I have been doing lots of reading on this and here are a few of things that have caught my attention. First- if you research how many places offer abortion services in MS- there are 2; One in Jackson and one in Hattiesburg. I also did a search of the surrounding states--I will not give numbers on each and every one--however, I will say there are more than 2 in Memphis alone. That takes care of the northern part of MS. For people in the southern part of the state, Alabama has a few that are close enough for them to simply cross over into Alabama. So, I conclude that this amendment will not cut down on the number of abortions in MS. The ambiguity of the amendment seems to leave much open to interpretation, as evidenced by the intensity of the debate.
Second, I have seen the point brought up regarding the rights of the mother’s life as opposed to the rights of the fetus. If the mother’s life is in danger: Should she continue to carry the baby and die? Should the baby either be taken early with the possibility of not surviving, or should the baby be aborted? That is a double edged sword type question. Who’s right’s take precedent? The living breathing mother who possibly has other kids or is a productive member of society, or a baby that is going to have to be cared for by someone else in the event of the mothers death, a baby that may possibly be awarded to the state. (All kinds of theories and possibilities can be the outcome) Point being, that answer should not be mandated by a law but on a case by case basis that takes all circumstances into consideration.
Then, along those same lines of the mother’s life being in danger, I have seen people bring the question of capital punishment into the debate. This seems unrelated on the surface but I guess if you really think about it, it seems several people who support capital punishment are supporting this amendment. Now, I am not about to open up that hot debate, I will simply say, if you support one then you probably should not support the other. Other than that, I will leave that alone for a later date.
Here is another question that takes a look at whose rights take precedence. Think about this question, that on the surface has no relation to the topic of personhood, but a question nonetheless. If someone is threatening your life and you kill them, it is self-defense if you kill them in the process, correct? If someone was threatening your family and/or your property, meaning they had broken into your home and you killed them, that too is self- defense, correct? Call 911, yes, I will be happy to take your call and send help as quickly as I can, but what if you are forced to defend yourself before help can arrive? Do you stand there and let this person take your life or a family member’s life or do you do everything in your power to protect yourself? How is that different than a mother whose life is in jeopardy aborting the child? Innocent child, yes but a threat to the mothers life. A case can be made for self-defense or justifiable homicide, as can a case for pre-meditated murder, depending on how you look at it.
What happens in the case of Invetro Fertilization? When a couple is trying desperately to have children, should they not have the right to take advantage of this scientific process? (Now on this issue it can open a whole set of questions about should this process be used at all, but that is not where I am going with this line of thought as pertains to the proposed amendment) Since I do not know all the facts about this process, my logic may be flawed. By the very nature of the process of mixing sperm and eggs in a Petrie dish there will be numerous fertilizations occur, correct? By the definition of the amendment these are now awarded the title of “personhood”. Since it is not feasible to implant each and every one of these little “people”, what happens to the rest of them? If they are frozen, you can end up with lots of little frozen people. If they are discarded, several little people have been murdered. So what do you do with them? Implant them and endanger the mom, or give her more kids than she can possiblely care for? How about creating pseudo wombs to grow them to viability? Then you are growing people and creating a black market for selling people. (Ridiculous? Yes, Maybe---but it does open that door.) But think about it, what DO you DO with them?
Taking on the thought of abortion in the event of rape or incest---I can only say, if a woman wants abort that child, she will do so. She will travel whatever distance necessary to abort it. If she cannot travel that distance, she has more than one option available to her. She can look on the internet and purchase any number of herbs or natural growing plants that will likely cause spontaneous abortion or simply find out which ones will do the job and go looking in the wild, there are any number that grow naturally in MS. She can endanger her own life by going back to the pre “roe vs. wade” era and use a wire clothes hanger or have someone do it for her. Think that won’t happen? It did before and will again. There will be an underground abortion network faster than you can say amendment 26. So does the amendment prevent abortions? No, it just changes how they happen.
Oh and let’s not forget the ultimate abortion—suicide of the mother.
I see a lot of women supporting this amendment. The question I have seen raised is how much do we, as women, want the government involved in our bodies and health care decisions. I have seen the statement, you cannot legislate morality. Valid points and questions that we have to consider in our own conscious. Does this amendment cross the line of invasion of our health care decisions? The questions have been raised as to how this amendment will affect our birth control choices so let’s take a look at that.
You chose to either use birth control or you don’t. If you use birth control, how does it work and what are your choices of method? If you do not use birth control, then you end up with lots of kids and all the arguments that go with the pros and cons of that thought. Let’s skip that for now, shall we?
Birth control:
Withdrawal method, well, we know the dependability of that method.
Condom, the safest and one of the most dependable methods especially if used with a spermicide, not to mention the fact that it protects against STD’s. Will everyone use them? No. If the moment gets intense and you don’t have one available, will you stop and go purchase one? Maybe. What about the teenagers? Should they be having sex? No. Will they have sex? Yes. Will they stop and go purchase one? Probably not. If the young man (boy), or girls for that matter, have one in their wallet or purse, how long has it been there? If they even have been educated regarding safe sex and given the means of protecting themselves in that moment of… well… not all have been educated. Teaching abstinence is a great thing but education on what to do in the event that they chose not to abstain is important too. But that is a whole other debate. The point being, condoms are known to fail. I only speak to the above two points in an effort to address the natural response to a birth control argument that can be brought up against other medical methods.
