Monday, November 26, 2007

Pro "Pro-Life Article"? In the LA Times?!

Yes it's true, sort of...

An article in the LA Time actually treats of the pro-life movement in a surprisingly even-handed manner. Below are some excerpts (in italics) and a few comments from your rambling host (in bold).

Abortion foes' strategy advances
An attempt to undermine Roe vs. Wade by amending constitutions to grant human status to embryos gains ground in several states.

By Nicholas Riccardi
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

The campaigns to grant "personhood" to fertilized eggs, giving them the same legal protections as human beings, come as the nation in January marks the 35th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. During those three decades, abortion foes have succeeded in imposing a variety of restrictions, such as waiting periods and parental notification for minors. But there are still about 1.3 million abortions a year in the U.S.

In fact, "personhood" will not be granted, it will be recognized. To be a human being is to be a person. Personhood is an essential component of humanity. It is not equivalent to nor dependent upon I.Q., personality, race, ethnicity, gender, physical ability, size, height, weight or age.


Still, national abortion-rights groups consider the current wave of amendment campaigns a legitimate threat.

They worry that the language of the initiatives might mislead voters. In Colorado, for instance, voters will be asked whether the constitution should "include any human being from the moment of fertilization as 'person' . . . in those provisions of the Colorado Constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law." The amendment is being promoted by a group called Colorado for Equal Rights.

"This type of language may be scarier than an outright ban," said Belinda Bulger, deputy legal director for NARAL Pro-Choice America. "First, because it can be hard for people to understand what it's doing, and second, because it would be far further reaching."

This is an interesting concern. It might 'mislead' the the voters by defining a living human being as a living human being? Similar arguments were made during the slavery debates in the nineteenth century and during the civil rights debates of the last century.


Amendment supporters freely admit that giving a fertilized egg the legal status of a human being would affect a wide range of medical decisions. That's precisely the point, they say: "We're trying to establish some bioethical standards to move us into the 21st century," said Dan Becker, president of Georgia Right to Life.


"What is the potential impact on our court system of every fertilized egg having access to Colorado's court?" asked Toni Panetta, deputy director of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado.

Frightening, eh? That would mean equal protection under the law!

Read the entire article here.

No comments: