Personhood defeated in Mississippi

CNN reports that Mississippi voted 58% against designating fertilized eggs as having personhood.

With voters supporting either side were split evenly, the 11% undecided vote were inundated with campaigning – however, it is likely that outgoing Gov. Haley Barbour “expressed that he was undecided about the issue, saying it was ‘too ambiguous’;” was what swung the undecided to vote against the measure.

Personhood USA, the group behind this attempt to establish a basis in law to eventually challenge Roe v Wade, vows to continue their fight to provide the same legal rights to the unborn as to the mother. Unsurprisingly, when people raised concerns about what exactly does that mean, Personhood USA asserted that this was scare tactics.

Except, what does it mean is a valid question.

If the unborn has the same rights as the mother, that effectively removes the mother from being able to make reproductive decisions as being in a conflict of interest between her rights and her unborn fetus.

Giving a fertilized egg equal rights to an existing person without consideration of who gets to speak for the rights of a particular fertilized egg is an important question – and until there’s an answer, there should be no more such referendums because people are only voting for an idea, with little or no consideration to the ramifications:

What will it mean for women’s reproductive rights? What does it mean about the decisions a woman can make with her doctor? Will it mean women will be at the mercy of the state when it comes to everything from taking certain birth control pills to trying to conceive if a couple is infertile? What happens to those fertilized eggs for IVF treatments if they aren’t used? And would people be facing prosecution if they did any of those things?

It is not acceptable to turn back the clock and make women beholden to boyfriends, husbands, fathers or even rapists to make reproductive decisions on behalf of the fertilized egg.

Pregnancy is one of those zero sum game situations, there is no accommodating both parties if the woman doesn’t want to or can’t go through pregnancy.

Either the woman is a person under the law, entitled to make decisions about her body and have personal sovereignty or she does not.

There is no one more qualified or better able than the mother to determine if pregnancy is an option or not for her.

This idea that strangers should get to decide what you can or cannot do with your own body should be loathsome and unthinkable.

This is what the real harm of religion is – putting ideas above actual living breathing people – and worse, by coddling religious sensibilities and acting as if religion was a valid worldview despite that religions are not based in evidence or reality – people have become entitled to the idea that their particular religion should inform the law of the secular land and be imposed on people whether they accept that religion or not.

The Magna Carta freed the peasants from the whims of the king by establishing rights and responsibilities in law. The American declaration of independence made individuals the social unit of consequence and guaranteed everyone life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and Roe v Wade, more than getting to vote, assured women of their right to personal sovereignty.

Personhood USA wants to take that personal sovereignty away and reduce women from being persons under the law to being chattel beholden to men again because their religious views have entitled them to decide who’s a person and who’s not.

Fertilized egg yes, women, not so much.



6 thoughts on “Personhood defeated in Mississippi

  1. Although in this issue between pro-choice and pro-life I stand with choice, but my argument is different. I think that a fetus is a member of humanity, only on a different stage of being. And I think it does have rights.

    But, as it does not have any consiousness to decide anything, or even to feel pain or be aware of anything up to some stage, it is only natural that the decisions made for it will go to the closest relative, which is of course the mother. Therefore, it only follows that no one can make a law to “protect” a fetus, as it happens the best person to do it is the mother herself.

    • Which is why it’s not about protecting fetuses (fetii ?); it’s about controlling women because clearly if they are deciding to not continue the pregnancy, they aren’t the best choice since that’s not a godbot approved decision.

      Religious believers have to beleive that morals come from their deity and are absolute – otherwise, they’d be too ashamed of themselves to beleive that they are entitled to make medical decisions for complete strangers.

  2. Thank goodness it was defeated. The narrow margin is still quite scary, isn’t it? There’s a reason they picked the Deep South for this battle, it was their best chance. I know it isn’t over, but I’m glad this skirmish is behind us.

    • with any luck, if they couldn’t win in Mississippi then they won’t win anywhere.

      a couple of years back, I came across a website that encouraged pregnant women to drive in HOV lanes and challenge any traffic tickets on the basis of the unborn being another person in the vehicle.

      I thought it was funny until I realized that they weren’t kidding.

      There’s something seriously wrong with people who are trying to control women’s lives to the degree of preventing women from being in charge of their reproduction

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s