NPR ran a broadcast about a new item on the Colorado ballots about defining 'personhood'. I'm surprised this amendment hasn't been proposed already. According to the broadcast it said that Colorado was the first state to get enough signatures. Are you serious? How did this of all amendments not get first created (and passed) in the Bible belt?
Regardless, the arguments brought against such an amendment (in my humble opinion) are lame. The many arguments are this would make us rethink all of our laws. Well duh. We've lived with Roe v. Wade for how many years now? I'm sure its bound to have impacted the writing of MANY laws. Regardless of this change the arguments brought against this amendment seem weak. For example, one person said: "what about HOV lanes?" Simple, if the person is occupying a seat then you qualify. Since the baby occupies the same seat as the mother, you don't.
But that was a weak argument. What about something like: "what if you drink without knowing you were pregnant or did something to kill the baby accidentally?" First, it would be hard to prove that drinking or some other action was the direct cause of the death so the case would likely be dismissed but even if it could, is the child not entitled to rights? The argument is the same as "what if I drive at night and hit a pedestrian I didn't see on the road?" It's called manslaughter. Oh no! we can't take responsibility for our actions because remember the baby is a parasite that invaded us first! /sarcasm
The other argument brought forth is about frozen fertilized eggs. This one would obviously require some more legal work but lets think about this another way. Babies can't think or act for themselves but neither can mentally handicapped people. How do we treat them? We can spin circles around this argument all day but it would take some good work to convince me otherwise.
Lastly, one guy pointed out that it was unconstitutional! What does that even mean? Of coarse it would contradict existing law, that is the whole point! People act like once a law is written it can't be changed (at least not if the law plays to their interest).
Regardless, the arguments brought against such an amendment (in my humble opinion) are lame. The many arguments are this would make us rethink all of our laws. Well duh. We've lived with Roe v. Wade for how many years now? I'm sure its bound to have impacted the writing of MANY laws. Regardless of this change the arguments brought against this amendment seem weak. For example, one person said: "what about HOV lanes?" Simple, if the person is occupying a seat then you qualify. Since the baby occupies the same seat as the mother, you don't.
But that was a weak argument. What about something like: "what if you drink without knowing you were pregnant or did something to kill the baby accidentally?" First, it would be hard to prove that drinking or some other action was the direct cause of the death so the case would likely be dismissed but even if it could, is the child not entitled to rights? The argument is the same as "what if I drive at night and hit a pedestrian I didn't see on the road?" It's called manslaughter. Oh no! we can't take responsibility for our actions because remember the baby is a parasite that invaded us first! /sarcasm
The other argument brought forth is about frozen fertilized eggs. This one would obviously require some more legal work but lets think about this another way. Babies can't think or act for themselves but neither can mentally handicapped people. How do we treat them? We can spin circles around this argument all day but it would take some good work to convince me otherwise.
Lastly, one guy pointed out that it was unconstitutional! What does that even mean? Of coarse it would contradict existing law, that is the whole point! People act like once a law is written it can't be changed (at least not if the law plays to their interest).
