Thugs amuck »« Infinite offense can be compensated with brief inconvenience

Mississippi’s shame

The state of Mississippi will be considering Initiative 26 in less than two weeks. This ballot initiative is radical and dangerous; it intends to elevate a single cell to the full status of an adult human being, with all the rights and privileges of such status. It has an effect that ripples through every law on the books, because it changes who they apply to…and you know that no matter how charitably you might try to interpret the law, some fanatic somewhere is going to use it punish women for getting pregnant. It puts a little time bomb in the uterus of every expecting mother.

BALLOT TITLE: Should the term “person” be defined to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the equivalent thereof?

BALLOT SUMMARY: Initiative #26 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to define the word “person” or “persons”, as those terms are used in Article III of the state constitution, to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof.

This is Dr Freda Bush, who seems to be the spokesperson for this abomination of a law. Notice how nice and positive she is, and how warm and sincere her voice is. Notice also that she lies through her smiling mouth.

Here’s what she says that fills me with fury. It’s a lie.

Science confirms that a person is a human being at the moment of fertilization. At that moment we are fully human and fully alive.

No, “science” does not say that. She is playing word games. It’s only true if all a person is to you is a cell or tissue with the right ancestry and the right collection of genes; she relies on our colloquial understanding of “human” to imply our better qualities, the gifts that make us different from animals, the elements our our nature that freight the word “humane”. Science does not judge that. Science can look at the derivation of a cell, and we could sequence genes from it and assess its relationship to human genes, and we could apply tests and tissue-type its proteins and tell you what species it belongs to, but there are no unambiguous markers for the broader meaning of humanity.

What she says is nominally, superficially true, but only in the sense that it also applies to an excised anal polyp…which is also “fully human” and “fully alive”, as the cells have the right number of chromosomes, are derived from a human parent, and have metabolisms whirring away just as industriously as any other cell in the body. We tend, however, to confine the meaning of “human” in the moral, social, aesthetic, and freakin’ meaningful sense of the word to something more substantial than the flavor of the meat. These mindless godbots want to throw that meaning away.

We can say that the cell at fertilization has no capacity for love, no sense of humor, no joy in its existence, no thoughts or plans — it lacks the neural substrates to do any of that. At some point, the developing fetus will acquire those abilities, but science can’t say precisely when, so it’s a lie to claim that you have a definitive, absolute, positive answer.

The real ambiguity of science and the imaginary certainty of these dogmatists has real consequences, though. If passed, it means women who are raped do not have recourse to abortion or even the morning after pill. It means fetuses with crippling, devastating abnormalities will be forced to be carried to term. Worse still, it means that common forms of contraceptive could be determined to be criminal: IUDs that prevent implantation and birth control pills that may prevent implantation (that’s not their primary mode of action) could be declared illegal. Proponents of the initiative claim that it will not, but they are being disingenuous and denying the known behaviors of the fanatical ‘pro-life’ crowd. You know some raving Catholic or devout Baptist will use this law as a lever to ban every potential instrument of family planning that hinders the hegemony of the patriarchy.

It also denies the reality of Mississippi.

It’s the most conservative state in the nation. Planned Parenthood (which doesn’t even provide abortions in its one clinic here) and the ACLU are dirty words. Where there were once seven abortion clinics in the state, the one remaining flies in a doctor from out of state. As for supporting life, Mississippi’s infant mortality rate is the worst of any state in the nation. The number of babies who die as infants in Mississippi is double the number of abortions annually. It also has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy nationwide, alongside a child welfare system that remains dangerously broken.)

If they really cared about babies, all their energy would be spent correcting that abysmal infant mortality rate. But they don’t. They care about god and public piety, nothing more.

This law is not about bringing public policy in line with the scientific evidence — the people behind it do not have a record of ever caring about that. This is pure religious illogic.

Imbuing fertilized eggs with rights isn’t a serious philosophical position, it’s a convenient rhetorical tactic to justify subjugating women.

It’s madness.

Comments

  1. Esteleth says

    Ugh.
    I heard about this in an email forward from a Bible-thumping moron that I unfortunately share genetic material with.
    The subject line of the email was “Good news from Mississipi [sic]! God’s work is being done!”

    Said asshat was being SERIOUS when he offered to help my father find a “good Christian” to make a “real woman” of me. He was utterly shocked when my father angrily demanded how, exactly, arranging for me to be raped would be a good thing.

    Fuckers.

  2. RFW says

    Mississippi is not the “most conservative” state. It’s the most backwards state, though South Carolina isn’t far behind.

  3. says

    So, using this funhouse mirror definition of “human being”, will every miscarried embryo require a funeral service and proper burial?

    I’m not being glib – I’m just having trouble fitting this definition into the real world.

  4. alkaloid says

    Tragically, I think this will pass overwhelmingly. I’d like to be wrong, but I doubt that I will be.

  5. Ing says

    Science confirms that a person is a human being at the moment of fertilization. At that moment we are fully human and fully alive.

    WTF? Cart before the horse. The question is when a HUMAN becomes a person. A person is a state of being that we more or less agree entitles a being to rights and protections; their origin not withstanding.

    I have often wondered how these people would view an android like Data or Asminov’s Bicentennial man. Artificially created beings that display person-hood. It has been my suspicion that this goes beyond mere language games and they would actually deny a sapient sentient being rights based on their origin.

    It also doesn’t fucking matter. There should be a priority to full persons over the cellular machinery that will produce a person, especially if said machinery requires the body of a current person. To continue with the sci-fi examples, a xenomorph (the monsters from Alien) may be sentient and sapient (it’s unclear how mindless they are…though there are some indications that Queens at least display higher mental functions). Regardless of whether they are persons, no one should be forced to carry a chest burster to term.

  6. Cthulhu's Minion says

    Hell I had my mail-carrier (rural MS) ask why I was getting so much ACLU junk mail.

  7. says

    So, using this funhouse mirror definition of “human being”, will every miscarried embryo require a funeral service and proper burial?

    Yeah, and you’ll be able to get life insurance on them, too. ;)

  8. Newfie says

    Add a new orphanage tax for the hundreds of new facilities needed, and see how many sign on. Got to be revenue neutral right?
    Maybe a checkbox for how many unwanted children they wish to adopt just below the y/n question?

  9. carolw says

    I really hope Mississippi dumps this piece of shit initiative. It would be a dangerous precedent if it passes. Horrifying.

  10. Alex, Tyrant of Skepsis says

    Regardless of whether they are persons, no one should be forced to carry a chest burster to term.

    Oh what have you done. “They” will now claim that atheists see innocent cuddly babies as killer aliens who must be destroyed before they destroy you.

  11. carolw says

    Ew, I just watched the video. “Even if it’s father is a rapist”? If I got pregnant from a rape, I’d get two or three abortions, just to be sure. Fuck that rapist and fuck his rape-spawn.

  12. Markle says

    This surely won’t pass. Such a law would mean many more child support payments. Also, a lot of women’s lives would also be negatively affected.

  13. frustum says

    Considering that biologists have turned skin cells into pluripotent cells, at what point do we consider each skin cell a human life? Will I be committing genocide when I get a good scrape mountain biking?

    Do I get to deduct an embryo on my taxes?

    Do I have to pay insurance for coverage of my embryo?

    If there is a house fire, is it immoral to help the adult get out of the house instead of a child because the adult has more cells, and therefore more life-iness?

  14. Ing says

    Oh what have you done. “They” will now claim that atheists see innocent cuddly babies as killer aliens who must be destroyed before they destroy you.

    Unfortunately it’s not atheists who have this view, but mothers who even in planed pregnancies may find themselves in such a position.

    It’s inevitably asking some women to CARRY THE CORPSE OF THEIR DEAD CHILD around in their body for weeks or months until natural birth.

  15. Ing says

    This surely won’t pass. Such a law would mean many more child support payments. Also, a lot of women’s lives would also be negatively affected.

    Ok you actually made me laugh.

  16. Carlie says

    Also, a lot of women’s lives would also be negatively affected.

    That’s seen as a feature, not a bug.

  17. Randomfactor says

    Time for inverse secession, with the civilised states pulling out of the Union with Mississippi. (Which would of course make things even worse for the folks stranded in that backwater hellhole.)

  18. Ing says

    Remember, the state MUST do everythign it can to preserve each and every embryo.

    But poor people dying from lack of jobs or health care is an acceptable cost for economic freedom.

  19. says

    PZ,
    You have often entertained me immensely with your writing style, and this article impressed me more than any other. I thought it was very poetic, and thank you for raising this issue!

  20. Dianne says

    It’s inevitably asking some women to CARRY THE CORPSE OF THEIR DEAD CHILD around in their body for weeks or months until natural birth.

    Or death from overwhelming sepsis. Whichever comes first.

  21. raven says

    Tragically, I think this will pass overwhelmingly. I’d like to be wrong, but I doubt that I will be.

    Depends on how backward Mississippi really is.

    Similar measures have failed in two states, IIRC, Colorado and South Dakota.

  22. raven says

    This surely won’t pass. Such a law would mean many more child support payments. Also, a lot of women’s lives would also be negatively affected.

    Naw.

    Mississippi already rates low in socioeconomic status and high in social problems. It can get worse but they could care less.

  23. joed says

    Actually, the human soul is what Dr. Bush is referring to when she says “human”. Accordingly, the human soul enters the egg at the exact moment of conception. I guess that be when the sperm breaks through?
    Well Dr. Bush’s concept of “human” and “soul” and “when does life begin” is very clear to her and millions of other humans.
    What’s a critical thinker to do except try to correct when possible.
    I’d rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
    Not trying to make light of a tragic situation in mississippi and most other states. but, what can a critical thinker do about it.

  24. Esteleth says

    Laws like this exist in some places (El Salvador, for example).

    Result: women are in PRISON, convicted of murder, for having miscarriages that someone or another decided that they had “contributed” to. Basically, they were pregnant and were less than 100% perfect, so it is their fault they miscarried.

    Utterly horrific.

  25. Zinc Avenger says

    Really real genuinely wonderful human and absolutely really super alive definitely human awesome cells are present in human shit.

  26. says

    It’s too bad the Republican claim to fiscal conservatism only applies to things they don’t like, such as welfare. The potential budget expansion this nonsense could cause would scare them off if they truly believed in the concept. After all someone is going to have to investigate every miscarriage to ensure it was natural, and not the result of a woman somehow inducing it.

    In fact they may need to investigate periods as well if they expand the law to cover birth control methods that prevent implantation. Presumably this will only happen if someone lodges a complaint, as tracking every menstrual cycle will cost too much. But how long do you think it will take some asshat to do just that to get revenge against a spouse, or even just someone they know and don’t like? Probably about a week.

  27. Alex, Tyrant of Skepsis says

    Ing,

    It’s inevitably asking some women to[..]

    Thank you, and good night.

  28. Teh Merkin says

    How can you deny that an anal polyp is fully human? There’s one right in that video, and it even talks.

  29. keepscienceintexas says

    Notice how the few comments on the youtube video support this stupidity. I tried to post a comment…its pending approval.

  30. qwertyuiop says

    These conservatives are really something aren’t they? They are all in favor of the unborn; they will do anything for the unborn but once you’re born, you’re on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that they don’t wanna know about you. They don’t wanna hear from you.

    Conservatives don’t give a shit about you until you reach military age. Then they think you are just fine, just what they’ve been looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.

    These people aren’t pro-life, they’re killing doctors. What kind of pro-life is that? They’ll do anything they can to save a fetus but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to kill it? They’re not pro-life, they’re anti-woman. Simple as that. They don’t like women. They believe a woman’s primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state.

    – George Carlin

  31. Menyambal says

    Cloning? They are granting personhood to clones? That’s one I never expected–where does the soul come from?

    Fertilization? If a fertilized egg is fully human, its failure to attach to the uterine wall is God killing somebody.

    There’s a Jewish joke about a fetus becoming fully human when it graduates from medical school. It looks like this doctor needs some more work.

    The key word should be “being”. If there’s nothing there to be, it isn’t a human being.

  32. Larry says

    So, using this funhouse mirror definition of “human being”, will every miscarried embryo require a funeral service and proper burial?

    Worse, every miscarriage will require an investigation by the coroner and the police in order to determine if a charge of murder is warranted. No longer is it a private matter, it now has to be on the public records.

  33. municipalis says

    I wonder what implications this law will have for corporate personhood. Here is the text of the proposed amendment:

    SECTION 33. Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, “The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.

    Does the “shall include” skirt around the idea that other things can also be ‘persons’?

  34. keepscienceintexas says

    fastlane said: So, under this law, a blowjob is mass cannibalism?

    Only if you swallow…otherwise its abandonment.

  35. paulburnett says

    So will Mississippi children be born with an adjusted age of 9 months? Or will mothers be required to keep records of actual conception dates to compute the pre-born person’s actual “age at birth”? Will the children celebrate “birthdays” or “conception days”? (They will be a year old a nominal 3 months after birth – right?) Will they be eligible to vote or drink beer or get drafted 9 months before children in other states? Will they be allowed to retire or get Social Security 9 months before otherwise similar persons in other states? Will they be one age for Mississippi purposes and another age for Federal government purposes? These may all be serious legal questions – has the ignorant initiative considered any of this?

  36. Yoav says

    So, using this funhouse mirror definition of “human being”, will every miscarried embryo require a funeral service and proper burial?

    By now nothing surprise me about the pro forced birth crowd (I refuse to refer to them as pro life and as the story tell us they consider the right to life to end at birth). A few months ago I made an argument while debating one of these assholes that I thought was pure hyperbole, asking him if he will charge a woman who had a miscarriage with negligent homicide if she did anything that may endanger a pregnancy. And then I found out about state Rep Bobby Franklin (R of course) from Georgia.

  37. nazani14 says

    Think of the liability ramifications of such a law. There must be a thousand things that can potentially cause termination of a pregnancy. Heck, I wouldn’t allow a woman under 55 in my vehicle/store/restaurant. She could be pregnant, and if she drank alcohol or had some accident, I could be charged with manslaughter.

    I think it will pass. Then the citizens of MS should demand that their representatives prove that they are not using any form of contraception which prevents implantation of a fertilized egg. If their wives aren’t having a child every year, they should assume that the husband is either infertile or an onanist. All out-of-state travel of the reps’ wives must be strictly monitored, and of course they will need to prove that any miscarriages were not due to neglect of the fetus.

  38. Alex, Tyrant of Skepsis says

    @keepscienceintexas

    Notice how the few comments on the youtube video support this stupidity.

    NOOO. Stupidity on Youtube?!!! Tell me it ain’t so!!!!

  39. says

    Ew, I just watched the video. “Even if it’s father is a rapist”? If I got pregnant from a rape, I’d get two or three abortions, just to be sure. Fuck that rapist and fuck his rape-spawn.

    It’s worse than that, she actually says “your father”, making it about the adult person who’s watching and their father.
    The bad old: “but what if you had been aborted” (as if I knew or cared)

    I hate those people passionately.
    They give a fuck about children, or women.
    They give a fuck about their health.
    But they want things easy.
    Had sex? Deal with it. Not their problem.

  40. raven says

    I tried to find some preelection data on this using google.

    Without much success. Probably no one much cares about Mississippi and what goes on there. It’s passed the National Sacrifice Area state and is on towards National crazy aunt locked in the basement status.

  41. Mark Kernes says

    Talking about a zygote or even a fetus as if it were a human being is like talking about firewood as if it were already ashes.

  42. Brownian says

    I don’t even hold that adult people are automatically human.

    Right now I distinguish by intuition, but I’ll let you folks know when I’ve patented my gom jabbar.

  43. Iranon says

    This could be immensely entertaining and incredibly disheartening, which to be fair, describes much of the South. How far are they from outlawing masturbation? That’s practically a holocaust in every Kleenex.

    While we’re at it, I propose we help good ol’ Mississippi along and propose their state legislature extend personhood. This would do away with drinking (protect the brain cells!), flu shots (the thousands of skin and muscle cells that bite it for the flu shot simply isn’t worthwhile), and slaps to the face. Before the latter becomes a massive act of homicide, I do believe just about everyone in that State Legislature deserves one to the face.

  44. Brownian says

    Anymore, I simply cannot adequately express my loathing of these people, the degree of disgust I feel and the contempt in which I hold them.

    I could, but I’d only end up Godwinning myself.

  45. happiestsadist says

    My mother had to do that before I was born. I can’t even imagine how horrifying it was.

    Mississippi Goddamn indeed.

    I’d say they want to give special rights rights to fetuses, to allow them access to another’s body without their consent, but then, they want that to apply to everyone, versus all women, in all circumstances.

  46. JPS says

    What else can you expect from a state with a constitution that states the following:

    SECTION 265.
    No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

  47. DaveL says

    Science confirms that a person is a human being at the moment of fertilization. At that moment we are fully human and fully alive.

    What nonsense. First of all, every cell in my body is both fully human and fully alive. None of them are persons in and of themselves.

    Second, if fertilized egg is a person, then am I, as an identical twin, half of a person? Are genetic chimeras two or more persons?

  48. Alex, Tyrant of Skepsis says

    @Brownian

    Hey, sticking my hand in a simulation of skin-consuming fire while someone threatens to kill me with a venomous needle?

    I’m in!

  49. Grahame says

    The amount of effort needed from good people everywhere in the US, just to avoid going backwards… it’s very depressing.

  50. The Ys says

    Women have been arrested in the U.S. for having miscarriages. One pregnant woman was arrested for falling down a flight of stairs, based on a doctor’s assumption that she did it on purpose because she didn’t want to remain pregnant. Great breach of patient confidentiality on that one. *slow clap*

    Courts in various states allow doctors to physically restrain pregnant women and force treatments on them against their wishes. One woman that I know of has died (along with the baby they removed via C-section). Another woman endured a forced C-section and they took her child away based on ‘child endangerment’ for refusing to accept the unnecessary C-section.

    This isn’t about personhood for fetii. This is one of the few ways that religious wingnuts have left to manipulate the public into suppressing women.

    Ballot should more properly be
    Should Women be considered legal persons?

    That’s exactly the question. Whether you decide a fertilised egg is a human being – or not – that is irrelevant when a woman’s body is required in order to incubate it. It’s the woman’s body and vital organs on the line, and it’s up to her whether she wishes to allow another human being to use them.

    If this law isn’t solely about harming women, then I expect to see laws mandating that EVERYONE is required to donate kidneys/bone marrow/etc. to keep other people alive. Otherwise, it’s gender-based bullshit.

  51. Alex, Tyrant of Skepsis says

    The amount of effort needed from good people everywhere in the US, just to avoid going backwards… it’s very depressing.

    Yeah, it’s like a perpetual Red Queen effect.

  52. Dr. Audley Z. Darkheart OM, liar and scoundrel says

    Jesus fuck. I wish I could say that I was surprised, but I’m not. I’m angry and stabby and sad, but not surprised.

