Does legal personhood begin at conception?

"The Colorado Supreme Court released a decision giving proponents f the go-ahead for a ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution in 2008 to define personhood as a fertilized egg.

The measure, if approved by voters, would extend constitutional protection from the moment of conception with regard to rights of life, liberty, equality of justice and due process of law."

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_7452276?_requestid=9947720

The proposed measure:
http://www.elections.colorado.gov/WWW/default/Initiatives/Title%20Board%20Filings/2007-2008%20Filings/Final%20Text/final_text_36.PDF

Obviously, this would render abortion illegal, but what would the other legal implications be? It could wreck havoc on the census and tax systems. What would it mean for menstruating women? Masturbating men? Would a woman be charged with murder if she miscarried?

First of all, the implications on menstruating women and masturbating men would be non-existant. It says fertilized egg; neither of those result in the creation of one.

In addition, a woman obviously wouldn't be charged with murder if her unborn baby died due to reasons outside of her control. Is a woman charged with murder if her son commits suicide? As far as census and tax systems, exceptions could obviously be made.

Now that all of the "what if" questions are out of the way, let me address the law and its actual consequences. The way the laws regarding unborn life are written is hypocritical and nonsensical. If I shot a pregnant woman in the stomach right now, only wounding her but killing her baby, I would be charged with murder. Killing an unborn baby is homicide unless you are the mother of the said child.

So maybe the difference is that the ones who created the baby can have say over its life but strangers killing it without permission is homicide? Not true. If the father of the unborn child kills the baby he too will be charged. There was a case (I forget where, but it was recent) where a man slipped his girlfriend drugs that killed her unborn child. He was caught and is currently being tried as a criminal.

But a woman can choose to kill her unborn baby whenever she wants. And here is the real kicker, the father cannot protect it. A father can do everything in his power to keep the baby...legally agree to take care of it, remove all liability from the mother, etc., but it doesn't matter. The mother can still kill the unborn child at her whim.

This is inconsistent. You cannot call abortion a homicide ONLY when the father kills the baby. Either give legal custody to both parents (effectively making abortion illegal unless both parents agree) or make it illegal all together. I hear a lot about woman's right to choice; my question is: what about the father?

I found that article about the case you are refering to:


Attempt at stealth abortion alleged
A Wisconsin man is charged with lacing a woman's drink with a drug for terminations.
By Dinesh Ramde

Associated Press

APPLETON, Wis. - Darshana Patel told authorities she became suspicious as she watched her boyfriend stir a smoothie at an ice cream store. When he offered it to her, she noticed powder on the cup's rim, she said. Patel, who was pregnant, feigned illness and did not drink it.
In a criminal complaint, Patel, a 39-year-old physician, says she sent the powder to a laboratory and it turned out to be mifepristone, the substance in the abortion pill known as RU-486.

The test results came too late: She suffered a miscarriage, her second within a year.

On Thursday, Manishkumar M. Patel, 34, an Appleton businessman who owns service stations, was accused of slipping the drug to her without her knowledge.

He was charged with seven felonies and two misdemeanors, including attempted first-degree intentional homicide of an unborn child, stalking, burglary, and two counts of violating a restraining order. A judicial official ordered him held on $750,000 bail.

[Continued at: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20071201_Attempt_at_stealth_abortion_alleged.html]


Obviously, the baby here is given the right to life from the moment of conception. The problem, though, is our society gives its protections to WANTED babies, and somehow makes it okay for UNWANTED babies to not have the same protections if the mother says so.

Why all the inconsistency?
If we want to give the fetus the right to life from conception, lets do it..without exception. It is completely illogical to allow the mother to kill her child, when the father or anybody else cannot inflict any harm.

And if we don't want to give the fetus the right to life from conception, lets not give it...without exception. In this case, the father should have a say in the future of his child...he did provide the sperm, didn't he? Last I checked, women are not asexual.

From a legal perspective, it makes no sense that the mother can be the only one that is allowed to kill the baby. It's ridiculous.

But see, I think the legal perspective is irrelevant. I don't believe killing unborn children is right. I don't believe killing millions of animals in cages is right. These are beliefs. Somewhere in my heart I feel whats right and wrong. Others might not see it the same way I do. But what others do I can't control. Trying to control people with laws which amounts to controlling them with violence doesn't do anything. It doesn't change the state of people's hearts. In fact, it might even harden them in their beliefs. I guess what I'm trying to say is the laws we make up are irrelevant. There can be good laws and bad laws. The only law that matters is the law that's written in your heart. It's the law that brings hope and forgiveness. It brings peace and happiness. we all screw up. Some of us kill unborn children. some of us do other stuff that doesn't sit quite well in our hearts. The only solution I've seen anywhere is to love each other and forgive each other. If we do that then the legal status of anything doesn't matter.

Let Colorado go ahead and run their mouths . The country would never agree to an idea remotely close to this and the U.S. Supreme court would most likely never even consider something as ridiculous as this. There are too many technicalities and it touches on too many topics all in one bill. Abortion itself is already such a boiling-hot pot of a topic, bringing in the rest of these topics along with it is ridiculous.

Plus;
If you're pregnant and you leave the country....would that be kidnapping?

I believe that once a baby could exist on it's own, without the mother (with medical care), then it's a human being. Otherwise, as the wise writers of House M.D. put it, it's a parasite, living off the mother.
I find it interesting that people make the case that all abortion should be outlawed because unwanted babies have as much right to exist as the wanted. It's interesting, because I wonder how these people would feel if they were raped and forced to carry the baby to term. Can you imagine having to live with a daily reminder of your brutal rape every day for nine months?

What about contraception? That's like premediatated murder. Getting your tubes tied or a hysterectomy? A denial outright of the life that can emerge from there. How about the mother that already has more kids than she can afford to feed? What was she supposed to do? Or the mother who cheated on her husband/boyfriend and ended up pregnant because of it? Or the 13-year-old girl who was raped by her father and ended up pregnant?

You can't blanket every case with a "NO" stamp without looking at the real, human element. I think people forget that, quite often, and instead try to find rules and laws to make it so they don't have to watch when a family falls apart.

Besides, if abortion becomes illegal, it will head to the back alleys like it has always done, and more women will die from improperly or unsafely performed abortions. Just let them do it in a safe environment, where they will be cared for, that's all I'm asking.