A new amendment to the colorado constitution is being proposed for the upcomming vote. Here I wrote a short (200 word) article for the school newspaper The Advocate, in a section entitled "Grief, Relief, or Beyond Belief" where three writers write three different views, mine will be (if accepted) in the Beyond Belief section
ENJOY!
"Amendment 48 seeks to define a person at the point of fertilization. This is despite the biological facts that concur with the fact this doesn’t happen until birth. The consequences of this law are to enormous and ridiculous for most people even to consider. For instance, If a person is defined at the point of fertilization in Colorado law under sections 3 (Inalienable rights), 6 (Equality of justice), and 25 (Due Process of law) any woman or doctor involved in an abortion would be subject to criminal prosecution. Including and up to the death penalty, since an abortion would be a planned murder of a person and under statute 18-3-102 of Colorado Law this would equal murder in the first degree. The thought of such draconian views may be beyond the view of most proponents of amendment 48, but it is consistent with the laws of this state and nation. To do otherwise would undermine the very legal structure in America. Even things like the morning after pill and other such post fertilization procedures would be made illegal. Although we are protected under Roe vs. Wade, the proponents of A48 wish to overturn even that. Amendment 48 is ludicrous and beyond belief!"
1 comment:
Thank you for your opposition to Amendment 48!
You might be interested to read an issue paper published by the Coalition for Secular Government: "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
We discuss some of the serious implications of this proposed amendment, some of which you've already noticed, such as:
* 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.
Our paper also develops a strong defense of abortion rights -- not based on vague appeals to "choice" or "privacy" -- but on the fact that neither an embryo nor fetus qualifies as a person with a right to life.
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, we argue, 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. Moreover, in most cases, she is acting morally and responsibly by doing so.
Again, the URL for the paper is:
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. That's definitely a scary thought.
Thanks again for speaking up about it -- and sorry for this too-long comment.
Diana Hsieh
Founder, Coalition for Secular Government
http://www.seculargovernment.us
Post a Comment