November 8th, 2011
01:44 PM ET

Overheard on 'Personhood’ measure stirs heated debate

Comment of the morning:

“Wouldn't creating a life through in vitro fertilization be ‘pro-life?' ” - centrisright

Mississippi amendment taking heat

Voters in Mississippi on Tuesday will face one of the most controversial measures on ballots nationwide. Mississippians will vote on whether to amend the state constitution to define life as beginning at conception, which would eliminate abortion, including in the cases of rape and incest. Initiative 26 would define "personhood" as "every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof." The measure would also outlaw certain forms of birth control and the destruction of embryos in laboratories, putting in vitro fertilization procedures in question because of the resulting unused fertilized eggs. readers were largely against the measure.

EurekaJim said, “Yup. The party of ‘less government" except when they want the government to do something they want it to do.”

ovipconsult said, “Mississippi being the poorest (or at least one of the poorest states) with one of the highest unemployment rate in the country, and many still live in poverty ... and abortion is what they really care about? My goodness. Politicians should just go hide in the cave. Judges ...  should just be removed if they want to control women's productive organs.”

BubbaJ said, “Eliminating abortion, Social Security and Medicare are their primary goals. They have become the party of ‘100% support for life ... when it's a fetus. Once it's out, it's on its own."

1alicia1 said, “Have you read recently the world population count? Enough already. How about giving out condoms on the street corner in every town?”

bobthemoose said, “This bill would not force anyone into a lifetime of unwanted motherhood. In all 50 states in the union it is perfectly legal for a woman to give up custody of a newborn to the state with no further responsibility on the part of the woman, and legal mechanisms in place to prevent them from being tracked down at a later date.”

sam0326 said, “I'm shocked that an obstetrician would support this amendment. What happens in the case of ectopic pregnancies, when allowing the egg to develop will kill the mother and there is no chance of the egg developing into a viable fetus? How about other cases when the mother's life is (in) danger? Cancer during pregnancy occurs in 1/1,000 pregnancies. Are those woman expected to forgo treatment to prevent killing an embryo? Most people don't realize the implications of this amendment; voting for religious and emotional reasons instead of evidence and understanding is dangerous.”

Darkwolf57 responded, “There is also the fact that 1/2 to 3/4 of all ‘persons’ (actually ‘concepti’) are aborted spontaneously. If ‘personhood’ does indeed begin at conception, then God himself is a mass murderer, according to this amendment. This, to me, is likely the most asinine measure to ever come before the voters."

salvat said, “My daughters were born via IVF. I dare you to tell me that my wife and I were wrong to go through the procedure to have our daughters. If my government tells me I cannot have children or I was wrong to have children the way I did, it will cease to be my government."

ChipsHandon said, “Government's main responsibility in forming legislation is to protect the safety and well-being of its citizens. What is being legislated is when citizenship begins for unborn humans. I think we can all agree that if you push your wife down the stairs on her way to go give birth, you are committing murder, not abortion, since the child was 100% ready to enter this world. Enter the gray area between conception and birth where life, citizenship, and jurisdiction under our laws become vague. Clearly, if an unborn child is ready to live outside of the womb, to kill it is to take a life; however, when does a pregnancy cross that threshold? This is the debate. When does abortion become murder?”

Do you feel your views align with those of these commenters? Post a comment below or sound off on video.

Compiled by the moderation staff. Some comments edited for length or clarity.

soundoff (215 Responses)
  1. Candy

    Why is it wrong to terminate an early pregenancy but ok to fertilize someone's egg and place it in another woman? Is that about God? If God wanted the woman to get pregnant she would have done so the old fashioned way? Right? so to force this pregancy goes against God's will. Right? It all depends on how stupid you are when you think about this stupid law. It won't pass.

    November 8, 2011 at 8:13 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Joey Isotta-Fraschini

    @ Phil:
    Well said. I agree.
    BTW, I am From Mississippi.
    I'm waiting anxiously to observe the challenge of you name by another Philip.

    November 8, 2011 at 8:17 pm | Report abuse |
  3. Joey Isotta-Fraschini

    Well, Miss Candy, now, you make a lot of right good sense about all the mess we got here, but well now, can't rightly say I'd be in agreement with you about that law-passing aspect of it. No, have to wait and see what comes to pass, here. Yeah. Wait and see, surely will.

    November 8, 2011 at 8:23 pm | Report abuse |
  4. Joey Isotta-Fraschini

    Much that occurs in Mississippi is absurd.

    November 8, 2011 at 8:26 pm | Report abuse |
  5. banasy©

    I think the issue is that they want to specify that it happens instantly, well before it has separate brain, separate circulatory system, in most cases separate blood type, and then make it against the law to have any *choice* in the matter.
    The way this law is proposed, I would have faced charges for the two miscarriage I had endured, as would my daughter; one of hers was a tubal, and she had to have life-saving surgery. To think that she may have come out of the hospital and faced charges is not only absurd, it's extraordinarily cruel.

    November 8, 2011 at 8:52 pm | Report abuse |
  6. s kel


    November 8, 2011 at 10:34 pm | Report abuse |
  7. banasy©

    How do you really feel, s kel?

    Are you saying the good people of Mississippi decided not to allow this?

    Viva la choice!

    November 8, 2011 at 10:48 pm | Report abuse |
  8. s kel

    Im lovin it Bansay... Seems like the tea party who states they want less govt in a persons life in fact IS govt big brother only for the wealthy and ceos. And right wing fake christans.

    November 8, 2011 at 10:59 pm | Report abuse |
  9. s kel

    GO OHIO!!!!

    November 8, 2011 at 11:01 pm | Report abuse |
  10. banasy©

    @s kel:
    Well, IMO, they did this one thing right; they put it on a ballot to let the people choose, instead of ramming this down Mississippi's throat by the few who "know what's best" for women.

    November 8, 2011 at 11:25 pm | Report abuse |
  11. soulsister

    I thought we were progessing into the 21st century, not going backward in time. Totally absurd.

    November 9, 2011 at 12:37 am | Report abuse |
  12. Hannah

    I hope the government has the money to support all of these babies. Especially the ones born with life long afflictions.

    November 9, 2011 at 12:47 am | Report abuse |
  13. Rachel

    Americans are backward idiots

    November 9, 2011 at 12:48 am | Report abuse |
  14. Joey Isotta-Fraschini

    As a human unfortunately born in Mississippi, I am pleased that the absurdly backward personhood amendment was defeated, proving that a majority of that poor state's citizens can think.
    One of the evil bill's main supporters was the Southern Baptist Convention; I was raised as a Baptist and resigned from that denomination in my twenties.
    I joined a theologically acceptable denomination, the Episcopal Church, which takes the Bible seriously but not literally, and certainly not as literally as the babbling Black Beauty did here last night with her foolish, naïve, deception and preaching controlled by thought-divorced emotions.
    To become completely in control of my own life, I stopped attending the Episcopal Church a few years ago and admitted to the world that I am an atheist.
    My decisions about the morality of abortion is based solely on what I think, not what is written in an old book that many consider holy.
    Abortion is a beautiful asset to society, as is the surgical removal of cancer.

    November 9, 2011 at 4:54 am | Report abuse |
  15. Joey Isotta-Fraschini

    OH–I posted a terrible sentence.
    I should have written, "my decisions about the morality of abortion ARE based solely on..."

    November 9, 2011 at 5:49 am | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9