Colorado, Montana Battle for Personhood

By The Christian Post on July 7th, 2009

imagesbannerscp_120x60Reprinted by permission of the Christian Post

By Nathan Black
Christian Post Reporter
Mon, Jul. 06 2009 06:00 PM EDT

“Personhood” battles have begun in Colorado and Montana.

Pro-lifers recently launched ballot initiatives to protect the unborn in their state and lay a stepping stone to someday overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion.

In Colorado, pro-life groups introduced new language after a failed attempt in 2008. The amendment this time leaves out the word “fertilization,” which the groups say confused voters, and defines a person as simply “every human being from the beginning of biological development of that human being.”

The proposed Colorado Personhood Constitutional Amendment was filed last week with the state Legislative Council. If approved, a petition will be circulated for signatures to place the measure on the ballot in November 2010.

Baby in ultrasound (Credit: : Sam Pullara)

Baby in ultrasound (Credit: : Sam Pullara)

Meanwhile, in Montana, pro-lifers have already begun collecting signatures to place their personhood measure on the 2010 ballot. The proposed amendment to the Montana Constitution would define person as “all human beings from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.”

“The language of the personhood amendment proclaims what most people know, that human life begins at conception and that all human beings are persons,” said Kalispell physician Annie Bukacek, president of the Montana ProLife Coalition, according to Great Falls Tribune.

The Montana ProLife Coalition argues that state personhood initiatives would not only demonstrate the sacred humanity of the unborns and the injustice of abortion, but they would also allow legislators to use it to support pro-life legislation and defend it in the courts.

“It will not outlaw abortion but will be a stepping stone for future overturning Roe v. Wade,” the coalition states.

Some pro-life groups disagree.

Right to Life of Montana, the Montana Catholic Conference and the Montana Family Foundation are not backing the state ballot initiative, according to the local Tribune.

The groups are not opposed to the effort of ending abortion, but some believe the initiative would not help in banning abortion at the national level.

“We applaud [Montana ProLife Coalition] for their efforts and God bless them, but we just don’t feel this is the right way to go about it,” Moe Wosepka, executive director of the Montana Catholic Conference, told the Tribune. “Many of the pro-life experts that we have consulted with have the consensus that this could very possibly strengthen Roe v. Wade, which would weaken pro-life efforts. We don’t want to take that chance.”

Keith Mason of Personhood USA, meanwhile, hopes to see both sides of the personhood debate presented to the public to generate honest debate.

Mason says the media has adopted only the language of those opposed to personhood initiatives, particularly that of abortionist Warren Hern.

Hern argued in a 2007 editorial that fertilized eggs are not persons and presented the analogy that a fertilized egg is to a person as a seed is to an apple or a set of plans is to a house.

He further argued that the personhood argument is not based on facts but rather, belief.

“Why can’t there be two positions presenting their views accurately, allowing the public make up their minds?” Mason posed in a statement released Monday, while noting that some in the media continue to echo the “fertilized egg deception.”

Mason contends it is scientific fact “that at the very beginning of our biological development (conception, fertilization, etc) a unique human is present.”

“Our position clearly states that all human beings are always persons, no matter their age or condition of dependency (or health, function, or method of reproduction) from the beginning of their biological development and should be protected by our law.”

Copyright 2009 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: News
Tags:

  • Steven Riley
    The new wording ' human beings are formed at the beginning of biologic developement of that human being ' is even worse than saying life begins at fertilization. When does this biologic developement start. Is it when the sperm first attaches to the egg? When it starts to penetrate through the egg? When it gets into the egg but hasn't released its genetic material?When it releases its genetic material, but this material hasn't connected with the eggs genetic material? When the genetic material lines up but hasnt intertwined yet? When it finally intertwines and DNA from the sperm connects with DNA from the egg ?Even then it may not become a human if the DNA goes wrong and becomes a non-viable protein mass or a teratoma. No one knows when life begins when you look at the process from the very moment the sperm and egg touch.You can look at a living human and say it came from a sperm and egg interaction, but you cant look at the first moment sperm and egg contact each other and say exactly when life begins
  • From the moment of conception, the unborn child has human DNA. From the moment of conception, that human DNA is unique and distinct from the DNA of the mother or the father; this human DNA matches no other profile on the planet. From the moment of conception, the human embryo has all the genetic information it will ever need, even if it lives 100 years. The human embryo clearly has life, is clearly human, and is clearly genetically distinct and not a part of the mother's body that she may do with as she pleases. It is a separate, distinct, living human being.

    If you want to play technical games to justify murder, I suppose you're free to do so. If you want to say that you aren't destroying an innocent human being when the sperm is in the egg but has not yet joined its genetic material with that of the egg, you might even have standing.

    But there aren't many people who try to abort their own children moments before actual conception. I dare say virtually 100% of the abortions of innocent human beings come AFTER the egg is fertilized and we have a new and genetically distinct human being...even if that human being is only days or hours old.

    There's simply no end to the silly games people will play in order to justify the murder of someone they find inconvenient, is there?
  • Steven Riley
    No. I agree with you and am saying that this silly use of semantics has gone to far. The article starts by making the point that the voter intiative in Colorado failed in 2008 partly because the wording was confusing to voters and so they decided to throw out the word 'fertilization' and use different wording like ' biologic developement' .Like you say, what difference does it make what exact wording is used, because it is understood by all what is meant. But the Pro-Choice people have used this to confuse people and deflect from the real meaning. It then gets bogged down in the courts and legislative process.
  • You've hit the nail on the head: pro-aborts will twist and make the most of any possible issues with semantics to confuse people (knowing that when people get confused, the most common response is to say "No"). They did it in South Dakota when we tried to get the most reasonable abortion ban imaginable passed; dug out a bunch of wild BS interpretations and tried to make it sound as if exceptions making up less than 1% of all abortions would be greatly affected.

    That's unfortunately the nature of things, though. Human beings have great capacity for delusion and self-delusion. And when the general population is largely ignorant of facts and easily distracted, it's very easy for sinister elements to manipulate things to their advantage.

    Still, we must do everything we can to overcome and save lives.
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »