PDA

View Full Version : It was nice while it lasted....


Gilshalos Sedai
10-13-2011, 09:01 AM
Mississippi Personhood Amendment. (http://personhoodmississippi.com/amendment-26/what-it-says.aspx)


Amendment 26 - The Mississippi Personhood Amendment-- is a citizens initiative to amend the Mississippi Constitution to define personhood as beginning at fertilization or "the functional equivalent thereof." Its purpose is to protect all life, regardless of age, health, function, physical or mental dependency, or method of reproduction. The entire proposed Amendment is as follows:

Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Mississippi: SECTION 1. Article III of the constitution of the state of Mississippi is hereby amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION TO READ: Section 33. Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof." This initiative shall not require any additional revenue for implementation.

(NOTE: Please understand that the inclusion of the word cloning in the proposed Amendment does not in any way condone cloning. There will be an entire section on the web siteposted soon explaining why this wording is necessary and answering any questions.)

We the people of Mississippi were required to collect and certify 89,285 certified signatures from registered voters (equally divided throughout the state of Mississippi). We far exceeded this requirement - collecting well over 130,000 and having over 106,000 certified.

Now, in November of 2011, we have the opportunity to vote on the question. If the majortiy of the people voting in vote YES on Amendment 26, abortion will be outlawed in our state; cloning and other forms of medical cannibalism will be effectively stopped; and a challenge will be set up to Roe v Wade.

Well... it was nice to be valued beyond my womb while it lasted.

GonzoTheGreat
10-13-2011, 09:57 AM
Don't you want your nail clippings to be persons in their own right, or something? :confused:

Gilshalos Sedai
10-13-2011, 10:06 AM
While I don't quite equate a fetus to nailclippings...

I'd think that a law that broad, couched as an anit-cloning law, would be infringing on the rights of the already established/living/ADULT.

GonzoTheGreat
10-13-2011, 10:33 AM
As an adult, you have the right to remain silent. I don't quite see how this infringes on that, to be honest. Would you care to explain that to me?

Terez
10-13-2011, 10:38 AM
Mississippi Personhood Amendment. (http://personhoodmississippi.com/amendment-26/what-it-says.aspx)

...

Well... it was nice to be valued beyond my womb while it lasted.
Do you live in MS now? :eek:

;)

(This isn't surprising in the slightest. Disturbing, yes, but not surprising.)

Spidy
10-13-2011, 10:45 AM
Umm, what is "medical" cannibalism?

Gilshalos Sedai
10-13-2011, 10:49 AM
Do you live in MS now? :eek:

;)

(This isn't surprising in the slightest. Disturbing, yes, but not surprising.)

No... but I could see Texas jumping on this particular bandwagon if it gets passed. Seriously, though, doesn't this scare you?

Gilshalos Sedai
10-13-2011, 10:49 AM
Umm, what is "medical" cannibalism?

I assume the reduction of fetuses in a multiple pregnancy... the utilization of fetuses in stem-cell research... etc...

Davian93
10-13-2011, 11:27 AM
Report Card on American Education:

1. Vermont
46. Mississippi




Yeah, this is why I dont live in the South.

Crispin's Crispian
10-13-2011, 11:36 AM
Well... it was nice to be valued beyond my womb while it lasted.
Look at it this way--at least you will be retroactively valued as a person back to the functional equivalent of your conception.

DahLliA
10-13-2011, 12:45 PM
I've always wondered if they think the whole Onan-thing should be brought back too. I mean. you're killing 2 million(I think that's the average) half-persons each time.

hell. to make one person you have to sacrifice 1.999.999 half-persons.

and women will have to be constantly pregnant from the second they're able to be.

but I guess one cell isn't a person. but as soon as you smash two together ! then you're a murderer

Terez
10-13-2011, 01:19 PM
Report Card on American Education:

1. Vermont
46. Mississippi




Yeah, this is why I dont live in the South.
Well, I was born here. I watched your senator Bernie on C-SPAN yesterday, though. I even follow him on Twitter now. The way he talks makes me laugh.

Davian93
10-13-2011, 02:04 PM
Well, I was born here. I watched your senator Bernie on C-SPAN yesterday, though. I even follow him on Twitter now. The way he talks makes me laugh.

Bernie's actually a pretty smart guy...despite the accent. Only true socialist in Congress.

Res_Ipsa
10-13-2011, 02:18 PM
Bernie's actually a pretty smart guy...despite the accent. Only true socialist in Congress.

Ohh? Pray tell what substantive difference there is between Sanders and take your pick of the top Dems... before they were elected Obama and Biden had much more left voting records...



and on to Abortions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DoltiuM00TQ

Nancy Pelosi says that taxpayer money needs to go to abortions otherwise Republicans will kill women "on the floor." You can blame yourselves for this btw, so long as you advocate tax payer funded abortions you will guarantee the argument is about being put upon and requiring people to in effect pay for something they find abhorrent.

Davian93
10-13-2011, 02:39 PM
Obama is basically Center to Center Right on a traditional political scale...Bernie is actually Hard Left. Kucinich was like that too...before he got redistricted out of office.

Davian93
10-13-2011, 02:40 PM
you will guarantee the argument is about being put upon and requiring people to in effect pay for something they find abhorrent.

I find sidewalks and highways abhorrent...lets get rid of them too.

Res_Ipsa
10-13-2011, 02:41 PM
I find sidewalks and highways abhorrent...lets get rid of them too.

Is that really the best you can do? I mean that is just a laughable response. That is a gonzo response. Like it or not your main gripe is you say Republicans like to enforce their morality on you, doing the same thing here.

Davian93
10-13-2011, 02:50 PM
Is that really the best you can do? I mean that is just a laughable response. That is a gonzo response. Like it or not your main gripe is you say Republicans like to enforce their morality on you, doing the same thing here.

Sidewalks are a moral issue. It troubles me that you dont realize it. Think about how many people have heart attacks shoveling their sidewalks every year because of local ordinances that state they have to clear them within 24-48 hrs after a storm. Sidewalks are legislated murder IMHO.

Res_Ipsa
10-13-2011, 02:55 PM
Sidewalks are a moral issue. It troubles me that you dont realize it. Think about how many people have heart attacks shoveling their sidewalks every year because of local ordinances that state they have to clear them within 24-48 hrs after a storm. Sidewalks are legislated murder IMHO.

I hope you burn the next five grilled cheese you make :P

This is also interesting...

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/solyndra-funder-kaiser-paid-zero-taxes-years

I thought only Republicans were capable of cronyism? Stack this on top of Holder perjuring himself over Fast and Furious and now we have a questionable Iran assassination plot. You cant get better entertainment or subterfuge.

Davian93
10-13-2011, 02:56 PM
All politicians are capable of cronyism...its usually considered one of the perks.

Brita
10-13-2011, 03:55 PM
I hope you burn the next five grilled cheese you make :P


Dav makes his own grilled cheese? Talented guy!

Back to the OP- I am torn on the issue of abortion. It has been so polarized, that objective discourse on the subject is almost impossible. For example- do we actually know the health (both physical and mental) consequences of abortion. Has it been studied purely from a risk/benefit point of view. In other words, I believe there is possibly real and inherent risk with the procedure, but this is drowned out by the rhetoric now.

EDIT: Although a little outdated- this (http://www.deveber.org/text/whealth.html) article represents my concerns well

Mort
10-13-2011, 05:14 PM
To me it's fairly straight forward. Let every pregnant woman choose for herself what she wants. Her body, her rules.

Brita
10-13-2011, 05:36 PM
To me it's fairly straight forward. Let every pregnant woman choose for herself what she wants. Her body, her rules.

It's about a well-informed choice. Read the link and you'll see what I mean. Informed consent.

Sinistrum
10-13-2011, 06:55 PM
Well... it was nice to be valued beyond my womb while it lasted.

How does this stop us from valuing you for the other body parts we value? :p

bowlwoman
10-13-2011, 07:00 PM
No... but I could see Rick Perry jumping on this particular bandwagon if it gets passed. Seriously, though, doesn't this scare you?

Fixed.

Frenzy
10-13-2011, 08:35 PM
so long as you advocate tax payer funded abortions you will guarantee the argument is about being put upon and requiring people to in effect pay for something they find abhorrent.

Sidewalks & highways are an amusing parallel, but one i wouldn't use. i would've asked Rez if he really didn't find anything else the government paid for abhorrent. Y'know, stuff like capital punishment, PBS, nuclear bombs, FEMA trailers, the NEA, ballot book translations, etc. Because i'm sure he could find other examples of perfectly legal stuff the government pays for that are abhorrent to his tender sensitivities.

You (the royal you, not any you in particular) may say those claiming people in charge will use this law to prosecute women for utilizing certain forms of birth control or for having miscarriages are going all hyperbole on the subject, but come on. It will happen. It's Mississippi. Shit, i'm surprised they beat Kansas to the punch on this one. Or Italy, where they're currently prosecuting Seismologists for Manslaughter because they didn't predict a deadly earthquake. But that's a different thread...

Ivhon
10-13-2011, 11:41 PM
I find war abhorrent. So does my God and my Lord and Savior. And yet a HELL of a lot more of my tax dollars go to support a military which must continually engage in armed conflict to justify itself than go to abortions.

This is a key concept in our constitutional democracy. We all have to stomach some things that are abhorrent - otherwise there would be nothing.

But you guys don't really care about the constitution. You only care about it when it suits your purposes. Perfectly willing to shred it to pieces if it doesn't.

GonzoTheGreat
10-14-2011, 04:53 AM
If all tax payers stopped paying for the War on Drugs, then that'd end it, thus getting rid of something abhorrent. Would be wonderful, wouldn't it?

Terez
10-14-2011, 06:02 AM
I find war abhorrent. So does my God and my Lord and Savior.
News to me. What about all that smiting?

GonzoTheGreat
10-14-2011, 06:25 AM
News to me. What about all that smiting?I think that She got over that.

Terez
10-14-2011, 06:52 AM
Until Armageddon, eh?

Ivhon
10-14-2011, 08:21 AM
News to me. What about all that smiting?

Old Testament God. Religious Right has established clear precedent that OT God can be line-item vetoed by JC whenever convenient.

Gilshalos Sedai
10-14-2011, 04:16 PM
How does this stop us from valuing you for the other body parts we value? :p

http://www.myfacewhen.net/uploads/954-not-sure-if-serious.jpg

Gilshalos Sedai
10-14-2011, 04:17 PM
Sidewalks & highways are an amusing parallel, but one i wouldn't use. i would've asked Rez if he really didn't find anything else the government paid for abhorrent. Y'know, stuff like capital punishment, PBS, nuclear bombs, FEMA trailers, the NEA, ballot book translations, etc. Because i'm sure he could find other examples of perfectly legal stuff the government pays for that are abhorrent to his tender sensitivities.

You (the royal you, not any you in particular) may say those claiming people in charge will use this law to prosecute women for utilizing certain forms of birth control or for having miscarriages are going all hyperbole on the subject, but come on. It will happen. It's Mississippi. Shit, i'm surprised they beat Kansas to the punch on this one. Or Italy, where they're currently prosecuting Seismologists for Manslaughter because they didn't predict a deadly earthquake. But that's a different thread...

Knew I could count on you, Sis.

Frenzy
10-14-2011, 09:14 PM
This thing, if enacted, would make women criminals for using IUDs.

This thing, if enacted, condemns a woman to death if she has an ectopic pregnancy.

This thing, if enacted, could make unborn fetuses citizens of the US since they are persons. For god's sake, won't someone think of the anchor babies!

Sinistrum
10-14-2011, 09:54 PM
Nobody has a sense of humor around here anymore...

Frenzy
10-14-2011, 10:23 PM
Nobody has a sense of humor around here anymore...

sez you...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TtEpjD0oLKg/TVtRrQ6X8hI/AAAAAAAAAoI/gl6Jq5gnB2g/s1600/Boo_Bees_by_gen_chan.png

Terez
10-15-2011, 01:28 AM
I was talking to a friend of my mom's, a former councilwoman, and she doesn't think the amendment will be passed. I was incredulous; this is MS, after all.

GonzoTheGreat
10-15-2011, 04:52 AM
This thing, if enacted, would make women criminals for using IUDs.There's an easy solution, isn't there? Don't use those things.

This thing, if enacted, condemns a woman to death if she has an ectopic pregnancy.Tough.

But if she's a proper Christian, then she'll get over it.
And if she isn't, well ... the government isn't supposed to give "special rights" to other religions, is it? That's what the First Amendment is all about.

This thing, if enacted, could make unborn fetuses citizens of the US since they are persons. For god's sake, won't someone think of the anchor babies!No worries on this score. Your 14th Amendment states quite clearly "All persons born ...", so merely becoming a valid person in the USA has no bearing on becoming an actual US citizen.

Kalli
10-15-2011, 05:07 PM
Report Card on American Education:

1. Vermont
46. Mississippi




Yeah, this is why I dont live in the South.

Having been stationed in Mississippi, I am shocked it ranks that high.

Res_Ipsa
10-15-2011, 11:18 PM
Sidewalks & highways are an amusing parallel, but one i wouldn't use. i would've asked Rez if he really didn't find anything else the government paid for abhorrent. Y'know, stuff like

capital punishment - pro, because there is legitimate policy in a society judging its worst for the crimes they committed.
PBS - beats jersey shore and I do like Ken Burns docs
nuclear bombs - I am pro nuclear energy. The nukes the US did use saved many lives; while I would not say I am pro bombs (as I would not say I am pro war), I do recognize a certain value in the existence of nuclear bombs.

FEMA trailers - why trailers specifically? FEMA is one giant mess of government mismanagement, any fiscal conservative would prefer state relief as opposed to federal.

NEA Very pro arts and sciences. I would argue that promote does not mean pay people to live to paint pretty pictures as it does mean encourage through learning and education.


ballot book translations, etc. - what language we talking here? I find that being Swedish and German no one bothers to put instructions in those languages.


Because i'm sure he could find other examples of perfectly legal stuff the government pays for that are abhorrent to his tender sensitivities.

Ohh terminating human life means I have tender sensitivities? Last time I checked through meiosis every, and I do mean every single characteristic of what a human is and will be is present from conception. What you are really talking about is quality of life and I find your argument ludicrous there as well. What you are doing is rationalizing your choice to terminate life as a women's rights issue. It is really an argument about the quality of life present, and I view it that life is instilled at birth based on a scientific standard since heaven forfend we use a big m morality standard. As Reagan said, "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."

Davian93
10-15-2011, 11:21 PM
why trailers specifically? FEMA is one giant mess of government mismanagement, any fiscal conservative would prefer state relief as opposed to federal.

One of the biggest misconceptions about government agencies is the one that says that FEMA is an emergency responder and not a recovery agency. Everyone blamed FEMA after Katrina (and there were some major mistakes...the first one occurred when Dubya appointed a buddy with no disaster recovery/management experience as the head of it) but their job is the weeks to months after a disaster, not that first 3-5 days. They're aren't an emergency responder.

Res_Ipsa
10-15-2011, 11:24 PM
One of the biggest misconceptions about government agencies is the one that says that FEMA is an emergency responder and not a recovery agency. Everyone blamed FEMA after Katrina (and there were some major mistakes...the first one occurred when Dubya appointed a buddy with no disaster recovery/management experience as the head of it) but their job is the weeks to months after a disaster, not that first 3-5 days. They're aren't an emergency responder.
I did not think I was implying first responder when I said relief. But still, what specifically about FEMA trailers is bad? I much prefer to malign those credit cards that were abused the hell out of following Katrina.

Uno
10-15-2011, 11:39 PM
-"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."

Yes, that's one of those statements that sound meaningful, without actually meaning very much at all. Everyone that's against abortion has also already been born.

"It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations," to quote Churchill. He'd appreciate the irony, I'm sure.

Res_Ipsa
10-15-2011, 11:56 PM
Yes, that's one of those statements that sound meaningful, without actually meaning very much at all. Everyone that's against abortion has also already been born.
Did you think that sounded intelligent when you typed it? It isn't, but by all means enlighten us how the statement "means" very little. It is the position of the pro-life movement that life begins at conception and that a life taken to term produces the human that is pro-abortion when they hold that a fetus is not a human life. Well meiosis vindicates my point in a real and peer reviewed manner. In effect a pro-abortion argument is simply rationalizing it by controlling definitions to remove humanity from it.

"It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations," to quote Churchill. He'd appreciate the irony, I'm sure.

2/2 on a deficient argument. It is not even ironic that you misused irony.

Uno
10-15-2011, 11:59 PM
Did you think that sounded intelligent when you typed it? It isn't, but by all means enlighten us how the statement says very little. It is the position of the pro-life movement that life begins at conception and that a life taken to term produces the human that is pro-abortion when they hold that a fetus is not a human life. Well meiosis vindicates my point in a real and peer reviewed manner. In effect a pro-abortion argument is simply rationalizing it by controlling definitions to remove humanity from it.



2/2 on a deficient argument. It is not even ironic that you misused irony.

Kid, you can't get offended when people point out your silliness when you're being an insulting jerk in just about every post you make.

Res_Ipsa
10-16-2011, 12:05 AM
Kid, you can't get offended when people point out your silliness when you're being an insulting jerk in just about every post you make.


Spare me the personal attack when you cant substantively support your original comment.

You said the statement says very little and means less and you provided no support. Is that the standard you hold to? You make a statement and do not expect to be challenged. Should I just be nice and play along and say grilled cheese when you say something stupid while implying my argument is stupid?

Uno
10-16-2011, 12:11 AM
Spare me the personal attack when you cant substantively address your original comment.

You said the statement says very little and means less and you provided no support. Is that the standard you hold to? You make a statement and do not expect to be challenged. Should I just be nice and play along and say grilled cheese when you say something stupid while implying my argument is stupid?

Ok, show me one unborn person that has an opinion on the abortion issue, then. That obviously can't be done, which is what makes that quote meaningless.

At any rate, people will treat you the way you treat them. And half of the time you seem incapable of arguing without saying that the other person's points are "ludicrous"--as you did in response to Frenzy--or general variations on that theme. That's hardly a mature way to deal with other people. You may disagree with what people say, but asserting that it's stupid, ludicrous, or idiotic is just childish and accomplishes nothing. It just makes you seem like one of the many people that like to rant online.

Frenzy
10-16-2011, 12:17 AM
Ohh terminating human life means I have tender sensitivities?
yup.
Last time I checked through meiosis every, and I do mean every single characteristic of what a human is and will be is present from conception.
Yet you find no logical disconnect being pro-capitol punishment.
What you are doing is rationalizing your choice to terminate life as a women's rights issue.
and what you're doing is rationalizing government intervention into a woman's decision-making over her own body.

Uno
10-16-2011, 12:34 AM
and what you're doing is rationalizing government intervention into a woman's decision-making over her own body.

Ah, you know, some people are completely fine with government intervention as long as it's used to support opinions derived from the morality of a bronze-age religion fom the Levant.

Res_Ipsa
10-16-2011, 12:35 AM
Ok, show me one unborn person that has an opinion on the abortion issue, then. That obviously can't be done, which is what makes that quote meaningless.

The quotes intent is not to measure the subjective feelings of the aborted so I would disagree there as well. A 2month old cannot accurately express its desires/opinions other than to cry, should we not feed it, or should we just ignore it? In general, I find arguments predicated on a measuring of quality of life deficient in all regards, as it denotes a fundamental lack of respect for human life.



At any rate, people will treat you the way you treat them.

Mhm, my argument style is is combative but its not a personal attach style. It is fair to say that the typing lends a certain faux gravitas to typed words


And half of the time you seem incapable of arguing without saying that the other person's points are "ludicrous"--as you did in response to Frenzy--or general variations on that theme.


Yes, the is generally how "you" argue. You say the argument is wrong and then you say why it is wrong. Nothing wrong with saying something is ludicrous. In point of fact it was just a response to Frenzy saying... "abhorrent to his tender sensitivities" It didn't bother me, and I incorporated it into my own response.


That's hardly a mature way to deal with other people. You may disagree with what people say, but asserting that it's stupid, ludicrous, or idiotic is just childish and accomplishes nothing.


As opposed to calling me kid? It would be easier for me to say "Gramps, spare me the condescending remarks where you find some subjective standard to measure yourself superior to myself."

That is a joke by the way.

It just makes you seem like one of the many people that like to rant online.

Well, considering my "rants," such as they are, encourage a reasoned approach it is less ranting and more an argument. I fall into the Scalia approach in that regard; it can be off-putting.


Regardless, it seems like that is more of an issue of why do people post anything on the internet when there is not a chance in hell it changes anyone's mind? I am going w/ cathartic benefits.

yup.
And FEMA trailers?

Yet you find no logical disconnect being pro-capitol punishment. A murderer made their choice, if there was not punishment for a malum in se/ malum prohibitum choice made, then you would have a non-functioning government/society. Executing a convicted murderer is not a subjective standard of "we think your life is not worth living." It is an objective standard of a group (society) sitting in judgment of an action that caused a serious harm.

and what you're doing is rationalizing government intervention into a woman's decision-making over her own body.
There is a difference between decision making and encouraging/ protecting the practice; considering we fund Planned Parenthood whose founder thought thought abortion was an excellent tool to keep the dark people from breeding, yeah Margaret Sanger is a very well quoted nut-job. Plus, I fall into a school of thinking if you make a mistake you still raise the child.

Uno
10-16-2011, 12:41 AM
As opposed to calling me kid? It would be easier for me to say "Gramps, spare me the condescending remarks where you find some subjective standard to measure yourself superior to myself."


"Act like a kid, get treated like a kid," they said in my day. As to your other rationalizations, you come across as impolite, and that bugs me. Maybe it's a generational thing, but there used to be such a thing as style.

Sinistrum
10-16-2011, 02:28 AM
Um, hoorah for Boo Bees?

Davian93
10-17-2011, 08:50 AM
I did not think I was implying first responder when I said relief. But still, what specifically about FEMA trailers is bad? I much prefer to malign those credit cards that were abused the hell out of following Katrina.

The only thing bad about the FEMA trailers is that they went to waste for the most part as the refugees from Katrina were too good to live in them...they wanted a better free home I guess. My point was just to refute the very common complaint about FEMA that they didn't do enough in the first couple days after the disaster when that's simply not their mission or specialty. That's why we have the Red Cross, Coast Guard and other SAR teams...FEMA is a recovery op organization and they are damn good at what they do. I do and am very knowledgeable on emergency planning/contingency operations and the FEMA guys I deal with are awesome at what they do. Another big problem with Katrina in particular was the absolutely corrupt and incompetent local authorities ~looks at the honorable Mayor Nagin~ that refused to allow the Feds to do their job and basically pocketed emergency funding made available when a disaster zone was declared (something that cannot occur until it has been requested by said local authorities). All the people that died in Katrina can look at their local politicians for the reason.

Gilshalos Sedai
10-17-2011, 09:50 AM
The only thing bad about the FEMA trailers is that they went to waste for the most part as the refugees from Katrina were too good to live in them...they wanted a better free home I guess. My point was just to refute the very common complaint about FEMA that they didn't do enough in the first couple days after the disaster when that's simply not their mission or specialty. That's why we have the Red Cross, Coast Guard and other SAR teams...FEMA is a recovery op organization and they are damn good at what they do. I do and am very knowledgeable on emergency planning/contingency operations and the FEMA guys I deal with are awesome at what they do. Another big problem with Katrina in particular was the absolutely corrupt and incompetent local authorities ~looks at the honorable Mayor Nagin~ that refused to allow the Feds to do their job and basically pocketed emergency funding made available when a disaster zone was declared (something that cannot occur until it has been requested by said local authorities). All the people that died in Katrina can look at their local politicians for the reason.

Uh... let's not get started on the FEMA trailers, Dav. It's not that they were too good to live in them, most of those trailers were unlivable.


As for the pro-life/pro-choice bullshit... I'd like to point out that in my experience, a great many people claim to be pro-life until they're confronted with an unexpected pregnancy they can't support, nor afford. And I don't see all these pro-life people lining up to adopt babies, or make adoptions easier/cheaper for people like me.

This law has one purpose. And it's not to protect the unborn.

Davian93
10-17-2011, 09:53 AM
Uh... let's not get started on the FEMA trailers, Dav. It's not that they were too good to live in them, most of those trailers were unlivable.


As for the pro-life/pro-choice bullshit... I'd like to point out that in my experience, a great many people claim to be pro-life until they're confronted with an unexpected pregnancy they can't support, nor afford. And I don't see all these pro-life people lining up to adopt babies, or make adoptions easier/cheaper for people like me.

This law has one purpose. And it's not to protect the unborn.


They were designed to be basically an upgraded tent for temporary living (a few weeks to months), not long term housing. Overall, they did and do what they are designed to do. Part of the reason there were complaints is that the inhabitents basically sh!t all over them and didnt give a damn about them...because they were free.

Terez
10-24-2011, 12:05 AM
By the way, even many of the local conservatives seem to be against the amendment. See, for example, this letter to the editor (http://www.sunherald.com/2011/10/22/3523533/initiative-26-is-wrong-approach.html) for the local paper. Usually anything liberal-leaning in the Sun Herald letters brings on a swarm of wingnuts, and you don't see that here. There was a meeting of people discussing our initiatives (this one, and another one dealing with eminent domain abuse) before the Occupy GA tonight at the local liberal meetinghouse, and most seem hopeful that it won't be passed. We'll see.

