Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Colorado Might Need More Prisons

Last year the citizens of Colorado soundly defeated Proposed Amendment 48 which attempted to amend the state constitution so that Sections 3, 6 and 25 of Article II, when referring to a "person" included a fertilized egg in its definition.

This year, Colorado Personhood is attempting to amend the same sections of the state constitution but now "...the term person shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being."

These are the sections referenced by the proposed amendment:

Section 3. Inalienable rights.


All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Section 6. Equality of justice.

Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character; and right and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay.

Section 25. Due process of law.

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.


Let's have a look at "...shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being." What does this mean exactly? Every human being can be traced back to an egg that was fertilized by a sperm and the resulting zygote managed to develop into a newborn child. Does that mean every sperm and every egg--each of which could be the beginning of the biological development of a human being--shall not be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law?

How many counts of murder for a wet dream? What about the unfertilized egg passed on in the menstrual cycle? Will every miscarriage be investigated?

Pretty crazy, eh? I tell you this insanity makes me want to break out in song.

2 comments:

The Chihweenie said...

LOL. I love that Monty Python bit. I think some people have taken their perfectly good intentions and gone completely nuts with them. If they want to reduce abortions, why not support comprehensive sex ed in schools or better access to birth control for low income and high-risk women and girls? Who the hell knows where the clock starts ticking on human life. We will be debating that forever.

Sherry said...

In a bid for equal-opportunity help in preventing unintended/unwanted pregnancies, why not support vasectomies for low income and high risk men and boys? ;-)