May 16, 2012

You are here: Home / News / From the Egg People Zone: California Presents Personhood Amendment

From the Egg People Zone: California Presents Personhood Amendment

September 26, 2009 By 6 Comments

On Monday, a group calling itself   the Civil Rights Foundation and others will submit to the state attorney general the proposed "California Human Rights Amendment" for the 2010 California ballot.

Cloaked in a "human rights' title, the ballot initiative is nothing more than the "personhood amendment" being pushed in other states.   The amendment would declare that human life starts at the beginning of biological development.   In other words, a zygote — or fertilized egg — is human life that is entitled to full Constitutional rights.

A press release issued by the Catholic action group, the American Life League, states:

"It is clear the only way to heal our land and restore the Founders' vision is to recognize human personhood as a fundamental and Constitutional right," Judie Brown said. "The mission of the California Human Rights Amendment is simple, the message direct and the result will be a profound return to the value that shaped our civilization. It is always the right time to fight for justice."

"The California Civil Rights Foundation recognizes the inherent human rights, dignity and worth of all human beings from the beginning of their biological development," stated Hoye. "If passed, this historic legislation would make California the first state in the Union to acknowledge full human rights for every human being. We believe all human beings should be protected by love and by law."

The ballot initiative reads:

The California Human Rights Amendment to the Constitution of California:

Article 1, Section 7

(c)"The term "person" applies to all living human beings from the beginning of their biological development — regardless of the means by which they were procreated, method of reproduction, age, race, sex, gender, physical well-being, function, or condition of physical or mental dependency and/or disability.

Personhood USA says it has chapters in 29 states that are trying to get "personhood" measures on 2010 ballots or before state legislatures. Its goal is to make all abortion illegal, even in the case of rape or incest. The personhood movement has triggered legal debate about whether these amendments would also ban women's birth control pills.

—
Editor's Note: The "Egg People" mentioned throughout the site refer to fertilized human eggs which, under personhood theories, are full blown people who should have all civil rights available to them.

Buffer

God Discussion Reporter

Deborah is the owner and administrator of the site, starting it in February 2009. She received her business education at the University of Texas and operates a number of websites and small businesses. She hosts the God Discussion show and handles the site's technical work and editing.

More Posts - Website - Twitter

Auto-Generated Related Posts (Use the Search for Better Results)

Filed Under: News Tagged With: , , , , , , ,
  • http://lesforlife.blogspot.com Leslie

    Well duh!

    Don't you think the fertilized eggs, zygotes, embryos, fetuses
    will become people, if they aren't dismembered???

  • http://www.notguru.com Urbain

    Leslie,

    Let's say you have a zygote within you because you don't believe in birth control. Two days later, you are driving at 60 MPH, hit a patch of black ice and hit a tree. Fortunately, you live but you suffer severe trauma and injuries that cause a septic abortion.

    It is discovered by medical staff that you were in the beginning stages of pregnancy.

    The police say the accident was your fault.

    Does this make you a murderer? Or guilty of a lesser charge of manslaughter?

  • TJ He

    @Urbain:

    Obviously, it should be the lesser charge of manslaughter; however, there would probably be no formal charges laid against the driver due to the nature of the accident.

    In answer to the root of the question you posed (at least, I think this is the root…if I'm wrong, please correct me) though: how could there be any difference between your example and a similiar example of the parent and a 6-year old child where the 6-year old dies in the accident? Or a 4-year old, or a 2-year old, or a newborn, or a 8-month old unborn child, or …

    Each case has the same death…and that's the point of the personhood amendments. When does a person have rights? When does society have responsibilities to that person? That's the question the amendment is attempting to answer.

    For the people who support the personhood amendments, a person's rights begin at the time that the person begins; and society's responsibilities begin at the time that the person begins. And a person begins when they are genetically a "different person" from any other.

    It's clearly stated in the original post, and in the text of the amendment.

    BTW, in reference to the editor's note:

    [quote]Editor's Note: The "Egg People" mentioned throughout the site refer to fertilized human eggs which, under personhood theories, are full blown people who should have all civil rights available to them.[/quote]

    I say, "Damn right they do!"

  • http://www.notguru.com Urbain

    Thanks for your thoughtful comments, TJ. I used the example of a car accident because this is how authorities will "discover" that a woman was impregnated. Of course, perhaps the personhood advocates think that women should be mandated to visit a doctor every week for a "zygote check" so that the public knows that she is pregnant and thus, a potential criminal.

    A six year old child has consciousness. It has dreams. Hopes. Feelings. Emotions. An egg does not (unless there is evidence that eggs have consciousness).

    The example was used to show how this type of thing will make criminals out of otherwise good people.

    What is particularly disturbing about California's draconian language is this: "… regardless of the means by which they were procreated."

    Let's say that your 9-year-old daughter is brutally raped and becomes pregnant. She is emotionally scarred for life. She is physically harmed. Chances are, she will die from giving birth because she is just too little and frail.

    If she becomes pregnant from this rape (this happened in Brazil recently), her parents will be criminals if they get help to end their daughter's pregnancy and save her life.

