Life-at-fertilization initiative has ...

Life-at-fertilization initiative has hope in Miss.

There are 2671 comments on the Centre Daily Times story from Oct 17, 2011, titled Life-at-fertilization initiative has hope in Miss.. In it, Centre Daily Times reports that:

In this June 6, 2011 file photo, Ezekiel Sowell, 7, right,of Tupelo, Miss., sings during a prayer rally for the Personhood Amendment at the Capitol in Jackson, Miss.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Centre Daily Times.

Ocean56

AOL

#2699 Apr 23, 2013
zef wrote:
Than don't reproduce. But if you do reproduce, you have every obligation to protect the life of your baby. And you do not have the right to kill anyone, not even your own baby. Choice is a mental process. No one can make any choice for anyone except themselves. You are insane.
Actually, I DO have the right to avoid getting and STAYING pregnant, by using contraception to avoid an unwanted pregnancy and, if necessary, abortion to end a pregnancy IF that unwelcome event happens. Simply put, MY reproductive decisions -- including the right NOT to stay pregnant and give birth -- are none of YOUR business.

Motherhood is OPTIONAL, not required, which means NO woman has to stay pregnant, give birth, or be a mother unless she WANTS to. Live with it.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2700 Apr 23, 2013
rosesz wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said before I don't think autmatic rifles are a good thing either..but how come the Pc advocates want to have restrictions on gun ownership but none whatsoever on ending life in the womb..even viable life. And to make this clear I do refer to emergencies that arise in which a doctor trying to SAVE the life of mother and baby sometimes is not successful. I am talking about those on the PC side who want no limits on late term ELECTIVE abortions. All those babies who never make it on purpose and we wonder about violence in society. Life is not sacred in this society. IMHO
We have restrictions on abortion currently.
Ocean56

AOL

#2701 Apr 23, 2013
zef wrote:
Woman's body or not, terrorist threats, and slanderous defamatory statements are not freedom.
Those "terrorist threats" and "slanderous defamatory statements" are...WHAT, exactly?@@
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#2703 Apr 23, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Those "terrorist threats" and "slanderous defamatory statements" are...WHAT, exactly?@@
Fascism
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#2704 Apr 23, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I DO have the right to avoid getting and STAYING pregnant, by using contraception to avoid an unwanted pregnancy and, if necessary, abortion to end a pregnancy IF that unwelcome event happens. Simply put, MY reproductive decisions -- including the right NOT to stay pregnant and give birth -- are none of YOUR business.
Motherhood is OPTIONAL, not required, which means NO woman has to stay pregnant, give birth, or be a mother unless she WANTS to. Live with it.
How do the babies that you kill with abortion, "Live with it"? Not all women have access to abortion. Those that don't certainly do have to stay pregnant and give birth. Many mothers are required to have abortions, which means her baby dies no matter how much the mother wants to stay pregnant and give birth. You are insane.
Ocean56

AOL

#2705 Apr 23, 2013
zef wrote:
Fascism
NO, zeffie, I mean what SPECIFIC "terrorist threats" are you talking about?

Post the EXACT statements made by the poster, which I seriously doubt you can. Why? Because there AREN'T any. THAT's why.

Ocean56

AOL

#2706 Apr 23, 2013
zef wrote:
Not all women have access to abortion. Those that don't certainly do have to stay pregnant and give birth.
That's the ONE thing you said that makes sense. Women who don't have access to either contraception or abortion DON'T have any choice but to get/stay pregnant and give birth, even if they never wanted to BE pregnant in the first place.

That's exactly what the so-called "christian right" wants; for women to have NO ACCESS to the methods that prevent women from conceiving or terminating pregnancies. They really can't stand the fact that more women are deciding for OURSELVES either to have fewer numbers of children (1 or 2 and no more) or NO CHILDREN at all. So the "christian right" politicians figured if they denied access to both contraception and abortion to poor and low-income women, then these women would have NO CHOICE but to get/stay pregnant and give birth. Their compulsory pregnancy agenda is quite obvious by the amount of anti-choice legislation in the Republican-controlled states.
rosesz

Pompano Beach, FL

#2707 Apr 23, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Our right to a fair trial, and our Miranda rights are also not mentioned. They are implied. Just like our right to privacy, which includes our medical decisions.
The right of all citizens to "life, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY" (emphasis mine)means that we all have that right to medical privacy.
I noticed that you put the word LIFE in small letters and the others in caps. And yet the founders put it first. Babies should have that right even in the womb. But sadly the foremost right is denied them .. Sad!! The convolutions your point of view go thrum to make a point are sad too.
rosesz

Pompano Beach, FL

#2708 Apr 23, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
We have restrictions on abortion currently.
But many on the Pc side don't even agree with those Hither..and btw I did see that the deempasis on life was yours in the last post. But sadly youbarr not alone.
rosesz

Pompano Beach, FL

#2709 Apr 23, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the ONE thing you said that makes sense. Women who don't have access to either contraception or abortion DON'T have any choice but to get/stay pregnant and give birth, even if they never wanted to BE pregnant in the first place.
That's exactly what the so-called "christian right" wants; for women to have NO ACCESS to the methods that prevent women from conceiving or terminating pregnancies. They really can't stand the fact that more women are deciding for OURSELVES either to have fewer numbers of children (1 or 2 and no more) or NO CHILDREN at all. So the "christian right" politicians figured if they denied access to both contraception and abortion to poor and low-income women, then these women would have NO CHOICE but to get/stay pregnant and give birth. Their compulsory pregnancy agenda is quite obvious by the amount of anti-choice legislation in the Republican-controlled states.
ANDwhat about the poor women and girls who are forced into abortions by their men..husband. bf. Pimp? They are just another sacrificial lamb on this altar of the new religion of choice..

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2710 Apr 23, 2013
rosesz wrote:
<quoted text>
I noticed that you put the word LIFE in small letters and the others in caps. And yet the founders put it first. Babies should have that right even in the womb. But sadly the foremost right is denied them .. Sad!! The convolutions your point of view go thrum to make a point are sad too.
In the first place, there are no "babies" in a uterus. "Baby" is a term of endearment, no more.

Secondly, the "founders" didn't put that phrase in the Constitution.

Third, our civil rights are for the born. There isn't even an implication they were ever meant to include the unborn, not even a little, considering the fact that abortion was legal when this country was founded.

Fourth, all of our civil rights are equal, or none of them are. And the first is meaningless without the second and third.

Just because you want to deny my argument doesn't mean it's convoluted.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2711 Apr 23, 2013
rosesz wrote:
<quoted text>
But many on the Pc side don't even agree with those Hither..and btw I did see that the deempasis on life was yours in the last post. But sadly youbarr not alone.
There was no deemphasis. I emphasized what was needed for my point.

By the way, the name is Bitner. Why are you being childish?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2712 Apr 23, 2013
rosesz wrote:
<quoted text>
ANDwhat about the poor women and girls who are forced into abortions by their men..husband. bf. Pimp? They are just another sacrificial lamb on this altar of the new religion of choice..
All a woman has to do, is to tell them she doesn't want to have the abortion. SHE signs the consent form, not her husband. It's amazing to me that the very same people who will constantly complain that a woman doesn't have to take the man's point of view into consideration still try to use this argument.

There is a difference between being forced, and allowing yourself to be talked into something. I had an unplanned pregnancy, which came at the worst possible time. I had family and friends put pressure on me to have an abortion. And I said no, I continued the pregnancy despite them. Perhaps we should teach our daughters to be stronger than that, to know that they don't need ANYONE'S permission to deal with their own body, and more women will be able to withstand such pressure.
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#2714 Apr 23, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the ONE thing you said that makes sense. Women who don't have access to either contraception or abortion DON'T have any choice but to get/stay pregnant and give birth, even if they never wanted to BE pregnant in the first place.
That's exactly what the so-called "christian right" wants; for women to have NO ACCESS to the methods that prevent women from conceiving or terminating pregnancies. They really can't stand the fact that more women are deciding for OURSELVES either to have fewer numbers of children (1 or 2 and no more) or NO CHILDREN at all. So the "christian right" politicians figured if they denied access to both contraception and abortion to poor and low-income women, then these women would have NO CHOICE but to get/stay pregnant and give birth. Their compulsory pregnancy agenda is quite obvious by the amount of anti-choice legislation in the Republican-controlled states.
Uncontacted people, also referred to as isolated people or lost tribes, are communities who live, or have lived, either by choice (people living in voluntary isolation) or by circumstance, without significant contact with globalised civilization. Few people have remained totally uncontacted by global civilization. Indigenous rights activists call for such groups to be left alone, stating that it will interfere with their right to self-determination. Most uncontacted communities are located in densely forested areas in South America and New Guinea. Knowledge of the existence of these groups comes mostly from infrequent and sometimes violent encounters with neighbouring tribes, and from aerial footage. Isolated tribes may lack immunity to common diseases, which can kill a large percentage of their people after contact.
Ocean56

AOL

#2715 Apr 23, 2013
zef wrote:
Uncontacted people, also referred to as isolated people or lost tribes, are communities who live, or have lived, either by choice (people living in voluntary isolation) or by circumstance, without significant contact with globalised civilization. Few people have remained totally uncontacted by global civilization. Indigenous rights activists call for such groups to be left alone, stating that it will interfere with their right to self-determination. Most uncontacted communities are located in densely forested areas in South America and New Guinea. Knowledge of the existence of these groups comes mostly from infrequent and sometimes violent encounters with neighbouring tribes, and from aerial footage. Isolated tribes may lack immunity to common diseases, which can kill a large percentage of their people after contact.
Actually, I was talking about poor and low-income women in the United States, Mississippi included, who don't have access to either reliable contraception or abortion due to COST. THOSE are the women I was referring to.
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#2716 Apr 23, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
In the first place, there are no "babies" in a uterus. "Baby" is a term of endearment, no more.
Secondly, the "founders" didn't put that phrase in the Constitution.
Third, our civil rights are for the born. There isn't even an implication they were ever meant to include the unborn, not even a little, considering the fact that abortion was legal when this country was founded.
Fourth, all of our civil rights are equal, or none of them are. And the first is meaningless without the second and third.
Just because you want to deny my argument doesn't mean it's convoluted.
Your crass ageist bigotry is vulgar and obtuse.