    That bit about cloning is… a little weird. Do these people believe that clones have souls or is there some ulterior motive here?

  53. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    This bit of legislation is really aimed at poor people, because the middle class and wealthy can afford to go somewhere else to get a legal abortion.

  54. Cartomancer says

    Here’s a far more humane take on the issue of personhood in pregnancy, courtesy of the obscure English university master Alexander Neckham (Speculum speculationum III.89.5). Vintage c.1215 AD, and certainly no later than 1217. Well done Mississippi, your fellow religionists were less clueless than you are now eight hundred years ago:

    “Why, then, does the church teach that the soul is infused into the body after forty-six days? The opinion that it is there from the beginning annuls the authority of Moses when he says (Exod. 21.22) “If anyone strikes a woman with a child in the womb and causes abortion, if the child was formed, he shall give a soul for a soul. If, however, it was not formed, money will alleviate the problem”. This authority posits that the soul is not present until the body is formed. If, likewise, the soul were in essence present in the semen, it follows that the woman could abort before the formation of the body. Surely that soul is not therefore punished eternally? Or do many souls perish when the semen perishes? It is apparent from what has been said already that the embryo is not an animal since it does not have a soul. We should not call it a rational animal, but we can call it human, since it will become human and so is human accidentally… Boethius says that “an egg is an animal potentially” (In Porph. Isagog. iv). Some people assume that there are errors in this part of his text. But why should they? Rationally we call this the matter of the body, since there is no soul in an egg.”

  55. maureen.brian says

    How will these single cells with full rights operate the voting machines?

    Is Mississippi truly that far ahead with nanotechnology?

  56. Cuttlefish says

    Will there be fetal trespassing laws? Can I evict a zygote for failure to pay rent? Can I maybe get a restraining order? Charge it with assault and battery?

    If I accuse it of being gay, does it lose its rights?

  57. raven says

    This is typical for fundie xians and their longing for a new Dark Age.

    The question is: Can the fundies create a hellhole so gruesome even they don’t want to live in it?

    So far, the answer is No.

  58. raven says

    This bit of legislation is really aimed at poor people, because the middle class and wealthy can afford to go somewhere else to get a legal abortion.

    True, and people in the center of the state without cars.

    That is until they close the loopholes. Transporting a “person” out of the state for the purpose of homicide.

  59. Esteleth says

    This bit of legislation is really aimed at poor people, because the middle class and wealthy can afford to go somewhere else to get a legal abortion.

    Indeed. The moral abortion is my abortion, because I need it, because I’m a good person, because I’m not her.

  60. zugswang says

    So, if I work with embryonic stem cells, and add some bleach to a flask, will I be considered a murderer? Will a crime scene be set up in my lab with a little chalk outline in the fume hood where the cells used to be? Will they call in the other cell lines to testify against me?

    Mississippi: Giving the rest of the nation a place to feel sorry for since 1817.

  61. Hairhead says

    I’ll answer the bit about cloning.

    It’s typical fundie science-gobbedlygook. They want the law to apply to the multiple fertilized eggs which are the result of in vitro fertilization. Either they will insist that each and every zygote created by the fertility clinics be implanted in SOME uterus, or that, if zygote-implantation is unsuccessful, that a charge of murder be laid. The fundies mean to control, not just your pregnancy (abortion), not just your sex life (contraception), not just your family life (whether or not and how many children you have), but ALL ASPECTS of your life, cradle to grave (preferably a grave in one their unending Holy Wars).

    In the fundamentalists’ view, you are OWNED, body and soul, by God. And since the fundy preachers are the Word of God, you are their slave, their chattel, and YOU WILL DO AS YOU ARE TOLD!

    I feel like throwing up.

  62. Steve says

    These fetus people are truly cultists.There is no capacity for critical thought here. They have received divine wisdom and it is their sacred mission to impose that wisdom on everyone else. In fact, they are SO right, it is even OK for them to kill someone who really disagrees with them. All this, despite no mention of abortion in the bible… And abortifascient herbs were definitely known and native to the ‘holy land’. Maybe Rick Perry was right – maybe Texas (and a few other Southern states) should succeed again and all these crazies could move there and set up their own theofascist police state.

  63. illuminata says

    Sounds like we need to set up a new Jane network, except this time, to transport incubators – ugh, I mean women – out of cesspools of hate and insanity such as this.

  64. Unaspammer says

    It has an effect that ripples through every law on the books, because it changes who they apply to…and you know that no matter how charitably you might try to interpret the law, some fanatic somewhere is going to use it punish women for getting pregnant.

    IANAL, but I don’t think that’s true. The amendment appears to be written to only change the definition of the word within Article III of the Mississippi Constitution, i.e. the Mississippi Bill of Rights. It’s purpose then is to invoke “due process” for embryos. So women would be culpable for miscarriages, but there wouldn’t be any other nonsense like claiming frozen embryos as dependents, since the tax code is not part of the Bill of Rights.

    Oh, and embryos would have the right to bear arms. Gotta have that, of course.

  65. Bromion says

    What happens if a pregnant woman commits a crime? You can’t lock up an innocent person for someone else’s crime, and the fetus-person goes where the mother goes, so does the mother go free or does the state lock up little innocent Fetusy, too?

  66. niftyatheist says

    Caine, Fleur du Mal عنتر says:
    26 October 2011 at 9:59 pm

    Anymore, I simply cannot adequately express my loathing of these people, the degree of disgust I feel and the contempt in which I hold them. *spits*

    QFT

    PZ, your essay was really good. Thank you.

    This just blows my mind. Hey, does anyone have any bright ideas? I had the slightly insane thought earlier that dammit, the stuff that really matters cannot be pharygulated. Shit.

  67. Unaspammer says

    @80,

    They find another convenient incubator and transfer the fetus? Hopefully they at least compensate the poor woman rather that simply claiming eminent domain over her womb.

  68. A. R says

    While we are discussing the topic of abortion, is anyone here familiar with the concept of male abortion? According to what I have read on the topic (stumbled upon it in a Wikipedia article on abortion) it states that given the rights of women to terminate a pregnancy, men should have the right to terminate their relationship/responsibility for the child should it be born. Not sure if it has ever been tried in court, but I thought I would see if anyone else had a comment or knew more.

  69. illuminata says

    it states that given the rights of women to terminate a pregnancy, men should have the right to terminate their relationship/responsibility for the child should it be born.

    Ah, yes, the “Mommy is responsible for my mess” stance. A favorite of every useless deadbeat on the planet.

  70. illuminata says

    Hey, does anyone have any bright ideas?

    Yes. Get the fuck out of Mississippi, even if you have to crawl.

  71. FPJerome says

    Think of the possibilities, people! No more pregnant women in jail – that’s illegally detaining a real person! (not the woman, obviously).

    Guns for fetuses! Can’t impede their rights!

    And rent for the little zygotes. Too long have we given them the free ride!

  72. Unaspammer says

    @85,

    There is no actual inequality here. If the child is carried to term, the mother has no more right to walk away from the responsibility than the father does.

    Abortion is about the right to exercise self-determination over one’s own body, not about shirking parental responsibilities.

  73. niftyatheist says

    A. R says:
    26 October 2011 at 11:00 pm

    While we are discussing the topic of abortion, is anyone here familiar with the concept of male abortion? According to what I have read on the topic (stumbled upon it in a Wikipedia article on abortion) it states that given the rights of women to terminate a pregnancy, men should have the right to terminate their relationship/responsibility for the child should it be born. Not sure if it has ever been tried in court, but I thought I would see if anyone else had a comment or knew more.

    Not so fast. First, women have very limited rights to terminate a pregnancy (and those “rights”, laughably inaccessible though they are, are diminishing every week).
    Second, just as women are held responsible and “pay the price” for an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy, so should men. If a man does not want to father a child, then he bloody had better make sure he doesn’t! That means, wear a condom, every time, and do not rely on your partner to cover birth control. (This goes double for women, obviously!) Basically, if either sexual partner does not wish to have an unplanned pregnancy, then bloody well protect yourself! If it fails, then both partners must deal with the fallout.

    ‘men should have the right to terminate the relationship’ yeah, fuck that. Men have been doing that since the year dot. This idea is “news” to you, AR? Give me a break.

  74. A. R says

    Oh, apologize if I gave the appearance that I supported the position, I was just bringing it up for discussion.

  75. fauxreal says

    this law will only effect poor women and young girls in dysfunctional family situations.

    rich women will go out of state for abortions where the Mississippi law can’t touch them. girls whose parents aren’t brain dead will not allow a rapist to control the course of their daughters’ lives.

    that’s a big part of this issue – a continuation of a two-tier society with third-world status for some while others live above the law – as we see in the financial sector now with mortgage backed securities vs those with mortgages “underwater,” – in who gets attacked when they protest (not those who are supported by the Kochs and Fox) and who spends time in prison.

  76. Markle says

    given the rights of women to terminate a pregnancy, men should have the right to terminate their relationship/responsibility for the child should it be born

    Nope. Some guys already tried that, and Child Protection shut them out completely. They even made some laws that state that if you’re the father, you’ve got to cough up child support. And if you don’t, they garnish your wages.

    Legislators should really think about how their laws will affect people. If abortions are illegal, you’ll either:

    a) pay child support for the next 17 years, which sucks and ruins your life
    b) not pay child support and be known as the deadbeat dad, thus ruining your rep with the ladies
    or c) you’ll have to marry that random chick you impregnated, also ruining your life.

  77. David Leech says

    Shit, I’ve just scratch my nose so according to Dr fuckface I’m a genocidal maniac, how can I like with myself now? Well I’m going to have a beer and listen to some music:-)

  78. Charles says

    Note also that roughly a third of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Shall the mother be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter in such an event?

  79. says

    Hey, does anyone have any bright ideas?

    We could make the case that the measure is anti-Biblical (which it is, Lev. 17:11). Then, when the supporters bring out their own Bible verse, we duck out. Maybe we could get them arguing amongst themselves, sort of like the trolls in The Hobbit.

    All the real-world implications of this bill will be lost on its supporters; dogma means never having to worry about the actual effects of an idea.

  80. pj says

    Oh, I almost forgot. Making abortion illegal is also an erosion of basic rights for women

    Adds he as an afterthought.

    So you are troll, right?

  81. Athywren says

    I like how they have those claims popping up, and then the stamp: “FALSE!” But… how is it false that it would criminalise miscarriage? If your actions cause the death of a post-born person, even though you had no intent to harm them, even though you didn’t even know they were there, we have a word for that – manslaughter.
    A pregnant woman may not know she is carrying a pre-born person, she may have absolutely no intention of harming them, but if she suffers a miscarriage it is, in some way, as a result of her action, so how is it not manslaughter if we consider a fertilised egg to be a full human being?

    How is it false that it would outlaw birth control? If you intentionally kill a person who has done you no harm and who has done no harm to others, who is not a soldier in wartime or an assailant in an alleyway, that’s murder. Any form of birth control which denies the possibility of implantation is essentially killing the egg, at this point it has had no chance to harm anyone, so if that egg is considered a full person how is it anything but murder?
    Of course there are always condoms, but if you’re willing to consider a fertilised egg as a full human, what logical reason is there not to consider a sperm as a person? It is human, it is alive, surely it must be a person? True, it only has half the number of chromosomes as a full human, but why is that relevant? If I lose my legs in an accident, I don’t become less human, despite having lost half of my component parts, so why should it matter in this case? A sperm is merely a disabled human. So when you wear a condom you are committing mass murder… in fact, even when you perform purely reproductive sex and conceive, you’re still committing mass murder… and to think I’ve rejected the notion that men are evil for so long.

    Well this comment is already far longer than I’d intended so, in summary, fucking moronic idea amd blatantly dishonest, or perhaps also simply moronic, video.

  82. illuminata says

    Note also that roughly a third of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Shall the mother be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter in such an event?

    I wonder what would happen if someone pointed out to Dr. Dipshit and mississippi politicans that God is quite the murderer, letting all these miscarriages happen.

    Wait, I already know – the bitch should be punished because she MADE GOD DO IT!!!

  83. says

    Illuminata:

    Sounds like we need to set up a new Jane network, except this time, to transport incubators – ugh, I mean women – out of cesspools of hate and insanity such as this.

    There’s already an informal Jane collective here in the Dakotas, given SD’s draconian laws. However, these states which are determined to remove womens’ autonomy are making it difficult even for Jane to operate. A woman can be gotten out of SD, but to obtain an abortion, she has to travel to a state which often has a mandatory wait/counseling law, which adds to the amount of time needed off work or away from home. For a lot of women, taking a week or more is an impossibility.

  84. says

    Never mind contraception: dusting your home is going to get outlawed.

    All those shed skin cells, you can’t just throw them in the trash!

  85. says

    Sounds to me like the imprisonment of a pregnant woman would be the most obvious court challenge to this law. The kid is in jail, not charged with anything. That’s illegal.

    They also deny him his phone call.

  86. illuminata says

    Caine – I was thinking of exactly that situation with that comment. This isn’t about just getting access to medical services, this is my pipe dream utopian dream – getting women the fuck away from places that make misogyny law.

    Its just a pipe dream because, 1 – I’m not a Koch Brother with so much disposable funds, 2- how many women would really want to be forced out of their homes because of this, 3 – they shouldn’t have to.

    But as long as cesspools exist, i dream of helping women escape from them.

  87. Ichthyic says

    They care about god and perceived public piety, nothing more.

    there is no god to care about, there is no god that has been defined, even for these people.

    ALL they care about is a perceived public piety.

    and even that perception is based on irrational bits of imaginary frippery.

  88. Ichthyic says

    Oh, I almost forgot. Making abortion illegal is also an erosion of basic rights for women.

    Oh, I almost forgot. Isn’t it time your ass was tossed from this place?

    your cheese bait is rotten.

  89. illuminata says

    ALL they care about is a perceived public piety.

    Too right. I have long suspected that, for every honest-to-god (teeheee) religious whackdoo politician out there, there are 15 fakers performing identical acts of public piety for votes.

    or, to put it another way, I have serious doubts most of such politicians actually believe what they say. The amount of votes they can receive by catering to such bigots though . . .

    Of course, that could just be the remnants of my post-adolescent idealistic phase: hoping that they don’t actually believe this shit.

  90. Ichthyic says

    you’ll have to marry that random chick you impregnated, also ruining your life.

    says the guy who obviously hasn’t even dated, because of all the time he spends in his parent’s basement.

    tell me, how many hours per week day do you spend playing World of Warcraft?

  91. ohnhai says

    a simple counter in advertising would be an honest depiction of that stage of embryos where they look identical, about 20 of them, with the legend “Spot the Person…”

  92. Ichthyic says

    I have serious doubts most of such politicians actually believe what they say.

    ditto.

    and even the ones who think they believe, have really just made rationalizations.

    so, you have out and out liars, and those who fool themselves so they think they can claim they are not lying.

    My guess is the REAL believers keep that shit fairly well hidden away.

  93. illuminata says

    a simple counter in advertising would be an honest depiction of that stage of embryos where they look identical, about 20 of them, with the legend “Spot the Person…”

    If the only person in the group of 20 is a picture of a human female, post-puberty, and the other 19 pictures of the embryos of other animals, that would be freaking brilliant.

    Someone send that idea to the Colbert Report or the Daily Show and have them ask these derranged misogynists in Mississippi to spot the person.

  94. Sean Boyd says

    My last comment died a quiet death, so I’ll try again, without so many links.

    Any hope one might have that Dr. Bush is an honest actor in this matter dies when you look at her involvement with Focus on the Family and other such organizations, as detailed here.

  95. illuminata says

    crowepps – that article, coupled with the proof of rampant police brutality towards the non-violent, unarmed protestors in the “Occupy” movement, along side about a million other things, is perfect proof that freedom in this country is a long-dead dream.

  96. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    According to what I have read on the topic (stumbled upon it in a Wikipedia article on abortion) it states that given the rights of women to terminate a pregnancy, men should have the right to terminate their relationship/responsibility for the child should it be born.

    AR, shut the fuck up about that irresponsibility. A troll who wouldn’t take responsibility for his child since he couldn’t force the woman to have an abortion and felt that was wrong was recently banhammered. You could be next. Any man who won’t pay proper child support to a child he helped procreate, isn’t a man, and deserves all the scorn society can heap upon his irresponsible head.

  97. crowepps says

    Athywren @ #102

    How is it false that it would outlaw birth control?

    It doesn’t outlaw ALL contraceptive mthods but still would allow barrier methods of birth control or Natural Family Planning/periodic abstinence. It only outlaws birth control that is reliably effective, woman controlled and which eliminates the need for male cooperation.

    Thought: Are doctors going to be required to report women as potential murderers if during an exam they discover she has gotten an illicit IUD in another state? Or are they supposed to just grab the string and riiip it right out?

    Are cops executing search warrants supposed to be alert for the presence of illegally imported birth control pills, and ready to arrest women present on suspicion of recklessly avoiding pregnancy?

    Can we set up a secret organization to smuggle women over the Mississippi border and assist them in their flight to Canada? If a Fugitive Woman Act is passed, is the Supreme Court going to rule, once again, that officials in the ‘free’ states have to cooperate in the capture and return of escapees?

  98. says

    According to what I have read on the topic (stumbled upon it in a Wikipedia article on abortion) it states that given the rights of women to terminate a pregnancy, men should have the right to terminate their relationship/responsibility for the child should it be born.

    If you, or any other man does not want to end up stuck with a sprog to raise, there are choices:

    1) Get yourself fixed and be responsible for your own reproductive abilities.

    2) Have sex with men.

    3) Don’t have sex at all.

    In other words, fucking deal with it. Adult men have no business playing crybaby over a pregnancy. If you haven’t managed to talk this out with whoever you’re planning to fuck, your mistake. If you don’t take responsibility for contraception, your mistake. If you have done these things and an accident happens, you should already be aware of what your partner will do. If your partner decides to have the sprog, you best pony up, it’s your sprog too.

  99. Sally Strange, OM says

    Public Announcement:

    Oh, apologize if I gave the appearance that I supported the position, I was just bringing it up for discussion.

    One of the more basic definitions of internet trolling is “saying things you don’t sincerely mean, just to get a reaction out of people.”

    Stop trolling, A.R. It’s not like there isn’t an abundance of assholes who sincerely believe the bullshit you were spouting.

    We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

  100. Kate says

    If we keep going in this direction we’d better started saving up for large sperm storage facilities.

  101. Ichthyic says

    If the only person in the group of 20 is a picture of a human female, post-puberty, and the other 19 pictures of the embryos of other animals, that would be freaking brilliant.

    indeed.

    It wouldn’t be hard to do, either.

