Prop 26
I decided to do a little research on the Personhood Bill that will be voted on in MS in November. I will admit I was prompted to do more research because of the number of
christians that are opposed to the bill. I expected an outcry from the community but did not realize that christians would be named among the protestors. So I read
the objections (with as much of an open mind as possible) to see if I would change my mind on the issue.
I will address each objection and hopefully this will stimulate conversation about a very important issue. I want to say from the start that I am a christian and of course
my values and ideals are driven by Christ. That said, I was pro life before I was a christian and will try to make the case from a standpoint that either christian or non can
relate to and interact with. If I throw out my "God said" you could always tell me you dont believe in God...LOL...we can save that or another day.(God DID "say" and He
is real even if you do not believe.)
I want to start off by saying that all of this is being said with compassion. I am not by any means a hard hearted or uncaring person. I love children and I love their parents.
I pray that I have some people in my life that would affirm that. If any argument is going to be made on the basis of my tone or what you "feel" like I am saying then just
dont bother to comment. You have to take me at my word that I have love in my heart as I type this.
There are many objections and I will take them in no certain order.
The first is the passing of this bill could jeapordize birth control.
That seems to be a legit concern as most forms of birth
control prevent implantation and not fertilization. I did not do a lot of research there but I would be ok with saying to use another form. In my mind I cannot justify the
killing of fifty four million babies because we need to find different forms of birth control.
Go ahead, I KNOW there will be objections to this. The what ifs of the forms we have not being reliable do not begin to outweigh the number of babies being killed each
day.
There is the objection of the reduction of embryos that could be implanted in the womb of a woman pursuing IF. It would require more money and timme if you lower the number
of embryos implanted. Now, I have not had trouble with conceiving but I do not think I have to experience this to have a thought about it. (we have many laws that I have not
been a victim of that I think are great) In this case you would have to compare the number of women affected by infertility to the number of babies that lose their life. I know that
adoption is a blessing and a very real option for couples desiring children. For those that do not want to adopt I am sure they would pursue the IF treatments under the terms presented.
Another objection is that the baby will have rights apart from the mother and could in turn cause the mother to have procedures she may not want to have in order to save
the life o the child. To this I say, it is already being done under established laws in our state. Mississippi has fetal laws in place for women that cause the death of their
child by using drugs (not sure if it reads more specifically than that). There are laws to convict another person if they cause the death of your unborn child. The ones noted on the site were MS Code ANN 97-3-97 and
MS Code ANN 11.7.13. In 2004 MS enacted language to include every stage of gestation from conception to birth in these laws. So you see, we already understand that there is a baby
with a right to life in the womb.
Twenty-one states already have these laws in effect to protect the unborn.
This also covers the reason of fear that if you miscarry you can be charged with murder. The laws in these states maintian that if you cause the death of your baby
by using drugs or refusing medical treatment then you can be prosecuted. This bill would not introduce this legislation but may bolster the validity of the laws already
in place.
I read in a couple of places that a mothers life could be lost because of this bill. In the case of the life of the mother or the child we uphold the right of the decision
to rest with the family. If there are any cases where that is not true then again I say that is the case even without this bill passing. Pro life acknowledges that in the
case of a mothers life being endangered the real decision is not abortion but whose life to save. It comes down to saving a life. (think about a scenario where two children
arebdrowning in a pool and you can only save one....you wouldnt go to jail because you could not save the other one before he/she drowned)
It is my understanding that the language being used in this bill is for the sole purpose of getting into the court system to fight Roe vs Wade. It is about overturning
a law that was unconstitutional to begin with. We have a right to LIFE.
The personhood language is lifted from Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmus' caveat in the decision of Roe vs Wade. He stated that:
" the case would collapse if the suggestion of personhood is estabished for the fetus".
In other words, to start legislation that would challenge the original decision on the basis of personhood.
That brings us back to the reason for the proposition.....to challenge the death of children in the womb.
Reading these objections and carefully considering the options I would say that the life of over fifty four million babies are worth more than the battles
that MAY ensue. The possibility of saving lives must outweigh the "problems" that this language could create. I know of two other situations where people
were denied the right to personhood: slaves and Jews in Germany.