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world...
the universal declaration of human rights, preamble

When a pregnant woman drinks alcohol, so does her unborn baby. Alcohol in the mother's blood passes through the placenta to the baby through the umbilical cord. Drinking alcohol during pregnancy can cause miscarriage, stillbirth, and a range of lifelong disorders, known as fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASDs). There is no known safe time to drink alcohol during pregnancy. Drinking alcohol in the first three months of pregnancy can cause the baby to have abnormal facial features. Growth and central nervous system problems (e.g., low birth weight, behavioral problems) can occur from drinking alcohol anytime during pregnancy. The baby’s brain is developing throughout pregnancy and can be damaged at any time.
If a woman is drinking alcohol during pregnancy, it is never too late to stop. The sooner a woman stops drinking, the better it will be for both her baby and herself.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1600 Clifton Rd. Atlanta, GA 30333, USA
800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636) TTY:(888) 232-6348
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/fasd/index.html

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#2717 Apr 23, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
Woman's body or not, terrorist threats, and slanderous defamatory statements are not freedom. Terrorist threats, and slanderous defamatory statements are fascism. Your idolization of women's bodies is no excuse for fascism.
You afraid of a little womanly anger, pookie??

Don't be skeeered... be alert. As long as you're posting, you're probably ok.

But your idolization of gravid wombs, is no excuse for misogyny.

Nazi freak.

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#2718 Apr 23, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
All a woman has to do, is to tell them she doesn't want to have the abortion. SHE signs the consent form, not her husband. It's amazing to me that the very same people who will constantly complain that a woman doesn't have to take the man's point of view into consideration still try to use this argument.
There is a difference between being forced, and allowing yourself to be talked into something. I had an unplanned pregnancy, which came at the worst possible time. I had family and friends put pressure on me to have an abortion. And I said no, I continued the pregnancy despite them. Perhaps we should teach our daughters to be stronger than that, to know that they don't need ANYONE'S permission to deal with their own body, and more women will be able to withstand such pressure.
Why is it the so-called 'pro-life' faction, never seems to recognize that one fact: the denial or removal of rights, sets a very dangerous precedent.

What would be their reaction if their elected legislators took the choice to gestate from them, and made ABORTION mandatory....

China had a precedent for that.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2719 Apr 23, 2013
dedbebbies wrote:
<quoted text>Why is it the so-called 'pro-life' faction, never seems to recognize that one fact: the denial or removal of rights, sets a very dangerous precedent.
What would be their reaction if their elected legislators took the choice to gestate from them, and made ABORTION mandatory....
China had a precedent for that.
Exactly right.

Roe v Wade was the perfect middle ground. It allows the woman to make her own choice (which INCLUDES the right to continue her pregnancy, and which most women still do...they like to ignore that.) up to the point of viability, where the states MAY, if they choose, place limits due to their own interest in the potential citizen, but it is STILL her choice if her life/health will be impacted, or if there is something wrong with the fetus.

Most abortions occur in the first trimester, 88%. Almost 62% occur at 9 weeks or before, when there isn't even a fetus yet. Of the rest, only 1.5% occur at 21 weeks or later, and at 21 weeks, viability isn't even a possibility.

I have yet to see an argument against a woman's reproductive choice that is not, at it's core, religious. Many try to pretend it's not, but that's what it comes down to. And the fact is that someone's religion applies only to them. And I include my own in that :)
foodno

Tupelo, MS

#2720 Apr 23, 2013
zef wrote:
<quoted text>
Woman's body or not, terrorist threats, and slanderous defamatory statements are not freedom. Terrorist threats, and slanderous defamatory statements are fascism. Your idolization of women's bodies is no excuse for fascism.
It seems if freedom is the issue then you can not force your beliefs on others. It sounds like you want to force you genes on someone then stop them from dumping them. You are some piece of work. What you want is control and your freedom stops at the beginning of the next person's freedom.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Madison Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Nigel Farage says 'Trump was my warm-up' and dr... 11 hr Le Jimbo 23
what was left in the bottom of pandoras box af... 22 hr CALLHOON 1
WHY "CHRISTIAN" ZIONISM IS A CULT (Illuminists) (Nov '11) Mon bldg seven 4
Nikola Tesla.the Miricle,Non-Jewish, Is He the... (Sep '11) Mon bldg seven 4
News Trump, aiming to widen support, makes pitch to ... Mon Go Blue Forever 78
Don't work for total transportation Sun Greg 4
mpb Sun CALLHOON 1

Madison Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Madison Mortgages