Reading Beyond The Lines

For those of you who haven’t actually read Amendment 26 being proposed for the State of Mississippi Constitution on the November 8th ballot:

Initiative #26

“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 is the WHOLE amendment, “fine print” and all!!  And as you can see, there is nothing mentioned in this amendment of abortion, contraceptives, problem pregnancies, or miscarriages. The amendment simply affirms what has been scientifically supported for years – that human life begins at conception, and therefore he/she should be treated as such.

The Personhood Amendment will not ban in-vitro fertilization. It will, however, outlaw the discarding of unused embryos. Why? Because it is human life that we are throwing in the garbage heap.

The Personhood Amendment will not outlaw contraceptives. It will, however, outlaw the “morning after” pill, or RU486. Why? Because RU486 allows a human life to be conceived and then expelled – it is intentional murder. As usual, the rape/incest argument rears its ugly head here. But again, this all boils down to the question that this Amendment legally seeks to answer – What is the unborn?

If the unborn is not human, if it is merely a blob of tissue, then why not legalize abortion to the first, second or third trimester?

But if the unborn is fully human (as science is continuing to demonstrate), then despite how horrifying the experience of rape or incest, the life of the human baby is to be protected. He or she should not be punished for the sins of the rapist.

The initial backlash reaction to the Personhood Amendment is to cry that a woman will “lose her right to choose”, but I believe this is a backwards and ultimately selfish perspective. The purpose of the Personhood Amendment is not to suppress women or take away their rights, but rather to protect and affirm the rights of the unborn human being who has been given the same inalienable rights to life, liberty and happiness as every other U.S. citizen.

 

 

Sources

http://www.sos.ms.gov/Elections/Initiatives/Initiatives/Definition%20of%20Person-PW%20Revised.pdf
http://yeson26.net/amendment-26/frequently-asked-questions/

Advertisements

About becklegacy

Emergency Veterinarian by night; Crossfit athlete by day; Redeemed work-in-progress by the Grace of God.
This entry was posted in Education, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Reading Beyond The Lines

  1. Thanks, Tiff! Good summary. I’m not sure that we can argue definitively from scripture that personhood begins at fertilization, but from context we can certainly argue that the potential for development of a person begins there. Therefore, I think it is a must to have protection for the unborn beginning at fertilization, even if they are not necessarily people yet. So the initiative may be a little imperfect but I think it does a good job in the end!

  2. becklegacy says:

    Thanks for the kudos, Jason! While it is true that the Scriptures do not explicitly state the beginning of personhood, it isn’t really the function of the Bible to specifically address every issue that might arise (thus it being Special Revelation). This does not mean that we cannot make sound judgments on certain issues through General Revelation (science, philosophy, logic/reasoning).

    I think it can be a bit hairy to talk about the “potential” for the development of a person. After all, what is the difference between a 10 minute old embryo, a 10 week old fetus and a 10 month old baby? If left unimpeded, they will all continue to change developmentally into different forms of the human being – from embryo to young child to old decrepit fogey. The only differences are in Size, Level of development, Environment, and Dependency. To speak of the “potential” for something to change into something else implies that an outside force has to be applied to “force” that potential to be realized. For example, an oak tree has the “potential” to become a table – if force is applied with a bandsaw. A teenager has the “potential” to become a responsible adult – if force is applied with sound discipline and upbringing. Etc., etc. But these are structural changes, not developmental. A tree will never naturally progress into a table, and a teenager will never naturally progress into responsible adulthood. However, the 10 minute old embryo will naturally progress into the more “familiar” form of a human being. He or she has the same unique genome as its 10 year old self – the only differences are developmental. The essence of he or she has not changed.

    Well, I’ve pretty much written another blog post by now, but hopefully that supplies some mental fodder for you! Thanks again for reading!

    Tiff

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s