MSNBC's Matthews: Personhood Amendment in Miss. Would Deprive Women of 'Free Will'
MSNBC could easily change its acronym to MSNARAL given its concerted effort to attack a pro-life ballot measure that goes before Mississippi voters in 12 days.
Hardball host Chris Matthews joined MSNBC colleagues Thomas Roberts and Tamron Hall today in featuring guests on their respective programs who blasted Initiative 26, an amendment to the state constitution that would confer legal personhood on unborn babies if it's approved by Magnolia State voters this November 8.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Unlike Roberts and Hall, Matthews did provide some balance by allowing Family Research Council's (FRC) Ken Blackwell to defend the ballot initiative on air. Even so, Matthews spent that interview attacking Blackwell from the left, accusing him of not doing enough to discourage unplanned pregnancies. What's more, Matthews concluded the subsequent softball interview with Newsweek's Michelle Goldberg by accusing pro-lifers of attempting to subvert a woman's "free will."
Although Matthews persistently attacks Republicans and conservatives for being "anti-science," the Hardball host seemed flustered at the notion that a fertilized human egg should be considered a human person.
Blackwell pointed out the moral dilemmas raised by in vitro fertilization practices that produce more embryos than are implanted, thereby producing human lives which are disposed of or indefinitely kept on ice.
Matthews then scolded Blackwell for attempting an "end-run" around the Constitution:
You know what I think? I've let you give your position, but I think this is what we call in football an end-run. I believe whatever else it is, it's an attempt to outlaw, ban the right of a woman to have an abortion, no matter what else you're talking about here, that will be the implication under the law. There's no other reason to go this direction. That's why you're doing it.
After Blackwell responded that "this is not an end-run, this is not a game, this is a pro-life movement," Matthews lectured Blackwell that if he "want[s] to stop the number of abortions in this country" he should "tell young men to stop having unprotected sex with women, discourage the act that leads to unwanted pregnancies, help people get birth control procedures available to them, reduce the incidents in which people choose to have an abortion in a free country.... and that's not going on."
"You know me, Chris, and you know that that's not the case," a visibly upset Blackwell retorted.
"It's all I hear though," Matthews sneered.
By contrast, Matthews's interview with Goldberg was a game of softball, with Matthews even suggesting the personhood amendment was an affront to a conservative, originalist reading of the country's Founding Fathers:
I just wonder how it squares with the writings of the Constitution [sic], and people who believe in original intent. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness relates to people who are alive and living and born.
Pursuit is a word, an active verb. I don't think you'd associate that with a fetus. And certainly liberty is a word you would apply to people who are alive and born. I don't know what it means to say an unborn person has liberty. I don't even know how the Constitution, you could possibly catch up in its original intent to what these people are talking about.
Closing the segment, Matthews reiterated his "end-run" complaint and dramatically complained that the personhood amendment was about "prevent[ing] people from having a free will at a certain point."
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
It's can be worse for the baby.
Submitted by wingnut55 on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 7:17pm.
If it isn't passed it can be far worse for the baby. The baby will be denied life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What is wrong with these people?
No, Mr. Matthews, only Sharia
Submitted by jessieH on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 7:24pm.
No, Mr. Matthews, only Sharia law will do that.
BS!
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 7:50pm.
"Tell young men to stop having unprotected sex with women, discourage the act that leads to unwanted pregnancies, help people get birth control procedures available to them, reduce the incidents in which people choose to have an abortion in a free country.... and that's not going on."
BS! Many public schools now hand out free condoms! Every singe school in New York City, for example, is required, by law, to give them to anyone who asks. Philly is giving them to kids as young as 11. One school in Provincetown is even handing them out to 5 year olds! Stop lying to us!
By the way, NO ONE in America should be "free" to kill their own children, for any reason whatsoever. The very thought is abhorrent, barbaric, and, yes, EVIL!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
The pro-murder crowd
Submitted by Rukus on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 9:10pm.
Believes in slaughter on demand. EVIL is right on the money Cobra. It's really sad where we have come as a nation. Sigh.
So does the personhood
Submitted by moderncommentaries83 on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 7:54pm.
So does the personhood amendment force women to have sex?
Force them not to use alternative methods of birth control (other than abortion; i.e. condoms, the pill)?
No. It still allows women the free will to choose whether or not to engage in sexual activity. What it does is prevent the premeditated murder of an unborn child conceived because of the actions of another person.
This whole argument really speaks volumes about how liberals view us women: we're too stupid to realize sex causes pregnancy and the only way we'll be "free" is if we can kill our children. Never mind that the second a woman chooses and regrets abortion (not to mention suffers physical and mental/emotional trauma from that abortion), the "pro-choice" left leaves her high and dry, sticking it's proverbial fingers in their collective ears while shouting, "La la la la la we don't want to hear how abortion harmed you! Nothing can stand in the way of us and a dead baby and consequence-free sex!"
Anyone who supports abortion disgusts me.
Well MC83
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 7:59pm.
Can't say it any better than you just did!
Great post.
I'm with the lovely LA lady
Submitted by Rukus on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 9:12pm.
Excellent post.
not to mention...
Submitted by lotr on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:18pm.
...the fact that those seeking abortion could always drive across state lines...
But I think what really troubles tingles is that MEN might lose their "free will" to reduce women to mere objects of self-gratification.
When is a fetus a person?
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 8:05pm.
Anyone have a timeline?
At conception?
First week?
First month?
First ultrasound?
Heartbeat detection?
If the parents are visiting from out of town, conceive an offspring while in Miss., does Mississippi have the right to protect the fetus and extradite the parents back to the state until it's born?
I think abortion is abhorrent and extreme...I just think the woman has the ultimate right to decide on the well-being of herself and, hopefully, decides to deliver her future child. I can't fathom a society telling me I'm not allowed to destroy my sperm since it has potential in creating a person (actually, I'm a hideous man with no potential for a mate! LOL)
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
At conception.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 9:01pm.
Yes, there is a time-line of when a "fetus" becomes a "person," one that the female body itself has set. That time-line begins at conception, when the female body recognizes that a brand new human being, a brand new PERSON, is inside her and her body does everything it can to protect and nurture that new human being, that new person. It doesn't even have to be hers. It can be the fertilized "egg," another zygote, another embryo, another fetus, another PERSON, from another woman!
Look at it this way: what happened to an unfertilized "egg?" The woman's body rejects it and expels it. Why? Because her body doesn't recognize it as a living human being. It's just another cell from her own body, one that isn't even important enough to keep around anymore. Now, what happens to a fertilized "egg?' Well, I think you know what happens, don't you? So, doesn't that tell us all just when, biologically as well as philosophically, a human life, a person, begins? It should. After all, it's been telling the women themselves that for millions of years! When did we stop listening?
You know, this whole argument of when a "fetus" becomes a "person" is asinine, for it assumes that there is a certain point during development when, somehow, a fetus is bestowed with "personhood," for lack of better term (it's so asinine, you see, that we don't even have a term for it!). Well, if the argument is that there is a certain point when "personhood" is bestowed upon you, then there must also be a point when you loose that "personhood" as well. Which begs the question: When does a person STOP being a person? When does "personhood" end? Does it end at puberty, menopause, death?
A person is a human being, living or dead, it doesn't matter which (We don't build monuments, like the Lincoln Memorial, to non-people), therefor a fetus, as it is a human being from conception, is a person, living or dead, it doesn't matter which. So, tell me, do you think that women should be free to kill people just because that person happens to reside within them temporarily? Is nine months really too much to give up for the life of another person? Have we, as a society, really become that selfish? I hope not. For if we have, our society is doomed.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Scientifically speaking-
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 3:14pm.
...you're incorrect about a woman's body recognizing a brand new human being at conception. A woman's body prepares in advance for the fertilized egg to implant itself.
http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/understanding-conception
Also, when something is wrong in the developmental stages a woman's body may reject the "brand new human being". Not every pregnancy is 100% certain. It would be a sad state of affairs to prosecute a woman for each miscarriage since her body was not "protecting and nurturing" the "brand new human being".
Egg, sperm, zygote, blastocyst are terms for the development of the embryo. The developing baby is described as an embryo from conception to the 8th week. From the 8th week until the moment of birth the developing baby is called a fetus.
There is no need to redefine medical terms for development of a baby. Embryo and fetus describe the same thing- the developing baby.
People want to give rights to the unborn as a way to somehow protect it from its "murderous mother", Well, when will the same people protect the mother and child from a life of poverty? Or it's a choice the mother brought on herself for allowing to be impregnated?
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
Blofeld
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 8:15pm.
Let me ask you, when does the woman cease having the power to kill her child? When it's newborn, one month, one year, ten years? I mean my well being probably would have been enhanced if I could have killed my daughter at 14 or so when she drove me crazy and I was losing sleep. Would that have been o.k.?
Your sperm do not have 46 chromosomes, nor does a woman's egg. However, once the two are combined it is a person with 46 chromosomes.
Sperm and eggs inevitably die
Submitted by lotr on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:25pm.
Sperm and eggs inevitably die REGARDLESS of what a person does. They are human cells, not human organisms.
lotr
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 11:09pm.
That was my point. Sperm and eggs are not complete human beings.
It's her body.
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 3:20pm.
We are all capable of killing a human being-directly or indirectly. Society may decide to end the life of a person as it so chooses.
As for your daughter and your well being enhanced- if you thought of your daughter as a liability instead of an asset, you wouldn't have had her.
