I personally believe that life begins at conception. Good for Mississippi. As a sovereign state they have every right to make their own laws. If the women of Mississippi do not like the laws there they can move to one of the other 49 states in our Union.

You may proceed to hate me now.

Nah not gonna hate ya. But i do have to ask why you have to impose your belief system on those that think differently.. Don't like abortion. Don't have one.

Here's where this one runs afoul of being Constitutional:

When similar procedures (similar = same risk of problems and/or complications, etc. etc.) do not have the same legal requirements as this procedure (abortion), and there is no valid medical requirement for the folks who do the procedure to be treated in a different manner under the law, then the requirement is defined in a legally arbitrary manner.

When a law is being defined in a legally arbitrary manner, the law will be struck down as an unconstitutionally arbitrary restriction on the medical practise/business.

I am so tired of the anti-abortion forces trying stunts like this that they must KNOW are blatantly unconstitutional restrictions.

Yes - I fully understand that they think that no life should ever be ended by abortion. I appreciate that as I would never want a woman to ever abort my child or any of my children's children.

However you look at it, abortion is legal and the federal level and there is nothing that these extremists can do to change that. I know that they will keep trying forever, so I accept that this kind of thing will likely never stop. I just wish they would dispense with all this tax money wasting crap and get real.

JerseyJeff...

"Don't like abortion. Don't have one."

Don't want a baby...don't get pregnant!!!..too many ways to keep from having a baby out there. DON'T choose murder to fix ur f?ck up!!!!

Where I life every hospital but one is Saint Somebody or other. The one that isn't is owned by Saint Somebody or other. Good luck trying to get admitting privileges as a doctor who proforms abortions. If you haven't adopted a US child you have no business protesting in front of a clinic. Put your money, time and effort where your mouth is. Other wise shut up. Talking the talk without walking the walk is cowardly and unchristian. The book says "you shall know them BY THEIR DEEDS!!!"

Give it a rest, by that logic states had the right to continue slavery, it's all or nothing. It isn't about when life begins, it's about choice. I chose to not have an abortion, that's the beauty of choice but I won't tell others what they can do. I do know that most people don't understand the mother's body argument. Let me put it simply. You are much more likely to die in childbirth or have a catastrophic medical incident like a stroke attended by medical professionals than having an abortion performed by medical professionals.

Teressa,

We do not live in that land of purely black and white thinking. If you truly believe that is the only reason for abortion, well, bless you, you've lived a sheltered life. I've known two women who had abortions in recent years. The first, a cancer patient, recently diagnosed. To treat her cervical cancer, she had to abort. She agonized over it, but she and her husband agreed that with successful treatment, they could try later to have a child. The other, had already had two children born with an incurable condition, which led to a short life filled with horrendous pain. She found the next pregnancy would have succumbed similarly and felt she would lose her mind if she endured watching another child go through that. She aborted and had her tubes tied.

These were both intensely painful and difficult decisions that no one other than the parents and treating physicians had a right to have input into. It was a personal, private circumstance of immeasurable difficulty. Thankfully, they live in America and had the right to make these decisions for themselves. I don't know if I would have decided the same, but then, I don't have to walk in those shoes and have no right to judge them. Nor should anyone else.

Anti-abortionists are mad because the majority of the country is against them. So, the plan is to try to marginalize Federal law at the local level.

Basically a plan that never works.

See, the proper way to do it would be to once again have abortions examined by the Supreme Court, or elect enough national Congressionals and a President to have abortions made illegal. Of course, anti-abortionists are already aware that would fail. So instead of accepting that, or moving to, i don't know, any of the nations in the world where abortions are illegal, instead, they are going about it through this failed way.

See, the problem here is not point of view, but an unwillingness to accept the point of view of another. That is the problem the anti-abortionists have. Instead of convincing, or listening to arguements and making counterpoints, they once again have fallen into that hee haw method of faightin tew the last persun.... It sounds good until you realize that you are going to lose.

There's a lot of anti-abortionists I speak to. Thankfully, none of the a-hole variety. They are unhappy about the situation, vote, and are law abiding citizens. A lot of them are religious. None of them are so stupid as to think trying to shut abortion clinics at the local is the smart way to go.

RoMar, both situations you described sound awful, but it sounds to me like those were serious conditions and these women had consulted doctors, in those instances, is it not fair to say that the abortions could have been ordered by prescription only? That would make more sense if it could happen, I doubt either of the women you spoke of went to an abortion clinic to have their abortions, but rather by their OB/GYN's in their hospitals. Those cases do merit further discussion and options, however quickie abortions because the woman is just not ready, or just got a promotion at work, etc. should not be an option for women. Unfortunately, abortion is murder no matter how you twist it and call it a "choice" and some women are forced to do so for various reasons. However, I am interested in researching exactly how many abortions performed in the U.S. are medically necessary compared to the tens of thousands that are done for convenience, just like everything else in this country, abortion needs to be reformed.

"Get an abortion at our drive thru, and then take home some Carl's Fried Chicken and a side of Zataran's Red Beans and Rice."

sheshouldbekilled -

Your moniker is the only reason I need to say @!$%# you, @!$%#. Of course, you had to write that screed and go the extra mile, so I thought I'd take the time to say, very carefully: go crawl back under your rock, and don't come back until you learn to actually think. Women in those situations don't "merit further discussion and options," they deserve what they need in order to be medically treated. Period. In other words: none of your @!$%#ing business, fascist jackass.

As a meta, I just don't get it. Do these idiots really think that outlawing abortion will really stop abortions? I dare, you, I double-@!$%#ing-dog dare you women-hating morons to use the Google and find out about the septic wards that existed before Roe v. Wade. And then, just imagine that every single admission reason was replaced with "coat hanger." Because that's what it was, essentially. A ward where women went to die from failed or botched back-alley abortions.

You "pro-lifers" are really pro-death. You don't care about women. The kid with the sign in the picture cracks me up. Prayer has proven even less effective than abstinence-only sex education. Why do you hold on to these stupid ideals? Why don't you join the rest of the world in reality? Seriously, I'm so @!$%#ing pissed right now, I really want to know why you insist on deluding yourself and so many others, brainwashing from birth, about this stupid, ass-backwards cultural idiocy?

Teressa829,Your, Use proper grammer.

Sheshouldbekilled, Your name really goes good with what you just said.

ahem, Kathleen, I think you mean grammar. :)

Give it a rest!...

Um...so you don't believe in the Bill of Rights??

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances.

And you call yourself a Conservative???

