related issue ! )

    Any discussion about abortion should include a discussion about men’s rights, also ! Men should also grow up and take responsibility. I fully support a male birth control pill or sterilization.

    Also we need to get real and realize that sexual desires start in the human brain. We are all  hard wired to desire sex. Legislating away sexual desire is an act of futility and an action that reflects preconceive notions about (dare I say ) God’s will. Please don’t quote me scripture, I read just fine. Do you really think (speaking as a Christian) that Christ wants you multiply like there is no tomorrow ?  Multiplying by 1, ¼ , or 1/n is still multiplying. Do you think Christ was stupid ?  Many of these same so called Christians regularly turn their backs on the needy and sinners as a matter of course, while peeping in your bedrooms. By now I’ve got the blood boiling of my favorite type of hypocrite, so I’ll quote YOU some everyday scripture, ‘ Remove the log from your own eye before you worry about the speck in mine ‘ !

    • Andrej Kocev

      Threat others as you would want to be treated.  How did you want to be treated when you were in the womb?  Why do you not respect the person in the womb when you too came from the womb?  Ask your mother if she ever considered having an abortion.  I wonder how may abortionists are alive today because abortion was illegal when they were in the womb.  I wonder how many pro-choice folks are alive today because their mother didn’t have a choice.  Would these people change their view and commit their whole life to making abortion illegal since they owe their life to it.  In all your decisions consider the babies in the womb.  They are the most innocent, yet without a voice.  Where is the love?

      • Patrick

        Sometimes, the love is not there.  The sooner you can admit this, the sooner you can empathize with someone who would prefer to use birth control, or to end a pregnancy.

      • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/3ETFGMQ3B7VD4AAMILBBEVMCWE JasonA

        Just like innocent animals….but they do not have the religious nuts like you to speak for them. 

      • Terry Tree Tree

        WHERE is the love you profess, for these children and their mothers, especially the unwilling??   Do YOU take care of them?  In a decent manner, or do you just want more victims for priests and other perverts?

  • Flora Pennino

    Hello Tom,   As I was listening to the personhood discussion it came to
    mind that I was under the impression that when a pregnant woman is murdered it is considered the murder of two persons.  Isn’t that already considering the fetus as a person–a human being? It seems that the law has already made the decision as to the personhood of the unborn child or the fetus.

    I do not believe in abortion.  It is violent and also  psychologically damaging to the mother.  I have talked to people that have had an abortion and they never get over it.

    • Kindly

      Yes, but a woman who was raped and carries the child to term, may not get over that either. That could be just as mentally scarring. 

    • Caseycorps2

      No offense, but there are other women with whom you haven’t talked, who have had a child given it up for adoption and “never got over it”..  I am sorry for the woman who CHOSE to have an abortion,  and then FOR HER it was the wrong CHOICE. For other women, and there are many, the CHOICE of abortion was the correct one. Please let women make their own choices. 

    • TFRX

      It is violent and also  psychologically damaging to the mother.  I have
      talked to people that have had an abortion and they never get over it.

      You have to talk to more people. “Anec” is not a prefix for “data”.

    • Schoonersam

      Hi Flora. I got over it.  I am now married to a fantastic man whom I am deeply in love with (still, after many years together) and we have a beautiful daughter that we can provide for and love.  It is the most difficult job I have ever had and the most wonderful.  I would be devastated to lose this life I have and I could never have found this life had I not chose an abortion when I was too young for a child. And fyi… my pregnancy was exceptionally healthy.

  • Ruth Celeste

    If they do pass this “Personhood” initiative, the other states better stock up on the grits. I don’t doubt that many well-to-do Mississippians will skirt that law by once again taking their pregnant teenage daughters or wives to those states that still allow them. This former New York City native recalls that back in the 1960′s, there were plenty of them at the local abortion clinics, and when coming out of anesthesia would ask for “grits” in their southern accents. The poor, sadly, will not have that option. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ADZ6TZZKHWRLDNAOP6R2MBBP6A Bob S

    Every day, completely innocent people are killed for various reasons. A few examples:
    Innocent civilians, including born and unborn children, killed when one of our missiles kills a Taliban commander attending a wedding party; occasional (but proven to happen) killing of an innocent person believed to have committed a crime that carries the death penalty; 30,000+ people, including born and unborn children, who die in traffic accidents every year (should we ban cars to save them?).
    Many people who believe that killing of an unborn child is the most horrendous crime are perfectly willing to look the other way when one of the above killings happens.   Is this pathetically hypocritical, or what?
     Why is killing of an unborn child, by his/her mother of all people, any worse?  Are we not better off if only wanted children are born just like we are better off driving our cars in spite of the 30,000 people who die as a result every year?

    • notafeminista

      Last I checked we have a system of laws (at least in this country) that deal with the very situations you mention.  Additionally in a number of states if someone kills a pregnant woman AND her unborn entity, he/she is guilty of two crimes not one. (Scot Peterson in Calif)

      So who exactly is looking the other way?

  • Kim

    Just want to mention that, before abortion was legal, there were a lot of us who were forced to carry pregnancies to term and most of us were also coerced into surrendering those babies for adoption(this still goes on but to a lesser extent). And, I have actually met women who were raped and subsequently relinquished who, instead of having to go through such a horrendous experience, wish they had had access to abortion.
    Do these moralizing and intrusive people from Mississippi really want to return to that era? Do they want their daughters and their granddaughters to live in a world where they have no choice? Sadly, probably they do…

    And, let’s clarify, a pregnancy loss of any kind at any stage of the pregnancy can be significant for the mother, but research shows, and I think any reasonable human being would agree, that losing a developing fetus at three months, however painful, does not compare with losing a full term baby.
     
    Thank you to Ms. Northrup for being so articulate and even in her presentation.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/3ETFGMQ3B7VD4AAMILBBEVMCWE JasonA

      Yes indeed….these religious nuts want to turn the clock back 150 years.. Virtually all progressive issues would be eliminated. No woment voting, Jim Crow for all, death to gays…you know, the typical Republican crap. 

      • http://www.facebook.com/perlstein.josh Josh Perlstein

        It’s not even republican crap.  It’s just plain crap.  An unbelievable portion of our country is idiots.  

        • Anonymous

          I heard yesterday that 30% believe in ghosts. 

  • Terry Tree Tree

    Catholics want more victims for priests to abuse and molest?
        Other demoninations are helping them?

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ADZ6TZZKHWRLDNAOP6R2MBBP6A Bob S

      There are other benefits to prolific procreation.  One reason why certain members of the group now frequently called the 1% are very eager to generously fund the “pro-life” groups is that over-supply of people (i.e. labor) depresses wages thereby increasing profits.  Yes, everything is connected.

    • http://www.facebook.com/perlstein.josh Josh Perlstein

      Hehehe, i lol’d. 

  • Ed

    The situation of rape if misunderstood. Let’s say I am robbed, and in the course the robbery I’m stabbed and cut up. I have to spend a year healing and getting better. Or I might have to spend a year having operations, no way around it. It’s part of the illegal and immoral attack on me.

    So with rape, a woman has to heal from the physical wounds, but has a different injury, a child. She has the choice, heroic, to carry the child and give it up for adoption. Killing it will probably cause her more harm. But it’s a consequence of the illegal and immoral attack.

    • Patrick

      You know, pal, your treatment of this issue is flat-out offensive.  I’ve never read anything more disgusting in my life.

    • Terry Tree Tree

      Your robber molested you, took pictures, and posted them on facebook, my space, and you tube, blinded you, cut off an arm and a leg, and caused you to have pain every few seconds, that continually reminds you that you were robbed and mutilated.
         THAT’s more like a girl being raped, and her future changed FOREVER!!   TRY IT, and then report back.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ADZ6TZZKHWRLDNAOP6R2MBBP6A Bob S

      But please let the mom decide what will cause her more harm, killing the baby or giving it up for adoption.  She does have a brain, and it is her body.

    • Kindly

      you are also forgetting other consequences of rape besides a baby. How about mental damage and STDs? She may be so messed up from the experience she may not love her child. 

      • notafeminista

        That’s why adoption is a wonderful option.  One I would highly recommend to a rape victim who was impregnated by her attacker.

    • Anonymous

      Wow, you are so off base here it’s really sick.
      You’re a sick man.

    • Anonymous

      This is insane.  If I were a woman who was impregnated by rape, I think I’d be much more disturbed by carrying a pregnancy to term and knowing that my DNA was combined with that of the rapist in my child.  A morning after pill or an abortion would be much less traumatic. 

    • justme

      Are you seriously comparing a knife wound to rape??? Seriously?  While I know that a stabbing is traumatic, come one… so, a knife violated you?  You obviously do not understand women, the mental mechanics of a violent attach, and don’t put much value on a woman’s needs, feelings, and emotional trauma.  Me thinks you need to talk to a rape victim, or perhaps spend some time in prision and learn the difference before you spout idiotic nonsense.  Please, find your mother, sister, someone and tell them your view on this, and post a picture of your black eye – because, not being a violent person, I’d beat the ever loving hell out of my brother, husband, son if they had the audacity to make such a knucklehead comment.

    • crowepps

      So if a man is robbed and during the robbery he is stabbed, the doctor is supposed to leave the knife in him for nine months?

  • Patrick

    Ed thinks that “the situation of rape is misunderstood.”  That’s absolutely  true – the situation of rape is completely misunderstood by ED.

    As a man who loves someone who was raped, it makes me sick with rage to know that there are people like you, with more concern, more support and love for the embryo created by a rape than for the adult woman, with a mind, dreams, a family and a heart, who was violated.  Just think about who needs your care in this situation.  The embryo, the “baby,” is an abstraction.  The woman, scarred for life, shattered, forever changed – she’s for real.

    Ed, why don’t you share your enlightened thoughts about rape and sexual violence with some of the women in your life.  If they don’t shut you out and abandon you completely, it’s more than you deserve.

    • notafeminista

      I’m not sure anyone said it’s an either or situation.  Why must it be a case of loving more one than the other?  While every bit of care must be given to the victim, there is no question, but why why why do we want to destroy the one entity that had absolutely NO say in its existence coming into being?  Abort the unborn entity for having the breathtakingly bad luck to have a rapist as a sperm donor?  That makes no sense either.

      • justme

        Rape is a violation of a woman that has long term physcological scars and isn’t something you “heal” from overnight.  Now, you’ve been violated, a man holding you down and forcing himself INTO YOUR BODY, while full of fear, and just as you aren’t flinching at every person around you, and able to look other men in the face, you find – guess what, congradulations, you are going to have something else IN YOUR BODY, moving, a constant reminder of that traumatic event, and by god, don’t you think of getting rid of it, or taking the morning after pill to prevent it, because that’s murder.  Just go with it.  It’s okay, you’ll get over that constant reminder, the nightmares, and the unbelievable anguish of looking down at your growing belly, knowing that other woman do so with love and future plans, but you must be lacking because all you can think of is that your attacker is still with you.  And if perchance, you mental survive the attack, carrying the child and putting it up for adoption or keeping it, don’t worry, the first pregnancy you have that is planned or wanted, won’t be another reminder, and I’m sure you’ll bond with future children just fine, because hey, it’s wrong to have an abortion or take the morning after pill…

        Your an idiot.  How dare you for one moment put your beliefs on someone else, and propose to judge or legally limit their choices.  One, that’s not christian, so don’t feed everyone that bull story.  Two, until you have walked in someone’s shoes, who the hell are you to say what they should do??  And I hope that you never have to, because I wouldn’t wish making that decision on anyone.

