I haven't kept up with some news well enough and an amendment up for vote in Colorado had slipped through the cracks.
As wne of the most extreme anti-abortion amendments, it would define a fertilized egg as a person with civil rights. This is even before it has implanted. What's frightening is the 30% of voters who support it and the 22% who are undecided. Thankfully, supporters have not raised a lot of money. But that a poll would find 53% of people either support or might support such an extreme view sends a chill down my spine. That so many would support the government granting rights to something that most potentially-pregnant women will probably not even be aware exists defies logic, biology and common sense.
The Amendment would change the definition of a person in the Colorado constitution to include "any human being from the moment of fertilization."
Ms Magazine and the Feminist Daily News both point out that this puts not only abortion rights in jeopardy, but also birth control and in vitro fertilization.
This opens the door to restricting many women's rights and freedom on the basis that a fertilized egg might exist at any time. I'm sure I don't have to tell anyone reading this that a woman is not even pregnant before the egg has implanted. Yet this amendment, taken to logical conclusions, could allow for women to be charged with a crime for doing anything to prevent that egg from implanting, or doing anything that could cause damage to the embryo.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
This might be a good time to make known to you, that many of those on the "other side" don't look fondly upon such developments (as those described here) any more than YOU do.
(And you may decipher which "other side" I am referring to. Think of a three-letter acronym which makes an anagram of the English translation of the French word "bras". . .;-)
A challenging lesson in this life, I think, is to realize that our "enemies" may sometimes agree< with us on many points, and that for this very reason (seeing how they are potential 'ally material'!) it can be a counter-productive policy to have them as enemies in the first place. . .
The best plan, I would opine, is to compile a list of "agreement points", and put the disagreement points on the "agree to disagree list".
Then, work from the agreement list. . .
The hazard of NOT adopting such a policy, is that our adversaries will eventually resort to Machiavellian pragmatism, and turn against us EVEN on those points of agreement, and support the opposite side.
Not because they have changed their opinion on the points in question, but merely for the sake of political opportunism. As a weapon, so to speak. . .
Truly, we live in complicated times, and the line separating friend from foe becomes a matter of mind-boggling complexity.
In a way, this offers a useful lesson in chaos theory. ;-)
Post a Comment