  102. crowepps says

    AR @ #85 – trying the defense of ‘male abortion’, also known as ‘financial abortion’, in court has indeed been tried in Debay v Wells and was soundly rejected. A woman who has an abortion imposes zero burden on her partner or on society. A man who claims that because some OTHER woman got an abortion, it is unfair to him that an entirely different woman whom he impregnated refuses to do so, and who asserts therefore a right to BOTH have his child exist AND refuse to support it, imposes a heavy burden on his partner, his child and society itself.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubay_v._Wells

  103. crowepps says

    Mark Kernes @ #50 — if you really want to upset someone who blathers on about the ‘preborn’, refer to an ectopic or malformed/nonviable fetus as ‘predead’.

  104. Sally Strange, OM says

    If this law isn’t solely about harming women, then I expect to see laws mandating that EVERYONE is required to donate kidneys/bone marrow/etc. to keep other people alive. Otherwise, it’s gender-based bullshit.

    QFT

    Embryos can’t communicate. Therefore they can’t obtain a woman’s consent to use her uterus as a life-support system. Therefore it’s permissible to evict them from the womb. It’s not the woman’s responsibility to worry about how the embryo will obtain life support after that. The fact that embryos die outside the womb is a failure of medical research, really. Where are the artificial uterii, dammit?

  105. Jamie says

    I don’t understand why it’s okay to take a brain-dead person off life support, but it’s not okay to essentially take a fetus, which doesn’t even have a complete brain, off life support(i.e. out of the womb).

  106. peterh says

    The parade of “It can’t get stupider than X” just got longer, more disgusting and now scary to boot. I almost wish I hadn’t come up with that metaphor. Perhaps there’s something in Dante or Machiavelli that would help.

  107. says

    That doctor in the video, she is fucking creepy. All so nicey-nice, giving kind advice…

    When in reality, she is a nasty theocrat promoting suffering and death, a truly despicable creature.

    She makes my skin crawl.

  108. zugswang says

    SEC. 97-3-15. Homicide; justifiable homicide.

    (1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another shall be justifiable in the following cases:

    (f) When committed in the lawful defense of one’s own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished;

    Behold, a loophole! Abortion in Mississippi can be characterized as justifiable homicide vis-à-vis sexual assault by zygote!

  109. Pteryxx says

    crowepps says:

    It doesn’t outlaw ALL contraceptive mthods but still would allow barrier methods of birth control or Natural Family Planning/periodic abstinence. It only outlaws birth control that is reliably effective, woman controlled and which eliminates the need for male cooperation.

    …….

    Fuck. You’re right. Serious red pill moment there. …Fuuuck.

  110. Father Ogvorbis, OM says

    I don’t understand why it’s okay to take a brain-dead person off life support, but it’s not okay to essentially take a fetus, which doesn’t even have a complete brain, off life support(i.e. out of the womb).

    First, to the radical right, it isn’t. Many Christian legislators, ministers and, unfortunately, voters are vehemently and vicerally against allowing the body of a person with massive brain injury to the point that the brain is not working to die. They view this as interfereing with god(s)’s ineffable will. They completely fail to grok that, without modern science and medicine, it wouldn’t even be an issue.

    Second, allowing a terminal patient to die on his or her own terms, or on the terms spelled out in a living will or by the family, is only interfering with god(s)’s will. Abortion, in their mind, not only interferes with god(s)’s punishment of the slut, but also allows women to think that they are sentient beings, allowed to make their own decision. This makes abortion the bigger problem — the empowerment of women.

  111. The Ys says

    Its strange ,if this was whales or dogs ,this would pass no problem.

    Orly?

    “During a month in which the anti-choice Republican and Tea Party majority in Congress and in many states have made it their priority mission to eliminate access to contraception for women here and abroad, and on the very same day that the House planned to vote to take away birth control for women living in poverty in the US and eliminate funding for international family planning, you will be happy to know that there is at least one group the GOP believes deserves access to contraception.

    “Wild horses.”

  112. Father Ogvorbis, OM says

    you will be happy to know that there is at least one group the GOP believes deserves access to contraception.

    “Wild horses.”

    Well, of course! Wild horses steal fodder from the poor cattle ranchers using public land at a pittance. And they steal fodder from the elk, mule deer, black tail deer, pronghorns, and other big game animals which bring millions of dollars to western states in hunting fees, guide services, lodging, and guided hunts.

  113. ButchKitties says

    a simple counter in advertising would be an honest depiction of that stage of embryos where they look identical, about 20 of them, with the legend “Spot the Person…”

    I did this on a message board years ago. There was a thread debating abortion. Someone pulled the “Just look at a picture of a fetus and tell me you don’t recognize its humanity” argument, so I pretended to bolster it by posting a picture of a fetus. I let about twenty people chime in to say that the fetus in my picture was obviously a person before I let them in on my secret: it wasn’t a human fetus at all. I posted a picture of a cat fetus.

  114. The Ys says

    I let about twenty people chime in to say that the fetus in my picture was obviously a person before I let them in on my secret: it wasn’t a human fetus at all. I posted a picture of a cat fetus.

    *snortle*

  115. Pteryxx says

    @ The Ys, thanks for that link… I think.

    Just a little while ago, according to reports from the House floor, a vote was held on an amendment introduced by Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN) to prevent the Bureau of Land Management from holding wild horses in pens and then slaughtering them.

    Instead, says Burton, they should pursue “a much less costly and more humane option – immunocontraception…”.

    Oh, that explains it then. It’s okay to hold HUMANS in pens and/or slaughter them, because it’s profitable and encourages the REAL humans (the bigoted ones) to vote for you and send you money.

    … ARRRRRGH

  116. Sally Strange, OM says

    I posted a picture of a cat fetus.

    Oooh, you tricksy devil-woman you!

    I believe the other day you offered me cookies with macadamia nuts in them. May I offer you some cookies in return for your awesomeness? Mines have pecans though.

  117. The Ys says

    @ The Ys, thanks for that link… I think.

    I understand completely, Pteryxx.

    There are so many cases where a pregnant woman has been forcibly restrained that it’s not funny – and women have been prevented from getting birth control pills or the morning after pill – and conservatives get pissy when I rant about the war on women.

    If this isn’t a war against women’s rights over their own bodies, then what the fuck is it?

  118. Peptron says

    In Mississippi, when a woman asks a man for the right to breathe, does she have to do it for every breath or does it come in packs of 10-15 before having to ask again?

  119. raven says

    Mark Kernes @ #50 — if you really want to upset someone who blathers on about the ‘preborn’, refer to an ectopic or malformed/nonviable fetus as ‘predead’.

    We are all predeads.

    We all drive prescrapmetals and wear prerags.

  120. A. R says

    To those accusing me of trolling or supporting child abandonment (which is what male abortion is): This thread was about abortion, I had read about the topic when reading an article on abortion on Wikipedia, I was interested in the opinions of the contributors here. I do believe that it is irresponsibility, considering that if a female has an abortion, there is no child to abandon, but “male abortion” does abandon a child in a very literal sense. Perhaps I should have made my detest for the concept more clear when posting.

    crowepps: Thanks, good to see that there is precedent to prevent it from being tried again.

  121. TimKO,,.,, says

    A “person” has rights. Since the birth process involves violence, a person would have the right not to go through the process.

    (A snarky way of saying this plebiscite may achieve a majority result but it would fail in courts for years.)

    If it’s “God’s work”, then why doesn’t his name appear on any signature or registration lists? Clearly a group of humans are calling themselves “God”. (There’s always hubris with these xtian jokers isn’t there. Sometimes I wish for secession of the bible belt)

  122. The Ys says

    @ Sally:

    ButchKitties pulled the awesomeness with the cat fetus picture – I was just quoting the line from above as my reason for snortling. I will still gratefully accept cookies though! :)

  123. says

    A.R.:

    which is what male abortion

    There’s no such thing as male abortion, you fucked up twit. If a man takes no responsibility for a child, there’s an immense amount of damage done, however, the child (an actual child, not a clump of cells) doesn’t fucking disappear.

    Stop your fucking incessant trolling and claiming it’s all a matter of curiosity.

  124. A. R says

    Caine: Did you read my comment? I indicated that what is called “male abortion” is simply child abandonment. I was genuinely curious (and got some productive answers), but I suppose I shall refrain from asking for opinions here anymore, since apparently one bad thread prevents me from attempting to make contributions to discussion.

  125. says

    A.R.:

    Did you read my comment?

    Yes, I read your comment, which should be obvious to anyone except a fuckwit. You kept pushing the phrase “male abortion”. There’s no such fucking thing. I don’t give a shit what you read on wiki – you had no reason to repeat it here, unless you buy into it.

  126. TimKO,,.,, says

    “Talking about a zygote or even a fetus as if it were a human being is like talking about firewood as if it were already ashes.”

    Or calling a grape seed Raisin Bran.

  127. Father Ogvorbis, OM says

    A.R.:

    This thread is about the attempt to throttle women’t rights in Mississippi and the entire United States. It is not a discussion of male rights and responsibilities regarding children he has fathered. Your attempt to derail the thread into yet another bit of Male Rights Activist Asshole is note. Please join the discussion at hand or get lost.

  128. Pteryxx says

    @The Ys, yeah… I’ve read about those, too. Between your comments and crowepps and the Polite Objectification Brigade, I can’t even formulate a coherent post anymore through all the WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK in my head. It’s like They Live only with misogynists instead of aliens. They only make up 15% or so of the population! But they’re everywhere leveraging each other into power! “Oh yeah, you like punishing bitches too? I can steer you some business!” There’s just nothing… nothing… nothing could ever justify this. Nothing could ever make this make any sense.

    On the other hand, the horror of real life is SERIOUSLY raising my tolerance for scary movies.

  129. A. R says

    Ok then, I won’t speak of it again, as a certainly don’t buy into it. Perhaps a better topic for the endless thread.

    On the topic of 23, does anyone have or know of any voter demographics for Mississippi that could be used to predict this proposal’s fate? It may have been mentioned upthread, and if so I apologize.

  130. says

    The characteristics of personhood that make human life precious and deserving of legal protection are no more present in a human zygote than they are in a spider or a cockroach. Why in the world is this matter being decided by popular vote!? This amendment would infringe greatly upon the liberties of women, with absolutely no reasonable evidence in its favor. It’s merely thinly disguised religious coercion.

    I’ve written more about this here.

  131. joeann says

    This makes me sad on so many levels. I am trying to pinpoint when the US started moving backwards instead of forward. Between the GOP candidates and initiatives like this I am embarrassed.

  132. A. R says

    pelamun: I actually think that this is a measure to test Roe v Wade against a conservative leaning court, so I’m not sure.

  133. Ichthyic says

    surely it would be defeated in federal court

    no.

    because it is a direct amendment of their state constitution, and does not actually *ban* anything, in and of itself.

    they leave the courts to *interpret* what defining a fertilized egg as having all the rights available to an adult would actually mean, legally.

    No, if it were a sane state, the State courts should immediately reply that the proposed amendment is simply too vague, and should be tossed right back to the legislature.

    I’m basing this on what happened with Prop 8 in CA.

    now, after that happens, will it become a federal issue?

    has prop 8 become a federal issue yet?

  134. What a Maroon says

    It’s amazing how these people won’t listen to what science has to say about evolution or global warming, but will try to rope science (or their own weird conception of what science is) into backing their own prejudices. It’s like saying that science proves that The Band was better than Led Zeppelin.

    My response to the nonsense about an embryo being a human being is to ask if an acorn is an oak tree.

  135. Hazuki says

    This is like watching someone’s body eat itself from the inside, ravaged by autoimmune disease. Everything’s falling apart and the collapse is just accelerating.

    Carlin had it dead on: “if you’re prenatal you’re fine; if you’re preschool you’re fucked.”

  136. What a Maroon says

    This makes me sad on so many levels. I am trying to pinpoint when the US started moving backwards instead of forward.

    1968, with the election of Dick Nixon.

  137. The Ys says

    has prop 8 become a federal issue yet?

    The lawsuit was heard in federal court, not a California court. Judge Walker found Prop 8 to be unconstitutional, and his verdict was appealed up to the 9th Circuit Court. However, the defendants’ standing to represent Prop 8 is being batted around like a flattened volleyball. The 9th heard arguments on that, then dumped it back to the Calif. Supreme Court. I don’t think they’ve delivered their verdict yet.

  138. A. R says

    Ichthyic: It did indeed go federal, where the case was thrown out due to a technicality once (Smelt v. United States of America), then declared unconstitutional, with a stay on new marriages (Perry v. Schwarzenegger). That ruling was challenged, and oral argument for that case occurred in September of this year.Wiki has an entire article on the post-election events of prop 8 if you are interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_events_of_Proposition_8_%282008%29.

  139. says

    Ichthyic,

    the difference to Prop 8 is that it hasn’t come before the Supreme Court yet, though lower courts have already spoken on it.

    But the Supreme Court has passed several verdicts on abortion after Roe v. Wade. So a state law that blatantly violates federal jurisprudence on the topic should be invalidated by a federal court right?

    I’m basing this on what happened with the Arizona type immigration laws.

    AFAIK, Roe v. Wade and subsequent jurisprudence (the trimester model has been abandoned by the SCOTUS) give a woman the right to have an abortion until viability, and after that for health reasons.

    Does anyone know if SCOTUS has ever defined personhood (for natural persons that is)? The fact that women can be and are prosecuted for feticide after viability scares the hell out of me…

  140. says

    OK, sorry that was a brain fart of sorts.

    Prop 8 has come before a federal court already.

    So has the Arizona immigration law.

    The difference is that the federal law on immigration is (probably, IANAL), more or less clear, it is enumerated as a power of the federal level in the constitution.

    Same sex marriage is not defined in the constitution, there is no mention of it in the constitution or by SCOTUS. (I don’t want to derail the thread but there has been some strategising going on about when the best time and tactic would be to advance the Prop 8. case up to the Circuit court and ultimately to SCOTUS)

  141. A. R says

    pelamun: Nothing recent on personhood in general. They may apply the The Planned Parenthood v. Casey Standard:

    the Court scaled back the viability standard from 24 weeks to 22 weeks. Casey also holds that the state may protect its “profound interest” in potential life so long as it does not do so in a way that has the intent or effect of posing an undue burden on the woman’s right to terminate pregnancy prior to viability. In Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), the Supreme Court held that a ban on live intact D&X (“partial birth”) abortions does not violate this standard.

  142. says

    So compared to immigration and same-sex marriage, abortion might be in the middle. While there is a lot of jurisprudence on it, the right has been trying to roll back the scope of Roe v. Wade by trying to get SCOTUS to allow limitations and restrictions of various sorts. Or ultimately repeal it, should they succeed to get another conservative on the court. (For this reason alone, I think, it would be ill advised not to vote for Obama in 2012)

  143. says

    pelamun:

    AFAIK, Roe v. Wade and subsequent jurisprudence (the trimester model has been abandoned by the SCOTUS) give a woman the right to have an abortion until viability, and after that for health reasons.

    Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with what individual states do, unfortunately. States can enact any number of laws which effectively outlaw abortion. South Dakota did this a number of years ago. It’s damn near impossible to get an abortion in SD. It can be done, but only in one town and only at certain times, as a doctor has to be flown in to perform them. SD also enacted ‘conscience’ laws, which allow medical personnel to refuse to have anything to do with what they consider an abortion and allows pharmacists the right to refuse fill contraception scrips or to even stock and sell it. The situation in many states is dire for women.

  144. A. R says

    pelamun: My thoughts exactly. I fully intend to vote for Obama in 2012. Remember, voting is like driving: select “D” to go forward (albeit slowly at times), and “R” to go backward.

  145. Serious Question says

    Can someone explain why, legally, a law that says a fertilized egg is a person ends up implying that a woman, also a person, is required to act as an incubator for it?

  146. A. R says

    Serious Question: Your comment seems a bit odd, considering the clear explanation given, and the simple logic involved. The only way a woman can avoid being an incubator is by terminating the pregnancy, and by doing that she would, under measure 23, be deliberately killing a life form that has been granted personhood, thus making her a murderer.

  147. says

    Caine,

    Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with what individual states do, unfortunately. States can enact any number of laws which effectively outlaw abortion. South Dakota did this a number of years ago. It’s damn near impossible to get an abortion in SD. It can be done, but only in one town and only at certain times, as a doctor has to be flown in to perform them. SD also enacted ‘conscience’ laws, which allow medical personnel to refuse to have anything to do with what they consider an abortion and allows pharmacists the right to refuse fill contraception scrips or to even stock and sell it. The situation in many states is dire for women.

    I know, and I find that alarming. I didn’t want to give the impression that Roe v. Wade was the end to all problems. I know there are all these tricks various states have employed to make life it very very hard for abortion clinics to operate (TRMS talks about it a lot). Seems like they’re trying to impose as many restrictions and bureaucratic burdens as they possibly can get away with.

    A R.,

    Nothing recent on personhood in general. They may apply the The Planned Parenthood v. Casey Standard:

    My question was more about laying murder charges on women who have late term abortions. Is this something protected constitutionally at all? In a common law system, surely there must be some kind of precedent to this. Or could any state just redefine personhood as it pleases? That would be a scary thought…

  148. Inane Janine, OM, Conflater Of Arguments says

    Can someone explain why, legally, a law that says a fertilized egg is a person ends up implying that a woman, also a person, is required to act as an incubator for it?

    Because that is a woman’s god given task in life.

  149. Inane Janine, OM, Conflater Of Arguments says

    Serious Question: Your comment seems a bit odd, considering the clear explanation given, and the simple logic involved. The only way a woman can avoid being an incubator is by terminating the pregnancy, and by doing that she would, under measure 23, be deliberately killing a life form that has been granted personhood, thus making her a murderer.

    Hardly a new question. For years, anti-choisers have argued if the woman, the doctor or both are guilty of murder. That is part of the defense that murderers like Scott Roeder put forth.

  150. A. R says

    pelamun: According to Gonzales, states may impose partial birth abortion bans, which may carry criminal penalties. Late term abortions are more difficult though legally, as states do have the right to impose legislature after viability according to Roe. And, as Caine mentioned, some states have come up with clever ways to nearly ban abortions.

  151. Ichthyic says

    1968, with the election of Dick Nixon.

    hmm.

    who was president during the market boom of the 1920s?

    The deregulation of the markets that lead to the boom-bust cycle of the 20s and 30s happened long before Tricky Dick.

    I’d put the onus on the decline to Warren G Harding, myself.

    The last real progressive in the white house was Wilson, who himself then struggled with REPUBLICANS to support the new idea of the “League of Nations”, and vetoed several bills trying to regulate unions.

    basically, this battle was lost over 100 years ago in this country.

  152. you_monster says

    This would mean that you could not sentence a pregnant woman to serve time in prison, right? You can’t wrongfully imprison that person inside her without due process.

  153. A. R says

    you_monster: About 3% of mothers have their children in prison with them. I suppose they would use that argument.

  154. says

    A. R,

    I understand, but that’s not what I mean. The Eighth Amendment holds that the punishment has to be proportionate to the crime, and being imprisoned for an illegal abortion for life would surely not meet this standard, at least for any sane person.

    And thus my question, does Common Law define personhood?

