iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Personhood 2.0: Georgia Revives Failed Mississippi Measure

Personhood Amendment

First Posted: 11/22/11 02:32 PM ET Updated: 11/22/11 02:47 PM ET

The national movement to define a zygote as a legal person failed a few weeks ago in Mississippi, but anti-abortion advocates behind two new "personhood" amendments pre-filed in Georgia are insisting that they have learned from Mississippi's mistakes.

"We're definitely looking at what happened [in Mississippi] and trying to incorporate those concerns," state Rep. Rick Crawford, the Georgia Democrat that plans to introduce one of the personhood amendments, told HuffPost Friday. "One thing that's important to me is to emphasize the distinction between the terms 'pro-life' and 'anti-abortion' -- they're quite different concepts. Pro-life means being interested in things like women having access to adequate prenatal care, children have access to health care, investing in educational opportunities. It's a lot broader concept than anti-abortion, and I want to be careful to keep that in the discussion."

But the Georgia personhood amendments, as described by proponents like Crawford, will -- like the Mississippi one -- be unequivocally "anti-abortion." When asked how the amendments would address women's access to prenatal care or children's educational opportunities, Crawford admitted they would not. In defining a human life from the moment of fertilization, both states' measures would criminalize abortion.

Crawford's amendment, he said, would be more detailed than the Mississippi amendment, and similar to Georgia General Assembly amendments introduced in the most recent legislative session that never went to vote.

In order to avoid the problem of vagueness that plagued the Mississippi initiative, Georgia Right to Life president Dan Becker said lawmakers are combing through all 50 sections of the Georgia Code to decide exactly what the final personhood bill will and won't do, so no one has to speculate about its potential legal consequences.

"We will be the first state in the nation to offer a personhood amendment with legislation that clearly spells out what the amendment's effects would be legally, so it's clearly understood by doctors and those women using contraceptives and fertility treatment," Becker told HuffPost Friday.

Beyond Georgia, nearly a dozen other states -- including Virginia and Colorado -- are pushing for personhood amendments in 2012. Congress has also introduced three bills on a federal level that would have the same effect.

"The personhood movement is a human life issue," Becker continued. "It does affect abortion, but it is a human life issue that will come more and more to the floor as we progress it to the 21st century. We're attempting to take fear factors and scare tactics out of the equation so we can have a public dialogue about human rights."

Becker said Georgia's latest version of personhood would only ban the methods of birth control, stem cell research and in vitro fertilization that would kill a zygote. For instance, the "morning-after pill" would be banned, but not regular birth control pills. It will not curtail access to in vitro fertility treatments, but it will stop "certain procedures such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis that determine the gender of child for selection purpose," he said. And only "destructive stem cell research," which kills zygotes, would be banned.

But reproductive rights groups such as Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union are not convinced that these measures would be any less dangerous to women's health than the Mississippi one.

"I'm doubtful they could craft a personhood amendment that alleviates all the problems," Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, said Monday. Kolbi-Mollinas fought the initiative in Mississippi. "I'm not surprised to hear them deny that it would affect birth control. They can say whatever they want at this point, and obviously they're trying to say how this one's different and better, but if they just wanted to ban abortion, they would propose and pass an abortion ban. The fact that they keep sticking with these personhood initiatives demonstrates that they want to go much further than abortion."

Georgia's legislative session begins in January, and at that point the new amendments -- once introduced -- will go to committee. If the final amendment passes with two-thirds majority in the House and Senate, it will be put before Georgia voters as a ballot initiative. Becker said he thinks it will sail through.

"Mississippi claimed to be a slam-dunk state, but we have the votes here in Georgia," Becker said.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
The national movement to define a zygote as a legal person failed a few weeks ago in Mississippi, but anti-abortion advocates behind two new "personhood" amendments pre-filed in Georgia are insisting ...
The national movement to define a zygote as a legal person failed a few weeks ago in Mississippi, but anti-abortion advocates behind two new "personhood" amendments pre-filed in Georgia are insisting ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 611
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (9 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbrett480
07:33 PM on 11/25/2011
This can be boiled down to how someone defines a life. If someone believes a life begins at conception, then any form of abortion is murder, since killing a human life is murder.

