Personhoood: Steve Van Horn Misrepresents Hsieh

Colorado just defeated Amendment 48 by 73 to 27 percent. The measure would have defined a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution, with all the rights to life, liberty, property, equality of justice, and due process of law. I worked with Diana Hsieh to help defeat it.

I've been meaning to reply to an October 27 article by Steve Van Horn that attacks an earlier piece by Hsieh. Even though the election is over, the matter is still worth addressing, as it shows the sorts of weak arguments made by the supporters of Amendment 48.

Hsieh expressly counters the argument that "human life" is sufficient for personhood:

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.

Notice that Hsieh explicitly notes why an "embryo or fetus is different" from a skin cell or tumor. Yet, ignoring Hsieh's statement, Van Horn claims that what Hsieh "fails to distinguish is the difference between a distinct living cell and a unique living being."

Then Van Horn explains that an eagle's egg, like a human egg, has the capacity to develop into an adult member of the species. But so what? Van Horn points out that current law provides criminal penalties for destroying an eagle's egg. It also provides criminal penalties for gratuitously injuring an adult dog or cat, but none of those things is a person. More to the point, none of those things is contained wholly within the body of a woman, and the fact that a fertilized egg is in such a condition is why the woman (and not anyone else) has the right to get an abortion.

Next Van Horn argues that, as there are "vast" differences between a fertilized egg and a born infant, so there are "differences between an infant, a toddler, a teenager, a middle aged adult and a 98 year old." Then Van Horn argues that, as a fertilized egg is dependent on the woman, so is an infant. But in these arguments Van Horn utterly ignores the relevant distinctions. His is an exercise in absurdist rationalism.

Hsieh briefly summarizes those distinctions:

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.

Van Horn simply refuses to confront the substance of Hsieh's argument. Instead, he closes by equating a fertilized egg with a person and abortion with murder. The opponents of abortion go through the motions of debating the issue, but their arguments are hollow, obvious attempts to paper over the fact that their position derives not from reason but from religious faith.

48 Supporters Aim to Try Again

As I anticipated, the huge loss of Amendment 48 has not dampened the plans of the religious right. The measure would have defined a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution.

A blogger named Dani emphasizes the point. Dani is "a right-wing Christian 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!" Okay, then.

Dani looks on the bright side of Amendment 48's defeat:

Even though Amendment 48 didn't pass, we still consider this a victory for the pro-life movement since over 550,000 people voted to affirm the personhood of the pre-born Child yesterday in Colorado! On only a $200,000 budget, it's hard to compete with multi-million dollar corporations like Planned Parenthood who put out deceitful attack ads packed with lies in order to defeat Amendment 48. Well, we certainly wouldn't expect godless baby-killers to be honest while promoting their agenda, now would we? The majority of people are evil, and the majority voted against personhood, but we are not giving up that easy, in fact, the battle has just begun...

Notice that Dani does not specify a single "lie" by the opposition. Certainly she could not find any such faults with the paper written by Diana Hsieh and me criticizing Amendment 48.

Dani then reproduces the media release of a new group called Personhood USA, which "plans to assist local pro-life groups in different states to put personhood amendments on their states ballot by using the petition process."

The group proudly declares that its purpose is to impose religious faith by law:

"Praise Jesus! The pro-life tide is rising in America, now is the time for the entire pro-life movement to turn the focus off from permitting murder but attempting to 'regulate' it, to pushing for the recognition of the God given right to life for all innocent persons. Persons are humans beings from the moment of fertilization." Cal Zastrow, Co-Founder of Personhood USA.

Keith Mason, "one of the Personhood Amendment organizers," said, "Personhood has changed the abortion debate. Now we are asking, 'When does human life begin?' The opposition can not and will not answer this question, but we can. And when we answer that question, we win."

Hsieh and I address the matter at length in our paper. Not a single advocate of Amendment 48 has even attempted to refute our arguments. (Wayne Laugesen has come the closest to doing so.)

Meanwhile, Mason and his crew have utterly failed to sustain an argument that personhood begins at fertilization. Notice that Mason says he can answer the question, but he refrains from doing so in the release. The "argument" at PersonhoodUSA's web page is childish equivocation.

So pony up, Mason: prove to the world that personhood begins at the moment of fertilization, taking into account the issues that Hsieh and I raise in our paper. The fact that you cannot do so indicates why Coloradans did not take your movement seriously.

See PersonhoodUSA's web page for a list of the 16 states the group plans to target in the future. The magnificent defeat of the measure in Colorado should slow down efforts elsewhere. Yet the group may still find some traction in some areas to the degree that people reject reason in favor of religious faith.

New Life, Same Old Subjectivism

Salon has published an article about the politics of New Life Church. This is the paragraph that struck me:

"I'm not going to tell you who to vote for," [Senior Pastor Brady Boyd] said. "You pray, fast and vote for whoever God tells you represents your values. We have a biblical worldview here, so vote for candidates who are going to do that -- who are going to uphold the Biblical worldview we all have." Mostly, Boyd seemed worried about Amendment 48. "If you're not interested in any other issue on the ballot please, please, go to the polls on Tuesday -- if you have not voted yet -- and vote yes for Amendment 48," he said, probably violating the terms of the church's tax-exempt status. "It's the right thing to do."

These people literally believe that a supernatural being is "telling" them how to vote. But presumably they don't hear an actual voice: "Hello, Brady, this is God. You need to vote for Candidate X this year. My will be done. Over." So what, then, is the mechanism by which God imparts his election wisdom? People just feel that God is guiding them in some particular way. That's it. A feeling. This is subjectivism masquerading as divine intervention.

But Pastor Boyd already knows that God will tell his flock to vote for candidates who share a "Biblical worldview." What is that? Presumably, it includes such beliefs that a fertilized egg is a person, that homosexuality is sinful and should be legally discouraged, that certain types of expression should be censored, and that certain types of peaceful activities should be criminally punished. Increasingly, the "Biblican worldview" seems for many to imply that the government should forcibly redistribute wealth, including for religious welfare and education, and centrally plan the economy such as to "protect" God's creation.

Boyd seems even more certain that God wants Coloradans to outlaw abortion (despite the weak Biblical support for such a position, which is in any case properly irrelevant). But Amendment 48 is not the "right thing to do;" it would, if enforced, unleash horrific injustice in this state. But that is a natural consequence of the moral subjectivism implicit in religion.

Amendment 48 and Personhood: Reply to Laugesen

Here I extend a debate over Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution. I also want also to summarize the major issues, so hopefully the piece will be of interest even to those who haven't followed that debate so far.

A few days ago the Colorado Springs Gazette published an editorial endorsing Amendment 48. I wrote a reply, which Wayne Laugesen of the Gazette answered. Even though Laugesen is wrong on this issue (though I often agree with him on other matters), it has been a pleasure to debate the matter with someone who takes objections seriously and thinks though the implications of the arguments.

The Language and Intention of Amendment 48

Again, Amendment 48 would not merely define a fertilized egg as "human," "life," or even a "person." Rather, it would grant a fertilized egg the same legal rights as a born infant, the rights to life, liberty, property, equality of justice, and due process of law. Furthermore, the explicit goal of the sponsors of Amendment 48 is to outlaw all abortion, except when the woman certainly would otherwise die. That's bad enough, but the measure logically also prohibits certain forms of birth control, medical research, and fertility treatments, as Diana Hsieh and I review.

Laugesen answers that federal and state law would continue to keep abortion legal, and that the political climate is not right for such far-reaching prohibitions. However, the advocates of the measure have promised a long-term fight to overturn Roe v. Wade as well as state laws allowing abortion, and Amendment 48 would grant them a powerful weapon in that fight.

If Laugesen doesn't think Amendment 48 could eventually ban abortion, I'm at a loss to understand why he favors the measure. It's a bit odd to endorse a measure that one thinks will have consequences dramatically different than what the sponsors of the measure anticipate. As I argued previously, the problems that Laugesen seeks to address aren't even real problems, and if they were they could be addressed with delimited statutes.

The Conditions of Personhood

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of personhood? Obviously a person is alive and human (though if we were to discover intelligent life elsewhere presumably "person" would become the broader concept). But many other things are alive and human, in the sense of containing human DNA, including my kidney and every cell in my body. So those conditions are necessary but not sufficient.

A person must have the genetic code capable of creating or sustaining an independent existence. Notice that it's not true that each person has distinct DNA (and I think I've misstated this point myself), for identical twins start out as the same fertilized egg and then split apart from each other. So unique DNA is not even a necessary condition of personhood. But DNA capable of forming and sustaining a human body is necessary.

Part of the difficulty of thinking about a fertilized egg is that it is in some respects unique. It shares some similarities with with other human cells and organs, yet it has the distinctive capacity to develop into a born infant and then an adult human (in the right conditions). It is this distinctiveness that draws some to equate fertilization with personhood. Yet that is a mistake. The only options are not "living human never-person" and "living human person." A fertilized egg is a third sort of thing: it is living and human with the potential for turning into a person. But a potential is not an actual. It is ludicrous to equate a zygote, a mass of undifferentiated cells with no organs, with a born infant, and declare that both should be legally indistinguishable.

Laugesen claims that only superstition can mark the onset of personhood, if we reject the point of fertilization. This ignores the obvious, blindingly bright line: birth. Something dramatic happens at birth. No longer is the fetus completely contained within the body of the woman, completely dependent on her at the biological level for oxygen and sustenance. At birth, the fetus becomes a separate baby, able to breath with his own lungs, digest food with his own organs, and, notably, leave his mother. A born infant is still highly dependent in the sense that somebody must provide him with nutrition, warmth, etc., yet a born infant is radically independent relative to a fetus in that the born infant is a physically separate biological entity.

Personhood implies legal rights, as Amendment 48 recognizes. Yet, to have legal rights, individual rights, one must be an individual in the basic physical sense. A fetus has no such independent existence. And that matters very much. For instance, if a woman needs cancer treatment that might harm the fetus, even though the woman might not otherwise die before delivery, the woman has every right to get that treatment, even if it kills the fetus.

Laugesen is correct that the development of a fertilized egg to a late-stage fetus is a continual and gradual one, without any momentary lines of demarcation. The brain develops slowly; it does not just pop instantly into the fetus's head. However, that does not imply that a fertilized egg is the same thing as a late-stage fetus. The two are radically different. One is just a few cells, the other has all the organs that an adult person has.

It is this distinction that draws Leonard Peikoff, for instance, to a discussion that centers on early-term abortions:

The status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that cannot be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre-human; only the mystical notions of religious dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person.

We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman’s choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman’s body.

This points to two additional factors that are necessary for personhood: developed human organs and physical separateness (i.e., birth). Consider, for instance, that if a woman's body expels a living fertilized egg, we do not consider that she has given "birth" to a "child." We don't hold a funeral complete with a miniature coffin. (As Hsieh and I point out, most fertilized eggs are naturally flushed out of a woman's body; we do not consider this to be some sort of horrific tragedy, as we would if all fertilized eggs truly were people.)

Together, those conditions of personhood -- life, human DNA, developed organs, and physical separateness -- are sufficient for personhood. If something doesn't have those four characteristics, it's not a person.

Peikoff answers those who would equate a potential person with an actual one:

If we are to accept the equation of the potential with the actual and call the embryo an "unborn child," we could, with equal logic, call any adult an "undead corpse" and bury him alive or vivisect him for the instruction of medical students.

The entire case for granting personhood status to fertilized eggs rests on the fallacy of equating a potential with an actual.

The Meaning of "Human"

Laugesen claims, as I've heard before (and as Kristi Burton, sponsor of Amendment 48 has also claimed), that the meaning of "person" and "human" are indistinguishable. That's clearly wrong. For instance, we say that a kidney is a human organ, but we don't claim that a kidney is a person. As Hsieh and I have argued, the advocates of Amendment 48 routinely equivocate on the term "human," jumping from "containing human DNA" to personhood for no good reason. One finds this dual meaning of "human" whether one turns to the Oxford English Dictionary or Dictionary.com.

A Zygote Versus a Felon

Laugesen argues that, as we can restrict the life and liberty of a murderous felon, so we can restrict the life and liberty of a zygotic "person." However, the comparison falls apart because a zygote is not a person. If a zygote were a person, it would be quite unjust to treat a zygote as though it were guilty of first-degree murder. A murderer has willfully removed himself from civil society. Notably, to be criminally punished one must be found guilty according to "due process of law" -- a right granted to fertilized eggs by Amendment 48.

A fertilized egg is not a person. Amendment 48 is wrong in its assumptions and frightening in its implications.

