Wednesday, February 17, 2010 |
 |
Ari Armstrong on the Implications of Personhood |
 |
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:00 AM   
Ari Armstrong recently posted the following essay on the practical implications of granting the legal rights of persons to fertilized eggs to his blog. Why are we writing about this issue again? Unfortunately, because the same theocrats who brought us Amendment 48 are seeking to put a similar measure on the ballot in Colorado for 2010. I'm re-posting Ari's essay here (with his permission) as a refresher course on the aims of the religious right.
What Are the Implications of 'Personhood?'
by Ari Armstrong
If fully implemented, the so-called "personhood" measure that may again appear on Colorado's ballot to define a fertilized egg as a person will outlaw all or almost all abortions, excepting procedures necessary to save the life of the woman. On that point advocates and critics of the measure agree. More contentious are claims about the measure's impact on birth control, fertility treatments, and legal issues surrounding miscarriages and women's health.
Ironically, a document from PersonhoodCO (the organization supporting the measure), "Scare Tactic Alert", attacks straw men, ignores substantive criticism, and obscures key issues of the debate even as it promises to reveal the "outright lies" of critics and to give "truthful answers." However, the document does clearly reveal the intentions of the measure's supporters on a number of important points. It is worth reviewing to note both where it misleads and where it clarifies the positions of the measure's sponsors.
"It Will Ban Abortion"
The document says flatly of the measure: "It will ban abortion." If passed and implemented, it will ban all elective abortions. It will ban all abortions even in cases of rape, incest, and fetal deformity.
Embryonic Stem-Cell Research Will Be Banned
Under the "personhood" measure, any scientific research or medical procedure that involved the destruction of a fertilized egg (or embryo at any stage) would be outlawed, as the measure's sponsors loudly declare.
Abortion Will Be Deemed Murder
The document makes clear that, under the "personhood" measure, a woman will be criminally charged for getting an abortion. A woman will be charged with a crime if she "acted with criminal culpability which includes the performance of an act and a matching criminal intent. These standards would be the same as would be applied to any mother who harms her children, born or preborn."
The document confirms: "actions taken with criminal intent will be punished under the existing criminal code, irrespective of whether the child is in or out of the womb."
Abortion Could Trigger the Death Penalty
Not only would abortion be considered murder under the "personhood" measure, it could be punished with the death penalty. This applies both to doctors who perform abortions and women who get them.
The document denies that the measure "will threaten doctors who perform legitimate surgeries." However, a "legitimate" surgery, according to the document, cannot include any intention "to kill the child in the womb."
The document states: "In Colorado, the death penalty is only available for first degree murder with aggravating factors. First degree murder requires deliberation and intent."
While the document does not directly state that the death penalty could also apply to women who obtain abortions, the document states that women will be punished "under the existing criminal code." By implication, if a woman deliberately and intentionally aborts an embryo or fetus, she could be subject to the death penalty.
Colorado Statute 18-1.3-1201(1)(a) states, "Upon conviction of guilt of a defendant of a class 1 felony, the trial court shall conduct a separate sentencing hearing to determine whether the defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment..."
Birth Control That Can Prevent Implantation Will be Outlawed
The "Scare Tactic Alert" document claims it is a "lie" that the measure "will ban contraception." However, the document also defines "contraception" strictly to mean something that prevents the fertilization of an egg. Any form of birth control that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus will be outlawed under the measure. Notably, this includes the birth control pill.
The document states: "the beginning of life (under normal sexual reproduction) takes place when the sperm touches the ovum. Barrier methods of contraception that prevent the union of the sperm and the egg will not be outlawed, since neither a sperm nor an egg by itself is a human being."
The birth control pill acts primarily as a contraceptive, in that it prevents the fertilization of an egg. However, according to the documentation distributed by the manufacturers of the birth control pill, it can also act to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg.
For example, my wife takes TriNessa. According to WebMD, this birth control pill acts to "prevent pregnancy in 3 ways. One way is by preventing the release of an egg (ovulation). A second way is by changing the cervical mucus, making it more difficult for an egg to meet sperm (fertilization). A third way is by changing the womb lining, making it difficult for a fertilized egg to attach to the lining of the womb (implantation)."
Watson Pharmaceuticals, the producer of TriNessa, agrees that this pill can act to "reduce the likelihood of implantation."
As Diana Hsieh and I review in our paper on the subject (page 4), the birth control pill is more effective than condoms at preventing unwanted pregnancy. My wife and I find it to be the best form of birth control for us, and we utterly reject the insane claims of of the "personhood" advocates that using the birth control pill is morally wrong, much less the equivalent of murder that should subject women to severe criminal penalties.
Most Fertility Treatments Would Be Outlawed
PersonhoodCO claims it is a "lie" that the measure "will ban in vitro fertilization." However, as Diana and I explain in our paper, fertility treatments generally involve the destruction of fertilized eggs as a necessary aspect of effective treatment (see pages 6-7).
The "Scare Tactic Alert" document admits that fertility treatments that involve the destruction of fertilized eggs would be banned. The measure would, in effect, practically ban fertility treatments for nearly all women.
As Diana and I summarize, "[F]ertility clinics would be left with two options. They could fertilize one egg at a time, vastly raising the costs and time of the procedure because most eggs don't fertilize. Or they could implant all fertilized eggs into the woman, in some cases posing a health risk or producing more children than a couple can raise well. The practical result of Amendment 48 likely would be to shut down Colorado's seven reproductive clinics."
Doctors Would Be Subject to Prosecutorial Oversight
PersonhoodCO states, "[I]n those extremely rare situations where a woman needs treatment that might unintentionally result in the death of the child, the doctor would not have acted with intent to kill or even harm the child, but with intent to cure the mother." (Note here that PersonhoodCO is simply defining any procedure "where a woman needs treatment" as not counted as an "abortion.") Furthermore, when abortion was outlawed "there were no prosecutions of doctors for legitimate medical treatment," the document claims.
There are two main problems with these claims of PersonhoodCO. First, what counts as a "legitimate medical treatment" is precisely the issue in question. Now, who decides such matters is the woman in consultation with her doctor. Under the "personhood" measure, politicians, prosecutors, and judges will decide. Knowing this, doctors will tend to err on the side of not acting to protect a woman's health. If a doctor chooses not to take action in a difficult case, he will suffer no criminal penalty even if the woman dies. If the doctor chooses to act, he may be charged with murdering a zygote by a prosecutor who doubts the procedure was necessary.
Second, today doctors have much better equipment and procedures than they had several decades ago, so doctors today simply have more opportunities to medically intervene to protect a woman's health.
The broader issue is that doctors may effectively be prevented from acting in cases where "only" the woman's health, rather than her life, is at risk. By the logic of the "personhood" measure, a doctor should at least sometimes allow a woman to suffer long-term health consequences in order to save a zygote. The measure takes such determinations out of the hands of women and doctors and places them in the hands of government officials.
