Comments on: Op-Ed: Life and Law — The commitment to pre-embryonic personhood

By: Mercer & Shorter, Mississippi Baptists & Personhood and Celebrating the Reformation | the big daddy weave

Fri, 04 Nov 2011 02:12:46 +0000

[...] Convention’s (MBC) support of the controversial Personhood Amendment. This amendment, according to a law professor at (ironically) MBC-supported Mississippi College, would likely outlaw not only abortion but also [...]

By: Travis

Travis — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:27:24 +0000

The language of Amendment 26 does not “outlaw abortion”. It simply gives an unborn child the same rights as any other person. A doctor has a duty to save this child’s life, as well as the life of the mother. As mentioned in the article, the law will not prohibit saving the life of a mother during an ectopic or otherwise life-threatening pregnancy.
If the amendment is passed, miscarriages can be treated as death by natural causes, and will not require an extensive amount of time or money. As for IVF, only non-injected fertilized eggs would be subject to the amendment. But personally, I believe that saving the lives of millions of aborted children is worth the sacrifice of not offering the procedure.
This amendment is about doing what is right, not what is convenient.

By: Anna

Anna — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:17:41 +0000

Contraception (which refers to the prevention of fertilization) includes barrier methods, such as condoms or diaphragm, injectable contraceptives, and hormonal contraception, also known as oral contraception or the pill. IUDs work after fertilization, and before implantation, which could be outlawed under amendment 26. In America, 62% of the 62 million women aged 15–44 are currently using some method of birth control and 31% are infertile. Only 5.5% of those using a prevention method choose IUD, the use of which in Mississippi is less than in any other state.
I said all this to say, Amendment 26 will not have a significant impact on the use of birth control.

By: Alfred Martin

Alfred Martin — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 02:26:43 +0000

Very well said, Misty. I may steal it if that’s alright. I agree that there are implications, but the mothers that this would supposedly be bad for, if it is at all, are a miniscule percentage of the millions of lives saved if abortion were outlawed.

By: misty snyder

misty snyder — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 03:13:24 +0000

Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic states, “By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.” Dr. Jerome Lejeune, “The Father of Modern Genetics” states, “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion…it is plain experimental evidence.” Dr. Albert Liley, the renowned physiologist known as the “Father of Fetology” states, “Biologically, at no stage of development can we subscribe to the view that the unborn child is a mere appendage of the mother. Genetically, the mother and baby are separate individuals from conception.”

Whether the amendment is true or not should be our basis for voting, not what we think it may or may not do. Our laws should be based on truth not pragmatism.The amendment in and of itself does not make laws. It defines a word in our state constitution, and this should affect our laws.

Life begins at conception. If we decide to distinguish between the beginning of human life and the beginning of “personhood”, I would like to know on what basis the decision would be made. We have killed 53 million babies. If we loose something to stop this, so be it. (In saying that, I do not intend to lend credence to the hypothetical outcomes of the amendment.) If you say that you want abortion to end, here is your opportunity. If you think there is a better way, please remember that for 38 years ways other than declaring the personhood of the unborn have been tried, and 53 million lives later here we are…..

As an aside, I would hope that a law school at a Christian college would teach that law should be based in truth, biblical truth.

By: Amarette

Amarette — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 23:59:52 +0000

Mike,

You seem to be confusing MC LAW School with a theological Seminary. If the Baptists (I am one) did not pay Prof. Will to teach exactly what he is saying here, then the Baptists would be sending lawyers in the world that are very poor critical thinkers and will fail in their careers.

I despise abortion. However, this law does not say a single word about abortion. How can you assume it will stop abortion but simultaneously not effect every other instance a fertilized egg could be destroyed?

That is all Will is talking about. What is so controversial about discussing all the different things you can’t do with fertilized eggs when they are considered people?

By: Mike Rasberry

Mike Rasberry — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:27:23 +0000

Elizabeth Feder Hosey,
The naivete of those writing here is entirely within the body of those who oppose 26. It reveals a desire to parse every phrase with the presupposition that some nefarious, or careless activity is at work.

I’m extremely disappointed that a Man employed by Mississippi Baptists would demonstrate a seeming preference toward the pro-choice position.

That he and the medicos concur is even greater cause for concern.

By: Elizabeth Feder Hosey

Elizabeth Feder Hosey — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 21:13:51 +0000

The naivete of people like Matt is what this article hopes to address. Hopefully reasonable minds will find this article and vote NO on 26. The language of 26 is very problematic. Not every lay person might understand that. There is a reason why people must attend law school before practicing law. Words are the main substance of our laws, and when the words are careless, our laws will also be careless. Thank you, Will, for your thoughtful article.

By: MS Business Journal Op-Ed :: Parents Against MS 26

MS Business Journal Op-Ed :: Parents Against MS 26 — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 06:38:04 +0000

[...] a great op-ed in the Mississippi Business Journal today on the implications of personhood, written by a MC Law [...]

By: Nicole Bradshaw

Nicole Bradshaw — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 01:44:50 +0000

I find your comments serious food for thought, Mr. Will. I am a parent myself, and though I do not advocate abortion, I will be voting against this amendment. It’s poorly written and far too broad. As previous posters have stated, it will have numerous, far-reaching effects that will take years to sort out via our court system, which will cost taxpayers dearly in both administrative time and scant financial resources. I do not trust our government to limit itself. And since I am of the mind that less, not more, government is preferable, I cannot support this amendment.