Those that claim we need to separate religion from this debate don't understand the issue. The definition and value of a human life is based on religion.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SmileAndActNice
Utilitarianism, the -ism that works.
01:38 PM on 11/26/2011
Nope can't be boiled down that way. Not at all. I believe a born person in chemo who needs a bone marrow donation to live is a person.

I don't believe that refusing to donate some spare marrow to them is murder. Letting die and murdering are two different things. And not giving your flesh and bone to a fetus is letting die.

Furthermore, I differentiate between "killing" and "murder". It is perfectly permissible to kill in self defense - provided it isn't trivial to stop the attacker without the use of lethal force. And no, the attacker doesn't have to have "evil" in his or her heart to be doing something that can get them lawfully killed. If some big guy mixes alcohol and Ambien, starts sleepwalking, and sexually assaults me I may indeed shoot them to defend myself. I don't have to make sure that he is totally aware of his actions and intends me harm before defending myself. After the assault has been prevented - and if he is still alive - the courts can and should take the fact that he was mentally incompetent at the time of the assault into consideration when assigning *punishment*, but it has no bearing whatsoever on my self defense options.

If a fetus is a person then an unwanted one is a criminal and unwilling gestation while nonviable is a crime in progress by a mentally incompetent criminal that can only be stopped with the use of lethal force.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbrett480
02:46 PM on 11/26/2011
I'm not sure I understand your logic. I am simply stating that if someone believes a fetus is a person, then abortion would logically be murder.
A-Superstitionist
Keep thy superstitions to thyself and out of laws
10:54 AM on 11/23/2011
Many wonder why republicans are so obsessed with abortion. 

UC Berkeley Prof. George Lakoff explains this best. In the seventies, republican sponsored think tanks discovered that 1/3rd of the population raises their children the "strict father" way (punish them into good behavior), that 1/3rd are "nurturing parents" and that the remaining 1/3rd flip-flops between the two: blue collar America is autocratic (strict father) at home and unionized (nurturing) at work. 

Since elections are won by getting the flip-flopping 1/3rd on your side, republicans concluded that they could only get them to vote against their self interest by appealing to their strict father side which is why they embraced the religious "wrong".

Ever since, republicans have been using religious wedge issues to trick the gullible into voting against their self interests: abortion, same sex marriage, stem cell research, homosexuality, euthanasia, sex education, creationism in science class, .... This year they have tried to redefine rape as "forcible rape", limit incest to women under 18, extend justifiable homicide to killing abortion doctors, ...

By constantly reminding the gullible that they are the party of god and the only true Americans, they keep getting away with murder: wars of choice and huge tax cuts to the super wealthy to create the necessary enormous deficits and and long-lasting recession in order to destroy social security, education, healthcare, pensions, and unions.

Way too many democrats fall for this treasonous strategy to destroy fairness in society.
12:52 AM on 11/26/2011
Ah, Democrats believe it is wrong to vote against one's self interest? I thought so. Personally, I believe it's wrong to vote for your self interest, unless said interest lines up with the greater good. Then again, I suppose I need to give up those old fashioned ideas to make room for progress and change......
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SmileAndActNice
Utilitarianism, the -ism that works.
04:26 PM on 11/26/2011
Since it is in the best interest of society for children to be raised right and that only happens if someone loves and wants them then we are in a happy situation where self interest is also the right thing to do.