Suspicious Miscarriages Could Invite Prosecution
PersonhoodCO claims it is a "lie" that the measure "will threaten women who miscarry with criminal prosecution." The problem with that claim is that telling the difference between an unintentional miscarriage and an intentional act can be difficult. Who gets to decide whether a woman's diet, herbal remedies, or physical damage was intended to cause an abortion? Again, under the "personhood" measure, the answer is government officials, so far as prosecution is concerned.
The Abortion Industry?
One of the more dishonest claims made by PersonhoodCO is that criticisms are coming from "the abortion industry." No doubt clinics that perform abortions also oppose the measure. However, many independent critics, including Diana and me, are in no way a part of the "abortion industry," and PersonhoodCO's smears are childish and dishonest.
Diana and I wrote our paper, Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person, without financial compensation. We wrote and promoted that paper because we are horrified by the vicious nature of the "personhood" measure.
Any reader of our paper will realize that PersonhoodCO is attacking straw men in its "Scare Tactic Alert." We do not, for example, claim that the measure "will ban contraception." Instead, we claim, as PersonhoodCO itself claims, that the measure will ban forms of birth control that may prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg.
Conclusion
At least the "Scare Tactic Alert" clearly lays out many of the intentions and implications of the "personhood" measure. Unfortunately, the document also smears critics of the measure, distorts what critics of the measure have said about it, ignores substantive criticism published in 2008, and understates the impacts of the measure in areas such as the potential for criminal prosecution in cases of suspicious miscarriages.
By implying that all criticisms of the "personhood" measure are "scare tactics," PersonhoodCO wrongly suggests that substantive criticisms of the measure have been exaggerated. Notably, not a single advocate of the "personhood" measure has attempted to directly refute anything from the 2008 paper.
Critics of the "personhood" measure do not need to resort to "scare tactics" to defeat it. The objective facts about the measure and its implications are truly horrifying.Labels: Abortion, Coalition for Secular Government
| | |  E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink ( )  Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts  via Feed Reader  via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts  M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 |
|
Nixon on Abortion |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 PM
These revelations about Richard Nixon are morally repugnant on so many levels:
On Jan. 23, 1973, when the Supreme Court struck down laws criminalizing abortion in Roe v. Wade, President Richard M. Nixon made no public statement. But privately, newly released tapes reveal, he expressed ambivalence.
Nixon worried that greater access to abortions would foster "permissiveness," and said that "it breaks the family." But he also saw a need for abortion in some cases -- like interracial pregnancies, he said.
"There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white," he told an aide, before adding, "Or a rape." UGH. (Via Ari Armstrong, who sent me the link in e-mail with the subject line "i hate nixon part 981." Seriously.)Labels: Abortion, Politics
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Monday, November 17, 2008 |
|
The Loss of Values Due to Contradiction |
|
By Gina Liggett @ 12:01 PM
Two current events I have selected have nothing in common, except for being in the news. Well, they also pertain to underlying rational values that are at risk of being destroyed by their own best advocates. Why? Because their champions are trying to operate under contradiction.
On the heels of the joyously-resounding defeat of Colorado's "personhood" amendment comes another threat to abortion in Colorado. This time a private citizen, Mark Hotaling, is suing Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains and Boulder Valley Women's Health center for violating the state's constitution. He claims that federal dollars received by these clinics are illegally being used to perform abortions. Hotaling says he's just standing up "for the will of the people and the constitution." For this, he's getting moral support from Ms. stand-up-for-the-people Kristi Burton, the evangelical who got Amendment 48 on the ballot "to empower the citizens to have a choice" about when life begins. And he's getting financial and legal support from the influential Religious Right group, the Alliance Defense Fund.
In the other story, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the $700 billion bailout plan won't include the purchase of troubled assets from banks after all, a turn-around from the original plan. And unlike the rescued financial sector, the American auto industry might not get the additional help it's been asking for. Stock exchanges revolt in their roller-coaster tumble with daily bad news about the economy and over worries of how governments will fix it.
What values are at stake here?
In the first story, the value is the right to abortion. As writers on this blog and on Politics without God have argued, abortion is an absolute, inviolable right. Ayn Rand explains the right to abortion in her famously clear and pithy way: "An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being."
In the second story, the value is free trade. Free trade is the unencumbered right for free individuals and companies to voluntarily exchange goods or services with each other to their own mutual benefit on terms they both agree on. Because humans must create what they need to survive and thrive, and because they can't individually make everything they need, a market for such exchange is required. It reflects the sum of "all the economic choices and decisions made by all the participants," thereby creating wealth.
In a society based on rational principles, it is possible to protect the right to abortion under any and all circumstances; and it is possible for free trade to proceed to any degree of wealth that can be created by human ingenuity. But not so in a society where contradiction is introduced and enforced.
In the first story, the women's health and abortion clinics vociferously defend a woman's legal right to abortion as granted by the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade. Yet they are willing to accept the expropriated earnings of wealth from others in society in the form of government grants in order to survive. While the clinics in the lawsuit deny directly using federal funds for abortion, they still must play by the arbitrary and ever-changing rules of those who hold the monopoly on force (i.e., the government). In the end, the right to abortion becomes conditional.
In the second story, the biggest intervention in the marketplace in American history has just happened. But decades of regulation, restrictions and biased preferences haven't led businesses to rise up and crusade for their right to free trade. It's led to just the opposite: the despairing cry for help using the expropriated earnings of others in society in the form of bailouts. Business are boldly proud and assertive when things are going well; but when things are not, they crumble under pressure and want a quick fix by any means from those who hold the monopoly on force (i.e., the government). In the end, the right of free trade becomes conditional.
It is a contradiction that we can uphold and pursue rational values that require freedom while accepting the conditions set by those who hold the monopoly on force. We have nobody to blame but ourselves: American citizens, with their endless special-interest appeals to their legislators, have allowed this untenable situation to unfold.
You can't be free and sleep with the devil. Or, as Ayn Rand more eloquently puts it: "a contradiction cannot be achieved in reality and... the attempt to achieve it can lead only to disaster and destruction."
Abortion rights are being chipped away every year. And we are in a worsening financial crisis of unprecedented proportions. The only way out is to eliminate the contradiction. The only way out is to hold government to its proper, non-contradictory function of protecting individual rights. And it is the citizens who must take this corrective action.Labels: Abortion, Finance, Politics
| | | E-mail Gina Liggett PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Monday, November 03, 2008 |
|
A Good Day |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:38 AM
Today is a good day.
(1) Last night, I finished the first draft of the fifth chapter of my dissertation. It was a 43-page chapter articulating, developing, and defending Aristotle's theory of moral responsibility. I've now written 148 pages, and I probably have about 80 left to write, in the form of the final three chapters applying my Aristotelian account of moral responsibility to the various cases of circumstantial, resultant, and constitutive moral luck. I'm going to have to crank them out fast -- before the end of the calendar year. (For some background on my dissertation, see this post on my prospectus.)
