Personhood law could outlaw birth control

[Iniquitous]

So, I am sitting here trying to wind down to go to sleep and checking out news links only to come across this lovely little gem.

Mississippi's Personhood law could outlaw birth control

Now, I've read some pretty wild things throughout my adulthood. I've heard all the arguments for and against abortion. But this takes the cake. This is the same group that is against welfare and yet they want to force a law into place that could make it illegal to use birth control that makes the uterus inhospitable for a fertilized egg. This group wants it so that the only acceptable form of birth control is abstinence, condoms or cervical caps - things that create a barrier so that sperm cannot enter the uterus at all.

I am absolutely stunned at this and I am hoping that this failed to get voted in. I can only imagine the horror and chaos that will ensue if it is made a law. All I can say at this point is I really wish people would stay the hell out women's reproductive organs and let us women decide what the hell is best for us.

[Sabby]

All I can say at this point is I really wish people would stay the hell out women's reproductive organs

But we bought you a drink! D= Gawsh.

[Slywyn]

That's my neighbor. That does not make me happy. =(

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Amazing how a woman’s reproduction system is a spiritual crisis, a national emergency and the grounds for cultural upheaval.

[Torch]

The law didn't pass. Crisis averted...for now, anyway.

[RubySlippers]

I support a wider approach like Alabama tried to pass as an amendment just declare the child a person at conception and if its unnaturally harmed without the sole reason being the protection of the mothers life its MURDER. Nice and simple it protects the unborn child using the simplest definition making it a person at fertilization and leaves the criminal matter up to legislation I would not make if First Degree Murder but 3rd Degree seems fair for all parties taking part.

Naturally there would need to be oversight for those few cases where the mother is at grave risk I would go this line of thinking -

- Three doctors with suitable expertise must agree and get a judges signature.

- To do this the child must be a risk to the mother as to be a case where the child if allowed to mature cannot be safely carried and removed medically prematurally giving the child a chance to survive ,no matter how remote, outside the mother. Under a preponderance of the medical evidence by two qualified specialists.

- The mothers life must be given superior consideration and when there is uncertainty favor her life in such a medical decision.

That would be fair an abortion should be a big deal your killing a person after all it should require a court order and evidence the child cannot be gestated to an age in the mother where it can't be giving premature birth and a shot at life even if 1%. But the mother would be given a superior position the law must side with her life over the childs.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

That is what they were trying to do Ruby.  Hence that means some forms of birth control could be outlawed due to interfering with the implantation of the fertilized egg inside the uterus.  In essence if personhood is given after conception then to deny the "person" the ability to implant would be paramount to murder.

[Zakharra]

I support a wider approach like Alabama tried to pass as an amendment just declare the child a person at conception and if its unnaturally harmed without the sole reason being the protection of the mothers life its MURDER. Nice and simple it protects the unborn child using the simplest definition making it a person at fertilization and leaves the criminal matter up to legislation I would not make if First Degree Murder but 3rd Degree seems fair for all parties taking part.

Naturally there would need to be oversight for those few cases where the mother is at grave risk I would go this line of thinking -

- Three doctors with suitable expertise must agree and get a judges signature.

- To do this the child must be a risk to the mother as to be a case where the child if allowed to mature cannot be safely carried and removed medically prematurally giving the child a chance to survive ,no matter how remote, outside the mother. Under a preponderance of the medical evidence by two qualified specialists.

- The mothers life must be given superior consideration and when there is uncertainty favor her life in such a medical decision.

That would be fair an abortion should be a big deal your killing a person after all it should require a court order and evidence the child cannot be gestated to an age in the mother where it can't be giving premature birth and a shot at life even if 1%. But the mother would be given a superior position the law must side with her life over the childs.

That is way too broad of a brush there, Ruby.  There's no provisions for rape, incest or other means. It also means a single slip up (broken condom and such) means the woman has to now carry and deliver the baby. Even if she doesn't want to. it also means the father can now force the would be mother to carry a baby she might not want and it takes away all female reproductive rights.

Basically, scrapping Roe v. Wade and replacing it with something that puts other people in charge of reproductive rights instead of the  woman that will be having the baby.

[Torch]

  Basically, scrapping Roe v. Wade and replacing it with something that puts other people in charge of reproductive rights instead of the  woman that will be having the baby.

I know I for one would not like my uterus reduced to the status of a human Crock-Pot.

[Callie Del Noire]

Don't forget rendering any miscarriage as ground for investigating a possible murder attempt. Like a miscarriage isn't traumatic enough, you can go to jail for manslaughter/murder also.

[Oniya]

That is what they were trying to do Ruby.  Hence that means some forms of birth control could be outlawed due to interfering with the implantation of the fertilized egg inside the uterus.  In essence if personhood is given after conception then to deny the "person" the ability to implant would be paramount to murder.