        By the way, for all of those that agree with Ed and notafeminista, how exactly to do feel about birth control?  Because, unless you are purely the “rhythm method” of family planning, you are all a bunch of hypocrits.  Ask your doctor how birth control works.  Yup – it does surpress egg release so one won’t get fertilized.  Know what else it does?  Well, in case one of those little gal’s gets lose, and a sperm finds it, birth control also thins the lining of your uterous so the FERTILIZED EGG doesn’t attach.  Not much different that the morning after pill that is offered to rape victims that everyone seems to be so against.  Just blows my mind how un-educated and judgemental people can be.  Get a clue.  “Personhood” doesn’t happen at the time of fertilization – there are millions of fertilized eggs passed by women everyday.  If you want to re-write what we have, atleast have a logical arguement that it happens at implantation, and even then, I do not agree or choose to restrict anyone or force their decisions. 

        • notafeminista

          As opposed to forcing your beliefs (and then applying them) to the one entity that is the true innocent in the equation who had the breathtakingly bad luck to have a rapist as a sperm donor.

          • Patrick

            Just read this again.  In a general, unqualified claim, you are saying that a woman who is raped is not innocent.

            Aside from any questions of the personhood of a zygote, which are real and complicated questions with which you refuse to engage your mind, you are approaching the entire issue from the perspective that said zygote, person or not, is somehow more pure and, yes, important and valuable than the raped woman.

            You and Ed have got a nice little rape apologist club going.  You should speak your views freely, at every opportunity, in rooms full of strangers.

          • notafeminista

            Addtionally are you suggesting that aborting the pregnancy subsequent to a rape will somehow lessen the trauma of the rape itself?  I would think any woman who has experienced that particular horror carries it with her the rest of her life, pregnancy or no.

          • Patrick

            Well, maybe you would think that, but since you’re obviously a man and will never have to make this decision, it doesn’t matter at all what you think your feelings would be.

            And yes, I am arguing that, particularly in the case of someone who doesn’t believe that a just-fertilized egg is as much of a person as an adult woman (or even a full-term baby), the choice to abort a known (or potential, in the case of the morning-after pill) pregnancy could be considerably less traumatic than giving birth to her rapist’s baby.  If you don’t admit that this is the case, then you have zero empathy.

          • notafeminista

            “I’m obviously a man”?  You are jumping to some rather large conclusions.

            I didn’t ask if giving birth to would be less traumatic.  I asked if it lessened the overall trauma.  Does somehow aborting this entity that resulted from a rape lessen the overall trauma of the event or not?

          • Patrick

            I contend that you are a man.  Only you know if my conclusion is correct or not.  If it is, then I’m sure that I’ve earned your respect for my deductive abilities.

            Neither option, to abort or to carry to term, could be said in a general sense to be expected to lessen the trauma of a rape.  And even if it could; even if you have some reliable data that says that, in general, women who give birth to their rapist’s children (as you have no problem advocating) find that the trauma of the rape is “lessened,” would you feel comfortable using that as a basis for using the power of the state to coerce every woman who is impregnated by a rape to carry that pregnancy to term?

            I would contend that, if you do, you have an exaggerated sense of the state’s rightful authority in such matters.  Fortunately, there’s a state that caters to people like you.

            The better question is, given that a traumatic event has taken place, who is in the best position to decide whether carrying to pregnancy to term is tolerable or intolerable to the woman?  If you claim that it’s anyone other than the victim herself, then you have some explaining to do.

          • notafeminista

            Well if you want to talk state coercion that’s a different conversation altogether.  You feel better knowing that a woman will abort a pregnancy resulting from rape knowing there is data that exists (yes I understand hypothetically) stating it will in fact less the trauma of her rape?  Would you suggest a cancer patient not seek treatment?

            PS:  I’m not a man.  I simply disagree with you.

          • Patrick

            No, I’m completely sure that you’re a man.  And I wouldn’t feel better if the data I described above existed; I merely did you the courtesy of suggesting a hypothetical justification for your otherwise unsupported and bizarre claim that abortion is more traumatic than full-term pregnancy and birth in this situation.

            Your point about a cancer patient is either worded wrongly, or is just a window into the futile workings of your mind, because it makes no sense at all.

          • justme

            YES, it does.

          • notafeminista

            Ok, how.  In your post above you describe why a woman is traumatized by the act of rape.  How is terminating the subsequent pregnancy going lessen that trauma? 

          • justme

            The constant reminder of being victimized while you know that the flutterings of your unborn child should be a happy time.  Every move the fetus makes, every doctors visit another violation.  The looks, the whispers, etc.  There is a reason they don’t release a victims identity, you realize that is for the victim, not the attacker.  “Where’s the dad”, cringe, he was that vile piece of crap that held me down, ignored my pleas for mercy, and violated me in the worst way.  Suppose she does want to have children with her future husband.. it’s not a been there, done that with the pregnancy.  It’s more, what’s wrong with you that this reminds you of your attack, too?  ‘

            When something as simple as have a tree cast a shadow across your window can bring back a flash back, yes, having your attackers life growing inside of you is going to traumatize most women, and I surely wouldn’t wish to make anyone suffer for my beliefs.  If you truly feel strongly, please, get raped, have the child, and feel non traumatized.  For the victims out there that can’t, and would rather slit their wrist than go through 9 months of trauma and mental anguish and feelings of self doubt and worthlessness, don’t take away their rights.  And don’t judge, it’s not your job.  You are free do do what you are comfortable with.  So are they.

          • notafeminista

            And tell me please, how a man does not figure into this discussion?  The pregancy did not spontaneously generate itself. 
            You say you want to argue responsibly.  I’m all in.  Let’s start with basic biological honesty.

          • Patrick

            A man does figure into the example of a woman who is raped.  However, that man is a rapist.  Do you really believe that his wishes merit any consideration when the woman decides to continue the pregnancy or not?  I would contend that they do not.

          • justme

            Of course a woman does.  But what you don’t grasp is that she was violated.  Why is rape such a horrendous crime?  Because they ARE INSIDE YOU.  Now, you have something else inside you for 9 months, the permenant scars and reminders, and it will affect your future forever regardless of how you handle it.  But, many women can and do put the trauma behind them of their assult.  I don’t see where punishing them further is in anyway realastic or compassionate.  It’s not for you or I to decide, but them.  Taking away that right is just assinine.  Seriously, how many people were outraged over the laws in the middle east where a woman is stoned if she is raped (and oh, we’ll make it easier, if it was witnessed by x amount of MEN, maybe we won’t – and they sure aren’t held accountable for watching)??  Yet to propose that a victim of rape gets to violated again because a two cell organism – which may not even have implanted yet, and can be prevented from, is a person and it’s you’re holier than thou right to dictate their life choices??  Wow.  Just wow. 

          • notafeminista

            And there you have it.  Because men are not sufficiently outraged by what happens to women, we are going to take away THEIR rights, while ensuring ours.

          • justme

            Do what??? I never said that men weren’t outraged.. I think you misread my comment about people are outraged over the laws in the arab world regarding women and rape, yet for whatever reason people are justifing that here in the US we not even let rape victims have the morning after pill, which works the same as birthcontrol, just in higher, concetrated doses.  I mean, it’s hypocricy at this best.

          • notafeminista

            Outraged sufficiently enough I said.

          • justme

            Still not what I said.  I said “Seriously, how many people were outraged over the laws in the middle east where a woman is stoned if she is raped (and oh, we’ll make it easier, if it was witnessed by x amount of MEN, maybe we won’t – and they sure aren’t held accountable for watching)??”  People.  That was in comparision to the hypocricy… we can’t believe they would be that horrid there, yet what you are suggesting as to a rape victim carrying a fetus is just as horrid in my opinion, and is not your right to dictate their choices.

            Nothing I said had anything to do with men’s rights or their lack of outrage, etc..  And I sure didn’t say squat about taking away their rights.  No more, no less… I purely believe in equal rights.  I have a house hubby

          • justme

            1. You used the term “entity” not person, so your stance isn’t that strong it appears.
            2. I wouldn’t force my beleif on anyone – that is the woman’s choice, and yes, if she chose to carry the baby to term and either put it up for adoption or keep it and raise it lovingly, then she has my deepest respect.  If she chose to abort the baby because she wanted to move on with her life without the questions or reminders, or she couldn’t handle the mental toll it would take, I would support her as well, because it is her choice, and I’m not her. 

            And, let’s put a little more fuel on the fire… how would you feel about this situation – keep in mind, being a responsible parent and person seems to be at the forefront of your arguements:
            Parents have a special needs, emotionally unstable child.  We are talking constant care, and very little reasoning with a history of depression and mood swings.  Oops, they slipped up and conceived.  Their options are to 1) bring a child into a potentially dangerous situation, 2) send the child they already have off to a physc facility to raise the second child, 3) carry the pregnancy to term and give it up, or 4) have an abortion. 
            I’m thinking from the first child’s well being here by saying that 4 would be my choice.  1 – that’s no better than abortion according to you, option 2 is cruel and abondoning the child is more detrimental to her emotional and mental well being, 3, you have an already depressed child and are going to make it worse by them having a little sibling and it going away, or option 4 where it doesn’t harm your child at all… tough position to be in. 

            To think that the majority of women who are making this decision are taking it lightly with no thought to the consequences is pretty condensending.  There are so many facets to the reasons and circumstances behind their choices that outsiders will not understand or comprehend.  It’s fine to say you feel abortion is wrong and not for you, but to say it’s wrong for everyone else is the height of ignorance.  There are no easy answers, and again I say it isn’t for you or I to judge anothers decision.  I do not understand how the majority of people behind this legistalation identify themselves as Christian.  Please explain that to me.

          • notafeminista

            Ok, so parents already have one unstable child and the question is whether or not they should bring a second child into that environment, yes?    Well the obvious answer is no – and presumably the parents have their hands already plenty full with the first child.  However having said that, why is the answer to terminate the pregnancy?  Terminate the pregnancy and deny a potential life of whatever because it had the misfortune to have an unstable sibling?  Is that what you are suggesting?
             Why is adoption not the most viable option?

            I hope beyond all measure that no woman takes this decision lightly.

