SciTech

Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even in Mississippi

novy.

Posted to SciTech on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 02:23:07 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

Christian Fundamentalists agree that human life begins at conception. That view has important implications: not only must abortion be outlawed, but any form of birth control that might kill fertilised eggs must be outlawed as well. They wanted some state, any state, to pass "personhood" laws protecting fertilised human eggs. What better choice than Mississippi, right? Even though he had serious qualms about it, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour couldn't bring himself to outright oppose Initiative 26 [love that Jehovah joke], since he must have figured it would sail through. But it didn't. 55 to 57% of voters in Mississippi said no to Initiative 26.

No kidding, only 42% to 45% of people in Mississippi were ready for criminal investigations of miscarriages. Fertilised eggs won't qualify as persons after all, even someplace where personhood hasn't traditionally counted for too much to begin with. Even conservatives were split on this one. (Collective bargaining as "core value" was surprising enough news from Fox without seeing Fox commentators waffle on Initiative 26 too.)

What does it all mean? Can American extremists really go too far for even their own supporters? On another, slightly different front, do major national victories for both unions and feminists suggest re-invigoration of America's left? Did Tea Partiers peak too soon, and will left-leaning Occupiers define this coming election year instead?

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by novy, conception, personhood, Mississippi, abortion, politics, birth control, IVF (all tags)

This story: 37 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
1

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

joshv.

Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 03:37:40 AM EST

none

Something with 45% support does not represent an "extreme" viewpoint.

2

^ 1

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

improper.

Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 04:42:29 AM EST

none

In Mississippi, I am sure the KKK has 45% support.

I'm sure that in Saudi Arabia there's at least 45% support to stone women to death for being in the company of non-family member males, again... not an "extremist" viewpoint.

3

^ 2

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

joshv.

Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 04:46:42 AM EST

none

"In Mississippi, I am sure the KKK has 45% support."

Doubt it.

So in the US as a whole you get down to 30-35% support for life begins at conception - still not an extreme viewpoint.

5

^ 3

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

improper.

Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 04:51:20 AM EST

none

When you pose a different question, like ask "do you to criminalize a miscarriage or you think a woman's life is the same as a fertilized egg" I'm sure you weed out most of the retards and the sensible opinion comes out. It's really about how you phrase it. But, you're probably right that 30-35% or maybe even more people in the US believe in life is conception, but that's not all that surprising since a large majority also believe in silly things like 2000 years ago a guy died for their sins after walking on water and turning water into wine.

6

^ 2

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

port1080.

Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 05:08:19 AM EST

none

not an "extremist" viewpoint.

Not extreme, just stupid.

Allons-y!

7

^ 6

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

improper.

Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 05:22:36 AM EST

none

Ok, zyx.

10

^ 7

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

port1080.

Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 06:52:55 AM EST

none

After so many years, I guess he's rubbing off on me a bit.

Allons-y!

11

^ 10

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

improper.

Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 07:25:50 AM EST

none

I'm sure he enjoys rubbing off on people.

20

^ 7

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

zyxwvutsr.

Thu Nov 10, 2011 at 12:27:47 PM EST

none

It's neither extreme nor stupid; it's merely a difference of opinion.

Why are you people so intolerant?

32

^ 20

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

buffalopete.

Fri Nov 11, 2011 at 11:05:50 AM EST

none

You misspelled indulgent.

Buffalo Pete: Raving batshit loony? Or HOPE FOR MAN???
(I may be that guy.)

4

^ 1

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

novy.

Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 04:49:25 AM EST

none

Something with 45% support in Mississippi might still be extreme.

8

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

Ephraim Gadsby.

Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 05:31:45 AM EST

4.33 (funny, tasty, dumb)

So why does making an omelette out of condor eggs violate the Endangered Species Act?

12

^ 8

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

novy.

Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 07:29:46 AM EST

5.00 (calculating)

If there were 7 billion condors, I bet it wouldn't.

13

^ 12

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

Ephraim Gadsby.

Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 07:33:20 AM EST

5.00 (astute, clever)

Irrelevant. Why does condorhood begin with the egg, when persohood doesn't?

14

^ 13

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

novy.

Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 08:31:55 AM EST

none

If there were only, say, 10,000 humans on Earth, personhood would probably be deemed to begin with semen and eggs, not fertilised eggs. I seem to remember Jehovah killing someone for spilling his seed. But no reason to stop even there, as some ultra-Christians might argue that their personhood began before they were conceived. (For example, I have this client who often tells me that God knew him before he was conceived.) If there were only 10,000 people, every woman's primary duty would be to bear more children, every man's primary duty would be to ensure the survival of those children, and birth control would be as unthinkable, even tragic, as abortion. But with 7 billion humans on Earth, heading for 9.5 billion by mid-century, humanity would be much better off if lots of females stopped having kids altogether and lots of others stuck with one or two.

