Things like Proposed Amendment 48 (in Colorado), which Julie discusses here. In short, life would be classified as from fertilization on... the ramifications of which are very very far reaching, and could easily change not just what your mind probably heads to (abortion rights), but ANYTHING related to a woman's eggs (birth control, fertility treatments, addressing miscarriages, etc). Besides the obvious pro-choice activists, legal scholars, victims of sexual assault, etc... the bill is also opposed by the governor of Colorado, a Catholic man who ran on a pro-life platform. He calls the measure "bad policy, bad medicine and bad law." I agree. And frankly, I repeat, its scary.
Also scary... the extreme McCain supporters (not all of them, please don't be offended... i praise McCain below, so read on). I'm talking about the ones who honestly believe that its okay to call Barak Obama a terrorist, "arab", or threat to our nation. The ones that would boo their own candidate because he refuses to call his opponent dirty enough names (for that McCain, I salute you! thank you for showing some class!). What the hell is wrong with people?!
A sense of grievance spilling into rage has gripped some GOP events this week as McCain supporters see his presidential campaign lag against Obama. Some in the audience are making it personal, against the Democrat. Shouts of "traitor," "terrorist," "treason," "liar," and even "off with his head" [what is this? fvckin Alice in Wonderland?! I certainly feel like I've fallen down a rabbit hole.] have rung from the crowd at McCain and Sarah Palin rallies, and gone unchallenged by them.
McCain changed his tone Friday when supporters at a town hall pressed him to be rougher on Obama.
[...] "I don't trust Obama," a woman said. "I have read about him. He's an Arab."
McCain shook his head in disagreement, and said:
"No, ma'am. He's a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about."
He had drawn boos with his comment: "I have to tell you, he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States."
I just don't have the words to express how I feel about this. Its scary, its disturbing, and I wish for once an election could actually be about the issues and not about slandering people. I just don't understand people, I honestly don't.
I wish it could simply be: here's how I plan to handle x y z, here how I plan to handle x y z, we'll have a debate, we'll do an interview or two, now vote.
I can't wait for this election to be over.
Okay, I'm going to start my weekend and focus on more pleasant things.
Thank you for your opposition to Amendment 48!
ReplyDeleteYou 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, 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