          • justme

            Well, if you have an unstable (emotionally) child, with comprehensive reasoning, and you walk around pregnant, they are going to figure it out, and then feel guilt, shame and confussion over where the child is, which can be more damanging, so yes, I could see where it would be a consideration – and since I HAVE been in that situation where it was a choice that I knew I might have to face if we “ooppsed”, then I can tell you it’s not an easy decision.  But it was my husband and I’s decision, not yours or the government.  My first priortiy is to my daughter.  If I have an accident and decide to take the morning after pill, that is my choice.  If I know my carrying another child will do irrevicalbe harm to my daughter, then it is my responsibility to prevent  a second pregnancy, and should it happen, weigh MY options (in my case my husband and I’s options) and do what is best for all of us.

            Note – after much work and progress, my daughter is much better and is more along the lines of austism like – social akwardness and some learning/comprehension delays with problems in the right frontal lobe with reasoning/inhibition, and we did in fact have a second child, (ooopps) and they are both fine together.  So, no I was thankful that she was better… but three years prior to this, and the time, attention and stress that my daughter took, yes, it was something we had discussed.  And I am thankful to have my second child, but I am aslo thankful that I have the rights to do what is best for my family.

          • notafeminista

            Glad to hear the first child is thriving.  You didn’t answer the question.  Why  is the best option to terminate the embryo/zygote/fetus/cell bundle/life/person/non-person?  Why is that the BEST option?

          • justme

            I did:
            Well, if you have an unstable (emotionally) child, with comprehensive reasoning, and you walk around pregnant, they are going to figure it out, and then feel guilt, shame and confussion over where the child is, which can be more damanging, so yes, I could see where it would be a consideration.

            There are kids much worse than mine… where their emotional well being could and would be destroyed with the knowledge and confussion of their mother carrying a child and it not being there.  They have comprehensive reasoning skills, just mood swings/inhibition control issues, or other damage, or lord forbid, hurt the baby out of spite/not understanding when it is born, so yes, for their existing child, and to not bring another child into a home where it would never get the attention it deserves, might be in a dangerous situation, etc., I can see where it might be the best option for some, and I’d never knock them for it.  I actually had a local detective tell me about a case where the mom left the special needs, 16 yr old alone for a few minutes with the younger sibling, 13.  The 16 yr old beheaded the 13 yr old over a remote… now that is drastic, but it’s a sad fact that some problems are worse than your or I realize.

            What I was trying to point out that rape isn’t the only instance.  Once you start outlining and dictating a situation like this, it gets very tricky.  Educate and inform people, and let them make the decision that is best for them.  They are not you or I, and we are not them, so leave it be and don’t judge. 

      • Terry Tree Tree

        You have got to be joking!  A rape victim is a VICTIM of a heinous crime!  Yet, they are usually treated as if they are the perpetrator!

        • notafeminista

          When or where precisely does that happen?

          • notafeminista

            And I’m pretty sure I did use the term “victim”..let me check.  Yup…there it is…

      • crowepps

        You don’t seem to grasp that the ‘entity’ in question is highjacking her organs and cannibalizing her body to build itself, cell by cell, at her expense, while putting her present and future health and her life at risk.  It’s as though a part of the rapist is still inside her body and the rape continues for another nine months.

        It makes absolutely no sense to FORCE her to keep it there because it’s ‘innocent’ and ‘had absolutely NO say’ if she doesn’t want it there.  She isn’t guilty of anything and she had absolultely NO say in its existenced coming into being either.

        Rapists should understand that their behavior is so abhorrent, that others are so horrified by their gross violation of civilized conduct, that any conception to which they contribute might be wiped from the face of the Earth out of fear it might inherit their vile character.  Women who choose for their own reasons to complete such a pregnancy have every right to do so, but we have enough sociopaths and criminals already; why encourage women to produce more?

        • notafeminista

          Given your first paragraph, if the entity is such a hardship to women, why do they choose to get pregnant at all, under any circumstances?

          • Patrick

            This statement of you is senseless, bordering on insane.  If you can’t understand the difference between a sacrifice voluntarily given, and a sacrifice that one is forced to make (i.e., a theft), then I don’t see how you can possibly be expected to judge any questions of justice or fairness.

            Just open your mind and think about it for five seconds.  Confront the lurking fear that your statements, like those of the rape-ambivalent Ed, have long ago crossed the line into nauseating absurdity.  Then just apologize and promise to spend more time thinking, instead of reflexively arguing against anyone standing up for the rights of women.

          • notafeminista

            Women don’t have any more or special rights than men do by virtue of their sex.  The 14th amendment of the Constitution covers rights,responsibilities and privileges of all citizens, so let’s stop pretending that women (or any other special interest group) are entitled to more (or less) than that.

            And you haven’t answered the question!!!  Why, in the case of a pregnancy as the result of a rape do you want to punish (in the most permanent way possible) the one being that had no say, no control, is completely and thoroughly innocent and had the extraordinarily breathtakingly bad luck to have a rapist as a sperm donor?

          • Benji

            you guys are really going at it.  Nothing in the 14th Amend. gives women more rights than men, BUT the DPC and the Equal Protection Clause DO ensure that women don’t have FEWER rights than men.  Due Process and Equal Protection are not strictly a feminist agenda.  They are an American Agenda.  There are places where the Government doesn’t belong so sayeth the Supreme Ct.  You have to do acrobatics and redefine the English language to inject punishment into the discussion.  It’s just not at issue.  Also, I would add that we celebrate birthdays – not conception days.

          • notafeminista

            I would absolutely agree there are places the government doesn’t belong.  But in order to GET to that place one needs to have an intellectually honest conversation.  Frankly considering the level of discourse here, I’m not sure that’s possible.  Too much emotional manipulation and anecdotal evidence to ever be coherent.

          • Benji

            maybe so.  my guess is that this amend. will pass.  i think that the results will go much further than what proponents want.  some have already mentioned taxation.  IVF is in the discussion. the 14th would also protect unborn persons from going to prison with their mothers. 4th, 5th, 8th? and 14th Amends.  Will voting districts be redrawn based on the increased population? and so on.  my next guess is that the papers for an injunction are already drawn up.  it’s not a secret that the s.ct. has already held that a state may not over-burden a woman’s right.  this will help some people in my state get elected where otherwise they wouldn’t have much of a platform to talk about.  my people will become poorer (who thought that was possible?) and Personhood USA will be on to the next state without a care in the world for those born from unwanted preganancies.  much respect to all 9except for the guy who called all mississippians retards..

          • notafeminista

            People everywhere will become poorer (or not) regardless of whether or not this amendment passes because they will continue to make choices whether or not this amendment passes.
            And at some point yes, voting districts will be re-drawn (again regardless of the amendment) as they are being in my state (Kansas) and several others at the conclusion of last year’s census.
            You have little faith in your Mississippi brethren if you think they will elect a “one-issue pony” to coin a phrase.  Have we so quickly forgotten the lessons of Connecticut and Ned Lamont? (who won the primary basically because he said end the Iraq War and anybody but Bush – and then promptly lost the general because he had nothing else to say)

          • Patrick

            I’m not going to engage in a discussion of philosophy or ethics with you unless you’ll argue responsibly.  Will you?

          • notafeminista

            By whose definition exactly?

          • Patrick

            By the universally accepted standard of logical argumentation.  Respond to points that are made, and acknowledge when you have no adequate response.

            For example: It is a fact that the relationship between a mother and a zygote-embryo-fetus is a unique type of human interpersonal relationship, in which adult men are biologically incapable of participation.  So, to speak of the equal rights of men and women with respect to the relationship between a woman and her unborn offspring (as you did, above) is illogical and wrong.

            So now you, having nothing to say in response to my invalidation of your argument, should humbly acknowledge that fact and then wait for me to proceed to the argument that follows the one above.

            Alternatively, you could try to prove my claim false.  This would involve you trying to explain how there is a relationship that exists in reality, that a man can participate in, that involves the same type of dependency of one organism on another, as does the mother-fetus relationship.  I don’t believe that you will be able to do that, but I also don’t believe that you are thoughtful enough to realize that you can’t do that, so I wouldn’t be too surprised if you to tried.

            Each of the above responses would be examples of responsible argumentation.

            You, being someone who seems incapable of responsible argumentation, are probably going to make some claim that is entirely unrelated to my claim above.  By refusing to deal with my claim on its merits, you will have proven yourself to be unable or unwilling to participate responsibly in logical argumentation.

            Just let me know if you want further information about what I’m asking for, as a condition of continuing to engage in these issues with you. 

          • notafeminista

            1)If it is not a life(or a person), how does one have an interpersonal relationship with it? On the other hand, if it is a life, then when did the interpersonal relationship begin?
            2)The relationship whatever it may consist of did not occur without male participation.
            3)It is not solely HER unborn entity – she did not get pregnant spontaneously.

            Start with basic biology and go from there.

          • Patrick

            Predictably, you punted.  Nevertheless, this is how it’s supposed to be done:

            1. Okay, “interpersonal” is the wrong word choice.  We’ll just call it a relationship.  Now, take a shot at responding to the actual point.

            2. The fact that it occurred with male participation (the rapist, in our scenario) is not relevant to the question of whether women can have rights with respect to their own pregnancies that men cannot have.  The rapist, who you seem very interested in propping up, defending, and identifying with, is not wholly responsible for the survival of the zygote-embryo-fetus from the moment of conception until the point of viability.  His involvement is not the same, his stake is not the same, his rights and responsibilities cannot be said to be the same.

            3. This is the same point as your #2, which I already responded to. However, since you listed it twice, I’ll again remind you that we’re talking about the question of whether a woman who is raped should be allowed, by the government, to decide not to support her rapist’s offspring with her own body.  You seem to be fixated on defending the rapist’s interests.  This is part of the reason why I know you are a man, and why I strongly suspect that you’re not a husband, and not a father of a daughter.  You really have no standing at all to be asserting the rights of the male in this situation.

            So, now you have three strong arguments to respond to; again, I’m sure that you’ll jump off onto something unrelated.

          • notafeminista

            I have not jumped off to anything unrelated nor will I.  Nor have I defended rape at any point – and you are aware of this.  What I have defended and will continue to defende is one (possible)result of the rape.
            This has been taken to mean that I have no compassion or empathy for the victim or that I somehow defend the rapist his actions.  None of which is evident in my posts.
            What has not happened (and probably will not happen) is justification of termination of ending one-third of this relationship that had absolutely no control or say in said relationship occurring and by your own admission will not lessen the trauma of the original event itself.  That is what I’m looking for.

          • Patrick

            Well, here it is:

            The zygote, or embryo, cannot survive without the mother’s body.  There is no other equivalent relationship between persons that exists.  No male will ever bear the responsibility of having, on the one hand, a parasitic organism that is feeding on his body and, on the other hand, people insisting that that parasitic organism is a person and must be protected at all costs.

            Now, maybe the mother views the other organism as a person, and the greatest thing that’s ever happened to her.  Or maybe she views it as a piece of her rapist that’s growing inside of her.

