Author Topic: Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters  (Read 96016 times)

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters
« Reply #75 on: December 07, 2011, 05:09:56 PM »
LOL!  but i have the responsibility to pay for something over which i have no rights?  either its hers or its both of theirs.  choose.  you're the one who is comparing this to "property rights" not me.  so i'll go along with your comparison.  if i am liable to pay for property, i better have the right to refuse to buy the property.  sorry but your metaphor reveals the absurdity of your argument.
LOL this is the crux of the straw man argument and it hold little to no water.

either both get the option to walk away or neither does.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters
« Reply #76 on: December 07, 2011, 06:51:20 PM »
LOL this is the crux of the straw man argument and it hold little to no water.

either both get the option to walk away or neither does.

we've been over this many times

the woman has the greater burden than the man so she get's more options than the man

btw - has this ever been a problem for you in your life?

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters
« Reply #77 on: December 07, 2011, 06:52:55 PM »
LOL this is the crux of the straw man argument and it hold little to no water.

either both get the option to walk away or neither does.

you also might want to look up the definition of a Straw Man argument

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters
« Reply #78 on: December 07, 2011, 07:03:32 PM »
we've been over this many times

the woman has the greater burden than the man so she get's more options than the man

btw - has this ever been a problem for you in your life?
no has being denied gay marriage ever been a problem in your life?

youre for that arent you?

ignorant argument.

so the man has a burden as well but still gets no say, they should at the very least be able to sign over their rights for less/no child support.

the fact that only one person is held responsible is idiotic, you dont have to force women to have an abortion to give the men rights. There are plenty of other ways to go about doing that.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters
« Reply #79 on: December 07, 2011, 07:04:38 PM »
you also might want to look up the definition of a Straw Man argument
LOL "the" straw man was referring to you not the type of argument...

thats funny coming from a hypocrite such as yourself, that is if you still remember the definition of hypocrite.


and not the one you made up ;)

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters
« Reply #80 on: December 08, 2011, 07:11:46 AM »
we've been over this many times

the woman has the greater burden than the man so she get's more options than the man
btw - has this ever been a problem for you in your life?

i am a parent of 2, and i can say with the utmost confidence that the gestation period is by far the easiest part of raising a kid.....for BOTH parents.......Easily. 

So this argument doesn't make much sense to me.

Straw your logic is spot on concerning how each party needs to be more responsible in their sexual lives.  however the way the legislation is being pushed, in my opinion, is placing all decision making in favor of the female, allowing her to do whatever she wants (so i ask what is her incentive to behave more responsibly?), and making the man sit by the wayside hoping her decision coincides with his own.    Granted, in most cases, this is the correct way to go.  However, there are cases in which the man's rights are being grossly trounced upon by our state legislatures.  You can't deny that.  And if you're going to make legislative decisions based upon the cases of rape/incest, you can't possibly dismiss in good conscience the small number of cases in which the rights of the male are being ignored.   

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters
« Reply #81 on: December 08, 2011, 10:25:00 AM »
i am a parent of 2, and i can say with the utmost confidence that the gestation period is by far the easiest part of raising a kid.....for BOTH parents.......Easily. 

So this argument doesn't make much sense to me.

Straw your logic is spot on concerning how each party needs to be more responsible in their sexual lives.  however the way the legislation is being pushed, in my opinion, is placing all decision making in favor of the female, allowing her to do whatever she wants (so i ask what is her incentive to behave more responsibly?), and making the man sit by the wayside hoping her decision coincides with his own.    Granted, in most cases, this is the correct way to go.  However, there are cases in which the man's rights are being grossly trounced upon by our state legislatures.  You can't deny that.  And if you're going to make legislative decisions based upon the cases of rape/incest, you can't possibly dismiss in good conscience the small number of cases in which the rights of the male are being ignored.   

I don't know what you're referring to

can you provide some examples.

also, just to be clear are you in favor of the state either forcing a woman to give birth or forcing a woman to have an abortion?   

