Elizabeth Kaeton says at Telling Secrets:
The "Mississippi Initiative 26" - the “personhood” amendment on the November 8th ballot - aims to sidestep existing legal battles, simply stating that “the term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.”Even Roman Catholic bishops are against the amendment. The dangerous 'personhood' initiative is spreading to other states and needs to be stopped. Please read all of Elizabeth's excellent post.
It would effectively end access to reproductive health care in Mississippi — including banning all abortions, with no exceptions for rape or incest or the life of the woman; some forms of contraception; and in vitro fertilization.
It also offers the frightening possibility that doctors would not be able to provide life-saving medical treatment to a pregnant woman, for example, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.
A fertilized egg is not a 'person' from the moment of conception.
ReplyDeleteI guess my question would be, 'How do you know?'
Tim, it is my well-considered and prayerful opinion that a fertilized egg is not a person, nor is an undifferentiated group of cells a person. Of course, I can't prove what I say, if that's what you're asking.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think? Is a fertilized egg a person?
Thanks for posting this, Mimi.
ReplyDeleteTim - Does a fertilized egg have the right to vote? Can it be charged with a crime? Do you celebrate your birth date or conception date?
Elizabeth, you're welcome.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand what the right to vote or the age at which you can be charged with a crime has to do with the question of personhood. Babies and children are persons, right?
Regarding the law, I would want Roe v. Wade to stay in place.
"Regarding the law, I would want Roe v. Wade to stay in place."
ReplyDeleteFWIW then, Mimi, you do not disagree w/ MY views [And I'm not sure there's ANYONE for whom abortion is NOT "a difficult subject", for one reason or another. I think EVERYONE could agree that, in An Ideal World, there would be No Abortion (though our reasons for same would likely be Vastly Different!)]
***
@Tim: are you familiar w/ the Abolitionist poster of a black man in chains asking "Am I Not a Man and Brother?"
Ultimately, I believe that's where "personhood" begins: the ability to think that question.
Now infants and the intellectually-disabled may not be able to cognate that thought, but I think we have both tradition and law which should protect them.
But in utero, where personhood is and has been long contested, the question is whether life found within should be privileged or not.
I absolutely affirm the right of ANY woman (regardless of economic class, legal status, or prior # of children, for example) to privilege the life in her own uterus.
But equally do I affirm the right of any woman to NOT privilege the (NON-person) life in her uterus.
HTH.
Now, let's make both sex education (empowering females to Say "No") and birth control MORE ACCESSIBLE, so we don't have this "difficult subject" anymore! :-)
JCF, my views are not the same as yours, but my point is that to say personhood begins at conception makes no more sense to me than saying an acorn is a tree.
ReplyDeleteI did not intend to take on the question of exactly at what stage of life personhood begins, but I believe that it begins before one can think and answer your question. What is a baby or child if not a person? If you willfully kill them, is it not murder?
I knew I was stepping into a quagmire.
Now, let's make both sex education (empowering females to Say "No") and birth control MORE ACCESSIBLE, so we don't have this "difficult subject" anymore!
I absolutely agree with you there.
Well, I was pushing at the ridiculous end of the argument to prove a point. I did so very poorly.
ReplyDeleteIt's just all so ridiculous to me.
OR, we can make abortion safe, legal, and affordable for any woman who chooses one. At any time. AND we can work to remove the shame and stigma of abortion and treat it for what it is, a medical procedure, not some idea that men can discuss 'round the water cooler.
ReplyDeleteThis is not "a difficult subject," not difficult at all. If you think abortion is murder, that it's wrong, then don't have one. But let's acknowledge that this is your opinion and that you can't prove it anymore than Mimi can prove hers.
Just personally, I don't kill insects. I don't want to be part of that kind of violence. That doesn't mean I'll stop you from swatting a fly. I know people who won't eat meat for the same reason, but they have not passed legislation keeping me from my chicken soup. I know one guy who even thinks that fruits and vegetables have feelings. He eats very little, insisting that he gets nutrition from the air. I'd like to see how that legislation goes over! So, look, act on your personal beliefs, but leave me out of it!