Unless "personhood" means something entirely different to you than to me, cells don't have "personhood" and condors don't have personhood either. You might as well talk about personhood of ants as personhood of fertilised human eggs. Fertilised condor eggs represent potential condor life, just as fertilised human eggs represent potential human life. If you fear that condors will go extinct, you will want to protect condor eggs because they represent your best chance to avoid condor extinction, not because you respect condorhood, whatever that means, but for practical survival reasons. Humans don't face survival issues these days, except in context of nuking ourselves into oblivion or overpopulating this planet. Claiming some moral imperative to get to 15 billion people so that we can begin to slaughter one another over resources leaves me pretty cold.

15

^ 14

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

Ephraim Gadsby.

Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 08:42:11 AM EST

none

You're evading the crux of the matter.

16

^ 15

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

novy.

Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 08:48:31 AM EST

none

Which, for you, involves giving legal rights to collections of cells rather than to human beings, even (especially?) if it means women have less rights than those cells growing in their bodies?

17

^ 16

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

Ephraim Gadsby.

Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 08:54:27 AM EST

none

I want recognition of my right to smash condor eggs.

18

^ 17

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

Toby Flip.

Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 11:55:57 AM EST

5.00

False equivalence.  Do you also wish to have the right to smash another persons fertilized ovum?  Alternatively, do you wish to prosecute a condor that smashes its own eggs?  

19

^ 18

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

Ephraim Gadsby.

Thu Nov 10, 2011 at 06:27:18 AM EST

none

Assume the female Condor has abandoned her nest, signalling she does not wish to hatch and raise the eggs.

21

^ 19

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

Toby Flip.

Thu Nov 10, 2011 at 06:40:58 PM EST

none

No difference.  I see it as a property law question.  Likely the US Gov asserts property rights to such endangered bird eggs and thus their destruction would be a crime against US government property (probably through the relevant endangered species legislation).  If not the government then the owner of the land.  If there is no owner who asserts rights to them then I say go crazy... but keep an eye on the sky just in case.

I think your question would be more applicable in regards to embryos left over from IVF or other procedures where the parents cannot be contacted and/or have given no indication as to how they want the embryos to be treated.  Is there an ethical obligation to preserve them?

23

^ 14

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

MC Nally.

Fri Nov 11, 2011 at 06:58:07 AM EST

none

The position you seem to be staking out, where the protections afforded to persons or potential persons are dependent solely on utilitarian criteria are repugnant to me.  And likely to you, too, I am guessing, if you would take some time to consider the likely consequences of pursuing such an approach.

25

^ 23

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

novy.

Fri Nov 11, 2011 at 08:16:48 AM EST

none

The position you seem to be staking out, where "sexual morality" means producing as many babies as possible even if that means forcing women to have them (and even when that means human overpopulation will get addressed by war, famine, and destruction rather than by family planning) seems repugnant to me. I guess you've thought through why having more World Wars to keep population down seems morally superior to having fewer children to begin with, and so unborn fertilised eggs with no self-awareness and not yet attached to anyone's uterine lining seem to you to have more rights than actual sentient women.

What do you want really? Will 9 billion be enough? Should humanity shoot for 15 billion or 20 billion? No resource issues in your world? Have you really taken time to consider the likely consequences of pursuing such an approach?

26

^ 25

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

Ephraim Gadsby.

Fri Nov 11, 2011 at 08:39:44 AM EST

none

"unborn fertilised eggs with no self-awareness and not yet attached to anyone's uterine lining"

Like a condor egg.

28

^ 26

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

novy.

Fri Nov 11, 2011 at 09:08:22 AM EST

none

I would let you eat that egg abandoned by its mum, you know.

I get it though. Why should (fertilised) condor eggs be protected by law but fertilised human eggs not be protected? My response (Earth has way too many humans already) apparently horrified MC, which I understood, but you too? And you always deny being Catholic. Like all those "secular Jews" who tell you they don't believe in God but who never really stop being Jewish.

30

^ 28

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

Ephraim Gadsby.

Fri Nov 11, 2011 at 09:26:36 AM EST

none

As I've told you before, I have no religious beliefs, and I've been in Catholic church once my entire life, for a wedding. Your repeated insistence otherwise leads me to believe you have mental problems.

