Life-at-fertilization initiative has hope in Miss.

Oct 17, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Centre Daily Times

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.

Comments
2,581 - 2,600 of 2,675 Comments Last updated May 5, 2013
rosesz

Pompano Beach, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2695
Apr 22, 2013
 
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
Not all specific rights are enumerated in the constitution; the constitution didn't give you the right to own a car or use a phone. And the right to bear arms was only recently formally extended from a militia to a homeowner.
<quoted text>
Strawman argument. No one is claiming that tighter regulations will prevent all illegal ownership or all gun deaths. But if we can prevent a few thousand it is worth it. If you don't understand that argument you are beyond help.
CRIMINALS..nutcases..do not follow laws period..if they did they wouldn't be killing anyone.
IT is a show
Most crimes are not being committed by those people who had their names in the paper for having Legally registered firearms. That is how the news people Got their names. All this info the government collects..like your drivers license or home taxes is all available to the public ..And the news.. That is really scary!!
rosesz

Pompano Beach, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2696
Apr 22, 2013
 
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't read my comment very carefully. I acknowledged that no one claims tighter regulations will prevent ALL gun deaths. To see the absurdity of your position, imagine claiming that since seatbelts don't prevent ALL automobile deaths then we should have no laws regarding the use of seatbelts. And arguing that it is pointless to restrict guns because people can make bombs is like arguing it is pointless to have highway speed limits because people can fly planes. Pretty weak logic there skippy; however, your spelling was ok.
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
rosesz

Pompano Beach, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2697
Apr 22, 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
SORRY correction. I DO NOT REFERt toemergencies etc see above.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2698
Apr 23, 2013
 
rosesz wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I cannot speak for all of the right..however most of us care very much about the constitution. Ending the life of ones offspring was not mentioned. The right to bear arms was.
However personally I am all for trying to keep criminals from getting guns. Sadly by their very nature criminals do Not follow any laws to begin with. Why anyone needs an Automatic weapon I will never know. Be that as it may..this big show going on that legislation is going to keep some nutcase or criminal from purchasing guns illegally once they pass new laws is ridiculous.. its politics. Criminals break laws. The gun shows should be regulated..but a determined person will find a way no matter what.hugging people or publishing the addresses of legal gun owners was ludicrous and an invasion of their privacy..Show Show Show.
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.
Ocean56

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2699
Apr 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Hemet, CA

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

Hemet, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2704
Apr 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2705
Apr 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2712
Apr 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

Hemet, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Hemet, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent Presidential Hills Discussions

Search the Presidential Hills Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Mississippi judge jails attorney for not reciti... (Oct '10) 8 hr researcher 1,966
Bryant protests immigrant children being housed... 9 hr Offthechart 1
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 15 hr Badabing Badabang 18,588
Truth or Rumor: Bishop Keith Butler (Jan '08) Mon WorldWatchDetroit TueLIVE 1,020
Review: Jackson Lease Sales & Rentals (Jun '11) Jul 27 Steve B 11
Perfectly thin xtreme diet pill (Dec '13) Jul 25 SaraSoCal 6
Jackson man charged in September fire (Nov '09) Jan '10 HILL BOY 2
•••
•••
•••
•••

Presidential Hills Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Presidential Hills People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Presidential Hills News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Presidential Hills
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••