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters
« Reply #82 on: December 08, 2011, 01:46:03 PM »
I don't know what you're referring to

can you provide some examples.

also, just to be clear are you in favor of the state either forcing a woman to give birth or forcing a woman to have an abortion?   

come on man.  you know the answer to this one.  under current law, a man can be deceived into having a baby and forced to support that child.  a woman cannot.  she has options.  she has choices.  the man does not.  also, in some states, if a man raises a child and finds out 2-3 years later that it is not in fact his, he can still be forced to support that child by the courts.

and you might be quick to say "tough shit he should have been more careful" but why can't I say the same thing to those women?  the bottom line is that the woman is in the drivers seat and under the current legislation can use her pussy as an atm machine.  and plenty do.  I know you know that.  

in all honesty i do not care to overturn Roe v Wade.  I am morally opposed to abortion but I don't think it's anyone's business what anyone else does to their child.  My job is to raise my sons to respect human life and to take personal responsibility for any life that they may create.  I am under no disillusion that they most probably will have sex outside of marriage.  my advice to them will be that if you decide you want to participate in adult things you, as a man, must assume the adult responsibilities that go along with it.  

I just see where this is headed and believe me, once science advances to the point where we can see more about the child during the gestational period, many will change their tune on abortion once people start aborting based upon race, gender, sexual orientation, IQ, etc.  And this will all occur within the next 20 years.  So get your popcorn ready.  

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters
« Reply #83 on: December 08, 2011, 02:40:37 PM »
come on man.  you know the answer to this one.  under current law, a man can be deceived into having a baby and forced to support that child.  a woman cannot.  she has options.  she has choices.  the man does not.  also, in some states, if a man raises a child and finds out 2-3 years later that it is not in fact his, he can still be forced to support that child by the courts.

and you might be quick to say "tough shit he should have been more careful" but why can't I say the same thing to those women?  the bottom line is that the woman is in the drivers seat and under the current legislation can use her pussy as an atm machine.  and plenty do.  I know you know that.  

in all honesty i do not care to overturn Roe v Wade.  I am morally opposed to abortion but I don't think it's anyone's business what anyone else does to their child.  My job is to raise my sons to respect human life and to take personal responsibility for any life that they may create.  I am under no disillusion that they most probably will have sex outside of marriage.  my advice to them will be that if you decide you want to participate in adult things you, as a man, must assume the adult responsibilities that go along with it.  

I just see where this is headed and believe me, once science advances to the point where we can see more about the child during the gestational period, many will change their tune on abortion once people start aborting based upon race, gender, sexual orientation, IQ, etc.  And this will all occur within the next 20 years.  So get your popcorn ready.  

I would not say tough shit at all

I know there are cases where a man has been led to believe it's his kid and paid child support and found out later that it wasn't his kid and the court still made him continue paying and I think that is absolute bullshit.  Not only should he not have to pay but he should be reimbursed.

I wasn't even considering that as a scenario. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters
« Reply #84 on: December 13, 2011, 04:22:44 PM »
Kathleen Sebelius Pressed On Plan B Decision By 14 Democratic Senators
First Posted: 12/13/11 02:57 PM ET Updated: 12/13/11 02:58 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- Fourteen Democratic senators, led by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), sent the Obama administration a letter on Tuesday asking for the scientific basis behind its decision to limit access to emergency contraception.

Last week, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius rejected the Food and Drug Administration's conclusion that the Plan B One-Step pill was safe enough to be placed on pharmacy shelves without an age limit. The decision raised eyebrows because HHS has never before overruled the FDA on a drug recommendation. Many reproductive rights groups openly questioned whether the Obama administration was putting electoral politics above sound science ahead of next year's election.

"We are writing to express our disappointment with your December 7, 2011 decision to block the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) recommendation to make Plan B One-Step available over-the-counter," wrote the senators in their letter to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. "We feel strongly that FDA regulations should be based on science. We write to you today to ask that you provide us with the rationale for this decision."

The senators asked Sebelius to share the "specific rationale and the scientific data" she relied upon when overruling FDA experts.

"On behalf of the millions of women we represent, we want to be assured that this and future decisions affecting women's health will be based on medical and scientific evidence," they concluded.