You are falsely implying that anything in ones best interest is bad. Actually, what is in ones objective best interest is frequently good for everyone overall. There are instances where this is not so, but one can as easily interpret that as a failure to understand what your best interests actually are.
photo
syrius
Excuse me, EXCUSE ME!
07:33 AM on 11/23/2011
Women will be renamed as "incubators"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blarneydude
I can handle the truth. Now let's talk about you.
11:44 AM on 11/23/2011
Beats "zygote." They're tossing incubators that one little crumb.
llyd wlsh
chem, nuke, bio hazard
03:53 AM on 11/23/2011
let us be perfectly clear.....this push is an attempt by the xtain taliban to turn the u s into a theocracy and to claim ownership over women's bodies and impose a fundamentalist agenda on ALL other americans.

america is becoming a failed state
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gonzo333
12:25 AM on 11/23/2011
This is great. The zygot can be born into a life of poverty, no jobs, being victimized by the corporations, have no freedom of speech and live in a police state. Yea!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blarneydude
I can handle the truth. Now let's talk about you.
11:44 AM on 11/23/2011
AND have PlayStatio­n! What's not to like?
11:21 PM on 11/25/2011
Yep--all we gotta do to save them from this horror is kill them--great alternative!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SmileAndActNice
Utilitarianism, the -ism that works.
01:45 PM on 11/26/2011
What fanofhistory doesn't know is that (s)he wouldn't even exist if their mother had kept that first pregnancy. It was only because of the prior abortion that she even met fan's father.

So, like tens of millions of other children, fan only exists because of abortion.

... hey, it could be true. Plenty of kids owe their lives to abortion and fan could very well be one of them.

Abortion is not the choice of life vs death. It is usually *this* life vs *that* life. No matter which choice is made a potential life is wiped from this earth.

Fan, interestingly, proposes wiping away the *wanted* children whose parents were ready to do right by them rather than the unwanted ones whose parents were financially/emotionally unable to handle children.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:58 PM on 11/22/2011
Some people want to regulate the most private details of other people's lives. But when the tables are turned, suddenly they are "the exception to the rule". Self-righteous hypocrites.
12:32 PM on 11/26/2011
Yet another idea that becomes ludicrous when carried to its logical conclusion. If people's right to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own home should not be restricted, then why can't they kill their children? Their spouses? Their neighbors, as long as they drag them into the house? Let's make pot-growing or meth making legal, as long as it's done in the privacy of your own home. It fits your position. Carrying most statements supporting abortion to their logical conclusion reveals the fallacy of them. Foolishness like this wouldn't be necessary if there were reasonable arguments to support it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SmileAndActNice
Utilitarianism, the -ism that works.
01:48 PM on 11/26/2011
Not only may you kill anyone trying to eat you alive in your home. You may do it anywhere. In fact, if I invite you into my home and then I try to eat you alive you may defend yourself, with lethal force if need be.

Unless you want to be eaten in which case, red or white wine?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:25 AM on 11/29/2011
My point is that most people who are against abortion are not having to deal with an unwanted pregnancy at the present moment. When many of them are faced with such a dilemma, their previously stated moral positions are cast aside and they deal with the situation privately. That's why I called them hypocrites, because that's what they are.
photo
joedaplumper
Ever see an airplane do thi.............
10:46 PM on 11/22/2011
So now "personhood" is the squirrel to distract the voters from the fact that the "Jobs first" Republicans they voted for in 2010 have done the usual bait and switch.
Next thing you know and life will begin with the first round of drinks at the singles bar.
photo
The Corporate Champion
Conservative, because someone's got to do the work
10:45 PM on 11/22/2011
Great news! The pro-abortions have reasons to worry!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SmileAndActNice
Utilitarianism, the -ism that works.
11:24 PM on 11/22/2011
I know learning from the past isn't your thing, but here is some schooling for you:

http://www.personhoodusa.com/node
--------
Personhood Nevada, Personhood Alaska, and Personhood Missouri were denied their rights to even begin collecting signatures, which is why you won’t see Personhood on the ballot anywhere other than Colorado.
---------

We weren't smart enough to stop them from putting a blatantly illegal initiative on the ballot, but we were smart enough to ..

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/11/03/election-2010-amendment-defeated-people-still-have-born-colorado
-------
Amendment 62, the so-called "personhood" amendment, went down to defeat by a large margin--72 percent voting against to 28 percent voting as of this writing.