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
"The potential"...you said it
Submitted by moderncommentaries83 on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 11:06pm.
"The potential"...you said it yourself. A sperm cell is not a living human being.
Once a woman has conceived a child (not without a partner, I might add), it's no longer "sperm and egg" but a separate, unique, genetically individual human being.
That's when you no longer have the "right" to "choose" to kill that person -- whether because you don't want kids, or aren't ready at that particular moment in time. Whatever the reason...no one living in 21st century America should be shocked at the notion that sex (even with birth control) is what causes pregnancy.
You have sex, you get pregnant, you don't get a mulligan. If you don't want to have kids, then don't take the risk of having sex. You don't have a "right" to kill another human being because of YOUR mistake.
Being raped is a choice and considered a mistake of the victim?
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 3:23pm.
"You have sex, you get pregnant, you don't get a mulligan. If you don't want to have kids, then don't take the risk of having sex. You don't have a "right" to kill another human being because of YOUR mistake."
Laying the blame on the victim?
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
I think this will answer your question
Submitted by Pizza Dude on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 1:47pm.
Photo of a human being.
yep
Submitted by lotr on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 9:43pm.
Correct -- assuming the chromosomes in the cells are human (and that there 2 haploid sets), that is indeed a human being at a very early stage of development.
The question isn't when an human individual first comes into existence. The question is about "personhood," which an imprecise ambiguous term, and thus up for legitimate debate. A logical and objective choice would be at the bio-logical starting point, aka conception/implantation.
Well, it's a debate issue.
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 3:27pm.
Scientific terms, Philosophical ideas, imprecise terms describing emotional connections to what is and what isn't and then trying to shoe horn everything into a nice box.
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
Ok blofeld*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 3:56pm.
Now that last post was funny. To debate any issue, one does not show up 4 days late for the party and throw confetti and pretend you were at the party. That is not an example of debate.
ohhh sorry.
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 5:05pm.
As if it matters anyways...I'm sooooo sorry not being able to live for the moment and reside on this website every second waiting for a response.
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
Which is it, lotr?
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 5:38pm.
Conception (fertilized egg) or implantation?
Pizza Dude's link indicates the Mississippi measure would confer "personhood" on the former whether or not implantation ensued.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by lotr on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 12:54pm.
I left it open purposely as I consider this a point for legimate debate, but if pressed, I would argue conception. Hypothetically, if the DNA from an unimplanted zygote were somehow made available for examination with the charge that the examiner (say, a forensic molecular biologist) determine the source of the sample, the result would be "human male," or "human female."
My guess is that the argument for implantation would be based upon the notion that until the zygote is implanted and begins to develop further, we really don't have any way to know that a fertilization has occured, which I would consider to be a legitimate argument.
Are you
Submitted by gailannr on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 8:24pm.
sweating it Chrissy??????? Poor baby!
On a different topic,
Submitted by redfish on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 8:41pm.
On a different topic, Margaret Hoover on O'Reilly's show just defended the NYCs new sex ed curriculum, saying it was better than having derelict parents. Its shows how ridiculous so-called younger "moderates" like Ms. Hoover and Ms. McCain are ; they care more about being popular with their friends than about sensible social policy.
How ironic
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 9:56pm.
How ironic. It's ok, preferable, even, that the state take control over a child's upbringing, to protect them, supposedly, from the "bad decisions" their parent or parents will, or may, make. Unless, of course, that child hasn't t been born yet. Then it's a "government hands off" approve. Please, Nanny Sam, tell me how to raise my kids, just don't tell me how to birth them?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
fight it
Submitted by spikebu2 on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 7:58am.
They wanted my daughter in a sex and drug "mini" program. I pulled her out. The sex and drug thing was 2/3 of the grade. 4th grade!!! I was called repeatedly by the "counselor" who told me she knew my daughter better than I did. The "counselor" was fired after much bitching and recorded conversations. It should not have taken that much. This is PUBLIC school. They should teach what the public dictates! I have no desire for my children to learn about gay, lesbian, or transvestites. Why is that policy? What percentage of the world are non-heterosexuals? Why do they get precedence? It can only be because we're silent. Because we hesitated, they will call us all kinds of evil when we speak. Be evil. It's the new good. Do it for your kids.
Good for you!
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 2:30pm.
That is an outrage....she knew your daughter better than you did.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Sloppy
Submitted by GCSmith on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 9:36pm.
First, did anyone notice that Chris cites the Declaration of Independence, then refers to the Constitution. The two documents are not synonymous in purpose or content. Second, maybe a woman's choice will be limited, but, unless Mississippi is operating in a metaphysical realm, a state law cannot deprive a woman of her free will.
No, Chris...
Submitted by stage9 on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:27pm.