(2) The Rocky Mountain News unexpectedly published my op-ed against Colorado's Amendment 48 in defense of abortion rights today. You can read it -- and leave a comment -- here: There's nothing wrong with abortion, but 48 is wrong. (That's not my title, but I'm not complaining.)
(3) In celebration, I'm going to take today off. I have a slew of household chores to catch up on, plus some fun cooking to do. I'll be making homemade applesauce, as well as roasting the seeds from one of the delicious pumpkins I grew in my garden this year.Labels: Abortion, Activism, Dissertation
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Thursday, October 30, 2008 |
|
Abortion Is a Woman's Right |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:46 PM
Last week, I sent out the following op-ed on abortion -- particularly focusing on Colorado's Amendment 48 -- to the various Colorado papers:
Abortion Is a Woman's Right
Colorado voters face a stark moral choice in this election: vote yea or nay on Amendment 48. That ballot measure would grant fertilized eggs the legal standing of persons--including "inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law"--in the state constitution.
If fully implemented, almost all abortions would be outlawed in Colorado, including in cases of rape, incest, and fetal deformity. Any woman who terminated a pregnancy would be guilty of murder, subject to life in prison or the death penalty. To take the birth control pill, which might sometimes prevent the implantation of an embryo in the womb, would be a criminal act. Miscarriages might be investigated by zealous prosecutors.
Roe v. Wade would not necessarily protect women against these ominous legal controls. Rather, Amendment 48 might be used to challenge that landmark case--or to inspire a nationwide movement for a similar federal constitutional amendment.
Despite its draconian effects, this proposed amendment has gathered solid support from Colorado voters. A recent poll shows that 39% favor it, 50% oppose it, and 11% are undecided.
Why such strong support? Over the past two decades, the religious right has effectively waged a holy war on abortion. Abortion is the murder of an innocent human life, they say. It violates the God-given right to life of a "preborn child." It is part of a "culture of death." So most Americans regard abortion as morally wrong except when a pregnancy threatens the woman's mental or physical health.
Yet the religious right's attacks on abortion are completely and utterly wrong. They evade the true meaning of the biological facts of pregnancy.
Opponents of abortion claim that embryos and fetuses have the same right to life as babies because they are distinct, living human beings. Undoubtedly, an embryo or fetus is alive, not inert matter. It's also human--not canine or hippopotamus. Yet every distinct, living skin cell a person washes off in the shower also contains human DNA. A tumor is human tissue distinct from its host. The embryo or fetus is different: it might develop into a born baby. Yet the differences between an embryo or fetus and that born baby are vast.
In the early stages of pregnancy, the embryo has nothing in common with an infant except its DNA. Its form is similar to the embryos of other mammals; it cannot survive outside the womb; it lacks any kind of awareness. To call that clump of cells a "person" is sheer nonsense.
Even when more developed, the fetus is not a biologically separate entity capable of independent action, like a baby. It exists as part of the woman carrying it, wholly contained within and dependent on her. It goes where she goes, eats what she eats, and breathes what she breathes. It lives as she lives, as an extension of her body. It is not yet an individual human life; it is not yet a person.
That situation changes radically at birth. A baby lives a life of its own. Although still very needy, he maintains his own biological functions. He breathes his own air, digests his own food, and moves on his own. He interacts with other people as a creature in his own right, not merely as a part of a pregnant woman. His life must be protected as a matter of right.
So a woman has every right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy--for any reason. If an abortion will protect and further her own life and happiness, then she ought to pursue that option with a clear conscience.
Amendment 48 would obliterate the moral right of every pregnant woman to control her own body. It is based on sectarian religious dogma, not objective facts. Please vote "No" on 48.
Diana Hsieh is the co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person," an issue paper available at http://www.seculargovernment.us. I haven't checked the various papers to see where it has been published, but I do know that the Pagosa Daily Post published it on October 23rd. They then published a a lengthy reply on October 27th. (I won't reproduce it here; it's too long and too wrong.) On the 29th, they published a great letter in reply by Gideon Reich of Armchair Intellectual:
Van Horn Opinion Misses the Point
Gideon Reich
Steve Van Horn's rebuttal in the Post to Diana Hsieh's excellent article on abortion shows a complete lack of understanding of the one crucial concept in the abortion debate: Individual Rights. Far from being mythical supernatural endowments implanted at conception, or social conventions subject to popular vote, rights derive from a human being's nature as a rational being. His existence requires the free exercise of his rational faculty to sustain his own life.
A "right," as Ayn Rand pointed out, "is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context." Thus, the freedom of action that ought to be guaranteed to an individual is the freedom to think and act without interference from others in society for the achievement of his goals, as long as he respects the right of others do the same.
The very first requirement for such a freedom to apply is that the "individual" in question actually be a separate individual in a social context -- not a mere potential that is part of another actual individual. As Ms. Hsieh has eloquently shown, the unborn fetus, to say nothing of the embryo or zygote, has not met that requirement.
The pregnant woman, on the other hand, clearly has -- and has every moral right to act accordingly. Thank you for writing such an excellent letter, Gideon!Labels: Abortion, Election
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Thursday, October 16, 2008 |
|
Pro-Life Feminist? |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 7:12 PM
Today, the Christian Science Monitor published an excellent letter to the editor by William Stoddard, a much-valued NoodleFood commenter. As published, it reads:
Regarding the Oct. 14 Opinion piece, "Amid Palin hype, a pro-life feminist's dilemma": "Pro-life feminism" is a contradiction in terms. A woman who would deprive other women of control over their own bodies, by legally compelling them to carry pregnancies to term against their will, is not a credible advocate of women's rights.
Abortion is not an easy choice for any woman, and it would be a good thing if the need for it were minimized through conscientious use of contraception. But the claim that a fetus is a person under the law has intolerable implications. A fetal "right to life" would define doctors who perform abortions, and women who undergo them, as murderers. This would be the case even for women who became pregnant through rape, or who were carrying profoundly defective children.
The law should protect the pregnant woman's right to decide what to do. Any other policy is opposed both to feminism and to the broader concept of individual rights.
William H. Stoddard
San Diego
Unfortunately, it's not available online yet. (It was definitely printed today, as I have a hard copy in front of me. Paul subscribes, as it's a great little newspaper.)Labels: Abortion, Activism
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Wednesday, October 15, 2008 |
|
Vote No on Amendment 48, Colorado! |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 6:08 PM
I've just overhauled the Coalition for Secular Government's web site on Amendment 48: Vote NO on Amendment 48. Please feel free to forward the announcement below to anyone you think might be interested in it.
Announcing the Coalition for Secular Government's new web site on Colorado's Amendment 48:
http://ColoradoVoteNo48.com
Amendment 48 is the ballot measure that would define a fertilized egg as a person with full legal rights in the Colorado constitution. (Read the full text.) If passed and implemented, it would pose a grave threat to the life, liberty, health, and happiness of the women and men of Colorado.
- Amendment 48 would make abortion first-degree murder, except perhaps to save the woman's life. First-degree murder is defined in Colorado law as deliberately causing the death of a "person," a crime punished by life in prison or the death penalty. So women and their doctors would be punished with the severest possible penalty under law for terminating a pregnancy -- even in cases of rape, incest, and fetal deformity.
- Amendment 48 would ban any form of birth control that might sometimes prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus -- including the birth control pill, morning-after pill, and IUD. The result would be many more unintended pregnancies and unwanted children in Colorado.
- Amendment 48 would ban in vitro fertilization because the process usually creates more fertilized eggs than can be safely implanted in the womb. So every year, hundreds of Colorado couples would be denied the joy of a child of their own.
Amendment 48 would have severe legal consequences for Colorado. Men and women would be legally bound to sacrifice themselves for the sake of a zygote -- even before it implants in the womb, even before it develops any recognizable human form, even before it has any capacity for awareness. The people of Colorado would be forced to sacrifice themselves based on the faith-based fiction that zygote is the equal of a born baby.
The common claim that "life begins at conception" cannot justify Amendment 48. The fact that something is human and alive does not make it a person. Every cell in our body is both human and alive, yet we don't worry about giving blood for testing or scraping off a few skin cells in a fall. A fertilized egg is distinctive because, in addition to being alive and human, it might develop into a born baby given the right conditions. What supporters of Amendment 48 cannot show, however, is that a potential baby has the moral status of an actual baby. The difference between them is enormous.
An embryo or fetus is wholly dependent on the woman for its basic life-functions. It goes where she goes, eats what she eats, and breathes what she breathes. It lives as an extension of her body, contained within and dependent on her for its survival. It is only a potential person, not an actual person. That situation changes radically at birth. The newborn baby exists as a distinct organism, separate from his mother. Although still very needy, he lives his own life. He is a person -- and individual. His life must be protected as a matter of right.
Consequently, when a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy she does not violate the rights of any person. Instead, she is exercising her own rights over her own body -- likely in pursuit of her own health, well-being, and happiness. Amendment 48 would destroy those rights in Colorado.
For a detailed analysis of Amendment 48, download and read the Coalition for Secular Government's issue paper by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh: "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person."
Amendment 48 is based on sectarian religious dogma, not objective science or philosophy. It is a blatant attempt to impose theocracy in Colorado. Please vote NO on 48!
For more information, visit Vote NO on Amendment 48.
The Coalition for Secular Government advocates government solely based on secular principles of individual rights. The protection of a person's basic rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness -- including freedom of religion and conscience -- requires a strict separation of church and state.Labels: Abortion
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Friday, October 10, 2008 |
|
Abortion and Abolition |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
The Boulder Weekly published the following op-ed on Amendment 48 by Ari Armstrong and myself yesterday:
Abortion and Abolition
by Diana Hsieh and Ari Armstrong
Colorado is ground zero in a national battle over the morality of abortion, and the defenders of abortion rights are ceding ground.
The opponents of abortion declare that every human life is endowed by God with an inalienable right to life. To terminate a pregnancy, whatever the circumstances, is murder.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain seeks to overturn Roe v. Wade, then "end abortion at the state level." His running mate Sarah Palin says she's as "pro-life as any candidate can be." She thinks "abortion [should] only be allowed if the life of the mother is endangered."
Colorado's Amendment 48 inaugurates a new strategy for ending abortion. Instead of restricting abortion via piecemeal government controls, the measure would usher in a near-total ban on abortion by defining a fertilized egg as a person with full legal rights in the state constitution.
The opponents of abortion claim the sanction of divine morality, based on the premise that "life begins at conception." Many anti-abortionists now openly seek to ban not only abortion and most fertility treatments, but also the birth control pill, morning after pill, and IUD because they may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Amendment 48 would help them do that.
Given this all-out assault on reproductive rights, traditional defenders of abortion might be expected to launch a vigorous counter-attack. Instead, they've dodged tough questions and conceded basic principles, leaving reproductive rights with a flimsy defense.
When Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was asked when a baby gets "human rights," he famously declared the question to be "above [his] pay grade." Yet he will be called on to judge such matters if elected. His running mate Joe Biden accepts the teachings of his Catholic Church: the fertilized egg is a human person. Yet he regards abortion as "a personal and private issue" -- as if the state should allow every person to decide for himself whether or not to recognize the rights of others, so long as any killings happen behind closed doors. That's clearly wrong: if an embryo or fetus is a person, then abortion is murder. If not, then it's a woman's right.
In response to the threat posed by Amendment 48, the traditional defenders of abortion rights -- such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL -- organized a broad coalition to fight the measure. They persuasively argue that Amendment 48 would have disastrous legal consequences for abortion, birth control and in-vitro fertilization.
Yet their oft-repeated slogan of "it simply goes too far" is a whopping concession to their opponents. It implies that abortion, birth control and in-vitro fertilization could be and perhaps ought to be restricted -- just not as severely as Amendment 48 would do. Instead of upholding reproductive rights, the slogan implicitly welcomes further incremental controls on abortion.
Just imagine if the abolitionists of the 19th century had attempted to defend the inalienable rights of slaves based on the slogan, "slavery: it simply goes too far." Imagine Lincoln declaring the morality of slavery to be "above [his] pay grade." The monstrous evil of slavery would still exist today. The recognition and protection of the rights of slaves required an uncompromising defense of those rights based on the facts of human nature.
Similarly, the recognition and protection of abortion rights requires an uncompromising defense of those rights based on the all-important differences between a fetus and a baby.
Neither an embryo nor a fetus is a human person with a right to life. While still in the womb, it exists as part of the woman, wholly contained within and dependent on her. It goes where she goes, eats what she eats, and breathes what she breathes. It lives as she lives, as an extension of her body. A fetus is only a potential person without a right to life.
That situation changes radically at birth. A baby lives his own life, outside his mother. Although very needy, he maintains his own biological functions. He breathes his own air, digests his own food and moves on his own. He can leave his mother to be cared for by someone else. He has a life of his own that must be protected as a matter of right, just the same as every other person.
During a pregnancy, the only person with rights is the pregnant woman. She has a right to liberty, including a right to use her body as she pleases. So she has every right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy -- for any reason. If an abortion will further her own life and happiness, then she ought to pursue that option with a clear conscience.
The growing faith-based opposition to abortion cannot be countered by vague appeals to choice and privacy. Roe v. Wade will be overturned and Amendment 48 (or its like) will be passed without a clear, consistent and positive defense of abortion rights. We must be as principled in our defense of a woman's right to her own body as were the abolitionists in defending the rights of slaves. Liberty cannot be won by any other means.
Diana Hsieh is the founder of the Coalition for Secular Government. Ari Armstrong is the editor of FreeColorado.com. They co-authored "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," available through SecularGovernment.us.Labels: Abortion, Election, Politics
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Wednesday, October 08, 2008 |
|
CSG Media Release: Nearly 40% of Colorado Voters Seek to Destroy Reproductive Rights |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 1:00 PM
MEDIA RELEASE: COALITION FOR SECULAR GOVERNMENT
Nearly 40% of Colorado Voters Seek to Destroy Reproductive Rights
Sedalia, Colorado / October 7, 2008
Contact: Diana Hsieh, co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" and founder of the Coalition for Secular Government, Diana@SecularGovernment.us or 303.304.0689
A poll of likely voters shows strong support for Amendment 48, the ballot measure that would grant the full legal rights of persons to fertilized eggs. The survey, conducted on September 28th by Rasmussen Reports with 500 likely voters, shows that 39% plan to vote for the measure, 50% to vote against it, while 11% are unsure. (See .)
