Imagine a number of disturbing scenes in Colorado sometime next year at this time if a certain Amendment (number 62) passes this November: Pregnant women enjoying themselves in a downtown Denver LoDo bar suddenly arrested by police for "malicious and threatening endangerment toward an unborn person". Another 3-months pregnant woman, suddenly arrested having just boarded the tram to Pike's Peak ("Sorry, M'am, you're under arrest for threatening reckless endangerment of an unborn person at high altitude!") And yet another pregnant woman, who merely wants to eat some dessert at her favorite ice cream parlor, arrested for the same reason. ("You're already obese, m'am, and one more scoop eaten of that chocolate fudge ice cream makes this reckless endangerment!"_
Insane? Ridiculous? Think again!
The same dumb bolt morons that brought us "Amendment 48" two years ago, which was massively defeated by voters, have now come up with Amendment 62 this time around. When will they quit? When will they realize they can't keep pushing this idiocy on voters in Colorado? Perhaps not anytime soon, given they're all insane - as defined by Einstein's famous dictum: "one who keeps doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result". (Somewhat like fundagelicals who keep banging their "Hell" drums expecting to get millions more converts).
Recall that Amendment 48 described its coverage as "any human being from the moment of fertilization". This time around, with Amendment 62 it's "every human being from the beginning of the biological development of the human being".
The preceding expanded definition of "person" would now apply to Sections 3, 6 and 25 of Article II of the Colorado state constitution. Under those sections we have:
Sec. (3): "All persons in the state have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, and of acquiring, possessing and protecting their property - and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness."
Sec. (6): "Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property, or character, and justice should be administered without denial or delay."
Sec. (25): "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without the process of law".
Apart from the fact that none of the geniuses pushing this inane Amendment have hitherto informed us how a fertilized egg or zygote goes about acquiring property (by ESP? Telekinesis? Alien zombies?) there are other problematic issues that surface. One only has to read and re-read the above three sections to see any pregnant woman will now be at immense risk of arrest or possible prosecution, if she's perceived to be doing the slightest thing that might adversely impact the little "person" inside her womb.
Drinking alcohol? Ach du Lieder! Nein! A punishable offense! Going up to Pike's Peak where the oxygen level is barely one fifth at sea level, hell no! The little person will probably be brain damaged by the lack of O2! Needless to say, our civil and criminal courts will be so inundated with cases (btw, how will these "persons" hire lawyers, or will it be done 2nd hand?) they will barely be able to function, and likely grind to a halt. I mean, if you are going to declare these zygotes are "persons" you then must defend their rights as persons under the state Constitution, no?
Hell's bells, even a pregnant woman who rides horseback or drives an ATV on a bone jarring trail in Estes Park may be up for apprehension. After all, the little "person's" tiny forming bones may be at risk! Some busybody with nothing better to do might report her (a fundie nanny?)
The draconian repercussions won't end there, by any means. If the "Personhood" poppycock amendment is passed, every female of child-bearing age would have to be supervised lest she advertently or inadvertently injure the little "person" inside her. Every miscarriage occurring at home would have to be investigated by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. The degrees and levels of supervision, oversight, and interference would make the Arizona Immigration (ask for papers) law look like child's play.
Bottom line, all Colorado females of child bearing age would be forced to be reproductive chattel. Even if they were brutally raped- or victims of incest, a supervisory board would appear to ensure the birth comes to term, never mind the rapist's growth of seed is the same thing as an extension of the rape. In effect, Amendment 62 is the basis for full female reproductive slavery, since even contraception would be regarded as a "pre-emptive execution of a potential person".
Insanity anyone? This lunacy is what transpires when people lose track of their logic and reason, and substitute a cockeyed faith for knowledge. The key logical fallacy committed by these bird brains promoting Personhood is the genetic fallacy. This consists in arguing that the antecedents of something must be the same as their fulfillment. It is committed by anyone who argues, in the context of the abortion debate, that a fetus – even from the moment of conception, must really be - because it is going to become, a person.
It can't be, any more than one can argue that an acorn - because it is going to become an oak tree- is an actual oak tree. No, sorry, it isn't. I can easily lift the acorn in one hand and even roll it between my fingers, I can't do that with an oak tree. Obviously and clearly they are not the same thing, and neither is the zygote the same as a full, autonomous human PERSON. Once one crosses that slippery slope, one induces on himself or herself no end of legal grief.
Unless a human is relatively autonomous, and that means it has the capacity to acquire specific property, whether an i-pad or DVD player or home, it can't be a "person" because it hasn't attained the level of development to exercise the rights of a genuine person. For all practical purposes, it is a parasite- meaning that its life is fundamentally contingent on a primary source of nourishment and life support. It cannot live independently apart from that source, i.e. outside of the mother's body.
When humans confuse parasites with persons, there is inevitably trouble that follows.
Insane? Ridiculous? Think again!
The same dumb bolt morons that brought us "Amendment 48" two years ago, which was massively defeated by voters, have now come up with Amendment 62 this time around. When will they quit? When will they realize they can't keep pushing this idiocy on voters in Colorado? Perhaps not anytime soon, given they're all insane - as defined by Einstein's famous dictum: "one who keeps doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result". (Somewhat like fundagelicals who keep banging their "Hell" drums expecting to get millions more converts).
Recall that Amendment 48 described its coverage as "any human being from the moment of fertilization". This time around, with Amendment 62 it's "every human being from the beginning of the biological development of the human being".
The preceding expanded definition of "person" would now apply to Sections 3, 6 and 25 of Article II of the Colorado state constitution. Under those sections we have:
Sec. (3): "All persons in the state have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, and of acquiring, possessing and protecting their property - and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness."
Sec. (6): "Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property, or character, and justice should be administered without denial or delay."
Sec. (25): "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without the process of law".
Apart from the fact that none of the geniuses pushing this inane Amendment have hitherto informed us how a fertilized egg or zygote goes about acquiring property (by ESP? Telekinesis? Alien zombies?) there are other problematic issues that surface. One only has to read and re-read the above three sections to see any pregnant woman will now be at immense risk of arrest or possible prosecution, if she's perceived to be doing the slightest thing that might adversely impact the little "person" inside her womb.
Drinking alcohol? Ach du Lieder! Nein! A punishable offense! Going up to Pike's Peak where the oxygen level is barely one fifth at sea level, hell no! The little person will probably be brain damaged by the lack of O2! Needless to say, our civil and criminal courts will be so inundated with cases (btw, how will these "persons" hire lawyers, or will it be done 2nd hand?) they will barely be able to function, and likely grind to a halt. I mean, if you are going to declare these zygotes are "persons" you then must defend their rights as persons under the state Constitution, no?
Hell's bells, even a pregnant woman who rides horseback or drives an ATV on a bone jarring trail in Estes Park may be up for apprehension. After all, the little "person's" tiny forming bones may be at risk! Some busybody with nothing better to do might report her (a fundie nanny?)
The draconian repercussions won't end there, by any means. If the "Personhood" poppycock amendment is passed, every female of child-bearing age would have to be supervised lest she advertently or inadvertently injure the little "person" inside her. Every miscarriage occurring at home would have to be investigated by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. The degrees and levels of supervision, oversight, and interference would make the Arizona Immigration (ask for papers) law look like child's play.
Bottom line, all Colorado females of child bearing age would be forced to be reproductive chattel. Even if they were brutally raped- or victims of incest, a supervisory board would appear to ensure the birth comes to term, never mind the rapist's growth of seed is the same thing as an extension of the rape. In effect, Amendment 62 is the basis for full female reproductive slavery, since even contraception would be regarded as a "pre-emptive execution of a potential person".
Insanity anyone? This lunacy is what transpires when people lose track of their logic and reason, and substitute a cockeyed faith for knowledge. The key logical fallacy committed by these bird brains promoting Personhood is the genetic fallacy. This consists in arguing that the antecedents of something must be the same as their fulfillment. It is committed by anyone who argues, in the context of the abortion debate, that a fetus – even from the moment of conception, must really be - because it is going to become, a person.
It can't be, any more than one can argue that an acorn - because it is going to become an oak tree- is an actual oak tree. No, sorry, it isn't. I can easily lift the acorn in one hand and even roll it between my fingers, I can't do that with an oak tree. Obviously and clearly they are not the same thing, and neither is the zygote the same as a full, autonomous human PERSON. Once one crosses that slippery slope, one induces on himself or herself no end of legal grief.
Unless a human is relatively autonomous, and that means it has the capacity to acquire specific property, whether an i-pad or DVD player or home, it can't be a "person" because it hasn't attained the level of development to exercise the rights of a genuine person. For all practical purposes, it is a parasite- meaning that its life is fundamentally contingent on a primary source of nourishment and life support. It cannot live independently apart from that source, i.e. outside of the mother's body.
When humans confuse parasites with persons, there is inevitably trouble that follows.
No comments:
Post a Comment