With the nation and the world’s financial future remaining uncertain; the last thing that we need to be embroiled in, is a fight over something as inane as an amendment to the constitution granting human agency to human zygotes and fetuses.
The recent public outrage that erupted when Representative Todd Akin of Missouri, arguing in support of no abortion even in the case of rape, has fueled a new round of debate about creating the Personhood Amendment. The Personhood Amendment is only the latest tactic rolled out by the extreme religious social conservatives to abolish all legal abortions and birth control.
Until this latest incident, it has been fairly safe for conservative politicians to support the amendment; knowing full well that the chances for it actually coming to a reality, is remote at best. As witnessed in Mississippi’s November 2011 referendum redefining ‘personhood’ to the unborn from fertilization to birth; and even in the highly fundamentalist religious state of Mississippi, the referendum was soundly defeated. However, it has provided the religious social conservatives a litmus test for selecting candidates to support. Savvy politicians know that getting an amendment through congress and three quarters of the states is nearly impossible; thus, it is easy to pass the litmus test.
For society to grant human agency to the unborn, leads to very serious issues that extend far beyond just stopping abortion. To begin with, assigning human agency to the unborn, redefines women. Are women to be redefined as having limited agency over their bodies? Are women to be nothing more than a life support vessel involving a symbiotic relationship between her as the host and the zygote/fetus as the parasite? Do women have full human agency until they become pregnant?
What happens in the case where a woman’s life is at risk and she is forced to carry the unborn to term? In deciding who shall survive and who shall die; whose agency becomes primary, the mother or the unborn? A good example of this is in the case of ectopic pregnancies. The zygote does not attach properly to the uterine wall and attaches to the fallopian tube instead. In this case neither the zygote will survive nor does the mother, if untreated, have a good chance of survival either. Would this mean that boards would have to be set up to determine who would have primal agency; death panels per se.
Of all pregnancies; 1 in 6 of them end in spontaneous miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy or stillbirth. If agency is given to zygotes and fetuses, every miscarriage and stillbirth will have to be investigated to assure that the mother host did not do something that resulted in the pregnancy termination. Beyond the spontaneous miscarriages, if a woman were to ingest something or some physical action that resulted in a miscarriage, would she then be subject to criminal prosecution for homicide? Are we going to establish pregnancy police investigating every miscarriage? Imagine nearly 700,000 investigations performed every year just to determine that a mother didn’t do something that resulted in the miscarriage. Also, think about the additional trauma the mother would endure from the investigation. If people object to huge bureaucracies now, just think how large the bureaucracy would have to be to enforce and investigate all the spontaneous miscarriages.
According to the ‘Personhood Amendment’ many of the common birth control methods would be illegal, since they prevent the zygote from implanting in the uterine wall and are subsequently sloughed off. This will seriously limit family planning options available, as well as placing an unfair burden on women to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. I could see a whole new black market developing to provide birth control drugs to those who want to purchase them. Along with the local drug dealer selling the current menu of illicit drugs, now they can add birth control pills and morning after pills.
What is this extending human agency to zygotes and fetuses really all about? It is quite simply an extreme Christian religious principle, which is not shared by all Christians. It is only one interpretation of many concerning the biblical imperatives surrounding murder. Judaism traditionally has not given agency to the unborn and only extended it after birth. Therefore, the fundamentalist Christian position is not grounded in the traditional principles of the mother religion.
It becomes fairly obvious that unwanted pregnancy and carrying all pregnancies to term is really about fundamental Christianity’s belief about sex. They want to control who can engage in sexual behavior and under what circumstances. The belief promotes that sex should be limited to only married couples who are attempting to procreate. If one violates the sanctions against sex for pleasure, then an unwanted pregnancy is the price to be paid for such behavior.
To enact the Personhood Amendment is a clear violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Extending human agency is not based on science but on the religious belief of a minority. Therefore, the Personhood Amendment should not be pursued and granting human agency to the unborn should be abandoned.
Here's your problem, Dirk. You come on here posing as a "Progressive" while a significant portion of your wealth and livelihood came as a result of working for the company that's, cumulatively, more responsible for the exodus of jobs overseas than any other single US based company. To this day, if you want Walmart to carry your product (or if you want to be considered to be an "approved" secondary vendor), you have to be willing to move some or all of your production and and distribution (or have production facilities there, if you're a secondary vendor) offshore. Your costs will be scrutinized and recommendations regarding which parts they want you to have produced offshore will be made. You will be given a price point you can't meet unless you do as they wish. Walmart's reputation, domestically, as regards predatory business practices and labor issues is well known. In addition, your labor has enriched the Waltons, who regularly support conservative causes and candidates. So while you talk a good game, your history paints another picture entirely. So either you're just disingenuous in nature, attempting to make up for sins of the past or a plant arguing the Progressive side in a fashion designed to cause it ridicule. You pick.
However, you'd be the first to criticize anyone who turned down work, and now you expect us to do so based on an employer's politics?
Dirk's history speaks for itself. Sam Walton was every bit the aggressive, take out the competition, skirt the rules, keep the costs down, pay as little as you can business person as are those currently in control. He set the pace and, if Dirk's to be believed, he was right by Sam's side in the process of making it what it is today. He wasn't merely some schlump who couldn't find a job elsewhere at the time, particularly if he's a practicing lawyer now. If he didn't want his past scrutinized and compared to what he currently claims as his political leaning, he shouldn't have brought it up.
We were only allowed houses that equaled 150% of our annual income. The Walton family is not religious in the extreme sense. Helen Walton, Sam's wife, has made significant contributions to Planned Parenthood. Hillary was on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart. Bill Clinton was a special guest at the special memorial for Sam at Wal-Mart HQ. Conservative does not equate to the Tea Party agenda for every or even most Republicans. Frankly, McBride, you come across as a extremely narrow, prejudiced, and not that smart smart aleck. What are you saying, progressive people should not be rubbing shoulders as we work with the likes of the Tea Party? Everyone should be able to work with everyone else in spite of politics in a regular work environment, your kind tries to divide people into groups they can hate and those they can worship.
What I'm suggesting, Dirk, is that you were an active participant in developing what Walmart was back then (not your sanitized version,) what it became and what it is today. The point is not how you made a living, Dirk. The point is not willingly accepting, or even acknowledging, your part in creating the very things you and other progressives rail about and attempt to lay at to feet of others on a daily basis. It's the inconsistent, arrogant and self-serving posture you take here when criticizing the very problems you took an active part in creating. Everything goes back to the economy, including the situation we find ourselves in now regarding social issues because, at their root, they're economic issues. And you, Dirk, being as involved in one of the main driving forces in facilitating what you folks like to refer to as the "race to the bottom" as you claim to be, are at greater fault for where we find ourselves than are most you choose to criticize here.
ITS A ISSUE IN MISSOURI !
I'll let you sort out the last comment I made just above yours here on your own if you care to. Shouldn't be all that difficult.
But your daughter would never do anything like that, right? And if she did, she deserved what she got!? By the way, she was forced to leave a couple of her kids cryng while being taken away for her severe punishment. And her husband found the abortionist, and so he is also an accessory to the murder. Does this not seem like a bad movie set in the Dark Ages? No, it is Tea Party reality in the 21st Century.
We have politicians without medical degrees making assertions without understanding how hormonal contraceptives work (Romney) or how the female body functions (Akin). People who don't understand the topic shouldn't be discussing it or trying to legislate it. I wouldn't call these people "backwards uneducated hicks" but arrogant and ignorant. Arrogant in wanting their way; ignorant in ignoring the true facts of the matter.
H.R. 212 Sanctity of Human Life Act To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr212ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr212ih.pdf
Why all the intrigue?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/08/sba-list-to-launch-missouri-ads-against-obama-on-abortion-133435.html
Your whole game here is taking little, minute bits of information and attempting to create characters that fit your view of the world. I just gave some of that back to you and you don't like it. Deal with it. I don't even know if half of what you said about yourself is true. Frankly, from what I've seen of you here I find it hard to believe you got much beyond the greeter stage at Walmart, but if that's your story I'm happy to turn it around on you.
Everything I said is absolutely true about my background, but if I disclosed more, ultra-rghtwing people attack liberals personally and unfairly. From what you have said in the past, you are so zealous and persistent, frankly you seem dangerous.
Please show me the fully functional survivor of an abortion at the embryonic stage or earlier before calling any of us bloodthirsty.
Congratulations in invoking Godwin's law.