Embryos Could Be People Too: Personhood Colorado, Mississippi Qualify Ballot Measures
Religion & Culture, US Sunday, February 14th, 2010Personhood Colorado and Personhood Mississippi have submitted sufficient signatures to place a “personhood” measure on the ballot. If it they succeed in the general election, these would be the first states to grant every fertilized egg the full rights of a human.
Personhood USA reports that both Personhood Colorado and Personhood Mississippi have submitted adequate signatures to place “Personhood Amendments” to their state constitutions on the ballot in November.
Christian News Wire reports that Personhood Colorado gathered 79,817 signatures (76,047 were required) via an all-volunteer campaign.
Colorado’s amendment reads:
“Section 32. Person defined. As used in sections 3*, 6**, and 25*** of Article II of the state constitution, the term “person” shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.”
Colorado state legislator and amendment co-sponsor Gualberto Garcia-Jones remarks:
The 79,817 signatures are an indicator that the people of Colorado are determined to protect innocent life; we will not rest until every child is protected by love and by law.
Personhood Mississippi’s site makes it crystal clear that this is a religious movement:
As an update, we still need help from pro-life Christians, families, churches, and organizations in the Delta, Southwest Miss, the Coast, & Metro Jackson . . . If your church has not gotten involved, have them do so. If they have, contact other churches in your area.
Finally, as a reminder, we want to encourage all pro-life Mississippi Christians to get involved — not only with our efforts, but with pouring their lives into the “true religion” (James 1:27) of caring for widows & orphans.
Personhood Mississippi has collected over 114,000 (of 95,000 required) to make this into law:
Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Mississippi: SECTION 1. Article III of the constitution of the state of Mississippi is hearby amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION TO READ: Section 33. Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, “The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.” This initiative shall not require any additional revenue for implementation.
What does this mean?
First, it means that abortion — even to save the life of the mother, even in cases of child rape or incest — would be legally considered murder.
Second, it outlaws certain forms of birth control.
- IUDs prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine lining.
- The morning-after pill (RU-486) causes the uterus to reject a recently-implanted egg.
What about fertility clinics?
All those spare fertilized eggs that didn’t get implanted and are in cold storage . . . yes, they’re people, too. I’m not sure how they plan to handle them; require someone to bear them?
Are there unforeseen consequences?
Unforeseen by whom? The proposers may not consider overpopulation a problem.
More interestingly, the amendment states, “This initiative shall not require any additional revenue for implementation.” This is not true.
Many sensible parents terminate pregnancies when the health of the mother is at stake. Personhood would make this impossible, meaning huge medical expenses — born by the taxpayers — to keep the mother alive through her pregnancy.
Many sensible parents also terminate pregnancies when the child is going to be severely deformed or subject to a hereditary disease. Personhood would make this impossible as well, meaning any number of children needing life-long care will become wards of the state.
What do you think of Personhood?
Related articles:
- Coming Soon: Personhood for Frozen Embryos
- No Lesbians Allowed at Rural Mississippi Prom
- Colorado's Religious Bill of Rights: Religious Insurgents' Latest Assault on Schools
- Second Chance Prom in Mississippi Great Success, Humanists Say
- Florida Senate moves to allow state funding of religion
Jenny Donati is webmistress and co-editor of Secular News Daily. Jenny is an outspoken secularist who believes firmly in the separation of church and state. She demands evidence to support arguments, and holds herself to the same standard. She doesn't write about herself in the third person . . . but there's a first time for everything.You can follow comments on this article through the RSS Comment Feed. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry.
I think it’s hilarious that 99% of the people who voted here said no.
Rape, incest, and life of the mother are all straw men. With the possibility of C-section to attempt to save BOTH lives, both the life of the mother AND the life of her unborn child, there is NEVER any excuse to slice and dice, cut and suction out the body of an unborn baby. Even when the life of the mother is threatened, they can take out the baby and try to save both lives.
As far as parents deciding then a live is worthwhile based on disease, life-long care, and other issues, you should read the story of Beethoven. Virtually everyone hearing the story of the circumstances of his mother’s pregnancy would have chosen to abort Beethoven under the circumstances described, using the kind of criteria generally described as “quality of life.” We simply do not get to play God in these areas and decide who lives and who dies.
As far as the mother having the “right” to do whatever she chooses with her own body. Even if that is granted, it is a medical fact that the unborn child is a SEPARATE BODY. If the unborn child were no different then fingernails or other appendages of the mother’s body, she could decide what to cut off and what to keep. But the unborn baby, while nourished and protected by the mother’s body, is NOT the same body as hers. This is proved by the fact that the baby could have a different blood type from the mother. Nutrients pass thru the placenta from one body to the other.
Laws are passed to protect eagles’ eggs, but the unborn human baby is not considered a human being the way an eagle’s egg is considered an eagle. Is that not interesting.