Now, to the point in question of how a woman’s choice of birth control can be affected. Admittedly, birth control has not been a question that I have had to face in a very long time (my husband and I chose a more permanent solution to our question of birth control) so it has come a really long way since the days of a limited number of birth control pills available. From what I have read, the question of how birth control pills work is relevant. They prevent a fertilized egg from being implanted, being the one I have seen most often addressed. Does this amendment prevent the use of this pill? Well, if the moment the egg becomes fertilized it is considered a person, then it would by the very essence of the law make this pill unavailable. The morning after pill which I believe is referred to is RU486, it will not be available any longer. Perhaps it is unwise to use this as a regular method of birth control but what about in the case of sexual assault or birth control failure (i.e. broken condom)? Let’s not address the morality of the broken condom argument but let’s do look at the instance of sexual assault or stated in its more graphic term, rape. First, let’s ask a few questions? Have you ever been raped? Have you ever been forced to have sex with someone that you are in a relationship with? (That is still rape but some women are coerced into sex against her will by emotional blackmail or threat of losing their “loved one”.) Now let me say before I go on, regardless to what you think about a woman being “weak” enough to fall for that, or that they should go ahead and leave that person that is “forcing her by verbal emotional coercion or any argument you can use towards this type of behavior, the fact remains that it happens. You may say, “No way would that happen to me”. Great. That still does not change the fact that being forced to participate in sexual intercourse happens to women every day. But let’s look more closely at the physical force that is more clearly defined as rape or sexual assault. Should that woman not be allowed to be given the “morning after pill” by a medical professional to prevent her from becoming pregnant? Should she be forced to suffer for nine months carrying this baby that, through no fault of her own, she has growing inside her body? Should she bring this unwanted child into the world and give it up for adoption? There are lots of people out there that want a child more than anything in the world. Should she keep this unwanted child and every day be reminded of what happened to her? What if her well-meaning family will not allow her to give it up for adoption? At what point does her anger get turned on the child with the result being child abuse.
So many of the people that are supporting this amendment are citing religious convictions and quoting multitudes of verses to support that view. The people opposing it are citing separation of church and state along with defending their right to not have someone else’s religious views forced on them. This area of the debate gets to be a red-hot, emotionally-charged, core-belief attack and retaliation.
I am very hesitant to even speak to this part; however, it is at the very core of this amendment. This is the heart and soul of this amendment. So regardless to what I have said before in this essay, if I don’t discuss this aspect, I have not addressed the issue appropriately. So here we go---both sides.
In defense of the amendment, the Christians, almost exclusively although I have seen a few other religious views represented in defense of the amendment, are citing that life begins at the moment of conception; the very moment that the sperm fertilizes the egg being the definition of conception. The egg is already a living cell, as is each of the millions of spermatozoa. They come together to formulate a living cell that has the potential, but not certainty, of becoming implanted in the lining of the womb that has been prepared to receive it. Now at this point, it is the will of God as to whether He allows this living cell to become implanted or not. To a Christian, this Will is all knowing and the ultimate authority on what happens and does not happen. That in essence sums up the Christian belief. Now of course this could go into a real long dissertation on the beliefs of a Christian regarding Jesus and how to be saved and all that goes with being a Christian. I am only referring to the Christian belief as it pertains to this amendment. God says, “I knew you while you were yet unformed in the womb” (I did not look up the exact words but I think I have it correct as a quote-if I did not quote it exactly then it is a very close paraphrase) By using the verse that states God knew you before you were “unformed” it refers to the fact that He knew you before you were in a recognizable form inside the womb. This seems to be the basis of a large part of the conviction that personhood begins at the moment of conception. This conviction appears to be short and simple.
The people who debate against this notion have a whole range of arguments. The main one seems to be, “Do not impose your religious convictions on me.” They cite freedom of religion very vigorously. I have even seen the comparison made to the imposition of Sharia Law in a small town in America. I have also seen the argument made that Christians in their vigorous push to legislate according to their beliefs are as fanatical as the Islamic extremist that would rather kill than tolerate. Now these statements, in essence may be viewed and discounted as ridiculous. However, when you look closer, you see that their point is we, as Americans, have the right to choose our religion or lack-thereof. Christians do not want Islamic law (I use Islamic Law only as an example because it is the one that is most talked about these days) imposed on them just like people of other religions (or lack of) do not want Christian “law” imposed on them.
Now I am staring at the screen and thinking what else to say so that usually means I am done. I have been thinking about this topic for a long time and have read lots of opposing views. The questions that I have written about are the ones that gave me pause. I have tried my best to write from an outside point of view by not making any of it personal and attempting to present more than one point of view. Hence, the continued use of the third person style rather than the first person style. Whatever your views, beliefs or thoughts on this amendment, please exercise your right to vote.
Until next time-
I wish you love, joy, peace and
Gentle Breezes,
Patty