This is the second time it has been defeated.
------

In Wisconsin it went down in flames with even the No-Choice lobby there opposing it:
http://www.wrtl.org/pa/
-------------
Wisconsin Right to Life therefore vigorously opposes the passage of a personhood constitutional amendment in Wisconsin. We urge individuals, churches and groups not to support a personhood amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution.
-------------

And and guess what kiddo it doesn't even make abortion illegal. Several states have flat out abortion bans on the books right now that are un-enforcable because federal law overrides them. So It wouldn't do anything even if you passed it.

And you can't even pass it.

=D
photo
memery
I used to be disgusted; now I'm just amused.
12:49 AM on 11/23/2011
Wow.

Cogent.

Kudos!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blarneydude
I can handle the truth. Now let's talk about you.
11:45 AM on 11/23/2011
Better news! The 'job creators,' by yelling SQUIRREL! once again, have successfully distracted the stupid from their failure to create jobs!

So now they can all go back to sleep!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
MinneMike
I am 1% deal with it
10:41 PM on 11/22/2011
Abortions remind me of my studies of ancient Aztec history where human lives were slaughtered to appease the Aztec gods.

I this analogy, our civilization slaughters living, breathing life as a sacrifice to women's rights. Funny how history repeats itself.
11:08 PM on 11/22/2011
If a line needs to be drawn somewhere, then it needs to be at the beginning.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SmileAndActNice
Utilitarianism, the -ism that works.
11:34 PM on 11/22/2011
( which medically is first breath because there isn't enough oxygen in the womb for a fetus to become conscious meaning that there is never an actual person in there )
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SmileAndActNice
Utilitarianism, the -ism that works.
11:28 PM on 11/22/2011
Meanwhile on thursday I'll be eating Thanksgiving with my family.

At the Childrens table there are two children that are different from the others.

You see their moms accidentally got pregnant as teens. Single teens. Who weren't even done growing up themselves yet and certainly weren't ready to be moms.

They aborted. Finished school. And met the dads of those two kids.

If not for abortion, those two kids wouldn't exist.

People like you remind me of old aztec gods. Endlessly hungry for the lives of wanted children. Rapacious, arrogant, imagining that it is for YOU to choose which child to quicken.

You who will spill not one drop of blood Experience no pain. Risk NOTHING.

No. It is not for you to choose. Her blood Her choice. She choose these children. You and your dark gods can't have them.
12:17 AM on 11/26/2011
And if they hadn't aborted, there'd be four. I know, because my family is 2 children richer because we decided NOT to abort....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
trilingual
09:38 PM on 11/22/2011
Georgia is less conservative than Mississippi. If it failed in MS, it'll probably crash in GA. But we're going to have to work hard to defeat this.
12:14 AM on 11/26/2011
Absolutely. Heaven knows, we don't want to actually accept the consequences for our fun!
09:36 PM on 11/22/2011
Why does this even matter, I mean JOBS is what people need, not if a zygote is a person. This is getting ridiculous..
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LennyR
11:41 PM on 11/22/2011
Scientifically speaking, a zygote is a living human. The question of whether a human has human rights and when, even if we don't agree, is not "ridiculous" if we're claiming to be a civilized people.
Should we not have addressed slavery, suffrage, jim crow, or any other issue unless all economic issues had been solved? Or is bringing up an unrelated problem just an attempt to avoid the discussion all together?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
reasonshouldrule
12:46 AM on 11/23/2011
You're off. "Scientifically speaking," a zygote is a group of cells that, if it grows, will become a living human.