I realize f comes h in the dictionary but it MY dictionary.

from Give it a rest! -

It's not about me imposing my belief system. If one state doesn't tickle your fancy then there are numerous other states to move to.

Well, giveitarest, why don't you follow your own dictum? Let's see YOU give up your job, your home, and your friends and move to another state. Better yet, move to another country. There are still plenty of religious dictatorships in the world. I'd recommend you move to Iran, where abortions are illegal and there is no pesky separation of church and state to interfere with your desire to prohibit others from having the same choices you enjoy. Of course, you'd have to dress differently ...

Sheshouldbekilled ... You are pursuing the wrong problem. Outlawing abortions isn't going to solve the problem, the problem is people who don't want a child getting pregnant to begin with. Stop the unwanted pregnancies and the abortion problem goes away.

This is why trying to shut down Planned Parenthood is illogical for those against abortion. You are guaranteeing more of the very thing you want to prevent. It's like trying to prevent forest fires by giving everyone matches.

Teressa said:

Don't want a baby...don't get pregnant!!!..too many ways to keep from having a baby out there. DON'T choose murder to fix ur f?ck up!!!!

What about a child who was molested and became pregnant? Did you see the story on the news a while back where a ten year old child gave birth? Should there not have been the option of an abortion for her?

A young girl forced into prostitution?

A woman who was raped?

A woman in a domestic labor situation raped?

A female of any age sold into sexual slavery?

Not everyone who becomes pregnant does so by choice or a 'f*** up'. What if they DID use birth control and it failed? A fake wheel of birth control pills, a condom with a tear? sterilization procedures that healed themselves, a case of tied tubes' coming untied? Doesn't happen as often as it used to but it still does.

Teressa829

Murder is a legal definition it's not for you to decide. By far the most abortions are committed by 'god' herself in the form of miscarriages to correct Gods own Fu_k ups and that's a good thing because those unborn babies are typically horribly deformed.

You should be protesting God for making so many mistakes then resorting to spontaneous abortions instead of simply fixing the underling problem. Picket a church??

Give it a rest!

I personally believe that life begins at conception. Good for Mississippi. As a sovereign state they have every right to make their own laws.

Within limits of the constitution as interpreted by the Court, (remember that pesky paper?) yeah that's what keeps you from still owning slaves as many southern states still would today. Miss is not a sovereign nation.

Mississippi.......working their way to the bottom yet again. They are the worst state in the union on just about all metrics and this is what they spend their time on? They are just reinforcing their image as a state full of back-woods, toothless, hillbilly, uneducated, inbred, jerry springer, trailer park, rednecks.

Our Republic is made up of 50 individual "states". If Mississippi really got pissed off at the government they could hypothetically secede from the Union.

At least I wouldn't kill a baby.

If Mississippi really got pissed off at the government they could hypothetically secede from the Union.

No, actually, they can't - for the same reason that Texas, despite the opinions of ignorant Texans, can't:

I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.

- Supreme Court Justice Scalia

Give it a rest!

Our Republic is made up of 50 individual "states". If Mississippi really got pissed off at the government they could hypothetically secede from the Union.

Sure why not. And then when some other petty disagreements happen within the state you can split it again, and again.... In any event it is sure to be a educational example for the rest of us.

Crazier things have happened over the course of human history.

Mississippi rejoined the Union?

I thought that it was still around 1862 there.

Hell, some of those psycho paths actually want to create laws that not only force a rape victim to bear her republican cult members child, but they also want laws that say they can terminate the life of the victim if she mis carries along the way unless she can prove in a court of law that she did not cause the miscarraige. These people are psychotic and why any sane person or woman would live in those god awful states beats the hell out of me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/antiabortion-georgia-lawm_n_827340.html

http://www.newser.com/story/112773/georgia-state-rep-bobby-franklin-wants-to-make-miscarriages-abortions-punishable-by-death.html

In 2010, the latest year for which figures are available, 2,297 abortions were performed in Mississippi with no deaths and one complication, according to the health department.

No deaths? What about those 2,297 child murders? No need to invoke Bronze Age Superstition, even a secular humanist should understand that child murder is wrong.

Restricting access to contraception and eliminating sex education in public schools means you are asking for unwanted pregnancies.

Want to reduce abortions? Increase access for high school and college students to contraception aids and educate these students in public schools about reproduction, becoming parents, planning for families, having children. etc.

Can't expect politically ultra-conservative parents that work full-time in their careers that have the time to do this adequately, or if they even feel comfortable telling their children or pre-teens about, "the birds and the bees."

In my experience, I've heard them explain human reproduction to their children, and they always seem to bring in religious beliefs into the conversation or lesson, of which it's vaguely worded unless it's scriptural. It just invites the children to ask more questions for social clarification and the mechanics of how intercourse is done, and the parents get very uncomfortable answering them.

And when they find out later that their children got a piece of an answer (the secular truth) from a teacher in their school, the parents start demanding who told them this, and they start talking about making phone calls and threatening costly lawsuits to put "immoral" people out of a job, and closing down public schools ...since what their children were taught is counter to their parent's ultraconservative politics or religious beliefs.

It's all about control and power over who knows what, and who can or can't have access to being empowered that comes with the knowledge of making informed reproductive decisions in your own life. The Religious Right is determined to control the personal, private lives and private decisions of everyone else on the planet, in the name of their god. ...even if it means curtailing civil rights by turning women into second-class citizens and making them reproductive property under control by the authoritarian men in the local churches.

180movie.com

Watch this please. It might blow your mind.

Hummbird

Let's not confuse being LEGAL with being RIGHT or MORAL.

There are numerous instances throughout history (and even our Country) when they were on opposite ends of the spectrum.

"Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service", Heritary Slavery, Nuremberg Laws of 1935, fugitive slave laws, to name only a few.

Janstince…you're an angry little person aren't you? My moniker was originally created to reply on
an article where a grandmother had thrown her 3 year old granddaughter off a building to her death.

Explain these things to me and try to use your brain instead of name calling like all libs do:

1. How is killing your unborn child being "medically treated"? Is pregnancy a disease? Please elaborate how killing the baby in the womb is a medical treatment.
2. How does protecting the life of innocent unborn children make me a fascist? Please elaborate
3. If you read and had an ounce of brain, you would see that I mentioned it needs reform, not to become illegal. Your double dog dare just shows your intellect level and I would say you are probably about 15 years old. However, by your scenario, we should keep abortion the way it is because we want to protect women who want to kill their babies. Great logic.
4. I am far from woman hating, I am baby-murdering hating. I have 3 daughters you fool, try to see beyond your nose when you cast your stereotypes on someone who has logic and reason. Wanting to reduce the number baby murders, doesn't make me a woman hater.
5. Explain to me how wanting babies to live, makes me pro-death?? You are in essence, pro-death since you support the slaughter of the unborn. Nice try though.

