I’ve been reading about Ron Paul. Not the newsletters. Ron Paul has such an enormous body of statements and work in the non-profit public realm that there really aren’t enough hours in the day to pursue any additional inquiry into his entrepreneurial endeavors. Because this was big news in Ohio yesterday:
The Ohio Personhood Amendment will insert Section 16(b):
“Person” and “men” defined:
(A) The words “person” in Article 1, Section 16, and “men” in Article 1, Section 1, apply to every human being at every stage of the biological development of that human being or human organism, including fertilization.
(B) Nothing in this Section shall affect genuine contraception that acts solely by preventing the creation of a new human being; or human “eggs” or oocytes prior to the beginning of the life of a new human being; or reproductive technology or In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) procedures that respect the right to life of newly created human beings.
I was looking at this:
H. R. 2533
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 20, 2009
Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. BARTLETT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2009′.
SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.
(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.
(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress–
(1) the Congress declares that–
(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(B) the term `person’ shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
(a) In General- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation
`Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, 1257, and 1258, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof–
`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates–
`(A) the performance of abortions; or
`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.’
Here, from Jill Lepore’s excellent Planned Parenthood piece in the New Yorker, is what “no one wants to talk about”:
Lately, human-life amendments have been supplanted by personhood amendments, one of which appeared on the ballot in Mississippi this month. The Mississippi amendment reads, “The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization.” Personhood amendments could be interpreted to make several forms of birth control illegal, challenging not only Roe v. Wade but also Griswold v. Connecticut, which placed contraception under the protection of a constitutional right to privacy.
If a fertilized egg has constitutional rights, women cannot have equal rights with men. This, however, is exactly what no one wants to talk about, because it’s complicated, and it’s proved surprisingly easy to use the issue to political advantage.
She’s right. Conservatives and libertarians can seat as many round tables as they care to, but they can’t dodge this simple truth: if a fertilized egg has constitutional rights, women cannot have equal rights with men.
OzoneR
The thing that surprises me about Ron Paul supporters is how quickly they abandon other issues they claim to care about when they find out the truth about him.
I watched someone go from pro-choice to pro-life upon finding out Ron Paul doesn’t support abortion rights. “Well, maybe abortion isn’t a good idea to have legal”
I’ve seen someone turn into an anti-UN isolationist nutball even though he was part of “Save Darfur” 10 years ago. It’s crazy.
The cult of personality will destroy this country.
Trentrunner
If women want equal rights, they can always have their uteruses removed.
As long as they provide men with untrammeled access to their vaginas, it’s all good.
Amirite?
kay
@OzoneR:
I think Ohio Republicans want the personhood amendment on the ballot for the same reason they wanted the state constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage on the ballot. Because it brings out fundamentalist religious.
I have no idea how Ron Paul’s bill squares with anything else he says about abortion. Is he redefining “person” at the federal level and then insisting he’s leaving it up to the states? WTF?
Mnemosyne
I swear to God, any state that actually passes one of these amendments is getting a monthly shipment of my used pads with a request that they examine them to make sure I haven’t accidentally discarded any “persons” that month.
Fortunately, even the citizens of Mississippi weren’t wingnutty enough to fall for this one.
Mark S.
What happens if a woman would die if she didn’t have an abortion (like an ectopic pregnancy)? Since the fetus is a person, I guess you just have to let nature take its course.
Marc
Of course, some of them may not want to dodge that simple truth.
MOORE AWARD!
kay
@Trentrunner:
I work in juvenile courts and I cannot imagine the legal horror of a fertilized egg “person” and a woman/girl “person”, in the same body.
Cannot imagine. It’s the slippery slope to trump all other slippery slopes.
kay
@Mark S.:
Is the fertilized egg a minor or an adult person? Seat a roundtable, stat.
WaterGirl
Shaking my head in disbelief, as I have done so many times this year. They never quit; it’s mind boggling.
BTW, if anyone is trying to make an on-line donation to Elizabeth Warren today, please don’t be deterred if, as happened to me, they find (non-existent) errors in your information. Just close the browser window and start again.
Also, two great causes if you have any tax-deductible year-end giving left to do:
Amnesty International – all gifts are being tripled today
Southern Poverty Law Center – all gifts up to 800k are being matched today
Mnemosyne
@Mark S.:
I stopped watching House when they presented the ending of an ectopic pregnancy as some kind of huge moral dilemma for the doctors. WTF was the dilemma, only being allowed to end one life instead of getting to kill both patient and embryo?
Mark S.
@kay:
That’s a good idea, but we need to make sure that the participants are all of Hayekian modesty and Burkean temperament. White men, of course, not biased by uteruses or melanin.
Think David Brooks giving a seminar in Aspen.
mythago
The thing that surprises me about Ron Paul supporters is how quickly they abandon other issues they claim to care about when they find out the truth about him.
This. They shift quickly from ‘civil libertarian’ to ‘supports many important liberties’ to ‘supports checks on overreaching federal power’ to ‘all right, but you have to admit he’s better than Obama on Guantanamo’. He’s the No-Bullshit Wealthy White Dude they’d all picture themselves as, if only they were Presidential candidates.
timo
Start piling on amendments holding corporations responsible for harm to the “persons” through pollution, secondhand smoke etc. hold restaurants and bars responsible for selling alcohol to pregnant women under the underage drinking laws.
Mark S.
Semi-OT, but a couple weeks ago I read a guy who talked about how traumatic it was for him when his ex-girlfriend decided to abort their baby, and how this made him bitter, etc, etc. I could see being disappointed, but would you really want the mother of your child being someone who doesn’t want to be one? Wouldn’t you rather have a child with someone who wanted to be a mother?
Canuckistani Tom
And of course, once this passes, someone’ll realize that there’s no way to prove that any woman between say 14 and 45 isn’t a few days pregnant, so we’d better not let them drive or work, cuz that stress wouldn’t be good for the baby.
And if they don’t go to work, then why do we need to send little girls to school?
And UV probably isn’t good for babies either, so when they leave the house women should probably be covered from head to toe…
Does this sound familiar?
Pro life=Pro Sharia. Makes a great bumpersticker.
BarbCat
@Mark S.: That. Spread the word.
slag
@Mark S.:
Exactly. When in doubt, return to Default settings.
Svensker
@Mark S.:
IIRC a number of Catholic hospitals (or maybe all of them) have been exempted from having to perform abortions on women with life threatening pregnancies, such as ectopic, even if there is no chance that the fetus can grow to term, again such as ectopic. They also do not have to refer the woman to another hospital that will perform this life saving procedure. The “personhood” folks would like to extend this to everyone.
Bastids.
Mnemosyne
@Svensker:
IIRC, there’s some weird provision for ectopic pregnancies at Catholic hospitals that if ending the ectopic pregnancy requires removal of a fallopian tube, it’s okay for them to do it, but they’re not allowed to use less invasive means like RU-486 that might better preserve the woman’s fertility.
Revrick
Every anti-abortion law and regulation is based on the principle that women aren’t really persons with moral autonomy, but inferior beings who must be coerced, if necessary, to do what others believe they should. I’m a UCC clergy, BTW, and my denomination came out in favor of a women’s right to choose in 1971, two years before Roe v. Wade.
The anti abortion crowd reveals their true colors when they insist that the women who have abortions shouldn’t be punished, because they’re ‘victims.’ They can’t see women as independent moral agents; for them, women only exist to serve others.
Mark S.
@Svensker:
This article is when I stopped giving a shit about anything the Catholic Church had to say about anything:
Nun Excommunicated For Allowing Abortion
What a bunch of morally deranged monsters.
Sophia
The thing that no one wants to talk about has been frustrating me for years in discussions of Roe v. Wade and the common understanding that overturning it would just return the question to the states. I have repeatedly asked people to outline how they see Roe v. Wade being overturned without SCOTUS concluding that a fetus is a person under the 14th amendment. I just don’t see it.
And it would be an absolute nightmare. Kay is very right about juvenile courts. Can you imagine a world in which people could hotline pregnant ladies for drinking caffeine?
Stacy
@Svesker
Well it is the woman’s fault for having a dysfunctional fallopian tube so it’s only God’s will. I mean if she’s not going to die for her “child” than at least she’s has paid a huge price.
dmbeaster
@Mark S.: The article you link also quotes someone who contrasts the instant excommunication of the nun (who allowed the abortion to save the life of the mother, believing that existing rules of the church allowed it) with the coddling of pedophile priests. No moral compass guides those people.
kay
@Revrick:
I think so too. I think it goes to the idea of agency. The kindler, gentler pro-life laws are scarier to me than the older, punishing model, because at least the older model granted women the agency to be bad actors.
