Mississippi Initiative 26: Embryo Personhood Amendment

[GregorMendel]

Initiative 26 is a proposed amendment to the state constitution of Mississippi that would define life as beginning at the moment of conception, specifically intending to bestow the full legal rights of "personhood" to those in the earliest stages of embryonic development.

While I approve of the intentions of this legislation to supersede the legality of abortions, I find it much more interesting to consider the worrisome implications that such an amendment would have on fertility and reproductive medicine as a whole in the state of Mississippi.

This is hands down, a quantitative moral good, but does it outweigh the possible damage to reproductive medical specialists and clinics with its admittedly unknown medical and legal implications? Furthermore, I found it very interesting that IVF was explicitly described as "by definition Pro-Life", as well as the outcry from "Small Government Conservatives" supporting individual liberty over "ambiguous" regulations of personal reproductive decisions.

What are your opinions on this matter?

Given that it provides a succinct and focused narrative explanation, I also encourage you to listen to the podcast posted on the page as well.

[url="http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/04/us/mississippi-personhood-amendment/index.html?hpt=hp_t2"]http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t2[/url]

[Basilisa Marie]

Well, part of the problem with most "reproductive technology" is that most of it is immoral. That is, the Catholic Church is against things like IVF partially because every person has a right to be conceived naturally, and IVF always involves the creation of multiple embryos, only some of which are "chosen". Not exactly the most pro-life option out there.

I'm not sure if this would even become law in Mississippi, but I think the idea of given legal right to people from conception is definitely a step in the right direction.

So what do you find worrisome about this initiative's potential implications?

[Socrates]

[quote name='GregorMendel' timestamp='1320438217' post='2331370']
Initiative 26 is a proposed amendment to the state constitution of Mississippi that would define life as beginning at the moment of conception, specifically intending to bestow the full legal rights of "personhood" to those in the earliest stages of embryonic development.

While I approve of the intentions of this legislation to supersede the legality of abortions, I find it much more interesting to consider the worrisome implications that such an amendment would have on fertility and reproductive medicine as a whole in the state of Mississippi.

This is hands down, a quantitative moral good, but does it outweigh the possible damage to reproductive medical specialists and clinics with its admittedly unknown medical and legal implications? Furthermore, I found it very interesting that IVF was explicitly described as "by definition Pro-Life", as well as the outcry from "Small Government Conservatives" supporting individual liberty over "ambiguous" regulations of personal reproductive decisions.

What are your opinions on this matter?

Given that it provides a succinct and focused narrative explanation, I also encourage you to listen to the podcast posted on the page as well.

[url="http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/04/us/mississippi-personhood-amendment/index.html?hpt=hp_t2"]http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t2[/url]
[/quote]
I'm all for the initiative, and hope that it at least helps raise discussion on this important life issue.

As you yourself stated, a law protecting innocent human life from conception is "hands down, a quantitative moral good." The good of protecting human life itself definitely outweighs any concerns about its effects on scientific and medical research.

The Church is very clear in teaching that the ends do not justify the means. One may never commit an intrinsically evil act (such as the deliberate taking of an innocent human life) in order that some good may come of it. Thus the Church condemns all forms of research that involve killing human embryos.

The value of human life clearly outweighs any of the other issues here.


And the Church is also against IVF. The separation of procreation from sex is a moral evil.

Edited November 6, 2011 by Socrates

[add]

personhood amendment goes down in flames (of Hell)
[url="http://www.sos.ms.gov/Elections/Initiatives/Initiatives/Definition%20of%20Person-PW%20Revised.pdf"]http://www.sos.ms.gov/Elections/Initiatives/Initiatives/Definition%20of%20Person-PW%20Revised.pdf[/url]

in has been reported by the New York Times that the Roman Catholic bishops and National Right to Life opposed the measure on strategic grounds?

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='add' timestamp='1320833813' post='2333666']
personhood amendment goes down in flames (of Hell)
[url="http://www.sos.ms.gov/Elections/Initiatives/Initiatives/Definition%20of%20Person-PW%20Revised.pdf"]http://www.sos.ms.go...W%20Revised.pdf[/url]

in has been reported by the New York Times that the Roman Catholic bishops and National Right to Life opposed the measure on strategic grounds?
[/quote]

Where in the NYT does it say that?

[LovedSinner]

I did not read the NYT article, but I have heard from a number of other places that the pro-life community was split.

Many thought that since the US Supreme Court would almost certainly rule on this issue, and with the current composition of the court, would almost certainly overturn this amendment, so little gain would be achieved.

However, the concern is that there are some real potential negatives. One is that if overturned, it becomes precedent and settled law, and harder to overturn in the future. Not that it is impossible, but a future swing justice who is on the fence might rule to keep the status quo upheld - meaning the pro-death side. Then there is another concern: the Court could add new "protections" for abortions and these harmful measures would impact all 50 states, not just Mississippi.

[add]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1320863755' post='2333832']

Where in the NYT does it say that?
[/quote]
see the third paragraph from the bottom, in the link below:
[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/us/politics/votes-across-the-nation-could-serve-as-a-political-barometer.html"]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/us/politics/votes-across-the-nation-could-serve-as-a-political-barometer.html[/url]

[MithLuin]

The (outgoing) governor of Mississippi had some interesting things to say about the ballot questions in his state on Fox News.

He said that Mississippi is, of course, a strongly pro-life state, but that the wording of the ballot raised some questions - it references cloning or something 'comparable', and of course human cloning is illegal, so....what is that even talking about and what does it mean (legally)? He said he voted for it himself, since life begins at conception, but that many people in the prolife community probably would not be able to support this particular question.

...and he went on to say that a bunch of people from Colorado got it on the ballot (likely a reference to the failed Personhood amendment in CO during the last presidential election), which was just a mistake. According to him, this was the type of thing you could probably get to pass the MS legislature (being such a pro-life state and all), so then the lawmakers would have had an opportunity to hammer out the details of the language to make it legally worth something.

(He had similar 'go away and leave us to our own devices' comment to the emminent domain question on the ballot, essentially saying that MS is not Connecticut and that there hasn't been a problem with abuse of it there. Of course, he's been the governor for some time, so of course he says that....)

In general, I do not trust politicians when they are speaking, but I did think he handled himself well on the news and offered an interesting perspective.

[arfink]

From the little I know of this initiative, it has not been popular with hardly anyone, prolife or otherwise. I think it's razzle dazzle that they at least tried to do something though.