As I recall, this encompasses hormonal and IUD birth control - so using the Pill would be equivalent to murder.

[Slywyn]

My personal idea of how abortion should work probably encompasses as few different philosophies. Or not. I don't really know what other people think.

But now allowing women control over their own bodies is almost horrifying. Are women considered dumb, or less able to decide how their lives should be lived? It's ridiculous.

Personally I think everyone gets one 'freebie'. You want an abortion? Fine. But you have to get your tubes tied to prevent another child. I know this sounds contrary, but if you allow women to get abortion after abortion, it WILL be abused. Unfortunately you have to punish everyone for the few who would abuse the system.

If you wish to be able to have children, all you have to do is pay to have the procedure reversed. Hopwever, you are not eligible for financial assistance of ANY kind to have this happen. And getting your tubes tied after the first abortion is strictly non-negotiable. You want to have the baby gone? Then you're not allowed to have any more until you prove yourself mentally and financially fit and able to provide and care for the child.

The first step of which is paying for having yourself able to have children again.

Choice is good. Choice is a good thing. But you have to take into account people who will abuse systems like this.

Obviously, products of rape or other situations(incest, etc) do not suffer the same restrictions. You shouldn't suffer any extra for what some jackass forced upon you.

[Oniya]

Tubal ligation is not so easy to reverse.  The sterilization is considered major surgery requiring the patient to undergo general anesthesia.  The reversal (while typically successful) is also major surgery requiring a trained microsurgeon.

I'd also pose the flip-side:  how many men do you think would get behind the idea that if they fathered an unwanted child (i.e., a child they wanted nothing to do with) they had to have a vasectomy?  By contrast, vasectomies require only a local anesthetic and no hospital stay.

[Slywyn]

Tubal ligation is not so easy to reverse.  The sterilization is considered major surgery requiring the patient to undergo general anesthesia.  The reversal (while typically successful) is also major surgery requiring a trained microsurgeon.

I'd also pose the flip-side:  how many men do you think would get behind the idea that if they fathered an unwanted child (i.e., a child they wanted nothing to do with) they had to have a vasectomy?  By contrast, vasectomies require only a local anesthetic and no hospital stay.

I'd be all for it. If you screw up you're obviously not quite ready for the real thing.

[Zakharra]

  That sounds smart. Put a governmental bureaucracy in charge of who can and cannot have children. I can't see that going bad  at all.   

[Callie Del Noire]

I notice that folks who offer either option, which if i recall isn't a sure thing to reverse on either side, usually haven't had either done. It respect other folks opinions but their right to regulate my body stops way before that point. I fail to see how religion and responsibility have become mutually exclusive. I find it ESPECIALLY ironic that the biggest opponent  for reproductive rights and birth control are groups that are predominantly male orientated.

And in almost EVERY case I see more rants on avoiding birth control and pushing for abstinence than responsibility and planning.

'Keep it in yer pant alright?' isn't responsible planning. Neither is fostering all the responsibility on one party in the couple. I notice little or no accountability to the fathers.

Here's a radical idea.. why don't we mandate DNA test of the fetus and all potential partners and automatically deduct funds from the father to help the mother raise the child (or children).

Oh wait..that violates like nine or ten of the father's civil rights.

[Torch]

I notice that folks who offer either option, which if i recall isn't a sure thing to reverse on either side, usually haven't had either done.

Well its all fine and good as long as it is someone else's body they are trying to control. I'm sure if it were their own, they would be the first to scream their civil rights were being violated.

[Callie Del Noire]

Well its all fine and good as long as it is someone else's body they are trying to control. I'm sure if it were their own, they would be the first to scream their civil rights were being violated.

Of course not! Well at least till someone mandates it, then it's clearly a violation of their rights.

[Zakharra]

 It's funny how that works.  'Do unto others as you wish, but when it's done onto you, scream about your rights being violated'  It also sort of brings to mind this,  'All beings are equal. Some are just more equal than others.'

[Oniya]

Exactly.  For the record, the vasectomy argument isn't one I'd actually advocate either.  It's just as much a Bad Idea as imposing tubal ligation on a woman who doesn't want one.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

So if a woman, say some college student, out having a few drinks brings a man home one night.  She forgets the pack of condoms she has downstairs, she maybe forgets that she was taking some antibiotics for that thing going around, maybe doesn’t notice her intrauterine device slipped or any number of other mishaps that can occur.  She has a good night with a man and becomes pregnant.  Being a college student she doesn’t have much money, maybe she’s the first of her family to go to college.  Pride and joy of her family she now has to go through having an abortion, not an easy process.  On top of that she now has to be rendered sterile until such a time as the state deems her fit to have children again. 

The male partner has to….oh yeah….he doesn’t. 