Besides Murray, the Senate Demorats who signed the letter were Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Daniel Akaka (Hawaii), Carl Levin (Mich.), John Kerry (Mass.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Al Franken (Minn.), Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.) and Jeff Merkley (Ore.). Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also signed on.

HHS did not return a request for comment on the letter.

Sebelius has stated that she rejected the FDA's conclusion because she believed the pill's effect on girls in the 11-12 age range needed to be studied further.

Yet as Susan Wood, a former FDA official who resigned in 2005 to protest what she saw as the Bush administration's politicization of Plan B, has noted, "[T]his type of age restriction, and worries about the use of medicines by teenagers, have not been applied to other products. Apparently there is no problem in allowing younger teens to purchase products such as acetaminophen, and others with known and serious risks, over the counter."

Murray has been a leading voice on Plan B access in the Senate. In 2005, she and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) announced they were blocking the nomination of Lester Crawford, President George W. Bush's choice to head the FDA, until the agency made a decision about whether to make Plan B available over the counter without a prescription.

Many pro-choice House members have been far more cautious in their criticism of the Obama administration in the aftermath of Sebelius' decision, saying it could be a smart political move if officials are able to expand reproductive rights for women in other areas in exchange for tighter restrictions on Plan B.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/13/plan-b-kathleen-sebelius-morning-after-pill_n_1146217.html

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters
« Reply #85 on: December 14, 2011, 07:49:50 AM »
http://news.yahoo.com/video/tech-15749651/india-s-deadly-secret-27566497.html#crsl=%252Fvideo%252Ftech-15749651%252Findia-s-deadly-secret-27566497.html

i didn't know about this.  300 women for every 1,000 men in India?  This is what happens when you give the masses this kind of power over the unborn.  This will inevitably lead to the destruction of their race.  I mean statistically how could it not? 

also here's one part of this video that confuses me.  she says "my husband hates me because i haven't given him sons".  He is a doctor.  He doesn't know that the male determines the sex of the baby not the woman?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters
« Reply #86 on: December 14, 2011, 10:09:53 AM »
http://news.yahoo.com/video/tech-15749651/india-s-deadly-secret-27566497.html#crsl=%252Fvideo%252Ftech-15749651%252Findia-s-deadly-secret-27566497.html

i didn't know about this.  300 women for every 1,000 men in India?  This is what happens when you give the masses this kind of power over the unborn.  This will inevitably lead to the destruction of their race.  I mean statistically how could it not? 

also here's one part of this video that confuses me.  she says "my husband hates me because i haven't given him sons".  He is a doctor.  He doesn't know that the male determines the sex of the baby not the woman?

That's pretty sad.  Planned Parenthood approved.   :-\

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters
« Reply #87 on: December 15, 2011, 08:46:01 AM »
That's pretty sad.  Planned Parenthood approved.   :-\

so now women's rights groups are fighting against that. my response to that is "huh? abortion is OK but only if people abort who you say it is OK to abort?"  are they going to push for a law that only allows people to abort straight white males?

this issue, believe it or not has been very simple compared to what this issue will turn into within the next 20 years.

and the pro choice movement needs to be continually reminded that this is EXACTLY what those "bible thumping maniacs" were predicting that abortion was going to become back in the 1970's.  They were laughed at.  And everything they said was going to happen is happening.




Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters
« Reply #88 on: December 15, 2011, 09:53:04 AM »
so now women's rights groups are fighting against that. my response to that is "huh? abortion is OK but only if people abort who you say it is OK to abort?"  are they going to push for a law that only allows people to abort straight white males?

this issue, believe it or not has been very simple compared to what this issue will turn into within the next 20 years.

and the pro choice movement needs to be continually reminded that this is EXACTLY what those "bible thumping maniacs" were predicting that abortion was going to become back in the 1970's.  They were laughed at.  And everything they said was going to happen is happening.





It's definitely a powder keg.  If abortion is part of "reproductive healthcare" and the woman can do whatever she wants, why can't she abort a baby solely because it is the "wrong" sex, or has a disability, etc.?   

It would actually be consistent with the views of some of early abortion proponents in the U.S.  Some of the most ardent early supporters (e.g. Sanger) were targeting minorities. 

bears

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2195
Re: Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters
« Reply #89 on: December 15, 2011, 11:52:08 AM »
It's definitely a powder keg.  If abortion is part of "reproductive healthcare" and the woman can do whatever she wants, why can't she abort a baby solely because it is the "wrong" sex, or has a disability, etc.?   

It would actually be consistent with the views of some of early abortion proponents in the U.S.  Some of the most ardent early supporters (e.g. Sanger) were targeting minorities. 

the sad part is that the hypocrisy of the left will be so evident that the liberal pro choice movement will not have a leg to stand on after they realize that the right to terminate a pregnancy will turn into the right to terminate ethnicities, genders, and sexual orientations.  there will be no stopping it. 

ironically their victory will be the catalyst of their demise. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters
« Reply #90 on: December 15, 2011, 11:55:15 AM »
the sad part is that the hypocrisy of the left will be so evident that the liberal pro choice movement will not have a leg to stand on after they realize that the right to terminate a pregnancy will turn into the right to terminate ethnicities, genders, and sexual orientations.  there will be no stopping it. 

ironically their victory will be the catalyst of their demise. 

That's essentially what the Freedom of Choice Act would permit.  Obama, in one of his many false campaign promises, said his first act as president would be to sign that Act.  It has never gotten to his desk, so it's not entirely his fault, but I haven't heard him talking about it. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters
« Reply #91 on: February 19, 2012, 09:57:15 PM »
Virginia's "personhood" bill is latest front in the culture war
By Athena Jones, CNN
updated 4:24 PM EST, Sun February 19, 2012

Richmond, Virginia (CNN) -- In the Virginia House of Delegates, Republican Robert Marshall is a longtime abortion opponent who has tried repeatedly to pass legislation in his state that would give rights to the unborn.

This year, on his third try, Marshall just might get his wish, and that has advocates for women's reproductive rights concerned.

The House of Delegates passed a so-called "personhood" bill Tuesday sponsored by Marshall that would give unborn children at all stages of development -- including embryos -- the same rights available to "other persons" in the state "subject only to the laws and constitutions of Virginia and the United States, precedents of the United States Supreme Court, and provisions to the contrary in the statutes of the Commonwealth."

"We need to get back to the respect for life that we used to have in this country that's been lost," Marshall told CNN.

Virginia is the latest front in a long-running battle over women's reproductive rights -- a fight that has taken center stage in recent weeks after a controversial decision by the Obama administration to require religious groups to provide their employees access to birth control in their insurance plans at no cost.

The administration later offered a compromise, after drawing fire from Catholic leaders and other religious organizations. However, the issue has stayed in the headlines.

Marshall's bill must still be passed by the Virginia state Senate. If that happens, Republican Gov. Robert McDonnell's office has said he will review the measure if it reaches his desk, but he has not committed to signing it.

Opponents of the legislation believe it could restrict access not only to abortions but to some forms of contraception, like those that prevent implantation of fertilized eggs. Democratic Delegate Eileen Filler-Corn, who supports abortion rights, said the legislation represented an "overreach by the state."

"These decisions should be left to a woman and her physician, a medical professional," Filler-Corn said. "This is a slippery slope and eventually, the goal of the personhood movement is to ensure that birth control is illegal."

Marshall says his law does not directly challenge the Supreme Court's landmark 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision affirming a woman's right to an abortion, although he acknowledged it is a step in that direction. He has dismissed what he calls the "sky is falling" claims of his critics, saying all his bill does is grant legal recognition to the unborn prior to birth.

"By itself, it does not outlaw abortion. It doesn't address birth control," he said. "This is a side show designed to distract people's attention from what we're doing here."

A bill similar to Marshall's is pending in Oklahoma's state legislature. Voters in Colorado and Mississippi have rejected "personhood" ballot initiatives in recent years.

Women's rights advocates say these legislative and ballot efforts around the country to establish fetal personhood are part of a move to place greater restrictions on women's access to abortion.

"Over the past several years, we've seen more and more attempts to restrict abortion directly," said Elizabeth Nash, state issues manager at the Guttmacher Institute, an organization that describes itself as advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights through research and policy analysis. "These efforts around redefining 'person' are a little more of a back door approach, because they don't use the term abortion. They're not an outright abortion ban. Instead they're using a less obvious approach in a way that does not exactly indicate exactly how far they go."

According to the Guttmacher Institute, new laws in 24 states in 2011 restricted access to abortion services, while according to the advocacy group NARAL Pro-Choice America, the number of "anti-choice" measures being implemented in states has risen steadily over the past decade, from 303 in 2001 to 713 in 2011.

NARAL cites measures that place limits on when and where a women can have an abortion, limit state aid or insurance coverage for the procedure, and mandate counseling.

Whether the Virginia bill ultimately succeeds, politicians like Marshall are committed to keeping the issue front and center.

"I've been here for 20 years," he said. "That means I don't quit."

His dedication is matched by those on the other side -- proof positive that 39 years after the Roe decision, the debate over women's reproductive rights is not going away any time soon.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/19/politics/virginia-personhood-bill/index.html

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters
« Reply #92 on: April 07, 2012, 10:57:18 AM »
Mississippi poised to tighten abortion regulations, could close last clinic
Published April 07, 2012
FoxNews.com

Mississippi GOP Gov. Phil Bryant is poised to sign legislation that would tighten abortion regulations and could close the state’s only abortion clinic.

The state legislature bill sent Thursday to Bryant requires doctors working in abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at a local hospital and be board certified in obstetrics and gynecology.

GOP state Sen. Dean Kirby, chairman of the chamber’s Public Health Committee, said the legislation is to ensure safe abortions by requiring physicians meet the proposed certifications – not to regulate the clinic into closing.

Diane Derzis, the owner of the clinic, the Jackson Women's Health Organization, said its physicians are OB-GYN certified but only one has admitting privileges. She said clinic doctors live out of state because they have been stalked and threatened. And most hospitals will not grant such privileges to out-of-state physicians.

Kirby has acknowledged he was originally not aware that the doctors were already OB-GYN certified but argued the bill would ensure that they remain that way.

Derzis said the bill would not make abortion safer and that the clinic already has a transfer agreement with a local hospital, so patients who need medical intervention are automatically admitted.

She also said the clinic would do everything possible to comply with the new regulations but more than one physician is needed to stay open. Derzis said she would sue the state if the doctors cannot comply with the new regulations and the clinic is forced to close.

Terri Herring, national director of Pro Life America Network, said several other states have laws requiring abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges.

"This is one of the laws that we don't anticipate them winning in a court challenge," she said. "I think there is truly reason for us to want to know who is in the abortion business in Mississippi. Requiring admitting privileges allows our hospitals to vet these doctors, see what their credentials are."

Bryant opposes abortion rights and supported the so-called Personhood Amendment, which states life begins when an egg is fertilized and was defeated last year by Mississippi voters.

"It is critically important, I think, to make sure we've got a certified physician there for that very complicated procedure, and if a complication does occur, that they have admission privileges or rights to a local hospital," Bryant said. “Look forward to signing it."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/07/mississippi-poised-to-tighten-abortion-regulations-could-close-last-clinic/?test=latestnews

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters
« Reply #93 on: April 07, 2012, 11:12:33 AM »
Dumb Fundies in Mississippi already have the highest "single mother" birth rate in the nation

I guess we can expect even more of our tax dollars to go to this state

The Tax Foundation (conservative think tank) ranked them #2 in "Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes"
Maybe they are shooting for #1

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

Mississippi single mom birth rate tops nation

State is warned of economic effect
By Kat Bergeron
MCT NEWS SERVICE
November 9, 2008

http://ww.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081109/news_1n9missmoms.html

BILOXI, Miss. – No other state has a higher rate of children born to single mothers than Mississippi, at 53.7 percent. That compares with the lowest state, Utah, at about 18 percent.

Last year 46,456 Mississippi children were born, 24,939 to single mothers. The 2008 figures show those numbers rising.

Pete Walley, an economic analyst who studies and reports trends to state leaders, warns that if Mississippi doesn't change the numbers, it will permanently become No. 50 in income, health, education, economy, even in per capita traffic deaths.

“Mississippi will not be able to improve its economy or build a more coherent, equitable society until we significantly reduce the number of births to single mothers and return to two-parent families,” Walley said. “Studies on children born and raised to single mothers clearly demonstrate a significant negative effect on both the children born to single mothers and on society as a whole.

“This trend will doom the majority of Mississippians – and not just those having the babies – to a lower quality of life and poor state economic performance.”
First place for unwed mothers alternates between New Mexico, Louisiana and Mississippi.

Walley, director of the Bureau of Long Range Economic Development Planning for the Mississippi Institutes of Higher Learning, studies trends to paint economic pictures for state leaders.

Walley said he wants to make one point clear: He does not present his findings to be judgmental or to support moral attitudes about marriage. For him, it's economics, and the relationship of single-mother births to the state's uncertain economy and future.

Teens giving birth is, for some, the most startling of the recently released fall figures from Mississippi State Department of Health and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that Walley uses.

Walley estimated that teen birth costs to Mississippi taxpayers exceed $230 million a year, and the cost to society exceeds $540 million. Those figures are just for teens and is not the broader picture of all single mothers, many of whom rely heavily on state welfare.

About 15 percent of all single-mother births are to teens ages 15 to 19. That is a slight drop from a decade ago but the trend is upward, as are the rest of the unwed-mother statistics.

“If we have that many children born to single mothers, the standard of living is low not just for them but for all of us,” Walley said. “The high number of single mothers fundamentally changes the way our economy works.”

Walley said that 60 years ago, the rate of unwed Mississippi mothers was less than 18 percent.

“In my opinion, improving the state's human capital will be the determining factor as to whether Mississippi breaks out of its 100-year position as last in the rankings, or begins converging steadily toward the center of the nation's economy.”



tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters
« Reply #94 on: April 07, 2012, 11:23:46 AM »
yea, i mean its not like there is any way to prevent unwanted pregnancies...OH WAIT!!!

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters
« Reply #95 on: April 07, 2012, 11:28:49 AM »
yea, i mean its not like there is any way to prevent unwanted pregnancies...OH WAIT!!!

there are many ways ...including abortion

what's the point of excluding any, especially for a state with an epidemic of unwed mothers and receives more federal spending when compared to taxes paid than 48 other states

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters
« Reply #96 on: April 07, 2012, 12:19:36 PM »
there are many ways ...including abortion

what's the point of excluding any, especially for a state with an epidemic of unwed mothers and receives more federal spending when compared to taxes paid than 48 other states
abortion doesnt prevent an unwanted pregnancy, it is used after the fact...

I know personal responsibility isnt that big a thing to you but how about taking care of the child that was a result of your intentional actions?


Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters
« Reply #97 on: April 08, 2012, 10:27:19 PM »
abortion doesnt prevent an unwanted pregnancy, it is used after the fact...

I know personal responsibility isnt that big a thing to you but how about taking care of the child that was a result of your intentional actions?

personal responsibility includes not bringing another unwanted child into the world, especially one that you can't support

if you're against abortion then you lucky to live in the USA and can exercise your freedom to not have one......or have one

both are an exercise in personal responsibility and personal freedom

garebear

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 6491
  • Never question my instincts.
Re: Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters
« Reply #98 on: April 08, 2012, 10:40:56 PM »
abortion doesnt prevent an unwanted pregnancy, it is used after the fact...

I know personal responsibility isnt that big a thing to you but how about taking care of the child that was a result of your intentional actions?


Are airplanes natural and should people be allowed to fly on them?
G

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63777
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters
« Reply #99 on: May 30, 2012, 11:57:44 PM »
Now this is different.  Should the government prevent people from doing this?