Seems like you just like to jump on the band wagon and bash anything that makes you think about anyone other than yourself. Are you so short-sighted that you only care about the woman getting the abortion, and nothing about the baby being aborted?? How can you call yourself a human being?

Once again, I am taking your rant with a grain of salt given your age, however, you should
really stop jumping on the "cool" liberal bandwagon and try to have a real
thought for once.

I will reiterate, it's not always black and white, but I think abortion by prescription only is a
good way to start this reform and stop the savage dismemberment of unborn
babies.

How is killing your unborn child being "medically treated"? Is pregnancy a disease? Please elaborate how killing the baby in the womb is a medical treatment.

Ok, let's give you an example. I have two children. Giving birth to my two boys was extremely complicated. With my oldest son, I developed eclampsia (complete with seizures), and ended up having an emergency c-section. During this c-section, I needed resuscitation. After this, I developed a hospital acquired infection that required my c-section to be re-opened and allowed to heal on it's own; I went septic, and suffered multiple organ system failure. I spent 4 1/2 months in the hospital before I was released to go home to finish my recovery and finally bound with my son. My uterus was very scarred as a result of this. 6 years later, I was pregnant again. During this pregnancy, I ended up having a c-section because my uterus was too scarred to handle contractions. I still hemorrhaged my entire blood volume due to scarring and developed a post-operative ileus. After this, I, on advise of my doctors, decided that I couldn't have more children safely, so I opted to have my tubes tied.

If my tubal ligation were to fail - and it does have a small failure rate - you can bet I'd abort. Not because I wouldn't want another child, but because I can't safely have another child. My uterus is so scarred, I would experience a uterine rupture, most likely before viability - and this would kill both me and the fetus. It would also leave my existing children without a mother.

So, yes, there are times that pregnancy is a disease state. Even if a woman doesn't have known complications, there are risks to pregnancy - heck, my first pregnancy there were no known risk factors going into it. There are risks to delivery and there are risks to abortion. So, which risks the woman is willing to take on are up to her.

sheshouldbekilled -

Might I then suggest changing your pseudonym? Coming into an abortion debate with that staring me in the face is asking to get your ass handed to you.

Now, on to your questions, I feel Ms. Summer up there answered number 1 just fine without me. On to the rest.

2) Firstly, it's not a child until it's born. It's not a baby until it's born. Until it's born, it is a fetus, before that a blastocyst, before that a zygote. Secondly, you have a fascist tendency to step in and force the mother to carry the child to term, taking away her choice in what to do with her body. The fetus is reliant upon her body for sustenance. That's her sustenance, produced by her body. You are stepping between her and her doctor to attempt to make a medical decision for her. That's fascist.

3) I think it's fine logic. Nobody is stopping you from getting a historectomy/tubes tied/vasectomy. Go take care of your own business. As for my intellectual level, well, I don't really measure it with metrics anymore. If you want to say I'm a 15-year old by the standards of my writing, I can point you to plenty of writers who would be a lot less prosaic and a lot more vindictive than I. I think I got the message across clearly, which was contempt for your position.

4) We've been over this before, it's not a baby until it's born (whether vaginally, by c-section, or by another method that I've never heard of). You're hating on women because you're taking away their decisions what to do with their bodies. Your arguments are falling flat because you fail to consider that the woman and her doctor are the ONLY ones capable of making that decision as they are the ONLY ones affected by it. Even if you grant the fetus the exact same rights that a fully-grown person has (which is bull@!$%#), you still don't have the right to tell the mother that she has to support with her body another person. Also, if you're not calling for mandatory kidney, liver, blood, bone marrow, tissue donation in general by men, then you're a hypocrit.

5) Forcing women to carry babies to term is pro-death. You don't consider the consequences of your actions. Like I said, Google "septic wards" from before Roe v. Wade. Those were death wards, full of women who had back-alley abortions or coat hangers. Outlawing/restricting abortion does not lead to fewer "dead babies," as you seem to think. It leads to more dead women. That's why you're pro-death.

As for my "jumping on the bandwagon," how dare you judge me based on your own projection and preconceptions? See what I did there? It's a rather meaningless phrase to spout at somebody you just read over the internet, don't you think? Or, I don't know, do you think? Ever?

Give it a rest! (post #1.24, collapsed by the community)

@Jim: I don't know why you have brought me into a religious discussion. I never mentioned religion. I just believe that states have rights... Just because I believe that Life begins at conception doesn't make me a religious zealot.

You told someone else they must "move to another state" if they didn't like the law. But are you really ready to follow your own advice? Why can't you let others have the freedoms you enjoy? That is the very essence of a dictatorship, and the laws you are championing here are only born of religious zealots.

And again,

I believe in Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. All powers not given to the federal government by the US Constitution are left to the states.

That's simply untrue. Neither the states nor the voters can pass any ole laws they like, because all state laws must be constitutional. Ignore the 10th amendment, and examine the 14th and 15th amendments. That will correct your misunderstandings about American jurisprudence.

Just wanted to make a few comments on some of the above posts:

Summer - Abortion was ALWAYS legal to save the life of the mother BEFORE Roe V Wade. Before the unborn child is viable, having the mother die would defeat the purpose of saving both of them, now wouldn't it? And when abortion was legal "to save the life of the mother" it was a decision made by the doctor as a Medical necessity. And it was done in a hospital, legally, to save the mother. Even though the unborn child died, The intent wasn't to kill the unborn child, but to save the mother. And if you think intent is a moot point, think about a person ACCIDENTLY killing a child or a person INTENTIONALLY killing one.

By the way, it was also legal before Roe V Wade to have an abortion if the woman was raped or from incest.

By 1910 almost all States had laws banning "for choice" abortions - do you know who started that? Doctors - because with new medical equipment and progressive treatments and more knowledge - they started realizing that they were dealing with something more than a "lump of cells".

Roe v Wade gave women the right to have an abortion for whatever reason they wanted or no reason at all. Sounds like great ethics in today's society, doesn't it?

"Jane Roe" , realname Norma Leah McCorvey, was the perfect pawn of 2 lawyers who wanted to challenge the law. By the way, did you know that Norma "Roe" is now an avid pro-life advocate? She started a ministry called "Roe No More" which you can check out at leaderu.com and crossingover.bravehost.com

Her story in her words is rather interesting.

my opinion1: All of that is interesting, but irrelevant. A woman has the right to determine which risks she will take on - whether those be the risks of a pregnancy, delivery or abortion. You don't have to agree with a woman's decision - but, it's her decision to make. Don't get me wrong - I would love to see abortion be a rarely made choice - let's decreased unplanned / unwanted pregnancy by preventing them to begin with.

btw, my post 1.39, was an answer to a specific question in 1.38. The person wanted to know when abortion was a medical treatment - and I answered that question specifically.

Jim: You misquoted me. I said "they can". You quoted me as saying "You told someone else they 'must move to another state.'" Post #1.41

"Can" and "must" are very different words.

"Our Republic is made up of 50 individual "states". If Mississippi really got pissed off at the government they could hypothetically secede from the Union."

Nope, can't do it, Give it a rest; I believe the civil war settled that question.

An abortion free Mississippi. I guess the only ones that are going to benefit from all this is the pro-lifers, pedophiles, rapists, incestuous family members!

Great job Mississippi, your really moving in the right direction. Down into being a backwater state.

benji2

"Our Republic is made up of 50 individual "states". If Mississippi really got pissed off at the government they could hypothetically secede from the Union."

Nope, can't do it, Give it a rest; I believe the civil war settled that question.

Refer to 10th amendment to the United States Constitution.

Kathleen

I used to think a lot like you. I thought abortion was the most horrible thing a person could do, but you would be surprised at how your beliefs can change when you are faced with a decision like that.

That's exactly right. There will be no end to the controversy over abortion until there is agreement about when life begins. If you believe life begins at conception, then you must believe that abortion is murder. If you believe that life begins at birth, then you must believe that abortion is morally equivalent to clipping your toenails.

What people really need to grasp, is the fact that we each, personally can BELIEVE whatever we want, but we don't get to DICTATE WHAT OTHERS SHOULD DO, based on mere BELIEF.

Not without a compelling state interest that passes strict scrutiny. Now, I can come up with one for cannibalism, however, until we can prove when HUMANITY begins, there isn't one for abortion.

GiveitaRest,

That's what you BELIEVE. Science has yet to prove that. Life doesn't necesarrily equal humanity.

Sarah,

I would love to continue this dialogue, but work interferes. What is the state interest that prohibits cannibalism. Who provides the strict scrutiny, and by what authority? And why do you, who I know to be precise in thought, use the word HUMANITY when you mean human life? Did humanity begin at some magic moment, perhaps when two chimps learned to communicate verbally? If so, does human life also begin at some magic moment? I struggle with these questions. How about you? I'll check back later in the day.

Regardless of what side of the abortion debate you are on, those do not appear to be unreasonable requirements for a doctor to practice. In some states, those requirements are already laws. They need to be board certified OB-GYN's and have admitting privileges at a hospital. Where I live here in TX, every ob-gyn in the area would qualify under that law.

Instead of a lawsuit, it would be cheaper to pay the fees associated with the law, but then that would take away from the publicity they are receiving

IF a doctor who does procedures that are medically similar in thier risks, complications and other such important details is not required to comply with a similar set of restrictions, then this requirement is being set up as a legally arbitrary restriction in order to prevent these procedures from happening.

and doing so is an unconstitutional restriction on excersizing the doctor's right to practise without undue interference with his patients.

The issue is that in a very conservative area, the hospitals can set very strict standards as to who they will allow to have admitting privileges. If they say 'doctors who perform abortions cannot have admitting privileges' then the doctor cannot perform abortions - even in his own clinic under this law.

Now if doctors who perform equally risky procedures in thier own offices get admitting privilges because they don't including abortions in thier resume OR they aren't required to get admitting priviliges, then the law is arbitrary in the legal sense and is blatantly unconstitutional.

GiveitaRest,

So if life begins when a sperm fertilizes an egg, by your "logic" if a woman has a natural miscarriage, she is thereby guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Or, if a woman is forced to continue with a pregnancy that could be fatal to her, the fetus then guilty of murder. Want to put a fetus on trial? I bet you would, too.

On a side note, I'm wondering why two adolescent boys are on the steps protesting... as if they had ANY clue about or say over what happens with a woman's body.

Denver,

I'm sure you can see the reason for a prohibition on cannablism, specifically the kind where the "meal" is killed for, well consumption purposes. Unless you're assuming that they be allowed to eat the already dead, which I believe would come with a whole passle of health issues.

Back to the topic at hand. I struggle with them also. I have not the slightest clue when humanity, or human life, begins, which is why I think I know what I would do in that situation but I don't have the authority to insist anyone else do the same.

The strict scrutiny is provided by SCOTUS, and applied to civil rights issues. Legally, abortions are a personal and private choice, and since we have an implied civil right to privacy, the state's gotta have a damn good reason to intercede. Pro-lifers would say that reason is the "life of the baby", but aren't able to prove that it IS a baby.

THAT'S what makes me go, grrrrrrr!

Time is not worth reposting what I did.

Basically, if you are an anti-abortionist, and think what Mississippi is trying to do is a good idea, you are doing law wrong.

Anyhow, we all have different opinions.

I'm off to friendlier topics such as health care and Syria.

Sarah, Do you have scientific proof that Humanity doesn't start at conception? Just wondering, because if you don't have 100% proof, then can it be proved that you aren't killing a human being? Just curious. I agree each woman has the right to chose by the way. I personally wouldn't myself but that is my choice. I respect the right by other women to choose though.

I believe the burden of proof is on those who assert the claim, because you cannot prove or provide evidence for a negative. If someone says "life begins at conception" they must have scientific proof supporting their claim, otherwise it cannot be assumed that their assertion is fact.

Let me ask you this, Sarah and denver,

Does it really matter when "life" begins? I mean, as far as we can tell, life is merely a series of chemical reactions that are self-regulating and cause replication of the original molecules. In essence, anyway. For instance, if you say that life occurs when the sperm fertilizes the egg (as jackass #2 aka Give It A Rest! up there claims), well, why stop there? Shouldn't every egg and every sperm be considered "alive"? Should we incriminate every woman for having a menstrual cycle? And put men on trial for thousands of deaths of potential lives every day (because sperm cells are dying in the testes all the time)? Why is the zygote so important? What differentiates it from the skin cells you lose when you scrape your elbow? Those skin cells were just as alive as the zygote. Why do you hate skin?