Medical texts exist on how to treat the baby in the womb. You cannot have the unborn baby as a patient and as a victim of deliberate murder at the same time.
Abortion is technically the accidental or normal expulsion of an unborn baby prior to its full term. The correct term for DELIBERATE termination of an unborn baby is ABORTICIDE. It is obvious why pro-abortion people do not want to call it by the correct term: aborticide. Clearly that places it together with other “icides” like homicide, paricide, regicide, genicide, etc.
When a mother wants to keep the child, she calls it a baby, even when it is in her womb. When she does not want to keep the child, it is a fetus, or a product of pregnancy. Dehumanizing terminology has always been used to justify elimination or termination of other human lives, whether slaves, Jews, indians, or unborn babies.
There is absolutely no question that from the point of conception, this a new human life, that if not interrupted or terminated or killed or murdered, will grow into another person. The comments preceeding this poll expressed concern that there would be uncounted children requiring life-long care as wards of the state. Clearly, there is no question that these are human beings, and the only question is at what age is it acceptable to terminate their lives.
Bottom line: Either the Creator God is in control of when life is given and when life is taken, OR man plays God to decide who lives and who dies at any given time. In other words, either life is sacred and submitted to our Creator God, or life is judged for its “quality” by fallible humans (whether for good motivations or evil matters little once that criterion has been accepted).
Which kind of society do you want to live in?
If, as you say, the Creator God is in control of when life is given and when life is taken, then it is doubtless in His Plan for certain babies to be aborted. Otherwise, you are suggesting that humans are capable of thwarting God’s Will.
Is that what you’re saying? That God is all-powerful, but can’t stop an abortionist from terminating a pregnancy?
The will of humans trumps god's will. Isn't that obvious?
Although people like you put up billboards to the contrary: humans are not an endangered species. We have way too many people in this world, some of which are living in places where humans are not meant to live. We can thank the missionaries for keeping these populations alive long enough to eventually suffer and die.
Bottom line: Either you believe all of the religious nonsense that holds our society back, or you grow up from a child-like adult into someone who offers more than prayer when faced with problems.
“Rape, incest, and life of the mother are all straw men.”
Easy for you to say since none of these things have ever (and probably won’t) happen to you. Also, you’re a man; you don’t get a vote.
All I have to say is that I'm sick of these people calling themselves "pro-life". They are usually not "pro-life" but are "anti-abortion". I really fail to follow these people's logic (if it could be called that). For anyone who claims to be "pro-life", I have some questions for. Do they eat meat? Then they are not pro-life. Do they support capital punishment for any reason? Then they are not pro-life. Do they support our troops? Then they are not pro-life. They are anti-abortion. When does pro-life end? At birth? Do these people really want to force life (that isn't guaranteed happiness) into this (mostly because of them) not-entirely-pleasant world?
I just find it so confusing why people would work so hard to ensure these lives come to fruition, but then seem to leave them to their own designs once they get here…
I think it'd be much better for us to work toward establishing solid frameworks to support these people. We need to work for the happiness of the already-living (my vision of pro-life) and then we can worry about forcing people to have babies (which is what this almost is).
So, please, challenge these people to own up to their identification. Do not let the pro-lifers eat meat or support our troops. Or do not accept their spun-up-words.
I am pro-quality-life. Forcing life to appear in this world at the cost of the already-living does not add up to quality in my book.
I wonder if these "Christians" (who are by the way,CINO [christians in name only]… they are such because they are casting judgement) are being driven by the fear that Jesus could be [have been] aborted? I've never heard such a theory. Only that they are concerned that each life have the opportunity to gain entry to the gates of heaven.
Nevertheless, I'm confident these same Christians already missed the second-coming-boat. Yeah, it happened last century in Ethiopia. Sorry.
Thor carries a hammer. Jesus was nailed to a cross. Think about it.
WOW Steve! Maybe you'd have a different opinion on this if it were YOUR mother that was raped by YOUR grandfather and left impregnated….Somehow I think you would be singing a different tune. Get off your soapbox. You people make me sick…..hiding behind religion and using it as an excuse to judge others and hate monger. Funny thing is the harder they bang that bible the seedier the crap that falls from their own closet. Let's be real here – how many boys has the catholic church molested? How many people have been killed in the name of religion? I'm not saying I am pro abortion….I am not. But I do believe in a woman's right to choose. And sometimes she has a VERY hard choice to make and I am just tired of morons like you passing judgement. I am also tired of explaining to my daughter why you same morans are standing on the side of the road with their children with giant full color images of bloody aborted babies (notice i did not call it a fetus to appease your ridiculous sensibility) You don't see us pro-choicers along the roadside with giant full color images of abused, beaten, mutilated and murdered children to make the point that little Sally had been beaten from the time she was an infant because her crack addicted mother didn't want her but she was forced to have her anyway. And that after suffering through years of abuse she was finally beaten to death. Horrible, I know. Unfortunately it happens everyday.