Amendment 48: Laugesen Replies

Recently I replied to an editorial by Colorado Spring's Gazette that endorsed Amendment 48. Wayne Laugesen, the editorial page editor of the paper, took the time to write a detailed reply, which he graciously allowed me to reproduce below. I will respond in a subsequent post. -Ari Armstrong

Wayne Laugesen: re: "Nobody argues that any fetus is guilty of felony murder, so the comparison is bizarre."

The point is this: You seem concerned that if an egg is lawfully recognized as a "person," nobody will be allowed to kill it without landing in prison. A death row inmate is indisputably a "person." So clearly, we make lawful decisions to kill some "persons." We may lawfully kill a "person" convicted of first degree murder because the "person" is burdensome to society. We may lawfully kill a "person" who threatens our safety after breaking into our home. We may also lawfully kill a person whose life depends upon a mother's womb, because that person isn't independent and may be burdensome to the mother and society. Some may not like this fact of settled law, but it is a fact. The point is that defining a fertilized egg or a mature fetus as a "person" does not preclude someone from lawfully killing that person. If that were the case, we would not be allowed to kill in self defense or to kill murder convicts, simply because they are "persons" by any definition. Ending abortion may well be the intent of 48's authors, but their intent wouldn't make it so.

All major, high ranking definitions I can find of "person" and "human" are interchangeable.

Yes, your liver is a human element, but it does not contain all of the components of a complete person. It will never have its own brain, or its own eyes or ears, etc., and it will never be capable of reading and writing and paying taxes. The same cannot be said for a zygote, which is the beginning stage of the life of a "person," whether the zygote lives a day or continues to mature for 100 years. The life begins at that moment of conception, and it ends at the moment of death. There is not a magical event somewhere in between, convenient as that event might be. Scientifically, a human life is an exact timeline with one beginning and one end. Any theories to the contrary involve an imaginary event at a convenient point on the timeline, and that sounds like religion. Bestowing rights at an arbitrary point on the timeline of life is perfectly logical; bestowing "life" or "personhood," by contrast, involves superstition. This issue is not really about "person" or "non-person," the issue is "full rights," "no rights," or "limited rights" for some persons but not for all persons. Society does not guarantee all "persons" equal outcomes in life. Society does not protect all "persons" equally.

I think we would agree that a six-month-old fetus is a human with a brain, a mouth, a nose, arms, legs, etc. and etc. Correct? Yet society, knowing those facts, has decided to protect a woman's right to kill that "person" or "human" or "fetus" or whatever one chooses to call him or her. This has little to do with science, and much to do with the legitimate human practice of allocating rights. If we pretend it's based in a meaningful scientific distinction, we're entertaining a convenient fantasy. In truth, it's based in legitimate practical considerations and the allocation of rights.

That being the case, it's not important to pretend that a fertilized egg is something other than the first stage in the life of a "human," and therefore a "person." I don't see why it's a problem to call a person a person, and then decide which persons have rights worth protecting and at what point on the timeline of life those rights deserve a societal defense. This has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Religious leaders and believers can make up the rules as they go. Therefore, any religion is free to define "life" however it chooses, or to decide who has rights and when those rights are endowed. Religions that wish to abuse women, for example, are free to define only men as "persons" and then try to impose their definitions through theocratic rule of law. But science is objective, and scientifically life begins at conception. Our laws, in a constitutional Republic as opposed a theocracy, should use scientifically objective definitions.

You agree with me that a fertilized egg is living and human. And I think we basically agree on most major points in this discussion. The main difference between our positions is the fact that you are using the word "person" to describe a being with a full slate of human rights that society must accept, while maintaining that a human with limited rights is something less than a "person." That requires you, therefore, to argue that a death row inmate is not a "person," and a predator shot by a victim is not a "person." After all, these humans do not have the same rights to live as other humans do.

I, by contrast, am using the word "person" to describe a "human" at any stage of development, acknowledging that society does not treat all "persons" equally, it cannot, it never has and it never will. Again, scientifically speaking a sprouting acorn is biologically an oak. That does not mean it's due all the protection of a giant shade tree. Likewise, I understand that society will never protect a day-old zygote the way it protects a member of Congress. If we look at this issue through a lens of reproductive politics and sociopolitical practicality, Amendment 48 is a menace. If we look at it through a lens of incorporating truthful, logical, scientific, objective definitions into law, it seems like a reasonable proposition. And I know you don't believe that it negates Roe v. Wade. I'm equally certain that you understand how Roe v. Wade has absolutely no role in Colorado's abortion laws, which exceed the minimal requirements of Roe v. Wade. Of course, all of this is completely academic as Amendment 48 has never had the slightest chance of passing because it's not politically viable here. It is, however, a good topic for discovery and discussion. I found your paper on this issue thorough and well written. -- Wayne

Amendment 48: Reply to the Gazette

An October 29 editorial by the Colorado Springs Gazette urges voters to "get real," yet in endorsing Amendment 48 the editorial ignores all the realities about the measure and its flaws. Here I reply to the editorial point by point (all indented text is from the editorial).

