According to TheCaucus, The Politics and Government Blog of the Times many of the
Republican presidential candidates are supporting something referred to as the
“personhood amendment.” This is an
amendment designed to fight Roe V. Wade by declaring that an embryo is a person
from the point of fertilization. The
article offers the name of several candidates that had agreed to sign onto the
bill by December 22nd of 2011 along with several Christian groups
that are supporting the candidates in question.
I believe this proposes a multifaceted issue. On the one hand you have various Christian
groups fighting what they view as the murder of unborn children protected by
the secularization of society, an argument that is nearly the reverse of what
early American’s argued when it came to too much religious freedom. In contrast to them you have women that do
not see it as murder and want the right to regulate their bodies. Somewhere between the two you have the groups
that may see it as murder, but know that it will cost them any ground they have
currently to support such an extreme position.
The issue is not a completely religious issue though. According to the Times article some of the candidates are “polishing and trumpeting
their credentials as Christian conservatives in their efforts to be seen as the
leading Not Romney.” If the author is
correct and this is in a large part less about belief and more about pushing
themselves forward in the polls it leads me to wonder if they really know the
ramifications of what they are trying to get pushed into law. Even in
Mississippi the push to bring this amendment from the drafting board to actual
law was met with resistance that spelled its defeat. Before the vote doctors relayed the
information that the bill would not only ban abortions, but could also ban some
forms of contraception and cause problems with fertilization clinics.
Has religion became a currency that our would be leaders use
to buy their positions of power like the author suggests or do they truly
believe that an amendment that drastically reduces women’s access to birth
control is needed for the country. It’s
a hard question to answer when politics, religion, and law all blend into each
other. It’s hard to tell if they really
do care about the fertilized embryos or if they are just trying to draw
attention to how Christian they are in order to differentiate themselves from
Romany who is Mormon. What we can see
though is that this is a potential new law with far reaching implications in
the religious and health worlds.
7 comments:
This article is extremely important, because it addresses various aspects of how perverted and sick our Nation has become. I believe in the concept of Free Speech as well as the notion that all individuals regardless of difference should enjoy certain aspects of their existence as well as make choices that promote the greatest amount of happiness that they are able to obtain. Whether or not Politicians should us an issue such as Abortion as a platform in order to secure votes, is completely dependent on that individual and their moral compass.
As for the issue of Abortion itself, it is our generation’s peculiar institution, which was passed on to us from previous misguided, feminized generations. By “Feminized”, I mean individuals who are so ashamed of the practice of mendacity of their forefathers that they allowed for the evil practice of “child sacrifice” to gain mainstream legitimacy. Abortion is a sacrifice of a Human Child so that the person that is doing the sacrifice may gain a reward of some kind. That reward may be to live their life free of the burden of raising a child and/or to keep a relationship with a man or lover, and a host of other selfish wishes. This sacrifice does not have to be ritualized or proclaimed in the name of a particular Deity, only the desire and act are necessary.
On the issue of the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment and whether or not it should apply in cases of Abortion, my answer is “Yes” it should. As long as tax dollars are being used to subsidize and/or fund abortions in any respect, if there are segments of the community who pay taxes and oppose abortions then funding should not be allowed. On the issue of the Rights of Unborn Children, it is my position that both parents should be given voice in the most serious decision of whether or not a child lives or is sacrificed. In Ancient times, children were sold as payment for debt. Abortions are no different. A Childs life is sacrificed for the selfish benefit of one or more persons, reducing them to a status less than property or trash. Children inherit their right of citizenship from their parents, and therefore are entitled to Fourteenth (14th) Amendment protections. At the very least, they should be a review panel or a child advocate assigned to review all cases of abortion, prior to commencement.
The issue of abortion to me is played out along with contraception being offered in public schools (or Plan B in a vending machine in one school?!) and gay marriage. Simply because a group of people disagree with a certain practice does not constitute restricting its availability to those that are not in disagreement with it. Whether or no the legislators actually support or reject the actual issue at hand or are simply aiming for re-election does not seem to be something we have the means of determining right now, and until we do it seems fruitless to debate it. Although I do appreciate the implications of their personal investment of such issues, the only thing to be said without a proper means of determining sincerity in politicians is C'est la vie.
I agree that this author's fears of candidates hopping on the pro-life wagon to become the "leading Not Romney" is disturbing and symptomatic of the increasing radicalization and polarization of politics in America. However as Nicole states, we have no way of knowing these candidates reasons for endorsing such an amendment.
Regarding the personhood amendment, I'm confused about the legal process for creating/passing an amendment which is in direct conflict with the supreme court ruling of Roe v. Wade. If abortion has been ruled constitutional and there is no legal reason to void the ruling, isn't there a problem with targeting a single issue and attempting to make it unconstitutional?
This pledge is really quite disturbing, even more so than the personhood status. It is quite an extreme political maneuver. Giving legal personhood status to a fetus would have huge and far-reaching implications on women and society at large. Legally, it would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade. The result would leave women without reproductive rights. Passage of this bill would extend to types of birth control and not be limited to abortion. This is a private matter for women. The personhood designation is a religious position and should not for forced into a legal category
With this I have to agree with Joyce on this issue. To pass this amendment would be a way of overturning Roe v. Wade which essentially gave the right to the woman to have control over her body. To take away those reproductive rights would be to devalue the woman and create another second class citizen. I believe that this issue is one of great importance in dealing with issues pertaining to the status of women in our society. A woman should be allowed to do what she wants with her body because ultimately she is the one who will typically deal with the consequences.
With the talk of women as second class citizens I believe that jacobr's comment on "Feminized generations" is very derogatory and does not allow for equality to show. To use the term in such a way, you demonstrate the very point that I make with talking about the woman as a second class citizen. Why would you use femininity as a negative qualifier? You not only are devaluing the status of the woman but also those who may identify with their femininity and embrace such. I just needed to get that out and truly don't mean to offend.
By bypassing the courts and trying to overturn Roe v. Wade with an amendment, it seems that these evangelicals are trying to trample the first amendment despite the privileges it provides them. Furthermore, they seem to not have a firm grip on reality since they believe that they can pass a bill that restricts the rights of close to half the nation's people. Gathering the majority needed to ratify an amendment would be a fruitless endeavor in today's America, as it would basically overturn a popular supreme court decision and restrict the first amendment, which is an idea most Americans would not entertain.
What about women who have miscarriages due to genetic defects, drug misuse, and any number of other reasons that would be within the parent’s control? And what about the reasons that aren’t in the parent’s control? Would this be criminal negligence? Manslaughter? Second degree murder? Want to dissect the fetuses to determine the cause? What if the life of the mother is threatened and the fetus is along with it? Why pass such an amendment without also outlawing the morning after pill, IUDs, and the like? What about ectopic pregnancies? Why not be fully consistent in ones position?
Post a Comment