[Toscoropreark]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/08/us/mis...html?hpt=hp_c1

In the Carpenter home, every meal begins with a prayer. Robin and his wife, Emily, are devout Christians. But they part ways with many other Christians over a measure that would expand the legal definition of human life.

Their son, Luke, now 4 years old, was born through in vitro fertilization.

The anti-abortion amendment being voted on this week in the state could restrict in vitro procedures, and the Carpenters are worried that if they wait too long to add to their family, they may end up breaking the law.

"I don't really want or need anybody else getting involved in trying to limit how that works for us, or stopping it," said Robin Carpenter. "We need to have the same rights to have a family as anybody else does."

Gov. Barbour: Life begins at conception The Carpenters fear that if Mississippi Amendment 26 passes on Tuesday, their whole future will change.

The controversial measure, known as "Personhood," will ask Mississippians to amend the state constitution to define life as beginning at conception, which would eliminate abortion, including in the cases of women who are the victims of rape and incest. The law would also outlaw certain forms of birth control and the destruction of embryos in laboratories -- which puts in vitro fertilization procedures in question because it results in unused fertilized eggs.

I agree with the woman in the article - what right does someone have to tell a person they can't have a family the way hers has? I hope for the sake of people in Mississippi that doesn't pass. Now you're telling someone who is raped or pregnant due to incest they can't have an abortion? Or they can't use birth control or use IVF because as soon as that egg is implanted with sperm - not knowing exactly when the conception is though - that is now a "person" that has "rights."

They need to re-word the law. I think the only time abortion should be banned is late-term abortions - except when the life of the mother is at risk. Otherwise, it's not my business if someone has an abortion and not anyone's business if I were to make that choice.

And especially when the law could affect choices such as this:

But for the Carpenter family -- despite their pro-life beliefs -- voting for this amendment is just not something they can live with. Their in vitro fertilization attempts to have a brother or sister for their son, Luke, will soon begin. They fear that under the amendment, they could be labeled as murderers if their fertilized eggs die.

THAT is just ridiculous.

[Nikitka]

At least they are finally putting an actual measurable status to what should be considered "human life".

[errolurberozy]

At least they are finally putting an actual measurable status to what should be considered "human life".

Not everyone agrees with that though and it will be detrimental to those who use IVF the way it is worded now and how it can be construed.

[DuePew]

At least they are finally putting an actual measurable status to what should be considered "human life".

Which prevents rape victims from aborting their predator's spawn. Its almost as if fundamentalists try to force through these laws just to piss people off.

[Narcodran]

I'm not exactly sure that "conception" is a "measurable status" for life. No one knows exactly when conception occurs. Plus, this law in Mississippi if it were to pass could ban birth control.

http://news.yahoo.com/why-mississipp...212609540.html

Mississippi voters will decide whether fertilized eggs qualify as "persons" under the law from the moment when sperm and egg meet. But while the law is designed to challenge Roe v. Wade and outlaw abortion, doctors say that the wording is also likely to outlaw common methods of birth control, including the birth control pill.

That's because some of those methods may work, in part at least, by making the uterus inhospitable to implantation by an fertilized egg, said Pittsburgh family physician Deborah Gilboa. That could mean that some eggs become fertilized and are flushed out in women taking a birth control pill, using an intrauterine device (IUD) or taking "Plan B," the morning-after pill.

"If you have anything that makes the lining of the uterus not hospitable and [the fertilized egg] doesn't attach, the woman won't ever know, because it's tiny, just microscopic," Gilboa told LiveScience.

So is that going to make a woman a murderer now? How many women probably have an egg that a sperm implants into but it doesn't attach to the uterus for whatever reason - whether she is on birth control or not - according to this proposed law, she would be a "murderer." That "life" was ended - even though it's not really a life at that moment. A fetus isn't even considered viable outside the womb until 24 weeks.

An example: I had a miscarriage when I was 21 - problem is I had no idea I had been pregnant. I would have been about four or five weeks along. I mean I had thought maybe because I had a few symptoms and my period that month - or what I thought was my period - was extremely light and only two days. But I just thought because I was under stress I had an irregular period. I was never one to go to the doctor - mostly because I knew I'd have to go on my dad's insurance (still in college) and I didn't want him to have to pay for anything or myself, and I didn't think to take a pregnancy test because I thought I had my period, I didn't know alot about pregnancy and didn't think much of it until then I had to go to the doctor at the end of that month and find out I had a miscarriage. Am I murderer? Miscarriages are common but according to this law, life starts at conception even though most women are not even aware they are pregnant until they are two months along sometimes.

This is almost like the politician who wanted to make it a crime if a woman had a miscarriage. Since when did politicians get in the business of being medical experts? Or religious groups? It is so common for an egg to be fertilized and not implant into the uterine lining and just pass through during the woman's period. So if life begins at conception - well holy shit a bunch of "people" have been flushed down the toilet.