If I read the newer versions, the woman is simply absent. She’s not there. There’s clause after clause relating to the offending doctor and the fetus, but it’s as if the woman walked in there and was in some kind of trance. It’s spooky.
I think I’d prefer to be addressed in the statute as far as sanctions, because then I at least exist.
I walked in. I sought this procedure. I exerted free will and made a decision. If we’re adults, and we’re not responsible for our actions, as in the newer laws, that’s a HUGE step backward.
Drum Circles And Weed
This is nothing more than red meat thrown to the under median IQ crowd to boost voter turnout. It also help to ratchet up the culture wars to render the country even more polarized and (bonus for them) more ungovernable.
Somebody needs to figure out how to stop this culture war shit dead in its tracks. Until that happens, we’ll just keep sliding down a greased slide to hell while the 1% sit back and laugh at their dancing puppets. I blame voters, myself, for being too stupid to comprehend how obviously they’re being played.
Cargo
Read “It can’t happen here” by Sinclair Lewis, and then everything Ron Paul says and does will become clear. I’m frankly terrified of a Ron Paul presidency.
cmorenc
@Sophia: @Sophia:
Unfortunately, you’re wrong about that. All it requires is for Scalia and Thomas to finally prevail in their view that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided because its precursor Griswold v Connecticut was wrong in attempting to create a “right of privacy” in the federal constitution that according to Scalia’s view of “originalism”, was never there in the first place. Therefore, it’s purely up to state constitutional or statutory law (and to the extent of federal power, federal statutory law) to determine such things as what decisions about fertilized embryos are constrained by state law (or federal law) and which are left to people’s own discretion.
They never have to reach the question you think they do, because it’s not one they’re required to address at all once they deny there’s any federal constitutional right to individual privacy about such decisions. Yes, the practical implication is that several state legislatures will leap quickly into the breach, but the court will wash their hands of it, except for statutory interpretation.
JGabriel
OT, but according to Newsmax: Dead Reagan Is Endorsing Newt.
You can’t see it on the linked page, but Newsmax is putting up ads all over the place that say, “Reagan’s Pick For 2012? See It Here,” accompanied by the smiling old man grimace of Ronnie hisself.
The link takes you to a half-hour extravaganza of Michael Reagan — presumably because he kept up good speaking relations with Ronnie’s Dessicated Corpse, and therefore knows RDC’s thoughts on the matter — and Newt! talking about wotta great president Newt! would be.
Unfrickinbelievable. And no, I did not watch it. There are some things I just canna’ do.
.
Raven
@Cargo:Read “It can’t happen here” by Frank Zappa!
Punchy
Cargo — The Paultard is 75-1 to win the ‘dency, according to Vegas. That pretty much means it aint happenin….sleep easier tonite
John M. Burt
@Sophia: Sophia, the question is not “Can you imagine a world in which people could hotline pregnant ladies for drinking caffeine?”, nor is it even, “Can you imagine a world in which it is the policy of the Number Two party in the USA to make this possible?”
The question facing us like a maddened zitidar charging in our direction is, “What do we do about living in a world where this is a cold hard reality?”
Josie
If the idea that a fertilized egg is a person stems from a religious belief, isn’t any law that arises from that belief at cross purposes with my religious freedom. What if my religious beliefs are different from the Catholic church or any other? I see this as a constitutional issue based on freedom of religion (or freedom from religion).
kay
@Mark S.:
It’s harsh, but I think he’s going to have to accept reality and understand he can’t divide “his child” from “his ex-girlfriend” for at the very least those 42 weeks. I know it’s tough, because pregnancy really is a unique situation, hence all the agony, but it is reality.
Whatever he thinks about “mine, hers and ours” in other areas doesn’t apply. He really, really needs agreement/consent for at least 42 weeks. I don’t think coercion is going to work, so he should focus on persuasion.
BO_Bill
Balloon Juice and Sean Hannity have identical policy postures towards Ron Paul. I sometimes struggle to figure out which is more intelligently put forth. Hey, this is also the same posture that the Weekly Standard and Rush Limbaugh hold. Golly gee.
