Liquor stores in my current state of residence (Minnesota) cannot sell booze on Sundays. 
Welcome to the 18th century!
We do, however, allow grocery stores to sell 3.2 beer on Sundays.
Maybe in Mississippi they just focused on the “hood” part of “personhood” and figured it must be bad. 
You’re kind of picking and choosing here, aren’t you? I know Mississippi passed Amendment 27 and won the governorship there (not sure if they recaptured the House, which would be the first time since Reconstruction) and Ohio passed whatever that bill was that lets individuals opt out of the healthcare mandate. I’m sure there are a few more but, admittedly, I didn’t really keep track of more than SB5.
[QUOTE=Locrian]
Religious groups like Personhood USA are not nearly powerful enough to make people question when it’s their individual rights that are being toyed with. As conservative and religious the Right wants to appear, it’s clear that even the conservatives are individuals, just like the left. Like the rest of us in the US, individuality is just as important.
[/quote]
Personhood USA? No. The Roman Catholic Church, the National Right to Life and Americans United for Life? Yes. Of course, the refused to endorse the amendment, just like they did in Colorado. In fact, I do believe the RCC actively opposed it. Those are your three major pro-life groups in the U.S.. That probably speaks a lot less to respecting individuality or rights or whatever as it does to considering the amendment a bad strategy.
I understand your point. Personhood USA is more of an agenda driven organization than the larger and well known right to life groups. Their goal seems to be to get rid of Roe v. Wade if they get enough states to adopt the law.
What I am happy about is that the voters in Mississippi voted with their heads and not with their ideals. The privacy of the voting booth seems to bring forward ideals to people. I think a lot of them thought of the “what if” factor if a female friend or relative got pregnant via rape, incest or just having a crappy future dad in the mix. They may have thought you can’t blanket all the situations with a law that is in essence against women’s rights.
There were other issues with that “personhood” amendment too…what would have happened with ectopic pregnancies? Would women who suffered miscarriages find themselves in the middle of a criminal investigation?
Are you sure you don’t live in Oklahoma? Those are our exact same laws.
Incidentally the Mississippi bill would also have given the right to life to clones.
No, it wouldn’t have, because clones already have a right to life.
I have no idea where you got this idea. What does that even mean - giving the right to life to clones? Huh?
You’ll need a pump, because this is Costco — and they’ll only sell the stuff by the cask.
This may seem a small thing, but the county I live in (Montgomery County, PA), which is the 20th wealthiest county in the US and has always been staunchly Republican, gave the Democrats control of the county government for the first time EVER. Story here.
Not before they are born, they don’t.
It said in the original text:
If the Personhood amendment passed and a woman had a miscarriage, could she be charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide?
But I think we all agree the important election was for the Clinton County Legislative District 5 in New York.
So you will be happy to hear my uncle was elected.
[QUOTE=Qin Shi Huangdi]
It said in the original text:
[/QUOTE]
So I see where the issue of cloning came from, but I’m still not sure what you are saying concerning clones being given the right to life. There hasn’t been a successful human clone I am aware of but are you taking the position a cloned embryo wouldn’t have a right to life? In other words, are you taking the position a cloned embryo could (or should) be terminated and this would somehow be different than a normal embryo being terminated?
I can’t speak for Curtis but, in general, Christians have a problem with cloning as an affront to their god; something about only god can create life and therefore a clone, not created by god, is not life and, as such, doesn’t have the same right to life as a person.
It’s dichotomous, to me, that this legislation, the sole purpose of which is to pander to Christians, included a provision for cloning, something ultra-religious Christians are against.
One can have laws against cloning and still recognize that someone might do it anyway, in which case you need to decide what to do with the clone.
More importantly, cloning does already happen: Identical twins are clones. If they didn’t include that clause, then it would be unclear where life began for an identical twin. Well, really, it’s still unclear, but this way they can at least pretend that it’s not.
Everything sucks.
Before I was forced to move to South CArolina I was on the ballot for City Council-at-Large.
Every. Single. One. of my ballot mates won. For the first time in recorded memory there is not a republican on council. The only two republicans left in office are the Auditor and the Treasurer.
I’d have that office now. Dammit.