Thank you, Ann Onimous, for your reply 
I didn’t know that MTX is used for ectopic pregnancies – I was under the impression they were always removed via surgery, so ignorance fought
I couldn’t/wouldn’t have voted for it either if I lived in MS. I want both the mom AND the baby to live - with an ectopic, it’s guaranteed both will die. How anyone can think that is a pro-life stance is beyond me.
Many state constitutions have written into them a process where the voters can propose and vote on laws. It’s allowed to happen because either the authors or later amenders of the constitutions put it there on purpose. Note that a law passed that way still has to be otherwise constitutional, and some many state constitutions limit what kind of matters (e.g. nothing to do with religion) can be addressed by this process.
I can’t imagine a law like this existing, in part because it would have so many bizarre consequences. Could a pregnant mother who smoked or drank be convicted of child abuse, for example? Would any law applying to a child also apply to a fetus?
I would image so–Pregnant woman have been convicted of child abuse for doing illegal drugs. And all miscarriages would have to be investigated in case the mother caused them, thus murdering a person–maybe she smoked, had some coffee or “had bad thoughts” about the baby.
At what point does/should society (law) recognize personhood and protect the person?
Birth.
Exactly, When it becomes a separate person and no longer a parasite.
I’m damn glad it failed. I firmly believe that anyone and everyone who would back an idiotic idea like this should be locked up forever.
Every time you say this, I (or someone else) point out that when abortion was illegal in the states that forbid it prior to Roe v Wade… not one state had a rule requiring that all miscarriages be investigated. To my knowledge, you have never refuted this fact nor defended your supposition in any rigorous way.
Yet you continue to make it.
What will it take to get you to acknowledge that this claim is unsupportable?
Yes, but this is really irrelevant. The earliest forms of democracy did have people deciding their own laws–it’s just that this becomes very impractical rather quickly. Representative democracy is the next best thing. It’s not a goal in an of itself.
rachelellogram’s position is very much antidemocratic. She is saying that people are too stupid (being guided by their emotions) to govern themselves. It doesn’t take much to realize that, if people are too stupid to vote on initiatives, then they are also too stupid to vote for someone who will vote their way on the issues. In fact, it’s worse, since you can bring up issues you know you’ll never actually vote on.
In fact, I hold the latter position without holding the former. I think referendums are a vital part of the system, to get around what a party thinks is their mandate. No more busting up unions because someone likes your pro-life stance.
Yeah, you know a bill is bad when people who are pro-life, like I am, don’t want it passed. Any misstep towards criminalizing spontaneous miscarriages and making ectopic pregnancies untreatable is insane.
As for the former, I’ve heard a few (thank God only a few) people argue that a woman who has a miscarriage must have “done something” to cause it, which is bullshit. Most early miscarriages happen because the embryo is genetically abnormal, and we know for a fact that the abnormalities can come from defective sperm too, not just from a defect in ova. So why would she necessarily be the one at fault, when maybe the only reason the baby was abnormal was because her mate came into contact with toxins that damaged his gametes? You may as well criminalize failing to get a complete health profile for a potential co-parent at that point, because making an embryo a person isn’t going to prevent many miscarriages without a scary degree of eugenics and forced sterlizations to prevent people whose gamates are likely to cause unsustainable conceptions from happening in the first place.
So far as I can tell, that Wikipedia article does not support your claim that supporters of the initiative favored letting ectopic pregnancies go untreated or treated only with surgery. Do you have a cite for that claim?
Dunno if it’s unsupportable. Do know that it’s irrelevant.
Defining “personhood” as beginning at the moment of fertilization is not equivalent to banning abortion (the prohibitions entailed by the former are a superset of prohibitions entailed by the latter).
I’m not proud to admit this, but I didn’t even know this measure was being voted on until about a week prior to the vote. It was discussed on the Diane Rhiem show.
The “law watcher” type guy who was interviewed said he thought the proposition would likely pass because the the people working for it had mobilized earlier and had quite a bit more money than those who were against it.
Allow me to echo, “Way to go, Mississippi!”
Even accepting your analysis as correct, Annie has made similar claims arguing against banning abortion only.
I do not agree that this amendment, even if it had passed, would have required investigation of every miscarriage.
You, personally, have shown a remarkable willingness to predict the effect of proposed laws, and a remarkable unwillingness to then acknowledge that your prediction was completely wrong after the law in question was enacted and failed to produce the result you argued it would. Is there some reason to credit your predictions here? Wouldn’t you do the same thing again after results proved you wrong?
Bricker surly you must know in many Latin American countries were The Catholic Church is very influential similar laws have been passed causing doctors, in fear of the law not treat women with ectopic pregnancies. The preferred treatment for EPs is methotrexate which is less harmful than evasive surgery and can preserve a women’s fertility. The use of methotrexate is forbidden by your church and women are suffering the consequences when treatment is withheld.
I’ll look: the Yes on 26ers took all their sites down immediately after they lost. But I will look for you. 
This seems like a series of correlations in which you invite the reader to infer causation.
(1) In many Latin American countries where the Catholic Church is influential…
Unstated inference: therefore, the Church is an advocate for and responsible for…
(2) …similar laws have been passed causing doctors, in fear of the law not treat women with ectopic pregnancies…
*Unstated inference: these laws also define personhood as commencing from conception.
Unstated inference: the laws forbid the treatment of ecoptic pregnancy.*
(3) …The preferred treatment for EPs is methotrexate which is less harmful than evasive surgery and can preserve a women’s fertility. The use of methotrexate is forbidden by your church and women are suffering the consequences when treatment is withheld.
Unstated inference: The use of methotrexate or other non-surgical treatment is forbidden by the law.
Which of those inferences, if any, are true?
What is the RCC’s position on abortion?
Bricker, this statement is true or it is false. Unstated assumptions are not relevant to its truth value, and only its truth is relevant when assessing what physicians in this country are likely to do in the face of a similar law.
Parasite? Really? That seems so hateful.