Mississipi personhood amendment
So, lots of my friends have posted about this - and my initial reaction was to agree that yep, it's crazy. Arresting women for miscarrying? Illegal birth control? Nuts!
I decided WAY back in high school when we did sex ed that the coil was not technically contraception but abortion, and as such, it was not a method I personally would ever use. And a miscarriage SHOULD be treated, under this, as a bereavement - not a murder. (Not really any different to how a SIDS death is treated - of course it's horrific for the grieving parents, but it's necessary.)
*IF* you agree that life begins at conception - and obviously I get that many MANY people do not agree with this - but IF you take that as a given - then assisted miscarriage (eg through recreational drug use) and abortion ARE STILL NOT MURDERS. They are, at worst, manslaughter. Because murder is the INTENTIONAL taking of a human life. And manslaughter is the accidental (or unavoidable) taking of a human life. And if you ARE using the coil, or you have an abortion - I'm pretty sure you either DON'T believe that life begins at conception, or you have a reason that you would consider good enough to allow you to end another person's life (think euthanasia or failing to go into the burning building to attempt to save someone else because the chance of you doing anything other than getting yourself killed are slim to none).
I think people are missing the point here - they appear to be claiming that the foetus would get MORE rights than the mother - which is simply not the case. Not legally anyway. How the bill would be implemented is another matter, but it seems to state that the foetus would have AS MUCH right to live as the mother, not MORE. Which honestly MAKES SENSE if life does begin at conception. And in practical terms, the mother's life will come first unless the baby is nearly term (that's simple maths - one survivor is better than none!) - at which point, frankly, I don't know many mothers who wouldn't give their life for their kids anyway!
This is never going to be an issue people can agree on. Either you believe life begins at conception, or at birth (or more likely somewhere between the two!) If a foetus does not count as 'life' - OBVIOUSLY the mother should be allowed to do as she wishes with her own body. IF the foetus IS alive, OBVIOUSLY the mother has no right to deliberately end another life - that would be like saying it's OK to do what you like with your own body, even if that has a negative impact on someone else (in a 'I'm going to punch the air and walk towards you, and if you happen to get in the way of my fists, it's NOT MY FAULT" sort of a way).
Now - I'm sure I'll have upset some people by this. However - I am NOT judging anyone. No more than a vegetarian necessarily judges omnivores, or a pacifist necessarily judges a soldier. I don't KNOW that life begins at conception. I just think it does, and that influences MY actions - but it shouldn't influence yours. If you don't agree with me - that's fair enough. Morality depends on the individual's viewpoint - it is not an absolute.
I don't think that this amendment *should* be passed - it's too damn confusing and grey an area to put into law! There are too many possible misapplications of it. It's the equivalent of anti animal cruelty regulations FORCING vegetarianism onto people. I'd like to see more stringent rules on abortion and birth control, yes. I'd like the coil to be less widely used, and abortion to be much much rarer than it is. But I'd also like to win the lottery and for everyone to live in peace and harmony and....
I decided WAY back in high school when we did sex ed that the coil was not technically contraception but abortion, and as such, it was not a method I personally would ever use. And a miscarriage SHOULD be treated, under this, as a bereavement - not a murder. (Not really any different to how a SIDS death is treated - of course it's horrific for the grieving parents, but it's necessary.)
*IF* you agree that life begins at conception - and obviously I get that many MANY people do not agree with this - but IF you take that as a given - then assisted miscarriage (eg through recreational drug use) and abortion ARE STILL NOT MURDERS. They are, at worst, manslaughter. Because murder is the INTENTIONAL taking of a human life. And manslaughter is the accidental (or unavoidable) taking of a human life. And if you ARE using the coil, or you have an abortion - I'm pretty sure you either DON'T believe that life begins at conception, or you have a reason that you would consider good enough to allow you to end another person's life (think euthanasia or failing to go into the burning building to attempt to save someone else because the chance of you doing anything other than getting yourself killed are slim to none).
I think people are missing the point here - they appear to be claiming that the foetus would get MORE rights than the mother - which is simply not the case. Not legally anyway. How the bill would be implemented is another matter, but it seems to state that the foetus would have AS MUCH right to live as the mother, not MORE. Which honestly MAKES SENSE if life does begin at conception. And in practical terms, the mother's life will come first unless the baby is nearly term (that's simple maths - one survivor is better than none!) - at which point, frankly, I don't know many mothers who wouldn't give their life for their kids anyway!
This is never going to be an issue people can agree on. Either you believe life begins at conception, or at birth (or more likely somewhere between the two!) If a foetus does not count as 'life' - OBVIOUSLY the mother should be allowed to do as she wishes with her own body. IF the foetus IS alive, OBVIOUSLY the mother has no right to deliberately end another life - that would be like saying it's OK to do what you like with your own body, even if that has a negative impact on someone else (in a 'I'm going to punch the air and walk towards you, and if you happen to get in the way of my fists, it's NOT MY FAULT" sort of a way).
Now - I'm sure I'll have upset some people by this. However - I am NOT judging anyone. No more than a vegetarian necessarily judges omnivores, or a pacifist necessarily judges a soldier. I don't KNOW that life begins at conception. I just think it does, and that influences MY actions - but it shouldn't influence yours. If you don't agree with me - that's fair enough. Morality depends on the individual's viewpoint - it is not an absolute.
I don't think that this amendment *should* be passed - it's too damn confusing and grey an area to put into law! There are too many possible misapplications of it. It's the equivalent of anti animal cruelty regulations FORCING vegetarianism onto people. I'd like to see more stringent rules on abortion and birth control, yes. I'd like the coil to be less widely used, and abortion to be much much rarer than it is. But I'd also like to win the lottery and for everyone to live in peace and harmony and....