More to the point, so, let's say that you arbitrarily (and it is arbitrary) decide that the zygote has the full rights and privileges of a human being. Well, why do you lie? Because you're not arguing that they should have the same rights, you're arguing that they should have special rights. Because you are arguing that the fetus has more of a right to the woman's body than she does. That fetus, you say, has the right to take up residence against the woman's wishes within her body. So, unless you plan on passing laws that make blood, kidney, liver, bone marrow, and any other non-essential or easily replenished body part donation mandatory for all men, then you have no right to tell women they have to host a foreign body within their own for 9 months. Seriously, you don't have a moral or legal leg to stand on, unless you just make one up, which you are doing.

In short, fail at logic. Proving "life" begins at conception does nothing to untangle the moral quandary you have enfolded yourselves in. The only difference would be instead of putting a woman's right to her body against a fetus's right to that body, you've now upped it to be a woman's right to her body against a fully-grown person's right to her body. Do you see the problems, yet?

Wait wait I am confused.

So some people (Lets for arguments sake say Republicans) say Its not OK for the government to be involved in health care, : the health care reforms, but it is OK for the government, albeit local, to enact a law and be involved in a health care issue.

Here comes the sun, I know you weren't posing your question to me, but I thought I would attempt to provide an answer.

First, scientifically speaking, there are at least 7 different hypotheses about when life begins. The earliest being conception, the latest being birth. All of the hypotheses have good and bad points. To give you an idea about why this seemingly basic question hasn't been answered yet, I need to point out what is required for something to be considered a living organism. The organism must display organization, response to stimuli, metabolism, reproduction, and homeostasis. So, the question becomes when are all of these things present in a human - whether that be an embryo, fetus, baby, adult, etc., etc. The biggest problem that life at conception argument has is the issue of homeostasis - the embryo and then fetus is entirely incapable of maintaining homeostasis until viability has been reached. After viability, if a live birth occurred, the resulting baby could at least maintain basic homeostasis - it may need a lot of medical assistance, but, it as developed enough to meet that requirement. Prior to viability, if the fetus were to be born, it would die - largely in part because it isn't developed enough to maintain homeostasis and as a result, suffers massive organ failure.

Second, as to this questions:

Just wondering, because if you don't have 100% proof, then can it be proved that you aren't killing a human being?

No, it can't be proved that you aren't killing a human being - but it also can't be proven that you are killing a human being (at least until viability).

Just my personal stance on abortion - I am 100% pro-choice. I will support a woman's decision to abort or to not abort. That said, I don't have a problem with reasonable restrictions being placed on abortion. I think that until viability, it should be 100% the woman's choice (and whomever she chooses to include in said choice). After viability, an abortion should only take place in the rare cases of late discovered medical complications that are either jeopardizing the mother's life and/or severe fetal anomaly, or in the case of rape - and then, even in these cases, only if it is what the mother wants. I also strongly support increasing prevention measure - let's prevent unwanted / unplanned pregnancies to begin with so that abortion is the rarely made choice (regardless of time during the pregnancy).

Summer:

Excellent post!

from Janstince

For instance, if you say that life occurs when the sperm fertilizes the egg (as jackass #2 aka Give It A Rest! up there claims), well, why stop there? Shouldn't every egg and every sperm be considered "alive"?

Well, Janstince, that's a terrific point. Maybe we should arrest all men for mass murder every time they masturbate, since that "murders" billions of potential primates. As for the women, Arizona passed a law back in April that states that life begins 2 weeks before conception. Imagine that. By law, every citizen of Arizona is legally pregnant if they're not menstruating, so I guess that means young and old women as well as men are all about to give birth.

This crap has got to stop.

Amanda, Thank you.

Jim, Isn't that Arizona law absolutely crazy?!?! Someone would have to be daft to think that was a good law.

Thank you Summer. I agree - and daft is exactly the word I would use.

I just couldn't think of a more appropriate word. Sometimes there aren't words in our language to adequately describe the strange things that go on in some people's heads.

@Janstince: I believe you have broken the Newsvine "Rules of Conduct" with the personal attack of "jackass" against me. Where is Tyler??

PS: As far as I see it, once the sperm fertilizes the egg there is a new life formed. The DNA would agree.

As far as I see it, once the sperm fertilizes the egg there is a new life formed. The DNA would agree.

That is one of several hypotheses about when life begins. The weak par about this hypothesis is that there are many viruses that have unique DNA - yet, they aren't living. It takes more than just unique DNA to be a living organism.

For here comes the sun. An argument of "you have no proof to the contrary" is not a logically valid argument for an idea. Here's an example of why this is the case. Let's say I believe in an invisible purple dinosaur that evades all methods of detection. I can't use your inability to detect it as proof of existence. This is a common mistake made by people. They believe that if you can't disprove something, that's proof of it's existence.

For Give it a rest, DNA is not enough to constitute life or humanity. For example, your skin cells that flake off of you throughout the day also contain your DNA but you would not consider them humans or clones. Additionally, as pointed out by summer, there are things that contain DNA that aren't even considered alive. You must work much harder to give a proper definition of alive or human.

"For example, your skin cells that flake off of you throughout the day also contain your DNA"

Yes, MY DNA. Or the unique DNA of another human being. Doesn't the individual uniqueness of each human-being make us "human"??? Could the creation of new DNA be considered the start of new life???

Doggy: Viruses are "life forms".

Give it a rest: would you sacrifice your life for one of your skin cells? Anti-abortion crap like this anti-American unconstitutional "law" in Mississippi requires all women to do that for a blastocyst; so maybe you would also apply it to a fibroblast.

If so, that is your prerogative, NOT MINE. I would not pass a law that mandated that you committed suicide over a skin cell from your arm. DON'T YOU DARE TRY TO DO THE SAME TO ANYONE ELSE.

I am waiting for you to answer my question.

Would you sacrifice your life for one of your skin cells?

Give it a rest!

PS: As far as I see it, once the sperm fertilizes the egg there is a new life formed. The DNA would agree.

We have a decent working definition for death and it's not 'when the DNA separates'--its when brain function is permanently stopped. Likewise it's sort of arbitrary to offer the same rights to a microscopic clump of a couple hundred cells that we do for living person. Brain waves START far latter in development but well before birth, that would be a more appropriate starting point. It is sentience that mandates ethics be aplied to an individual.

If you are a Christian there are some specific things you need to consider--when a zygote is very new it may split in two or two may join into one--Does God then 'kill' one of the souls or jump in and install a second one as needed? Or do we have ppl running around with no souls and others with two?