Those were the two groups that continually pop up when doing research on this issue.
christians that are opposed to the bill. I expected an outcry from the community but did not realize that christians would be named among the protestors. So I read
the objections (with as much of an open mind as possible) to see if I would change my mind on the issue.
I will address each objection and hopefully this will stimulate conversation about a very important issue. I want to say from the start that I am a christian and of course
my values and ideals are driven by Christ. That said, I was pro life before I was a christian and will try to make the case from a standpoint that either christian or non can
relate to and interact with. If I throw out my "God said" you could always tell me you dont believe in God...LOL...we can save that or another day.(God DID "say" and He
is real even if you do not believe.)
I want to start off by saying that all of this is being said with compassion. I am not by any means a hard hearted or uncaring person. I love children and I love their parents.
I pray that I have some people in my life that would affirm that. If any argument is going to be made on the basis of my tone or what you "feel" like I am saying then just
dont bother to comment. You have to take me at my word that I have love in my heart as I type this.
There are many objections and I will take them in no certain order.
The first is the passing of this bill could jeapordize birth control.
That seems to be a legit concern as most forms of birth
control prevent implantation and not fertilization. I did not do a lot of research there but I would be ok with saying to use another form. In my mind I cannot justify the
killing of fifty four million babies because we need to find different forms of birth control.
Go ahead, I KNOW there will be objections to this. The what ifs of the forms we have not being reliable do not begin to outweigh the number of babies being killed each
day.
There is the objection of the reduction of embryos that could be implanted in the womb of a woman pursuing IF. It would require more money and timme if you lower the number
of embryos implanted. Now, I have not had trouble with conceiving but I do not think I have to experience this to have a thought about it. (we have many laws that I have not
been a victim of that I think are great) In this case you would have to compare the number of women affected by infertility to the number of babies that lose their life. I know that
adoption is a blessing and a very real option for couples desiring children. For those that do not want to adopt I am sure they would pursue the IF treatments under the terms presented.
Another objection is that the baby will have rights apart from the mother and could in turn cause the mother to have procedures she may not want to have in order to save
the life o the child. To this I say, it is already being done under established laws in our state. Mississippi has fetal laws in place for women that cause the death of their
child by using drugs (not sure if it reads more specifically than that). There are laws to convict another person if they cause the death of your unborn child. The ones noted on the site were MS Code ANN 97-3-97 and
MS Code ANN 11.7.13. In 2004 MS enacted language to include every stage of gestation from conception to birth in these laws. So you see, we already understand that there is a baby
with a right to life in the womb.
Twenty-one states already have these laws in effect to protect the unborn.
This also covers the reason of fear that if you miscarry you can be charged with murder. The laws in these states maintian that if you cause the death of your baby
by using drugs or refusing medical treatment then you can be prosecuted. This bill would not introduce this legislation but may bolster the validity of the laws already
in place.
I read in a couple of places that a mothers life could be lost because of this bill. In the case of the life of the mother or the child we uphold the right of the decision
to rest with the family. If there are any cases where that is not true then again I say that is the case even without this bill passing. Pro life acknowledges that in the
case of a mothers life being endangered the real decision is not abortion but whose life to save. It comes down to saving a life. (think about a scenario where two children
arebdrowning in a pool and you can only save one....you wouldnt go to jail because you could not save the other one before he/she drowned)
It is my understanding that the language being used in this bill is for the sole purpose of getting into the court system to fight Roe vs Wade. It is about overturning
a law that was unconstitutional to begin with. We have a right to LIFE.
The personhood language is lifted from Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmus' caveat in the decision of Roe vs Wade. He stated that:
" the case would collapse if the suggestion of personhood is estabished for the fetus".
In other words, to start legislation that would challenge the original decision on the basis of personhood.
That brings us back to the reason for the proposition.....to challenge the death of children in the womb.
Reading these objections and carefully considering the options I would say that the life of over fifty four million babies are worth more than the battles
that MAY ensue. The possibility of saving lives must outweigh the "problems" that this language could create. I know of two other situations where people
were denied the right to personhood: slaves and Jews in Germany.
Those were the two groups that continually pop up when doing research on this issue.
Comments
Post a Comment