  155. Pteryxx says

    The only way a woman can avoid being an incubator is by terminating the pregnancy, and by doing that she would, under measure 23, be deliberately killing a life form that has been granted personhood, thus making her a murderer.

    However, if the woman dies from pregnancy, since the embryo or fetus isn’t conscious of its actions or acting with intent, at worst it would be guilty of manslaughter.

    Convenient, that.

  156. Sally Strange, OM says

    http://www.ustream.tv/theother99

    Spontaneous march in NYC, in solidarity with victims of Oakland police brutality, seems to have taken the NYPD somewhat by surprise. They tried to kettle with orange mesh, but people just grabbed the mesh and moved it out of the way.

  157. Ichthyic says

    And thus my question, does Common Law define personhood?

    yes, but it’s complicated:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_personality

    and it really revolves around which rights are assigned to which definition of “person”.

    It’s not even clear whether this “initiative” addresses a legal, or a natural person.

    instead, it’s just fucking inane… what it asks is for the courts to figure it out, simply because they are too stupid to figure it out for themselves, and just hope that a conservative court will interpret their mishmash of an initiative to their liking.

    whatever. It makes my head hurt thinking of all the completely irrational gibberish that has made its way through the initiative systems in just about every US state in the past 20 years.

    in the end, what does it matter how common Law defines a person, if it isn’t rational to begin with?

    Hell, even corporations now share in most aspects of the rights we assign to persons (read natural persons). I think the only major right they do not have is to hold public office.

  158. A. R says

    pelamun: Well, legal personhood is quite complex, but a legal person is an entity who can, under common law or statutory law, hold and sell property, and sue or be sued. This means that born and unborn children may not necessarily be legal persons. Of course, this really doesn’t answer your question so I did some research and found this:

    A broad definition of “constitutional personhood” is the status of a human being or legal entity with some or all constitutional rights. In the abortion context however, the term “constitutional personhood” refers to the idea of a definition attributable to the word “person” in the constitutional text, specifically for purposes of the 14th Amendment right of all “persons” to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In this context, there is currently no such thing as constitutional personhood. The Founding Fathers placed no such definition in the Constitution.

    Also this (A bit historical):

    Although abortion in the United Kingdom was traditionally dealt with in the ecclesiastical courts, English common law addressed the issue from 1115 on, beginning with first mention in Leges Henrici Primi. In this treatise, abortion, even of a “formed’ fetus, was a “quasi-homicide”, carrying a penalty of 10 years’ penance. This was a much lesser penalty than would accrue to full homicide. With the excpetion of Bracton, later writers insisted that killing a fetus was “great misprision, and no murder”, as formulated by Sir Edward Coke in his Institutes of the Lawes of England. Coke noted that the murder victim must have been “a reasonable creature in rerum natura”, in accordance with the standards of murder in English law. This formulation was repeated by Sir William Blackstone in England and in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary in the United States.
    The reasonableness of the creature is of some considerable weight in the legal conception of personhood. Children are not considered full persons under the law until they reach the age of majority.
    Nonetheless, children have been treated as persons with respect to bodily offences, beginning with Offences against the Person Act 1828, although his protection did not prevent children from being sold by their parents, as in the Eliza Armstrong case, long after the slave trade had been abolished in England.

    I’m looking into pre-Roe abortion law penalties, and will post when I have something.

  159. What a Maroon says

    Ichthyic,

    There was a lot of progress from the 30s to the 60s, especially in the post-war years. Civil rights for blacks, women’s rights, the power of unions, the elevation of the working class to the middle class, the beginning of the environmental movement, all of those progressed during those decades. I’m not saying that the country achieved anything close to paradise, just that in general things were moving in the right direction. And the identity of the presidents over that time is a bit of a red herring. It’s not so much that Dick Nixon ended all that progress as his election and the way he achieved it signaled the beginning of the backlash.

    The point being that until 1968 or so, pretty much every oppressed group was advancing. Since then, I think you can make a case that the only oppressed group that has unequivocally advanced is the LGBT community.

    If you want to focus on presidents, though, the real tragedy, or perhaps crime, is that LBJ let all his advances in domestic policy be overshadowed by his stubborn and irrational pursuit of the Vietnam War.

  160. subbie says

    I would think that the “solution” to the problem of incarcerating a pregnant woman would be obvious; add an additional charge against the woman of false imprisonment.

  161. Father Ogvorbis, OM says

    Mississippi keeps finding new ways to prove just how backwards it can be. And it ain’t new! The state has a long history of being racist, sexist and relishing ignorance and violence. Mississippi, find yourself another country to be part of.

  162. A. R says

    Hmmm It looks like most modern (20th century and beyond)laws do not provide for penalizing the woman, but may penalize the doctor.

  163. razzlefrog says

    YOU KNOW WHAT’S INFURIATING?! There are pro-life men out there arguing it “takes two to make a baby” and that therefore they should have rights over whether “their woman” has an abortion! Have any of you met this insufferable asshole?

    As a woman, I hear that and think…I will murder you! I have
    GROWLED at men who have made such sanctimonious statements! Just you go there, son…if you’re okay with never again seeing daylight!

  164. A. R says

    razzlefrog: If that makes you angry, look up “male abortion.” [ANGRY HEAD EXPLOSION WARNING]

  165. Sally Strange, OM says

    it “takes two to make a baby”

    It doesn’t. It takes two to START a baby.

    The actual making of the baby is all done by women.

    Until that changes, men don’t get to have a say in who gets abortions and who doesn’t.

    Apparently this really chaps their asses.

  166. Sally Strange, OM says

    Hmmm It looks like most modern (20th century and beyond)laws do not provide for penalizing the woman, but may penalize the doctor.

    Which is really insulting, when you think about it. It’s basically saying that women are too dumb and childlike to be held responsible for their actions. It’s like prosecuting the hit man but not the person who hired him. Nonsensical, unless you assume that women are subhumans with low levels of intelligence who are easily manipulated by actual humans, that is, men.

    I always ask anti-choicers what they think the appropriate punishment for getting an abortion should be, since they’re so convinced that abortion = murder. The only one to give me a straight answer was the insane troll Piltdown Man, who said it should be worthy of the death penalty.

  167. Jett Perrobone says

    It’s quite ironic – “Freda Bush” sounds more like the name of a women’s liberationist than that of an OBGYN! :P

  168. says

    Sally:

    I always ask anti-choicers what they think the appropriate punishment for getting an abortion should be, since they’re so convinced that abortion = murder.

    This came up on another board I used to be on, the topic was “How much jail time is appropriate for a woman who got an abortion?” It was quite interesting to see the majority of people attempt to dance around the issue, but a handful of pro-life men came up with sentences, from 6 months to life without the possibility of parole.

  169. A. R says

    Sally: I was thinking along those lines as well, especially since we would, as you say, be treating women like children, that is, they would not be held fully to the law like a “full person.” Very few anti-choicers will give you any answer other than “It is punishment enough to have had an abortion,” “Pray for her,” etc.

    Caine: I’m surprised they even gave you an answer at all.

  170. Sally Strange, OM says

    This came up on another board I used to be on, the topic was “How much jail time is appropriate for a woman who got an abortion?” It was quite interesting to see the majority of people attempt to dance around the issue, but a handful of pro-life men came up with sentences, from 6 months to life without the possibility of parole.

    If you really want to see some energetic jigging, ask them whether the sentence should be mitigated if the woman is already a mother–you know, of BORN children–then watch them dance and dance and dance.

    Most conservative policy positions rely on a failure by their proponents to think them through to their logical ends.

  171. says

    Sally:

    If you really want to see some energetic jigging, ask them whether the sentence should be mitigated if the woman is already a mother–you know, of BORN children–then watch them dance and dance and dance.

    Oh, that did come up. Of the pro-life men who handed out sentences, only the 6 months man felt there should be consideration for those who were mothers. The other ones felt it should not be a mitigating factor, because look what she was willing to do to a baby! They also brought up that if motherhood was to be a possible mitigating factor, a thorough investigation would be required, because most women who terminate a pregnancy are bad mommies anyway, ya know, those sluts.

    It was an interesting discussion (and beyond heated). I discovered quite a lot about pro-life thinking during the course of it.

  172. Orange Utan says

    @Sally

    I always ask anti-choicers what they think the appropriate punishment for getting an abortion should be, since they’re so convinced that abortion = murder.

    Hopefully it won’t embed…

  173. says

    Yeah, that doesn’t make sense. If the pro-life people really believe in abortion=murder, then for them it should be more consistent to demand the death penalty.

    Then we’ll see what the Eighth Amendment is really worth.

  174. says

    pelamun:

    If the pro-life people really believe in abortion=murder, then for them it should be more consistent to demand the death penalty.

    It’s nothing to do with consistency for a majority of anti-woman anti-abortionists. There are a small amount who do think the death penalty is appropriate, however, they tend to think the doctors are the ones who should die. (Yes, they completely ignore all the diy abortions which have taken place, because many of them tend to kill the woman, which they are okay with.)

    It’s about nothing more than controlling women. Full stop. If it was actually about babies, then they might actually have to give a shit about single mothers, the poor, making sure that child protection agencies were top flight and had plenty of money, education, making sure that women and men had good parental leaves in place, etc.

    They don’t give the proverbial fig about any of those things. It’s all about control and punishment. And if a baby ends up dead, eh, who cares? “We forced that woman into birthin’, that’s what matters! And now we’re taking away her contraceptives, that’ll learn her!”

  175. CogNeuro says

    >”Science confirms that a person is a human being at the moment of fertilization. At that moment we are fully human and fully alive.”

    As a cognitive neuroscience student, I’d just about say that science confirms that, at fertilization, a person is not a “human being” in the sense that she seems to mean it. Being what she means by a “human being” depends on having a human nervous system that can do the “things that make us human,” like social cognition, moral cognition, etc. At the moment of fertilization, the neural tube isn’t even near forming yet. Hence, no nervous system. Hence, no special human qualities.

  176. A. R says

    “We forced that woman into birthin’, that’s what matters! And now we’re taking away her contraceptives, that’ll learn her!”

    That sounds disturbingly like a person I argued with in meatspace once.

  177. Hypatia's Daughter says

    It’s not just contraception, abortion and “pregnancy” rights (as some pointed out above)that will be affected by this bill, but a woman’s access to medical treatments. The treatment of some diseases, such as pre-eclampsia, Crohn’s disease or cancer, often harm or kill the fetus and could result in a murder/manslaughter charge.

    Doesn’t this #$@!$^*%#@ obgyn KNOW about these diseases? Shit, pre-eclampsia only effects pregnant women!! Is she too stupid to realize that this draconian law could prevent women from getting life-saving medical care? Or is it just that sacrificing the lives of a few women & their “unborn babies” to stop abortion a price she is willing to pay?

  178. satan augustine says

    I suggest that we all obtain the Mississippi White Pages (either the paper version from your local library or via the internet) and have each individual Pharygulite choose a section of names (say I choose last names beginning with Ca-Co) and call all of those Mississippians.

    We could have a standard opening:
    Us: “Hi, do you have a couple of minutes to talk?”
    Them: “Sure, yeah.”
    Us: “Will you be voting yes on Initiative 26?” (making it sound like we support initiative 26)
    Them: “Yes, definitely.”
    Us: “Great. Thank You. I’d like to give you some information about Mississippi. Would that be alright with you?”
    Them: “Sure!”
    Us: “Are you aware that Mississippi is the poorest, least educated, most obese, least healthy state and has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy and the highest infant mortality rate in the entire US?”
    Them: (puzzled)Uh, no. That’s awful.
    Us: “I assume based on your stance on Initiative 26 that you are very concerned with human life. I feel the need, then, to point out that voting yes on 26 would increase the infant mortality rate even more because there will be so many more babies who need to be taken care of and Mississippi’s health care system is broken. Were Initiative 26 to pass, Mississippi would become even more poor because of all the new babies that need taken care of and the mothers who can’t work because they have to take care of their babies, especially since some of these new mothers would be teenagers. Initiative 26 would make Mississippi poorer, increase the infant mortality rate, and with the money spread so thin, make education worse as well. Do you want that for your state – increased poverty, poorer education, poorer health care services, and worst of all little babies starving to death? If not, vote no on 26.”

    The above is just a rough template for a phone call campaign. Any input, criticism, suggestions would be appreciated.

    Thanks

  179. Reese M says

    It seems to me the conservative movement has a really hard time with person hood.

    Corporations, Zygotes and God are all people, whereas pregnant women, welfare recipiants and Iraqi children are sluts, trash and “collateral damage” respectively.

  180. says

    Sigh. These days it’s enough to make me wish I was writing from elsewhere.

    But then I remember that Mississippi isn’t the first. It’s a small relief.

    For those with questions – this is going to pass. I know my friends and folk who’ve spent so much time banking the phones would hate to know it. But they’ll admit it in moments of clarity and truth, when tongues move freely.

    The most hilarious part is reserved for lawyers – kind of like the best bits of hell. In Mississippi there is a constitutional giblet that prevents popular ballot measures (the last resort of the idiot politician seeking to blame the people) from – wait for it – changing the bill of rights of the state constitution.

    Hilariously enough, a state justice said this bill would not do that. Which is funny (in that “oops I bit the head off of your children” way) because the text of the motherfucking initiative says that it’s going to do this. To wit: ” Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, “The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.”

    So every single mention of “person” in the bill of rights of the state – that’ll mean something else. That’s not a change, according to our brilliant legal scholars that sit in the state supreme court.

    It’s shameful. Even worse is the rhetoric from the newspapers and politicians, claiming loud and proud and public that the ACLU and Planned Parenthood are in some “unholy alliance to abort babies.”

    Oh, community leaders. I am so sorry, rest of the nation. I really am. So sorry. We’re making the rest of you look bad. And we’re doing terrible things to our women.

  181. Jim says

    Think of the poor Mississippi Coroner, who will now have to investigate every miscarriage, as they will presumably be classified as an unexplained human death.

    Fucking loonies.

  182. says

    Will there be fetal trespassing laws? Can I evict a zygote for failure to pay rent? Can I maybe get a restraining order? Charge it with assault and battery?

    If I accuse it of being gay, does it lose its rights?

    I go with Sally Strange:
    Let’s take this to the logical consequences:
    Currently, a fetus becomes a full person at birth. At that moment I can dump them onto the system and refuse to have any further to do with them. Not my problem that in the USA the adoption system is broke and the child might have a very horrible life.
    So, if it becomes a person at conception (BTW, half of all fertilized eggs fail to attach to the uterus all by themselves, are they guilty of suicide and go to hell?), I can dump them right then.
    Total liberation of abortion laws.
    No person has any right to my body. Not an ounce of blood, not even a strand of my hair.
    So, get the fuck out of there and find a job, you’re not my problem!

  183. rad_pumpkin says

    Woohoo, Mississippi has now gone full retard (approx 0.8Texas on the grand retard scale). I expect it to pass Texas on that scale should this abomination of a law actually pass.

    So according to this law, me picking my nose would be considered suicide? Well, several thousand suicides at once. But here’s an even better part: “The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.” I don’t quite know what the functional equivalent of cloning or fertilization is, but I suspect it would be granting life to an upright walking simian with 23 chromosome pairs. By that logic, Frankenstein’s Monster would be considered fully human! (I know that’s the plot of that godawful book, but now it’s official). But say, hypothetically speaking, I were to transplant a human brain into the skull of a chimp. Would that hypothetical creature be considered human? IGNORE THOSE SCREAMS FROM THE BASEMENT!

    Seriously, let’s not pass this thing, yes? I know the IQ of the average Mississippian is inversely related to their weight, but surely you guys aren’t that stupid. Right? Please tell me you’re less retarded than Texans…

  184. ConcernedJoe says

    #134 Kamaka says: “That doctor in the video, she is fucking creepy. All so nicey-nice, giving kind advice…”

    Mother Teresa come to mind anyone?

    Basically Christianity is a cult devoted to fostering masochistic (emotionally and physically) activities, denigration of innate human value and capability, and asserting control over people via unnecessary guilt, shame, fear, societal tiers, hierarchical rule, and hijacking our natural instinct to empathize, sympathize, and preserve life at least within the perceived tribe.

    Their trick through the ages is to wrap all this negative to the masses but self-serving for the masters BS stuff in a ILLUSION of: earned authority, proven righteousness and logic, compassion, love, and hope.

    Elective abortion (as in codified legal like via Roe) is a “god sent” to them. It gives them a substrate to work their methods and means. It is an issue that has traction because preservation of immature life (species offspring) is so engrained in almost all species. It also mostly affects women, who even today are often thought of as inferior property in some fashion.

    One has to wonder why organized religion and Jesus worshipers would do not fight with all their might and usurp State apparatus to insist via codification that the Corporal Works of Mercy are carried out fully and earnestly – as opposed to wasting time on the much much more nebulous and smaller “problem” of how a woman controls her body and life.

  185. OurSally says

    >Or death from overwhelming sepsis. Whichever comes first.

    It’s OK, they’re only women

    >Should Women be considered legal persons?

    Only until they are born, of course

  186. Marcus Hill says

    This turd of a bill doesn’t just impact on the evil abortionists, it means people who really want a baby will also be committing manslaughter if they use IVF unless they try to implant every single fertilised egg. Should such women be forced to carry octuplets? If not, should the “persons” (by this stage consisting of up to a massive twenty or so cells) be implanted in other incubators? Or should they be frozen (probably a serious assault)? If so, how long after the birth of any kids resulting from the first implantation (if it’s successful, or after the sentence for manslaughter is served if it isn’t) should the first incubator be forced to have the frozen people implanted?

    Actually, this is probably a moot point. After all, IVF is unnatural and against God’s will.

    Also, how long should we wait before terminating an ectopic pregnancy, or any other such situation where the person has no chance of surviving to full term, but risks seriously damaging or even killing the incubator if allowed to grow?

  187. thecynic says

    To highlight the ridiculousness of this whole thing, I think a group of biologists should sue the state of Maryland for improperly issuing a death certificate to Henrietta Lacks.

    If a living cell is all it takes to constitute a human life, not only is she still alive–in terms of sheer biomass, she’s super-morbidly obese!

  188. davem says

    Caine:

    It’s about nothing more than controlling women.

    Well, I’d agree that there is an element of misogyny there, but I think that the main reason is they genuinely think that any foetus is a human being, having a ‘soul’. After all, plenty of the ‘pro-life’ crowd are female. Maybe it’s a sort of Stockholm syndrome? It seems to me that women are as vociferous as the men.

    If they regarded a foetus as essentially a parasite upon its mother, and not having a soul, I wonder how many would change their mind?

    If it was actually about babies, then they might actually have to give a shit about single mothers, the poor, making sure that child protection agencies were top flight and had plenty of money, education, making sure that women and men had good parental leaves in place, etc.

    I don’t think that they even think about that stuff. They keep spewing out a figure of 40 million abortions a year, but haven’t even begun to think what they are going to do with a billion unwanted babies after 25 years.

  189. Father Ogvorbis, OM says

    Woohoo, Mississippi has now gone full retard

    My sister-in-law has Down’s Syndrome. She is severely retarded. There are thousands of insults out there that are quite effective. Could you please choose a different one?

  190. says

    davem

    Well, I’d agree that there is an element of misogyny there, but I think that the main reason is they genuinely think that any foetus is a human being, having a ‘soul’.

    No, they genuinly can’t think that.
    Because if they did, they would be pushing for more research on the topic of miscarriages and how to prevent them.
    A the moment, what most women who lose planned and wanted pregnancies get is a shoulder-shrug.

    After all, plenty of the ‘pro-life’ crowd are female.

    And your point is?

  191. davem says

    And your point is?

    My point was that if misogyny is the only object of this group, then the misogyny is being carried out by women too. Maybe their motive is different, eg saving the ‘soul’? …or saving ‘God’s work’?
    While the end result may be anti-women, the motive isn’t necessarily the same.

    No, they genuinly can’t think that.

    You over-estimate them. They can think all sorts of crap.

  192. Serious Question says

    Serious Question: Your comment seems a bit odd, considering the clear explanation given, and the simple logic involved. The only way a woman can avoid being an incubator is by terminating the pregnancy, and by doing that she would, under measure 23, be deliberately killing a life form that has been granted personhood, thus making her a murderer.

    But, under the law, PZ is already a person, and there’s no subsequent legal requirement for his wife to donate organs to him to keep him alive. Also, in at least some states, if a legal person traspasses onto a woman’s property, and refuses to leave and/or threatens her health, she is legally allowed to shoot them (castle doctrine?).

    My point is the old violinist argument. Concede for the sake of argument that the fetus is a person (even though I don’t really think that). Why does it follow that abortion should be illegal? In my mind, the more important consideration is that the woman is also a person, and shouldn’t be legally required to act as an incubator for another person against her will. Whether or not the fetus is a “person” is a moot point under that view.

    I don’t think a fetus should count as a person on its own, against the will of its mother. But, if I’m pregnant with a wanted baby, and some guy kicks me in the stomach so as to cause a miscarriage, I want him to be way more severely punished than if I wasn’t pregnant (assuming that in both scenarios I’m only minorly injured other than the miscarriage). But, legally, I think the best way is to view causing an unwanted miscarriage as something like grevious bodily harm, like severing a limb, which is worse than simple assault.

    Also, did anyone else get an ad at the bottom of this post for “Christian Maternity T-Shirts”?

  193. Marcus Hill says

    Giliell: the group is named “Parents Against Personhood”. I think carovee is just trying to get donations for the group (which seems to be on the right side), not trying to cast some oddly worded aspersions.

  194. Leel says

    Proposed acronym for women who take advantage of safe and legal abortions for themselves, while trying for religious or moral reasons to deny them to other women:

    MAIDs

    My Abortion Is Different

    (apologies if unoriginal)

  195. says

    davem
    Who says that women can’t be misgynists?
    You know, in every quiverfull home, there is a quiverfull mother instilling the bullshit into her own sons and daughters.
    The reasons why they are misogynists are diverse and range from indoctrintion to securing the place they found for themselves within patriarchy. But the same way men can be feminists, women can be misogynists.

    carovee
    I’m sorry, I missunderstood you.

    Marcus Hill
    Thanx for pointing it out.

  196. Marcus Hill says

    I nearly didn’t notice it myself, and might not have if the link wasn’t directly to the donations page (with my own IVF baby imminent, donations aren’t on my agenda right now) – the group is referred to as “Parents Against MS26″ everywhere except in the first line of the postal address for donations. Maybe they changed the name at some stage when they realised that, without knowledge of the context, “Parents Against Personhood” sounds odd. I did peruse the rest of the site, which has quite a lot of good information about the “unintended” consequences of the poorly worded legislation on contraception, IVF and non-viable pregnancies, as well as the vile deliberate effects of the complete ban on abortion.

  197. says

    @davem:

    There’s nothing to this except blatant misogyny. It’s an attempt to control women for daring to want to be sexual creatures. It’s control of the basic desires of humanity. The Christians are all about this – look no further than anti-gay-rights crowds for that. Christians want to control sex and sexuality of the masses.

    The anti-abortion movement (like hell I’ll call it pro-life since overturning abortion results in more deaths) is controlling the very ability for women to be able to do with their bodies that they want. It’s foisting responsibility on those sluts for daring to open their legs. I’ve heard time and again from my fundamentalist mother that “there needs to be responsibility” for sex.

    If the anti-abortion crowd was really concerned about the safety and livelihood of children, they would be ready to assist the really young. If they were really concerned about lessening the number of abortions, they would be actively encouraging proper sexual education. The anti-abortion lobby is the same group who call for the removal of welfare for poor, single-parent families and the same group who call for abstinence-only sexual education.

    This initiative is another thrust to try to get Roe v Wade overturned. I’m sickened by the thought, but it scares me to think that next year will be the last year where women will have the right to a safe medical decision of their own body. Mark my words, 2013 – Republican presidential candidate will be in office, Roe v Wade will be overturned, gay rights will be destroyed, and we’ll be going into the death spiral of American freedom.

  198. T.J. Brown says

    Also, a couple of other things. If this passes, I’m getting the hell out of this theocratic state. Another thing, both our Republican AND Democratic candidates for governor support this measure. This just proves how ignorant MS is.

    One last thing…as a rape survivor, I cannot even wrap my mind around being forced to carry the spawn of my rapist. I’ve even written a note about how, luckily, I was too young to become pregnant. It’s sick when I can consider that lucky, huh?

    Anyway,definitely voting NO on this initiative. I cannot believe that it’s even being considered. Then, I remember where I live.

  199. Ing says

    Well, I’d agree that there is an element of misogyny there, but I think that the main reason is they genuinely think that any foetus is a human being, having a ‘soul’. After all, plenty of the ‘pro-life’ crowd are female. Maybe it’s a sort of Stockholm syndrome? It seems to me that women are as vociferous as the men.

    Horseshit. These people demand that every soul is sacred and must be protected but then are the first ones to beat the drums of war and are eager to let countless die in the street just so they can make sure no one cheats the system. These people respect humanity less than any other group I have seen. It’s inconsistent and outrageous.

  200. Scott says

    I don’t want to downplay the gravity of this situation, but I predict that this won’t pass constitutional scrutiny. If “personhood” begins at conception, then shouldn’t we all change our birthdates to be nine months earlier? Would women who spontaneously miscarry be guilty of homicide? (Most pregnancies end this way anyway) What happens to frozen embryos in fertility clinics? Will the state start an “adopt-an-embryo” program? Too many questions that are unanswerable.

    There’s a very good reason why MS doesn’t do more about its infant mortality rate; most of the mortalities are African-American babies. I needn’t comment further on that.

    Last observation: since when do we put science to a vote? “All those in favour of the germ theory of disease, raise your hands.”

  201. Ing says

    @Scott

    Think of the make up of the Supreme Court. Don’t kid yourself. They KNOW this goes against current constitutional interpretation and the law as it stands. That’s the point. They want this to go to the SCOTUS so they can get Judge “Pope Sucker” Scallia, Judge “how did Anthony vote?” Thomas, Judge “I lied to get the job” Roberts and Judge “Scallia Sucker” Alito to outlaw abortion.

  202. Scott says

    @Ing: It would have to pass the MS supreme court too, but I assume they’re even more conservative. My reasoning was based on how unenforceable it is, and how many other questions are raised.

    BTW, I meant “fertilizations” not pregnancies.

  203. Ing says

    @Scott

    The point of a unjust totalitarian state is to have unenforceable laws. Once you have people worrying about whether their actions MIGHT be illegal you have won and own them. Once you have a law where you can easily ‘interpret’ it to spare the elect and punish any and all dissidents you have won.

    The unjustness of the law is a feature.

  204. niftyatheist says

    The anti-abortion movement (like hell I’ll call it pro-life since overturning abortion results in more deaths) is controlling the very ability for women to be able to do with their bodies that they want. It’s foisting responsibility PUNISHMENT on those sluts for daring to open their legs. I’ve heard time and again from my fundamentalist mother that “there needs to be responsibility” for sex.

    Katherine Lorraine, your post was chilling and excellent. You put my deepest fear/terrified expectation into words. I would change “responsibility” into punishment, because that is what is really meant, IMO. When Xians say “there needs to be responsibility” for sex, they mean, punishment for women, not responsibility for the man and the woman. There is never any move to enforce “responsibility” in men. :(

    I am going for my citizenship interview next week. Fuck. I can’t believe that after living here for 16 years and loving this country so fucking much all of my thinking life, that I am now experiencing very cold feet. :(

  205. Father Ogvorbis, OM says

    My point was that if misogyny is the only object of this group, then the misogyny is being carried out by women too.

    No shit. There is nothing, anywhere, which says that a woman can not be a mysogynist. Just as an African American can still be racist. Or a liberal can still have authoritarian tendencies. Women can be quite complicit in their own subjugation. Check out the Prairie Muffin Manifesto for a particularly stomach-turning example.

    Here are some examples:

    2) Prairie Muffins are helpmeets to their husbands, seeking creative and practical ways to further their husbands’ callings and aid them in their dominion responsibilities.

    3) Prairie Muffins are aware that God is in control of their ability to conceive and bear children, and they are content to allow Him to bless them as He chooses in this area.

    4) Prairie Muffins seek to conform themselves to the image of God by not chafing at the trials and afflictions which He brings to them, but thankfully submitting to His loving providence as He makes them fit for heaven.

    6) Prairie Muffins dress modestly and in a feminine manner.

    9) Prairie Muffins do not reflect badly on their husbands by neglecting their appearance; they work with the clay God has given, molding it into an attractive package for the pleasure of their husbands.12) Prairie Muffins prefer others above themselves, seeking to serve God by serving others, especially members of their own household.

    13) Prairie Muffins practice hospitality, graciously, even when their home is not as perfect as they would like.

    17) Prairie Muffins place their husbands’ needs and desires above other obligations, arranging their schedules and responsibilities so that they do not neglect the one who provides for and protects them and their children.

    18) Prairie Muffins are fiercely submissive to God and to their husbands.

    21) Prairie Muffins recognize that all good gifts come from the Father of Lights (James 1:17) and they also realize their privileged position as “home despot,” thus they are grateful to God and their husbands for enabling them to engage in the wonderful role of homekeeper.

    29) Prairie Muffins are open to correction from proper authorities. They are responsible to submit to their own husbands, to their elders, and ultimately to God. If rebuked by these authorites a PM should receive such correction gracefully and gratefully. If rebuked by others, she should take the concern to her proper authorities.35) This society worships rugged individualists, and lone ranger Christians are often the rule rather than the exception. While we know that it is becoming more difficult to find family-friendly and biblically-based churches, Prairie Muffins reject the notion that commitment to a local church is optional. We affirm the importance of the church in our families’ lives, and we willingly submit to its leaders. It is our desire to raise children who are life-long worshipers in the pew and future leaders of strong churches.

    40) The women who will have the greatest impact on the world, those who will have the greatest influence on history, are those “well-behaved” women who faithfully serve God in their daily lives, seeking His approval rather than the world’s admiration. Prairie Muffins know that while engaging in the kingdom-building work in their homes of loving, training and disciplining their children, the world may not express its approval, but it will be turned upside down.

    51) Prairie Muffins are patient as they pray for God’s will to be done. Knowing that God’s timing is not our timing, and His ways are not our ways, they are content to wait on the Lord for His resolution to trials and conflicts, and they are careful not to step out of His explicit commands in order to achieve what their fallen reason may try to convince them is a “greater good.” Rather than asking, “Has God said?” they ask, “What is your will for me, oh, Lord?” Then they diligently search the Scriptures to find it, along with asking for the wisdom which God has promised to give.

    This was written by a woman. There are many women who accept this idiocy as guiding principles in their life. So do you still want to argue that women cannot be mysogynists?

  206. Katharine says

    I don’t know why the anti-choicers don’t support placozoan rights. Placozoans are biologically essentially equivalent to blastocysts except for the genome.

  207. Zerple says

    It’s madness.

    Madness?… THIS IS SPARTA!!!!!

    I had to say that. Anyway, “personhood” laws are complete and total nonsense.

  208. walton says

    The most extreme anti-abortion law that I’m aware of is in Nicaragua. There, until 2008, it was legal to perform a “therapeutic” abortion in order to save the woman’s life. However, this exemption was abolished in 2008; abortion is now illegal in absolutely every circumstance, with no exceptions whatsoever.

    The law doesn’t just punish doctors who perform abortions; it also provides for prison sentences of up to two years for women and girls who consent to an abortion or who attempt to perform one on themselves. There’s no exception for women who are victims of rape or incest, nor is there any exception on the grounds of age; so a thirteen-year-old rape victim has to carry her rapist’s baby to term. It also isn’t limited to criminalizing intentional abortions. Any medical treatment which causes injury or death to a foetus, even unintentionally, is also criminalized. (In one case, a pregnant woman with breast and lung cancer was refused treatment because doctors were aware of hurting the foetus.) This is more extreme even than the official Catholic position.

  209. Irreverend Bastard says

    Wait a minute,

    she relies on our colloquial understanding of “human” to imply our better qualities, the gifts that make us different from animals, the elements our our nature that freight the word “humane”

    This is a bit unclear, are you saying that you think that humans are different from animals?

    If so, how are humans different from animals?

  210. niftyatheist says

    I think what is most depressing is something I don’t hear or read – the slowly sinking in realization that this really is not outrageous to a majority of people in this country and, indeed, all over the world.

    We often complain about these initiatives and the legislation stripping human rights from women which are being passed with greater and greater regularity, and yet, how can these things come about if a majority does not support it?

    How come initiatives like this horrific, dehumanizing #26 in Mississippi get the required 90,000+ signatures? Those people signed! Someone upthread half-jokingly proposed an inititative “Should women be considered ‘persons’?” and yet – if there really is a majority out there who care about women as human beings and who are appalled at the stripping away of their dignity, their autonomy and their humanity, then why haven’t there been initiatives exactly like that put forward, a hundred thousand signatures put thereon and the public debate centered around what this whole issue means to women?

  211. Pteryxx says

    @Zerple. Free clue for you: Women dying is not fucking funny. Acting like an insensitive clueless douchebucket may have scored you dudebro points wherever you came from, but that shit won’t fly here. And saying “but rly this is bad ok?” afterwards in an attempt to cover the ass you just showed, only makes you an insensitive, clueless, PANDERING and SELF-CENTERED douchebucket. Take your burning need for approval and stuff it up a dead porcupine, buddy. You’ve got much better odds of becoming a decent person without it.

  212. Bryan says

    x-posted on Cuttlefish:

    Mississippi:

    SECTION 33. Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, “The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.

    US Constitution, 14th Amendment:

    § 1
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ~.

    Q1. Are the fertilized eggs/zygotes (FEZ) citizens of the US and/or Mississippi?

    Q2. What state are the FEZ citizens of, if the mother moves before giving birth?

    Q3. If a newly-pregnant illegal alien crosses state lines into Mississippi (and the FEZ instantly becomes a citizen, as in Q1), will the mother be automatically granted residency to care for the FEZ, as it is not legal to deport a US citizen from the US?

    Q4. If a newly-pregnant woman exposes herself or is involuntarily exposed to second-hand smoke, is that a state jail felony for the woman, the smoker(s) or all of the above?

    Q5. If a bar serves alcohol to a newly-pregnant woman, are they then guilty of serving liquor to a minor?

    Q6. If a Mississippi citizen/resident leaves the state and subsequently aborts/miscarries while out of the state, will she be arrested upon her return to Mississippi under this law?

    ———-

    This law will be an epic failure of unintended consequences when it passes and if SCOTUS doesn’t overturn it. If it wasn’t so gastly, I would love to PUNK them with their own medicine.

  213. Father Ogvorbis, OM says

    If so, how are humans different from animals?

    Well, for one thing, there is no way any animal other than Homo sapiens could come up with this shit. How many other animals have created religions which make it very, very, very bad to be who you are?

  214. carovee says

    And your point is?
    So now we’re anti-personhood?
    Wow, that’s a new word.

    Uh, no. I meant anti-“personhood ammendment”. I’m pretty sure we’re all on the same page here. It was early and I apologize for being unclear. There are so many attacks on reproductive rights at the moment that this one isn’t getting a ton of attention or funds. Parents Against MS26 is a really good local group trying to defeat the amendment, but they need help.

    http://parentsagainstms26.com/donate-now

  215. gra-gra says

    ….this really is not outrageous to a majority of people in this country and, indeed, all over the world.

    I can assure you, most of the rest of the developed world watches this kind of thing going on the US and goes “What the fuck is wrong with those Americans?”

  216. A. R says

    Bryan and pelamun:

    Agreed that they would not be citizens until birth. (Does this mean that they would be illegal aliens in Mississippi?) There actually have been convictions for “chemical endangerment” mentioned upthread. In terms of abortion/miscarriage out of state, since said “crime” occurred outside of the jurisdiction of Mississippi law, Mississippi would not be able to prosecute. If the other state had a similar law though, Mississippi might extradite to the other state.

  217. Matt says

    I think most people aren’t willing to look into this issue. There are signs everywhere stating “VOTE YES VOTE FOR LIFE”. People see that and that’s as far as they go with it. They tell themselves, “of course I’m going to vote for life…”
    When it comes down to it it’s mainly ignorance and laziness. There is a big campaign to vote yes for this initiative, but there’s not really anything pushing “VOTE NO” and why they should vote no. I’ve spoken to many people that will be voting no because they understand the harm an initiative like this will cause.
    Some of you are totally correct. Mississippi is bad off when it comes to poverty, jobs, and education. I see examples of these problems everyday. The lawmakers of Mississippi need to be focusing on the issues that really protect and benefit the people. If they did, many problems could be worked on. This initiative allows the government access to decisions that the government needs to stay out of, it will drive more doctors out of Mississippi, stop effective birth control, and hinder real science like stem cell research.
    This Mississippian will be voting a big, fat NO.

  218. Staceyjw says

    I’m surprised theres over 200 comments, and no one has commented on these forced birthers forced adoption work. There is a reason they push for abstinence, no welfare or help for single moms, and no abortion- they want to push women into giving their babies up to a “nice xtian family”. If a woman can safely and reasonably keep an unwanted baby (which requires health care, finanical aid/housing help, maternity leave and all the other stuff they are against), there is no way they can be forced to give their baby up. The way they lie and pressure moms even today is just as disgusting as this “personhood” bill.

    Oh, this is for just the white babies. They could care less what happens to all the non white babies.

  219. A. R says

    Staceyjw: Forget push, the Catholics in Spain (the only absolutely confirmed case, but there are multiple other likelies) steal them and give them to “devout Christians”

  220. Irreverend Bastard says

    Well, for one thing, there is no way any animal other than Homo sapiens could come up with this shit.

    Ooh, good point!

    Personally, I think that the difference between humans and animals is that humans think that there is a difference between humans and animals.

  221. niftyatheist says

    gra-gra says:
    27 October 2011 at 3:57 pm

    ….this really is not outrageous to a majority of people in this country and, indeed, all over the world.

    I can assure you, most of the rest of the developed world watches this kind of thing going on the US and goes “What the fuck is wrong with those Americans?”

    As an ex-pat Canadian, I am warning you that that ^ kind of complacency and assumption that this is an “American problem” will land all of the developed world into this situation in the coming years. Do you not understand that this is a global initiative by religious fundamentalists? Look around you at the right-wing movement in your own country. Like progressives here have done over the past 30 years(even as rights were chipped away), you are making the mistake of thinking “it can’t happen here”. It can.

    Matt, that was my point. Why is it that the voters are seeing the “yes” campaign all over the place but no effective “no” campaign? This is exactly what I am talking about.

  222. Twist says

    I’d like to know how Dr. Bush became a doctor. Yeeesh. It’s frightening and saddening how some places seem so dedicated to taking huge leaps backwards. This could potentially go some very frightening places. Fell down the stairs? Manslaughter.

    This isn’t about life, it’s about fucking control. It’s a last ditch attempt to get us back where we fucking belong, barefoot, pregnant and in service to our men. Ugh.

    @ 246 Father Ogvorbis: Now I need to vomit or shower or something.

  223. niftyatheist says

    Staceyjw says:
    27 October 2011 at 4:25 pm

    I’m surprised theres over 200 comments, and no one has commented on these forced birthers forced adoption work. There is a reason they push for abstinence, no welfare or help for single moms, and no abortion- they want to push women into giving their babies up to a “nice xtian family”. If a woman can safely and reasonably keep an unwanted baby (which requires health care, finanical aid/housing help, maternity leave and all the other stuff they are against), there is no way they can be forced to give their baby up. The way they lie and pressure moms even today is just as disgusting as this “personhood” bill.

    Oh, this is for just the white babies. They could care less what happens to all the non white babies.

    I agree that this is possibly part of the justification in the minds of some anti-abortion people…part of how they justify stripping women of their human rights to bodily autonomy, I mean. They comfortably assume that adoption is the obvious and easy solution and if she doesn’t choose adoption, well then fuck her (again).

    The emotional and psychological and physical toll of a full-term pregnancy and then loss of the newborn infant is never considered. This is the logical extension of “those sluts would have killed their “babies” as blastocysts, so obviously they will have no feelings for a full-term baby and will happily pass it up for adoption.” The dehumanization of women. It churns the stomach.

    Meanwhile, don’t get me started on the reality of adoption even when they do manage to coerce a young woman into giving up her baby. Babies of colour, boy babies, sibling pairs…oh yes. It is an interesting world out there (and by “interesting” of course I mean screwed up, freaking dark and ugly world in Xian land). I just reposted an old blog post I wrote on exactly that topic. Great minds, etc.

  224. Marcus Hill says

    [OT] I know this seems really nit-picky and pedantic, but I’ve seen it twice on this thread. Is there a reason why Americans use the phrase “they could care less” when the rest of the English speaking world uses “they couldn’t care less”? Surely if you could care less, that actually says next to nothing about how much you care, since it could be anywhere from a tiny glimmer of caring to caring a huge amount, either of which could be reduced on the caring scale. If your level of caring is zero (which is surely what the expression is intended to convey), then you couldn’t care less – in fact, not caring at all is the only amount of caring that is explicitly excluded if you could care less.

    Sorry, it’s just one of my pet peeves – I’m generally happy to accept most Americanisms as mere cultural and linguistic drift, but this one just seems so damned illogical.

  225. Pteryxx says

    @niftyatheist: Would you mind giving a link to that blog post of yours? I’d like to read it.

  226. curiouser says

    Marcus,
    It’s not an Americanism, it’s just wrong.
    …Unless you subscribe to the school of thought that it’s turning into an ironic turn of phrase, rather than a literal one. It makes it less irritating, at any rate.

  227. gra-gra says

    ” ..you are making the mistake of thinking “it can’t happen here”. It can. ”

    Believe me, I know, eternal vigilance and all that. And beside, nobody anywhere has the right to feel smug about the nut jobs in the USA. Irrationality lurks in every country, in different bolts holes but it’s still there.

  228. raven says

    ….this really is not outrageous to a majority of people in this country and, indeed, all over the world.

    Not yet.

    Similar measures were defeated in two other states, Colorado and South Dakota.

    Don’t extrapolate from a backwards nowhere place like Mississippi to the entire USA.

    What is most eerie is that the majority of Americans are female. It it passes, it will be because women voted for their own status to be defined as property and baby factories. Hard to imagine but what happens is what happens.

  229. Ike says

    I apologise for the obscene stupidity of what I’m about to write, but here goes anyway.

    If these people are so intent on everyone acting the same and doing the same and being the same, why don’t they all cluster together in some backwards southern part of the country, and the intelligent, liberal, progressive people can all live happily far, far away.

  230. niftyatheist says

    Pteryxx says:
    27 October 2011 at 5:07 pm

    @niftyatheist: Would you mind giving a link to that blog post of yours? I’d like to read it.

    Pteryxx, thank you. I am a little embarrassed because it is an older post (written in response to a discussion with a bunch of theists who, at that time, made up my “support network” and who I was, unfortunately, afraid to offend. Dancing to that tune got old (and wasn’t successful anyway,ha). I am older and wiser now, but the blog is a work in progress.

    I hope this link won’t break the Pharyngula comments! (I have previewed and it looks like an ordinary link, so here goes…)

    http://niftyatheist.blogspot.com/2011/10/abortion-againadoption.html

  231. Pteryxx says

    Salon has an excellent article, which I haven’t finished reading because my vision keeps blanking out with rage:

    The next front in the abortion wars: Birth control

    Mindful of anti-abortion sentiment in the state, even the local pro-choice opposition has taken to referring to all these implications – like banning birth-control pills — as “unintended consequences” of the initiative. But as my conversations in Mississippi with pro-Initiative 26 doctors made clear, for many Personhood supporters, these effects are anything but unintended. They’re part of the plan.

    “This is just a reminder of some of the ‘Neutral and Fair’ mainstream media that are trying to lure us into debate, argument, and confrontation,” Wiley S. Pinkerton wrote on the same page, not long after. “They are coming to this site hoping to catch us without the full armor of God.”

    Of course, even if I’d wanted to, the chances of catching any of them without “the armor of God” seemed remote. The Personhood movement in Mississippi is openly theocratic. Riley has written that “for years, the pro-life movement and the religious right has allowed the charge [of being “religiously motivated”] to make them run for cover. I think we should embrace it.”

    It was the American Family Association endorsement that put media muscle behind the movement in Mississippi, with email blasts, radio PSAs and interviews, promotions on its own website, and combined with the grass-roots energy, the state’s anti-choice groups took notice. Suddenly, people who had previously focused on incremental change – parental consent laws, waiting periods, ultrasound laws – were ecstatically heralding an end of the “murders.”

    “I said, ‘I don’t understand, if you’re for all these things … why are you voting yes?’” Hemmins recalled. “[Dupree] said, ‘I’m starting to see that there are issues … I’ve said I’m going to vote yes and it’s too late to go back on it now. It’d destroy me politically.’”

    I tried to confirm those quotes with Dupree; he did not return calls to his cellphone.

    Take note. Take note. Take note…

  232. curiouser says

    [Continuing OT]

    Ooh, according to the data in pelamum’s link, it may well be an Americanism. Interesting. Shows me not to extrapolate from personal experience, eh?

  233. Rey Fox says

    This is why those lukewarm “pro-choice” people or fence-sitters piss me off so much with their hemming and hawing over whether a woman might get an abortion for a reason they don’t personally like. Do they think the theocrats will stop with that? Do they think that the theocrats are not after their birth control? Well they fucking are.

  234. Zerple says

    @253

    @Zerple. Free clue for you: Women dying is not fucking funny. Acting like an insensitive clueless douchebucket may have scored you dudebro points wherever you came from, but that shit won’t fly here. And saying “but rly this is bad ok?” afterwards in an attempt to cover the ass you just showed, only makes you an insensitive, clueless, PANDERING and SELF-CENTERED douchebucket. Take your burning need for approval and stuff it up a dead porcupine, buddy. You’ve got much better odds of becoming a decent person without it.

    Hurr, you agreed with the point of the article but not in a way I like. I hate you, durrrr.

  235. Pteryxx says

    @niftyatheist, thanks for the link. (hoarded for calmer reading.) I just think you’re insightful and I’d like to know what you have to say.

    If these people are so intent on everyone acting the same and doing the same and being the same, why don’t they all cluster together in some backwards southern part of the country, and the intelligent, liberal, progressive people can all live happily far, far away. -Ike

    Unfortunately, letting other people happily go about their lives is a filthy liberal progressive viewpoint. Even the Quiverfull and polygamist enclaves aren’t about living their own way; they’re all about weaponizing their communities to go conquer the rest of us.

  236. niftyatheist says

    raven @271: I know what you mean (“don’t extrapolate..”) but this is what I fear: progressives seem to keep carving out exceptions – oh, this insanity is only in that stupid little corner of the state/country/world – until it is everywhere.

    I live in a “blue” state, yet this is fucking everywhere in my town. Red/blue is such a stupid and blinding concept and it speaks to our own complacency. With only a very few exceptions, every “blue” state (where “blue” is supposed to be media code for “progressive”) is only blue by a margin of a few percentage points. Same with every “red” state.

    Pteryxx, I read that Salon article last night and was so disturbed I was making faces and pretty much spitting tacks. Mr. Nifty looked up from his scrabble game and wondered what was making me so angry. I started to try to tell him and burst into tears. Man, I wish I was tougher. But dammit, I have two daughters who have to live in this world!

  237. niftyatheist says

    Oops hit post before adding – I don’t see the quote from the guy who put it out there pretty starkly, referring to the necessity not to let progressives block the “punishment of women”. Fuck.

  238. niftyatheist says

    Read it and weep.

    But a Colorado-based Personhood activist, Ed Hanks, is more than willing to publicly take things to their logical conclusion. He wrote on the Personhood Mississippi Facebook page that after abortion is banned, “the penalties have to be the same [for a women as well as doctors], as they would have to intentionally commit a known felony in order to kill their child. Society isn’t comfortable with this yet because abortion has been ‘normalized’ — as the Personhood message penetrates, then society will understand why women need to be punished just as surely as they understand why there can be no exceptions for rape/incest.”

    Moderate “tolerance” and “respect” for religious nonsense over the past 30 years has led to a world where these creeps feel comfortable saying garbage like this.

  239. Pteryxx says

    @nifty: yeah, agreed. I didn’t want to quote the entire frickin’ article, though it’s really worth reading for how it ties all this together.

  240. niftyatheist says

    Rey Fox says:
    27 October 2011 at 5:34 pm

    This is why those lukewarm “pro-choice” people or fence-sitters piss me off so much with their hemming and hawing over whether a woman might get an abortion for a reason they don’t personally like. Do they think the theocrats will stop with that? Do they think that the theocrats are not after their birth control? Well they fucking are.

    Exactly, Rey!!

    Fence-sitters and moderate or “liberal” religionists have enabled this situation to develop. All because they preferred to clasp hands with fundamentalists against atheists in order to protect their own privilege and cherished delusions. Though not, I do not believe, actually the delusions – as someone said in another commentariat (I think it was on blag hag from a regular from here – I am so sorry I have forgotten who it was), religion is not really about belief, it is about power and social position. Ain’t that the truth.

    Is it possible to ever defeat that?

  241. illuminata says

    Hurr, you agreed with the point of the article but not in a way I like. I hate you, durrrr.

    Translation: Second verse, same are the first. Btiches dying is funny, and – oh yeah – I agree with you.

    Jump off a bridge.

  242. Chris says

    So every women who gives birth to only one child will have to be considered a murderer and convicted as sutch in that great state?
    And taken to court.
    And convicted.
    And jailed for life / executed for murder….

    After all, she did murder the potential identical twin that the child could have had with a little bit of medical help. After all, all it would have taken is to split up that initial clump of cells a few times….

    Do they have enough jails to lock up all those evil, murderous mothers?

  243. Dhorvath, OM says

    Chris,
    The thinking seems to be along the lines of independent incarceration with emotional manipulation rather than iron bars to keep them restrained.

  244. Twist says

    A question for the any forced-birth loons out there: Given that the earth’s population is about to hit 7 billion, what do you suppose would happen if birth control and abortion were outlawed worldwide, and every woman had (on average) five kids each? Or should we all just be celebate instead? Isn’t that murder too? Won’t somebody think of the poor potential children?!?

  245. Zerple says

    @286

    Translation: Second verse, same are the first. Btiches dying is funny, and – oh yeah – I agree with you.

    Jump off a bridge.

    I never said anything about anybody dying. I’ve come to the conclusion, that no matter what I say, people on these boards will just misrepresent it and disapprove of me.

    I’m pretty much okay with that.

  246. Pteryxx says

    …religion is not really about belief, it is about power and social position. Ain’t that the truth.

    Is it possible to ever defeat that?

    Well, at the moment I really have hopes for the concepts of consent and listening to different people. “Only” about 10 or 15% of us seem to be incapable of caring about others, and they busily support each other and pretend to sound reasonable because they rely on the rest of us not recognizing what they are. But that means the vast majority of us really would care, if we only knew, if we only have a chance to take that red pill.

    From the end of that Salon article:

    If it’s the latter, the best hope for defeating Personhood in Mississippi lies in the hands of people like the stammering middle-aged man I saw rise at the same community forum. The room was full of indignant pro-choicers, but he described himself as a minister opposed to abortion. “I’m disturbed by this initiative,” he volunteered. “In the name of something that pro-life people like myself think is good – stopping abortions – we’ve designed this thing that is horrible, or has the potential to be horrible.

    “I do have a concern about the broadness of this and the way that it says things,” he went on. “And I tell you, it’s almost like it’s not true. It’s like they come in — I don’t like people coming through back doors. And I think I’m more honest than that as a preacher. I hope I am.”

  247. says

    I never said anything about anybody dying. I’ve come to the conclusion, that no matter what I say, people on these boards will just misrepresent it and disapprove of me.

    What you say shows that you are an ass. The problem isn’t the board…you just aren’t a pleasant person.

  248. Zerple says

    Emphasis mine:

    Just go away. You’re like a walking talking face palming penis.

    I wonder if the people who always complain about gendered insults will call you out for that.

  249. illuminata says

    I never said anything about anybody dying. I’ve come to the conclusion, that no matter what I say, people on these boards will just misrepresent it and disapprove of me.
    I’m pretty much okay with that.

    I don’t know why, but it almost always surprises me when trolls turn out to be so incredibly stupid.

    This amazingly useless specimen actually posted “I never said anything about anybody dying.” and thinks this, somehow, refutes anything. Nevermind what was actually said to him, nevermind what the actual objections where.

    How does Zerple manage to remember to breathe? Does he have “inhale” and “exhale” tattooed on his forearms?

  250. niftyatheist says

    What is most eerie is that the majority of Americans are female. It it passes, it will be because women voted for their own status to be defined as property and baby factories. Hard to imagine but what happens is what happens.

    raven, this is one of the most disturbing things of all, IMO. Maybe it comes back to the idea that religion (and support for fundamentalist “laws”) is related to power and social position? Maybe those women, whether truly brainwashed from birth or simply exhausted from reality and therefore retreating into conformity to survive, become anti-feminist as a way of cementing their own positions within the social order they see as most powerful?

    I don’t know. :( It is truly messed up.

    Twist says:
    27 October 2011 at 6:17 pm

    A question for the any forced-birth loons out there: Given that the earth’s population is about to hit 7 billion, what do you suppose would happen if birth control and abortion were outlawed worldwide, and every woman had (on average) five kids each? Or should we all just be celebate instead? Isn’t that murder too? Won’t somebody think of the poor potential children?!?

    Twist, I wonder if, given the eschatology of fundamentalists, they even give a damn about any of this? It seems to me that we liberal-minded progressive baby-killers all too often play totally the wrong cards; we present arguments that make absolutely no difference to them. Global overpopulation? Pfft! Jesus is coming back within the next few years so none of that matters. Women made into reproductive slaves, brutalized emotionally and psychologically and often physically? Pfft! One would have to consider women “human” for that to matter, and women are rightly considered to be objects belonging first to father and then to husband. Not a convincing argument to a fundamentlist, unfortunately.

    Phew, I am on a roll here from mostly lurker to multiple poster! I’ll just edge away from the keyboard now…

  251. raven says

    Contraception … – Centers for Disease Control and Preventionwww.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/…/contraception.htmCached – Similar
    You +1’d this publicly. Undo
    by G Button
    Jun 29, 2011 – In the United States, almost half of all pregnancies are unintended.1 Several safe … Between 2006–2008, 99% of women who had ever had sexual intercourse had used at least one … Emergency contraception can be used after no birth control was used …. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology* …

    While a few religous crackpots want to eliminate birth control, it probably won’t happen.

    99% of relevant American women use BC. It’s 98% for Catholics.

    Hard to imagine that a huge majority of Americans will vote against their own interests.

  252. says

    @Raven

    Hard to imagine that a huge majority of Americans will vote against their own interests.

    HARD? Have you SEEN our political climate and process? It’s the standard MO of the American people!

  253. Father Ogvorbis, OM says

    A question for the any forced-birth loons out there: Given that the earth’s population is about to hit 7 billion, what do you suppose would happen if birth control and abortion were outlawed worldwide, and every woman had (on average) five kids each? Or should we all just be celebate instead? Isn’t that murder too? Won’t somebody think of the poor potential children?!?

    About half of USAnians believe that they are in the last times and that Jesus Haploid Christ will be returning in their lifetime. Which means that worries about environmental damage, resource depletion, and overpopulation are non-issues. After all, doesn’t god(s) charge humanity with going forth and multiplying? Once JC returns, all will be perfect for those those who believe. Overpopulation increases the number of souls who can be saved and, even better, the number of people who can be damned for all eternity for believing the wrong things. The consequences of forced birth are a feature, not a bug.

  254. Sally Strange, OM says

    Just go away. You’re like a walking talking face palming penis.

    I wonder if the people who always complain about gendered insults will call you out for that.

    In this case it’s accurate. You can’t relate to anything unless it relates to your penis. Your comments bear this out. Don’t like being insulted this way? Then exercise some empathy and stop being such a narcissist.

  255. illuminata says

    Zerple was the one too dumb to realize you could actually split a check with a woman.

    LOL. Well, clearly the words “inhale” and “exhale” would be too confusing.

  256. says

    @Illuminata

    Sadly, in his defense, right after talking to him I had a girl friend complain that a date had the NERVE to split the check with her.