Don't talk science out of a strictly religious mouth.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AfRet2002
01:08 AM on 11/23/2011
If "Scientific­ally speaking, a zygote is a living human" Then why is it called a zygote?
09:31 PM on 11/22/2011
Ugh. I'm from Mississippi. I campaigned hard against the Personhood Amendment in my state, and I hate to see it popping up again. I cannot stands claims that these amendments would not make the pill illegal and wouldn't restrict in vitro. People who make those claims don't understand how those things work. The morning after pill is just a stronger dose of the regular pill. If the morning after pill is illegal, you have to make the regular pill illegal. Both can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. And claiming that it would only restrict SOME in vitro practices is ludicrous. These amendment would make in vitro basically worthless to try. I really hope Georgia can fight this thing.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
MinneMike
I am 1% deal with it
10:36 PM on 11/22/2011
I bet you are pleased that your parents birthed you.
11:27 PM on 11/22/2011
Yes. And I am also pleased that I can use birth control to plan my family with my husband and that. In addition, I am pleased that, in the event of something like an ectopic pregnancy, the doctor can save my life, therefore saving a wife and mother, rather than being forced to just sit there and watch me bleed out because the doctor cannot "kill" the fertilized egg that is legally a person.
photo
SonOfUgh
Your micro-bio is empty
03:27 AM on 11/23/2011
Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. There are a lot of times where I think this world is a horrible place to be. Nevertheless, most of the good in life has flowed from the fact that my family had the resources and love to nurture me. Had they not had those resources or that love, I suspect the "Sometimes no" answer would be "Mostly no".
photo
SonOfUgh
Your micro-bio is empty
03:25 AM on 11/23/2011
I believe the Personhood Amendment is intended to stop birth control; many religious persons are devoutly opposed to birth control of any kind. If a Personhood Amendment such as this passes, then attacks on the legality of birth control will commence shortly thereafter.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bcx123
09:26 PM on 11/22/2011
Forcing a woman to have a baby against her will is SLAVERY and against the Thirteenth Amendment! Look up the definition of what slavery means! Besides, how in the world would the government get the manpower to monitor EVERY pregnant woman?

-If a “person” is defined at conception, would all child-bearing women be forced to take a pregnancy test each month?
-Would it be a crime to not report being pregnant?
-If you didn't know you were pregnant and had a miscarriage because you fell during an intense workout routine for example, would criminal charges be filed against you?
-Would fathers be charged with negligent child abuse because they didn't protect their child if the mother had an illegal abortion or miscarriage?
-Would all miscarriages be treated as crime scenes?
-Would this bill offer to save the mother's life if she had an ectopic pregnancy or some other medical emergency?
-Would virgin little girls who are raped and became pregnant be forced to still have a baby their young bodies couldn't handle?
-Would pregnant women eventually be forced to go to internment camps until they give birth, because again, how can government monitor EVERY pregnant woman?
-Can just about any stranger sue a pregnant woman on behalf of the unborn "person" if she had a miscarriage that seemed suspicious where women would be subjected to the days of witch hunts?

This law is SCARY and VICIOUS against women and little girls!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
MinneMike
I am 1% deal with it
10:36 PM on 11/22/2011
I believe women getting pregnant is a voluntary act, no?
11:30 PM on 11/22/2011
Obviously women who get raped intend to get pregnant.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SmileAndActNice
Utilitarianism, the -ism that works.
11:32 PM on 11/22/2011
Not if it is a result of birth control failure or coercion.

And even if it was, You can voluntarily sign a pledge to give me a kidney and still change your mind as you are being rolled into the operating room.

You see we have these things called "laws" and several of those laws are very clear on the subject of bodily autonomy and how the right to it is *inalienable".

Thats a long word, you probably are having trouble with it. It means the right *can't be lost*. Ever. Not For any reason. It can't be sold. It can't be traded. No crime is so vile that the right is abridged. No promise made regarding it can't be taken back. Its like how in sex she can say yes in the car but then change her mind and say "no" at the door.

And even though she said "yes" earlier that does not mean she can't say "no" later.

Period.

Can NOT be taken away for any reason.