This blog will pay for itself, after all.
Mark S.
@JGabriel:
Of all the vile things I’ve ever read about Ronald Reagan, nothing will ever top Michael Reagan’s I saw my dad reborn, only this time as Sarah Palin.
He must have really hated his father to have written that.
Cain
@Trentrunner:
They would be labeled as terrorists. Removing teh abilty to have birth will only cause fear in men.
Cain
I would also submit that if upon conception the person conceiving should also pay taxes. Let’s see how that works for some of those evangelicals when they start paying taxes way earlier than expected.
(I don’t actually support this, it is snark)
Lojasmo
@BO_Bill:
They all think he’s a racist, lying sack of shit?
Doubtful.
Tokyokie
Um, I always thought that was the point.
carpeduum
I think it’s about time for another Cole post bashing Obama for signing the NDAA. That seems to be his pattern. Post a few progressive sounding blogs to soften people up a bit then go for the Dem/Obama concern trolling.
I guess he figures stating what an idiot he was to be a Republican and how that’s all in the past is the best way for him to go right now. Even though he admitted to liking what Ron Paul for Prez Greenwald had to say as early as 2 months ago. Just can’t change those stripes of yours Wrong Again Cole.
dance around in your bones
Just wanted to say that I just dialed up The Blues Brothers on the TV machine….and I suggest y’all do the same.
Nice way to spend the beginning part of New Year’s Eve. Specially if yer grandkids have been driving you CRAZY all day!
I know, the world’s tiniest violin, right? At least I HAVE the little buggers.
P.S. GREAT fucking music, too.
kay
@Cain:
The Ron Paul people in the comments under one news story about the law get all hung up on his vastly expanding “person” because they’re worried about “anchor babies”. It’s hysterical. “All persons” in the 14th amendment. They conclude that Ron Paul will fix that by making “person” into “citizen” but just for that one scenario. I don’t know what happens after that. Some fertilized eggs are citizens?
They’re all fucked up on “person”, I’ll tell you. Going around in circles.
Social outcast
So in Paul’s view, the federal government isn’t competent to regulate the economy or decide if global warming is manmade, but it has the skill to determine when life begins?
Think of how difficult it must be for Paul to contort his rapidly depleting supply of brain cells to eliminate that contradiction.
AA+ Bonds
Glenn Greenwald is getting absolutely hammered in the comments section of today’s “But Ron Paul is cool, huh?” story, if you’re interested
Although I’m pretty sure he just wrote it to provoke people and get pageviews, so up to you
Nutella
The personhood amendments would make fetuses persons and women non-persons.
The common counter-example is this: If medical testing indicates that I will die if I don’t get a kidney from you, can I force you to give me the kidney? Obviously not as one person cannot violate the bodily autonomy of another. Hell, we don’t even allow me to offer to buy the kidney from you.
But if we’re talking about the fetal ‘person’ occupying and even killing (in the case of ectopic preganancies) its host organism, then the woman is merely a sub-human container for the fetus.
dance around in your bones
Jake and Elwood!!
I guess I should look for an open thread, shit.
Redshift
@Drum Circles And Weed: The problem is that the modern GOP doesn’t care about governing, so flogging issues where their side cares enough to vote and the other side is more numerous but less motivated works for their only intended use, which is power.
There is some hope that as they keep pushing further, the opposing side actually does care enough to vote. We saw this with the Mississippi personhood amendment. On a smaller scale, a few years back a state legislator here in VA had a bill that would have required women to report miscarriages to the police. A friend of mine blogged about it, it went around blogs for pregnant women and mothers, and became enough of a firestorm that she was on Nightline. The bill was withdrawn, and the legislator made obviously false excuses about his intentions.
So basically, our best hope is overreach and demographics. Sucks in the short term, but they’ve never treated it as a short-term fight, and we can’t either.
Brother Shotgun of Sweet Reason
@dance around in your bones: Saw it about 3 weeks ago, and you’re right about the music. First, they’ve got Cropper and Dunn from Booker T, then Ray Charles, Aretha Franklin, and Cab Calloway!. I have no idea how they got everyone together, but it was great to watch.
Brother Shotgun of Sweet Reason
Feature, not bug.
TomG
And this is one of the many, many reasons why Gary Johnson is a much preferable presidential candidate.
But since he joined the LP, I’m sure coverage of him will be rather scarce around here.
dmbeaster
@AA+ Bonds: It is pretty clear that GG is a full-on Paulite, and openly supports Paul over Obama. GG has always been into hyperbolic overstatement to make his points, and I doubt that behavior is intentional to drive page views. He does the same concerning this issue, but it pretty clearly represents sincere belief.
I used to read his stuff, and as an absolutist advocating on personal liberty issues in the era of Bush excess, his voice was valuable. Like the ACLU, there is always a place for such people, even if you dont always agree with their absolutist approach on resolving those issues.
But his advocacy for Paul suggests a derangement resulting from that mindset. It will be hard to read anything of his in the future given the idiocy of his support for Paul.
Ruckus
@Social outcast:
Rapidly disappearing brain cells. No kidding. Fucker is 76 years old. As someone fast approaching geezerhood myself that is just too old to be president. In his case about 76 years too old but still.
Gustopher
Wouldn’t this also end corporate personhood?
AA+ Bonds
@dmbeaster:
He simply seems to deny to himself that there is any consequence whatsoever for supporting a far-right movement if they also share his point of view on some issues.
He appears to think that because Ron Paul won’t get elected, mainstreaming the Ron Paul movement won’t harm America and ultimately Greenwald himself.
He’s wrong.
Consumer Unit 5012
@Social outcast: In my experience, Republicans are PERFECTLY happy to trust the Big Bad Government with the power of life and death, just not with MONEY. Indeed, it seems like the parts of the government that (intentionally) kill people are the only parts of it that they like.
Go figure.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@TomG:
You mean the Gary Johnson who recently announced his support for Ron Paul as the Republican nominee? That Gary Johnson?
Yes, that shows that Johnson has the skills to be President, which must be similar to the skills that he thinks he has.
Or not.
Canuckistani Tom
@Brother Shotgun of Sweet Reason:
Gave it to my brother for Christmas. I’ve always wondered: If he had lived long enough, would Elvis had been in it?
kay
Gustopher, no it would’nt end corporate personhood.
It simply expand “person”. There’s nothing exclusionary in there.
“Person” has a definition in statutes, It starts at birth.
Go to your state code and start replacing “person” with this definition. I think you’ll soon realize this is huge. It would be breathtaking in scope,, just looking at it straight, without the pro-life mushiness and minimizing ….marketing efforts.
Just do a straight reading, and think about what would have to change.
kay
Or, Gustopher, look at laws that limit or ban late-term abortions
Compare the (narrow) language in those with redefining “person”.
This is a universe bigger than restrictions. It’s a vast expansion. The two aren’t even comparable.
dance around in your bones
@Brother Shotgun of Sweet Reason:
I just had to start it up again (THANK YOU, GAWD O NETFLIX!) because the aforementioned grandkids got me sidetracked into something called ‘The Annoying Orange’?
But dang, the music in Blues Brothers is stellar.
PLUS-they’re on a Mission From Gawd. hahhaahhahahaha
dance around in your bones
@BO_Bill: Fuck OFF, MAN.
liberal
@Mark S.:
In the dust-up following some Catholic medical institution excommunicating a nun (IIRC) who insisted a pregnancy be terminated to save a woman’s life, I was reading around the Tubes and chanced upon some blog comment thread. (I think it was a Church of England big-wig weighing in on these things (on the side of reason).)
Some Catholic pervert commenter was trying to justify why it was OK to excomm the nun, and at the same time OK not to excomm priests who diddled young children.
I use the work “pervert” here advisedly; you have to have a perverted moral compass to express claims like that.
liberal
@Revrick:
I thought it’s a political calculation: the doctors are the weak link, whereas everyone will be pissed off if they criminalize the woman’s actions.
b-psycho
@AA+ Bonds: Sure, if by hammering those people mean missing his point.
If the issues Glenn talks about that Ron Paul is more preferable on are important to liberals who otherwise vehemently disagree with him on other issues, the answer is simple: try harder at backing candidates that are with them on those issues, and opposing candidates that are not.
There was a Dem candidate with those views who was with them on other policy in 2008. Problem is, it was Dennis Kucinich.
