Thursday, May 29, 2008

In Colorado, an egg may soon become a chicken

Come November, in the Rocky Mountain State of Colorado, voters will have the opportunity to amend their constitution to define personhood as "any human being from the moment of fertilization."

This is all the doing of the extreme right, of course, in the form of a group called Colorado for Equal Rights, led by a 21-year old woman, Kristi Burton. The point is to "extend constitutional rights" to a fertilized egg, on the assumption that the egg is a real human person. The wackos of the Colorado for Equal Rights were successful in obtaining 103,377 valid signatures on the petition. They needed only 76,047.

Maybe it's the altitude?

Kristi Burton, who's full of knowledge and life experience and the love of God, among other things, says that "All humans should be protected by love and law, and this amendment is a historic effort to ensure equal rights for every person."

Sheesh!


The truth is that this amendment is a backdoor approach toward the goal of banning all abortions in the state of confusion -- I mean Colorado. Obviously, if the fertilized egg is a person, then to hurt or kill that egg must be some kind of crime; a fetal felony, perhaps?

Those Colorado citizens with a tad of common sense realize this amendment is a disaster of large, but unforeseen consequences. If it passes, legalized abortion is over in Colorado; it's back to the alley and the coat hanger! If it passes, it is likely to make contraception illegal; how can one interrupt the process of sperm swimming to meet egg to fertilize and create an egg which immediately becomes a real human person? Toss your condoms or get arrested!

This proposed amendment also goes against the scientific and legal definition of pregnancy: "pregnancy is not from the point of conception -- it's from the point of implantation, when the fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterus and the woman's body becomes able to support the pregnancy. In fact, it's estimated that 60 to 80 percent of naturally conceived embryos do not implant." (from sexualjustice.blogspot.com)

Note that we haven't begun to raise the issue as to when "life" begins.


It should be obvious that this amendment is a bald-faced attempt to impose the religious beliefs held by some people in Colorado on all the residents of Colorado! It has nothing to do with the any real concern for the sanctity of life. If that were the case, these same people promoting this nonsense would be out fighting capital punishment and would be marching to denounce war--especially illegal wars like the ones in which we've become mired in the Middle East.

Furthermore, since when does the hoi poloi or any state vote on answers to scientific questions? What's next, an amendment changing Colorado's constitution to include the date of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ? Or maybe Colorado should amend its constitution to teach Creationism in the public schools - the notion that the Earth is a mere 6,000 years old. Wait a minute, that's already being tried in some states.



Don Surber, a Colorado blogger, put this whole business in perspective.

Surber says "Regardless of how opposed to abortion one may be, we all have to agree that a fertilized egg is not a human being." It has the "potential," he says, "And hell yes, it is a gift from God. But a fertilized egg is not a person. It has no rights."

Surber is correct, except for the "gift from God" bit. And if Colorado approves this amendment, the rest of the world will point their fingers and laugh at all of the good citizens of the state for allowing themselves to be conned by a 21-year old religious fanatic.

An egg is not a chicken! An egg is not a human person. An egg is an egg.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I guess the next step is to declare sperm as the beginning of life. The Bible does have something to say about casting seed upon the ground, being a sin. Of course it would also be a sin to cast it anywhere except near enough to an egg to result in a possible pregnancy. I am not sure how one “casts” sperm anywhere. It seems like an imprecise verb at best. Sperm has been known to find its way onto a famous blue dress; onto handkerchiefs; onto bed linens, and all sorts of places inadvertently or on purpose. What should be done about such “casting”? Should there be punishment regardless of age or circumstances of sperm “casting” without the purpose of creating life? I suspect that lots of sperm is “cast” by all sorts of people in all sorts of places, with or without the cooperation of others. Are both parties to “casting” equally guilty or only the “caster”? What if sperm is cast while asleep and the caster is not aware of casting? Inadvertent “casting” is hazard of youth and no intent of pregnancy is involved. Sometimes emissions could be considered “casting” as if sperm is involved, pregnancy could result. I see ads all the times for “emission testing” usually at garages but do not know if sperm is involved.
Who will do the searching for all this “casting”. How will guilt be determined? It is possible to hide “casting” and it is usually not done in public venues.
I think this raises all sorts of problems, although the proponents mean well. How much does this young lady know about “casting” and how did she learn.
Bob Poris

opinions powered by SendLove.to