Nov 9, 2011 -- 11:05AM, Girlchristian wrote:

True and we know it doesn't apply to abortion, because if it did then elective abortion would be legal for any reason up until the point of birth, which it's not and most Americans wouldn't support that.

While I do not support elective abortions at any time, the Mississippi bill was stupid and not allowing a woman to abort to save her own life is morally wrong.

Well, you know Roe v Wade  is often criticized for opening the doors to unrestricted abortion, which is precisely what it did not do.

In fact, it was an attempt to walk the line between balancing the rights of the woman with the rights of a fetus.  It did this by ruling (quite rightly, I think)  that in early pregnancy the rights of the woman (here undifferentiated between life or health effects and simple choice for any reason whatsoever) prevail; but as the pregnancy proceeds, the rights of the woman recede (but, still including her right to life) as protections for the fetus gain standing.  Most of the subsequent activity (to my limited legal understanding) has centered around details of how to define the cutoff point and what rights to continue to protect for the women (i.e., health vs. life) beyond that point.

Attempts such as that in the Mississippi referedum are intended to take the question back to early term abortions. One would think that such attempts under standing law from Roe onward would be doomed to constitutional rejection.  But, of course, pro-life people are looking to instigate something which would give the current court the opportunity to reverse Roe altogether.  I do not think this will happen, but of course it is possible.

More to the point, from polls I have seen the vast majority of Americans are satisfied that current law represents a reasonable and prudent compromise given the quite irreconcileable differences at play.  In things like yesterday's vote, there is no indication that social conservatives are gaining power; quite the opposite (I think), since age demographics are increasingly against them.

Nov 9, 2011 -- 12:23AM, CharikIeia wrote:

Nov 8, 2011 -- 11:12PM, jane2 wrote:

The so-called "personhood" initiative was rejected ...

Personhood... isn't that what corporations have?

Maybe it's time for another ballot...

Chari

You seem to have forgotten that the same people who believe that corporations are persons also believe that women are not.  

The Mississippi vote is just one small baby step on the way to establishing, once again, that women are persons and corporations are not.  

And for those who believe that single cells should have full human rights, that is a slippery slope, because one of these days someone is going to make a typo on one of those ignorant documents, and make it illegal to fight illness with medication. Because bacteria and virus are all various number celled beings.

Wrong wording and we will not be able to save you from even a basic disease.

Be cause someone one day will make a mistake and say all living cells have full human rights, Only fully formed (female) humans do not.

Nov 9, 2011 -- 11:37AM, TemplarS wrote:

Nov 9, 2011 -- 11:05AM, Girlchristian wrote:

True and we know it doesn't apply to abortion, because if it did then elective abortion would be legal for any reason up until the point of birth, which it's not and most Americans wouldn't support that.

While I do not support elective abortions at any time, the Mississippi bill was stupid and not allowing a woman to abort to save her own life is morally wrong.

Well, you know Roe v Wade  is often criticized for opening the doors to unrestricted abortion, which is precisely what it did not do.

In fact, it was an attempt to walk the line between balancing the rights of the woman with the rights of a fetus.  It did this by ruling (quite rightly, I think)  that in early pregnancy the rights of the woman (here undifferentiated between life or health effects and simple choice for any reason whatsoever) prevail; but as the pregnancy proceeds, the rights of the woman recede (but, still including her right to life) as protections for the fetus gain standing.  Most of the subsequent activity (to my limited legal understanding) has centered around details of how to define the cutoff point and what rights to continue to protect for the women (i.e., health vs. life) beyond that point.

Attempts such as that in the Mississippi referedum are intended to take the question back to early term abortions. One would think that such attempts under standing law from Roe onward would be doomed to constitutional rejection.  But, of course, pro-life people are looking to instigate something which would give the current court the opportunity to reverse Roe altogether.  I do not think this will happen, but of course it is possible.

More to the point, from polls I have seen the vast majority of Americans are satisfied that current law represents a reasonable and prudent compromise given the quite irreconcileable differences at play.  In things like yesterday's vote, there is no indication that social conservatives are gaining power; quite the opposite (I think), since age demographics are increasingly against them.

 

I don't think social conservatives are gaining ground, but several polls have indicated that even the younger generation is starting to see abortion differently and full support for elective abortion is waning. Now, that doesn't mean Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned and I don't vote based on pro-choice or pro-life for that reason, but we are seeing that as the point of viability changes then so does the support for abortion.

That said, you're right, this Mississippi bill would have been deemed unconstitutional anyway and, IMO, it's ridiculous to waste time on measures like this. One, it's morally wrong to demand that a woman die rather than abort and two it's not constitutional and is a waste of time.