BTW--DNA does not get a vote on this as it is no more thinking than a rock.

@Jim: I would sacrifice MYSELF if my "cell" was in danger. If my sperm cell that fertilized an egg cell and created a new human DNA life form were in danger, and my wife/ female mate (the vessel of mammalian evolution) and our "born" children were in the way of a thug trying to destroy our life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I would die to protect them.

Give it a rest!

Sure you would as would most of us. But that is not the same as you demanding that I die for yours or mine nor does it define the start or end of sentience.

I might die to save my pets too for that matter, or and endagered species, habitat,....see where this could go? (if I knew I only had a week left on earth I might die for a lot less)

It is a slippery slope... Differing opinions... All opinions are valid.

For Give it a rest. Actually, viruses are not universally considered life forms. The definition of life form is not well structured enough to categorize a virus as living, a life form, or an organic construct that interacts with organisms.

Here's a good definition to use for a life form.

"The characteristic morphology of a mature organism."

Here's another one.

"the entire structure of an organism"

However, viruses are generally not considered organisms due to lack of an autonomous reproduction method, growth, or metabolism. Various definitions of "life form" are not applied to a virus and they are often considered an organic construct that interacts with actual life forms. This is why your definition of a life form based upon having DNA is not agreed upon by the scientific community. The problem is that you are trying to simplify the definition of alive to a sentence or two. This takes the definition to the point where it does not accurately describe the concept. This is why you must work harder if you're going to come up with a good definition of alive or human.

Additionally, your definition of virus being a life form due to having DNA is very good because it doesn't deal with such things as prions. Theses are similar to viruses, but they use proteins as infection agents instead of DNA. Various methods of grouping viruses, prions, and life forms will often put prions and viruses closer together than viruses and life forms.

Viruses are "life forms".

No, a virus is not considered a life. doggysaywhat did a pretty good job of explaining why it's not a life above.

Give it a rest!

It is a slippery slope... Differing opinions... All opinions are valid.

OK, so your solution is to slide right to the bottom and stay there?

For Summer, yes the definition of life or non-life, but organic construct, is rather grey. It gets even more interesting when you start to consider the prospects of non-organic life or artificial life. We're actually getting very good at creating constructs that have many of the properties of life. Some of these are in artificial intelligence, others are in the field of synthetic biology. In synthetic biology you do such things as create particular DNA sequences and insert them into the DNA of organisms, synthesize the DNA code of a virus (usually something on the order of 5-10k base pairs), etc.

If you've ever done any research in this field, the name Craig Venter will pop up. His group transcribed several million base pairs to a computer, edited the code, and then placed the genetic material back into a cell that lacked any genetic material and was able to get the cell to divide. This division was completely controlled by the new genome. Granted, probably not a completely synthetic cell, but it shows the advances that have been made in this field.

I should clarify, the amazing part of his research isn't that he edited DNA, it was that they synthesized the genetic material from chemicals in a lab and then placed it into a cell. The cell was then able to undergo division, a rather complicated process for cells.

The religious right assumes fetuses have human souls in them from conception, and this makes them valued over all else, in all of nature.

At which point does any human fetus gain any developed-enough gray-matter to process intelligence, to justify a human, moralizing, sentient soul to enter the fetus? Until then is the spirituality or intelligence of the human fetus, no more than any other unborn fetus of any other mammal?

I have yet for any religious person give me a measurably verifiable answer to these simple philosophical or biological questions of early human development and how the human mind or cognitive capabilities works in a fetus and its relation to the possession or existence of a 'soul'.

doggysaywhat: You're right it is a grey issue. It's interesting that you bring up synthetic biology - I actually did a synthetic biology research project in undergrad (or I should say I was one of about 15 people working on it and it was not my main area of research). You're right Craig Venter's research was amazing. My undergrad degree is biology with a health sciences emphasis, and I have two minors - one in chemistry and one in Spanish. I'm now in medical school and I've done some research in med school - but, not related to synthetic biology (instead, my research has been microbiology and disease related).

Answer this question - "It's ok to kill a baby in it's mothers womb, when?"

www.180movie.com

will - There isn't a baby in the mother's womb - there is a fetus. That said, imo, abortion should be 100% up to the mother until viability. After viability, an abortion should only be allowed in cases of medical necessity (either the mother's life or the fetus has severe fetal anomaly that wasn't discovered until late in the pregnancy) or in cases of rape.

Give It A Rest! -

Yes, I called you a jackass. But, in my defense, only because you display the signs of jackassery. See? It's a response to your writing, and the guidelines seem to me more about ad-hominem attacks instead of insults. So, basically, if I had called you a jackass from the start without giving reason and then proceeded to dismiss anything you said because I had determined your jackassitude, that would violate the terms. However, calling a person a moron because they make an ignorant, bloviated comment should not be against the terms, at least as I've read them. But who knows, maybe some prude will come along and give me a 1-day or 1-week or permaban. Good for you, you can have a cookie.

As far as your argument goes, well, a cancer cell has unique DNA in it. So, you are now required to carry all cancerous cells that originate in your body until they have reached maturity. See how that works?

For Summer. Interesting. I moved towards biology after an undergraduate in physics. Decided I couldn't really see myself doing something in physics... quantum mechanics was just too strange. But, after that, I decided to shift into biology, specifically bioinformatics. I ended up working for a research institute as a lab tech and then research associate and finally decided to go back to school to work on a post doc in bioinformatics. Started working on projects related to HIV now.

Janstince: Very nice use of the word "jackass". I like all of the modifiers. I know how cancer works. Thank you. My grandmother died from cancer. I'll be attending a funeral within a month for a friend with cancer. I just found out yesterday. See ya'll later.

PS. Live everyday like it's your last one on Earth. Who knows, a bus might run you over tomorrow. Enjoy life while you can.

To all you people who keep asking "when does 'life' begin?" I can tell you the answer is very simple.

When we look at a newborn on the day of his/her birth, do we say the baby is nine months and one day old or do we say the baby is a day old? When we see a 1 year old child, do we say the child is 1 year 9 months old, etc.? NO! There is your answer. Life starts when the fetus no longer needs to sustain itself on the mothers' BLOOD (which is where it gets its' nutrients) or be carried in the womb.

Those of you who foolishly believe conception is the start of life seriously need to take a look at what exactly you are saying. I seriously doubt you go around showing off your kid saying they are such-and-such year and 9 months.

