About This Blog
Special pre-emptive note: Many good and honorable people believe that abortion should be made illegal in America. I disagree with those people and, currently, a clear majority of Americans do as well. The following is not meant as a personal attack on any folks holding the minority view
The forced pregnancy movement inside America has "won" the "partial birth" argument in the U.S. Supreme Court with the appointments of John Roberts and Sam Alito. In that Supreme Court case decided last year, 5 self-proclaimed conservatives agreed that the federal government is the final "decider" concerning medical procedures. 5 conservatives agreed that "Big Brother" entanglements in personal, private matters is the way forward for America.
Now, the lobby is moving to grant social security numbers to fertilized eggs....or something like that.
The Colorado Supreme Court cleared the way Tuesday for an anti-abortion group to collect signatures for a ballot measure that would define a fertilized egg as a person.
The court approved the language of the proposal, rejecting a challenge from abortion-rights supporters who argued it was misleading and dealt with more than one subject in violation of the state constitution.
If approved by voters, the measure would give fertilized eggs the state constitutional protections of inalienable rights, justice and due process. Link
Here's the thinking....
"It doesn't outlaw abortion, it doesn't regulate birth control," said Kristi Burton, 20, of Colorado for Equal Rights. "It's just a constitutional principle. We're laying a foundation that every life deserves protection.
Burton said the initiative would simply define a human.
"It's very clearly a single subject," Burton said. "If it's a human being, it's a person, and hey, they deserve equal rights under our law."
Seems a bit like Creationists calling Biblical creation Intelligent Design.
Look at how far the forced pregnancy folks will go in their quest to stop giving women the right of choice over their reproductive lives.
The clearest aspect of this dispute, to me, is the undeniable fact that NOT ONE WOMAN has ever been forced or ordered to have an abortion. Government does not tell any woman that she must abort. Because this is true....it is clear that the forced pregnancy lobby is primarily focused on preventing others from exercising choice.
Attempting to define "a human" as a fertilized egg is, transparently, an attempt to stop pregnant women from exercising their choice in the matter....at all. At it's root, that's exactly what the "partial birth" ban was designed to do...limit a woman's choice and replace it with Big Brother's choice. This is all part of the incremental approach , by forced pregnancy advocates, to nullify Roe vs. Wade.
Colorado's forced pregnancy movement is only one of many....
Anti-abortion activists said similar voter-led initiatives or legislative efforts are under way in five other states, including Montana, Georgia, Oregon, Michigan and South Carolina.
This anti-choice movement, mainly populated with Evangelical and conservative Catholic members, is seeking the power of the state once again, rather than relying on the power of their god to change people's lives. However, this time, the power seeking seems rather odd.
If it is true that a fertilized egg is a person who deserves equal treatment under law....is it not also true that the woman in whose body the fertilized egg resides is a person deserving equal treatment under the law? And if that's also true....then isn't the fertilized egg "person", by being inside of the woman against her wishes, violating the woman's rights by being there?
If a pregnancy is unwanted, which is the reason for abortion in the first place, doesn't deeming the fetus as a person create a woman vs. fetus court case? Wouldn't the woman have an argument that her privacy rights are being violated by an unwanted "person" invading her body against her wishes? Will "privacy" also have to be redefined as well?
I'm not trying to be glib here. Many folks take exception to my use of "forced pregnancy" to describe the pro-lifers....but honestly....isn't that what initiatives like this one in Colorado are meant to accomplish? And wouldn't the passage of Colorado's initiative set the stage for just what I've described in the previous partagraph?
Finally, if a fertilized egg is a person deserving equal rights under law....then is it so far fetched to also say that sperm and egg, before fertilization, are "potential" persons and therefore, deserve those same rights? Is it? How long before initiatives defining contraception are introduced because, after all, doesn't contraception prevent a "potential" human from realization?
Lots of questions.