Posted 1 month, 27 days ago in 
Loading ...
Amendment 48 promotes a religious belief which, if passed, will violate a bedrock principle of our constitution, the separation of church and state. Amendment 48 asserts that a “person” is “any human being from the moment of fertilization.”
This assertion violates both scientific fact and common sense. A fertilized egg is not a person, nor is an acorn an oak tree. Both contain potential life, as does a sperm cell and ovum. But potential is only potential, and potential is not “a person.”
For Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Christians and Moslems an embryo cannot be a human being until ensoulment occurs. While some Christians believe that the soul enters the flesh at the moment of fertilization, other Christians and other religions believe that ensoulment occurs much later, usually in the second trimester. Moslems believe that the soul enters the fetus 120 days after conception, and Hindus believe it occurs during the third month.
Science provides no singular moment that marks the beginning of a human life. Some scientists identify the critical moment in weeks 24-27 when brain development acquires a recognizable neural EEG pattern, others when lungs can sustain breath. Because 30 to 70 percent of fertilized eggs fail to implant in the uterus, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines the beginning of pregnancy as successful implantation of a fertilized egg.
As an act of faith one might believe that a person is a human being from the moment of fertilization. But this assertion has no more business in the Colorado Constitution than a religious proclamation by the Dalai Lama or a fatwa issued by a Moslem cleric.
CHARLES KERR
Grand Junction
7 Responses to “Amendment 48 promotes a religious belief”
Posted October 7th, 2008 at 10:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Amen.
(So to speak)
Posted October 7th, 2008 at 11:20 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Kudos to you Kerr, that is one of the most intelligent monologues I have read concerning this subject!
Posted October 7th, 2008 at 11:55 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
If one goes back and looks at the organization(s) and congregations which led the signature drive to get Amendment 48 on the ballot, one finds that virtually all belong to what most mainstream Christian denominations and others refer to as the “fundamentalist fringe.”
Posted October 7th, 2008 at 12:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thank you, Mr. Kerr, for the best argument on the topic I have seen. Yes! A “person,” a “human being” is distinguished from other forms of life by its soul…that intangible part. It is not the fertilization of an egg that makes a human a human. A fertilized egg does not have this yet. There must be more appreciation for what makes a human a human than to abuse the definition for this religious agenda.
Posted October 7th, 2008 at 1:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It was interesting to observe the proponents of this amendment on the television show, Colorado State of Mind, last Friday. What they kept doing was jumping back and forth between the the terms ‘life’ and ‘personhood’, not at all listening to what the other parties were saying.
As all too often the case with those motivated by ideology and emotion, they just kept repeating the same thing over and over, paying little heed to the meanings of the terms they themselves were using, never mind to any possible effects of what they are advocating.
It was really sad to watch those individuals, as it was quite obvious that, while they may ‘believe’, they do not appear to have ever thought things through. It was “I believe” and therefore “It must be true”, and I therefore have the “right” to enshrine “my beliefs” into the Constitution, where everyone’s behavior will have to conform to “my beliefs.”
One has to wonder if such individuals understand the concept of individual and free choice or, as one suspects, they are so consumed with their own sense of superiority that they consider themselves entitled to dictate to others what they should believe? One questions whether they have ever considered the very real fact that they are engaged in altering this nation into a theocracy? Given the narrow focus of their interests, I doubt that they have considered it, or can even conceive of the possibility that they are.
Posted October 7th, 2008 at 2:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Excellent statement, Charlie. Right on.
RL, I heard that interview also. This (48) is clearly a fundamentalist attack on Roe v. Wade. Nothing more.
Posted October 7th, 2008 at 3:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Excellent statement.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.