Can a newborn live on it's own without support. Can it feed itself, clean itself, etc. Does that make it non-viable because it must depend on it's mother for life? Why not make it legal to kill babies until they are old enough to provide for themselves? The Nazi's used the excuse that Jews were not "viable human beings" and killed 11 to 17 million people. We say that an unborn baby is not "viable" and have killed over 50 million of our most innocent in the US alone. Call it whatever you want to ease your conscience, it's stll a life.

will, viability refers to when the organism is able to maintain biochemical processes and physiological processes on its own - in other words, (when talking about the human fetus), when it can survive outside the womb. Viability has nothing to do with the care the baby requires after it's born.

That's because all that other stuff is HARD. It's easier to just saw off womens rights until you're left with a stump. Mission Accomplished

Well, it's not the ONLY thing they're good at. They're pro's at screwing over Mexicans, Muslims, and gays, as well. You know, anyone that isn't straight, white, and Christian.

Nope. I lived in Alabama for 18 years. It's all true and I've seen it too many times to believe otherwise. GOP needs some serious help.

Lego,

Are you denying that the GOP/TP has made active attempts at both the state and federal level, to limit the rights of those groups of people? It isn't bashing, if it's the truth...

Women-

Personhood Amendments, limiting the definition of rape in the Hyde Amendment, defunding of Planned Parenthood.

Gays-

Proposition 8 (CA), Amendment 1 (NC), iniatives to over turn gay marriage by putting in on the ballot in numerous states, defense of DOMA.

Mexicans-

SB1070 and its equivalent in Alabama, Utah, and other states.

Muslims-

The TN county trying to block the building of a Mosque, support of domestic espionage within Mosques, Rep. King.

Sarah, as usual spouting your ignorance and pretending that you don't know when Humanity begins. There is no scientific evidence needed, just common sense, if the outcome of the pregnancy is a HUMAN BEING, it is a HUMAN BEING the entire pregnancy, not just towards the end. So the gov't can let women tear their babies from their wombs limb from limb because it's her "choice" and "her body". However her body is not being destroyed and her life is not being ended, how can it be a mother's choice to let her baby live or die? Again, it's not always black & white but this needs major reform and greater restrictions.

She should..BS!!

from sheshouldbekilled (post #3.6)

Sarah, as usual spouting your ignorance and pretending that you don't know when Humanity begins. There is no scientific evidence needed, just common sense, if the outcome of the pregnancy is a HUMAN BEING, it is a HUMAN BEING the entire pregnancy, not just towards the end.

This post is a total lie. Let me explain homeostasis.

Endothermic mammals (i.e., warm-blooded), such as humans, need to maintain the proper balance of alkalinity and acidity in the blood (pH), need to regulate blood glucose for dynamic equilibrium, and need to maintain a nearly constant body temperature, which requires lots of energy to produce internal heat. (That’s why we like to eat.) This requires multiply redundant control systems.

In order to be called “viable”, an organism in utero must be capable of regulating its own internal environment. If it cannot do that, it is not “warm-blooded”, so it cannot be a “pre-existing human” because it would be just like an ectothermic animal (cold-blooded, like snakes and lizards).

So until the puddle (which is what an organism is at the moment of conception) develops the self-regulating capacity of homeostasis, it is NOT human, nor could it be called “alive”. A blastocyst is not a living organism.

sheshouldbekilled, perhaps you should aim your name calling at yourself instead of Sarah,since you've put your ignorance on display for all to see.

The Suprime Court accepted the humanity of the preborn in Roe vs. Wade. That is why it made such a stink over the difference between a human and a person. More than a hundred years ago, the Supreme Court of the day made basically the same decision for basically the same reason in the Dred Scott case. So it is now settled law in both cases !!! Uh, what was that you said over there??? ??? ??? My gosh !!!

Let's settle this divisive issue of when life begins once and for all, shall we?

When the kids graduate college and the dog dies, THAT'S WHEN LIFE BEGINS!!

SheShould,

I didn't know the definition of ignorance was, NOT using an unproven belief to infringe on the privacy and rights of others.

Sarah...still not making sense.

Jim.....whatever you are saying is moot, if the end result is a human life, it is a human life the entire way through, not when the person can regulate its own temperature, that is absolutely ridiculous to imply that it is not a Human Being simply because it cannot regulate its own temperature in utero, it is life, at a certain stage, doesn't mean it's not a life.

thfan...thanks for your elaborate post, just proves my point that liberals can never make one single valid argument to justify the murder of the innocent unborn children.

SheShould,

See, I think you've confused belief, with fact. Your simply saying that a fetus is a baby, or a human life, doesn't prove it. Your simply saying Jim's point is ridiculous doesn't make it ridiculous.

Jim's point, is a little something the rest of the world calls SCIENCE. As opposed to what you're posting, which is BELIEF.

If you want to infringe on my rights, please prove to me, through credible science, that a fetus equals a baby. And remember, your simply saying that it does because.. "What else could it possibly be" isn't credible science.

sheshouldbekilled -

If you remove the puddle at the moment of conception, it would look exactly like a glob of semen. In fact, you couldn't tell the difference between a product of recent conception and a puddle of semen.

Most eggs that get fertilized fail the implantation and pass right out of the body just like normal menstrual blood. The woman never knows the difference. Some fertilized eggs implant in the wrong place (like in a tubal pregnancy, which can be very dangerous). Some more eggs actually implant successfully but fail the mitosis process. This simply results in a different kind of "period", or perhaps one "a little out of sequence". But the eggs that do everything correctly can still be aborted by the body itself - it's called a miscarriage. So regardless of what you think, millions of abortions are performed by Mother Nature (or God perhaps) every single day.

But thanks for your elaborate post, just proves my point that conservatives can never make one single valid argument to justify the murder of the innocent women, which is exactly what this monstrosity of a bill will do.

Yep it will go to the old days there the woman getting the baby yanked out of her or beat out of her.. Falling down the steps etc.

They can still go to another state maybe . So sad that ppl can not even make their own deciscion.

How many drama queens can fit on this site? Some of you take exaggeration to a new level. They simply pay the fees associated with being board certified and obtaining hospital admitting privileges. In most states, those are already requirements. No need to overreact.

@myspellcheckerisbroken...might help to read the article... the hospitals are refusing them admitting privileges, this law is an illegal end-run around a constitutionally protected right.

but in a way, you're right, this doesn't mean a return to coathangers...except for the poorest of the poor....what it means is the local drug dealers will now carry RU 486 and other drugs intended to keep a woman from carrying to term, and those that are caught trying to exercise their right to terminate a pregnancy will be charged with homicide. the far right readily admits that this is the goal, to imprison doctors and women who do not belong to the christian far right taliban.