It's very simple. Any loophole you've thought of won't work. You just can't have it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LennyR
11:44 PM on 11/22/2011
"If a “person” is defined at conception­, would all child-bear­ing women be forced to take a pregnancy test each month? "
Why would it be?
"Would it be a crime to not report being pregnant? "
Why would it be?
"If you didn't know you were pregnant and had a miscarriag­e because you fell during an intense workout routine for example, would criminal charges be filed against you? "
Where is due process overturned?
"Would pregnant women eventually be forced to go to internment camps until they give birth, because again, how can government monitor EVERY pregnant woman? "
It is not legal to murder your born children. Yet, we do not have internment camps for all parents until children come of age. We do not have people checking all houses with children regularly to investigate and prevent abuse. These fears are absurd and not founded in any reality.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blarneydude
I can handle the truth. Now let's talk about you.
11:57 AM on 11/23/2011
Oh, they are not absurd and they are fully founded in reality, to wit, our understanding of the mentality that we are dealing with, a mentality fully blind to unintended consequences of silly willy nilly rulemaking.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bcx123
12:49 AM on 11/27/2011
These fears are absurd and unfounded? If a mass of cells is deemed a "person", that "person" would have legal rights.

Therefore, how is the idea of women having to take required monthly pregnancy tests by law absurd? Women would HAVE TO if conception defines a person. Otherwise, women who don’t want to be pregnant would do everything in her power to rid of her unwanted pregnancy. However, this law makes it illegal to do so. If you can't murder your child once he/she is born because they are a “person”, then you CAN’T abort or cause a miscarriage because that would also be murder.

Consequently, NOT reporting a pregnancy CAN possibly be a crime. If not, then believe all you want that ALL “persons” will be born. As such, there will be definite criminal charges regarding illegal abortions and possibilities of criminal charges regarding miscarriages if there was foul play. Again “PERSONS” have legal rights. All illegal abortions and miscarriages would HAVE to be investigated because if deaths of LIVING children have to be investigated, illegal abortions and miscarriages would have to be investigated too.

Finally, internment camps are absurd? Is it? It will be virtually IMPOSSIBLE to ensure that EVERY “person/baby” is born under this law. It may not happen right away, but with these holy rollers gaining SO MUCH POWER in government, one would have to be a fool to think that it couldn’t.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SmileAndActNice
Utilitarianism, the -ism that works.
09:04 PM on 11/22/2011
There is a lie at the heart of the abortion debate. It is a big lie. And almost all of you, pro-choice and no-choice believe this lie.

The lie is that personhood would make abortion illegal.

It wouldn't.

In order or abortion to be illegal ALL of the following three things must be true. If any of them are false you can't morally or ethically enact a ban on abortion.

1- The right to life must be held superior to the right to bodily autonomy.

2- The State must be empowered to take flesh from unwilling donors to save those who will die without it.

3- Fetuses must be granted personhood and thus be given the same right to take unwilling flesh to survive as the born have.

You guys all keep jumping over points 1 and 2 and debating 3. #3 **doesn't matter** until #1 and #2 happen. Fetal personhood can prevent abortion the day we institute "donor-duty" and have the state start forcing people to donate their fluids/flesh/bones/tissues to save *the born*.

If we adopt assumptions 1 and 2 we are going to force much, MUCH, more than just gestation. Because thanks to medical science there are many, many, ways to use human flesh to save human lives.

If you aren't on the menu, then I'm not either. And if I'm on the menu then **SO ARE YOU**.
09:42 PM on 11/22/2011
That's the moral and ethical argument. Legally, if personhood is granted to zygote, then abortion would be illegal. The points you raise are valid, but it doesn't change the basic legality here. The points you raise are why this would be tossed out of court immediately.

Granting zygotes personhood, grants number 3, and 2 and 1 can certainly be applied, and legally would apply.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SmileAndActNice
Utilitarianism, the -ism that works.
10:52 PM on 11/22/2011
Why would it be illegal? Nobody is legally required to donate flesh now. And there are laws on the books that say if one person wants another person to stop touching them or get out of their sexual regions the other person HAS TO.

A fetal person would have to too.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SmileAndActNice
Utilitarianism, the -ism that works.
10:53 PM on 11/22/2011
Actually let me put this another way. 2 and 1 (don't* apply for anyone now. they wouldn't apply for fetal people either.

All personhood does is turn an unwelcome fetus from a cell blob into a rapist. A criminal.