            The point is, you have a situation where one organism depends on the other for survival.  The host is an adult person with consciousness and agency.  The parasite is, particularly early in the process, an unconscious bundle of cells.

            If the human being decides that the unconscious bundle of cells is welcome in her body, and rejoices at the prospect of carrying it to term and giving birth to a child, wonderful.  As an expecting father, I can relate.

            But if the woman is horrified by the prospect of nourishing it, and eventually reaching the point (viability) where it will be a human being, then she should be free to decide to flush that bundle of cells, which cannot survive outside of her body, out of her body.

            What’s happening in Mississippi is that women are being denied this choice.  And you need to face the fact that your casual feelings about the rights of raped women are finding their logical expression in a constitutional amendment that will force them to be the prisoners of their rapists’ actions.  A woman who is raped has no choice in the matter – this amendment will ensure that another choice will be taken from them.  You are absolutely not standing up for victims of sexual violence; you are standing against them.  You ARE trivializing rape, you ARE trivializing the feelings of the victims, and you ARE denying those victims the right to make their own decisions about your own bodies.  You are defending rape.  At least own up to it.

  • Adrian from RI

    To me, to be pro-life means to be pro-choices on everything. The “Pro-Life” movement wants to bestow human rights on a potential human being and deny the human rights of an actual human being. I consider this valuing of a potential over an actual a moral obscenity.  Are you curious to know what the Pope thinks of your human rights? His Holiness Paul VI addressed “Catholics and sex” in his “Humanae Vitae” Encyclical Letter on the regulation of birth, 25 July 1968.http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html  Ayn Rand gave a Ford Hall Forum lecture in 1968 titled: “Of Living Death” in which she analysis the Pope’s Humanae Vitae. The intellectual curious might want to listen to the lecture and Q&A at: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ar_oflivingdeath   Tom, you should listen to this talk too.

  • http://www.facebook.com/perlstein.josh Josh Perlstein

    These people are idiots.  I don’t know where to start.  Appalling. 

  • Ginabeab

    My parents didn’t tell me zip about sex. Thank you public education for teaching me some things about my body. Honestly, sex education prevented me from engaging in sex too early, it prevented me from being made too vulnerable in this tricky world, and it allowed me to make choices as an educated woman about my own body.

    • http://www.facebook.com/perlstein.josh Josh Perlstein

      This! This!  I learned starting in 5th grade, and for a semester each year after that until 9th.  You know what?  It helped.  A lot. 

      Also, anybody else laughing or screaming aloud at the backwards logic of some of these pro-people people?

  • http://www.facebook.com/perlstein.josh Josh Perlstein

    Let’s say these idiots are right, abortion is “killing”.  Great.  Okay, so?  What’s wrong with killing?  Sometimes it’s the best way to do things.  I don’t see these same people bitching about the killing of terrorists or foreign enemies.

    Then again, I’m a bit biased.  I think lots of people should be shot. :)

  • http://www.facebook.com/perlstein.josh Josh Perlstein

    @ Dr dipship: No shit, humans can only have human babies.  You’re completely changing the subject and not answering questions.  Why?  Because you have a shit argument.  You anger me.  You make me want to kill babies.

  • Anonymous

    Why has no one brought up the issue of taxation? If feti are declared to be persons, then every woman who becomes pregnant during a given tax year must be allowed to declare that fetus, whether it is carried to term or accidentally miscarried, an exemption on her or the family’s income tax. 

    Second, it is terribly presumptious to declare that a state legislature can know the mind of God to the point that they can say on his behalf that fertilized eggs are people.

    Third, the entire issue, is merely another cynical conservative “christian” method of getting in the back door to impose their religious beliefs on the general population, in violation of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion and the declaration that congress shall make NO law restricting the right to worship as one chooses (or not) or to establish a particular religion (and its tenets) as official for the general populace.

    These folks in Mississippi and others who wish to do the same thing elsewhere are very dangerous. This point needs to be made clearly and strongly.

    I am so sorry we in St Louis get your program by delayed broadcast and, therefore, are not able to make such points when you are acdtually on the air.

    • http://www.facebook.com/perlstein.josh Josh Perlstein

      I wasn’t aware we got the program on tape-delay. :( 

      • Anonymous

        Yes, it is a morning show in Boston.

        • http://www.facebook.com/perlstein.josh Josh Perlstein

          I see. Thanks.

          • Drew You Too

             Check out WBUR and listen live, if you can listen online that would be a good route to take. I personally like listening on the radio more but I use the WBUR site if Hour 2 is of interest.

      • Gregg

        On Point airs from 7 to 9 (PM) in my neck of the woods. I was so disappointed when I called in fired up and heard the recording telling me the show was over.

  • Anonymous

    PS  If these people are so concerned about human life, why are they so eager to impose capital punishment, especially on those who have no funds to prove their innocence?
    Why do these same people blink at genuine genocide. How can they be so heartless about the massive deaths of those already born, in support of needless wars, while focussing on so-called compassion for the unborn?

    • http://www.facebook.com/perlstein.josh Josh Perlstein

      You and I both know the answer.  These people are hypocritical idiots.  You know, the kind of people that make you want to move away to some far off country and live with sensible people.  Heck, maybe even a nice SOCIALIST country.  Any of you been to Northern Europe?  Beautiful place. ;)

      http://imagestore1.cotcot.hu/39_15_77265_d0c3418d3556a9c3715b09cf90d7862d_860a15_701.jpg

    • Mjenks02

      well Im thinking that you’re a little off topic you are not a female and you couldn’t  possibly no how it feels to be pregnant with no where to go and your parents won’t talk to you and still end uop having a child and having the child be the absolute love of your life. Maybe that day will come for you and you can gain some perspective

      • Anonymous

        Perhaps you should have read the entire cdomment, not just the PS.  I am male and cannot get pregnant, obviously.  I am personally opposed to abortion as a means of birth control, but I do not presume to have the right to impose my  beliefs on any other person. IF you are the example you wrote, them good for you., However, if you had chosen to give the child up for adoption or even to have aborted the pregnancy, it would have been your choice and yours alone to deal with later on. 

        Still, remember that no one can know when life begins until the creator tells us.  You do what you think is right, and I will never try to tell you that you should have made a different choice, but the principle is just that, CHOICE.  You opted to keep the child. Some, for reasons I cannot know, decide otherwise.  I have no right to interfere with those choices.  I could only hope that, as in your case, if I had a child in your situation, that child could come to me to discuss options and get opinions. But even for a minor child, I would not presume to dictate a course of action, only to love and encourage the child to think long and hard before making any decision.

        These people in Mississippi, for reasons of their own, would force their idea on you and criminalize any other course of action.  God gave us free will. What legislature has the right to countermand that gift.

        Hardly off topic . . .

  • Caroline1002

    Personhood does not start at conception.  Conception only begins the specific stages toward the making of a human.  A human does not begin its journey toward personhood until it is born, no more than a car becomes a functioning vehicle by its parts alone. 

    The adventure of personhood is a journey over the course of a person’s life toward becoming who that person is meant to be in this life.

    To say personhood begins at conception is ignorant, unconstitutional, wrong and an attempt to reverse Roe V Wade.

    I’m 67 years old.  My journey toward personhood began 67 years ago, a journey that involves the depth and breadth of a full life, a journey that continue to evolve.
    Thank you.

    • http://www.facebook.com/perlstein.josh Josh Perlstein

      Beautifully written, Caroline. 

    • Gregg

      I agree with Josh Perlstein (below), very nice. Your comment is unassailable. However, the amendment says life begins at conception not “personhood”. I’m not sure why the issue of when a life becomes a person is germane. It seems it’s because of fear of the slippery slope which is valid but separate.

      • Patrick

        Personhood is distinct from life in that a “person” has a legal identity, and can be ascribed rights and responsibilities.  Not all lives are people.  It’s clear that an embryo is alive, but is it a person?  A blade of grass is alive, but is it “a life?”  The issue is fundamental.

        Take a cow, for example.  It is alive, it feels pain, it exists independent of its mother.  Does it deserve the protections that would granted to a fetus under the proposed amendment?  It’s not enough to say “no, because it’s a cow.”  The question is whether there’s a relevant difference between the cow and the fetus.

        If there is, and if you’re going to base different treatment of a cow and a fetus on that relevant difference, then you should be able to articulate what that difference is, and how it justifies different treatment.

        This is a philosophical question, and you must adopt the perspective of a philosopher in order to properly contend with it.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=503339418 Hunter Parent-Wetmore

          I like the idea behind what you’re posting, but I think you’re creating a fasle dichotomy here. By implying that the philosophical concept life exists independently of physiological life is creating a nonexistent dichotomy. It is enough to say “it’s a cow”, because the physiological definition of what it means to be a cow defines it as different than what it means to be a human fetus. Thus they need not be judged on the same scale and yet, you need only to announce that we are discussing human life in order to to negate the idea of the cow’s life. The ideas of life within philosophy can coexist with the physiological definitions of life, they need not be evaluated independently. 

          Philosophy is all well and good, but remember, it deals largely in the abstract and what works in philosophy often won’t work when put into the context of reality-based arguments. 

          • Patrick

            I’m not really sure what you’re saying here.  I use the example of a cow because it exhibits many of the characteristics of a human fetus.  If you claim that the fetus is a person and the cow isn’t, then it’s your responsibility to articulate a theory of personhood that includes the fetus and does not include the cow.

            Philosophy is more than well and good – it’s central to this question of whether a fetus is a person.

            I’m not claiming that a cow is the same as a fetus, I’m claiming that they’re alike enough that a theory of personhood that includes fetuses but does not include cows should consist of something more than a priori arguments.  Is a person an organism?  Well, a fetus and a cow are both organisms.  Does a person feel pain?  Well, a fetus and a cow both feel pain.  Is a person self-aware?  Well, this becomes tricky, because a cow, a fetus, and a comatose adult human are all more or less self-aware.  So which of these is a person?  You need to bring more to the table, intellectually, than simple assertions that a cow is not a person, and a fetus is.  Your argument is strongest if you can first tell me what a person is, and then argue that a fetus is a person.