Speaking of horrifying people, when I suggest implementing something like William Shockley's Voluntary Sterilization Bonus Plan, pro-abortion liberals get upset. Does that make any sense? Since you bring it up, what types of humans does the Earth have too many of?

"Like all those "secular Jews" who tell you they don't believe in God but who never really stop being Jewish."

Jews are tribal? Who knew! Besides you, I mean.

33

^ 30

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

novy.

Fri Nov 11, 2011 at 11:29:04 AM EST

none

I definitely have mental problems. At least I own and understand my problems.

Funny how you want to sterilise "Obama supporters" but don't want them to have abortions, and liberals want them to have abortions but don't want people like you to advocate sterilisation. I figure black folks would have trouble figuring which of you to have greater contempt for.

Earth's human population has gone from less than 1 billion to more than 7 billion in something like 200 years. Everyone figures there will be 9.5 billion people in 2050. I think that many people burden Earth's resource base, and make devastating wars inevitable.

But then Republican sympathisers don't seem to do that well with reality lately. Say global warming and they hear totalitarian conspiracy, say evolution and they hear Christian-bashing, say overpopulation and they hear genocide. Asking anyone to control himself for humanity's good screams of Communism.

Yeah, Jews are tribal. Not at all like you.  

34

^ 33

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

Ephraim Gadsby.

Sun Nov 13, 2011 at 04:32:58 PM EST

none

"I definitely have mental problems"

We finally agree on something.

"Funny how you want to sterilise "Obama supporters""

It is funny. Hey, that's two things we agree on!

35

^ 34

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

novy.

Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 02:04:52 AM EST

none

Everyone I have ever met has mental problems. Presuming you don't have any would qualify you in my book as having mental problems.

While you imagine that Earth needs more white nationalists like yourself, people like you never seem to have children. That doesn't surprise me either. Your ideology has no future, so why invest in children who will grow up thinking of you as some pre-Industrial relic?

36

^ 35

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

improper.

Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 03:14:01 AM EST

none

Everyone I have ever met has mental problems.

I mean really, there's mental problems and then there's mental problems. You having a stressful workweek that leads to you shouting at another driver in a fit of road rage isn't the same as having voices in your head or thinking that colors make sounds or believing in imaginary friends like god. Those are serious mental problems.

37

^ 36

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

novy.

Mon Nov 14, 2011 at 12:49:26 PM EST

none

Well, see, there you have it. Since at least 92% of Americans believe in imaginary friends like God, you start by admitting that most Americans have mental problems, and you haven't even begun to scratch around yet. I wish I could hear colours though.

27

^ 25

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

MC Nally.

Fri Nov 11, 2011 at 08:52:14 AM EST

none

The position you seem to be staking out, where "sexual morality" means producing as many babies as possible even if that means forcing women to have them (and even when that means human overpopulation will get addressed by war, famine, and destruction rather than by family planning) seems repugnant to me.
You have quite a wild imagination if you truly believe that's my position.  Or perhaps you just prefer arguing against a straw man, I don't know.  In any case you're wildly off target.

29

^ 27

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

novy.

Fri Nov 11, 2011 at 09:25:41 AM EST

none

Good. I prefer to be off-target in this case. But most people who argue for "personhood at conception" seem primarily motivated not merely to outlaw all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest, but to outlaw as many types of birth control as possible.

Let's get down to it though. Your daughter (or wife, or mother) gets raped by some crazed monster lurking in bushes (who later gets caught and turns out to be psycho killer). If you would force her to carry that baby to term, and invite that man's blood into your family, then you really embrace "personhood at conception". I don't.

22

^ 8

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

MC Nally.

Fri Nov 11, 2011 at 06:55:15 AM EST

none

So why does making an omelette out of condor eggs violate the Endangered Species Act?
Because the Endangered Species Act has clear statutory language defining protections for more than just the living members of the species in question and doesn't function by creating an analogy to murder statutes?  Does this really need to be explained?

Among other things, to choose an example, the Endangered Species Act protects nesting areas and habitats.  It doesn't do so by extending condor-hood to cliffs.

Your flip comparison is superficially clever at best.  You can do better.

24

^ 22

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

Ephraim Gadsby.

Fri Nov 11, 2011 at 07:32:37 AM EST

none

Your argument is tautological.

31

^ 24

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

MC Nally.

Fri Nov 11, 2011 at 10:28:18 AM EST

none

Your argument is tautological.
Your assertion is unsupported.

9

Re: Personhood Doesn't Begin At Conception, Even i

Gaius Petronius.

Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 06:17:13 AM EST

none

Once again, Mississippi avoids the concept of personhood.

This story: 37 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment