Mississippi vote defines "Personhood"

General discussions
Post Reply
aiseiri47
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:25 pm

Mississippi vote defines "Personhood"

Post by aiseiri47 » Wed Nov 09, 2011 1:08 pm

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/08/us/mi ... index.html
Mississippi voters are casting ballots Tuesday on an amendment to the state constitution that would define life as beginning at the moment of conception.

Initiative 26 would define personhood as "every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof."
This kind of thing really frustrates me - if life begins at conception, why is baptism performed after birth? Is it not cruel of the church to neglect the unborn in this way? Bunch of ignorant hypocrites.
funkyderek
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Contact:

Re: Mississippi vote defines "Personhood"

Post by funkyderek » Wed Nov 09, 2011 1:29 pm

Thankfully it's been rejected: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-1 ... rtion.html

This bill was never going to be constitutional. It seems that the reason behind it was to force the Supreme Court to revisit the issue.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

Image

Image Image Image Image
aiseiri47
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:25 pm

Re: Mississippi vote defines "Personhood"

Post by aiseiri47 » Wed Nov 09, 2011 2:34 pm

Thankfully, indeed.

Though, the fact that there are people backing it (and the fact that it is a good example of how many people think in regards to the abortion argument) is enough to frustrate me.
nozzferrahhtoo
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1140
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:17 am

Re: Mississippi vote defines "Personhood"

Post by nozzferrahhtoo » Wed Nov 09, 2011 2:47 pm

Honestly I am shocked. I read this bill and thought instantly it was just the kind of thing people would vote in. It was worded in such a way that the average joe... or so I thought... would be much more likely to understand the pro arguments than the no side arguments..... and that the pro arguments would be emotionally more appealing than the anti side for those voting with their emotions and not their hearts.

Seems I underestimated the public there. I will apologise to them in my mind and thank them for making a good decision this time.
Post Reply