Frenzy
10-31-2011, 04:45 AM
The local rag has an editorial (http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_19210195)about this amendment.

The Personhood Amendment effectively will make it illegal for doctors to save women whose pregnancies threaten their lives.
Have an ectopic pregnancy (which aren't that uncommon), have a death sentence. Won't it be lovely when the condemned woman sues the state for murdering her?

Similar measures are being considered in six other states, including Nevada.
What. The. Fuck!

GonzoTheGreat
10-31-2011, 05:32 AM
Have an ectopic pregnancy (which aren't that uncommon), have a death sentence. Won't it be lovely when the condemned woman sues the state for murdering her?What's the problem? Plainly she would be guilty, so she would get the death sentence. Plainly the state would be guilty too, so all inhabitants of Mississippi would get the death penalty too. After that, the whole problem would be gone. Neat, quick, and the only real problem is that you'd have to import laborers to dig a lot of graves, but that would just be a one time job.

Gilshalos Sedai
10-31-2011, 12:14 PM
By the way, even many of the local conservatives seem to be against the amendment. See, for example, this letter to the editor (http://www.sunherald.com/2011/10/22/3523533/initiative-26-is-wrong-approach.html) for the local paper. Usually anything liberal-leaning in the Sun Herald letters brings on a swarm of wingnuts, and you don't see that here. There was a meeting of people discussing our initiatives (this one, and another one dealing with eminent domain abuse) before the Occupy GA tonight at the local liberal meetinghouse, and most seem hopeful that it won't be passed. We'll see.

I really hope its... aborted.

ShadowbaneX
10-31-2011, 01:07 PM
I really hope its... aborted.
this needs a Doctor Evil image attached to it.

Sukoto
10-31-2011, 03:32 PM
I just wanted to point out, as I'm sure it has been already, that the proposed Mississippi law is very much above and beyond the stance of most conservative, pro-life voters. The most common stance is that abortion should be illegal EXCEPT in cases of rape, incest and when the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy.

GonzoTheGreat
11-01-2011, 04:36 AM
I just wanted to point out, as I'm sure it has been already, that the proposed Mississippi law is very much above and beyond the stance of most conservative, pro-life voters. The most common stance is that abortion should be illegal EXCEPT in cases of rape, incest and when the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy.Is that a prediction that this proposal will be rejected by an overwhelming majority of voters?

Cause if they do approve it, then no matter how liberal they're trying to sound, the reality would then still be that they support all the implications of this far reaching law.

Terez
11-01-2011, 06:37 AM
We'll find out next week. Fortunately, most of the uberignorant Mississippians don't vote.

Gilshalos Sedai
11-01-2011, 04:32 PM
We'll find out next week. Fortunately, most of the uberignorant Mississippians don't vote.

Thank god for small favors.

Terez
11-01-2011, 05:18 PM
I found a more or less central location for comments. Some are depressing, and many of the nays miss the point, but it seems both sides get about equal attention:

http://www.sos.ms.gov/page.aspx?s=7&s1=1&s2=84

Gilshalos Sedai
11-01-2011, 05:33 PM
Do I have to read the minutes of each meeting to get the comments?

Terez
11-01-2011, 07:18 PM
No, click on the link, then under Initiative 26, it says 'click to read comments'.

Terez
11-01-2011, 07:57 PM
I just submitted a comment, though it might not show up for a few days.

Sometimes I think that a lot of pro-life folks don't realize how many pro-choice folks actually sympathize with their position at its moral core (though we tend to differ on where the line should be drawn). I think that all of us would like to prevent abortions as much as possible. In the meantime, we have to find a reasonable balance between science and sentiment, and unconstitutional laws with far-reaching implications including massive public funds spent in defense of said legislation is simply not the smart way to go about it.

How about we start by spending that hypothetical money instead on making birth control easily accessible to adult women who cannot afford it? History and current statistics show that the war we are waging to enforce religious sexual morality just isn't working, and probably never will work. It's especially not working in MS, where teen pregnancy rates are one of the few prizes we regularly take home as a state. Abysmal education is another we compete for. We raise our children with an illogical ideological stranglehold and blame the Devil when they stray rather than blaming ourselves.

I think that the pro-life folks would be amazed at the level of cooperation that could be achieved with pro-choice folks if there were actually some attempt to educate our children on the consequences of sex rather than the evils of it, if there were some attempt to arm the most desperate of individuals with the means to prevent pregnancy, rather than shaming them for their sins. In a world where statistics show that education creates more liberal minds, and science lures more and more of our youth to leave organized religion behind, perhaps it's time to examine morality on its own terms, rather than on the narrow terms of a religion we no longer all share (and our diverse interpretations of that religion are, of course, an age-old tradition).

Vote no on 26 because it's the smart thing to do, and despite the glossy cover that appeals to those who would prevent abortions, it's also the right thing to do. Once we vote it down, perhaps we can make an effort to prevent abortions together. If we don't vote it down, then our state officials will be very busy in the years to come, accomplishing even less than usual.
I hate being pompous, but it seems to be required for this sort of thing.

Res_Ipsa
11-01-2011, 08:50 PM
I think that all of us would like to prevent abortions as much as possible.

So you, and everyone who are pro-choice say . . . I don't see any results to that effect. When I was a child, I learned that fire burns by putting my hand in the fire, rarely do people learn without making mistakes.

In the meantime, we have to find a reasonable balance between science and sentiment,

Ok, what is your definition of life? Viability is the most subjective and arbitrary definition there is. (Is a one week old baby a viable lifeform? Not on its own) I can take a Zygote, put it in an artificial womb and it will become a fetus. If you are a post birth human and you are in a coma, the criteria for life is electrical impulse and response, for a fetus that occurs at 5 weeks. When do most women know they are pregnant? 4-5 weeks? If you ascribe to the non religious aspect that science rules, what criteria do you judge that by? Last time I checked, if there is nothing special about humans, then it is only the base potential that matters, and all of that is present from conception. It is easy for you to retreat from this point, but what scientific standard means that life is not present at conception?

and unconstitutional laws with far-reaching implications including massive public funds spent in defense of said legislation is simply not the smart way to go about it.

As opposed to far reaching laws with massive public funding (Planned Parenthood?) that create a Constitutional issue where there is not one. That is what I find hilarious, to you on the left, you like the Constitution when it fits your argument and otherwise ignore it. Its ludicrous how much lip service you pay to it.

How about we start by spending that hypothetical money instead on making birth control easily accessible to adult women who cannot afford it?

Why should the taxpayer pay to make birth control affordable? It serves no purpose other than population control that the crazies of the green movement follow. (their argument is that all of the brown and yellow people breed too much and we need population control)

History and current statistics show that the war we are waging to enforce religious sexual morality just isn't working, and probably never will work.

How is preserving life the equivalent of enforcing sexual morality? Despite your odd ball denominations within the Christian faith, sex and reproduction are highly encouraged. I have no idea about the other major religions.


It's especially not working in MS, where teen pregnancy rates are one of the few prizes we regularly take home as a state.

Remember those violence vs sex arguments? Your position was you just could not see how sexuality was every harmful. You seem to have contradictory opinions.



Abysmal education is another we compete for. We raise our children with an illogical ideological stranglehold and blame the Devil when they stray rather than blaming ourselves.

Ok, name the development of a governmental system that grew up devoid of all religion and had a verifiable moral standard. What your comment sounds like is every other Richard Dawkins argument that there must be a guilt trip associated with religion. I am personally very grateful for the moral upbringing of my parents who raised me in the Christian faith. And you can thank your movement for bad education, your side insists that everyone have a "fair shot", and that the playing field be even. Instead you artificially lower and throw money at failing schools.

I think that the pro-life folks would be amazed at the level of cooperation that could be achieved with pro-choice folks if there were actually some attempt to educate our children on the consequences of sex rather than the evils of it,

And yet you encourage sex without responsibility by making condoms, STD tests, readily available and for little to no cost. Colleges give out free condoms, how is that encouraging education? Speaking of education, that is another fib of the left. People make choices, and many find it all too easy to engage in sex without thinking of the consequences. I doubt you could find a teenager that was not aware of the consequences of sex.


if there were some attempt to arm the most desperate of individuals with the means to prevent pregnancy, rather than shaming them for their sins.

You know, my best friend had a son, my godson, out of marriage. Some shunned him because of it, others did not. You are mistaking terms, shame is healthy. When a person does something wrong, they feel ashamed. I cursed in front of my grandmother once and I felt ashamed. I like having a pesky conscious.


In a world where statistics show that education creates more liberal minds, and science lures more and more of our youth to leave organized religion behind, perhaps it's time to examine morality on its own terms, rather than on the narrow terms of a religion we no longer all share (and our diverse interpretations of that religion are, of course, an age-old tradition).

You can spare us all the silliness of that statement; some of the most advanced thinkers of any period were heavily influenced by their faith. The Catholic Church preserved and sponsored the arts and sciences during the dark ages.

But for arguments sake? Where does this new "morality" come from? Do not kill, steal, rape, hurt others, etc . . . all come from religious teachings. The modern trend of socialist governments consuming the church has created some of the worst human rights violations. For better or worse, societal development has coincided with religion.


Vote no on 26 because it's the smart thing to do, and despite the glossy cover that appeals to those who would prevent abortions, it's also the right thing to do. Once we vote it down, perhaps we can make an effort to prevent abortions together.

That is disingenuous at best. You say sex is to be encouraged and people should feel sexually free and unencumbered . . . follow your logic, that does not lead to less abortions.

If we don't vote it down, then our state officials will be very busy in the years to come, accomplishing even less than usual.

I doubt that.

I hate being pompous, but it seems to be required for this sort of thing.

Meh.


And I have not read the bill, does the bill say it would be illegal for a doctor to perform a life saving surgery to terminate a potentially deadly pregnancy? Otherwise, the ectopic pregnancy argument is the same bait and switch of "rape, incest, and dangerous pregnancy" argument.

Bryan Blaire
11-01-2011, 09:41 PM
Avoiding a huge post because I'm getting tired of quoting and having 8 windows to move between on my phone...

This is legislation of a moral view based on a religious viewpoint. It is no different than the legislation of taxation to support the less monetarily endowed using the justification of Christianity. Supporting a pro-life legislation in this instance on the moral grounds of Christianity should, if you follow the tenets of the faith, be coupled with the legislation of a true sacrificial offering of wealth to support your neighbors. Let's not be hypocritical Christians here. In the same vein, you'd also need to stop supporting the death penalty, as that also violates a tenet of the faith.

I have more respect for the supposed "godless" Socialists in this regard. At least they don't claim to be following a religion that says very specific things and then violating them when they aren't convenient.

Maybe we that are Christians could actually be Christians And start loving our neighbors as we love ourselves and recognize that others may need help and not look down at everyone all the time and lower our level of judgementalness and hypocrisy that seem to inherent in modern Christianity and the religious Right.

Gilshalos Sedai
11-01-2011, 09:48 PM
I just submitted a comment, though it might not show up for a few days.


I hate being pompous, but it seems to be required for this sort of thing.

Well said.

I didn't find it pompous.

Gilshalos Sedai
11-01-2011, 09:48 PM
And I have not read the bill, does the bill say it would be illegal for a doctor to perform a life saving surgery to terminate a potentially deadly pregnancy? Otherwise, the ectopic pregnancy argument is the same bait and switch of "rape, incest, and dangerous pregnancy" argument.

Yes, actually, it does. So perhaps you should read it.

Frenzy
11-02-2011, 03:28 AM
So you, and everyone who are pro-choice say . . . I don't see any results to that effect.
Look harder.
When I was a child, I learned that fire burns by putting my hand in the fire, rarely do people learn without making mistakes.
not all of us are that stupid... i mean that determined to learn the hard way.
Ok, what is your definition of life?
42
Viability is the most subjective and arbitrary definition there is.
It used to be at the quickening. Not the Highlander kind.
(Is a one week old baby a viable lifeform? Not on its own) I can take a Zygote, put it in an artificial womb and it will become a fetus.
Oh you could, eh? Whip out an artificial womb and prove it. Otherwise come up with a definition that doesn't devalue one life over another.
If you are a post birth human and you are in a coma, the criteria for life is electrical impulse and response, for a fetus that occurs at 5 weeks.
Oooh nice straw man. The Law in my state also states that a woman can legally surrender a baby without repercussion. So whip out that artificial womb and let her exercise her legal right. Oh wait...
When do most women know they are pregnant? 4-5 weeks?
When does a woman cease becoming someone who can make medical decisions about her own body and become a walking incubator? Why is it elected men in suits, or ordained in funky collars or big hats, are better equipped to make decisions for her?
If you ascribe to the non religious aspect that science rules, what criteria do you judge that by? Last time I checked, if there is nothing special about humans, then it is only the base potential that matters, and all of that is present from conception. It is easy for you to retreat from this point, but what scientific standard means that life is not present at conception?
Since you ascribe to, or at least advocate, a religious basis for law and morality, what standard do you use to value the unborn baby's life over the woman's?

Why wouldn't the government forcing said woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term be considered a violation of the first eleven words of the Fourth amendment, or deprived of liberty under the Fifth?
That is what I find hilarious, to you on the left, you like the Constitution when it fits your argument and otherwise ignore it. Its ludicrous how much lip service you pay to it.
The Constitution is only a tool of the right. Got it.
Why should the taxpayer pay to make birth control affordable?
Why should the taxpayer pay for any medical care? Why single out birth control?
It serves no purpose other than population control that the crazies of the green movement follow.
Case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut)law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenstadt_v._Baird)would say otherwise.
(their argument is that all of the brown and yellow people breed too much and we need population control)
Evidence?
You seem to have contradictory opinions.
Says the pro-lifer pro-capitol punishment guy. Pot, meet kettle.
Ok, name the development of a governmental system that grew up devoid of all religion and had a verifiable moral standard.
The Clean Water Act. The Clean Air Act. CERCLA.
What your comment sounds like is every other Richard Dawkins argument that there must be a guilt trip associated with religion.
That's the guy who hosted Family Feud, right? Wow, irony.
I am personally very grateful for the moral upbringing of my parents who raised me in the Christian faith. And you can thank your movement for bad education, your side insists that everyone have a "fair shot", and that the playing field be even. Instead you artificially lower and throw money at failing schools.
Wow. Even with commas that paragraph made absolutely no sense. Maybe punctuation isn't your problem.
And yet you encourage sex without responsibility by making condoms, STD tests, readily available and for little to no cost.
Wow, terez does all that? Awesome!! I'll let her defend her own stance, when she's not busy providing low-cost condoms & STD tests.
Colleges give out free condoms, how is that encouraging education? Speaking of education, that is another fib of the left. People make choices, and many find it all too easy to engage in sex without thinking of the consequences. I doubt you could find a teenager that was not aware of the consequences of sex.
Says the guy who had to put his hand in the fire to learn that it burns.
You know, my best friend had a son, my godson, out of marriage. Some shunned him because of it, others did not.
You know, my mother had a son, my older brother, via sex out of wedlock. Some shunned her because of it, others shamed her. Scorned her. The group that shamed her? Her catholic family members. The ones that shunned her? My father's athiest (now baptist) family. They wanted her to have an abortion. This was in the 60's when things were a hell of a lot different than they are when your friend encountered the same situation.

Yet i fail to see what either sob story adds to the conversation.

You are mistaking terms, shame is healthy. When a person does something wrong, they feel ashamed.
Shame is not a preventative tool.
I cursed in front of my grandmother once and I felt ashamed. I like having a pesky conscious.
Having a potty mouth in front of granny is akin to getting or getting someone knocked up. Got it.
You can spare us all the silliness of that statement; some of the most advanced thinkers of any period were heavily influenced by their faith.
Or their education. Or their upbringing. Or by whatever social norm their brain patterns were set with. It isn't limited to faith, though faithless morality is a relatively new concept. Probably why it's so hard for some to swallow.
The Catholic Church preserved and sponsored the arts and sciences during the dark ages.
i thought it was Islam that did that & kept fighting the good artsy fight while Europe floundered for a thousand years. But i could be wrong; history has never been my best subject. Plus most American history doesn't really teach much about Islam from the 7th century to the 16th. But i digress.
But for arguments sake? Where does this new "morality" come from? Do not kill, steal, rape, hurt others, etc . . . all come from religious teachings. The modern trend of socialist governments consuming the church has created some of the worst human rights violations. For better or worse, societal development has coincided with religion.
So you think the only reason people can behave is because a voice in the clouds tells them to? That faith is the only driver to a moral society? Or are you justifying your own faith at the expense of those who choose not to have any.

and i though my faith in humanity was in the shitter.
That is disingenuous at best. You say sex is to be encouraged and people should feel sexually free and unencumbered . . . follow your logic, that does not lead to less abortions.
No, only protected sex leads to less abortions. Or a Cylon attack. Whichever's easier.
I doubt that.
you'd be surprised
And I have not read the bill, does the bill say it would be illegal for a doctor to perform a life saving surgery to terminate a potentially deadly pregnancy? Otherwise, the ectopic pregnancy argument is the same bait and switch of "rape, incest, and dangerous pregnancy" argument.
Do your own damn research. Yes, it would change the constitution to make it illegal to terminate a pregnancy for any reason because it is unlawful to kill a person. period. maybe even exclamation point.

Cor Shan
11-02-2011, 03:46 AM
Rarely have I seen someone get so thoroughly and truly owned.

Terez
11-02-2011, 05:06 AM
Wow, terez does all that? Awesome!! I'll let her defend her own stance, when she's not busy providing low-cost condoms & STD tests.
If only I had a say on how that hypothetical money was spent...as it is, I've done my best by managing to not get pregnant (which I keep getting better and better at as the years go on). For that I'll thank my mom, who got pregnant with her first when she was 15 and lectured me accordingly from well before menarche. (I was the third, when she was 21.) And Waffle House. I wonder if anyone has ever done a proper scientific study on teen pregnancy among WH employees.

Rarely have I seen someone get so thoroughly and truly owned.
I'm glad she was in the mood.

GonzoTheGreat
11-02-2011, 06:02 AM
Do your own damn research. Yes, it would change the constitution to make it illegal to terminate a pregnancy for any reason because it is unlawful to kill a person. period. maybe even exclamation point.Except of course in the "right to murder" states, also known as "states with the death penalty".

But hey, if you're accused of a crime, then you automatically lose your right to be considered a person, so killing those is not as bad as having a miscarriage.

Cor Shan
11-02-2011, 06:09 AM
Unless you were convicted in a miscarriage of justice.

Or is that one of those things where they just happen to have the same word?:confused:

Terez
11-02-2011, 06:20 AM
This law would allow manslaughter charges for any type of miscarriage, presumably. Especially if it can be demonstrated that the woman has some or another unhealthy habit.

Zombie Sammael
11-02-2011, 06:57 AM
This law would allow manslaughter charges for any type of miscarriage, presumably. Especially if it can be demonstrated that the woman has some or another unhealthy habit.

What if the woman has a predilection for dancing, dances while pregnant, and falls over, leading to a miscarriage?

And that's why this law is nuts.

GonzoTheGreat
11-02-2011, 07:11 AM
What if the woman has a predilection for dancing, dances while pregnant, and falls over, leading to a miscarriage?In that case, the woman, her dance partner, the DJ, her dancing teacher, and McDonalds* would all be charged with conspiracy to murder.

* They get sued always, so I can't leave them out here.

Zombie Sammael
11-02-2011, 07:15 AM
In that case, the woman, her dance partner, the DJ, her dancing teacher, and McDonalds* would all be charged with conspiracy to murder.

* They get sued always, so I can't leave them out here.

I am opposed to any law that would criminalise dancing, in any form.

GonzoTheGreat
11-02-2011, 07:22 AM
I am opposed to any law that would criminalise dancing, in any form.Obviously, you're an enemy of religion. Since the 1st Amendment provides freedom of religion (but not, quite explicitly, freedom from religion) and since some religions disallow dancing, it is obvious that dancing should be outlawed in the USA. The fact that it isn't, yet, is purely because of the perfidious influence of the liberal left wing media.

Ivhon
11-02-2011, 08:23 AM
Avoiding a huge post because I'm getting tired of quoting and having 8 windows to move between on my phone...

This is legislation of a moral view based on a religious viewpoint. It is no different than the legislation of taxation to support the less monetarily endowed using the justification of Christianity. Supporting a pro-life legislation in this instance on the moral grounds of Christianity should, if you follow the tenets of the faith, be coupled with the legislation of a true sacrificial offering of wealth to support your neighbors. Let's not be hypocritical Christians here. In the same vein, you'd also need to stop supporting the death penalty, as that also violates a tenet of the faith.

I have more respect for the supposed "godless" Socialists in this regard. At least they don't claim to be following a religion that says very specific things and then violating them when they aren't convenient.

Maybe we that are Christians could actually be Christians And start loving our neighbors as we love ourselves and recognize that others may need help and not look down at everyone all the time and lower our level of judgementalness and hypocrisy that seem to inherent in modern Christianity and the religious Right.

Dav, bring Bryan back, please. Halloween is over. ;)

Davian93
11-02-2011, 08:50 AM
As opposed to far reaching laws with massive public funding (Planned Parenthood?) that create a Constitutional issue where there is not one. That is what I find hilarious, to you on the left, you like the Constitution when it fits your argument and otherwise ignore it. Its ludicrous how much lip service you pay to it.


You might want to look up PP's actual budget first...

They have a total budget of around $1 billion of which 1/3 is federal funding. Of that 1/3, none of it can legally be used for evil, evil abortions.

Of course, I agree that the poor and uninsured should not have access to STD treatment, prevention and screening. They should also not get any medical treatment for breast and prostate cancer as these things are morally wrong.

I mean, honestly, if they didnt want to get any diseases or cancer, why did they decide to be poor?


I'm pretty sure Frenzy covered the rest of the points quite well.

Fun Fact: 97% of Planned Parenthood appointments have NOTHING to do with abortions. 35% of visits are to obtain birth control (usually various versions of the pill and other female birth control measures). 75% of patients have an income level at or below 150% of the federal poverty rate (IE, they're POOR). 35% of visits are for STD treatment, 16% are for cancer screenings, 10% are for pregnancy consults and appointments, 3% are for abortions and 1% are for other.

So basically, if you are against Planned Parenthood, you are actively hoping that poor women (and men in cases of STDs and prostate/testicular cancers) get knocked up, dont have medical treatment for cancer and STDs and if they do get knocked up, you hope they get ZERO medical treatment during the pregnancy.


Ahh...true "Christianity" there.



EDIT: Planned Parenthood, signed into law in 1970 by Richard Nixon. Fvcking Liberal RINO Nixon strikes again. First the damn EPA and now this!

Davian93
11-02-2011, 09:01 AM
Actual Jesus:

http://purechristians.org/images/JesusHealsGirl.JPG

Republican Jesus:

http://www.lolreligion.com/sites/default/files/republican-jesus.jpg?1305433300

Ivhon
11-02-2011, 09:13 AM
Actual Jesus:

http://purechristians.org/images/JesusHealsGirl.JPG


Sad thing is how hard it is to find an image of a Semitic Jesus doing good deeds.

Davian93
11-02-2011, 09:16 AM
Sad thing is how hard it is to find an image of a Semitic Jesus doing good deeds.

This is true.

Zombie Sammael
11-02-2011, 09:17 AM
Actual Jesus:

http://purechristians.org/images/JesusHealsGirl.JPG

Wasn't actual Jesus black?

Davian93
11-02-2011, 09:19 AM
Wasn't actual Jesus black?

Like Ivhon said, its nearly impossible to find a Semitic Jesus doing a good deed. He likely wasn;t black but was rather dark hair, dark eyed with darker olivey skin as he would have been of Semitic stock.

Bryan Blaire
11-02-2011, 09:55 AM
Dav, bring Bryan back, please. Halloween is over. ;)

LOL

I'm just tired of seeing people take a hard line stance on legislation on just a single piece of Christian tenets, but want to leave out all the others. To me, to avoid being hypocritical as much as possible (and I don't think it is really possible, everyone is a little bit hypocritical about something, just like Everyone's a little bit racist (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCcQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dx9C Snlb-ymA&ei=kEexTtKyKc6rsALZ7tzDAQ&usg=AFQjCNFySzq_0TbPOtT2_xLBjWSwmh-WFg) - and that link is a pain in the ass to post from a phone, so I hope the damned thing worked), the stance on legislating Christian ideals should be an all or nothing proposition. Personally, I'm trying to take a "nothing" approach and just let people make their own decisions, after all, their religious life is only answerable for by them anyway (no, this doesn't mean I think we should let anybody kill or steal from anybody, Gonzo). If you don't think the gov't can do a good job dealing feeding, clothing and housing people, then why assume that they are going to do a good job of regulating life choices at all? Now, this doesn't mean that I'm personally going to jump up and champion a bunch of things, as I said, I'd much rather most of the moral stuff just be dealt with by people individually, but I also think that would require a lot more people that term themselves Christians actually acting like they should. It's less about needing to be open-minded and more about being a person supposedly dedicated to actually following the person you feel was the savior, and most of his teachings are found exclusively in 5 books in the Bible, not the Old Testament and not all of Paul's letters that came afterward (which hold some good information, but it must be sifted and filtered based on Christ's teachings, not those of a priest/pastor 2K+ years later, they are not themselves gospels).

yks 6nnetu hing
11-02-2011, 10:01 AM
in order to avoid hypocricy, ethical and moral laws should not be implemented (or proposed/defended) based on a religious tenet

I quite agree. While some religious ideas are very ethical indeed, they sometimes quite heavily contradict other religious ideas. Of the same religion.

