In the New York Times today, an article on a Mississippi constitutional amendment on the ballot, which would define personhood as beginning at conception.
The amendment in Mississippi would ban virtually all abortions, including those resulting from rape or incest. It would bar some birth control methods, including IUDs and “morning-after pills” that prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus. It would also outlaw the destruction of embryos created in laboratories.
It is clear that the impetus behind the issue is religious, not simply because it flies in the face of science (the majority of fertilized eggs don’t make it to birth, so “personhood” is certainly not guaranteed by biology), but because we can hear it in the words of the supporters:
“I view it as transformative,” said Brad Prewitt, a lawyer and executive director of the Yes on 26 campaign, which is named for the Mississippi proposition. “Personhood is bigger than just shutting abortion clinics; it’s an opportunity for people to say that we’re made in the image of God.”
This being the NYTimes, the comments are more coherent than on most sites (I have yet to see the equivalent report on Fox. Can’t wait.). Many bring up, as the logical consequence of this proposed amendment, a scenario very like one I wrote about a while ago. I did already repost it here, but that was before FtB really got going, so I am reposting it after the jump:
Jennifer, Jennifer, got herself pregnant,
The poor, irresponsible slut.
See, boys will be boys, so it’s up to the girls
To be moral, and keep their legs shut.
But Jennifer, Jennifer, couldn’t be bothered;
She led her young Billy astray.
They met, after classes, at Jennifer’s house,
And now there’s a kid on the way.
Jennifer, Jennifer, wants an abortion—
She says she’s too young for a baby—
But the law of the land says abortion is murder;
The answer is no, and not maybe.
See, murder is murder; we cannot condone
The destruction of innocent life.
And Billy, of course, is an innocent, too,
And he’s much, much too young for a wife.
So Jennifer, Jennifer, finds herself caught
In the view of a watchful Big Brother,
And Country and Church have a task on their hands—
How to keep the babe safe from its mother.
If murder is murder, for fetus or child,
Then surely assault is assault;
A fetus is damaged by drinking or smoking,
And all of it, Jennifer’s fault.
If Jennifer, Jennifer, falls down the stairs
Then the baby inside could be harmed;
And since that poor child is a ward of the state
It is right we should all be alarmed!
So Jennifer, Jennifer, needs to be safe
For the sake of the babe in her womb;
To keep the poor innocent safe from all harm,
Let’s keep Jennifer locked in her room.
But Jennifer, Jennifer, isn’t the first
Nor the last to be pregnant, you see.
The task that’s before us—protecting our children—
Is crucial, I think you’ll agree.
With the passing to law of my modest proposal,
I honestly think we’ll prevail.
It’s simple: Each woman who finds herself pregnant
Must spend the next nine months in jail.
Jennifer, Jennifer, shielded from harm
In a cell with a toilet and cot
With a closed-circuit camera, an unblinking eye,
For the safety of Jennifer’s tot.
When at last you deliver your new baby boy
We’ll whisk you right out through the door;
We care about kids while they’re inside your womb—
Once they’re out, we don’t care any more.
…
And Jennifer, Jennifer, can’t find her Billy—
Besides, he’s too young for a wife—
She weighs her alternatives, looks down each road…
And reluctantly takes her own life.
And the church says a prayer for the baby unborn
And a heartfelt and tearful farewell.
But Jennifer, Jennifer, so says the church,
Will be heading directly to hell.
A ridiculous law!
And I’ll brook no exception.
Personhood cannot begin with conception.
In the Land of the Free,
In this greatest of nations,
Personhood’s only for large corporations!
Again, assigning personhood to a fertilized egg not only flies in the face of science, it flies in the face of the bible. Leviticus 17:11-14 makes it clear: until the embryo is infused with blood (at roughly 18 days after conception), it is not even considered to be alive, much less a person.
Fuckers can’t even read their own holy book.
Also in the bible, causing a fetal death is considered a minor crime. I can’t remember what the fine was, but that’s all there was, a fine.
Ha!
You’ve fallen victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which, of course, is known as Cole’s Law, but only slightly less well known is Poe’s Law.
Hahaha, hahaha, ha ha falls over dead
Under this law, will women who miscarry be put in jail? Would that be involuntary manslaughter? I don’t think “facepalm, headdesk, or the stupid, it burns” covers it.
Meanwhile, I’m on the pill not because I’m at risk of pregnancy, but because I’m currently… a bit platelet-impaired. I would like to not bleed to death on my period.
And it’s not like I’m the only woman taking birth control to save herself from life-threatening complications.* So is “personhood” not a concept that actually does anything for people? Because a simple pill that blocks persons from dying should not be illegal.
*Besides pregnancy… and I’m not trying to create a moral difference between women who take birth control for what it says on the package, and ones who take it for personal health reasons. I’m saying the proposed amendment is stupid in other ways too.
So this makes a blowjob mass cannibalism?
Wanking is genocide…spread the meme.
Not if they spit.
Does this mean porn that features swallowing will become snuff films?
Actually, I think they deny that haploid cells are “human life”, despite their being alive and, well, as human as any other human cells (and more human than the bacterial cells that outnumber the human cells in a human body).
Of course, if haploid cells are not “human life”, then Jesus wasn’t human, right?
“So is “personhood” not a concept that actually does anything for people?”
That’s the point of course.
In their bizarro world, women aren’t really people.
I like the first line in the verse – “Jennifer got HERSELF pregnant.” That’s a nice woman-blaming phrase right there.
I feel like even if we do define life to begin at conception, the woman can still expel this unwanted person from her body. It is, after all, causing physical harm without her consent and she has every right to self defense.
This law, if(er… when, we are talking about Mississippi after all) passed, will not last long on the books.
Is there such a thing as a sycophant troll? If not, let me be the first: talent like this wincingly rare and I am approaching terminal admiration for your blog.
/suckup
Mississippi:
US Constitution, 14th Amendment:
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.
Wow, you can read. Literally. Gold medal? Anybody?
Ooops, the problem with your literal translation is the context, what you gave here was part of the guidelines for WHAT NOT TO EAT. LIKE YOU KNOW THE KIND OF ‘LIFE’ THAT WE KNOW OF – NOW – THAT FLOATS AROUND IN RAW BLOOD. MIGHT NOT WANT TO DRINK THAT STUFF.
to feralboy.
I looked up that verse and it has nothing to do with fetuses or abortion. (skeptics annotated bible)
Anyway, it would be a travesty if this bill passes. I just hope the aclu and ffrf are standing by, cause it is clearly unconstitutional. No law can be made based on religion. You can bet I am gonna ask every organization I know of to attack this absurdity.