  • Mjenks02

    Ok first I think that your doctor needs to do some actuall research and some consensis on women who have had an abortion. The effects of having abortion are not only psychological but they are physical. The physical effects can be and including permanant sterilization, extreme scaring as well as severe abdominal pain and can result in later miscarriages. The emotional effects can be severe depression, Depending upon the type of abortion performed, physical complications can be as follows:Cervical tearing and laceration from the instruments. Perforation of the uterus by instruments. This may require major surgery, including hysterectomy. Scarring of the uterine lining by suction tubing, curettes, or other instruments. Infection, local and systemic. Hemorrhage and shock, especially if the uterine artery is torn. Anesthesia toxicity from both general or local anesthesia, resulting in possible convulsions, cardiorespiratory arrest, and in extreme cases, death. Retained tissue, indicated by cramping, heavy bleeding, and infection. Postabortal syndrome, referring to an enlarged, tender and soft uterus retaining blood clots. Failure to recognize an ectopic pregnancy. This could lead to the rupture of a fallopian tube, hemorrhage, and resulting infertility or death, if treatment is not provided in time. These complications include:Sad mood. Sudden and uncontrollable crying episodes. Deterioration of self-concept. Sleep, appetite and sexual disturbances. Reduced motivation. Disruption in interpersonal relationships. Extreme guilt and anxiety. Psychological “numbing.” Depression and thoughts of suicide. whoever thinks that this is a good way to go might actualy want to do some serious research the effects of having an abortion none times out of ten are actually more harmfull then having the xchild and giving the baby up for adoption. It takes a very strong person to go with the adoption way. It doesnt take anything to take the easy way  out. Why risk having an abortion when it could result in more harm than what the woman might think is good. And in the case of rape I know how devastating it can be because it happened to me luckily no child resulted but I am 19 years old and I am going to school and working and I have a 3 month old baby. I dont feel that Missourri’s citizens are taking it too far.

    • Anonymous

      Do you mean Mississippi? 

    • Patrick

      Okay, no disrespect to your personal experience, but you clearly cut and pasted a laundry list of gruesome side effects and complications into your comment.  This is a scare tactic; the responsible thing would be to include some reliable data about the frequency of the above complications.

      Don’t worry; I don’t expect you to do that.  I’m aware that you don’t know where find reliable statistics about this sort of thing; they surely won’t be found on the pro-life website where you found the middle 70% of your comment.

    • Patrick

      Hey, here’s one of several pro-life websites that the text of your comment could have been lifted from:

      http://www.teenbreaks.com/abortion/complicationsgirls.cfm

      From my google search, it looks like there are a bunch of sham content sites out there that have the same content verbatim.  Anyone on this board can cut and paste from the middle of your comment into google and see what I’m talking about.

      So who are you, really?  Is this Michele Bachmann?

  • Drew You Too

    Over 600 comments on this story…
    I don’t have anything to add, I expressed my opinion in a few very brief comments. I just figured I’d pile another one on since everyone seems to be working so hard for 650. Or maybe we’re aiming high, 700? Why not shoot for a thousand.

  • Blhutchinson

    I live in Mississippi. Please save me from the religious lunatics here. Just because the majority can vote in a law that restricts my rights does not make it okay. Please…help.

    • Patrick

      Get out while you can.  Your state is about to become a grand, failed experiment.

    • Anonymous

      Try moving out if you can.

      • Modavations

        The beauty of the totalitarian, is that there’s no longer a need to vote.!st amendment,we don’t need no stinking 1st amendment

        • Anonymous

          You think you’re funny, but you are not.
          A legend in your own mind.

      • Modavations

        I you have the courage,turn on Wash.Journal ,right now.They are discussing the SS.Trust Fund.

    • http://twitter.com/soulchristen soulchristen

      I live in Mississippi too. Don’t be such a victim. You can vote NO. (Oh, btw, the majority of US congress passed a law that restricts my right to NOT purchase insurance. So what makes you so special?) I don’t support this amendment because 1) I am against Government intervention in women’s healthcare ALTOGETHER. Equal medical services should be available for all genders and ethnicities. 2) Mississippi is the most ignorant state in the nation. This amendment is guaranteed to be misinterpreted. I am against the murder of ALL people, and children are people too (EVEN IN THE WOMB). This is a belief-based initiative and I believe that personhood begins at conception. Personally, I don’t care what you believe BUT I don’t think that the government has any right to tell you what to believe either. Your beliefs have consequences just like mine. November is National Adoption Awareness Month. Mississippi has several hundred kids who need families. If you vote YES on Prop 26, I encourage you to consider putting your money where your mouth is and adopting or fostering kids who are HERE, ALIVE, NOW. If you vote NO, go back to regularly scheduled programming. 

  • Kara

    You and whatever religion you follow, do not belong in my politics or my womb.  It is abhorrent to think that we could be so dismissive of the woman and place more value on an unborn fetus.  Who contributes more to society? 

    • notafeminista

      You and whatever social choice you follow do not belong in my politics.  It is abhorrent to think we could be so dismissive of potential because it isn’t contributing right now this minute to the s-called betterment of mankind.

      If this is true, then STOP right this minute carrying on about how we have to save the planet for future generations.  Future generations clearly have no stake with this social issue.

      • Anonymous

        Do have any ability to comprehend what people are posting here? This person did not say one thing about future generations. She is talking about how people, like yourself one thinks, have no right controlling her life due to religious beliefs.

        The politics comment is up for discussion as pertains to who is voted in and how politics is played out in the public arena.

        It amazes me on how you support tobacco smoking and then the sanctity of life. The two do not seem to go together in my view.

        • notafeminista

          One thousand pardons, is this not a discussion of abortion, which does in fact end the potential of a future generation?

          • crowepps

            If abortion was REQUIRED in every single pregnancy you would be correct that a future generation was being ended, but I’m not aware of anyone advocating forcing all women to have abortions.  You are aware that some women actually like children and have them voluntarily?  You are aware that most women who have abortions are married and have other children?

          • notafeminista

            If I were to become pregnant tomorrow, and subsequently abort it, a potential future generation of the species would have ended.  Given the full throated support for this act so obvious on this board, why do we even worry about whether or not the planet will be here in 50 years? 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=503339418 Hunter Parent-Wetmore

    Question to anti-choicers, please read the following two situations and compare them. If you truly value the life of a zygote as equally as you value the life of the woman and of born and developed infants you should see the situations in an identical manner. 

    Situation #1. A woman drives under the influence of a legally prescribed Vicodin (or a similar pain killer with the “no-driving” warning) she’s taking to relieve back pain. While she is not obviously intoxicated, it slows her reflexes down enough that while she’s driving a toddler runs into the street and she’s unable to stop in time and kills the toddler. When the police do an investigation they find out she was under the influence of Vicodin and if she hadn’t been, she would have been able to stop and the child would have lived. She is charged with vehicular manslaughter for killing a child while driving under the influence.  

    Situation #2. A 12-weeks pregnant woman is driving and is also under the influence of a legally prescribed pain killer for similar medical reasons. Her reflexes are also slowed, while driving a car stops suddenly in front of her. She rear-ends it with enough speed to set-off the airbags. The impact causes her body to reject the otherwise viable embryo and a miscarriage occurs. Should she be charged with vehicular manslaughter for killing a “child” while under the influence? 

    Obviously this isn’t an ideal example, but I’m sure you get my point. If you believe in Situation 2 that the woman *shouldn’t* be charged with manslaughter, then you are valuing the life of the toddler more than the unborn child thus devaluing the anti-choice argument. If you still stand by the argument then you are essentially stating that your biggest concern is abortion, not the human rights of the embryo; meaning that you’re more concerned with taking away a woman’s reproductive choices than with saving “human beings”. 

    Think on that. 

    (BTW, I initially wrote this in a response to another commenter, I just figured I’d post it for the community as a whole to read because I liked the question it posed.”

  • Just Wondering

    No woman gets pregnant without male intervention. Personhood cannot begin without a sperm meeting an egg. Sperm are a living gift of God. A man has millions of sperm in his lifetime, but they will die unless they are deposited in a woman. Therefore, to properly express the gift of God it would seem that a man should take unto himself as many female sexual partners as he can obtain, even to the extent of eventually being able to hold down a job while he is expressing the gift of God. A man needs to be able to do what he does without the intervention of government. However, we need to be looking for every possible source of revenue especially with poverty-stricken Mississippi taking on new personhoods. If we cannot monitor his private activities, can we tax him for producing or not producing little personhoods?

  • Lisa

    This comment is for Tom Ashbrook.  Not sure if he or his producers actually read these comments, but I’m typing through anyway.  This debate has been bantered about for Decades.  What NO reporter/journalist has ever had the breast or balls to ask a ‘Pro Life’ person who professes abortion is evil/bad/sacrilegious, is how many children they’ve adopted. Why?? That’s sooo what I wanted to hear you ask, Tom.  I find it fascinating that a Group of individuals condemn another person/persons they don’t know for aborting a 3month fetus without knowing the back story. Many of those condemers are men. How many of the Pro-Lifers (an oxymoron/highjacked term: everyone is Pro-Life) have actually adopted children?  For years, I’ve been waiting for a true reporter/journalist to step up and actually address this question. To condem, and in some cases, Kill people who have/support abortions is appalling.  Many of those ‘finger pointers’ are supposedly ‘Faith’ based. There are thousands of ‘abandoned’ babies/prematures who were birthed because their mother Didn’t believe in abortion, though couldn’t raise their child.  Who’s stepped up for them?  My, and many of my friends, thought is that the ‘Condemers’ should be adopting these children.  Put your money (and bullets) where your mouth is.  Tom, please do a follow up story and see if there is ANYONE out there in America, on the professed ‘Pro-Life’ wheel that has actually adopted a child from someone Who Was Going To Abort. Adoptions abound (many friends have), but it would be interesting to read/hear if/from a proclaimed Anti-Abortionist. From all I’ve read and heard over the past 15yrs, Anti-Abortion Advocates truly don’t care about the babies: it’s all about Biblical Scripture.  If they truly cared about the living, breathing ‘Babies’ they’d be adopting those that are Born, whether drug addled/premies/healthy/etc., all needing LOVE and homes; aka, those they profess to want to protect.  America and the World has thousands of homeless babies. The Anti’s should step up, like the ‘Pro Choicers’ have. And, again, a story about someone, anyone, or statitics of those Anti’s adopting would go a long way to ‘helping’ their cause.  Thanks Tom and team.  Love your show.  And for the record, I couldn’t be a Mom. Too old to Adopt, though I’m the cool Aunt, and in the future possibly a fun StepMom.  Was a Big Sister for bit.  (That’s another great way to show some love.)

    • crowepps

      This make a very snappy, put your money where you mouth is, accusation, but I’ve got to say, it would be absolutely criminal to take a child who already is disadvantaged and inflict an adoptive parent like Tom Ashbrook on him or her.  Hasn’t the child suffered enough already without having to live with an authoritarian who will demand they adopt his rigid moral beliefs and punish them harshly for failure to be perfect?

  • Pingback: Tuesday Reads « Sky Dancing

  • Modavations

    Guest 22-
    Margaret Sanger,High Priestess of the Left and Mother of Planned Parenthood,was a Eugenicist.She taught the NAZIS, population Control.NAZI=National Workers Socialist Party.Margaret advocates using birth control,sterilization,and abortion,to weed out “the riff raff”.The “defective elements of modern society”.80% of Planned Parenthood Clinics are in minority neighborhoods.I repeat,80(frigging) %.Blacks account for 18%ish “live births” and 36% of abortions.Whites account for 75%ish of “live births” and 57% of abortions.The Dem.Party is a rascist organization.The purpose of the Dem. Party is “keeping Poor People Poor.Can you imagine an Obama-Cain debate.Welfare blacks against Laissez Faire Blacks.