...it would deprive a woman of a homicide.
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
LIKE!!!!
Submitted by GW on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 8:54am.
!
These women . .
Submitted by rick.bren on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:58pm.
made their choice when they got pregnant. . .
You receive Holy Communion
Submitted by Soldat44 on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 11:05pm.
You receive Holy Communion with that mouth Mr. Matthews?
Maybe we should repeal all laws against murder because it denies 'Free Will' to those who want to end someone's life for any reason whatsoever.
Holy Mary, Mother of God: Pray for us.
Chris is Just Worried Too Little Human Sacrifice = Bad Harvest!
Submitted by Avitar on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 12:41am.
Does anybody know if Chris is a pagan or a satirist? Did he convert back when he was working for Speaker Tip O’Neil? He certainly wasn’t the same man afterwards.
Personhood?
Submitted by spikebu2 on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 7:22am.
My dog is currently pregnant. She's a Yellow Lab and Dad is a Black Lab. She is due on Dec 8th. There is no friggin doubt in my mind what is going to come out of her. Little Labs. Babies. Puppies! They're in there now. If I took her to the vet and said I don't want to have puppies, he'd kill the puppies. Not the fetuses, the PUPPIES! I do not understand why every creature on earth, except humans, can contain their own species in their uterus's? If you go off on egg laying, I dare you to destroy an Eagle egg, it's a Federal offense. How can my dog be pregnant with puppies while I carry a fetus? Why do we allow that any other animal is pregnant with its own species, yet we deny it for ourselves. If you deny it's human, you are saying it's something else. So, what is it? What kind of strange crap do we grow in our wombs?
God morning spike
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 10:51am.
Very well put. My wife and I both expected to see a baby human born both times she was pregnant. Lo and behold, both times it was a baby boy.
Never in human history has it been recorded that the product of a human pregnancy was not a human being. Not one horse, dog, cat, or even a field mouse been birthed by a woman but the liberals keep telling us that it is not a human being inside a woman's womb.
A rose by any other name is still a rose and a baby by any other name is still a baby.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Interesting...
Submitted by malefecent928 on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 11:56am.
Last night we got a phone call from an alleged "national, independent" agency collecting data on American voter's views on abortion and requested to do a brief survey with the registered voter. It consisted of 4 questions.....the first one (and most telling as to the true bent of the survey takers) was "Are you a pro-lifer?". This question was delivered in the most sneering, demeaning tone imagineable! I wonder what and how this survey will ultimately be spun?
the point of the gaffe
Submitted by bulbasaur on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 1:55pm.
Isn't the point that Chris Matthews said something very stupid in claiming that "women will be deprived of free will"?
To Catholics, all humans are born with free will, & it can never be taken away.
I think what Chris meant is that women will be forced to align their free will with a morally informed intellect, which of course is a libertine's worst nightmare.
the point of the gaffe
Submitted by bulbasaur on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 1:56pm.
Isn't the point that Chris Matthews said something very stupid in claiming that "women will be deprived of free will"?
To Catholics, all humans are born with free will, & it can never be taken away.
I think what Chris meant is that women will be forced to align their free will with a morally informed intellect, which of course is a libertine's worst nightmare.
What's your point,
Submitted by moderncommentaries83 on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 12:02pm.
What's your point, precisely?
That because the early stages of human development don't look human enough for you, abortion is okay? Well, here's a little -- albeit horribly inconvenient -- fact for you: a majority of women don't find out they're pregnant in those early stages of development. Pregnancy is usually discovered somewhere around the 8th-12th weeks of pregnancy, when the unborn child looks like this.
But this is all just stupid rhetorical argument, anyway. Whether someone looks human or doesn't look quite human enough does not negate their humanity. Are amputees not human because they're missing the prerequisite limbs? Are burn victims not human because their features are (sometimes horribly) distorted? What about Charla Nash, the poor woman mauled by a chimp several years ago? She doesn't "look" human...does that mean she isn't? This is the same stupid argument about an unborn child not being able to survive independently (i.e. breathe on his/her own, feed him/herself) meaning "it" is not a human being.
My mother-in-law had ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease). It robbed her of the ability to breathe on her own (she was on a ventilator from New Year's Eve 2008-2009 until she passed away in April of this year) and slowly rendered her incapable of feeding herself (my father in law went to feed her every day for over two years). Was she not a human being?
Life begins at conception. Period. The fact that an unborn child isn't developed enough, human-looking enough for some doesn't mean the child is not a human being and not worthy of being protected from the cruel, evil and unnecessary procedure known as "abortion"...in fact, it's the fact they are so dependent on another that makes them worthy of protection. A society is only as decent as the care it provides the most defenseless members of society. And right now, our society has let 60 million people die in the pursuit of "free will" and consequence-free sex.