Heaven help us.
Denver has proposed a ballot measure that would define a fertilized egg, either inside or outside the womb, as a person. In addition to, umm, complicating abortion rights, has anyone thought through the practical implications of such a move? Let's just say that a woman was pregnant with a wanted pregnancy and there was a fetal abnormality that could possibly be treated through surgery but would cause grave risk to the woman. Would she now be required to have that surgery, potentially against her will, in order to save the other... person? Regardless of how one feels about abortion, it is simply impossible to consider a developing fetus independently of the woman.
And the biggest irony of all? I'm not quite sure WOMEN are defined as people... ERA anyone?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Good point...women are not being recogized as humans here. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Ohio legislators decided to add an amendment that said if the "human" (i.e.fetus) is shown through ultrasound to be a female, then an abortion can be performed at any gestation. Because a female has no rights after birth, why oh why should they be entitled to any before. I think I'll write Ohio and see what they think about that one!
Post a Comment