Colorado is facing its own battle for life, even as we fight for life with Initiated Measure 11 in South Dakota.
Colorado for Equal Rights is fighting to have the personhood of unborn children recognized. The unborn do, after all, have human DNA from the moment of conception, and from the moment of conception that human DNA is unique--unique from their mother or father or any other human being on earth.
But some are fighting against personhood for unborn human beings. Who? As with some in South Dakota, follow the money.
Greed from Personhood USA on Vimeo
2 comments:
I have been an outspoken advocate for abortion rights -- and against Amendment 48 -- in Colorado. I have absolutely no financial stake in the issue whatsoever, and nor do I think that anyone in the "No on 48" coalition is motivated by money. It's absurd, in fact. They are motivated by their conviction that abortion is a woman's right.
The advocates of Amendment 48 claim that a newly-created embryo -- a single cell without any human attributes except DNA -- is a human person with a right to life. They wish to force that view on everyone, whatever the costs. Consider:
* Amendment 48 would make abortion first-degree murder, except perhaps to save the woman's life. First-degree murder is defined in Colorado law as deliberately causing the death of a "person," a crime punished by life in prison or the death penalty. So women and their doctors would be punished with the severest possible penalty under law for terminating a pregnancy -- even in cases of rape, incest, and fetal deformity.
* Amendment 48 would ban any form of birth control that might sometimes prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus -- including the birth control pill, morning-after pill, and IUD. The result would be many more unintended pregnancies and unwanted children in Colorado.
* Amendment 48 would ban in vitro fertilization because the process usually creates more fertilized eggs than can be safely implanted in the womb. So every year, hundreds of Colorado couples would be denied the joy of a child of their own.
Amendment 48 has very sharp teeth. Yet such consequences seem to be of little concern to the advocates of Amendment 48. They think that the men and women of Colorado should be forced to sacrifice for the sake these new "persons" in the womb.
So we must ask: Is a fertilized egg a human person with a right to life? The only rational answer is "NO."
An embryo or fetus is wholly dependent on the woman for its basic life-functions. It goes where she goes, eats what she eats, and breathes what she breathes. It lives as an extension of her body, contained within and dependent on her for its survival. It is only a potential person, not an actual person.
That situation changes radically at birth. The newborn baby exists as a distinct organism, separate from his mother. Although still very needy, he lives his own life. He is a person, and his life must be protected as a matter of right.
So when a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy she does not violate the rights of any person. Instead, she is properly exercising her own rights over her own body in pursuit of her own happiness.
For more information, visit: http://www.ColoradoVoteNo48.com
For a detailed analysis, see the issue paper "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person" by Ari Armstrong and myself. It's available at:
http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf
The sad fact is that Amendment 48 is based on sectarian religious dogma, not objective science or philosophy. It is a blatant attempt to impose theocracy in America.
Please vote NO on 48!
Diana Hsieh
Founder, Coalition for Secular Government
http://www.seculargovernment.us
I'm sure not everyone is in it for the money. Some folks just like to keep their options open in case birth control fails.
However, there are some serious questions I'd like you to consider.
Diana, if the woman's unborn child is "an extension of her body," why does the mother's body undergo special changes during pregnancy to prevent rejection of the child; if the child was "an extension of her body," her body would not reject itself as a foreign object would it?
If the woman's unborn child is "an extension of her body," why does the child have unique DNA and not the mother's DNA?
Post a Comment