Such strong support for Amendment 48 should surprise anyone familiar with the barrage of criticism published in Colorado media in recent weeks. Critics of the measure have warned voters of its destructive effects on Colorado's laws if passed and enforced. They have shown that it would usher in a near-total ban on abortion, outlaw the birth control pill and in vitro fertilization, and subject pregnant women to police controls. Yet these latest poll results are basically unchanged from a June poll, also by Rasmussen. (See .)
Diana Hsieh, founder of the Coalition for Secular Government and co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," argues that the broad support for Amendment 48 is driven by a deeply-held faith pretending to be "pro-life."
The most recent Rasmussen poll showed that 41% of Colorado voters believe that "life begins at conception." That number explains the strong support for Amendment 48, despite the media barrage against it. "People who endorse that slogan regard a fertilized egg as a new, whole person with a right to life," Hsieh said. "They regard the enormous sacrifices forced on real men and women by the measure as insignificant -- or even ennobling. Their vote is based on faith, without regard to the real-world requirements of human life and happiness. It's not 'pro-life' at all."
"To effectively combat measures like Amendment 48, the whole 'pro-life' ideology must be challenged at its root," Hsieh said. "A mushy slogan like 'it simply goes too far' is unconvincing, even misleading. It doesn't speak to the fundamental dispute. Worse, it suggests that some compromise -- like banning most abortions -- would be acceptable."
"Instead, reproductive rights must be defended on principle, based on the objective facts of human nature. With regard to abortion, the fact is that a fetus or embryo is only a potential person so long as encased within and dependent on the woman. Once born, the infant is a new individual person with the right to life. That view ought to be the basis for the laws of a free society. Any alternative -- any attempt to grant rights to the embryo or fetus -- would violate the rights of pregnant women."
For a principled defense of reproductive rights, see the Coalition for Secular Government's issue paper, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person," available at http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf, particularly the section "Personhood and the Right to Abortion," pages 10-13.Labels: Abortion, Activism, Coalition for Secular Government
| | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
|
Friday, September 26, 2008 |
|
Consistent Evil |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:43 AM
The evangelicals want to make America a Christian nation. And they really mean it.
For example, consider how Dani -- a supporter of Colorado's Amendment 48 describes herself:
I am a wife and a homeschooling mother of three beautiful girls and an adorable baby boy. I am also a right-wing fanatic on assignment from God to be a good helper to my husband and to train up my children with the Fear and Admonition of the Lord! My beliefs are radical, oftentimes offensive, and fundamental to the core. You're either going to love me or hate me, but I am here to share the TRUTH to an entire generation trained not to notice and blinded by lies. ===> "Have I now become your enemy by telling the TRUTH?" - Galatians 4:16 In response to her blog post supporting Amendment 48, I posted the following comment:
Are you willing to punish a woman with the death penalty or life in prison for terminating a pregnancy, whatever her circumstances? To lock up a woman so that she will bring a non-viable fetus to term?
Do you want to ban the birth control pill and IUD, thereby causing more unwanted pregnancies? Would you like to see a ban on in vitro fertilization? To grant frozen embryos in labs inheritance rights?
If not, then you ought not vote for or support Amendment 48 -- because those evils and absurdities would be the real-life consequences granting fertilized eggs full legal rights. To kill or harm a fertilized egg would be a criminal offense under Colorado law, regardless of the circumstances.
The fact is that Amendment 48 is deeply, profoundly anti-life. For the details, read "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person," an issue paper by Ari Armstrong and myself. It's available for download at:
http://www.SecularGovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf
The Christians supporters of Amendment 48 are welcome to act on their own beliefs in their own lives. They have no right to force their religious views on the rest of the people of Colorado -- just as Muslims have no right to force Christians to pray to Allah five times per day. Now, consider her reply:
Diana - you asked, "Are you willing to punish a woman with the death penalty or life in prison for terminating a pregnancy, whatever her circumstances?"
Yes, abortion should be re-criminalized and punishable by death. As individuals we do not have the authority to legalize murder, and I believe the government should enforce the law upon those who take an innocent life. In the same respect, if a baby is conceived through rape or incest, we should not punish the child because it's father is a criminal - the rapist and child molester should also be swiftly put to death.
If a woman's "health" is supposedly at risk, you don't need to intentionally kill the baby in order to save the mother's life. Doctors should do everything in their power to save both the mother and the baby, and if the child should die from natural causes in the process, then there is nothing immoral or illegal about that.
"Do you want to ban the birth control pill and IUD, thereby causing more unwanted pregnancies?"
Well, if those forms of birth control terminate a fertilized egg or prevent implantation, then yes, they should be banned.
"To grant frozen embryos in labs inheritance rights?"
Yes! As evidence of the Snowflake Children - Since 1997 over 400,000 frozen embryos became real live human beings and were given a chance at life.
"The Christians supporters of Amendment 48 are welcome to act on their own beliefs in their own lives. They have no right to force their religious views on the rest of the people of Colorado..."
The fundamental right to life is a universal right given to us by our Creator, regardless of a person's beliefs or religious background. Even the atheists have the right to life, and radical, baby-killing feminists like you, Diana, do NOT have the authority or the right to decide when an innocent child should die. Quit being so selfish and quit advocating for the real evils and absurdities which comes from re-defining when a person becomes a person.
Amendment 48 is simple - The term "Person" or "Persons" shall include any human from the time of fertilization. If that's not enough, you can find more comments from her about the evils of the self and the like in these Politics Without God comments.
A person who shrinks from the horrifyingly destructive real-life consequences of his abstract ideas might be -- maybe, possibly -- convinced to abandon those ideas by some further experience or argument. He has an internal conflict that might be resolved for the better.
Such a happy resolution is not possible when a person wholeheartedly embraces the horrifyingly destructive real-life consequences of her vicious ideas -- as does Dani. Such a person is not admirable for her consistency; consistency is only a virtue in the service of the good. Such a person is completely evil, likely irredeemably so.
And wow, I've seen that too much lately.Labels: Abortion, Religion
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Thursday, September 25, 2008 |
|
Intellectual Thugs |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
Over the past week, I have been absolutely horrified by the venomous hatred expressed by those supposed lovers of life, peace, and mercy: the fundamentalist Christians committed to strangling America with the law of God.
Undoubtedly, the ugliest examples are the myriad death threats e-mailed to Nick Provenzo for his defense of the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down's Syndrome. The various responses of right-wing bloggers (and their commenters) was little better. They grossly misread Nick's remarks, then refused to consider any correction.
