Comments on: Mississippi voters ignore science to Progressive acclaim

By: Marica

Marica — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:27:04 +0000

I’m late to the table on this post but here are my two cents– AS A MISSISSIPPIAN!

This was an astonishing result. There’s a center-left Mississippi blog I read authored by a lawyer in Oxford, Mississippi, the bastion of Liberal thought. The blog is objective and mostly apolitical, but Wednesday morning he was giving a shout out to all his Lib pals who helped defeat this initiative.

He was quickly corrected in the comments. It was conservative voters who defeated this. You can bet your bottom dollar these conservatives are pro-life/anti-abortion folks. We just didn’t think amending the Constitution was such a good idea. We didn’t like the idea of government– or a majority of Mississippians– defining what/who counts as a “person.”

Here’s the blog post at North Mississippi Commentor: http://nmisscommentor.com/politics/what-happend-that-produced-the-vote-down-of-the-personhood-amendment/

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 03:19:24 +0000

A bunch of cultists worshiping the notion of eugenics, death, corruption, and bringing back the aristocracy, is telling us they know what is and isn’t science? Come on people, were we all supposed to Be Born Yesterday? Is that it, huh.

By: Mike Devx

Mike Devx — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:11:57 +0000

Thank you, Earl and Charles!

And yes, I think it’s a thoroughly consistent and defensible position that you have.

If someone truly believes abortion is murder, why would he or she be willing to leave it to each State to decide? I can also see that you could uncomfortably, with great reservations, be willing to leave it to each State. In that way you are in the same position as one who believes capital punishment (death penalty) is government murder – especially under the horrifying cases where the defendant is later found to have been innocent – but would be willing to leave it as a decision for each State.

I appreciate the responses!

By: suek

suek — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:34:11 +0000

>>it appears to me that there is a MUCH stronger case for the federal government to defend every human being’s right to life in all 57 states than there is to force restaurants to serve anyone who walks in the doors, or to tell the schools what tests they must give, or to require all citizens to buy health insurance, etc. etc. etc. etc. et (freaking) cetera.>>

I’m more inclined to the State’s Rights approach, but you make a _very_ good point.

By: Earl

Earl — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:17:14 +0000

Fair question, Mike. And especially tough to a conservative who leans libertarian.

I believe it is the fundamental responsibility of a government to protect the weak against the strong. But we also have a federal system that delegates many powers and functions to the states. I think that’s the best system going

We now have precedent in this country for the federal government to pre-empt the individual states on ‘WAY too many issues, including human rights issues. My heart cheered this development because of the evil being perpetrated by some states…..even as my mind quailed a bit, wondering where this would lead as the Constitution was twisted to allow pretty much whatever those in power thought was the right thing to do.

I have not studied deeply into the Constitutional questions, Mike…I’m a biologist of sorts. But, I will say this – it appears to me that there is a MUCH stronger case for the federal government to defend every human being’s right to life in all 57 states than there is to force restaurants to serve anyone who walks in the doors, or to tell the schools what tests they must give, or to require all citizens to buy health insurance, etc. etc. etc. etc. et (freaking) cetera.

By: Charles Martel

Charles Martel — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 05:37:36 +0000

Mike Devx, yes, I would like to see the dreck known as Roe v. Wade overturned. But while I find abortion utterly abhorrent, from a constitutional standpoint I can live uneasily with it as a states rights issue. Moral considerations aside, my dismay at Roe v. Wade was its contempt for federalism and the fact that it set back the debate on abortion by two generations.

By: Mike Devx

Mike Devx — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 05:26:16 +0000

Charles M and Earl,
In reading your arguments, I *think* you hold an unstated position that I’d like to confirm, if I may.

Based on what I’ve read, you consider abortion to be a human rights issue, and therefore relevant at the national level. I think the two of you would have abortion declared illegal at the national level. If it were up to you, you would *not* allow every state to make their own independent abortion laws.

Am I interpreting your arguments correctly? (You do not merely want Roe vs Wade overturned, which would return it to the States; you want it declared illegal, still at the national level?)

By: Charles Martel

Charles Martel — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 04:55:46 +0000

Earl, absolutely—a baby has inherent worth, and no amount of depraved mumble-jumble from the Supremes can change that. However, we live in a supposedly advanced and enlightened society where a mother’s word literally carries life-or-death power over a human life.

By: Earl

Earl — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 02:23:10 +0000

@Charles: You are correct – Scott Peterson. Stuck in my mind that his wife was Laci, and Wikipedia confirms it, and also that the murderer got the death penalty, which is being appealed. I hope they fry that b*****d! But, it’s highly unlikely.

I would argue with you a bit, however — nothing the mother does or says changes the fact that her baby is a human being, separate from herself and every other human being.

All that changes when she says “I want you!” or “Begone!” (as many times as she wants, apparently) is the baby’s status under what we are pleased to call our “law”. A human being with human rights if the mother “wants it”, and a blob of tissue without rights if she does not.

In(freaking)sane!

By: Charles Martel

Charles Martel — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 01:52:22 +0000

What the Supremes did when they came down off the mountain with Roe v. Wade was enshrine magical thinking into our fundamental law. As suek points out, the humanity of an unborn child rides solely on whether the mother wants it or not. As soon as she utters the magic word, “Begone!,” she has every right to have the bothersome lump pf cells professionally dispatched. On the other hand, if she utters the equally magical, “I want you!,” the now child enjoys the full protection of the law.

Earl, you’re thinking of Scott Peterson. Also, you are correct: We are insane.