The moment the egg is fertilized... it becomes a microscopic person with a unique genetic code. Similarly, the acorn becomes an oak tree, in seedling stage, when it germinates. Basic science tells us a sprouted acorn is not a lifeless mass; nor is a zygote.

A fertilized egg has a unique genetic code, true, and it is not a "lifeless mass," for it is definitely alive (as are the unfertilized egg and the sperm cell). But where does the Gazette get the notion that a fertilized egg is a "person," with all the same rights as a newborn? The editorial offers no answer.

Let us review what Amendment 48 would do. It would add a new section to Colorado's constitution stating, "As used in Sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms 'person' or 'persons' shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization." Those other articles explicitly bestow the rights to life, liberty, property, equality of justice, and due process of law.

Amendment 48 does not say that a fertilized egg is alive, nor that it has human DNA, nor that it is a potential person. It says that a fertilized egg is a person, with all the legal rights of a born infant. And that is a key point that the Gazette steadfastly ignores.

The comparison to an oak tree is interesting though peripheral. I've never heard a single person call a sprouted acorn an "oak tree," and the two have obvious differences. Regardless, the comparison goes only so far, because a germinated acorn is not contained within and completely dependent upon the body of an oak tree, as a zygote is relative to a woman. That fact matters when it comes to individual rights, yet it is another crucial point the Gazette ignores.

Amendment 48... would establish a rational, scientific, reasonable and legal definition of when human life begins.

This is wrong on two counts. First, Amendment 48 does not attempt to define when life begins; it attempts to define when personhood begins. Second, life does not begin at conception; it precedes conception.

Voting "yes" on Amendment 48 is a vote for honesty, not a decision to outlaw contraception, abortion, cloning or fetal stem cell research. ... The highest court in the land told all 50 states they must protect the rights of mothers to kill fetuses that haven't progressed into the third trimester of pregnancy.

However, the stated goal of the advocates of Amendment 48 is to use the measure in an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. If Amendment 48 were enforced -- which would depend on rolling back federal provisions -- then it would outlaw any act harmful to a fertilized egg, except perhaps abortion to save the woman's life.

But few Americans would support the needless torture of a fetus. Few would support the killing of a preborn child by a drunken driver or an attacker, against the mother's will. Some of America's most pro-choice citizens would object to gratuitous experimentation, abuse or killing of fetuses. A definition of unborn humans as "persons" would aid society in protecting some rights of the unborn, should society choose to do so.

The pregnant woman has rights, and thus anyone who harms her fetus is subject to criminal prosecution. It is simply not possible to harm a fetus without harming the woman in the process, and the woman as the carrier of the fetus has the right to protect it. Amendment 48 is not about banning gratuitous injury to a fetus; it is about granting a fetus full legal rights. (Anyway preventing gratuitous injury does not rest on the definition of personhood; for example, rightly or wrongly the law prevents gratuitous injury to dogs.)

Opponents of the measure have raised alarming concerns. They claim that any woman who takes the morning-after pill, which can abort a fertilized egg, could be convicted of first-degree murder should Amendment 48 pass. They say the law would outlaw abortion, even resulting in criminal investigations each time a woman suffers a natural miscarriage. They don't happen to mention that Colorado is forbidden by federal law to outlaw abortion.

Diana Hsieh and I certainly do discuss the interplay between federal and state law in our paper; see pages 2-3. We also point out that Kristi Burton, sponsor of Amendment 48, wants to use the measure to overturn Roe v. Wade.

I have heard nobody claim that "natural miscarriages" would "each" be subject to criminal investigation. Rather, Hsieh and I have correctly claimed that any miscarriage suspected of being intentional could be subject to criminal prosecution, if Amendment 48 were enforced.

[Opponents] say state law forbids the killing of a "person," so under 48 abortion is doomed. Yet Colorado has the death penalty, and there's no question that death row inmates are "persons."

