Pro-life and pro-abortion activists are splitting hairs between what it means to be a human being and a human person.
The abortion movement has succeeded in gaining acceptance these past 36
years largely on the misguided assumption that the contents of a
woman’s womb at and just after conception comprised a ‘blob of tissue’
or something that will develop into a human being. Or, as in
the case of intellectually honest but morally challenged Princeton
professor Peter Singer (who admits ‘of course you have a human being at
conception and abortion takes the life of a human being’)…….the
dangerous assumption that human beings aren’t persons without a certain
level of cognition. And therefore, not worthy of life.
So the pro-lifers of every political stripe across the country are
engaging courts and legislatures to bring defining clarity to – and
protection for – every single life. After all, it’s the first of three
inalienable rights the Constitution affirms, “endowed by our Creator”,
In Missouri, they’re circulating a petition to place two initiatives on the November 2010 ballot.
The first initiative, called the Missouri Taxpayer
Protection Amendment, is submitted by a pro-life group named Missouri
Roundtable For Life.
The amendment would stop the state from using taxpayer dollars to finance abortion and human cloning….
The second petition, filed by Gregory Thompson, would change the
constitutional definition of “person” to be “from the beginning of
The personhood amendment would likely challenge Roe v. Wade and make
abortion and bioethics practices like human cloning and embryonic stem
cell research illegal. It would almost certainly be challenged by
abortion advocates in court.
The pro-life movement welcomes any opportunity to confront the facts and laws of life in court.
Another petition is circulating in Nevada.
The proposed amendment would change the Nevada
constitution to read: “In the great state of Nevada, the term ‘person’
applies to every human being. Article I Section 8 of the Nevada
constitution states, ‘No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or
property without due process of law.’”
And any medical textbook explains that at conception, a human being is conceived.
“While the state has no authority to grant inalienable
rights, it has the obligation to protect them,” stated [Richard] Ziser
in a press release issued Thursday. “With an ever more oppressive
federal government lacking leadership in protecting the weakest and
most vulnerable in our midst, the people of Nevada are taking necessary
action to correct this injustice. This amendment addresses the most
important civil right, the right to live, without which all other civil
rights are rendered irrelevant.”