So now she has the mental trauma of an abortion, not to mention possible social stigma.  There is now an unwanted surgery forced on her and she will, hopefully, be able to have the reversal some day if she wants to have children later.  On top of that she has to hope nothing goes wrong with the sterilization surgery.  All of that for a few bottles of beer and this is not punishing the woman?  Seriously, someone look up the definition of double standard.

[Iniquitous]

I support a wider approach like Alabama tried to pass as an amendment just declare the child a person at conception and if its unnaturally harmed without the sole reason being the protection of the mothers life its MURDER. Nice and simple it protects the unborn child using the simplest definition making it a person at fertilization and leaves the criminal matter up to legislation I would not make if First Degree Murder but 3rd Degree seems fair for all parties taking part.

Naturally there would need to be oversight for those few cases where the mother is at grave risk I would go this line of thinking -

- Three doctors with suitable expertise must agree and get a judges signature.

- To do this the child must be a risk to the mother as to be a case where the child if allowed to mature cannot be safely carried and removed medically prematurally giving the child a chance to survive ,no matter how remote, outside the mother. Under a preponderance of the medical evidence by two qualified specialists.

- The mothers life must be given superior consideration and when there is uncertainty favor her life in such a medical decision.

That would be fair an abortion should be a big deal your killing a person after all it should require a court order and evidence the child cannot be gestated to an age in the mother where it can't be giving premature birth and a shot at life even if 1%. But the mother would be given a superior position the law must side with her life over the childs.

Not to be rude here, but reading that post made me twitch violently. I am sorry, no one, and I mean NO ONE, has the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body. My uterus (when I had it) is not public property that perfect strangers have a say in what goes on inside of it. That is between me and my doctor - and the only say a doctor would get is what my options are. Period.

This nonsense of people thinking they have the right to choose for every woman out there has got to stop. And as one commenter on the article said - “If men could get pregnant then abortion would be a right in the constitution.” - is very true.

There is no reason that we should be butting our noses into other women’s reproductive practices. Don’t agree with abortion? Fine, never have one. But it isn’t your right to tell another woman that she cannot have one. Trying to restrict the right of a woman to have one and all you do is force women to resort to how it use to be done. Back alley clinics with less than safe procedures that end up doing severe damage to the woman or killing her.

We are so big on not forcing women into sex (rape) but yet we have people thinking it is perfectly acceptable to force a woman in pregnancy and childbirth - which can be just as traumatic to someone who does not want or need a child. It actually irks me to no end that people want the government to decide what happens inside a woman’s body.

And I think this sums it up quite nicely.

[Star Safyre]

Not to be rude here, but reading that post made me twitch violently. I am sorry, no one, and I mean NO ONE, has the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body.

This.

If I make an educated decision regarding my own medical needs with the aid of my doctor, that is not the government's business, even if such restrictions are enacted under the guise of exercising the supposed will of the people.  End of story.

[meikle]

It doesn't help that saying "I want abortion to be outlawed" is tantamount to saying "I want more women to die."

That is, abortions occur at similar rates in countries where abortion is legal and where it is not; all that banning abortion for women who want it is going to do is see more women who want abortions get abortions under unsafe and unregulated conditions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html

[SinXAzgard21]

I support a wider approach like Alabama tried to pass as an amendment just declare the child a person at conception and if its unnaturally harmed without the sole reason being the protection of the mothers life its MURDER. Nice and simple it protects the unborn child using the simplest definition making it a person at fertilization and leaves the criminal matter up to legislation I would not make if First Degree Murder but 3rd Degree seems fair for all parties taking part.

Naturally there would need to be oversight for those few cases where the mother is at grave risk I would go this line of thinking -

- Three doctors with suitable expertise must agree and get a judges signature.

- To do this the child must be a risk to the mother as to be a case where the child if allowed to mature cannot be safely carried and removed medically prematurally giving the child a chance to survive ,no matter how remote, outside the mother. Under a preponderance of the medical evidence by two qualified specialists.

- The mothers life must be given superior consideration and when there is uncertainty favor her life in such a medical decision.

That would be fair an abortion should be a big deal your killing a person after all it should require a court order and evidence the child cannot be gestated to an age in the mother where it can't be giving premature birth and a shot at life even if 1%. But the mother would be given a superior position the law must side with her life over the childs.

So... what happens if the said person is raped and become pregnant?  She has to keep the child and possibly relive that event for the next 18 years.... Or go through postpartum and drown the child when it is born and go to jail then?  I'm sorry but I believe that abortion or birthing the child should be up to the woman if she is alone in it or the couple whom are in this situation.   Personally the government should have no say in this and the religious fanatics are just plain fucking crazy.  This decision about someones body should be up to that someone not some asshole politician or judge.