Nobody argues that any fetus is guilty of felony murder, so the comparison is bizarre.

Abortion is legal in Colorado because state law says it's legal. ...

Yet Amendment 48 is a constitutional provision, and as such it would trump any statute.

Perhaps there was a time of primitive science when intelligent adults didn't know when life begins.

Again, this point is irrelevant, and the claim that life begins at conception is obviously false.

The debate regarding legal rights of a fetus should no longer center on the myth that our science is fuzzy. That's a dishonest discussion. Instead, it should focus on what fetal rights a society shall or shall not defend, with full acknowledgement that a fetus is human from the moment of conception.

The fact that a fetus is human does not establish that it is a person. My kidney is human, for example. As Hsieh and I point out, advocates of Amendment 48 routinely rely on an equivocation on the term "human," jumping from the meaning of having human DNA to personhood without argument or evidence.

If abortion laws depend on a misconception that a fetus isn't human, they will not last. If they're based in a societal decision that unborn humans have limited rights, then abortion laws are safe.

Perhaps the Gazette could offer a single example of somebody who claims that a fetus is something other than human, in the sense of having human DNA.

Amendment 48 would merely bring the legal definition of "person" in line with the fact that a fertilized egg is a person in the earliest stage of life.

You notice what argument the Gazette uses to establish this point: none. Yet the Gazette manages to leave between the lines the only "reason" yet offered for thinking that a fertilized egg is a person: religious faith.

Vote for Amendment 48 or Go to Hell

In a letter to the Craig Daily Press, Lynne Herring offers the following reason for voting for Republicans and Amendment 48:

Please vote yes on 48. I believe, as a Christian, that when I stand before God and He asks me if I did everything in my power to respect and protect life, but I chose not to vote or I vote for the Democratic Party and Obama, who strongly support abortion, that God will hold me just as guilty.

If abortion is murder, and God will hold people guilty of abortion for voting to keep it legal, then apparently the outcome is to burn in hell for all eternity. If there is some other meaning for being held "just as guilty," I can't guess what it is. Will God say, "Naughty, naughty; now walk your naughty self through Heaven's gates"? If so, that's not much of a deterrent. I'm not really up on people's differing ideas of purgatory, so maybe that would come into play.

Herring makes a peculiar claim: "Pregnancies after rape and incest are very rare, and no one would condemn any woman for getting an abortion because of violence done to her." Wait just a minute. Amendment 48 declares a fertilized egg to be a person. If so, then aborting an embryo that resulted from rape is murder. And Colorado Right to Life and other organizations believe precisely that.

Herring had better think about her position a little more carefully. If she fails to "condemn any woman for getting an abortion because of violence done to her," then Herring is by her own standards endorsing murder, and God will hold her "just as guilty" as the women who get an abortion. Herring is dangerously close to the flames of hell, by her own reasoning.

But of course Herring's views are nonsense through and through. For reasons to oppose Amendment 48, see the web page devoted to the issue by the Coalition for Secular Government.

Burton Backtracks on Amendment 48

As I've pointed out, Kristi Burton likes to pretend that Amendment 48 wouldn't have the nasty legal implications that her opponents claim.

But on October 14, Burton even backed away from her opposition to abortion, telling a crowd, "We're not saying outlaw abortion, do this, do that. It's simply a definition."

Apparently, Burton believes that Amendment 48 has a shot only if she lies about her intentions. The advocates of the measure most certainly are "saying outlaw abortion." Burton herself has said elsewhere that she sees Amendment 48 as an opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade.

What should we make of Burton's claim that Amendment 48 is "simply a definition?" As I wrote in an e-mail in reply to that question, "Amendment 48 would amend the Colorado constitution. Constitutional provisions are laws; they are laws of higher order than legislative statutes. If a statute contradicts a constitutional provision, courts will look to the constitution as the higher law. Many laws contain definitions, and the definitions are critical for how the law is interpreted and applied. So it's a mistake to think of Amendment 48 as merely a definition; it would add a definition to the state's constitution, thereby becoming part of the fundamental law that guides the passage and application of legislative statutes."

