Mississippi Amendment Would Force Raped Women to Bear Rapist's Child

[Sunstone]

Mississippi Amendment Would Force Raped Women to Bear Rapist's Child | BuzzFlash.org

Run away family values once again. A proposed amendment to the Mississippi State Constitution would force raped women to bear their rapist's child. What do you make of that?

 

[Drolefille]

Prohibiting most hormonal birth control and IUDs as well. It would force a child to continue a pregnancy, or a woman whose life was at risk due to illness or disease. It would prohibit ending an ectopic pregnancy no matter how fatal.

The fact that this amendment even exists ticks me off, the fact that it's so poorly worded as to essentially result in the death of women enrages me.

People who support this amendment cannot legitimately call themselves pro-life. It is outright anti-woman.

/and anti-science
//and anti-logic

 

[Averroes]

This is interesting. I am sure on many grounds this will have many ethical problems.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is very sad. I would think it to be very inhumane to expect to live with such a reminder of what happened to her during her healing phase, especially knowing her life will be forever altered by circumstances outside of her control. It is extremely anti-woman.

 

[gnomon]

Just great.

Given the number of fertilized eggs that are miscarried does that mean any woman who doesn't adhere to a strict health principal to ensure maximum chance of implantation of the fertilized egg on the uterine wall and carrying it to it's full term would make such women guilty of manslaughter. Or is their a clause to protect women with uncontrolled diabetes or thyroid problems?

I mean hell, if they the AFA doesn't wish to take into account the scenario in which a female minor is forcibly raped as a reason for abortion than why would they make an exception for a woman who has a particular health problem or disease and has a miscarriage?

 

[Majikthise]

I heard about this last night and yelled out a rather choice explative. It makes you realize that these idiots are still out there and are not going to give up.

 

[Revoltingest]

People who support this amendment cannot legitimately call themselves pro-life. It is outright anti-woman.

I don't think that holds water. Sure, sure, the proposed law imposes an onerous burden, but the motives appear to be religious, albeit of a knuckle walking variety.
Many people truly believe that an egg is a person, so it makes sense that to them an abortion is murder. See the law for what it is & the effects it will have, & fight it.

 

[Drolefille]

I don't think that holds water. Sure, sure, the proposed law imposes an onerous burden, but the motives appear to be religious, albeit of a knuckle walking variety.
Many people truly believe that an egg is a person, so it makes sense that to them an abortion is murder. See the law for what it is & the effects it will have, & fight it.

The law will result in the death of women, flat out. Whether because they don't have access to birth control - some women can die if they get pregnant, or because of an ectopic pregnancy or other medical complication.

A doctor cannot murder a person to save another person, and this law is so vaguely worded that when it makes the fetus not just "a life" but an "equal life" with the woman whose body is its life support, it would prohibit "killing" a fetus to save the mother. Therefore mother dies, then fetus dies. And while this seems extreme, it is the policy in Catholic hospitals (see the case where the head of the hospital was excommunicated for saving the life of a mother.)

There is no way to call this "pro-life."

 

[Revoltingest]

The law will result in the death of women, flat out. Whether because they don't have access to birth control - some women can die if they get pregnant, or because of an ectopic pregnancy or other medical complication.

From their perspective, abortion results in far more deaths.

A doctor cannot murder a person to save another person, and this law is so vaguely worded that when it makes the fetus not just "a life" but an "equal life" with the woman whose body is its life support, it would prohibit "killing" a fetus to save the mother. Therefore mother dies, then fetus dies. And while this seems extreme, it is the policy in Catholic hospitals (see the case where the head of the hospital was excommunicated for saving the life of a mother.)

Remember....I'm not arguing for the law.
I don't believe that the fetus is a human yet, nor do I recognize the government's claim to have authority over such matters.

There is no way to call this "pro-life."

It is "pro-life" for those who consider the eggs & fetus to be "life".

 

[Awoon]

States rights

 

[Falvlun]

How does this mesh with Roe v Wade? I thought that gave women the right to an abortion. How can individual states pass legislation that would criminalize it?

 

[Revoltingest]

States rights

But the Incorporation Doctrine makes the Bill of Rights apply to the states too.

 

[Falvlun]

States rights

Personally, I think that individual rights should trump state rights.

 

[Revoltingest]

How does this mesh with Roe v Wade? I thought that gave women the right to an abortion. How can individual states pass legislation that would criminalize it?

They may do as they please, but they risk getting b***h slapped by the USSC.

 

[Willamena]

Run away family values once again. A proposed amendment to the Mississippi State Constitution would force raped women to bear their rapist's child. What do you make of that?

Makes we wonder what the percentage of people who are affected would be: I imagine incredibly small. Not every woman wants to give up her child just because of the circumstances surrounding its conception.

 

[Drolefille]

From their perspective, abortion results in far more deaths.

Remember....I'm not arguing for the law.
I don't believe that the fetus is a human yet, nor do I recognize the government's claim to have authority over such matters.

It is "pro-life" for those who consider the eggs & fetus to be "life".

I know you're not arguing for the law, what I laid out is the reason that this cannot be pro-life when it will necessarily result in the death of women.

So I'll amend it based on your point, it's pro-life for people who consider a fertilized egg, embryo and fetus to be life AND who consider a woman not to be life.

It's anti-choice, anti-birth control, anti-science, anti-woman and anti-abortion. It's pro-death of women even when the fetus will die because she dies. Which leads to two 'deaths' instead of one.

It cannot be legitimately considered pro-life under those circumstances unless one does not consider women to be life but merely an incubator.

How does this mesh with Roe v Wade? I thought that gave women the right to an abortion. How can individual states pass legislation that would criminalize it?

The SCOTUS will probably have to get involved.

Makes we wonder what the percentage of people who are affected would be: I imagine incredibly small. Not every woman wants to give up her child just because of the circumstances surrounding its conception.

Rape and incest pregnancies are proportionally very small, but still so highly significant due to the level of trauma involved and the sometimes very young ages of the victim.

However every woman who takes hormonal birth control including the morning after pill or who uses an IUD will be affected. In theory a woman who has a glass of wine while pregnant could be charged with a crime.

 

[Falvlun]

Makes we wonder what the percentage of people who are affected would be: I imagine incredibly small. Not every woman wants to give up her child just because of the circumstances surrounding its conception.

The actual ammendment being proposed is to make all abortions illegal: The AFA is vigorously supporting voter approval next week of a Mississippi State constitutional amendment to recognize fertilized eggs as "persons," thus making abortion - and even certain birth control methods - an act of murder. (from the OP article)

I think the focus on rape victims is simply because that tends to be an exception that even most pro-lifers are willing to make.

 

[Willamena]

However every woman who takes hormonal birth control including the morning after pill or who uses an IUD will be affected. In theory a woman who has a glass of wine while pregnant could be charged with a crime.

Now, that is a bit excessive!

 

[dawny0826]

Mississippi Amendment Would Force Raped Women to Bear Rapist's Child | BuzzFlash.org

Run away family values once again. A proposed amendment to the Mississippi State Constitution would force raped women to bear their rapist's child. What do you make of that?

Legalized abuse. It's disgusting.

Though I can understand why a woman could feel regret for making such a personal decision, regardless of the circumstances impacting conception - I don't support legislation that limits the rights of individuals to do that which they must do for their own well being.

 

[Falvlun]

They may do as they please, but they risk getting b***h slapped by the USSC.

Meanwhile, if it gets passed, women will be convicted of murder while a supreme court decision that has already been made is again rehashed in usual tortoise fashion.

That shouldn't be allowed. The legal battle should have to occur before an ammendment like this is allowed to be passed.