Bryan Blaire
11-02-2011, 10:10 AM
I quite agree. While some religious ideas are very ethical indeed, they sometimes quite heavily contradict other religious ideas. Of the same religion.

I think that depends on one's understanding of the religion most of the time. There seem to be a lot more Christians that have not read the Bible for themselves or understand the context of the material than there are those that truly study it and it's context, as well as the history to put it all into perspective and truly think about the teachings, rather than the literal words or just following what a priest/pastor says or what pundits/politicians say about religion (because you know, everyone can trust any of those guys, regardless of party affiliation, to be a good voice for religion/morals).

Davian93
11-02-2011, 10:11 AM
I think that depends on one's understanding of the religion most of the time. There seem to be a lot more Christians that have not read the Bible for themselves or understand the context of the material than there are those that truly study it and it's context, as well as the history to put it all into perspective and truly think about the teachings, rather than the literal words or just following what a priest/pastor says or what pundits/politicians say about religion (because you know, everyone can trust any of those guys, regardless of party affiliation, to be a good voice for religion/morals).


In their defense, its like really long with lots of preachy stuff in it.

GonzoTheGreat
11-02-2011, 10:11 AM
Personally, I'm trying to take a "nothing" approach and just let people make their own decisions, after all, their religious life is only answerable for by them anyway (no, this doesn't mean I think we should let anybody kill or steal from anybody, Gonzo).No worries, the "no killing and no stealing" rules have solid secular reasons behind them; they are not at all founded in Christianity, let alone in Judaism (which is, after all, just an excuse for a genocidal landgrab). So I would not fault you for being a humanitarian.

Gilshalos Sedai
11-02-2011, 10:12 AM
LOL

I'm just tired of seeing people take a hard line stance on legislation on just a single piece of Christian tenets, but want to leave out all the others. To me, to avoid being hypocritical as much as possible (and I don't think it is really possible, everyone is a little bit hypocritical about something, just like Everyone's a little bit racist (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCcQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dx9C Snlb-ymA&ei=kEexTtKyKc6rsALZ7tzDAQ&usg=AFQjCNFySzq_0TbPOtT2_xLBjWSwmh-WFg) - and that link is a pain in the ass to post from a phone, so I hope the damned thing worked), the stance on legislating Christian ideals should be an all or nothing proposition. Personally, I'm trying to take a "nothing" approach and just let people make their own decisions, after all, their religious life is only answerable for by them anyway (no, this doesn't mean I think we should let anybody kill or steal from anybody, Gonzo). If you don't think the gov't can do a good job dealing feeding, clothing and housing people, then why assume that they are going to do a good job of regulating life choices at all? Now, this doesn't mean that I'm personally going to jump up and champion a bunch of things, as I said, I'd much rather most of the moral stuff just be dealt with by people individually, but I also think that would require a lot more people that term themselves Christians actually acting like they should. It's less about needing to be open-minded and more about being a person supposedly dedicated to actually following the person you feel was the savior, and most of his teachings are found exclusively in 5 books in the Bible, not the Old Testament and not all of Paul's letters that came afterward (which hold some good information, but it must be sifted and filtered based on Christ's teachings, not those of a priest/pastor 2K+ years later, they are not themselves gospels).

Yes, dear, the link worked. Your iPhone-fu is masterful.

Thank you for saying all of that.

yks 6nnetu hing
11-02-2011, 10:15 AM
I think that depends on one's understanding of the religion most of the time. There seem to be a lot more Christians that have not read the Bible for themselves or understand the context of the material than there are those that truly study it and it's context, as well as the history to put it all into perspective and truly think about the teachings, rather than the literal words or just following what a priest/pastor says or what pundits/politicians say about religion (because you know, everyone can trust any of those guys, regardless of party affiliation, to be a good voice for religion/morals).

eh. Even though I classify myself as an agnostic, and grew up in a country that has the highest percentage of atheists in the world (except for China. But there they don't have a choice about it) - the society itself was very much influenced by protestant (=Lutheran) views. In my opinion the same should apply to politicians as preachers: you can listen to them, sure. But don't follow blindly without reading the source material and interpreting it for yourself.

to follow up with an Estonian proverb: where you see a mistake to condemn, come and help mend!

Crispin's Crispian
11-02-2011, 12:36 PM
I am opposed to any law that would criminalise dancing, in any form.

Kick off your Sunday shoes.

http://www.leadcastingcall.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/footloose1.jpg

The Unreasoner
11-02-2011, 08:11 PM
Judaism (which is, after all, just an excuse for a genocidal landgrab).
...
Hmm.

Just curious, what is the most commonly accepted 'ideal outcome' for pro-choice advocates? (including the rights of the sperm donor: does he have to pay child support?)

Gilshalos Sedai
11-02-2011, 08:19 PM
...
Hmm.

Just curious, what is the most commonly accepted 'ideal outcome' for pro-choice advocates? (including the rights of the sperm donor: does he have to pay child support?)

Not sure what you're asking.

GonzoTheGreat
11-03-2011, 06:12 AM
...
Hmm.Don't worry, there's plenty of other excuses used throughout history (or in the future, for that matter) for genocidal land grabs. So Judaism is by no means exceptional in this.

Just curious, what is the most commonly accepted 'ideal outcome' for pro-choice advocates? (including the rights of the sperm donor: does he have to pay child support?)Depends.
Which, I suspect, isn't really all that clarifying, but it is most definitely the best that can be done with such a loosely defined question.

For starters: not all sperm donors really consider having to pay child support "a right".

But if you want a really definitive answer, then I can give you one nonetheless: the ideal outcome would be that no woman ever again thinks that having an abortion is the best option available to her.
That's utterly unrealistic, of course. For instance, there is no reason at all to think that within the next 4 hours (estimate of the time before you read this, may not be wholly accurate) a way will be found to prevent all medical complications which could theoretically necessitate abortion.

Res_Ipsa
11-03-2011, 12:42 PM
So I have been busy, sorry I did not get to come out and play sooner :)

Yes, actually, it does. So perhaps you should read it.

Ahh the devil in me, the same as Daniel Webster. It was a bit of a trick question. It is a constitutional amendment as a ballot measure that changes the state const. to term life at conception. Not a bill that would define what you can and cannot do.

So . . . what you are doing, is reading into the potentially many effects the change might have and assuming an outcome that is consistent with every other hysterical reader of law. So, when const. are amended, they are expected to be challenged, clarified, explained, and many other lower level statutes and ordinances are expected to go up and further define. While all of this is going on, the interested parties can challenge the law, and courts will decide the appropriate remedy, (not just state courts either) and this is how every law works. They are intended to be fleshed out and cut away.

You and frenzy sure laid on the histrionics :P

Look harder.

Yep, still not seeing it.

not all of us are that stupid... i mean that determined to learn the hard way.

So you are the one human who has never learned anything the hard way. Gotcha.

42

If you want to play in the big game, apparently all you need to do is say a non sequitur #. And the movie sucked, never read the book.

It used to be at the quickening. Not the Highlander kind.

If I took Cor Shan's response, he would think you actually said something clever here. I will give you its better than a Gonzo troll, in that I am smiling.

Oh you could, eh? Whip out an artificial womb and prove it. Otherwise come up with a definition that doesn't devalue one life over another.

Sorry... you must have no clue what you are talking about here because how do you think we clone.`

Oooh nice straw man. The Law in my state also states that a woman can legally surrender a baby without repercussion. So whip out that artificial womb and let her exercise her legal right. Oh wait...

No, its the fact that the definitions are subjectively applied while claiming to have a rational scientific basis. (which by the way, neither you or Terez hiding behind your skirts has offered)

When does a woman cease becoming someone who can make medical decisions about her own body and become a walking incubator? Why is it elected men in suits, or ordained in funky collars or big hats, are better equipped to make decisions for her?

The same way a man cannot make every medical decision they may wish to make. If you have not noticed the law actually functions to limit persona liberty.

Since you ascribe to, or at least advocate, a religious basis for law and morality, what standard do you use to value the unborn baby's life over the woman's?

Ahh the bait and switch argument, a classic and just as foolish. It is a form of a Morton's fork because you present the argument as one or the other and only those too.

Why wouldn't the government forcing said woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term be considered a violation of the first eleven words of the Fourth amendment, or deprived of liberty under the Fifth?

As to the 4th - Umm, what an insanely out of scope argument. I can pick words out of a sentence and say they support a position but its the historical and contextual background that give them efficacy and the central reason they were added. Tell me, do you think the word "welfare" in the constitution means the welfare state?

Pretty much the same for the 5th, but props, it fits in with your argument about being given a death sentence from the imaginary rainbow monster. :P

The Constitution is only a tool of the right. Got it.

No, but we tend to accept the good with the bad, whereas the left likes it when it works for their arguments.

Why should the taxpayer pay for any medical care? Why single out birth control?

I agree, get rid of medical care, food stamps, section 8 housing. I am not for a government paying for your (not you) existence.

Case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut)law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenstadt_v._Baird)would say otherwise.
Emanating in the Penumbra, you are actually making my argument :P

Evidence?
The founder of Planned Parenthood felt that abortion was the appropriate method of controlling the African American population. Margaret Singer was just about as nice as Ingrid Newkirk is today. I was thinking about doing one of the green thinker quotes, but within the scope of this conversation, this one was perfect.

Says the pro-lifer pro-capitol punishment guy. Pot, meet kettle.

No, there is a substantive difference between an innocent life and a criminal. Apparently since I am pro-life it is inconsistent to believe in punishment for convicts. I did not know you leftists being pro-choice were so pro death penalty. Good to know.

The Clean Water Act. The Clean Air Act. CERCLA.

Go back and read what Terez said, my response, and then yours. Finally, ask yourself why you did not read what was said. "Name the development of a governmental system that grew up devoid of all religion and had a verifiable moral standard." Show in history where government developed apart from religion. Not sure how you got to the EPA.

That's the guy who hosted Family Feud, right? Wow, irony.

Yep, that is exactly who it is.

Wow. Even with commas that paragraph made absolutely no sense. Maybe punctuation isn't your problem.

You probably clicked quote and did not read my response to Terez. As I am typing this i have your remarks open in a separate window.

Wow, terez does all that? Awesome!! I'll let her defend her own stance, when she's not busy providing low-cost condoms & STD tests.

Ahh, another out of scope remark. Good one, and Terez was the one claiming she wanted a "dialogue" and has yet to do so. Sounds like your typical bleeding heart to me.

Says the guy who had to put his hand in the fire to learn that it burns.

Says the girl who apparently is the one human on the planet who did not have to experience something bad to know it was.

Yet i fail to see what either sob story adds to the conversation.

Not really a sob story, it was again a response to Terez's comment on guilt association. Some do, and some do not. That is generally how anecdotal evidence works. :P

Shame is not a preventative tool.
I keep forgetting you are the one human who has never fallen prey to human mistakes. :P

Having a potty mouth in front of granny is akin to getting or getting someone knocked up. Got it..

And the one human who takes analogies out of scope. :P

Or their education. Or their upbringing. Or by whatever social norm their brain patterns were set with. It isn't limited to faith, though faithless morality is a relatively new concept. Probably why it's so hard for some to swallow.

Insert that is what she said joke.

i thought it was Islam that did that & kept fighting the good artsy fight while Europe floundered for a thousand years. But i could be wrong; history has never been my best subject. Plus most American history doesn't really teach much about Islam from the 7th century to the 16th. But i digress.

Islam preserved its own, Asian culture did the same, Europe preserved Western Culture, and the catholic church was a big part of that.

So you think the only reason people can behave is because a voice in the clouds tells them to? That faith is the only driver to a moral society? Or are you justifying your own faith at the expense of those who choose not to have any.

You sure you don't know Richard Dawkins did not host the family fued? You are making one of his arguments.

and i though my faith in humanity was in the shitter.

Meh.

No, only protected sex leads to less abortions. Or a Cylon attack. Whichever's easier.

Neutrino bomb.

you'd be surprised

maybe

Do your own damn research. Yes, it would change the constitution to make it illegal to terminate a pregnancy for any reason because it is unlawful to kill a person. period. maybe even exclamation point.

See my response to Gilshalos Sedai. :) You did better though, considering you recognized it was a constitutional amendment. Still, you are basically making the argument that was made for "death panels." For shame. Except in that instance, it was a bill, and there were better definitions and explanations of intent available than here.

And before anyone gets pissy, this is not a mean post. Frenzy has said before she likes an argument, hopefully she still does.

Gilshalos Sedai
11-03-2011, 03:17 PM
So I have been busy, sorry I did not get to come out and play sooner :)



Ahh the devil in me, the same as Daniel Webster. It was a bit of a trick question. It is a constitutional amendment as a ballot measure that changes the state const. to term life at conception. Not a bill that would define what you can and cannot do.