Thatgaljill
At what point is someone going to recognize (and repeat it EVERY FREAKING TIME THIS COMES UP) that a fertilized egg does not a pregnancy make. Seriously, ask what has to be the millions of couples who have gone through IVF to not have the embryos viably implant for a successful pregnancy.
Beyond that, have the humanity to acknowledge that not every pregnancy is going to come to a successful conclusion and stop making women feel even crappier when a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy takes place.
SHEESH!
BruinKid
@AA+ Bonds: I want to see ABL debate Greenwald on TV. Rachel, Keith, Cenk, someone, make it happen. :-)
Sophia
@cmorenc:
It’s been a few years since I reviewed all the cases, so forgive me for not properly defending myself with a fuller argument. It’s not that Scalia/Thomas can’t find a way to revert it back to the states. It’s that they’re more likely to get the votes to prevail on personhood. Kennedy is far more attached to the right to privacy (see sodomy) than he is to the idea that women don’t need to have someone looking after their better interests.
Triassic Sands
With rights come responsibilities. So, how about a human fetal responsibilities amendment? If a fetus has all the rights of an adult, then it should be able to pay for its own delivery, not to mention food and clothing. As soon as the little buggers pay their own way, they get all their rights. And women ought to be able to charge rent for the duration of gestation.
(Hmm, sounds like something that a right wing mind would think up. The wingers are, after all, big on responsibility, right?)
contessakitty (AKA Karen)
Hmmm… condoms would be illegal because we’re stopping conception from happening. Jerking off would be illegal too because you’re wasting all those sperm and eggs. Guess blow jobs and anal sex whether it’s homosexual or heterosexual would mean jail time too.
Would there be sex police? Forced taking of a woman’s body temperature to see when she’s at her most fertile and if a baby isn’t conceived then it would be assumed that she used illegal birth control. And if the married couple (because, come on, that marriage only legal sex thing is implied isn’t it?) decided only to have sex when the woman isn’t at her fertile time of month then that would be illegal too. Sex without procreation.
That would make the rhythm method illegal too.
Let’s see…I wonder what will happen to infertile women? Will they have to be examined by Fundamentalist pro-life doctors to be sure that it was a natural occurrence and not caused by anything the women did? What if they determine that it’s Satan that made it happen so the women should serve her eternal penance? And if it is a natural occurrence once she can’t have kids anymore, what’s the purpose of her life? Should she be allowed to live and divert needed resources away from GOOD women who can have kids?
And once they’re too old to be fertile, as long as they provided one child, the couple can live in peace.
Oh wait…the man will be rewarded somehow I’m sure if he marries a younger woman who can have kids.
But all this is ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
If they’re not the “wrong” sort of people. You know, white Christians.
Oh the personhood law would still apply to the others, why not jail as many of them as possible? They just wouldn’t get any incentive to procreate.
Yes it all sounds ridiculous but so does the personhood bill.
SuzieC
If a fertilized egg is a person, does it have the right to vote? Who would cast its vote? Logically, its human incubator. Pregnant women get two votes. Law of unintended consequences?
lawguy
@kay: That may be, but one can hope that Ohio has changed since 2004. At any rate given the various candidates who are running it will give me a reason to work in the next election, even if it is only against and not for something.
McJulie
The philosophical underpinning is about rights vs. responsibilities. The left believes that you have responsibilities regarding your property and rights regarding your physical personhood. The right believes that you have responsibilities regarding your physical personhood and rights regarding your property.
Of course, the traditional thinking that underscores the right wing view holds a child to be property… of its father.
This is why their thinking on the issue is so logically inconsistent. They use the language of “personhood” but they don’t actually respect personhood. They use that argument to attempt to trick wishy-washy liberals into getting on board. It’s purely a bait-and-switch.
What they want is to enforce the view that the fetus is the property of its father, which is why the woman carrying it absolutely cannot be the one to decide what to do with it. Also, this is why their attempts to block abortion tend to be things like “parental consent” laws.
It’s not about stopping abortion at all. It’s about restoring the “proper” order regarding who gets to decide.
stevestory
does anybody who comments @so and so “This” actually imagine that 99% of us have any idea what you’re talking about? We don’t, and you’re tards. You might as well just type ‘please ignore this worthless comment’.
at least the posters here are generally intelligent, if half the commenters are tards.