I've been following this discussion and noted that it seems to have centered around the abortion issue. It's a fact that these so-called "personhood" initiatives are nothing less than a poorly veiled attempt to ban abortion, and no one, not even the "pro-lifers" will pretend otherwise. Yet very few people have addressed the more important - and more DANGEROUS - aspect of these misguided and mean-spirited initiatives, and that is the legal impact they will have on women's basic freedoms. Bestowing Constitutional rights upon a cluster of tissue (besides being ludicrous) will expose all women of childbearing age to criminal prosecution for even the most innocent of acts. Take for a moment a far-fetched yet entirely possible example. If a pregnant woman should enjoy a nice, relaxing soak in a hot tub/jacuzzi, she could be criminally prosecuted for exposing the fetus to harmful chemicals in the water, or even risking it's existence due to the high temperature of the water, which some so-called "experts" have claimed can cause miscarriage. And heaven help her if that parasitic potential person should actually survive to term (over 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriage naturally, without any human intervention), and grow into a 10-year-old with ADHD. The mother could be charged with child abuse resulting in grave bodily injury by some religious freak, right-wing, ultra-conservative, misogynistic, MALE legislator who craves not only votes from his ignorant and easily swayed constituency, but his 15 minutes of fame. Carry this scenario a bit further to it's logical progression . . . what about a woman who is (or may be) pregnant who drives 10 mph over the speed limit. Child endangerment? Or one who smokes, sips a glass of Chardonnay, eats sushi? How about one who participates in a strenuous sport such as tennis, volleyball, skiing, horseback riding, etc. Yes, let's jail them all. And then there's the issue of contraception. First, I'm wondering who is to determine the exact moment of "conception" - and how - to know that this "person" exists or may exist? Will a doctor, police officer, legislator or anyone else be in the bedroom while the couple is having intercourse, and immediately upon ejaculation, perform a pelvic exam on this woman? This may be graphic, but that's how ignorant these initiatives are, and how foolishly and thoughtlessly they are worded - "at the moment of conception." This moment is impossible to determine. Therefore, any type of birth control would be in violation of the law, by virtue of the fact that it prevents this egg from implanting. By ensuring that there is no uterine lining for it to do so, a woman is "destroying" that egg. Again, criminal liability if it's a "person" that she is supposedly killing. All of these scenarios may sound ridiculous, but they are not only possible, but will happen because of the language of these bills. And don't for a moment doubt that these same anti-choice legislators will do these very things, if only to further their legal cause. They can and will prosecute an absurd case like this simply to obtain rulings and set precedent to bolster their agenda, which is to control women, the result of which will deny them not only reproductive freedom, but basic human rights, as well. If you don't believe me, take a look at the irrational and ignorant (not to mention insulting and vicious) postings from "Scott" above. There are millions of rabid, raving, unstable, whacked-out and unreasoning individuals like him, many of which who are involved at some level in positions where they can influence these things. And lest you think I'm being hard on Scott, go back and read his nasty and uninformed (and frankly, incorrect) posts in which he attacks not only the other posters, but all women everywhere. Oh, and Scott - do you or have you ever had intercourse with a female? I'm curious because of your comment about how women should be "smart enough not to get pregnant," as though it's something they do unilaterally, like an amoeba. Or perhaps you haven't ever learned that it's the introduction of sperm by a male that causes pregnancy. Take a little responsibility yourself, mister, for all of these "evils" in the world which you claim are rampant all because of women's desire to make their own decisions about the most private aspects of their lives, rather than let cretinous Neanderthals like make those decisions for them.
Comment Reply
I've been following this discussion and noted that it seems to have centered around the abortion issue. It's a fact that these so-called "personhood" initiatives are nothing less than a poorly veiled attempt to ban abortion, and no one, not even the "pro-lifers" will pretend otherwise. Yet very few people have addressed the more important - and more DANGEROUS - aspect of these misguided and mean-spirited initiatives, and that is the legal impact they will have on women's basic freedoms. Bestowing Constitutional rights upon a cluster of tissue (besides being ludicrous) will expose all women of childbearing age to criminal prosecution for even the most innocent of acts. Take for a moment a far-fetched yet entirely possible example. If a pregnant woman should enjoy a nice, relaxing soak in a hot tub/jacuzzi, she could be criminally prosecuted for exposing the fetus to harmful chemicals in the water, or even risking it's existence due to the high temperature of the water, which some so-called "experts" have claimed can cause miscarriage. And heaven help her if that parasitic potential person should actually survive to term (over 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriage naturally, without any human intervention), and grow into a 10-year-old with ADHD. The mother could be charged with child abuse resulting in grave bodily injury by some religious freak, right-wing, ultra-conservative, misogynistic, MALE legislator who craves not only votes from his ignorant and easily swayed constituency, but his 15 minutes of fame. Carry this scenario a bit further to it's logical progression . . . what about a woman who is (or may be) pregnant who drives 10 mph over the speed limit. Child endangerment? Or one who smokes, sips a glass of Chardonnay, eats sushi? How about one who participates in a strenuous sport such as tennis, volleyball, skiing, horseback riding, etc. Yes, let's jail them all. And then there's the issue of contraception. First, I'm wondering who is to determine the exact moment of "conception" - and how - to know that this "person" exists or may exist? Will a doctor, police officer, legislator or anyone else be in the bedroom while the couple is having intercourse, and immediately upon ejaculation, perform a pelvic exam on this woman? This may be graphic, but that's how ignorant these initiatives are, and how foolishly and thoughtlessly they are worded - "at the moment of conception." This moment is impossible to determine. Therefore, any type of birth control would be in violation of the law, by virtue of the fact that it prevents this egg from implanting. By ensuring that there is no uterine lining for it to do so, a woman is "destroying" that egg. Again, criminal liability if it's a "person" that she is supposedly killing. All of these scenarios may sound ridiculous, but they are not only possible, but will happen because of the language of these bills. And don't for a moment doubt that these same anti-choice legislators will do these very things, if only to further their legal cause. They can and will prosecute an absurd case like this simply to obtain rulings and set precedent to bolster their agenda, which is to control women, the result of which will deny them not only reproductive freedom, but basic human rights, as well. If you don't believe me, take a look at the irrational and ignorant (not to mention insulting and vicious) postings from "Scott" above. There are millions of rabid, raving, unstable, whacked-out and unreasoning individuals like him, many of which who are involved at some level in positions where they can influence these things. And lest you think I'm being hard on Scott, go back and read his nasty and uninformed (and frankly, incorrect) posts in which he attacks not only the other posters, but all women everywhere. Oh, and Scott - do you or have you ever had intercourse with a female? I'm curious because of your comment about how women should be "smart enough not to get pregnant," as though it's something they do unilaterally, like an amoeba. Or perhaps you haven't ever learned that it's the introduction of sperm by a male that causes pregnancy. Take a little responsibility yourself, mister, for all of these "evils" in the world which you claim are rampant all because of women's desire to make their own decisions about the most private aspects of their lives, rather than let cretinous Neanderthals like make those decisions for them.
June 27, 2010 - 2:51amThis Comment
Reply