One might hope for better from the intellectual leaders of this movement. After all, they earn their bread and butter by argument: they seek to persuade others that their views are correct. So even if hopelessly wrong, they must maintain some semblance of rationality, right?
Nope.
Catholic talk show host Barbara Simpson said on the air that "there was a day when someone would take somebody like this Provenzo guy out in an alley and beat him beyond whatever. He deserves it." Nice.
Yet even worse was Laura Ingraham's interview of Nick: she failed to conduct anything remotely resembling a fair debate, yet her methods were more subtle than Simpson's explicit appeal to thuggery.
To understand the problem, let me explain how to respectfully argue with someone who disagrees with you.
You allow someone to explain their views. You ask them tough questions about the reasons for and implications of those views. The whole time, you allow them to speak for themselves. You represent their views fairly. And then you crush them with your own devastating criticisms, always politely given. You allow them to reply, and then you crush them again. That's what any decent radio talk show host -- and any respectable intellectual -- does in debate.
That's not what Laura Ingraham did. She made no effort to understand Nick's position. Despite his protests, she refused to focus on the actual intellectual disagreement between them. She refused to consider his reasons for his views. Worst of all, she attributed a variety of morally repugnant ideas to Nick, purely of her own invention. Then she refused to allow him to reply, choosing instead to pontificate to her listeners.
Her method of debate was that of a gang leader seeking to impress her minions by intimidation, not that of a respectable intellectual concerned with airing out ideas in pursuit of knowledge. Given that, Nick deserves a good bit of credit for conducting himself as well as he did.
As Objectivism makes ever-greater inroads into the culture, some people will behave like civilized adults in debate. And others will use whatever dirty tricks they can muster to misrepresent our views. We've just seen a taste of the latter. I must admit, I've grown accustomed to civilized discourse between reasonable adults -- or at least the appearance thereof. So this week has been a bit of a wake-up call for me. I expect that I'm not alone in that feeling.Labels: Abortion, Activism, Culture
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Thursday, September 18, 2008 |
|
Abortion and Down's Syndrome |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 3:47 PM
Nick Provenzo's recent post on Palin's Down syndrome child and the right to abortion has been inundated with comments from anti-abortion zealots, thanks to various hysterical distortions from LifeNews, LewRockwell.com, NewsBusters, and more.
However, I thought this comment said more than all the insane ravings of his critics:
I would like to thank you, Nicholas, for your stand here. As the mother of a child with Down syndrome born prior to Roe v. Wade and before the advent of pre-screening tests, I did not have the choice when it came to giving birth to my daughter. While I loved my daughter deeply (who is now deceased), had I known what I would have faced and had I had the freedom to choose to accept this responsibility or not, I very well might have been with the 90% of women who choose to terminate their pregnancy because of Down syndrome.
Those who think that it is vicious to not want to have a child with severe retardation should try raising with one before they pass judgment. It is no easy task; in fact, it is a cruelty made real when you realize that your beloved child can never think like a healthy person, never be independent, or find the love that a person can find when they are in full possession of all their faculties.
I spit on all of you here who would morally condemn a woman for rejecting such a fate. I spit on all of you here who would condemn such a choice as murder. You simply have no idea what you are talking about, and it offends me that you prance around as if you do. Walk a mile in my life before you presume to tell me that abortion is wrong. Also, Nick has posted an excellent defense of abortion rights. I don't expect that bit of reasoned argument to slow the rate of death threats against him, however.Labels: Abortion, Religion
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Monday, September 15, 2008 |
|
The Worship of Retardation |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:05 AM
I wish Sarah Palin's youngest son Trig -- afflicted with Down's Syndrome -- the best life possible to him. Yet based on my experience working with a man with Down's Syndrome in a high school job at a movie theater, I regard his life as inherently tragic and likely quite miserable. I also wholeheartedly support the vast majority of women who choose to abort a Down's Syndrome fetus rather than saddle themselves with a perpetually dependent child.
Most of all, however, I'm disgusted by the the worship of retardation exhibited by Christians in response to Trig's rise to national prominence, as in this National Review article by Michael Franc:
"Children with special needs," Gov. Sarah Palin said during her acceptance speech at the Republican convention, "inspire a special love." As someone who grew up alongside a brother with Down Syndrome, I can attest to that observation.
But these special children, and the special adults they grow up to be, inspire something else of equal importance. When these little, unexpected ambassadors of God enter our lives, they offer us the opportunity to rise to that greatest of all challenges — to treat others as we would want to be treated. Their presence, in short, elevates all of us. That's a good expression of the mind-set of so many of today's devout Christians. They are not content to limit reason to make room for faith. They go further: they laud retardation as a virtue. In the process, they must -- and do -- disparage normal human intelligence as a vice.
Such people are not motivated by a soft heart. If they were, they would adamantly defend abortion as a moral means of freeing parents from the prospect of endless sacrifice to a retarded child. They would regard abortion as a moral way to prevent the infliction of a miserable, degraded life on the person that will emerge from the womb. Instead, they want to create more mentally defective and perpetually dependent children by outlawing abortion.
The people who worship retardation reject human reason as a value. They're as anti-man as the deep ecologists who regard mankind as a cancer on the earth.
Frankly, one wonders why such people don't lobotomize themselves, if retardation is such a boon to their fellow man.
(Via Thomas.)Labels: Abortion, Culture, Election
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Wednesday, September 03, 2008 |
|
Federal Ambiguity on Abortion Vs. Contraception |
|
By Paul Hsieh @ 1:37 AM
William Saletan of Slate has recently posted a couple of informative updates on the Bush administration's attempt (or lack thereof) to define abortion.
The context is the proposed new law that would grant special protections for religious health care workers who chose not to provide abortion care or information to patients out of reasons of "conscience". In effect, the new law would forbid employers from firing such workers and enforce this by threatening the employer with loss of federal funding.
Leaving apart the fact that such issues should be settled by private contract (as nicely argued by Thomas Bowden of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights in their recent press release, "Let Doctors Protect Conscience by Contract"), this proposed law has spawned a controversy over what exactly constitutes an "abortion" in the eyes of the federal government.
As Saletan documents in his first piece from 8/28/2008, "Contraceptive Fudge", the initial definition was:...[A]ny of the various procedures -- including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation However, this was dropped after protest from physicians and reproductive rights advocates who correctly noted that this would include some forms of birth control that are not generally regarded as "abortion" -- including IUDs and sometimes birth control pills.
Saletan also points out that a number of religious advocacy groups have already argued that "hormonal contraception is abortion", including Pharmacists for Life International, Christian Legal Society, and Concerned Women for America, and that the current definition still leaves the door open for this interpretation.