So . . . what you are doing, is reading into the potentially many effects the change might have and assuming an outcome that is consistent with every other hysterical reader of law. So, when const. are amended, they are expected to be challenged, clarified, explained, and many other lower level statutes and ordinances are expected to go up and further define. While all of this is going on, the interested parties can challenge the law, and courts will decide the appropriate remedy, (not just state courts either) and this is how every law works. They are intended to be fleshed out and cut away.

You and frenzy sure laid on the histrionics :P



So you're OK with a woman, who suffered a miscarriage, already a tragedy, having to go through the ordeal of a lengthy court battle so she won't have to go to jail in order to set precedent?

Just so we're clear.

Davian93
11-03-2011, 03:31 PM
So you're OK with a woman, who suffered a miscarriage, already a tragedy, having to go through the ordeal of a lengthy court battle so she won't have to go to jail in order to set precedent?

Just so we're clear.

That's what she deserves for leaving the kitchen. From my understanding, the only exempt miscarriages under this Amendment are the ones caused by kitchen implements and/or slipping while mopping the kitchen floor. All other so-called "accidents" are, at a minimum, 1st degree Manslaughter.

Zombie Sammael
11-03-2011, 03:35 PM
That's what she deserves for leaving the kitchen. From my understanding, the only exempt miscarriages under this Amendment are the ones caused by kitchen implements and/or slipping while mopping the kitchen floor. All other so-called "accidents" are, at a minimum, 1st degree Manslaughter.

It'd be interesting to see what would happen to the birthrate if this legislation were passed. The obvious thought is that it would increase, but if I were a woman faced with this sort of legislation, I'd be doing my utmost to make sure I didn't get pregnant, as any pregnancy would place me at a risk of conviction. As a man in a relationship, I'd have no choice but to support my partner to avoid her being sent to prison and possibly being implicated as an accomplice. I would expect sales of contraception to increase massively.

Davian93
11-03-2011, 03:44 PM
It'd be interesting to see what would happen to the birthrate if this legislation were passed. The obvious thought is that it would increase, but if I were a woman faced with this sort of legislation, I'd be doing my utmost to make sure I didn't get pregnant, as any pregnancy would place me at a risk of conviction. As a man in a relationship, I'd have no choice but to support my partner to avoid her being sent to prison and possibly being implicated as an accomplice. I would expect sales of contraception to increase massively.

Well, for one, it would be appealed as unconstitutional to SCOTUS and when it got there, the Roe V. Wade precedent would likely mean at 5-4 overturn with Kennedy as the swing vote. If, for some insane reason, SCOTUS did not go that route, it would simply be a return to the pre-Roe V Wade days where women went to another state or to a illegal back-alley abortion clinic to have it done and there would be more surgical deaths as a result of said policy.

Overall, the legalization of abortion did not lead to a massive increase in abortions. In fact, the abortion rate has gone down in the nearly 40 years since the decision. Making it illegal in Alabama will not affect the birth rate whatsoever. All it will affect is the mortality rate of pregnant women.

Bryan Blaire
11-03-2011, 03:44 PM
... you must have no clue what you are talking about here because how do you think we clone.`

LOL, oh damn is that ever funny!

Sorry, you must have no clue what you are talking about. We currently clone by directly introducing the complete DNA of the animal we want to clone (usually using a complete somatic cell, but other DNA methods are available) into an egg that has had all DNA material removed. You then stimulate the fused egg with a protein bath that triggers cellular division. The egg is then placed into a culture medium (like a Petri dish with appropriate nutrients) until it has divided for about a week. At this point, it is referred to as a blastocyst, and it is transferred by a specialist into a female of the species the egg and somatic cell came from. It will grow into its full living form within the surrogate mother. The animal is birthed as normal.

An artificial womb is theoretical technology that has not actually been invented yet. There are incubators and the like to take care of premature babies, but there has never been a successful term child that never lived within a mother.

BTW, I went through school doing some of this stuff, so unless you have a PhD in biological reproductive technology and can cite the scientific journal where the artificial womb was laid out for the world to see, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

For those that need a link: http://www.clonesafety.com/cloning/facts/process

If you really want to get into it, we can talk about the creation of chimeral eggs also.

You can call yourself a Christian all you want, but you are clearly no different or better than a dogmatic Pharisee, and those were condemned by Christ.

Davian93
11-03-2011, 03:45 PM
LOL, oh damn is that ever funny.

Sorry, you must have no clue what you are talking about. We currently clone by directly introducing the complete DNA of the animal we want to clone (usually using a complete somatic cell, but other DNA methods are available) into an egg that has had all DNA material removed. You then stimulate the fused egg with a protein bath that triggers cellular division. The egg is then placed into a culture medium until it has divided for about a week. At this point, it is referred to as a blastocyst, and it is transferred by a specialist into a female of the species the egg and somatic cell came from. It will grow into its full living form within the surrogate mother. The animal is birthed as normal.

An artificial womb is theoretical technology that has not actually been invented yet. There are incubators and the like to take care of premature babies, but there has never been a successful term child that never lived within a mother.

BTW, I went through school doing some of this stuff, so unless you have a PhD in biological reproductive technology and can cite the scientific journal where the artificial womb was laid out for the world to see, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Perhaps he recently spent the night at a Holiday Inn?

tworiverswoman
11-03-2011, 06:53 PM
I guess Res' point then can be rephrased to say he could take a zygote and implant it in some woman's womb and bring it to term that way. Voilá ... we have test-tube babies again! Isn't that pretty much what they did?

It troubles me that, according to their website, they received over 130,000 signatures from citizens in order to get this amendment on the ballot. As stated, this amendment is wayyyyy too broad. They very carefully dodge the possibilities in the various responses they post on their website, such as how this will impact on in-vitro fertilization treatments and ectopic pregnancies, etc. Their page response to "what about rape victims" was a testimonial from a woman who was a product of rape who expressed her hurt at being told she should have been killed... ~rolls eyes~

I don't have any difficulty accepting "Life begins at fertilization." That much actually seems to be self-evident. But "personhood" is a whole different category, and requires a bit more than mere existence, in my eyes. I'm unable to personally accept that a group of undifferentiated cells is a "person." It might BECOME a person, should events follow their natural progress, but it's not a person YET. And I don't think "life" is sacred, per se. (Being an atheist, I don't actually believe in the concept of "sacred," for one thing, but most atheists have a referrent that accomplishes much the same meaning.) As a born-again carnivore, it's pretty much impossible for me to believe that all life is sacred. :P

If you only mean "HUMAN life" then why do you?

Gil, I've been lucky enough in my life to have never been confronted by the need to MAKE the choice for or against abortion. Had I, I'm not even sure what I would have decided. Because it's NOT and never has been just a choice of a woman deciding what to do with "her body." Her body is hosting another, and THAT's the one that's going to pay the ultimate price, should the decision go to "terminate." On the other hand, if it's done early enough, it's just a blob of cells. But how often is it done at that early a stage?

Note that this amendment will DEFINITELY make the "morning after" pill a murder weapon.

The Unreasoner
11-03-2011, 09:28 PM
Not sure what you're asking.
This should clarify it:
Take abortion rights, for instance. While I am personally opposed to it unless the life of the mother is at serious risk, it is currently legal for women to have abortions (we'll ignore how the exact nature of the legality and the access to facilities vary from place to place for the moment). And the choice belongs entirely to the mother. At the same time, men are expected to pay for the child, if they are the biological father, no matter what. Putting aside the issue that women are significantly more likely to win custody (another difference 'demonstrated' by fact, I will avoid analysis of it though), the potential scenario exists where the woman of a couple becomes pregnant, yet aborts for purely financial reasons. Even if the couple had previously made the mutual decision of having a child. Suppose this hypothetical couple breaks up, with the woman still pregnant. The man cannot order the woman to have an abortion, even for almost identical financial reasons, and will need to pay child support anyway.

Is there any way to provide a 'gender-equal' solution to this problem? Or does the impossibility prove that men and women can be treated differently while still being equal?
A man can be held hostage if he falls for a four word lie: 'I'm on the pill.'

My girlfriend pulled that shit the third night I spent with her (the first two I wore my own protection). A week after our third night together, she told me she was pregnant and it was mine, and she didn't know whether to keep it or not.

It turns out she was kidding (she has a pretty dark sense of humor. And she sees my belief in a God as an exotic quirk to entertain her). So I will probably never trust her, however attractive I find her. I hate living with her, but by old roommate thinks I screwed him over (I didn't, unless paying 12000 dollars in cash is the new definition of 'screwing over').

I see this bill as the equivalent of OWS: well-intentioned, but entirely ignorant of the reality of the situation. I winced when I read Res's mention of the 'artificial womb.' But I think Peter Singer was right in his interpretation of the issue. And, just as I am opposed to the death penalty (I even said a prayer for Bin Laden's soul), I am opposed to this 'pro-choice' notion.

GonzoTheGreat
11-04-2011, 05:48 AM
So you're OK with a woman, who suffered a miscarriage, already a tragedy, having to go through the ordeal of a lengthy court battle so she won't have to go to jail in order to set precedent?

Just so we're clear.I don't think you really get it, Gil.

If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy), then she will have two options: die, or try to get her case all through the courts and win it before she dies. That is what Res_Ipsa is in favor of. He prefers to see women die*, rather than admit that not all pregnancies are good.

The miscarriage business is just peanuts compared to the real problems that could result from this Christian legislation.

* Maybe he is willing to let them have some pain killers in the later stages, but I'm not sure about that. It could harm the poor baby.

Gilshalos Sedai
11-04-2011, 10:53 AM
This should clarify it:

A man can be held hostage if he falls for a four word lie: 'I'm on the pill.'

My girlfriend pulled that shit the third night I spent with her (the first two I wore my own protection). A week after our third night together, she told me she was pregnant and it was mine, and she didn't know whether to keep it or not.

It turns out she was kidding (she has a pretty dark sense of humor. And she sees my belief in a God as an exotic quirk to entertain her). So I will probably never trust her, however attractive I find her. I hate living with her, but by old roommate thinks I screwed him over (I didn't, unless paying 12000 dollars in cash is the new definition of 'screwing over').

I see this bill as the equivalent of OWS: well-intentioned, but entirely ignorant of the reality of the situation. I winced when I read Res's mention of the 'artificial womb.' But I think Peter Singer was right in his interpretation of the issue. And, just as I am opposed to the death penalty (I even said a prayer for Bin Laden's soul), I am opposed to this 'pro-choice' notion.

You're talking about rights of the father. Completely different thing from what I'm talking about. (And for the record, I don't like the inequity as it now stands, either.) And frankly, a completely different thread should be started for this.

MY issue is legally separating the fetus from the mother and prioritizing the fetus' rights and indeed it's very life OVER the mother's. Until that child is born it is part of the mother and should legally be treated as such. I would gladly give my life for any child I were to have, but I'm not everyone and it should remain an option, not a legal requirement.

And frankly, The Unreasoner, you should really find a new roommate. ;)

Gonzo: LOL

Gilshalos Sedai
11-04-2011, 10:55 AM
I guess Res' point then can be rephrased to say he could take a zygote and implant it in some woman's womb and bring it to term that way. Voilá ... we have test-tube babies again! Isn't that pretty much what they did?

It troubles me that, according to their website, they received over 130,000 signatures from citizens in order to get this amendment on the ballot. As stated, this amendment is wayyyyy too broad. They very carefully dodge the possibilities in the various responses they post on their website, such as how this will impact on in-vitro fertilization treatments and ectopic pregnancies, etc. Their page response to "what about rape victims" was a testimonial from a woman who was a product of rape who expressed her hurt at being told she should have been killed... ~rolls eyes~

I don't have any difficulty accepting "Life begins at fertilization." That much actually seems to be self-evident. But "personhood" is a whole different category, and requires a bit more than mere existence, in my eyes. I'm unable to personally accept that a group of undifferentiated cells is a "person." It might BECOME a person, should events follow their natural progress, but it's not a person YET. And I don't think "life" is sacred, per se. (Being an atheist, I don't actually believe in the concept of "sacred," for one thing, but most atheists have a referrent that accomplishes much the same meaning.) As a born-again carnivore, it's pretty much impossible for me to believe that all life is sacred. :P

If you only mean "HUMAN life" then why do you?

Gil, I've been lucky enough in my life to have never been confronted by the need to MAKE the choice for or against abortion. Had I, I'm not even sure what I would have decided. Because it's NOT and never has been just a choice of a woman deciding what to do with "her body." Her body is hosting another, and THAT's the one that's going to pay the ultimate price, should the decision go to "terminate." On the other hand, if it's done early enough, it's just a blob of cells. But how often is it done at that early a stage?

Note that this amendment will DEFINITELY make the "morning after" pill a murder weapon.