    • Anonymous

      So?

    • Sam Walworth

      If I am not that wrong, Eugenics was practiced even in USA, does that make USA a Nazi country?

      • Anonymous

        Eugenics was quite popular in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
        The nazis took it to the extreme. The difference is that they developed an entire political system based on this failed idea of how cultures and people develop.

        We had segregation and Jim Crow laws. We still define ourselves by defining others.

      • Modavations

        Yes.The Dem.Party is rascist and Totalitarian.Jim Crow laws were devised by the Dems. to impede Blacks from voting.

    • crowepps

      Another avid supporter of Eugenics was Alexander Graham Bell, who held extreme and bigoted views against the deaf.  In view of his disgusting extremism, it’s important that you stop using telephones at once.

  • http://www.dogoodgauge.org The Do Good Gauge
  • SomMom

    An ob-gyn who disparages what she calls “a woman’s so-called reproductive rights” is pretty scary!

    • notafeminista

      Y’know, if folks learned to speak/think accurately it isn’t the reproducing that is at issue.  Reproduce until you fall down, I don’t care.  It’s what you intend to do with the results of said reproduction that are in question.

    • crowepps

      An ob-gyn who doesn’t understand that ‘personhood’ will make the birth control pill, the IUD and Depo-Provera illegal is also pretty scary.  The Rythm Method is not ‘birth control’, it is rolling the dice, and it doesn’t work with rapists/abusive husbands.

  • Ed

    About Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, abortion was legal there – Nazi Germany was probably the first society to make it legal.

    • ilya187

      Your knowledge of history is as laughable, as your attempts to poison the well.

    • ilya187

      To be more specific:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Germany

      “Legalization of abortion was first widely discussed in Germany during the early 20th century. During the Weimar Republic, this discussion led to a reduction in the maximum penalty for abortion, and in 1927 to the legalization – by court decision – of abortion in cases of grave danger to the life of the mother.

      In Nazi Germany, the penalties for abortion were increased again. From 1943, the provision of abortion to “Aryan” women was threatened with the death penalty.[1][2] On the other hand, abortion was at times forced upon members of parts of society that were considered undesirable.”

      It was illegal for Aryan women, and mandatory for “underpeople”.

      As for “first society to make it legal” — first, someone had to make ILLEGAL. Terminations of pregnancy are as old as humanity:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

      “The first recorded evidence of induced abortion, is from the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus in 1550 BCE. A Chinese record documents the number of royal concubines who had abortions in China between the years 515 and 500 BCE.”

      In many part of the world, such as Japan, abortion was NEVER illegal.

    • Patrick

      Ed, let’s hear some more of your profoundly vile thoughts about rape. You know, like how a rape victim should be compelled by the state to carry a fetus that is 50% the perpetrator of the rape to full term. It’s an argument that perfectly illustrates your brilliance and compassion, and the coherence of your political position.

      • ilya187

        Since prehistoric times most humans understood limited carrying capacity of their enviromnent, and found ways to limit their own numbers. It is only control freaks like Ed or the bastard in Vatican who think humans can reproduce indefinitely. If there is World War III in our future, it will be in no small measure thanks to these control freaks. Of course, Armageddon is just what they expect.

        • notafeminista

          Um reproducing indefinitely is the exact opposite of a control freak.  ..on the other hand…

          “thoughtful family planning” or “managing populations”  especially in the name of junk science…those are the control freaks.

          • ilya187

            Nice strawman. Who exactly proposes “managing populations”, and in the name of which “junk science”? And as for “thoughtful family planning”, my wife and I certainly put a lot of thought into how many children to have and when.

            Are you in favor of reproducing indefinitely? The top hat in Vatican is.

          • notafeminista

            Maybe you missed the earlier (as in some weeks ago) OnPoint discussion regarding the amount of resources on the earth and the current discussion regarding reaching a population of 7 billion.

    • Bin

      Complete BS. Both were illegal and severely punishable, because the dictatorships needed soldiers. I guess, here the corporate plutocracy here needs more uneducated handymen…

  • notafeminista

    Ok, so we’ll do this.  We know that abortion is claimed as a “women’s issue” – in part because men don’t carry the unborn entity (never mind his role in creating said entity) and that women are the ones left behind with the unwanted pregnancy and must find a way to support herself and said entity.  So rather than celebrating life, or the potential of, she chooses to terminate the entity and father is none the wiser.  Unless of course had he been fully apprised of the situation, he may have elected to keep said entity himself.   Can’t have that no no as we know women bear the physical burden of the entity and she doesn’t want it.  Again ignoring his role in creating said entity.

    However, should this scenario occur and the man is unaware of her condition, should she decide to keep the entity, she can show up on his doorstep two years later with Junior in tow and demand child support for a child he neither knew about or wanted.

    • Brett

      I know, those poor men! How could those evil, conniving women dupe them so much?!? …Let’s face it, though, it’s not ALL women and ALL men; but, in the scenarios you so painfully, carefully and accurately describe, these women are clearly liberal women…and the men are clearly conservative men. We should all be aghast at yet another example of insidious, liberal oppression, as well as what many consider to be the most patently Nazi-esque social engineering experiment ever hoisted on the American people!  I, for one, applaud you, notafeminista, for exposing these women for who they really are! None of us wants to wake up by the light of a new Nazi moon, believe you me! We must not only make abortion illegal, but we need to stop liberalism if we want any chance of saving ourselves from the destruction of the US and, ultimately, the world!  

      • notafeminista

        Or we could just be intellectually honest about what is clearly NOT solely a women’s issue.

        • Brett

          Well, that statement is quite modified and softened from your earlier painting of the conniving woman duping the man out if his parental rights. You seem to want to rework your spin.

          …I suspect there are very few abortions happening where the man is told of his paternity (of those men who wish to be a father, accept responsibility for the child’s birth, have the commitment to raise a child, etc.), and he desires to have the baby but the woman tells him, no, that she is having an abortion anyway. If she wishes to go forward with the abortion even when the man states desires to have the baby, then the reasons would likely be that neither parent is in any kind of position to accept responsibility for the child. Society is better off in this case (including mother, father and child), and the only thing worse than an abortion is an unwanted, uncared for child. 

          If a man is told of his paternity and says he will not accept responsibility for the child, then his say about an abortion becomes completely nullified in my opinion. If she keeps the pregnancy secret, decides to have the child, and “shows up on his doorstep two years later with Junior in tow,” then he should pay child support if the child is his. (Are you suggesting he should not have to pay child support in this scenario?). Men can be very remote participants in conception, does this give them the same rights as women in this realm? 

          If both parents want the child, no abortion results, usually. If the father wants the child and is a responsible/committed person, then I believe rarely does this scenario result in an abortion. Abortion results from one or both parties not being able to accept responsibility for having and raising a child, usually if the woman is responsible and the man is not, then she will decide to keep the baby. 

          In any case, making abortion illegal and eliminating reproductive services to women (as is the case in Mississippi) would create many more problems than would keeping abortion legal, and keeping information on reproductive services accessible to women is also an important component to abortion being kept legal.

          It seems that abstaining from sex except for the purpose of procreation is not a very realistic way to end abortions. Limiting information/knowledge about reproductive services doesn’t seem to be a good way to stop abortions. Adoption services don’t seem to stop abortions. Fear of eternal damnation doesn’t seem to stop abortions. Making them illegal doesn’t seem to stop abortions. Forcing people to have and raise children doesn’t seem to be a good idea. Grasping at some argument about men’s rights being violated because abortion is legal seems to do little to provide any practical reasoning about what should be done regarding Roe v. Wade, as far as I can tell. 

          I agree, though, abortion is not only a “woman’s issue,” it’s a societal issue: keep it legal an accessible.         

          • notafeminista

            I stand by my original statement that pro-choicers seek to limit the rights/resposibilities of men (and with good reason, men are rational beings -abortions make their bad choices go away!) 

            From your post:

            “…I suspect there are very few abortions happening where the man is told of his paternity (of those men who wish to be a father, accept responsibility for the child’s birth, have the commitment to raise a child, etc.), and he desires to have the baby but the woman tells him, no, that she is having an abortion anyway. If she wishes to go forward with the abortion even when the man states desires to have the baby, then the reasons would likely be that neither parent is in any kind of position to accept responsibility for the child. Society is better off in this case (including mother, father and child), and the only thing worse than an abortion is an unwanted, uncared for child.So as I said, pro-choice seeks to limit the rights/responsibilities of the male.”

            In essence what you’re saying is that if the man wants to keep the unborn entity and she does not, then he’s up a creek and probably for the better because we know this is not a stable couple who can provide for the child.

            On the other hand we celebrate single mothers every day.  Explain that to me.

          • Brett

            No, in essence, what I’m saying is that this scenario you conjure doesn’t happen often (completely committed father vs. abortion- bound mother), and I’m saying that if one or both parties advocates for abortion, then it is a pretty good indication that the child is unwanted/the parents are NOT equipped to be parents. 

            It would be great if there were no abortions, but the reality is that there will always be, legal or not. The alternative of making abortion illegal in an attempt to stop abortions would mean having to force women who get pregnant to bring their pregnancies to term or face criminal prosecution, and it would mean an adoption services/social services/bureaucratic/judicial nightmare. 

            Your claim that “pro-choicers seek to limit the rights/responsibilities of men” is unsubstantiated. People who are pro-choice seek to keep abortion legal so that it is safe and so that children who are born are wanted and are able to be taken care of. By the way, we “celebrate” single parents who are responsible, committed and caring parents (be they men or women). We are quite critical of either gender who undertakes parenthood and is not equipped. 

            Do you really want the main thrust of your anti-choice stance to be because men are not always allowed the full measure of their rights and responsibilities when casting their seeds? If so, do you think making abortion illegal will make men more responsible and will protect their rights more? That would be a pretty tough sell and you’ve expressed nothing compelling enough to make that argument sound convincing.

          • notafeminista

            Regardless whether it happens once or one hundred times, it is not up to the mother to decide how well equipped or how well committed the father is towards supporting the unborn entity.

            Abortion does not make sure children are safe and well taken care of as the news is full of stories now of the exact opposite  – even with legalized abortion.

            Additionally by asking if I think de-legalizing abortion will make men more reponsible is essentially admitting they are not now.

          • Brett

            “it is not up to the mother to decide how well equipped or how well committed the father is towards supporting the unborn entity.”

            Is it more up to the father to decide? Is it equally up to each to make the decision? If so, how do we as a society work to ensure both fathers and mothers equally and fairly share in their decisions? Who has more bearing on the various decisions that might have to be made in having/raising a child? How should the laws be configured to, in some cases, force responsibility?

            “Abortion does not make sure children are safe and well taken care of as the news is full of stories now of the exact opposite  – even with legalized abortion.”