When others have asked Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt to clarify this point, he has been cagey. In Saleton's second piece from 8/29/2008, "Contraceptive Fudge: Addendum", he notes the following statement by Leavitt:But when pressed about whether the regulation would protect health-care workers who consider birth control pills, Plan B and other forms of contraception to be equivalent to abortion, Leavitt said: "This regulation does not seek to resolve any ambiguity in that area. It focuses on abortion and focuses on physicians' conscience in relation to that." Secretary Leavitt is trying to have it both ways. While claiming this would not "change a patient's right to a legal procedure", his deliberate characterization of this issue as one of "ambiguity" is leaving the door open for the conflation of popular forms of birth control with abortion, and thus preparing the way for future restrictions of birth control in the name of restricting abortion.
Saletan also explicitly supports the private contract approach to the "conscience" issue, and I applaud his principled stance:As a pharmacist, you have every right to refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions. But your customers have every right to boycott your store, and your employer has every right to fire you. If you don't like your employer's policy, open your own pharmacy. He also notes that federal government is soliciting citizens' opinions on this issue. You can e-mail them at: consciencecomment@hhs.gov.
Here's a slightly edited version of the comment I sent them:The US government needs to be completely clear and unambiguous as to whether it regards standard forms of contraception such as birth control pills and IUDs as forms of "abortion", if they result in the expulsion of an egg that has already been fertilized but not yet undergone implantation.
Rather than fudging this issue and calling it an "ambiguity", it must let practicing physicians such as myself know whether restrictions on abortion will also entail restrictions on these other forms of contraception.
If the Bush administration wants to call those "abortions", then please be up front about it and say so. If the administration does not consider those to be "abortions", then say so and clear the air. To straddle the fence does a grave disservice to millions of men and women, and also leads to the concern that there is a hidden agenda amongst some in the government to also include restrictions on these forms of birth control when they propose future restrictions on abortions.
Paul Hsieh, MD You too can let the Feds know what you think!Labels: Abortion, Coalition for Secular Government, Politics, Religion
| | | E-mail Paul Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Tuesday, September 02, 2008 |
|
Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:54 AM
I'm delighted to report that Capitalism Magazine is publishing Ari Armstrong's and my recent issue paper for Coalition for Secular Government -- "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person" -- as a six-part series.
Part One was posted yesterday.
Part Two was posted today.
Ultimately, you'll be able to find all six parts on our author page.
Here's what the paper is about:
Colorado's proposed Amendment 48 -- the ballot measure that would grant full legal rights to fertilized eggs -- would usher in disastrous government controls on abortion, birth control, medical research, and in vitro fertilization. It would violate the rights of real men and women -- based on the faith-based fiction that a fertilized egg is a person with the same moral standing as a born infant. Yet the biological facts of pregnancy show that the embryo/fetus becomes a human person with rights only when born. Our paper offers some philosophic analysis of the politics and ethics of abortion not seen elsewhere, I think. So go check it out on CapMag -- or you can download and read the full pdf version.
(By the way, I'm in a massive dissertation writing crunch right now. I wrote for eight hours on Sunday, eleven hours yesterday, and I have a huge day ahead of me to finish this &@*#! chapter on moral judgment. So I'm not answering any e-mails or whatnot -- except to put out fires. I'll be back in the game by the end of the week.)Labels: Abortion, Politics, Religion
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 |
|
Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 1:12 AM
I'm delighted to announce that the Coalition for Secular Government has just published its first issue paper:
Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters
That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person
by Ari Armstrong and Diana HsiehColorado's Amendment 48 -- the proposed constitutional amendment that would grant full legal rights to fertilized eggs -- would usher in disastrous government controls on abortion, birth control, and in vitro fertilization. It would do so by grossly violating individual rights -- in the name of the faith-based fiction that a fertilized egg is equal to a born infant. Here's the press release:
MEDIA RELEASE -- COALITION FOR SECULAR GOVERNMENT
New Paper: "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," an issue paper by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh, published by the Coalition for Secular Government is available on the web at:
http://www.SecularGovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf
Contact:
Diana Hsieh, co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" and Founder of the Coalition for Secular Government, diana@SecularGovernment.us
Ari Armstrong, co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" and editor of FreeColorado.com
AMENDMENT 48 IS ANTI-LIFE, NEW PAPER SHOWS
"Amendment 48, the ballot measure that would define a fertilized egg as a person with full legal rights in the Colorado constitution, is profoundly anti-life," said Diana Hsieh, founder of the Coalition for Secular Government.
"It would obliterate basic reproductive rights in Colorado based solely on the faith-based fiction that a fertilized egg is the moral equal of a born infant. The biological facts show just the opposite: that only the pregnant woman, and then the born infant, are persons with rights," Hsieh said.
"Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," written by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh and published by the Coalition for Secular Government, shows that the ballot measure is hostile to human life in myriad ways:
* Given existing criminal statues, Amendment 48 would subject women and their doctors to life in prison or the death penalty for abortions, even in cases of rape, incest, and fetal deformity.
* It would prevent doctors from properly treating non-viable ectopic pregnancy until the woman's life and health was in serious danger, thereby causing needless deaths.
* It would force thousands of women each year to bear unwanted children, whatever the cost to their own lives and happiness.
* The measure would ban popular and effective forms of birth control, including the birth-control pill, thereby increasing unwanted pregnancies.
* It would outlaw the fertility treatments responsible for the birth of hundreds of Colorado babies to eager parents each year.
"The voters of Colorado must protect their reproductive rights against this dangerous assault. They must vote 'NO' on Amendment 48," Hsieh said. Labels: Abortion, Coalition for Secular Government, Religion
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Tuesday, June 24, 2008 |
|
Biblical Law Versus Freedom of Religion |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:39 PM
Hooray! Last Thursday, the Vail Daily published my letter to the editor opposing the proposed personhood amendment to the Colorado constitution.
Re: "Protect reproductive rights"
Thank you for your editorial opposing the proposed "personhood amendment" to the Colorado constitution.
Unfortunately, some people in Colorado are eager to impose their religious dogmas on others -- by whatever means necessary. They demand that everyone submit to their values, including people who disagree with their dubious interpretations of scripture, deny the morality of blind obedience to divine commands, and reject faith in God as irrational superstition -- as I do.
By any rational standard, that demand for submission is morally wrong.
These theocrats reject the very principle protecting their own freedom to worship: the separation of church and state. Under that principle, each person practices whatever faith he chooses, including none at all -- as a matter of right. He may live as he sees fit, according to his own values, without forcible interference from others. So if opposed to abortion, he can refuse any involvement with the procedure.
The proposed "personhood amendment" embodies the opposite principle: government entanglement with religion, particularly the enforcement of Biblical law. Adopting that principle would subject matters of private conscience to government meddling. Everyone who wishes to live in a free country should vigorously oppose it.
Diana Hsieh, Sedalia It's time for me to start writing op-eds on this topic, I think!Labels: Abortion, Politics, Religion
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Sunday, June 08, 2008 |
|
Letter to the Editor on Colorado’s Personhood Amendment |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 5:50 PM
The Denver Post printed my letter to the editor on Colorado's proposed "personhood amendment" today.