When the Roman Catholic bishops think the amendment is ridiculous....
ReplyDeleteThe American Family Association, the Family Research Council, and their fellow-travelers amongst the citizenry and politicians have gone bonkers.
Lindy, I pick and choose amongst the insects. I kill mosquitoes and cockroaches without a twinge of conscience, but the rest I pretty much leave along. And yes, I might kill a fly. I wouldn't want to be the old lady who swallowed a fly. That can lead to all sorts of complications.
ReplyDeleteI actually don't like the "This is not a chicken ad". I am not at all sure that the first two statements are correct in all senses, and while I am sure a silkworm's cocoon is not a dress, that's because it takes quite a bit of human intervention to turn it into one - it's not a natural process, so it can't logically be compared to the other three examples. As for the fourth, I don't even want to go there (not at 4am when I should be tucked up in bed, anyway). I take a liberal view of abortion but I don't think it's at all an easy subject and never having been pregnant I'm somewhat unwilling to pass judgement on those who have.
ReplyDeleteCathy, you're right about the silk. It could be in a test as an answer to the question, 'Which picture doesn't belong in the group?'
ReplyDeleteI don't pass judgement on women who have abortions. I don't think I could have had one, but I can't say for sure, because I never had to make the decision.
What do you think? Is a fertilized egg a person?
ReplyDeleteI do not know. Neither do you. Therefore I think we should err on the side of caution.
And yes I know all about cases where the mother's life is in danger etc., and I know that the religious right (of which I am not a member) are often accused of only being pro-life up 'til birth and then not caring about poverty and so on. I do care about poverty and injustice and I've done my best to make a difference.
And that's why I care about this issue. My late friend Joe Walker (the father of a Down Syndrome child, Sarah Joy, who is now 10 and who I've been seeing quite a lot of lately) used to point out that since it became possible to test in the womb for Down Syndrome, only 10% of babies so tested actually make it to delivery. Sarah Joy is a wonderful, joyful, faith-filled person. I grieve for those others who lost their lives. Who is speaking for them?
Tim, you make an emotional leap from a particular little girl whom you love to a fertilized egg. I'm sorry, but I can't make that leap with you. Neither of us can 'know' in the sense of having proof, but we must make judgements as best we can in particular circumstances. Because some women choose to abort Down Syndrome fetuses, it does not follow that a fertilized egg is a person.
ReplyDeleteMy views on abortion are what many would consider conservative, but I would not demand that everyone live their lives according to my views.
Begging leave to ignore momentarily the ethics and philosopy, to mention a niggling legalistic detail that almost no one has mentioned in the past decade or two while various states have tried to enact laws like this (though less vicious). Namely:
ReplyDeleteIn the constitutional law of the United States in its present state, a fetus is not a person with constitutional rights. As to law, there's no more to be said, since states cannot override the Constitution, which each state has made a binding agreement to recognize as the supreme Law of the Land. (Capitalization in the Constitution)
The legal principle about the non-rights of the fetus was established under Constitutional process by the Supreme Court, which has jurisdiction in cases arising from the Constitution, in the case called Roe vs. Wade. I.e., the Court already considered the specific question at the outset and decided it.
BTW Ohio tried the same sort of law, just less evilly drafted, in the 1970s. Couldn't make it stick, of course. Others have done the same, with the same result.
But of course, if anyone thinks this principle should not be the law, there is a way to change the law. 3/4 of the states -- easy enough if the nation agrees on the matter. Or, in this imperfect world, a future Court may decide to overrule stare decisis, as has happened in rare cases in the past. Meanwhile, it is simply impossible for the proposed Mississippi law to exist. I find it rather disgraceful that a state should attempt this sort of fraud, but that's a personal opinion.
We now return you to human rather than legal discourse.
In the constitutional law of the United States in its present state, a fetus is not a person with constitutional rights.
ReplyDeletePorlock, you are correct. There is the law. It is my considered opinion that a good many politicians who push the law in Alabama don't really believe in what they're doing, but they've decided to play to the extremists in their constituencies. The pols are afraid of conservative Christian groups such as the American Family Association and the Family Research Council, who stand firmly behind the resolution.