Mississippi voters reject life at conception amendment

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
BBC

Mississippi residents have rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to define a fertilized human egg as a person.

The measure would have conferred rights on an embryo from the moment of conception, effectively outlawing abortion, even in rape or incest cases.

More than 55% voters rejected the so-called personhood initiative.

Mississippi already has tough abortion regulations and only one clinic which performs the procedure.

Correspondents say that even if the amendment had passed then it would have likely faced legal challenges, as it contradicts the right to abortion established by the Roe v Wade Supreme Court ruling of 1973.

'Strong support'

Voters on Tuesday were asked: "Should the term 'person' be defined to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof?"

Backers of the amendment to the state's constitution collected more than 100,000 signatures from registered voters to introduce it to the ballot.

"Personhood is the key to all human rights," said Keith Mason, president of Personhood USA. "We believe that by legally changing the definition of what a person is, it can undermine Roe v Wade and outlaw abortion."

Tuesday's vote could have also led to the banning of some birth control methods in Mississippi.

The amendment has attracted strong support in the conservative and religious state.

A poll taken before the vote found that 45% of voters in Mississippi backed the measure, 44% were against, and 11% undecided.

The state's Democratic and Republican candidates for governor, who are also running for election on Tuesday, have both come out in favour of the amendment.

But opponents say that there could be wide-ranging legal repercussions if an embryo has equal rights to its mother.

Dr Randall Hines, a Mississippi infertility specialist, said: "This amendment represents the greatest moment of government interference in the delivery of health care that we've ever seen."

The initiative will probably pass but will not survive anticipated legal challenges, according to one commentator.

Marty Wiseman, director of the John C Stennis Institute of Government at Mississippi State University, told Reuters news agency: "Mississippi can't negate Roe v Wade, which this would do."

"Who knows the twists and turns it is going to take before it is shot down by the Supreme Court," he added.

Personhood campaigners are also hoping to put the question to voters in the US states of Ohio, Florida, and South Dakota in 2012.

But similar measures have been rejected twice by wide margins by voters in Colorado in 2008 and 2010
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
And pass or fail, this is how the system was set up to work. This is where Roe v Wade failed to take that into consideration... that ultimately, the states and the people can do the right thing. Not everything is on daddy gubmint.
 

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
Personally I think the title of this report is misleading.

Of course a fertilised egg is alive, but the vote was ... is a fertilised egg a person?
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Personally I think the title of this report is misleading.

Of course a fertilised egg is alive, but the vote was ... is a fertilised egg a person?

The religious will say yes at the moment of conception...

To me the issue is whether anyone can or should have control over another persons body and make their choice of whether to carry the baby or not....
 

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
The religious will say yes at the moment of conception...

To me the issue is whether anyone can or should have control over another persons body and make their choice of whether to carry the baby or not....



and I think that is the big part of the reason for this vote.

For example ..... A Rape Case
If, at conception, the fertilised egg is a "person" then some lawyer or other, is going to try & defend the FE's right to go full term against the mothers wishes, or call it 1st degree murder if she has an abortion???
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
and I think that is the big part of the reason for this vote.

For example ..... A Rape Case
If, at conception, the fertilised egg is a "person" then some lawyer or other, is going to try & defend the FE's right to go full term against the mothers wishes, or call it 1st degree murder if she has an abortion???

A 1st trimester baby can not live without the mother...The baby can not live without its life support.....this leads to other other issue of right to die... or a DNR order...
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
Religious people will vary on when they consider the fetus alive. If you go by the Bible which says blood is life that would mean the fetus is alive about 2 weeks after conception so the morning after pill is allowed.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
A 1st trimester baby can not live without the mother...The baby can not live without its life support....

In that case astronauts in space and divers under the water among others are no different than unborn babies and we can abort any of them at will as well since they can't live without their life support.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
In that case astronauts in space and divers under the water among others are no different than unborn babies and we can abort any of them at will as well since they can't live without their life support.
Astronauts and divers under the water are going to a place where they are not naturally supposed to be. And the baby is...... no different? Got it.

Ironic, though, that men do spend the first nine months inside the womb, and the rest of their lives trying to get back in.


I don't think the title is very misleading, since it was the "amendment" they rejected. They don't reject life at conception, they just reject an amendment that would, in the words of a whiny right-wing conservative reminiscent of a whiny left-wing liberal, "legally changing the definition of what a person is, it can undermine Roe v Wade and outlaw abortion." (and therefore be able to legally tell other people what to do, how to live, and how to think, no different than the methods used by the gay rights folks to change the definition of marriage to undermine the religious origins of the institution, waaa, waaa, waaa).
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
You know, there was a case that was brought to the feds I think over marriage, the state of california had an amendment to their constitution that was added to it and the federal courts struck it down, in affect trashing the 10th amendment. The same thing will happen here unless the states either through congress or through a constitutional convention define what the feds can do in regards of the 10th amendment and how far they can intrude into the states right to govern themselves. Roe v Wade is one issue that could be solved if this happens.

The religious will say yes at the moment of conception...

What religion speaks of this?

Conception was not defined ever by any religion and generally it was until the person had an outward sign of being pregnant. It was science gave us the way it happened and showed us how to detect it before it was detected by the outward sign.
 
Top