As printed, it reads:
I'm disheartened that the "personhood" amendment has gathered the signatures required to appear on the ballot. A woman's fundamental right to control her own body, including her right to terminate or sustain a pregnancy, should not depend on majority vote. This would violate that right in spades, based on the fantasy that an embryo is equal to an infant. It would force a woman to provide life support to any fertilized egg -- even at the risk of her life and health and even if ruinous to her goals and dreams. It would make actual persons -- any woman capable of bearing children, plus her husband or boyfriend -- slaves to merely potential persons. That kind of moral evil has no place in a modern society; it deserves to be soundly defeated at the polls in November.
Diana Hsieh, Sedalia I'm determined to work to defeat this insane amendment. Despite many more signatures than required to place it on the ballot, it seems unlikely to pass. Many religious leaders oppose it, and even even the three Catholic bishops in Colorado don't support it. Nonetheless, the risk is real, particularly given the religious fervor of the anti-abortionists. Moreover, it's an excellent opportunity to defend individual rights, particularly abortion rights, against demands for the imposition of Biblical law.Labels: Abortion, Politics
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Wednesday, June 04, 2008 |
|
Rights and Abortion |
|
By Diana Hsieh @ 7:07 AM
After a recent discussion of abortion on my OActivists mailing list, a subscriber e-mailed me to suggest that perhaps right apply to the fetus at the point of natural viability, rather than to the baby at birth. (By natural viability, I mean when the fetus can survive outside the womb without any special medical technology such as a respirator or feeding tube.) Some years ago, I found that "natural viability" position quite appealing, but Paul eventually argued me out of it. So in my reply to my correspondent, I offered my own version of Paul's argument. Here's what I wrote:
If a woman aborted a late-stage pregnancy just because she felt like it -- when she could have just as easily given birth at full term and adopted the baby -- I would regard that as morally wrong. That's not the kind of person that I'd ever wish to have any dealings with, as the action would indicate a serious lack of respect for human life. However, that doesn't settle the legal question of rights.
The problem with natural viability as a standard for rights comes when a late-stage pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. Let's imagine that the pregnant woman must end the pregnancy somehow or she will die. If she aborts, she has a 5% risk of serious complication. That's because the doctor can kill and dismember the fetus in the womb, then extract it. (Sorry, that's icky.) However, if she attempts to give birth to the fetus, she has a 15% risk of serious complication, with a 5% risk of death. (Such cases do happen. In general, a live birth will always involve greater risk of complications than a late-term abortion.)
If a fetus has rights at the point of natural viability, then either (1) the woman must be obliged to suffer any risk of death -- perhaps 99% -- in order to respect the rights of the fetus within her or (2) the state must arbitrarily draw a line somewhere specifying the acceptable risk to her life for the sake of a live birth. The first option is morally monstrous: you're sacrificing a person with an actual life to a fetus with merely a potential life to lead. The second isn't any more appealing because some arbitrary amount of risk is deemed obligatory for the woman to assume. In either case, women will be forced to die for the sake of the fetus. The only question is whether it's more women dying or less women dying.
After some unhappy thought about such cases, I decided that the only clear and bright line -- the only way that the state would not be forcing pregnant women to sacrifice their own lives and health for the sake of a fetus -- was to accept that rights begin after the fetus has left the womb. So my general view is that rights adhere to any and all creatures with the potential for rationality living an biologically independent existence. By "living a biologically independent existence," I just mean that the creature is not not biologically connected to another person -- as is a fetus or the violinist in Judith Thomson's famous essay on abortion -- even if it is dependent on others for sustenance and aid, as are babies and people incapacitated by illness. Thoughts?Labels: Abortion, Politics
| | | E-mail Diana Hsieh PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
Friday, May 30, 2008 |
|
"Personhood" Advocates are Going for the Gold |
|
By Gina Liggett @ 11:00 AM
A new threat to a woman's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness has arrived out here in the West. And it's going straight for the jugular. Groups in Colorado and Montana believe they're on a mission from God: to get voters to pass state Constitutional amendments defining "personhood" as beginning with fertilization. Under these amendments, full rights and equal protection under the law would be granted--not to a human being from the moment of birth--but to a fertilized egg. But the country shouldn't dismiss this lunacy as a bunch of "wild west hooey." While similar efforts since 2005 in Georgia, Oregon, Michigan, Wisconsin and Mississippi have fizzled, advocates vow to not give up on redefining "personhood" in their image. This utter perversion of the "right to life" is a mockery of the principle of liberty established by our Founding Fathers. It will create an inherent and irreconcilable conflict between the individual rights of a living person and a single-celled product of conception. Groups pursuing "personhood" amendments use a simplistic combination of religious belief and scientific fact to advance their agenda. The Thomas More Law Center, which provides legal support for these organizations, calls itself "the sword and shield for people of (Christian) faith" to fight for Christian values, which it claims is the foundation of our nation. Kristi Burton, the founder of Colorado's group (which just succeeded in being first in the country to get the proposal on the November ballot), was quoted as "....we have God. And he is all we need." A religious supporter of Montana's initiative finds her "proof" in Psalm 139:13, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb." These groups conveniently usurp the facts of human embryology in making their case for "personhood." But the biological reality that life begins developing at conception is totally irrelevant in terms of rights. Our Constitutional rights as citizens apply only once we are born as separate entities. To quote Ayn Rand, a 20th century novelist and philosopher, "Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn)." If a barbaric "personhood" amendment passes in some state, whose rights will prevail when a woman has a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy? Will a girl who's been raped be compelled against her will to carry a pregnancy resulting from that brutality? Will lawyers defending fertilized eggs argue that a miscarriage is a violation of an embryo's right to life, making a woman and her physician legally negligent? Our hard-fought scientific and political achievements in controlling fertility will revert back to the horse-and-buggy era. Many reliable birth control methods would have to be outlawed because they interfere with implantation of a fertilized egg. Couples unable to conceive would be forbidden to try in-vitro fertilization because some of the lab-created fertilized eggs are not used. "Personhood" advocates brag about going for the gold: the outright overturn of Roe v Wade. They think they are being clever by passing in just one state a "personhood" amendment that will ultimately challenge the "loophole" in the 1973 majority opinion of Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun. He wrote: "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed..." Traditional religious-right groups have tried for decades to outlaw abortion by the piecemeal evisceration of that fundamental right. But if a tyrannical majority of voters in Colorado or Montana approves a Constitutional amendment redefining the human being according to particular religious beliefs, it will be a milestone in tearing down the wall of separation between church and state. Our freedoms, based fundamentally on the right to life, mean that we as individuals have the right to pursue life-sustaining goals--including decisions about pregnancy. But the particular freedom of religion does not mean the right to pass laws forcing citizens to live by biblical values. "Personhood" advocates have corrupted the principle, "right to life," and they're exploiting their freedom of religion do it. Constitutional rights protect all of our liberties from the moment we're born as separate individuals. And this is what we must zealously fight to preserve. Labels: Abortion, Politics, Religion
| | | E-mail Gina Liggett PermaLink () Comments (New Page) |
|
| |
Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3) via Feed Reader via E-mail
|
|
|
| | |
|