You are also misunderstanding me, too. In prioritizing the life of a fetus over the woman who carries it, you are in effect, denigrating the value of the mother's life in favor of her child's. THAT is my issue. The legal favoring of one life over another. THAT's a slippery slope to start down.

Davian93
11-04-2011, 11:03 AM
A man can be held hostage if he falls for a four word lie: 'I'm on the pill.'

Here's an idea: I dont care if you watch her take it...still wrap it unless you dont mind having kids with her.

Gilshalos Sedai
11-04-2011, 11:05 AM
Here's an idea: I dont care if you watch her take it...still wrap it unless you dont mind having kids with her.

Anti-biotics and grapefruit (juice and supplements) interfere with The Pill. Just FYI.

Davian93
11-04-2011, 11:06 AM
Anti-biotics and grapefruit (juice and supplements) interfere with The Pill. Just FYI.

Exactly...so WRAP IT if you dont want kids.

yks 6nnetu hing
11-04-2011, 11:07 AM
Here's an idea: I dont care if you watch her take it...still wrap it unless you dont mind having kids with her.

and even then, no birth control works 100%


or so I learned from Friends.

GonzoTheGreat
11-04-2011, 11:36 AM
and even then, no birth control works 100%


or so I learned from Friends.Hence the importance of "abstinence only". :D

Edited to add:
Not even that might be enough, but at least then you claim that it was an Act of God.

Cor Shan
11-04-2011, 01:27 PM
Hence the importance of "abstinence only". :D

Edited to add:
Not even that might be enough, but at least then you claim that it was an Act of God.

Not saying this has happened many times, but apparently once a girl said she was on the pill, her boyfriend wrapped it, she then extracted the semen to impregnate herself with.

Re: The Unreasoners point, he was obviously on the hook for child support.

Crispin's Crispian
11-04-2011, 01:35 PM
Exactly...so WRAP IT if you dont want kids.

Why would wrapping the pill help anything? Are you wrapping it in chocolate to make it more palatable, or something?

OTOH, "If you don't want to WRAP it, you need to SCRAP it," sounds like an early '80s PSA featuring some hip Brooklyn kids with some random fake graffiti in the background.

:p

tworiverswoman
11-04-2011, 03:02 PM
You are also misunderstanding me, too. In prioritizing the life of a fetus over the woman who carries it, you are in effect, denigrating the value of the mother's life in favor of her child's. THAT is my issue. The legal favoring of one life over another. THAT's a slippery slope to start down.Your wording is a little ... ambivalent/ambiguous, I think. Because the "tone" of your posts indicates pretty strongly that you value the life of the mother over the fetus, so you've already got both feet on that "slippery slope." (For the record, I've always been pro-choice, but it's not a choice I ever had to make)

My views on the value of human life aren't as draconian as Sini's, but I lean a lot more in his direction than I do in the other.

Gilshalos Sedai
11-04-2011, 03:45 PM
Your wording is a little ... ambivalent/ambiguous, I think. Because the "tone" of your posts indicates pretty strongly that you value the life of the mother over the fetus, so you've already got both feet on that "slippery slope." (For the record, I've always been pro-choice, but it's not a choice I ever had to make)

My views on the value of human life aren't as draconian as Sini's, but I lean a lot more in his direction than I do in the other.

Actually, I consider them equal with leaving the choice of survival up to each mother (or father, in some cases) until birth. If that makes sense?

Until birth, they should be considered the same living thing, LEGALLY. Especially since an injured/damaged/ill fetus can take its mother with it -- and vice versa.

My point is, prosecution for a miscarriage or medically necessary abortion DOES make the mother a second class citizen.

Crispin's Crispian
11-04-2011, 04:27 PM
Actually, I consider them equal with leaving the choice of survival up to each mother (or father, in some cases) until birth. If that makes sense?

Until birth, they should be considered the same living thing, LEGALLY. Especially since an injured/damaged/ill fetus can take its mother with it -- and vice versa.


I think that's the crux of the whole issue, isn't it? You think the mother and fetus should be considered one living thing until birth; it's the "my body, my choice" argument. The other side thinks the fetus is its own being, an entity with just as much right to exist as the mother. There are degrees of this, of course, depending on when one thinks actually starts.

So the other side doesn't think protecting the fetus from abortion is relegating the mother to second-class, any more than prosecuting a mother for murdering her toddler.

My point is, prosecution for a miscarriage or medically necessary abortion DOES make the mother a second class citizen.I'm not really sure if they've thought this through (yes, that's a really bad thing). There's no non-pregnancy analog for what you would call "medically necessary homicide." There's not really a situation (other than self-defense) where a mother would have to kill her child, or would accidentally kill her child via uncontrollable bodily function.

Gilshalos Sedai
11-04-2011, 04:38 PM
I think that's the crux of the whole issue, isn't it? You think the mother and fetus should be considered one living thing until birth; it's the "my body, my choice" argument. The other side thinks the fetus is its own being, an entity with just as much right to exist as the mother. There are degrees of this, of course, depending on when one thinks actually starts.

So the other side doesn't think protecting the fetus from abortion is relegating the mother to second-class, any more than prosecuting a mother for murdering her toddler.

I'm not really sure if they've thought this through (yes, that's a really bad thing). There's no non-pregnancy analog for what you would call "medically necessary homicide." There's not really a situation (other than self-defense) where a mother would have to kill her child, or would accidentally kill her child via uncontrollable bodily function.

Which is why this then becomes a moral issue instead of a "rights" issue and should be left alone and up to every individual. Laws shouldn't be regulating morality, IMO.

Zombie Sammael
11-04-2011, 04:44 PM
Which is why this then becomes a moral issue instead of a "rights" issue and should be left alone and up to every individual. Laws shouldn't be regulating morality, IMO.

I'm pretty much in agreement with what you're saying about this specific issue; your arguments are reasonable, logical, and practical, which the other side can't claim at all.

But I do question this assertion. Surely the whole point of having law is that it does nothing but regulate morality? Both criminal and civil law govern acts which we consider so outside the realms of morality as to require restitution. They're wrongs, and that's morality. The whole basis of law is, surely, morality? All the things we think of as crimes, we think of as such because we (or our elected representatives) consider them morally wrong. Ditto for torts.

Gilshalos Sedai
11-04-2011, 05:14 PM
I'm pretty much in agreement with what you're saying about this specific issue; your arguments are reasonable, logical, and practical, which the other side can't claim at all.

But I do question this assertion. Surely the whole point of having law is that it does nothing but regulate morality? Both criminal and civil law govern acts which we consider so outside the realms of morality as to require restitution. They're wrongs, and that's morality. The whole basis of law is, surely, morality? All the things we think of as crimes, we think of as such because we (or our elected representatives) consider them morally wrong. Ditto for torts.

Rights =/= morality.

Zombie Sammael
11-04-2011, 05:18 PM
Rights =/= morality.

I do have a response to that, but I think we're at risk of derailing a thread that oughtn't be derailed. Since you actually have the power, could we move it over to a new discussion? Or just tell me if you'd rather continue it here.

The Unreasoner
11-04-2011, 05:24 PM
Hypothetically, if a 100% safe and effective birth control method was available and free to all, could we outlaw abortion then? (other than in cases of rape/incest/serious medical risks)

Gilshalos Sedai
11-04-2011, 05:29 PM
I do have a response to that, but I think we're at risk of derailing a thread that oughtn't be derailed. Since you actually have the power, could we move it over to a new discussion? Or just tell me if you'd rather continue it here.

Go ahead and start a new thread.

Gilshalos Sedai
11-04-2011, 05:30 PM
Hypothetically, if a 100% safe and effective birth control method was available and free to all, could we outlaw abortion then? (other than in cases of rape/incest/serious medical risks)

Why would you bother since it wouldn't be necessary?

Uno
11-04-2011, 05:34 PM
You know, if people are going to take the position that a fetus is a person from conception, I don't see how they can be comfortable with abortions even in the case of rape and incest. Unless they're ok with infanticide in those instances, as well, I suppose.

Crispin's Crispian
11-04-2011, 05:42 PM
You know, if people are going to take the position that a fetus is a person from conception, I don't see how they can be comfortable with abortions even in the case of rape and incest. Unless they're ok with infanticide in those instances, as well, I suppose.

Right. There's a fundamental paradigm difference involved.

The Unreasoner
11-04-2011, 05:50 PM
Would it really not be necessary?

And on the other issue, I would hold the rapist responsible for the death. It's still a tragedy (in my mind), but I'd rather have a doctor do it than have the woman try to drink it to death.

As for incest, I don't really believe that an incestuous relationship ever exists without a history of abuse (or some kind of 'separated at birth' thing). I would actually want it outlawed here too, but I don't feel like arguing the point against some people on the board, claiming I support eugenics or something.

Uno
11-04-2011, 06:00 PM
And on the other issue, I would hold the rapist responsible for the death. It's still a tragedy (in my mind), but I'd rather have a doctor do it than have the woman try to drink it to death.

As for incest, I don't really believe that an incestuous relationship ever exists without a history of abuse (or some kind of 'separated at birth' thing). I would actually want it outlawed here too, but I don't feel like arguing the point against some people on the board, claiming I support eugenics or something.

Seems inconsistent. As the history of birth control shows, a woman might not want to give birth to a fetus for many reasons besides rape and, consequently, try to drink the fetus to death or do other desperate things along those lines. The unborn person is at any rate blameless here. It's merely being killed for the sins of its father.

Zombie Sammael
11-04-2011, 06:08 PM
Why would you bother since it wouldn't be necessary?

Just because it's 100% effective doesn't mean it's 100% employed.

The only way I think it would be safe to make such a law would be if a woman actually had complete conscious control over whether she conceived or not. Which in a billion years time when humanity has evolved into a race of genderless shapeshifters might actually happen.

The Unreasoner
11-04-2011, 06:13 PM
Seems inconsistent. As the history of birth control shows, a woman might not want to give birth to a fetus for many reasons besides rape and, consequently, try to drink the fetus to death or do other desperate things along those lines. The unborn person is at any rate blameless here. It's merely being killed for the sins of its father.
It's probably somewhat inconsistent. It's hardly what I would call an ideal outcome. But, supposing a free, safe and effective method of birth control existed, I don't think a woman would be able to come up with a satisfactory excuse for aborting other than being raped.

Tomp
11-04-2011, 07:42 PM
This is not the exact issue but it is somewhat related. It is not a comment on the issue at hand.

Stephen Fry has a (for him)very uncomfortable moment at the end of his speech, after being awarded 2011 lifetime achievement award from the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1bXy5pSGJE&feature=related

Zombie Sammael
11-05-2011, 07:46 AM
It's probably somewhat inconsistent. It's hardly what I would call an ideal outcome. But, supposing a free, safe and effective method of birth control existed, I don't think a woman would be able to come up with a satisfactory excuse for aborting other than being raped.

I think that "I don't want a baby right now" and "I can't look after a child (for any given reason)" are still legitimate reasons for wanting to abort. Heck, there are seven billion people in the world. It's starting to look like there's a moral argument against procreating. Also, as I said above, just because something is 100% effective (and 100% effective contraception will probably never exist) doesn't mean it's used by 100% of people. What if said method of contraception had some unpleasant side-effects, as many of the methods of contraception used today do?

What if said method of contraception was actually a better condom, or a male version of the pill? You couldn't then blame a woman for choosing to abort if it was the guy who pulled the irresponsible trick of lying about using it.

Frenzy
11-05-2011, 06:44 PM
So I have been busy, sorry I did not get to come out and play sooner :)
I've had the flu for a while (funny, she doesn't look Fluish), so this is basically the gist of my riposte. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8)
So . . . what you are doing, is reading into the potentially many effects the change might have and assuming an outcome that is consistent with every other hysterical reader of law.
Um, yeah. Lawmakers should have a general idea what will happen when the laws they make become active. Its those Unintended Consequences that'll really bite society in the ass.

Opening up the law to discussion gives you a more diverse set of outlooks, hence a broader set of potential outcomes. But i think that's what you said below, in a more legaleze way.
So, when const. are amended, they are expected to be challenged, clarified, explained, and many other lower level statutes and ordinances are expected to go up and further define. While all of this is going on, the interested parties can challenge the law, and courts will decide the appropriate remedy, (not just state courts either) and this is how every law works. They are intended to be fleshed out and cut away.
Gilshalos answered this.
You and frenzy sure laid on the histrionics :P
If you honestly think those scenarios won't come up, you have an almost bleeding heart faith in the goodness of humanity. Because it is already happening (http://feminismandreligion.com/2011/10/06/criminalizing-miscarriages-latin-america%E2%80%99s-zero-tolerance-policy-on-abortion-by-michele-stopera-freyhauf/) elsewhere with laws/constitutions like this.
Yep, still not seeing it.
Just because you don't see if doesn't mean it isn't there. Oh wait, i think i just defended religion. damn.
So you are the one human who has never learned anything the hard way. Gotcha.
You could say that. Or you could say i use my observational skills to predict outcomes to scenarios like sticking my fleshy bits into whats used to cook up tasty fleshy bits.
If you want to play in the big game, apparently all you need to do is say a non sequitur #. And the movie sucked, never read the book.
There's more to it than that, grasshopper.

