Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Reply To Thread

The Starting DebateFollow

#1 Nov 02 2011 at 7:01 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Mississippi is going to vote on legislation that defines a person as beginning at conception. This would make abortion murder.

But, would it also make mothers who may have smoked, drank, ate McDonalds fries, did a cartwheel, had a Heimlich maneuver, took some medication, or any other number of things that may impact a developing fetus, manslaughterers?

What does it mean to define a couple of freshly joined cells in a little tube inside a woman's body, as a person?





Edited, Nov 2nd 2011 3:03pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#2 Nov 02 2011 at 7:09 AM Rating: Excellent
I think it's stupid, but I hope it passes with flying colors. Let MS show everyone else how stupid thinking is.

Edited, Nov 2nd 2011 9:11am by Lubriderm
#3 Nov 02 2011 at 7:12 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
This argument will eventually go in this direction, so let's just point out that Mississippi just executed two people in May.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4 Nov 02 2011 at 7:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Technically, all those things you mention are probably true.

Realistically, this is just an attempt to make abortion illegal and they won't give a shit about the "manslaughter" of smoking while pregnant.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Nov 02 2011 at 7:19 AM Rating: Excellent
We need to go back to public executions. Since we are a government by, for, and of the people, let them know what they are taking part in.
#6 Nov 02 2011 at 7:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Hah, when the mother dies in child-birth the baby becomes the murderer.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#7 Nov 02 2011 at 7:35 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
No, the baby was obviously defending itself against being smothered by the womb.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#8 Nov 02 2011 at 7:35 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Kudos to them, I suppose. Does anybody know of other states that define a legal person at a specific stage of pregnancy?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#9 Nov 02 2011 at 9:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Elinda wrote:

What does it mean to define a couple of freshly joined cells in a little tube inside a woman's body, as a person?


It means no Biotech company in their right mind will set up shop in Mississippi.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#10 Nov 02 2011 at 9:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Elinda wrote:

What does it mean to define a couple of freshly joined cells in a little tube inside a woman's body, as a person?


It means no Biotech company in their right mind will set up shop in Mississippi.

True enough.

I wonder if stem cells are people?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#11 Nov 02 2011 at 9:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Elinda wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Elinda wrote:

What does it mean to define a couple of freshly joined cells in a little tube inside a woman's body, as a person?


It means no Biotech company in their right mind will set up shop in Mississippi.

True enough.

I wonder if stem cells are people?


Or is implanting 10 embryos to hopefully get 1 to take a crime?

How about human genes expressed in other organisms?

Does a tissue culture have rights?

Heaven help you if your freezer or incubator breaks down. Not only do you lose your cell lines, you get charged with manslaughter too?

Yeah it's a stretch, sure. But why take the risk if you don't have to?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#12 Nov 02 2011 at 9:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Hell, freezing a living person at all is probably illegal. If I can't do it with a five year old, why can I do it to a 5 day old "person"?

But, as I said, this isn't about that. It's just a rough-shod run to ban abortion and the rest of it will be ignored. At least by the legislature; I suppose someone might try to bring a suit at some point over it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Nov 02 2011 at 10:15 AM Rating: Excellent
****
5,599 posts
I'm just wondering how Roe v Wade comes into play here. Didn't the Supreme Court rule that a woman has the right to an abortion up until the point of viability? I'm probably missing something here, but this seems to be in pretty direct violation of that.

If this passes, it'll be interesting to see what happens in court.
____________________________
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I have a racist ****.

Steam: TuxedoFish
battle.net: Fishy #1649
GW2: Fishy.4129
#14 Nov 02 2011 at 10:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
They want to press a SCoTUS hearing on Roe v Wade in hopes that the current crop will overturn it. Or hope that a GOP candidate wins the presidency, Stevens dies/retires and they can stock up the court with more conservatives to overturn it (since it'll be a while before this actually goes through the courts).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 Nov 02 2011 at 10:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
There was a pretty extensive report about this on NPR this summer--essentially, the law WOULD make all these things illegal (including embryo implantation). And while they were confident that it was being put forth for a targeted attack on abortion, with no intention to make use of the other aspects, it also sets a legal standard that anyone else could use later on to attack those areas.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#16 Nov 02 2011 at 10:30 AM Rating: Excellent
****
5,599 posts
Jophiel wrote:
They want to press a SCoTUS hearing on Roe v Wade in hopes that the current crop will overturn it. Or hope that a GOP candidate wins the presidency, Stevens dies/retires and they can stock up the court with more conservatives to overturn it (since it'll be a while before this actually goes through the courts).


Ah, I see. I was derping.

idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
There was a pretty extensive report about this on NPR this summer--essentially, the law WOULD make all these things illegal (including embryo implantation). And while they were confident that it was being put forth for a targeted attack on abortion, with no intention to make use of the other aspects, it also sets a legal standard that anyone else could use later on to attack those areas.


Which seems to me kind of like writing them a blank check - not something I'd be wanting the lawmakers to do at all. But because this is focused on as a primarily abortion issue, there's probably going to get a lot of support in Mississippi.
____________________________
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I have a racist ****.

Steam: TuxedoFish
battle.net: Fishy #1649
GW2: Fishy.4129
#17 Nov 02 2011 at 10:33 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Looks like its going to be a great time to be a doctor in Alabama, Tennessee, Lousianna, and Arkansas.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#18 Nov 02 2011 at 11:31 AM Rating: Good
What always amuses me about this is that it is a scientifically documented fact that one third of all pregnancies are terminated naturally by the woman's body because of the nonviability of the embryo, usually within the first two months of pregnancy, without her ever knowing she was even pregnant.

DNA transcription errors can be major major problems when you've only got eight cells in a blastocyte. So, say, the cell that is eventually supposed to differentiate into the central nervous system burps and flips half its 22nd chromosome around. A malformed nonhuman freak starts forming. The error checking system of the uterus goes "Whoops, that's not right" and terminates the pregnancy on its own.

Thus, every woman who isn't a virgin is thus a murderer by this law!
#19 Nov 02 2011 at 11:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
catwho wrote:


Thus, every woman who isn't a virgin is thus a murderer by this law!
I've always felt sort of evil.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#20 Nov 02 2011 at 12:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
I'm pretty sure I've had two miscarriages and didn't know I was pregnant (until it happened). Felt good.
#21 Nov 02 2011 at 3:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Technically, all those things you mention are probably true.

Realistically, this is just an attempt to make abortion illegal and they won't give a shit about the "manslaughter" of smoking while pregnant.


Realistically, this only affects the choices of the mother. There's been precedent for some time now that actions taken by others which causes the loss of a pregnancy can result in manslaughter or similar charges.

IDrownFish wrote:
I'm just wondering how Roe v Wade comes into play here. Didn't the Supreme Court rule that a woman has the right to an abortion up until the point of viability? I'm probably missing something here, but this seems to be in pretty direct violation of that.

If this passes, it'll be interesting to see what happens in court.


This law is specifically about challenging Roe v. Wade (or at least I'd assume so). It's far more about the states rights aspect of the issue than where precisely the law decides that personhood begins.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#22 Nov 02 2011 at 3:07 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
I can't wait for Mississippi to fall into horrendously harsh levels of poverty after this passes.

That or wait around and see for the anti-contraceptive nutjobs to come out of the woodwork.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#23 Nov 02 2011 at 4:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Technically, all those things you mention are probably true.

Realistically, this is just an attempt to make abortion illegal and they won't give a shit about the "manslaughter" of smoking while pregnant.


Realistically, this only affects the choices of the mother. There's been precedent for some time now that actions taken by others which causes the loss of a pregnancy can result in manslaughter or similar charges.

When I was pregnant with Noah, I didn't know it until I was several months along (yes, it's possible to be pregnant and not realize it). I still smoked, drank some wine, had a lot of coffee. He's fine, but what if I had miscarried? Should I be blamed for not even knowing I was pregnant in the first place?
#24 Nov 02 2011 at 4:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Nilatai wrote:
I can't wait for Mississippi to fall into horrendously harsh levels of poverty after this passes.

That or wait around and see for the anti-contraceptive nutjobs to come out of the woodwork.


That shouldn't take long if this law passes I suppose. After all, the next best thing to murdering a baby is preventing it from being created in the first place.

#25 Nov 02 2011 at 4:58 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Zieveraar wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
I can't wait for Mississippi to fall into horrendously harsh levels of poverty after this passes.

That or wait around and see for the anti-contraceptive nutjobs to come out of the woodwork.


That shouldn't take long if this law passes I suppose. After all, the next best thing to murdering a baby is preventing it from being created in the first place.


After that ************ and menstruation will be illegal, because wasting good reproductive material is a sin!
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#26 Nov 02 2011 at 5:07 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Should I be blamed for not even knowing I was pregnant in the first place?

I have no idea how a state law proclaiming the person-hood of a fetus would interact with any relevant federal statutes, but assuming there is no jurisdictional conflict you would most likely be committing homicide by misadventure or--at worse--involuntary manslaughter.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 333 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (333)