    In short, the California personhood amendment dictates that the zygote's life is more important than the little girl's life.

    To me, this type of personhood language is the most inhumane, uncompassionate type of thinking beyond war and murder that I can think of. It places more value over a potential life than those who are actually amongst living. It places more value over an unconscious zygote than a living, breathing human being who is loved and will be sorely missed if she dies because of the zygote's life.

    Regardless of whether it is a child or adult woman who is raped, you are essentially saying that the potential mother must be punished because she was a victim of a crime. You seem like a nice person TJ so I ask that you think this through. Do you REALLY hate women that much to make them criminals if they are the victims of crime? That they should be criminals if they have an accident that results in septic abortion?

    These personhood amendments also have the potential to ban oral birth control and IUDs. This is tantamount to disaster.

  • TJ He

    Hi, Urbain. Sorry that I haven't been able to reply earlier: RL issues popped up, and had to be dealt with.

    I really appreciate your feedback!

    About your initial tongue-in-cheek comments, ("zygote check" indeed!) you had me LOL in the office…don't do that! ;-)

    Seriously though, you've raised a very difficult issue, and one that I've thought about several times per day since Wednesday morning when I first read it: effectively, what about rape? And what about rape of a minor when the minor's very life is threatened by the growth inside her? Both are very good questions and ones that I personally still have difficulty with. I can see both sides of the arguments.

    On the one hand, the woman (or child) raped is the victim of a particularly nasty and extremely personal crime. Of course her life is shattered; of course there is emotional scarring! I agree! And then, add the physical, emotional, and monetary costs of a pregnancy to her, and then possibly raising the child, too. And what about the threat of life to the girl? She's 9-years old and may very well die giving birth even with a C-section. All very, very good points.

    On the other hand, the zygote already *is* a human being, unique in the world from both its mother and father. Further, the zygote will grow and develop through many different stages (all with fancy names, I'm sure :-) into a self-sufficient adult with sufficient time and resources. The argument here is simply this: the developing human being is an innocent person, has committed no crime worthy of death, and does not deserve to be killed. Innocent life is generally protected by the laws of our society. This is the same.

    Getting back to me, Urbain, I don't see the personhood language as inhumane or as uncompassionate. I see it as exactly the opposite. The unconscious zygote is *not* a brain-dead person, but instead a person who will grow into an active child if they are not killed. Saving that person's life is a good thing, not a bad thing. The question you raise about whose life is more important is valid, but the answer is obvious, I think. They are *both* equally important. Every effort should be taken to save *both* of their lives.

    So let me answer your specific questions,
    1: "Do you REALLY hate women that much to make them criminals if they are the victims of crime?" No, I don't really hate women; and I also REALLY don't hate babies either. Save them both.
    2: [Do you REALLY hate women so much,] "That they should be criminals if they have an accident that results in septic abortion?" Again, no, I don't really hate women, and accidental death is completely different from an abortion. Accident deaths occur every day, unfortunately. Do those people who are prime contributors to the death get charged with manslaughter, automatically, or does the legal system (police, lawyers, judges, etc.) look at the specifics and make determinations from them? I think, and hope that you'll agree with me, that every case is (or at least *should be*) examined based on the particulars of that specific case. I'm not trying to dodge your question, but I think your unstated answer of "guilty" is not correct.

    As to your statement about personhood having the potential to ban birth control, I haven't thought about it before. Like I said earlier, Urbain, you've given me a lot to think about. Is it disaster, or would it lead to disaster? I really don't know.

  • http://www.notguru.com Urbain

    Hey TJ!

    Well, I can see where you are coming from. Although I personally do not believe that a mass of cells is a human being, I can understand where pro-life advocates think that this is human life. These personhood amendments would stand a much better chance if they:

    1. Expressly stated that they do not prohibit birth control, whether IUDs, oral contraceptives and so on.

    2. Expressly stated that the life of the mother has precedence.

    3. Expressly gave an exclusion for cases of rape or incest.

    4. Expressly provided an exclusion for accidents or other "acts of God" (a legal term) that caused a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage.

    Without these types of exclusions, I do not see how these amendments have any chance of passing, especially California's version. Florida's Catholic bishops have decided to not support the Florida version, and I saw a headline about how the "anti-abortion" polls are now swinging the other way (i.e., for abortion) because of these personhood amendments. Public opinion had reached 51% against abortion and that is now eroding.

    Most women do not want to be denied birth control because a minority thinks that birth control is immoral due to their religious beliefs. This is imposing a narrow religious view over a woman's free will and ability to control her destiny (basically, religious based slavery for women).

    The exclusions also honor the living … not the potential living. With some reasonable exclusions, women would not be subjected to the cruel and unusual punishment that the amendments, as written, will dole out upon victims of rape, incest, poor health or accidents.

    The way this language is written, a woman having a car accident (as I used in the example above) would automatically face criminal prosecution because the state (i.e., government) would have a duty to defend the interests of "the person" who is merely an egg without a brain.

    If there was some kind of rational middle ground, the moral debates that cannot be answered will go away.