@sikchimp

Who is this Christian far right taliban you speak of? If you have that going on in your area, might want to consider a move.

It also might help for you to read the article. The lawsuit is not against the hospital. If it were, then they have a case. However, these requirements have already been eastablished in other areas, which means if they pay the fees and comply, then they are good to continue. It really is that simple. No need for the drama, but I suspect drama will bring them much needed attention.

I believe they are on rotation by weeks and actual abortions are only performed one day a week.

Jackson is close to the border, so the doctors could easily live in another state. Also the doctors may only work at the clinic occasionally, that may not be their only practice.

Uh, no, Enough-2735007, Jackson is smack in the middle of the state. My guess is that those women wishing to abort would have to travel to either Shreveport, Baton Rouge, or New Orleans LA, Memphis TN, or Mobile AL to have that procedure done.

But why should they have to? Roe v. Wade = the law of the land. Period. . .

Private, I assure we're not all backwards redneck tea party types. There are a lot of good things about Mississippi and Mississippians but more than anything, we need better education and economic programs to help the state along. Obviously lawmakers here are not worried about that, only pandering to their ignorant uber-conservative base.

They sure are, protesters at these clinics are insane.

they would say it was the thirteen year olds fault for seducing the guy and call her a slut

And tie her tubes without telling her because she's promiscuous.

It's the South... Religion rules all. I live here, so I can say that. It's truly sad...

ED from FL: Why can't the two teenage boys be concerned? If all or even most other males were equaly concerned NO or only very few women whould have to face the agonizing decision.

Don't muddle up the 'it's my body' conversation with facts!

Stand by for the 'other procedures done as an outpatient do not have the same requirement...they're picking on WOMEN!' battle cry.

I think they should repeal that law and let women have abortions at their own risk. If there's a complication...they are on their own because the Dr's at this clinic are only there to perform abortions and don't care to follow you and your complications to ANY nearby hospital.

To Ralph 1100638, apparently the local doctors have become unwilling to perform abortions at a stand-alone clinic due to intimidation from the local terrorists anti-choicers waging a war against women and their bodies. Don't forget the number of doctors and clinic workers who have been murdered in shootings and clinic bombings by so-called "Right to Lifers." And, the local hospitals are unwilling to give admitting privileges to out of state doctors for political reasons. Don't be fooled by the false claims that these onerous restrictions are for any purpose in any way related to health and safety - they are purely for political reasons, to prevent women from controlling what happens to their own bodies.

The state of Mississippi wants to behave like it's a third-world dictatorship run by the Taliban. Hopefully some people in Washington D.C. with a modicum of intelligence who can straighten it out. Having the misfortune to be born into a state controlled by misogynistic morons should not take away all of one's Consitutional and human rights.

Lalaw ----------- Less than a dozen, including the cases where no serious injury took place! Of those who have succeeded in killing or injuring a doctor or clinic worker, ALL perpetrators have been imprisoned or are awaiting trial. One man was executed. Another man is now dead from other causes. The men still living are shunned by the overwhelming majority of prolifers who disapproved of their actions. When they said "Do not kill." they meant "Do not kill." Now, contrast that with fifty million abortions and dozens of maternal deaths plus many dozens of serious but non-fatal injuries. BTW, injuries to picketers by clinic personel are quite common. It is also common for the police to stand by and watch. An abortion lover might feel this is alright, but one of the many irritating facets of the law is that no matter how much proabortion people hate prolifers, it is still illegal for the former to attack the latter.

To Ralph 1100638, apparently the local doctors have become unwilling to perform abortions at a stand-alone clinic due to intimidation from the local terrorists anti-choicers waging a war against women and their bodies. Don't forget the number of doctors and clinic workers who have been murdered in shootings and clinic bombings by so-called "Right to Lifers."

I believe the local terrorists anti-choicers as you call them are exercising their rights. It's ok to label any right to lifer and claim that it's their 'type' that murder doctors and clinic workers.

And, the local hospitals are unwilling to give admitting privileges to out of state doctors for political reasons.

Dr.'s choose which hospitals they want to have 'admitting privileges' in. They must follow the requirements of those hospitals and state laws. What's political about that? Why can't this clinic find a Dr. from one of these hospitals to become a member of their staff? Abortion is a legal procedure. Wait, it's the terrorists fault right? It has nothing to do with the clinic itself, it's policies, it's treatment facilities...liability insurance costs.

Don't be fooled by the false claims that these onerous restrictions are for any purpose in any way related to health and safety - they are purely for political reasons, to prevent women from controlling what happens to their own bodies.

Not releated to health and safety? If a complication arises, that Dr. can follow their patient to the hospital for proper facilities to continue treating their patient. Oh...wait, I forgot. They only want to perform abortions and if complications arise, you're on your own. Isn't that similar to the back alley abortion facilities?

The state of Mississippi wants to behave like it's a third-world dictatorship run by the Taliban. Hopefully some people in Washington D.C. with a modicum of intelligence who can straighten it out. Having the misfortune to be born into a state controlled by misogynistic morons should not take away all of one's Consitutional and human rights.

The state is filled with a bunch of women hating morons? Third wold taliban? The clinic isn't responsible? OK, repeal the law...allow this back alley clinic to continue it's abortions because it's all about a woman's rights. All patients must sign a wavier stating they will never sue the state.

Yeah, Matilda, and what would we do with those extra 50 million - many from low socioeconomic and educational backgrounds - to say nothing of their exponentially increasing descendants? Where will they work? How will they afford a decent place to live? How will the world sustain the excess population? Soylent Green?

It never ceases to amaze and amuse me that pro-lifers care so much about embryos and fetuses but so little about the quality of life most of the people, unwanted by their parents, would have to endure.

There are many couples who cannot have children of their own who are willing to adopt. I know, it will inconveinence the woman while she awaits the birth of 'something' she could have terminated without going through all the fuss.

Well, where are they then? Where are the crowds of people lining up to adopt? There are thousands of children waiting.

It's ridiculous... You should see the mega churches here... Millions and millions of dollars put into churches... I guess that's where their calling is!

Yee-Haw! We get them abortion at that basement out by the old Baptist church! She'll do it good, and cheap!

I live in the South, I can say that! F$&k, I miss being up North... :(

They dont consider a fetus until fully emerged from the womb alive so therefore 0 deaths.

You can't die if you've never been born.

Mississippi also leads the nation in teenage pregnancy rates. So apparently there aren't enough abortions done there!