Abortion Battle Heats Up on the Hill
By Shannon Bream
Published December 05, 2011
FoxNews.com


Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., an outspoken pro-life advocate, is preparing to do battle again on Capitol Hill.

On Tuesday, he'll chair a House hearing in support of his latest legislative effort, the Prenatal NonDiscrimination Act (PreNDA). The measure would ban abortions done on the basis of gender or race.
"It would simply say that you cannot discriminate against the unborn by subjecting them to an abortion based on their race or sex," Franks says.

Pro-choice advocates say PreNDA is an "anti-choice" measure. Nancy Northup, President of Center for Reproductive Rights, calls it a "trumped up bill for a trumped up problem," and says it's a ridiculous waste of congressional resources at a time when the U.S. economy is faltering.

"This bill is a cynical and offensive attempt to evoke race and sex discrimination when actually it's about taking women's rights away," said Northup.

PreNDA contains both civil penalties and jail time for those who violate the ban, but not the women who seek or obtain abortions. Franks says he believes women who find themselves with an unintended pregnancy are "victims" who need help in the midst of a crisis, not punishment.

However, those who perform abortions done solely for sex- or race-selection purposes could face fines and up to five years in prison.

The bill will be vetted during a hearing in the House on Tuesday, which is slated to include testimony from a number of experts. Franks says the bill currently has about 60 co-sponsors and he's hoping to add more. "I would hope that even my friends on the left would be able to say 'No, this can't be who we are.'"

Critics say the bill has no chance of being passed this term. Even so, Franks says he hopes it will at least spark important conversations.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/05/abortion-battle-heats-up-on-hill/?test=latestnews#ixzz1fk2rFYPR

This issue is back.  Sort of.

House debates bill to ban sex-selective abortions
By Shannon Bream
Published May 30, 2012
FoxNews.com

House members launched into a contentious debate Wednesday over a bill that would ban abortions performed on the basis of gender-selection.

Though sex-selective abortions are typically thought of as a problem in countries like China, bill author Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said Democrats and Republicans in the House agree that sex-selection abortions are occurring in the United States.

"The people of this country are overwhelmingly for this bill, and liberals are going to have to make up their mind whether they are so committed to abortion on demand that they think that includes killing little girls because they are little girls," Franks said.

Under his proposal, physicians who perform sex-selective abortions would face heavy fines and up to five years in jail.

The House, after closing out debate late Wednesday afternoon, is expected to vote on the proposal Thursday. It needs a two-thirds majority to pass.

Though few would advocate sex-selective abortions, House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer voiced concern Wednesday about the impact the bill would have on doctors.

"It puts doctors in a very untenable position," Hoyer said, noting that doctors would have to either ask about or surmise the purpose of an abortion.

Hoyer stressed that he doesn't know anybody who supports abortion based on gender, "period."

The debate launches at the same time pro-life group Live Action released a hidden camera video taken at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas. In the video, a woman posing as an expectant mother asks for advice about getting an abortion -- but indicates she only wants to terminate her pregnancy if she's carrying a girl.

After receiving advice on how to get an ultrasound and then late-term abortion, which is legal, the woman is sent off by the staff member who says, "I hope that you do get your boy."

Planned Parenthood has termed the video a "hoax," and issued a statement indicating the staff member in the video is no longer employed by the clinic. The organization also notes that all other employees at the clinic were "immediately scheduled for retraining in managing unusual patient encounters."

Lila Rose, president of Live Action, said pro-choice groups are fighting the bill and trying to minimize the issue "because they don't want to get people focused on the fact that they're willing to support sex-selective abortions."

The groups claim their opposition is based on the fact that the measure is designed to "intimidate" doctors who perform abortions and also aimed at defunding groups like Planned Parenthood.

The bill contains language that would strip federal funding from any clinic found in violation of the measure.

Miriam Yeung, director of The National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, worries that the proposed law would also subject Asian-American women seeking abortions to inappropriate screening because of the stereotype that male children are preferred in Asian families.

"The decisions of Asian-American women, in particular, would be extra scrutinized," she said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/30/house-debates-bill-to-ban-sex-selective-abortions/?test=latestnews