For those of you who haven’t actually read Amendment 26 being proposed for the State of Mississippi Constitution on the November 8th ballot:
Initiative #26
“Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Mississippi:
SECTION 1. Article III of the constitution of the state of Mississippi is hearby amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION TO READ:
SECTION 33. Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, “The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.”
This is the WHOLE amendment, “fine print” and all!! And as you can see, there is nothing mentioned in this amendment of abortion, contraceptives, problem pregnancies, or miscarriages. The amendment simply affirms what has been scientifically supported for years – that human life begins at conception, and therefore he/she should be treated as such.
The Personhood Amendment will not ban in-vitro fertilization. It will, however, outlaw the discarding of unused embryos. Why? Because it is human life that we are throwing in the garbage heap.
The Personhood Amendment will not outlaw contraceptives. It will, however, outlaw the “morning after” pill, or RU486. Why? Because RU486 allows a human life to be conceived and then expelled – it is intentional murder. As usual, the rape/incest argument rears its ugly head here. But again, this all boils down to the question that this Amendment legally seeks to answer – What is the unborn?
If the unborn is not human, if it is merely a blob of tissue, then why not legalize abortion to the first, second or third trimester?
But if the unborn is fully human (as science is continuing to demonstrate), then despite how horrifying the experience of rape or incest, the life of the human baby is to be protected. He or she should not be punished for the sins of the rapist.
The initial backlash reaction to the Personhood Amendment is to cry that a woman will “lose her right to choose”, but I believe this is a backwards and ultimately selfish perspective. The purpose of the Personhood Amendment is not to suppress women or take away their rights, but rather to protect and affirm the rights of the unborn human being who has been given the same inalienable rights to life, liberty and happiness as every other U.S. citizen.
Sources
http://www.sos.ms.gov/Elections/Initiatives/Initiatives/Definition%20of%20Person-PW%20Revised.pdf
http://yeson26.net/amendment-26/frequently-asked-questions/
while. And it is amazing to discover (perhaps for the first time) what else goes on in your head when you don’t have Owl City and Disciple drowning you out 24/7. I am all for these fastings from the constant barrages of entertainment. My apartment has not seen a television during the whole 2.5 years I have lived there. A “big night” for my roommate and I involves an extra episode of M*A*S*H on a computer as we crochet, knit, embroider, or do other “old people” stuff. But recently God has shown me another way in which I have been guilty of allowing the entertainment of the world to warp my spiritual plumb line.
Romans 12 admonishes us to present our bodies on the altar of sacrifice willing and with praise. And how do we do that? But serving the members of the Body of Christ humbly, remembering that we all belong to each other, and by giving honor to only those around us – never ourselves.


The idea of a blog is appealing. You can reach more people and oftentimes it gives you a medium through which you can express your opinions without fear of peer review or censore. But is that really beneficial in the long run? Yes, it may allow one to “get everything out of her system” in a sense, but in doing so it removes any motivation to discuss thoughts and feelings and beliefs with other real human beings – face-to-face. So, there is a loss of interaction, and with a loss of interaction comes a loss of dialogue, and then a lack of accountability. With no accountability one becomes more comfortable saying whatever she wants however she wants with no regard for such things as “line of reason” or “intellectual honesty” – things that fellow human beings who are similarly committed to dialogue would demand. This leads to “sloppy language, which makes sloppy thought possible” (


