tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post8289562328707305818..comments2024-03-25T19:00:40.046-06:00Comments on The Constructive Curmudgeon: The Personhood AmendmentDouglas Groothuis, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-74739085592579693362008-09-29T15:50:00.000-06:002008-09-29T15:50:00.000-06:00Dr. Groothuis wrote1. This is irrelevant. The amen...<I> Dr. Groothuis wrote<BR/>1. This is irrelevant. The amendment applies to when conception is knowable--as when someone wants to have an abortion.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>That's not what the bill says. <BR/> The problem with this<BR/>bill is that anything, absolutely<BR/>anything that might interfere with<BR/>that little "person" floating down<BR/>the woman's fallopian tube, suddenly<BR/>becomes an issue, whether we are <BR/>talking about what the woman is <BR/>consuming, what the doctor is <BR/>prescribing, or what might be in<BR/>the environment.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><I> Dr. Groothuis:<BR/><BR/>2. This is irrelevant. Natural miscarriages have nothing to do with the amendment, since the woman does nothing to induce them. Inducing a miscarriage is called an abortion. If someone dies of a stroke, no murder charges are filed.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>If the attempt to get pregnant is<BR/>deliberate, then any miscarriage that <BR/>are<BR/>caused by the attempt to get pregnant<BR/> are the result of a deliberate decision. Unless<BR/>there is an explicit dispensation for<BR/>such "natural" events, then we <BR/>are back to 1). Anything, absolutely<BR/>anything that could interfere with<BR/>that little "person" is an issue.<BR/><BR/>If you know in advance that a regular<BR/>person has a 30-80% chance of dying<BR/>under certain conditions<BR/>and you put them in a position that<BR/>does, indeed, cause their death, then<BR/>you may be legally liable, even if they<BR/>signed a release.<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>3. It may be a legal can of worms. So be it. The statement, "Personhood begins at conception" is true and morally pertinent to the law.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>"Personhood" as defined by the law<BR/>may or may not begin at conception. <BR/>Indeed, it may be perfectly moral to<BR/>terminate these "persons" just as it<BR/>is perfectly moral for parents with<BR/>reservations about certain medical<BR/>procedures to deny those procedures<BR/>to their children for religious <BR/>reasons.<BR/><BR/>The fact that you are not shocked and<BR/>outraged by the high "natural" mortality<BR/>says that even your moral sense tells<BR/>you that it isn't that big a deal for<BR/>an early-term pregnancy to end.<BR/><BR/>This is a bad ammendment, and all<BR/>right-thinking people should vote against it.John Stockwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03496308585336775569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-36289649171228489942008-09-26T18:55:00.000-06:002008-09-26T18:55:00.000-06:00John:1. This is irrelevant. The amendment applies ...John:<BR/><BR/>1. This is irrelevant. The amendment applies to when conception is knowable--as when someone wants to have an abortion.<BR/><BR/>2. This is irrelevant. Natural miscarriages have nothing to do with the amendment, since the woman does nothing to induce them. Inducing a miscarriage is called an abortion. If someone dies of a stroke, no murder charges are filed.<BR/><BR/>3. It may be a legal can of worms. So be it. The statement, "Personhood begins at conception" is true and morally pertinent to the law.Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-7714883710228309562008-09-26T12:52:00.000-06:002008-09-26T12:52:00.000-06:00Prayer is certainly needed! Remember Amendment 2 s...Prayer is certainly needed! Remember Amendment 2 several years ago? It was approved by the voters, but the state supreme court struck it down.Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07178836236878900349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-65315565018754880562008-09-26T11:27:00.000-06:002008-09-26T11:27:00.000-06:00This bill has the same ring as the ill-fated "equa...This bill has the same ring as the <BR/>ill-fated "equal rights amendment" from<BR/>an earlier era. Essentially we are<BR/>talking about an inappropriate modification of the Colorado State <BR/>constitution.<BR/><BR/>First of all, the "time of conception"<BR/>is not a time that can be determined in<BR/>most cases.<BR/><BR/>Second, according to numerous medical<BR/>sources, a large (more than 30%) of<BR/>pregnancies never make it to term on<BR/>the average. For women who have <BR/>difficulty conceiving, this is an<BR/>even higher percentage, approaching <BR/>100% for some women. So, you are<BR/>proposing to pass a law that would<BR/>tell all of those women that they<BR/>have been killing "persons"? <BR/>Biologically speaking, these "persons"<BR/>apparently are rather expendable, so<BR/>much so that far more of these "persons"<BR/>are killed by women trying to get <BR/>pregnant, than by those who are getting<BR/>abortions.<BR/><BR/>Third, aside from that, it appears to be<BR/>something that will open a legal can of<BR/>worms. Because "personhood" is not<BR/>as contained a concept as the <BR/>anti-abortion/anti-birth control<BR/>crowd would like it to be, they may<BR/>not get what they want. Look up<BR/>"personhood" and you will find <BR/>for example, that<BR/>corporations are "persons" under<BR/>the law.<BR/><BR/>The broadness of language of <BR/>the "personhood ammendment" provides<BR/>potential for attacks on all forms<BR/>of parental rights with regards to<BR/>children, as well as individual<BR/>rights with regard to a woman's <BR/>control over her body.<BR/><BR/>However, it is likely that such a<BR/>law also could be ruled as "superfluous"<BR/>recognizing nothing that isn't already<BR/>recognized by the rest of our body<BR/>of law. Ultimately being the same sort<BR/>of unnecessary law, just like the <BR/>"Equal Rights Amendment".<BR/><BR/>The most reasonable position is to<BR/>vote "no" on this ill-conceived proposed<BR/>amendment.John Stockwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03496308585336775569noreply@blogger.com