I think it's ridiculous to say life begins at conception. It's the potential for a human being - it's not a human being at that point especially if it doesn't attach. And what of the ones who get IVF and don't use all their fertilized eggs and they get discarded. Should they really be punished for "murder?"

Ridiculous. It's funny because all these pro-life people sit back and judge and cry about abortion - but what do they do to help the children who are born and left in dumpsters? Or hospital steps if they're lucky? What do they do with the children in foster care or wards of the state because someone gave birth and didn't want them? Do all these pro-life people take them in and help them? Nope.

I think some people should worry about their own lives sometimes.

[Dumpishchaism]

So is that going to make a woman a murderer now? In the eyes of a fundie, yes.

[proslaviy]

In the eyes of a fundie, yes.

Hmm I bet if I told one of them my story, they'd call me a murderer somehow.

[erroxiainsona]

Yeah my wife had 2 miscarriages. One was an Ectopic pregnancy. Her choice would have been save herself or let the child continue and kill them both. Nice.

I really wish people would just let everyone control their own body and stop all this foolishness that is only wasting tax dollars.

[Nadin Maison]

Yeah my wife had 2 miscarriages. One was an Ectopic pregnancy. Her choice would have been save herself or let the child continue and kill them both. Nice.

I really wish people would just let everyone control their own body and stop all this foolishness that is only wasting tax dollars.

Control. Its all about control. Who cares what consenting adults do in the bedroom, or what books they read? In the eyes of a fundie, it all matters.

[Loopyjr]

I'm not exactly sure that "conception" is a "measurable status" for life. No one knows exactly when conception occurs. Plus, this law in Mississippi if it were to pass could ban birth control.

Right, you don't know WHEN it occurred, but you know it happened. I am actually for morning after as well if you can't tell that you are already pregnant. But should it be some arbitrary week in the pregnancy? I can't count the number of times they changed the due date on both my kids. They could never figure it out properly. What if one week it was "ok" to abort, go to a Drs appointment, and no longer able to cause they changed the due date?

[gregmcal]

Right, you don't know WHEN it occurred, but you know it happened. I am actually for morning after as well if you can't tell that you are already pregnant. But should it be some arbitrary week in the pregnancy? I can't count the number of times they changed the due date on both my kids. They could never figure it out properly. What if one week it was "ok" to abort, go to a Drs appointment, and no longer able to cause they changed the due date?

For someone who has two kids, you seem awfully confused about the "facts of life".

A changing due date has no effect on the legality of an abortion. The little guy is in mommy's tummy for 6 weeks. Or 9 weeks, or whatever. That line is unchanged regardless of what the due date is.

And guess what - you know the problem with declaring the damn thing a "person" at ANY time before his head pops out? Its no longer legal to kill it if it starts to endanger the mother. I'm not married, but I'd be damned before I let some fundamentalist decide whether or not my wife has the right to live.

Sorry - I'll kill it and we'll start over. Does that offend you?

[SergeyLisin]

Just incase anyone is really dense enough to say I am in full agreement with this law, I am only in favor of the factual definition of when life begins. If a woman still wants to kill her baby for no other reason than not wanting to be pregnant, she should still have the right, but at least call it what it is, "killing of a human life". Instead of sugar coating it.

Now if it is a choice about whether the mom will die, then she has every right in the world to save her life if there is no possibility for the child to survive.

As far as the rape victim is concerned, getting rid of the baby or giving birth to it is the only choice in the matter she is being given and should not be taken away from her.

[DoctorGordanBens]

For someone who has two kids, you seem awfully confused about the "facts of life".

A changing due date has no effect on the legality of an abortion. The little guy is in mommy's tummy for 6 weeks. Or 9 weeks, or whatever. That line is unchanged regardless of what the due date is.

For someone that has no kids, you seem to think you know what you are talking about. The due date, is actually for us, the point in which they hit their 40 week point. Changing that date when you have no 3rd term abortions in the country, means a lot if they go from calling it 23 weeks old, to calling 25 weeks old.

And guess what - you know the problem with declaring the damn thing a "person" at ANY time before his head pops out? Its no longer legal to kill it if it starts to endanger the mother. I'm not married, but I'd be damned before I let some fundamentalist decide whether or not my wife has the right to live. Point made in my last post. I agree the mother should have the choice when her life is at stake, just like when people donate a kidney.

Sorry - I'll kill it and we'll start over. Does that offend you? No, cause I know I can't force people to think differently, especially liberal scum that have no regard for human life as long as they get what they want.

[Knillagrarp]

For someone that has no kids, you seem to think you know what you are talking about. The due date, is actually for us, the point in which they hit their 40 week point. Changing that date when you have no 3rd term abortions in the country, means a lot if they go from calling it 23 weeks old, to calling 25 weeks old.

Then you are referring to the Expected Date of Delivery (EDD), which is counted from the woman's last menstrual period.

Point made in my last post. I agree the mother should have the choice when her life is at stake, just like when people donate a kidney. Well good, that's awfully decent of you. Too bad so many Christians don't see it that way.

No, cause I know I can't force people to think differently, especially liberal scum that have no regard for human life as long as they get what they want. Good Lord, I do hope you're not referring to me!

[kennyguitar]

Then you are referring to the Expected Date of Delivery (EDD), which is counted from the woman's last menstrual period.

They do that, they also do a few measurements to validate when they think you might have conceived.

Well good, that's awfully decent of you. Too bad so many Christians don't see it that way. Actually the founders of this Christian nation did see it that way. They were Christian and set up the country in true Christian beliefs of allowing you to chose what you wanted to do as long as it didn't infringe upon another's rights. True Christian beliefs allow for preaching, but doesn't force you to live by what the ruling class deem you should live by. In Rome, you could be a Jew, but you had to also pay tribute to Jupiter.

This is why I am a Libertarian. Do what you want without infringing upon other peoples rights and deal with your own consequences.

[HonestSean]

And now we can eliminate Christian superstitions altogether and be truly free. Imagine - a society of personal choice, no fear or prejudice or ignorance.

[Dynasty]

Right, you don't know WHEN it occurred, but you know it happened. I am actually for morning after as well if you can't tell that you are already pregnant. But should it be some arbitrary week in the pregnancy? I can't count the number of times they changed the due date on both my kids. They could never figure it out properly. What if one week it was "ok" to abort, go to a Drs appointment, and no longer able to cause they changed the due date?

No not just the morning after pill would be banned. The way it's written, regular birth control could be banned because, as the doctor states, birth control sets up a "hostile" environment for a fertilized egg and doesn't allow it to attach to the uterine wall. So therefore, if life starts at conception and a woman knowingly prevents it from attaching to become that potential life, she could be a murderer. THAT is what is ridiculous.

Doctors can't figure out the due date because it can never exactly be predicted. Babies can be born early or late. It depends on when the baby wants to come out or factors involved with the mother's body, etc.

[Jxlacvio]

Wow, so rubbing one out would be illegal too huh - since I'm preventing all the little Joe Bonhams from finding an egg to attach themselves too, and they all die a painful death in a wad of TP?

[PristisoliTer]

So I have a question: I really have no issue with abortion being legal. I can see many instances where I agree with the option. However, for those of you who support abortion rights and do not see this as a human life please help me understand (if there is a valid reason) why a person who kills/murders a pregnant woman is charged with TWO counts of murder? To me the laws don’t jive. If abortion is not murder because it is not considered a human life, than why is it considered a life in the other instance? Seems to me the Gov. is trying to have it both ways. Why is it murder, only becuase the mother decided not to kill the baby, or forming baby, cell, whatever you want to call it. Seems like it should only be one count of murder to me.

[Master_B]

So I have a question: I really have no issue with abortion being legal. I can see many instances where I agree with the option. However, for those of you who support abortion rights and do not see this as a human life please help me understand (if there is a valid reason) why a person who kills/murders a pregnant woman is charged with TWO counts of murder? To me the laws don’t jive. If abortion is not murder because it is not considered a human life, than why is it considered a life in the other instance? Seems to me the Gov. is trying to have it both ways. Why is it murder, only becuase the mother decided not to kill the baby, or forming baby, cell, whatever you want to call it. Seems like it should only be one count of murder to me.

Most times when a pregnant woman is murdered, they are usually pretty far along in the pregnancy. Of the cases I've heard where the murderer gets charged for two counts of murder, the child would have been viable outside the womb. But if a woman was murdered and they found out during the autopsy she was pregnant - say she was three or four weeks - I don't think they charge that as two counts of murder. I'm not a law expert on this so I don't know for a fact. Just to get that out there.

I agree if someone murders a woman is quite obviously pregnant - say 6-9 months along - they know full well there is another life in there and they should get charged for two counts of murder. I also think anyone who attempts to have an abortion after they are three months along then that's wrong. I'm not saying with the exceptions of rape, incest or the mother's life. I'm saying if you know you're pregnant and you get to be past 12 weeks, you probably better just have the kid. I know most clinics won't even do abortions after 13 weeks, some maybe 14.

I don't see it as a human until maybe about five or six weeks. That's when it starts to form. However, go take a look at a fetus that is five weeks along and you tell me if it would survive outside the womb. It looks like something out of Alien. Now, most laws state after 20 weeks, no late-term abortions (except medical necessities). I agree with that. If you didn't decide before that point, 20 weeks is about five months along. Might as well just have the kid and give it up at that point.

But the murder topic - like with the stories I've heard of women murdered when they were eight or nine months - that's most definitely a human being and they should get charged with two counts. They knew she was pregnant and by killing her knew the possibility of killing the baby.