Thursday, December 01, 2011

Wisconsin assembly wants to grant legal status to fertilized eggs.

Here's a fairly well developed argument against the dangers of insisting, outside of any prudential, ethical, legal, or medical grounds, on allowing religious ideology to assign the legal status of personhood.

They've tried it in Mississippi and  in Colorado and now our legislature is dutifully following its marching orders by trying to float this idea Wisconsin.

As usual, when you don't think through the consequences you end up in deep water.


The ‘Personhood’ Movement Is Anti-Life
Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception.


With regard to Colorado, the authors write:

Amendment 62 rests on the absurd premise that a newly fertilized zygote
is a full human person with an absolute right to biological life-support
from a woman—regardless of her wishes and whatever the cost to her. The
biological facts of pregnancy, in conjunction with an objective theory of
rights, support a different view, namely that personhood and rights begin at
birth. Colorado law should reflect those facts, not the Bible verses so often
quoted (and creatively interpreted) by advocates of Amendment 62 and other
“personhood” measures.


While they're busily trying to grant rights to embryos, they're busy taking ours away.

Next they'll try to pass a law establishing that chicken eggs are legally chickens.

Watch for it.

hiho

5 comments:

Kevin Scheunemann said...

This "personhood" bill is a problem for you?

Don't you think enough of this oppressed minority has been marched through the Auschwitz-like abortion camps?

I thought you championed extending rights to minorities?

Why not here? You want to argue unborn children are "less than human"? Usually thugs have made that same argument about other segments of humanity while enslaving and disposing of the life of the enslaved and oppressed, at dictatorial whim.

I thought you were better than that.

Zizekist said...

This is scary. This could allow doctors to force women into having unnecessary c-sections. This would allow doctors to force women into dangerous delivery situations even if it is likely both child and mother will die. It has already happened in other states.

The Lord of Everything in Existence said...

For a Libertarian, Kevin, you sure don't sound like one.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

I don't discriminate against the unborn.

All libertarians oppose murder.

Many liberals are OK being prejudiced against unborn babies and are fine stripping the unborn of the right to life.

If its my position on religion that bothers you, I advocate Christianity should be freely expressed in public square and public schools at least as much as the passionate left wing religions: global warming, evolution, corn ethanol, green energy worship, and the worship of big, cumbersome, and oppressive government.

That makes me a bigger free speech advocate then our resident blogger at UWWC. Last I checked, it was very Libertarian to advocate free speech.

JPenterman said...

"All libertarians oppose murder."

BS - See Ayn Rand.
Paraphrase: "The fetus does not have rights over the mother."