    *face palm* I love her, but it is painfully obvious why the poor girl is single.

  257. Zerple says

    In this case it’s accurate. You can’t relate to anything unless it relates to your penis. Your comments bear this out. Don’t like being insulted this way? Then exercise some empathy and stop being such a narcissist.

    I have yet to relate anything to my penis.

  258. illuminata says

    I have yet to relate anything to my penis.

    *facepalm* LOL. WOW. This is weapons-grade stupidity. I hope its not a biological weapon. Don’t want this level of dipshittery being contagious.

  259. Pteryxx says

    Zerple was the one too dumb to realize you could actually split a check with a woman.

    Well, that WAS a good realization for him to have.

    Unfortunately, he hasn’t yet followed it up with a second realization. (Suggestions include: you could apologize, stop digging, walk away from the thread, actively listen, etc.)

  260. Inane Janine, OM, Conflater Of Arguments says

    Ing, you know better. Seriously. If anything, it allows a troll like Zerple to derail yet an other thread with his cluelessness. Is it worth it just to get in a cheap shot. Especially when your cheap shots tend to be more creative.

    (There, Zerple. I just took Ing to the woodshed. Now fucking stop whining on that topic.)

  261. says

    @Janine

    Awww :( I liked the imagery of him walking down the street with a huge phallus sliding on the ground like a plow like a old Walt Disney version of a Greek fetish statue while the phallus regularly swings up and smacks him right in the face for the sexist version of face-palm.

  262. Krasnaya Koshka says

    Not to draw out the pain, but I have to apologize for giving “the Z word” a misguided and massive benefit of the doubt on another post. I feel really stupid for doing so. Anyone who remembers this, please forget it. Anyone who doesn’t remember, thank you.

    Okay. Had to purge that so I can sleep.

  263. says

    Someone said:

    “Why is it that the voters are seeing the “yes” campaign all over the place but no effective “no” campaign? This is exactly what I am talking about.”

    Well, it’s because the “YES” people have a huge fund of money from the idiots in Colorado who kept trying to get this law passed there (and failed each time).

    They are seeking more fertile ground and I fear they’ve found it. Mark my words this will pass. Most people A: Have no problem voting against their own interests (whoever upthread said that was something we wouldn’t do? pay attention please) And B: For most people (who don’t think) it’s as simple as “Oh, a law saying we don’t kill unborn babies? Okay, sign me up.”

  264. niftyatheist says

    FPJerome says:
    27 October 2011 at 7:48 pm

    Someone said:

    “Why is it that the voters are seeing the “yes” campaign all over the place but no effective “no” campaign? This is exactly what I am talking about.”

    Well, it’s because the “YES” people have a huge fund of money from the idiots in Colorado who kept trying to get this law passed there (and failed each time).

    They are seeking more fertile ground and I fear they’ve found it. Mark my words this will pass. Most people A: Have no problem voting against their own interests (whoever upthread said that was something we wouldn’t do? pay attention please) And B: For most people (who don’t think) it’s as simple as “Oh, a law saying we don’t kill unborn babies? Okay, sign me up.”

    I know you are right, FPJerome, dammit. That was me, btw.

    Where is journalism in all of this? (actually, where is journalism at all, anymore?). Why are these issues not leading the nightly news? I mean, seriously? The fact that it looks very likely that an Initiative which could result in the eventual ban of the most reliable forms of birth control and ban abortion in every possible case, without regard for the health or safety of women should be front page news.

    Not to mention, that after the hundreds of pieces of legislation brought forward over the last year or so by tea party/Republican back door candidates, which are directed at women’s rights, why aren’t women and men who consider women to be fully human marching?

    Dammit, why is this so hard? Why do people have to search for information on these issues?

    As I said upthread, if there really is a majority who disagrees with taking away women’s rights, where the hell are they?

  265. Ike says

    Leave Zerple alone, perhaps? He made a joke, people make jokes about things, I doubt he’s genuinely advocating the death of women, especially when he explicitly said that he is not.

    It upsets me that ‘political correctness’ is a liberal idea. Liberals are meant to be smart, and yet we have blatant misunderstanding of a basic form of talking.

  266. Marcus Hill says

    People vote against their best interests all the damn time, especially in the US. How many republican voters are part of the tiny demographic that actually benefits from their policies?

  267. Father Ogvorbis, OM says

    Leave Zerple alone, perhaps? He made a joke, people make jokes about things, I doubt he’s genuinely advocating the death of women, especially when he explicitly said that he is not.

    It upsets me that ‘political correctness’ is a liberal idea. Liberals are meant to be smart, and yet we have blatant misunderstanding of a basic form of talking.

    I have cats. Some years ago, one of the cats, we still don’t know which one, peed on a throw rug. We cleaned it up and went on with our lives. Then it happened again. And again. And we suspected, and then knew, which cat was being selectively incontinent. And we stopped trusting him off of tile floors.

    Zerple has shown, repeatedly, that he will piss on any rug that even remotely resembles treating women with respect, or as equals. In other words, the assclam has a history, so no one is picking on the assclam. Your tone concern is noted.

  268. Ike says

    I guess if he has done something else before to set a precedent then … fair enough. I apologise.

  269. The Ys says

    As I said upthread, if there really is a majority who disagrees with taking away women’s rights, where the hell are they?

    Some are depressed that things are sliding backwards and have given up hope of changing anything. Others look at these idiots and wonder how their votes could possibly help…and they don’t vote.

    I don’t think they realise how many other rational people are out there. If they all voted, it’d make a huge difference. It’d probably make an even bigger difference if voters actually understood what they were voting on, though.

  270. orsonzedd says

    Mississippi resident here. We’re doing what we can with the organization and resources we have to stop this tyranny.

  271. Inane Janine, OM, Conflater Of Arguments says

    Ike, Zerple has a history here. When ever anyone verbally slams him, please keep that in mind.

    A while ago, he said he was done commenting here because we were all so mean to him. Yet he insists on commenting here despite his history here.

  272. says

    Ike:

    Leave Zerple alone, perhaps? He made a joke, people make jokes about things, I doubt he’s genuinely advocating the death of women, especially when he explicitly said that he is not.

    No. Zerple has been posting misogynistic crap left and right in many threads. Those of us telling him to shut up and fuck off know what we’re doing.

    How about you keep quiet yourself, when you are unaware of someone’s history here?

  273. says

    orsonzedd:

    Mississippi resident here. We’re doing what we can with the organization and resources we have to stop this tyranny.

    Good to hear. If there’s any way we non-Mississippians can help out, give a shout.

  274. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    How about you keep quiet yourself, when you are unaware of someone’s history here?

    Ike’s tone trolled before. Therefore, he has nothing cogent to say about anything…

  275. raven says

    What is most eerie is that the majority of Americans are female. It it passes, it will be because women voted for their own status to be defined as property and baby factories. Hard to imagine but what happens is what happens.

    raven, this is one of the most disturbing things of all, IMO. Maybe it comes back to the idea that religion (and support for fundamentalist “laws”) is related to power and social position? Maybe those women, whether truly brainwashed from birth or simply exhausted from reality and therefore retreating into conformity to survive, become anti-feminist as a way of cementing their own positions within the social order they see as most powerful?

    I don’t know. :( It is truly messed up.

    It is truly messed up.

    I’m old enough to remember when women were out in streets often demanding their own “personhood” status. With a huge amount of demonization as lesbians, old maids, and upppity women.

    It did work and work well. At the park I recently saw a large bunch of high school girls, athletic and laughing and running. Girl’s cross country team. When I went to high school, there wasn’t much in the way of girl’s sports. It was like that that was boys stuff and girls weren’t interested.

    Just can’t because I can’t imagine going back to the Dark Ages, doesn’t mean it can’t happen. But people are people and already we see,…people in the streets again.

    If the fundies get their way, it might be a daily occurrence. I might be one of those in the streets. Again, I was one of them before.

  276. Zerple says

    And of course a WHOOOOOOOOOLE ‘nother thread has to be all about Zerple Nerple. What a shock! Flipping Cottonsuckling drama queen.

    I’m not the one who posts about for much I hate me. Blame the 900 trolls who always feel the need to complain about me, even when I agree with them, or with the thread.

    Haters gonna hate.

  277. niftyatheist says

    orsonzedd says:
    27 October 2011 at 9:53 pm

    Mississippi resident here. We’re doing what we can with the organization and resources we have to stop this tyranny.

    I second Caine’s remark. So glad to read this, though it does make me sad, too. Sad that your post sounds like a brief dispatch from a distant and desperate war – and yet, you are in Mississippi. Good luck to you, my friend. Please let us know if there is anything practical that others can do to help support you in this effort.

    raven:

    I’m old enough to remember when women were out in streets often demanding their own “personhood” status. With a huge amount of demonization as lesbians, old maids, and upppity women.

    It did work and work well. At the park I recently saw a large bunch of high school girls, athletic and laughing and running. Girl’s cross country team. When I went to high school, there wasn’t much in the way of girl’s sports. It was like that that was boys stuff and girls weren’t interested.

    Just can’t because I can’t imagine going back to the Dark Ages, doesn’t mean it can’t happen. But people are people and already we see,…people in the streets again.

    If the fundies get their way, it might be a daily occurrence. I might be one of those in the streets. Again, I was one of them before.

    My gods, I could have written what you wrote here! Totally agree. And it is seeing people beginning to protest (economic issues mainly, right now, but I think we can all predict that this could morph into a larger social movement) that I find gives me the most hope right now.

  278. orsonzedd says

    At the moment, nothing has happened. The organization for the No on 26 is so scattered, I’m not sure if monetarily we can do too much with out of state people. Mississippians for Healthy Families is doing a hell of a job, though, and they may know what best you can all do to help. (601) 509-1623.

    If this passes in a couple of weeks, things will change and different organizations will likely need your support to challenge it in court. At the moment, it’s a war of ideologies. The rotten and corrupt ideas masquerading as objective morality seem to have a stranglehold, but I’m not convinced.

    I’m not an idealist, the cynicism in me won long ago, but my optimism remains firm. Knowing that there are others like me here and abroad means that I’m not fighting in vain. Thank you PZ, thank you everyone.

    Alan-Michael White

  279. Ichthyic says

    Haters gonna hate.

    you know what I fucking hate?

    people who use that phrase without admitting it was themselves that generated the hate to begin with.

    you indeed are a drama queen.

  280. Dr. Audley Z. Darkheart OM, liar and scoundrel says

    Zerple,
    Maybe if you tried not to be a huge fucking idiot, the haters wouldn’t be hatin’ on you so much.

    But what do I know? If I’m not mistaken, I’m the first person you accused of trolling.

  281. Ichthyic says

    What is most eerie is that the majority of Americans are female. It it passes, it will be because women voted for their own status to be defined as property and baby factories. Hard to imagine but what happens is what happens.

    no.

    this is not an accurate thing to say. not everyone votes. This is a hotbutton issue, deliberately constructed to energize a select block of voters, who won’t just be voting on this issue. It’s an old republican trick to get an base vote on their side. This group will look to see which representatives that are up for a vote publicly supported this hotbutton issue, and will cast their votes for them, without further thought. This is the ONLY way republicans have managed to maintain power in the US at all; by continuing to press the buttons of a well organized but horribly ignorant grassroots voting block, and damn the consequences to policy for doing so.

    McCain himself warned about the consequences that would be inevitable if the GoP continued to throw bones to the ingorati in 2000. Eventually, if you keep riling up a specific voting block long enough, some of them will run for office themselves.

    all that said, my point really is that if this passes, it won’t be because a majority of ALL Mississippians (is there a shorthand for that, btw), but rather that a majority of those energized to vote on this issue do.

    I often wonder if it should be a requirement that people in a representative democracy actually vote, but that ain’t the way it is now, so we can’t make conclusions about entire state majorities since the entire state will not be voting.

  282. Inane Janine, OM, Conflater Of Arguments says

    I do wish that the people who express surprise and dismay that woman could be backing such an initiative would get familar with the old feminist idea about the Spartan Mother, that there are women who are at the head of anti-feminist groups.

  283. says

    orsonzedd @ 328, thank you. Please, if support is required at any date, shout out and shout loud. We’ll do all we can. I appreciate those, like yourself, who are tirelessly fighting those who want oppression to be the norm.

    Janine:

    that there are women who are at the head of anti-feminist groups.

    Fuck yes. I get so damn tired of people (usually men) who display wide-eyed surprise. The majority of women aren’t feminists and women who have bought into the patriarchy and entrenched sexism all their lives take power where they can find it. A lot of people (men and women) get a lot of joy out of being judgmental assclowns and forcing their views onto others.

    As for women who head these groups, yeah, it’s still about control. They aren’t a nasty slut and it’s obvious someone needs to do something about those other women.

  284. Ichthyic says

    and, continuing the analogy, just like the apprentice, an army of broken broomsticks has taken the stage.

    every dog has his day, I suppose, but this one can, and should have been, delayed indefinitely.

  285. says

    Medically, until the egg has multiplied into a blastocyst and implanted itself in the woman’s tissue, pregnancy has not been established. I question how you can have a baby without a pregnancy: it’s clear those people aren’t guided by science.

    Even when they are implanted and delay the next period, about 40% of them fail to develop and the pregnancy ends naturally. That’s going to screw up population statistics something fierce.

  286. says

    even when I agree with them,

    except for the part where you think cracking jokes about this abhorrent law is a good idea. at least, if it had been gallows humor; but no, it was just a stupid, trivializing joke.

    you fail at comprehension. It’s people like you who are making me more and more ageist

  287. raven says

    As for women who head these groups, yeah, it’s still about control. They aren’t a nasty slut and it’s obvious someone needs to do something about those other women.

    Sure they exist. I haven’t forgotten about Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann. Palin sacrificed her own daughter on the altar of her oodedy boogedy religion.

    But for decades there has been marked gender disparity in voting. Women elected Bill Clinton twice.

    Gender Gap? – PBSw ww.pbs.org/now/politics/gendergap.htmlCached – Similar

    Oct 15, 2004 – The gender gap has remained about 11 percent for the past three elections, favoring Bill Clinton and Al Gore over the Republican candidates. …

    A gender gap of 11% is huge, gigantic. Unusual. And this wasn’t that long ago.

    It happened in the 80’s and 90’s. It can happen again. No predictions in this topsy turvy decade so we will have to wait and see.

  288. se habla espol says

    Some edge and corner questions, which I find to be the most interesting kinds:
    •  What is the exact moment of fertilization within the in vivo fertilization process?
    •  What is the exact moment of fertilization within a cloning process?
    •  Is ‘cloning’ intended to include in vivo cloning (i. e. twinning)?
    •  Why doesn’t the amendment make the answer to the above explicit?
    •  In what respects is a “functional equivalent” defined: equivalent to in vivo fertilization, to one or more cloning processes, to certain characteristics of in vivo fertilization, to certain characteristics of some cloning processes, to the union of in vivo and cloning characteristics, to the intersection of those characteristics, or what?
    •  How is the presence of a ‘person’ wandering around in a woman’s reproductive system determinable by the woman in question in time to make a difference?
    •  How is scienter developed by another person without damage to the woman and the possible ‘person’ wandering around in her reproductive system in time to make a difference?
    •  In a fetus in fetu circumstance, did the absorbed absorbed ‘person’ lose its ‘person’hood?
    •  In a fetus in fetu circumstance, how did the absorbed absorbed ‘person’ lose its ‘person’hood?
    •  In a fetus in fetu circumstance, precisely when did the absorbed ‘person’ lose its ‘person’hood?
    •  In a fetus in fetu circumstance, how can you tell?
    •  In a fetus in fetu circumstance, does the absorbing ‘person’ have any liability with respect to the ‘person’ who was absorbed?
    •  In a fetus in fetu circumstance (including, but not limited to, conjoined twins), how much of the absorbed ‘person’ can remain without triggering a loss of ‘person’hood?
    •  In a fetus in fetu circumstance, what changes between the identical and fraternal cases?
    •  How and when does a medical examiner look for one or more ‘persons’ in a deceased woman’s reproductive system?
    •  Why?
    •  How does the ME determine whether the ‘person’ came into existence before or after the death of the incubator?
    Obviously, my puny list is not complete. Fell free to do what you will with it.

  289. Janine Is Still An Asshole, OM, says

    Ing, if every baby is born of original sin and is only worthy of eternal torment, why would it be a problem to charge a fetus with murder?

  290. FlickingYourSwitch says

    This isn’t about personal beliefs, since if you believe a single cell is a person, you are wrong. That’s it. You are wrong. Are conservatives now so deep into delusional land that they believe individual cells have rights as an actual human person? Then why don’t they just leave those cells and fertilised eggs to their own devices, just like they leave kids and adults to manage for themselves? If they are against healthcare and welfare to save real human lives, then why do they bother so much with fertilised eggs?

  291. The Ys says

    What I’d like to know is if these jerks would flip out if humans were capable of parthenogenesis.

  292. A. R says

    The Ys: Parthogenesis has been pointed to as a mechanism for the immaculate conception, so I’m not sure how they would react.

  293. says

    The Ys:

    What I’d like to know is if these jerks would flip out if humans were capable of parthenogenesis.

    Oh, they’d find a way. I just want them to stop stuffing their noses up womens’ uteruses. It never ceases to surprise me in how much things have changed since the 70s, when I had my abortion. No one cared, no one was busy protesting and saying what awful sluts we all were, there were no initiatives, nothing. We’ve gone a whole lot of backwards in a very short time.

  294. satan augustine says

    Fuck sake!!!

    In comment 216 I offered a call to action. As far as I can tell, no one has responded to this. Most of us agree that Amendment 26 is an incredibly bad idea. Why not take some action rather than merely complaining about it and debating those who don’t fully understand the implications of said amendment?

    The apathy is rather sickening. Complaining doesn’t change anything but action could. C’mon, I know that Pharyngulites want to make a difference and not just debate the topic into the ground. Or I am I merely naively idealistic?

    This shit makes me angry, which motivates me to want to do something. In lieu of taking action, this is just depressing.

  295. says

    satan augustine:

    In comment 216 I offered a call to action.

    I don’t see anyone keeping you from a telephone. Personally, I didn’t think much of your “call to action”. Orsonzedd and another Mississippian provided links/phone numbers to organizations which are working against this initiative, and if you desire to show your support, look those up, make a phone call and offer your help. That’s what I’ll be doing tomorrow.

    It’s not just Mississippi, you know. A lot of us have been working to keep women’s autonomy intact for decades. It ain’t easy, especially in the current climate and it’s ongoing support. A lot of us support clinics with money and personal time, escorting. A lot of us are active in seeing women have education opportunities, access to contraception and so on.

    If you think you can change a lot of bible thumpin’ minds with a phone call, have at it. Don’t use us or anyone else to sink into an apathetic puddle of your own making.

  296. says

    In comment 216 I offered a call to action. As far as I can tell, no one has responded to this. Most of us agree that Amendment 26 is an incredibly bad idea. Why not take some action rather than merely complaining about it and debating those who don’t fully understand the implications of said amendment?

    Because:
    A) Oversea calls are damn expensive
    B) I diagree with such a tactic and think that it’s incredibly rude to call people up in their homes. I hate people who do that with me so I won’t do it to anybody else.

  297. Marcus Hill says

    I also thought direct calling was probably a bad idea, especially if you’re going to do it in a “gotcha” style. Whenever anyone cold calls me or knocks on my door, I make sure to ask them whom they are representing, and then inform them that, regardless of my opinions on the business, charity or cause that they work for, I will now not be supporting them directly because they have disturbed me in my home. Of course, if I was planning on supporting a good cause anyway I will do so, but I’ll make sure that it’s not in any way that can be linked to the cold call (otherwise their data will show the method is effective).

  298. says

    Marcus Hill:

    I will now not be supporting them directly because they have disturbed me in my home.

    I’m with you there. Getting a constant stream of activism e-mails and snail mails is enough. You bug me in my house, you can kiss it off.

  299. Carlie says

    Also, continue on with your hypothetical call – at some point the person is going to ask “What group is this calling me?” and what are you going to say? “None, I’m just a concerned individual from some other state/country who looked up your name in the phone book”. Wow, creepy guy.
    It’s a lot better to contact groups who are actually there and actually local and ask them what they need from outside people.

  300. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    What I’d like to know is if these jerks would flip out if humans were capable of parthenogenesis.

    The Redhead looked into that at one time. The estimated possibility was about one in billion, and the offspring would always be female, as no X chromosomes are hanging around. Therefore, not available for Jebus.

  301. What a Maroon says

    I often wonder if it should be a requirement that people in a representative democracy actually vote, but that ain’t the way it is now, so we can’t make conclusions about entire state majorities since the entire state will not be voting.

    In addition to everything you say, the goppers are constantly finding ways to depress the vote. They’re clearly afraid of what would happen if everyone voted.

    There are countries that require their citizens to vote (Turkey comes to mind; at least when I was there 20+ years ago you could be fined for not voting); it’d be an interesting exercise to compare the politics of those countries with the politics of places like the US.

  302. What a Maroon says

    The Redhead looked into that at one time. The estimated possibility was about one in billion, and the offspring would always be female, as no X chromosomes are hanging around. Therefore, not available for Jebus.

    (pssst: Y)

  303. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    (pssst: Y)

    Augh! *headesk* Augh! *hangs head in shame* I need coffee. *wanders off in search of breakfast muttering hail ramens*

  304. Gorun Nova says

    I can’t watch that video, unfortunately… I refuse to watch videos that cowardly disable the ‘like’ and ‘dislike’ options, and I’d bet they trawl for and excise opposing viewpoints from the comments section (assuming they don’t have to approve comments…) Waste of time to go there if I can’t disagree with it short of making a video… which I suck at. In the meantime, I just accidentally gave them a view without being able to do anything about it.

  305. A. R says

    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls: Yeah, I know. but you know the Christians, when science comes up with something remotely and distantly useful to their ends, they try to manipulate it work. Of course, I f*ked up the terminology and used immaculate instead of virgin birth (very different according to the Catholics)

  306. The Ys says

    The Redhead looked into that at one time. The estimated possibility was about one in billion, and the offspring would always be female, as no X chromosomes are hanging around. Therefore, not available for Jebus.

    No worries, I understood what you meant. Still pre-coffee time for me too. :)

    I’ve wondered if our species used to be capable of this and then developed out of it. I haven’t seen anything written on the subject, though.

  307. anchor says

    PZ: “We can say that the cell at fertilization has no capacity for love, no sense of humor, no joy in its existence, no thoughts or plans — it lacks the neural substrates to do any of that. At some point, the developing fetus will acquire those abilities, but science can’t say precisely when, so it’s a lie to claim that you have a definitive, absolute, positive answer.”

    Dr Freda Bush: “Science confirms that a person is a human being at the moment of fertilization. At that moment we are fully human and fully alive.”

    So then what this woman is saying is that science confirms the existence of the ineffable (and conveniently invisible) “spirit” or “soul”, and that is what a fertilized egg is visited by, and that is what must actually contain EVERYTHING ESSENTIAL FOR BEING HUMAN.

    According to this woman, therefore, all the rest of that stuff – attribues both physical and abstract (like which PZ points out) and every one of them sensibly real – can be dismissed as humanist-atheist-scientist delusion.

    She is not just a liar. She is a shameless liar.

  308. Zerple says

    Audley:

    Zerple,
    Maybe if you tried not to be a huge fucking idiot, the haters wouldn’t be hatin’ on you so much.

    But what do I know? If I’m not mistaken, I’m the first person you accused of trolling.

    It’s already pretty well established that I’ll get trolled and yelled at, even if I essentially only post “I agree with this post” in a comment thread.

    It was either you, Inane Janine, or Sally Strange. I want to say that Janine was the first to react angrily towards me, but I responded to you, because the magnitude of your butthurt rage was much greater than Janine’s.

    I could be mistaken though.

  309. Pteryxx says

    @ The Ys:

    I’ve only ever read one mention of a possible case of human “parthenogenesis” – actually, it’s more likely some other sort of sex-selection. It’s mentioned in Matt Ridley’s book “The Red Queen”:

    In a small French scientific journal there appeared in 1946 an astonishing story. A woman came to the attention of a doctor in Nancy when she was having her second child; her first, a daughter, had died in infancy. She expressed no surprise on learning that the second child was also a daughter. In her family, she said, no sons were ever born.

    Her tale was this: She was the ninth daughter of a sixth daughter. Her mother had no brothers, nor did she. Her eight sisters had thirty-seven daughters and no sons. Her five aunts had eighteen daughters and no sons. In all, seventy-two women had been born in two generations of her family and not one man.

    The authors of the case (R. Lienhart and H. Vermelin) ruled out selective spontaneous abortion and theorized that these women carried a feminizing genetic parasite, which is why Ridley mentions the case in his book. Apparently the family never followed up and nothing more is known about them.

  310. Janine Is Still An Asshole, OM, says

    Yes, Zerple,, you are so correct. All of the regulars here are trolls. We are mean and nasty to everyone new that shows up. You are the first decent and free thinking person to have shown up. That is why this blog of trolls hates you.

  311. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    It’s already pretty well established that I’ll get trolled and yelled at, even if I essentially only post “I agree with this post” in a comment thread.

    You can’t be trolled. A thread can be trolled, by someone(s) posting only to get rise out of the regulars, but not an individual poster. They merely get responses. So you try to make a martyr out of yourself when you can’t, by using the wrong terminology. Think about that. Maybe the response you receive is because you borderline troll the thread.

  312. Erulóra Maikalambe says

    Zerple,

    You really need to stop using the word “troll”. You keep insisting on using differently than everybody else and it’s annoying. Until you do, I’m going to use the word “zerple” to mean “a twit who intentionally uses words incorrectly, whether out of sheer stupidity, or because they’re actually trying to piss people off.” Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go tell a certain naval watercraft ambassador to stop zerpling.

  313. L.Minnik says

    A question for the any forced-birth loons out there: Given that the earth’s population is about to hit 7 billion, what do you suppose would happen if birth control and abortion were outlawed worldwide, and every woman had (on average) five kids each?

    – the solution is of course more wars…
    /ugh

    – – –

    I’ll look into this issue tomorrow and see if there is anything I can do; after all, the voting hasn’t taken place yet.

  314. Zerple says

    Until you do, I’m going to use the word “zerple” to mean “a twit who intentionally uses words incorrectly, whether out of sheer stupidity, or because they’re actually trying to piss people off.”

    In a thread where someone complains that threads become about me after I post (and implies that that is somehow my fault) I get something named after me?

    ヽ(´ー`)ノ

    This power seems to get stronger every time I post. I must be some sort of mesmerizing wizard.

    I wonder if I can monetize this.

  315. Zerple says

    Yes, Zerple,, you are so correct. All of the regulars here are trolls. We are mean and nasty to everyone new that shows up.

    QFT

  316. Pteryxx says

    Voting for MS 26 happens on November 8. The link that orsonzedd gave above seems a good start:

    http://parentsagainstms26.com/

    Mississippians for Healthy Families is here:

    http://www.votenoon26.org/get-involved

    Honestly, if I had the money I’d arrange to buy them a load of yard signs from a local shop, since the ones they have keep getting ripped off.

    Articles from Country Fried Choice (link) and the Daily MS Online (link)

    Statement from Planned Parenthood Southeast, which covers Mississippi: (link)

    Articles on dishonest tactics being used by the Yes on 26 group: (link) and this excellent post dissecting weasel-claims made by the Yes on 26’s FAQ. Really, really worth reading. For instance:

    Now that people are being educated on how the pills and IUDs work, Yeson26 has had to walk back their statement quite a bit and claim now that they have nothing against the pill – they just want to outlaw RU486. Is this true? If personhood begins at the moment of conception (or “fertilization”) then anything that would prevent the implantation of that “person” is an abortifacient and, therefore, illegal. Do not let these clowns fool you into thinking they don’t want to take away your birth control. They most definitely DO! Consider the words of the Director of Legislative Affairs for Pro-Life Wisconsin when he said, “Those who don’t turn their attention to trying to outlaw contraception at this point… hurt the anti-abortion cause.”

    From: (link)

    Hmm, spreading misinformation on the Internet? Hmmmm!

  317. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Zerple, the Definition of Troll. It says a thread or blog may be trolled, but not an individual. You can be insulted, but that isn’t trolling. It is telling you the truth about yourself.

  318. Pteryxx says

    Following up on my post that’s in moderation for too many links: These folks at Deep Fried Freethinkers are kicking BUTT against the misinformation campaign surrounding Yes on 26.

    Mississippi is the first state to bring this issue to the voters to amend the state constitution with the “personhood” addition.

    Nice try but Colorado has already done this twice and failed miserably both times (see Amendment 62 and be sure to check out their “Birth” Control Talking Points where they say that birth control is abortifacient and their misinformation about steroids where they claim that Plan B is the same as anabolic steroids). That’s why they’ve brought their dog-and-pony show (and all the money they can squeeze out of donors) to a more right-wing, less educated state. They seemed to think Mississippians are so stupid that they’ll pass this initiative no questions asked. We’re proud to be part of the group that proved them wrong.

    “But (the opposition) are scared because Mississippi’s law will burst the bubble of the lie that the unborn person does not matter and has no rights,” Prewitt said. “That lie is essential to their billion-dollar business, which includes fetal tissue sales. It is gruesome but it is real.”

    No, we are afraid that this amendment will diminish or negate the rights of the mother and give undue power to the government. Roe v Wade established that unborn do matter and the state has an interest in protecting them; however, that interest must be reasonably balanced against the mother’s rights.

    Source

  319. Pteryxx says

    Ahh frick, I forgot PZ is out of town! Here, I’ll break my big comment up and beg forgiveness for spamming (later):
    —-

    Voting for MS 26 happens on November 8. The link that orsonzedd gave above seems a good start:

    http://parentsagainstms26.com/

    Mississippians for Healthy Families is here:

    http://www.votenoon26.org/get-involved

    Honestly, if I had the money I’d arrange to buy them a load of yard signs from a local shop, since the ones they have keep getting ripped off.

    (con’td…)

  320. Pteryxx says

    —-
    Articles on dishonest tactics being used by the Yes on 26 group: (link) and this excellent post dissecting weasel-claims made by the Yes on 26′s FAQ. Really, really worth reading. For instance:

    Now that people are being educated on how the pills and IUDs work, Yeson26 has had to walk back their statement quite a bit and claim now that they have nothing against the pill – they just want to outlaw RU486. Is this true? If personhood begins at the moment of conception (or “fertilization”) then anything that would prevent the implantation of that “person” is an abortifacient and, therefore, illegal. Do not let these clowns fool you into thinking they don’t want to take away your birth control. They most definitely DO! Consider the words of the Director of Legislative Affairs for Pro-Life Wisconsin when he said, “Those who don’t turn their attention to trying to outlaw contraception at this point… hurt the anti-abortion cause.”

    From: (link)

    Hmm, spreading misinformation on the Internet? Hmmmm!

  321. orsonzedd says

    oh oh oh, guys, shit. I forgot one important thing earlier, can’t believe it. Do NOT visit yeson26.net. The site has malicious tracking cookies. Shouldn’t be any big deal to remove them, and I’m not sure if they still have them, but they did about a month ago, and I haven’t been back since.

  322. Pteryxx says

    I was just looking at that, orsonzedd… I have the yeson26*net site open now. No warnings from Avast yet, with Firefox fully armored up. When I’m done here I’ll run a malware scan to be sure.

    Meanwhile, bitterly lol’ing. On their front page:

    “Supreme Court: Personhood is the Answer!”
    “Get Real Answers to the Scare-Tactics”
    “Planned Parenthood Operative: Busted!”
    “Pro-Aborts Mock God in Debate”

    “Church Resources: Free to download: Bulletin Inserts, push cards, ‘What Can My Church Do?’ and other helpful materials!”

    “Why does 26 Mention Cloning? It will stop the practice of cloning embryos to ‘harvest’ stem cells for profit. If you oppose cloning, vote Yes on 26!”

  323. A. R says

    Pteryxx: That type of Church based campaign sounds a great deal like those used for anti-marriage bills. (I refuse to use the term “Gay marriage” because when a gay man parks his car, he just parks it, he doesn’t “gay park” it, so why should marriage between two homosexual adults be called gay marriage?)

  324. Pteryxx says

    Atlee of parentsagainstms26 replied to me:

    Atlee Breland says:
    October 28, 2011 at 10:18 pm

    The most effective way to help us at this point is to make a contribution to support our final media push. At this point, every donation we receive is going directly into our radio campaign to reach voters across the state. We’re grateful for every dollar, and every dollar helps.

    Other things you can do are to spread awareness by sharing our video or our articles on your Facebook page. Every vote counts, and you never know who you might reach!

    and that about takes care of the research part, I guess.

  325. ConcernedJoe says

    #348 “.. Parthogenesis [sic] has been pointed to as a mechanism for the immaculate conception, so I’m not sure how they would react.”

    Pedanticism alert!

    For the record the “Immaculate Conception” refers to the conception of Mary – a wholly normal sexual reproduction human biological occurrence. The “miracle” part of that was Mary was free from the stain of Original Sin from the moment she was conceived in her mom. She thus was immaculate in the eyes of God so that she could be his pure virginal child-bride later on and he would not get all nauseous while He was raping her without her consent.

    God thinks of everything! Praise the Lord!

  326. A. R says

    KingUber: You would be surprised (unless you happen to be a biologist, or someone equally informed) with what you could do with that tissue in a lab.

  327. Father Ogvorbis, OM says

    - the solution [to overpopulation] is of course more wars…

    Just wait until they realize that thermonuclear war would be a good antidote to global warming.

    An anal polyp won’t ever develop into a human being though

    Have you seen this years crop of GOP candidates?

  328. ConcernedJoe says

    And to add different subject.

    Many have mentioned things related to voting. So let me get on my band wagon.

    The USA drifts toward backward conservatism because we do not vote. I have a formula that does predict well in broader based elections (note: MS is abnormally heavily white conservative so this formula merits adjustment).

    Moral of the story below: If 100% of Eligible Voters voted we’d be a progressive country by far. Really generally speaking anything around 64% EV voting (which we fail to consistently have) gives the progressives an excellent shot. MS per se is different so it needs about 80% to give progressives a shot because that state has such strong conservative infrastructure (churches etc.) operating to maintain their viewpoint.

    The formula for broader elections:

    Eligible Voter Turnout 50.00%

    Rep Dem
    Percent RWA 21.00% 9.00%
    Percent RWA Vote 100.00% 100.00%
    Percent Ordinary 21.00% 49.00%
    Percent Ordinary Vote 28.57% 28.57%

    Eligible Voter Turnout 60.00%

    Rep Dem
    Percent RWA 21.00% 9.00%
    Percent RWA Vote 100.00% 100.00%
    Percent Ordinary 21.00% 49.00%
    Percent Ordinary Vote 42.86% 42.86%

    50.00% Eff Vote Rep Eff Vote Dem
    Percent RWA 42.000% 18.00%
    Percent Ordinary 12.000% 28.00%
    Totals 54.00% 46.00%

    60.00% Eff Vote Rep Eff Vote Dem
    Percent RWA 35.000% 15.00%
    Percent Ordinary 15.000% 35.00%
    Totals 50.00% 50.00%

  329. Matt says

    “What she says is nominally, superficially true, but only in the sense that it also applies to an excised anal polyp”

    We MUST stop the terrible destruction of anal polyps! How else are Republican political operatives supposed to reproduce? ;)

  330. se habla espol says

    An anal polyp won’t ever develop into a human being though

    Have you seen this years crop of GOP candidates?

    Have any of them developed into human beings?

  331. says

    I just couldn’t leave your web site prior to suggesting that I really loved the usual info an individual supply on your visitors? Is gonna be back ceaselessly in order to investigate cross-check new posts

  332. StevoR says

    @356. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls : 28 October 2011 at 11:05 am

    What I’d like to know is if these jerks would flip out if humans were capable of parthenogenesis. The Redhead looked into that at one time. The estimated possibility was about one in billion, and the offspring would always be female, as no X chromosomes are hanging around. Therefore, not available for Jebus.

    Unless Jebus was really a woman who masqueraded as a bloke? That has been known to happen in history after all, frex, Pope “Joan” and a Western “cowboy” whose name escapes my memory retrival capability.

    (Best Xmas card I ever saw – & got for my mum – the Wise men rock up at the stable to be greeted by the words “Its a girl!”)

  333. StevoR says

    Well said PZ good writing about a seriously scary, revoltingly appalling and messed up proposed law with its ridiculous and immensely harmful implications. Hope – & pretty sure you will – keep us updated on this issue as the vote nears.

    BTW, the original video embedded here at the top now says “This video is private” and won’t allow anyone (well, me at least & expect its the same for others) to view it.

    Come on Mississippi – please show the world you do have the ability to think things through and aren’t stupid enough to pass this absurd misogynist anti-choice thing.

  334. StevoR says

    @ satan augustine : 28 October 2011 at 7:41 am

    Fuck sake!!!In comment 216 I offered a call to action.

    That essentially involves telemarketing – becoming one of those irritating people from Porlock that phone random strangers inevitably at the wrong moment and then tries to fool them at least initially into thinking we’re someone we’re not.

    Bad idea – and not one likely to be that successful in achiveing its aim methinks.

    As has been pointed out already by others here but you did want responses and feedback and that’s mine as well for you.

    Better to have something that allows people to participate online at their convience via friends networks eg. facebook group or suchlike or directly physically protesting that is targeted at the powerful and at specific relevant events eg. outside the voting booths / in front of the appropriate building(s) on the day.