Colorado Initiative Declaring Personhood at Completion of Fertilization
I read an op/ed column in today's SF Chronicle by a pundit I don't know, Tom Teepen, that ranted hysterically about something called the Colorado "Human Life Amendment" that will appear on November's ballot. From his column:
Really? Sounds serious. I had heard vague comments about this proposal but had not given it much thought, so I decided to check what' going on. Here's the text of the actual amendment:There will be immediate consequences if the proposition is enacted. The morning-after pill and IUDs for birth control, for instance, would become contraband, but further, the explosion of lawsuits would be atomic.
Could a pregnant woman be charged with child endangerment or child abuse if she is spotted smoking or having a drink? Must she be denied any medical procedure that she might come to need if it could potentially harm the fetus?
Women or girls who have an illegal abortion would be charged with murder and, inasmuch as the act would incontestably have been premeditated, could be executed.
Person Defined: As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms "person" or "persons" shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization.About this, Teepen claimed:
The question of just when life begins has been a conundrum since deepest antiquity. The folk answer has been at the quickening, when the fetus becomes rambunctious enough to make its presence known.So Teepen would support personhood protections after quickening? Don't hold your breath.
Besides, I always find it rich when the side of the political spectrum that claims the mantle of "rational," fall back on "folk wisdom" to justify their points.In reality, the Human Life Amendment is misnamed and Teepen has misstated the issue. The question isn't a question of "when human life begins." Basic embryology tells us it begins biologically--which is what human life is--when fertilization is completed, indeed, at the zygote stage the new individual has a unique genetic makeup (unless shared with an identical twin or triplet), and his or her gender is wired in.
But personhood is something different. It isn't a scientific question involving biology. It is a philosophical determination. So, what voters are really being asked to decide is when should a human life be given moral value? Thus, the campaign will force people to contemplate moral issues they would rather shrug off.
This discussion, if it is focused properly, could be important, even if the amendment loses, as it could serve to highlight the danger presented to universal human rights by the Peter Singers of the world who have been pushing personhood restrictions for years--to the point that many in bioethics assert that human non persons include not only all embryos and fetuses, but also infants to about one year of age, people with Alzheimer's, the Terri Schiavos of the world, etc. The consequence is that these vulnerable human beings are being targeted for killing, organ harvesting, and as experimental lab rats.
So, I think it is good that the people of Colorado will be forced to grapple with this issue. But the discussion shouldn't be about abortion. The Amendment would not stop abortion so long as it remains a federal constitutional right, and given the S. Court's decisions re birth control decided before Roe v. Wade, it seems impossible that, despite Teepen's hysteria, it would inhibit birth control. But it might just get people to say no to the increasing tendency to instrumentalize human life for crass exploitation.
If the media don't demagogue the issue like Teepen did, it could be an interesting debate.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:00 AM
6 Comments
6 Comments:
Thank you, Wesley, for getting your eye on this, and for your insight on its ramifications!
Did you know that the question of Personhood and how Personhood might be applied through the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection) was discussed with some specificity in the verbal exchange between justices and appellants when Roe v. Wade was considered by the Supreme Court?
It seems to my layman's ear that they believed they couldn't address it at that time, because it was outside of the specific question asked by the case, but they believed it could be, and in fact some seemed to say should be, considered in another case, and that if Personhood were established, then (in Justice Blackmun's words) "the case [Roe v. Wade], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."
Bob Kyffin
The embryo in the first few weeks is barely different from that of closely related mammals.
I think sentience should be the key determinant of rights, as well as capacity to feel pain and suffer.
A weeks-old fetus? Not really more than a mass of cells. Should not be considered to have equal consideration as the mother carrying it.
The consequence is that these vulnerable human beings are being targeted for killing, organ harvesting, and as experimental lab rats.
Absent religion (which irrationally proclaims the uniqueness of man) Singer's views become very difficult to contest.
Johnson: The entry was about chimps, not embryos. I try and keep our comments germane to the post or it would get too confusing.
However, there are abundant rational reasons for noting the utter exceptionalism of human life, including our having this conversation.
Many rationalists, even materialists, hold this view. Nat Hentoff, proud atheist, believes in protecting embryos from instrumental use and destruction.
Frans de Waal, a primatologist who believes science should tell us our morality, also notes in his book Good Natured, that our first obligation is to humans and that rights are not the right approach to issues involving chimps or other animals.
So, you are the one being irrational by just touting stereotypes.
But you are always welcome here.
Johnson,
I would argue the embryos in those earliest weeks are distinguished by the fact that ours are humans! No scientist could debate that. And, if left to themselves, and not killed, those human embryos would become sentient humans easily enough.
Consider those individuals in hospitals who might be in comas, or simply under anaesthesia for a medical procedure. They are not, by your definition, sentient. Cannot (sometimes) feel pain. Would you, then, defend a "drug 'em and kill 'em" morality? You can't kill a person unless they are sleeping or under sedation, then it's okay?
Your definitions threaten many breathing babies, many elderly individuals, and even many mentally or physically handicapped people (which is where these arguments to denigrate developing human beings always head when brought to their logical conclusion).
Slaves were not made free in this country until the law recognized their innate Personhood -- the law, even the Supreme Court, had never recognized their Personhood. We want to protect innocent human beings' rights to life the same way we protected innocent human beings' rights to freedom.
Bob Kyffin
So, basically, you would consider the near to 50% of failed implantations akin to murder? Lovely.
Embryos are nothing more than a bunch of cells with the potential to become implanted and grow into human babies. Scientists in reproduction consider how and why implantation works / fails to work as one of the holy grails of fertility.
The Colorado bill is, as usual, unscientific tripe being pushed by ignorant 'Right to Lifers.' (Not all Right to Lifers are ignorant, this group is.)
No, certainly not. That's part of the natural process. Some babies will not survive past conception, and will die because they could not implant.
That doesn't make them not developing humans.
So the key is, it would be illegal to INTERVENE to kill them. Active measures taken to kill a developing human who might or might not implant would be illegal.
Bob Kyffin
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home