Minnesota Network for Progressive Action

About Comments
The mnpACT! blog welcomes all comments from visitors, which are immediately posted, but we also filter for spammers:
  • No active URLs or web links are allowed (use www.yourweb.com).
  • No drug or pharma- ceutical names are allowed.
  • Your comment "Name" must be one word with no spaces and cannot be an email address.
You should also note that a few IP addresses and homepage URLs have been banned from posting comments because they have posted multiple spam messages.

Please be aware we monitor ALL comments and reserve the right to delete obvious spam comments.

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites

Listed on BlogShares

site search

Site Meter
  Progressive Political Blog

Progressive Politics in Minnesota, the Nation, and the World

Mississippi "Personhood"

Category: Roe v Wade
Posted: 10/28/11 13:35

by Dave Mindeman

OK, I'm going to wade into the weeds here and talk about the Mississippi "Personhood" amendment:

A ballot measure going before voters in Mississippi on Nov. 8 would define the term ?person? in the State Constitution to include fertilized human eggs and grant to fertilized eggs the legal rights and protections that apply to people.

One of the problems with the anti-choice crowd is that they look at the birth of a baby as a backtracking trail of viability. They believe that if a baby is a life, then all the various stages leading up to the birth are a life as well. Fetus, zygote, fertilized egg. All life. Pretty soon we will be naming sperm and the glint in your eye.

I almost wish the Mississippi amendment would pass. I know that sounds strange for a progressive liberal to say, but I believe that the Mississippi legislation would finally create the massive revolt against this type of thinking that is simmering under the surface.

Women have invested too much in reproductive choice to let it whither away. We all have a measure of discomfort with abortion but backtracking to take away all reproductive decisions leading up to birth, is going to be unacceptable.

The crux of the problem with the Mississippi amendment is that it deals with fertilization. And that moves directly into birth control and family planning. Private choices and contradictions to science.

Fertilized eggs are not "persons". I think the vast majority of people would accept that. Even the idea that a fertilized egg is a "potential" person is a scientific stretch of exponential magnitude. If fertilized eggs are actual persons then the in vitro fertilization process would have to be banned. The process of in vitro produces way more fertilized eggs than are needed because the hope is that the odds of implantation is increased by the numbers. If the Mississippi amendment is in place, then in vitro clinics are guilty of murder....mass murder.

Evangelical Christians keep moving the goal posts on reproduction in America. But I will tell you this, if the grip on reproductive rights tighten to the extent of the Mississippi law, the vast majority of American women will say ENOUGH.

Birth control is an accepted practice. It is a necessary practice. Women could not have made the progress in equality that they have without it. To move backwards is unthinkable. And to extend life to a fertilized egg is ignoring some basic scientific principle about who and what we are.

We are unique in the universe because we can think. The Mississippi amendment not only stops reproductive rights, it stops rational thought.

comments (6) permalink

To Fischbach on Abortion: It's the "Help", Not the Legality

Category: Roe v Wade
Posted: 01/26/11 11:18, Edited: 01/26/11 11:22

by Dave Mindeman

Scott Fischbach, executive director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, wrote a commentary for MPR regarding the soon to be pushed legislative bill which will stop publicly funded abortions.

Fischbach tries several arguments....1) It cost the taxpayers $1.5 million annually, 2) we have killed potential future taxpayers, 3) and that abortions hurt women and are dangerous.

They are not new arguments....and they have skeptical value in the larger scheme of things, but I won't go into those specifics right now. What I would like to talk about is something else that Fischbach used as an attempt persuade us....

I know the argument will be made by the other side that poor women ought to have the same access to abortion as rich women. But if we really want what's best for disadvantaged mothers and their babies, we will help them, not offer them abortions.

Poor women should have equal access. That is certainly one of the main arguments (and a Supreme Court decision by the way) for publicly funded abortion access.

But I think Fischbach's other statement is more compelling.

But if we really want what's best for disadvantaged mothers and their babies, we will help them, not offer them abortions.

That is the essence of choice vs. anti-choice. We simply do not give the disadvantaged pregnant woman the help she needs. We simply don't.

These same people, like Fischbach, that tell us that abortion is wrong and not acceptable, are the same people who want to cut back on Medicaid funding and help for the poor.

They are telling disadvantaged mothers....no, abortion is not an option for you and when you have that baby you are on your own.

There will be more attempts to outlaw abortion altogether. And there is a lot of public sentiment against the need for abortion to be available. We are nearly two generations away from the prevailing circumstances that led us to the Roe decision. We have forgotten the coat hangars, the crossing state lines, the back alleys, and the extended secret trips out of town.

If we want to eventually eliminate abortions, then we have to do it with the "help" that Fischbach glosses over. We have to support the mothers and babies with full funding and full care. We have to make adoptions easier and more accomodating to all parties. We have to make sex education a serious subject and not some bathroom banter. And we have to stop the shame and judgment that makes young pregnant women desperate and alone.

Now Mr. Fischbach should be aware that all of that will cost more than $1.5 million annually. But if he and his MCCL followers would really like to eliminate abortion, then funding the "help" is really the only way to go.

Making abortion illegal will never stop it. A couple of generations ago, they tried --- and it only made it worse for everyone.
comments (0) permalink
Next » Last»


« June 2020 »
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30

Latest posts


(one year)




RSS Feeds

RSS 0.91
RSS 2.0

Powered by
Powered by SBlog
Copyright © Minnesota Network for Progressive Action. All rights reserved. Legal. Privacy Policy. Sitemap.