Now go read the book.
If I took Cor Shan's response, he would think you actually said something clever here. I will give you its better than a Gonzo troll, in that I am smiling.
No, seriously, quickening had a legal and medical definition. Anyway, i just love bringing up Highlander because i'm a huge Clancy Brown fan.
Sorry... you must have no clue what you are talking about here because how do you think we clone.`
Thank you Bryan.
No, its the fact that the definitions are subjectively applied while claiming to have a rational scientific basis. (which by the way, neither you or Terez hiding behind your skirts has offered)
i believe Tru answered this one quite nicely.
The same way a man cannot make every medical decision they may wish to make.
Evidence?
Ahh the bait and switch argument, a classic and just as foolish. It is a form of a Morton's fork because you present the argument as one or the other and only those too.
Ahh, the sophist's argument, a classic when one cannot counter an argument, so one counters the style.
As to the 4th - Umm, what an insanely out of scope argument. I can pick words out of a sentence and say they support a position but its the historical and contextual background that give them efficacy and the central reason they were added.
The sentence in question is "The right of the people to be secure in their persons," If one cannot make a decision about medical treatment for her own body, then it could be said that she is not secure in her own person. A stretch you say? People say the same thing about the 14th Amendment and "anchor babies." Unintended consequences can be a pain.
Tell me, do you think the word "welfare" in the constitution means the welfare state?
I don't, but i'm one of 300,000,000+. There's a chance someone else might.
Pretty much the same for the 5th, but props, it fits in with your argument about being given a death sentence from the imaginary rainbow monster. :P
psst: the Deprived of Liberty part.
No, but we tend to accept the good with the bad, whereas the left likes it when it works for their arguments.
As someone who vehemently rejects left-right compartmentalized ideology, i'm not going to argue this point.
I agree, get rid of medical care, food stamps, section 8 housing. I am not for a government paying for your (not you) existence.
See? Hyperbole isn't limited to you lefties or you righties. But at least you're consistent in that you don't want government funding of any health care, not just women's care.

i don't see why you feel the need for government to intrude on a privately-funded medical decision, though.
Emanating in the Penumbra, you are actually making my argument :P
What does astronomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra)have to do with this?
The founder of Planned Parenthood felt that abortion was the appropriate method of controlling the African American population. Margaret Singer was just about as nice as Ingrid Newkirk is today. I was thinking about doing one of the green thinker quotes, but within the scope of this conversation, this one was perfect.
So? Not to Godwin myself, but Volkswagen was originally founded in 1937 by the Nazi trade union, the German Labour Front (Deutsche Arbeitsfront). Does that make every Volkswagen owner over the last 74 years a Nazi supporter? Quick, call the Hague! Or maybe the concepts are sound, it's just their proponents that are whacked in the noodle. i'll avoid the knee-jerk Christian slam here.

Besides, Margaret Singer was a psychologist. I think you're railing against Margaret Sanger.
No, there is a substantive difference between an innocent life and a criminal. Apparently since I am pro-life it is inconsistent to believe in punishment for convicts. I did not know you leftists being pro-choice were so pro death penalty. Good to know.
The basis of your pro-life argument is that life is sacred or otherwise worthy of living no matter what. Obviously that can be negated, since capitol criminals forfeit their sacred right to life in your pov. Ergo, life isn't always sacred or otherwise worthy of living no matter what. The logical underpinnings of your argument don't hold up. It's fine if your argument is based on faith or belief, whatever's clever. Just don't call it logic, don't get bent when someone questions it, and don't expect it to hold up in court or congress. That's all i'm saying.
Go back and read what Terez said, my response, and then yours. Finally, ask yourself why you did not read what was said. "Name the development of a governmental system that grew up devoid of all religion and had a verifiable moral standard." Show in history where government developed apart from religion. Not sure how you got to the EPA.
Environmental protection laws, regs, testing, oversight, implementation, etc. is a huge system of government. One that grew from the "oh shit" realization that we needed to protect the source of our food, water, air, energy, etc. before we killed ourselves. Not from a divine decree. That's what you asked for, isn't it?

Or did you mean "government system" like democratic republic, constitutional monarchy, theocracy, etc.? If you did, than this illustrates my point that people will misinterpret even the clearest of words.
You probably clicked quote and did not read my response to Terez. As I am typing this i have your remarks open in a separate window.
Nope, i had it open. Read it several times. Even read it backwards, which may have been the equivalent of me putting my hand in a fire since everyone knows the devil likes putting messages in backwards-running stuff. But, alas, i did not find coherence in your statement. i didn't find the devil either. i'm more disappointed in the latter.
Ahh, another out of scope remark. Good one, and Terez was the one claiming she wanted a "dialogue" and has yet to do so. Sounds like your typical bleeding heart to me.
This may shock you, but i don't agree with every aspect of Terez's opinions on this issue. i'm sure she doesn't agree 100% with me either. i wouldn't expect her to defend the parts of my stance that she doesn't agree with. Why do you expect me to defend the parts of her stance i don't agree with?

and i love how you think i'm a bleeding heart. that's just so precious.
Says the girl who apparently is the one human on the planet who did not have to experience something bad to know it was.
Says the boy who's jealous of my awesome ability to observe and predict results.
Not really a sob story, it was again a response to Terez's comment on guilt association. Some do, and some do not. That is generally how anecdotal evidence works. :P
Perhaps. But the gist of my anecdotal evidence is that people are shitheads. Religious proclivities don't necessitate poop for brains, though they do make their shittiness more predictable.
I keep forgetting you are the one human who has never fallen prey to human mistakes. :P
i am that damn awesome, aren't i.
And the one human who takes analogies out of scope. :P
Says one human of many who can't quite form a rational lucid case.
Insert that is what she said joke.
my brittle point trembles before your logic.
You sure you don't know Richard Dawkins did not host the family fued? You are making one of his arguments.
No, i don't know who he is. But, gasp, i used the magic interwebz to do a little research. i can see why you don't like the guy.
Neutrino bomb.
a large organic cleanser, yes, but my Cylon comment was actually topical, since they dealt with abortion rights on BSG. In case you missed it.
See my response to Gilshalos Sedai. :) You did better though, considering you recognized it was a constitutional amendment. Still, you are basically making the argument that was made for "death panels." For shame. Except in that instance, it was a bill, and there were better definitions and explanations of intent available than here.
No need for death panels because the modified constitution would prohibit the need for the question to even be considered. So i'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
And before anyone gets pissy, this is not a mean post. Frenzy has said before she likes an argument, hopefully she still does.
Just circling back :D (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y)

Res_Ipsa
11-08-2011, 08:59 PM
Ok the big thing here, I had no clue that artificial wombs (with an exact completely theoretical meaning) are a scientific term. Mea Culpa. I assumed (like an ass) that it was like artificial insemination, and the artificial was the concept that it is non-natural in process. So.... a woman that carries to term the life within it, has the qualities of the egg and the sperm donor, not the qualities of the donor womb.

And no, I have never stayed in a Holiday Inn Express.

As for the late response, legal memos take up a lot of my time. Apologies for the redredge.

If we want to continue I can address all of what Frenzy said bc I don't mind arguing with her.

Pretty sure after tonight it will be a Hah or a HAHAHAHAHA moot point.


Just circling back :D (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y)

That would be better in French; I learned the language, to insult people in a nice sounding manner.

Res_Ipsa
11-08-2011, 09:02 PM
didn't mean to post this, see previous post.

Bryan Blaire
11-08-2011, 11:29 PM
Well, from accounts tonight that I've seen on the news, 26 got shot down in Mississippi.

Terez
11-08-2011, 11:42 PM
Indeed it did (http://www.sunherald.com/2011/11/08/3561743/miss-voters-asked-if-life-begins.html).

GonzoTheGreat
11-09-2011, 05:06 AM
Does this mean that from now on, there are no persons anymore in Mississippi?

Davian93
11-09-2011, 08:08 AM
It scares me that almost 45% of the state thinks it was a good idea.

I do love how they blamed the defeat on Planned Parenthood.


I wonder if there is some chart made by the GOP that has all these bogeymen connected on it as a vast left-wing conspiracy against them. "Planned Parenthood, in conjunction with ACORN, under the supervision of the ACLU is forcing our citizens to vote again our initiatives!!!"

Terez
11-10-2011, 04:46 AM
lol, my local paper posted about this on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/sunherald/posts/285908041431502), and in the comments there was this girl...well, I'll just quote it:

Speechless! Way to go Mississippi. Because of your ignorance there will now be more precious life murdered! This amendment was not going to take birth control away, nor was it going to let the mother die in a life threatening situation. It was going to stop ABORTION which is MURDER! So to those who choose no, thanks for allowing murder to continue. We all should have voted yes, and began the process of preventing abortion. Instead we are letting it continue because there was a few odds and ends that needed tightening up! Abortion is murder period. If you are raped go adopt it, or raise it to be like any other child! I could go on and on but my sayings aren't going to change the mind of a cold blooded murderer!!!
Actually Tiffany, the wording of the initiative was in fact such that many of the most effective forms of birth control would have been outlawed, as would in vitro fertilization. The sponsors of the initiative were banking on the notorious ignorance of Mississippians to get it passed. Fortunately, Mississippians are not as ignorant as they thought. Look at the counties that voted it down, and the ones that passed it by large margins. Areas with higher standards of living voted it down, while backwoods rural areas voted in favor of it.
A couple of hours later, they posted this (http://www.facebook.com/sunherald/posts/175297682561902), and then this (http://www.sunherald.com/2011/11/09/3565063/how-south-mississippi-voted.html). :D (This newspaper is starting to turn liberal and that is SO FREAKING EXCITING. They endorsed a Democrat for governor! He didn't win, but oh well...and of course a shitload of people canceled their subscriptions because of it.)

Ivhon
11-10-2011, 08:13 AM
lol, my local paper posted about this on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/sunherald/posts/285908041431502), and in the comments there was this girl...well, I'll just quote it:



A couple of hours later, they posted this (http://www.facebook.com/sunherald/posts/175297682561902), and then this (http://www.sunherald.com/2011/11/09/3565063/how-south-mississippi-voted.html). :D (This newspaper is starting to turn liberal and that is SO FREAKING EXCITING. They endorsed a Democrat for governor! He didn't win, but oh well...and of course a shitload of people canceled their subscriptions because of it.)

Well, you are just a cold-blooded murderer, so why should I listen to you?

Terez
11-10-2011, 08:16 AM
Apparently the Sun Herald is listening. Since they reach more people, I win either way. :D

Davian93
11-10-2011, 08:29 AM
lol, my local paper posted about this on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/sunherald/posts/285908041431502), and in the comments there was this girl...well, I'll just quote it:



A couple of hours later, they posted this (http://www.facebook.com/sunherald/posts/175297682561902), and then this (http://www.sunherald.com/2011/11/09/3565063/how-south-mississippi-voted.html). :D (This newspaper is starting to turn liberal and that is SO FREAKING EXCITING. They endorsed a Democrat for governor! He didn't win, but oh well...and of course a shitload of people canceled their subscriptions because of it.)

I'm gonna put money on "Tiffany" having never been raped...and I'd also put money on her saying something along the lines of "The slut deserved it" for anyone she might have known who was raped.

I've met the type and they're usually pretty disgusting in their self-righteousness.

Ivhon
11-10-2011, 08:55 AM
I'm gonna put money on "Tiffany" having never been raped...and I'd also put money on her saying something along the lines of "The slut deserved it" for anyone she might have known who was raped.

I've met the type and they're usually pretty disgusting in their self-righteousness.

I'd lay higher than average odds (1 in 4 being average) that Tiffany has actually been raped or abused as a child.

Davian93
11-10-2011, 08:58 AM
I'd lay higher than average odds (1 in 4 being average) that Tiffany has actually been raped or abused as a child.

Yeah, but she was asking for it.

Ivhon
11-10-2011, 09:02 AM
Yeah, but she was asking for it.

That would be the message the abuser gave, yes.

Terez
11-10-2011, 09:44 AM
I'd lay higher than average odds (1 in 4 being average) that Tiffany has actually been raped or abused as a child.
If this is average, what was it before the 'recovered memories' bubble burst?

Ivhon
11-10-2011, 10:18 AM
If this is average, what was it before the 'recovered memories' bubble burst?

Higher. Not sure how much because statistics vary and I don't know that the impact of recovered memory practice has been quantified. But there has been a sharp decrease since the late 80's probably at least in part to the end of that practice.