            I was referring to keeping abortion legal so that abortion is safe, so that it can be safely administered and that reproductive choices can be openly and legally discussed between doctor and patient, and so on. Nothing can completely ensure children’s safety, and certainly making abortion illegal won’t. As far as “…stories…now of the exact opposite–even legalized abortion.” I’m not sure what you mean…that children are neglected and abused now? For you to imply that somehow legalized abortion makes children less safe would mean that you have knowledge of data indicating such, and data that show how many children are abused and neglected means that children are abused and neglected not that abortion increases the chances of those violations against children. Unless you think that life starts at conception and that all abortion is murder and should be treated as such, then you can not prove that children in general are less safe and cared for because abortion is legal. If you believe so, then you and I fundamentally disagree. 

          • notafeminista

            I think yes it is up to the father to decide how well equipped or committed he might be towards supporting his unborn child.

            After some consideration, not only does abortion not make already born child safe and taken care of, it makes those aborted children…well.  Not exactly safe are they.

          • Brett

            …so many double negatives…but I guess you’re saying that if abortion were illegal, then already-born children would be safer/abortion makes already-born children less safe. And, if I understand you, of all the participants during conception, the father is the one who should decide whether to bring the baby to term. 

            Good luck with THOSE arguments…

    • Terry Tree Tree

      As a father that raised his children, because their mother abandoned them with me, (she later caused them a LOT of problems, and still does) I can show so many holes in your monotribe!!  As anyone that reads it, with even a modicum of sense, experience, and knowledge of human nature would easily discount it!

      • notafeminista

        Let me see…what did another poster say…oh yes.  “anec” is not a prefix for data.

  • Roger

    I find it ironic how Republicans and conservatives are so completely against government involvement in many aspects of our citizens lives, yet when it comes to abortion are completely for government control of a persons rights. All for pandering to the religious right and increasing electability in conservative areas of the country. While this is an important issue to women’s rights, frankly, there vastly more important energy and economic issues to be addressed by national media that will have a far greater impact on the future of America. 

  • Chris

    “Life begins at that moment”?  Really?  This is a typical all-or-nothing, black-or-white unclear view of the world. Often a view held by those who would rather not have to think, but would rather be told how to think by some parental god figure or government institution.

    Life seems to be a continuum.  Open your eyes personhood people!

    Are not the mother and the father alive before they conceive?  Is not the sperm alive and essentially 1/2 the “potential” being? Shouldn’t half the DNA be given at least 1/2 the rights too?

    Look at the fertilized egg!  It is just a point on a continuum.  It is a cell- no heart, not nervous system, no mind.  It is just a little closer to humanhood than the intention for two people to make love.

  • Andyf

    Once we have Prop 26 in place I am going to propose “Yes on Stoning,” a traditional and biblical punishment for any Mississippi women who step out of line, and a quick alternative to divorce.

  • Robert Y Lochhead

    I am Scottish by birth and Mississippian by choice. There is one important factor that is being ignored in the debate about Mississippi’s Prop 26. There are many unwanted and impoverished children in Mississippi right now and prop 26 will add to this misery.  I agree with Dr McMillan that every human being has a right to dignity (and every American to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Therefore. every person who votes for prop 26 should be prepared to share their personal fortune and their time to support these unfortunate children.  Otherwise, voting for prop 26 is hollow, inhumane, and self-serving, 

  • Betsy

    If this amendment passes, as it is likely to do, it is not because many compassionate, reasonable and intelligent Mississippians did not speak out against it. We have spent many sleepless nights over the last several months – making our own yards signs, hanging posters, writing letters to the editor, talking to our friends and neighbors, and organizing fundraisers, rallies, and community forums.

  • Bin

    The last time, we fought a war to bring these retards to civilization. Today, I would say – kick them out, let them create their own banana fundamentalist state. Produce and oil prices will be cheaper.

    • notafeminista

      Funny thing that, the war was fought because the North wanted to impose its way of life on the South.  Ironic.

      • crowepps

        Ironically, one of the causes of the Civil War was people’s rage that ‘slave catchers’ from the South who where showing up in the free states of the North, waving around authorizations that claimed they were in hot pursuit of an escaped slave, seizing free Black people off the street and forcing their neighbors and family to raise bribes to get them to remove the manacles.  It’s interesting to speculate how long slavery could have continued if the South hadn’t tried to “impose its way of life” on the North.

        • notafeminista

          The South didn’t impose its way of life on the North.  Read your history man. In 1789 12 of the 13 colonies were slave-holding.  The North (as it industrialized)had less and less need for brute force labor (work done by animal or man). 

          The South, where cotton was farmed had a significantly higher need for manual labor, as cotton is incredibly delicate and had to be harvested by hand.  The North had been slave holding as well – they just didn’t need them anymore.  And they got religion. 

          • Patrick

            And how did that whole “North imposing its way of life on the South” work out, anyway?  Were there any effects of that civil war that you could bring yourself to support?  Hmmm?  The whole “abolishing slavery” thing, is that something you can get behind?

            Or maybe slavery, like rape, is something that you don’t see as that big of a deal.  Certainly not something that’s worth compromising your high-minded principles to oppose or prevent.

          • notafeminista

            You aren’t answering the question.

            Furthermore this:
            You insist the mother has some sort of special relationship with the embryo/zygote/bundle of cells/fetus.  However, (say the pro-choicers) its probably not a life and its darn sure not a person.  Agreeing on that point makes the embryo an inanimate object.  If it is an inanimate object, that puts it on a level with a television or coffee table or some such.  Know anyone who has that level of relationship with their rocker/recliner? 

            Upon further consideration, one might argue that it would be of benefit for the impregnated rape victim to carry the embryo/zygote/fetus/bundle of cells to term, as said entity would have half the DNA of her attacker thus potentially providing evidence to law enforcement to arrest her attacker (assuming that has not already occurred) or offer additional (and incontrovertible) evidence at trial – and that is what is wanted is it not? To make sure the rapist is off the streets so he cannot hurt anyone else, correct?

          • Patrick

            You didn’t ask any question; you just made some flippant and incomprehensible statements about the civil war.  To what end, I know not.

            When say “relationship,” I’m talking generally about how two things affect each other.  Any two things that affect each other can be said to have a relationship.  How do you get through life without understanding this stuff?

            And sure, one might argue, as you do, that a woman would be better off giving birth to her rapist’s child, for whatever reason.  But just because you think that there might be some benefit in it for the mother doesn’t give you any standing at all to authorize the state to take away her control over her own body.

            Incidentally, I’m really giving your ideas more credit than they’re worth here; your notion about DNA evidence being taken from a baby, and this somehow being of more use than the semen, blood, hair, etc left behind after the crime (it is a crime, by the way – I’m not sure that you’re convinced of that) is completely without value, and obviously the desperate grasping at straws of someone who, one can hope, is realizing that his views about abortion and the personhood of zygotes and embryos are wrong and, when acted upon such as is happening in Mississippi, harmful to rape victims and women in general.

            Face it – insisting that a rape victim should not have access to the morning-after pill is an extreme position.  Most people have the basic decency to recognize that rape is one of the most devastating crimes and violations of which human beings are capable, and that allowing a rape victim to intervene and prevent or end a pregnancy with the morning-after pill is the absolute least bit of support that society can provide.  This amendment, that you support, would deny them this.

            I’m perfectly happy acknowledging that the personhood of a fetus is something about which reasonable people can disagree, but you are incapable of acknowledging the same.  Any person with the smallest amount of humility, tolerance, empathy and basic respect for human dignity would acknowledge that, at the very least, exceptions need to be made for situations where the mother’s life is in danger, and for rape victims.

            You assume that you have some authority to take away a rape victim’s choice, and force her to carry and give birth to her rapist’s offspring.  Just contemplating the depth of your delusion, your complete lack of responsibility, and the misogyny inherent in your view on this subject brings the taste of vomit into my mouth.

          • notafeminista

            ‘Tis a fair point you bring up.  To what degree or extent do you affect your television?  How does your television react to you?

          • Patrick

            To notafeminista, regarding your thoughts about restricting the access of rape victims to abortion and the morning-after pill:

            Let me tell you something.  Someone very close to me, who I love very much, was raped.  I know very well what the act of rape can do to a person who survives it.  And I sincerely hope that I never meet her rapist, but if I do you’ll probably hear about it because I’ll pull his face off.I know and have met several women, through her support network, who were raped.  Women are raped all the time.If this is just a fun intellectual exercise for you, then fine.  You’re a truly sick person, but whatever.But if you sincerely think that that you are on to something here, then why don’t you look up your local domestic violence shelter (it will be easy, because they’re in every city), and ask if you can talk to some rape victims.  Just lie and say that you’re concerned about their welfare, and you want to donate some money to help house and feed them while they try to put their lives back together.They’ll be happy to hear your excellent reasons why women who are raped should have no access to abortion or the morning-after pill.  I’m sure they’ll agree that you, and people who think like you, are better equipped to make that choice than them.  Maybe they’ll describe their rapes for you.  Let me tell you, if you’ve never heard a woman describe her own rape, it’s something you should experience.  That’s my wish for you.
            However, if, for some reason, you should decide that you don’t want to do that, then you are a coward.  Nothing more than someone with a lot of thin opinions about things that he knows nothing about, and the willingness to dominate and control people that he’s afraid to face.

            I’m really looking forward to hearing how it goes.

          • notafeminista

            Here’s the thing you won’t admit: we don’t have relationships with our televisions or our sofas or iPads or whatever.  My PC could not care less if I use it today or what I choose to sure on the net.
            Reasonable people may disagree about whether or not the zygote/embryo/fetus/blob of cells/life/non-life/person/non-person is in fact alive, but it is the crux of the debate.  Until that question is settled all other arguments are moot.
            If in fact it is no more a life than your television is, then who cares if it is aborted or not?
            On the other hand, if it is a life, by aborting it we are making value judgments.  By having an abortion I am saying saying my life is more important, of more value than the unborn life. 
            Is that where we want to be?

          • Anonymous

            Stop imposing your crap on my daughters life.
            If you don’t want to have an abortion don’t have one or use birth control. Better yet stop having sex. But don’t tell me that you have the right to tell women how to live their lives. Further more how is it that right wing zealots such as yourself keep going on and on about big government and keeping government out of your life and yet when it comes to other women your all for government getting into controlling the reproductive rights of women.

          • Anonymous

            I’m sorry it’s you who needs to read some history. The division between the North and the South and the idea of freeing slaves goes back to the Founders of this nation. The Civil War happened because the South decided that states rights and the idea of breaking up the Union trumped the Federal government. Slavery, while being a vile and evil chapter in our history, was one of the main catalyst for the war but not the only one. You have a very narrow and uninformed view of history and events.

        • Benji

          Yup.  really came to a head w/the slave catcher case that went to the S.Ct.  Southern slave catchers invaded a northern state and took a woman who wasn’t even a slave.  Judges were authorized to collect a higher fee if they found that the black person was a slave.  Hence-lots of free men were taken to the South.  But we’re drifting “off point” here.  Personhood USA didn’t start in Miss.  They started in Cal. and then Col.  They’re stomping around myneighborhood now b/c of an overpowering majority of “christians” who consistently vote for whichever candidate scores higher w/the NRA and “right to life.”  Nevermind that we likely will have a new governor who complains that obamacare is no good for Miss b/c it would add a huge number of poor people to state funded medicine. Ironic that the same man (and people voting for this Amend.) desperately want to increase the number of living persons who won’t have access to health care b/c of lack of $$$.  They’re not doing this b/c they love people.   

  • Benji

    Personhood USA has gone after the low hanging fruit here, targeting one of the most poorly educated states in the union.  Couple that with our fundamentalist Christian background, and they likely will find a big “win” next Tuesday.  As usual, the consequences will fall mainly on poor women who will bear 100% of the responsibility.  We can expect the fine people who vote for this amendment to turn their backs on the children who are born and eagerly vote to thin welfare and eventually pack them into our state prison.  But maybe my neighbors (I’m writing from south Miss.) are only different from Bin (see his enlightening comment below) in their failure to grasp our Constitution by a few degrees.  Bin’s take on the Constitution, American history, special education and the economy are just freakishly weird.  Bin might find some lifelong friends in the Amend. 26 group.  

  • Guest

    If I lived in Mississippi and this law was passed and I was pregnant I would claim my unborn fetus as a dependent on my state tax return.  The state department of revenue would have no choice but to accept it based on this legislation.  How much money will this cost the state?  Will fiscal conservatives have the same stance?

  • Fred Arizona

    I’m not pro-abortion but I agreed with one of the speakers: “No one has the right to impose their faith beliefs on another person”. Yeah brother. I couldn’t have said it better.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/3ETFGMQ3B7VD4AAMILBBEVMCWE JasonA

      Especially when there is NO God.

  • Fred Arizona

    Sorry for this diversion but reading the inane comments below, I can’t resist replying. Along with the rise of fundamentalism in the US today, there is its crazy half-brother, the rise of the myth of the gallant antebellum South. I have ancestors that fought on both sides and I honor them all, but this crap about the happy slave and the paternal master that is peddled again today drives me crazy. Slavery was (and is where it still exists in the world) a bloody, cruel and inhuman system and for those who continue to wave its banner and swear that if the South had been left alone the country would be a better place today, all I can wish is that they and their children have a chance to experience that wonderful institution themselves (as the slaves, of course). Then they can talk glowingly of the good old days. Otherwise, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

  • Patrick

    To notafeminista, regarding your thoughts about restricting the access of rape victims to abortion and the morning-after pill:

    Let me tell you something.  Someone very close to me, who I love very much, was raped.  I know very well what the act of rape can do to a person who survives it.  And I sincerely hope that I never meet her rapist, but if I do you’ll probably hear about it because I’ll pull his face off.
    I know and have met several women, through her support network, who were raped.  Women are raped all the time.

    If this is just a fun intellectual exercise for you, then fine.  You’re a truly sick person, but whatever.

    But if you sincerely think that that you are on to something here, then why don’t you look up your local domestic violence shelter (it will be easy, because they’re in every city), and ask if you can talk to some rape victims.  Just lie and say that you’re concerned about their welfare, and you want to donate some money to help house and feed them while they try to put their lives back together.

    They’ll be happy to hear your excellent reasons why women who are raped should have no access to abortion or the morning-after pill.  I’m sure they’ll agree that you, and people who think like you, are better equipped to make that choice than them.  Maybe they’ll describe their rapes for you.  Let me tell you, if you’ve never heard a woman describe her own rape, it’s something you should experience.  That’s my wish for you.
    However, if, for some reason, you should decide that you don’t want to do that, then you are a coward.  Nothing more than someone with a lot of thin opinions about things that he knows nothing about, and the willingness to dominate and control people that he’s afraid to face.I’m really looking forward to hearing how it goes.

    • Anonymous

      Well said. 

    • Terry Tree Tree

      EXECLLENT REPLY !!  I see notafeminista did’nt have the courage to promise he would do that!

  • JayB

    Given the fact that the rate at which abortions occurred did not change with the advent of Roe v. Wade, how do the pro-life people justify driving women from a well-regulated proceedure to back alley abortionists and coat hangers that will result in *more* people dying than when the proceedure was legal?

    No one is going to stop abortion, regardless of the laws passed; just as prohibition didn’t stop the use of alcohol.  If it’s actually *life* one is concerned about, rather than the control of those uppity women, then the only responsible attitude is to keep abortion legal.

  • notafeminista

    Here’s the thing you won’t admit: we don’t have relationships with our televisions or our sofas or iPads or whatever.  My PC could not care less if I use it today or what I choose to sure on the net.
    Reasonable people may disagree about whether or not the zygote/embryo/fetus/blob of cells/life/non-life/person/non-person is in fact alive, but it is the crux of the debate.  Until that question is settled all other arguments are moot.
    If in fact it is no more a life than your television is, then who cares if it is aborted or not?
    On the other hand, if it is a life, by aborting it we are making value judgments.  By having an abortion I am saying saying my life is more important, of more value than the unborn life. 
    Is that where we want to be?

    • Anonymous

      It’s your choice to have an abortion. Don’t tread on others.

  • crowepps

    By saying abortion should never happen, people are saying the unborn life is more important, of more value, than the woman.  Is that where we want to be?  Allowing living, breathing women with families and already existing children who need them to die because there is a potential that a new life might be created?  Like a lot of other women, I’ve had a miscarriage.  I find it appalling anyone would imply I wasn’t important enough, or valuable enough, to be worth saving.  I’m sure glad my doctor didn’t think that way or I wouldn’t be here, and neither would be daughter or my two grandchildren.

    • notafeminista

      Abortion is guaranteed done.  No do-overs, no second chances.  Not so with pregnancy. 

      • crowepps

        That’s right, if an abortion allows her to survive, then she can get pregnant again.  Women have over 400 chances to get pregnant in their lifetime.  There isn’t any reason to believe that one of those chances should be preferred over any other.

        • notafeminista

          Then why do we keep aborting fetuses?

          • crowepps

            Gee, you know what, notafeminsta, I’m beginning to believe that you don’t have any idea how reproduction actually works.  See, the thing is, it FAILS most of the time.

            Sometimes fetuses start aborting spontaneously and the doctor guards against infection by doing an abortion procedure to make sure everything is completely removed, and sometimes women elect to get abortions because this is not an optimum time for them to be pregnant for what they feel are good reasons, and sometimes women needs abortions because the pregnancy they choose to have is killing them and sometimes women elect to have abortions because the fetus is grossly malformed and there’s no point in being pregnant for another four months and growing what it essentially a corpse as large as possible berfore it is delivered.

            You certainly have every right to make your own decisions about what to do in each of those circumstances when you are pregnant, but unless you are either having the abortion or performing the abortion, “we” aren’t aborting anything.  Other people are doing something you don’t understand and don’t like and for some reason you feel entitled to butt into their business.

          • notafeminista

            And there it is.  “This is not an optimum time for them to be pregnant for what they feel are good reasons.”   INCONVENIENCE.  We abort fetuses because we can’t be bothered otherwise.

            At least someone is finally honest to admit it. 

          • Terry Tree Tree

            Offer to have these fetuses transferred to yourself, and YOU raise them, as you try to DICTATE to others!  Problem solved!

          • Terry Tree Tree

            You ONLY commented on a SMALL part, that you desired for your agenda, of crowepps’ reply!!  AFRAID of the rest?

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/3ETFGMQ3B7VD4AAMILBBEVMCWE JasonA

            Have the kids so that they can be killed in endless wars by a corrupt government and religious nuts.

      • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/3ETFGMQ3B7VD4AAMILBBEVMCWE JasonA

        What anyone chooses is none of your business. You are another one of those religious nuts who wants to change the law to fit your warped thinking.

      • Terry Tree Tree

        WHAT??

      • Terry Tree Tree

        From most of notafeminista’s statements, one could easily deduce that he is a rapist, that wants to make sure his criminally-implanted progeny be given ALL advantages that can be extorted from the victims to allow that progeny to become rapists!

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/3ETFGMQ3B7VD4AAMILBBEVMCWE JasonA

      Well said.

  • Anonymous

    The state of Mississippi has shown that it does have people who live in that are sensible and think. I look at this as a moment when the extremist, for that is what the people behind this personhood absurdity are, were shown the door. I hope more Americans stand up to these extremist and let them know that it’s our country too.

  • cal

    Mississippi leads the US in obesiy, infant mortality, illiteracy, and more. The state should focus on its numerous problems rather than forcing women to have babies that will most likely increase the infant mortality. These people want to outlaw abortion even when the woman’s (or girl) life is in danger. The Christian Taliban would be at home in Afghanistan.

  • cal

    Mississippi is a mess and not a state anyone would like to emulate. It leads the nation in obesity, infant mortality, illiteracy, and much more. Instead of trying to fix its problems, the Christian Taliban wants to force women to have babies, even if it will kill them. Disgusting. Mississippi should fix its slew of serious problems before playing God.

ONPOINT
TODAY
Sep 1, 2014
This Friday, Aug. 22, 2014 photo shows a mural in in the Pullman neighborhood of Chicago dedicated to the history of the Pullman railcar company and the significance for its place in revolutionizing the railroad industry and its contributions to the African-American labor movement. (AP)

On Labor Day, we’ll check in on the American labor force, with labor activist Van Jones, and more.

RECENT
SHOWS
Aug 29, 2014
Beyoncé performs at the 2014 MTV Music Video Awards on Sunday, August 24, 2014 in Inglewood, California. (Getty)

Sex, power and Beyoncé’s feminism. The message to young women.

 
Aug 29, 2014
Ukrainian forces guard a checkpoint in the town of Mariupol, eastern Ukraine, Thursday, Aug. 28, 2014. Ukraine's president Petro Poroshenko called an emergency meeting of the nation's security council and canceled a foreign trip Thursday, declaring that "Russian forces have entered Ukraine," as concerns grew about the opening of a new front in the conflict.  (AP)

War moves over Syria, Ukraine. Burger King moves to Canada. Nine-year-olds and Uzis. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Our Week In The Web: August 29, 2014
Friday, Aug 29, 2014

On hypothetical questions, Beyoncé and the unending flow of social media.

More »
Comment
 
Drew Bledsoe Is Scoring Touchdowns (In The Vineyards)
Thursday, Aug 28, 2014

Football great — and vineyard owner — Drew Bledsoe talks wine, onions and the weird way they intersect sometimes in Walla Walla, Washington.

More »
Comment
 
Poutine Whoppers? Why Burger King Is Bailing Out For Canada
Tuesday, Aug 26, 2014

Why is Burger King buying a Canadian coffee and doughnut chain? (We’ll give you a hint: tax rates).

More »
1 Comment