Of course, as Diana Hsieh and I point out in our paper, whether and to what extent Amendment 48 is implemented depends on federal as well as state court rulings. As Ed Quillen points out, neither the legislature nor the courts always follow existing constitutional language. However, in our paper Diana and I explain why that's hardly comforting:

The legislature and courts in Colorado might be strongly tempted to pretend that Amendment 48 doesn't mean what it plainly says in order to avoid its absurd implications. Such a course of legislative and judicial winking might save Colorado from the worst effects of the measure, but it would do so by undermining the basic principle of rule of law so essential to a free society.

Alternately, the Colorado legislature could try to rewrite the myriad statutes mentioning "person" or "persons" to exclude fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses. However, anti-abortion lawyers could effectively challenge such legislative changes based on the constitutional language of Amendment 48. The measure would be subject to interpretation by Colorado courts, but those courts would be legally bound by the constitution, including Amendment 48.

If Amendment 48 passes, its exact effects would depend greatly on the decisions of future legislators and judges. However, we can be sure that the advocates of Amendment 48 will work doggedly to force the Colorado government to fully implement and enforce the measure.

As Burton demonstrates, "half the truth is a great lie." True, Amendment 48 would not automatically be enforced. However, the advocates of Amendment 48 have put it forward precisely because they want to outlaw abortion and in every other way legally protect a fertilized egg. For Burton to pretend otherwise proves only that she knows she cannot win an honest debate.

Amendment 48: Burton's Equivocation

At least Kristi Burton and I agree on something: the tag line of "it simply goes to far" is a terrible critique of Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution. Beyond that, Burton simply refuses to honestly discuss the implications of Amendment 48 or to answer her serious critics.

Burton writes for the October 18 Vail Daily:

It has been interesting to watch the strategy of the "no on 48" campaign. They know if they attempt to contend human life doesn’t begin at conception they’re arguing with virtually every geneticist and embryology textbook available. So instead, they take issue with the dictionary. They concede that human life begins at conception, but claim "personhood" doesn’t begin until some later, yet to be determined, date. They never come out and say it, but they assume it's OK to "terminate" a developing human until he or she reaches that undefined point of "personhood." If they simply pick up any dictionary and look up "person," they will find the definition: "A human being." That’s what it's meant for the last several centuries. "Person" and "human being" have always been the same thing, but the no on 48 folks plan to change all that. And, they do it as though no one should even question their totally illogical and false premise. They simply assume it's true and expect you to do the same.

But Diana Hsieh and I have directly addressed Burton's arguments. Burton cannot have failed to become aware of our paper, as Diana and I have promoted it widely in newspaper columns, letters, online comments to news articles, and the internet. For Burton to completely ignore our arguments reveals her intellectual dishonesty.

Notice Burton's progression: she claims that a fertilized egg is "human life," then she jumps to "person," which she equates with "human being." Burton's argument is incredibly rationalistic, so silly on its face that it obviously disguises her real motive for supporting the measure: she believes the Bible forbids abortion and that God has declared a fertilized egg to be a person, with all the same legal rights as you and me.

Obviously a fertilized egg is "human life." It is alive, and it contains human DNA. Every cell in our bodies is "human life" for the same reason. Burton is quite wrong in claiming that "human life" begins at conception; both the sperm cell and unfertilized egg are also human and alive. What Burton steadfastly refuses to consider are the very real biological differences between a fertilized egg and a born baby. Diana and I discuss these differences at length, and in the process we clearly define the beginning of personhood.

For the answer to Burton's claims, see pages 10-13 of our paper. First Diana and I point out Burton's equivocation:

[T]he advocates of Amendment 48 depend on an equivocation on "human being" to make their case. A fertilized egg is human, in the sense that it contains human DNA. It is also a "being," in the sense that it is an entity. That's also true of a gallbladder: it is human and it is an entity. Yet that doesn't make your gallbladder a human person with the right to life. Similarly, the fact that an embryo is biologically a human entity is not grounds for claiming that it's a human person with a right to life. Calling a fertilized egg a "human being" is word-play intended to obscure the vast biological differences between a fertilized egg traveling down a woman's fallopian tube and a born infant sleeping in a crib. It is intended to obscure the fact that anti-abortion crusaders base their views on scripture and authority, not science.

Here is the most relevant passage on personhood (sans citations):

[S]o long as the fetus remains within the woman, it is wholly dependent on her for its basic life-functions. 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 wholly contained within and dependent on her for its survival. So if the woman dies, the fetus will die too unless delivered quickly. The same is true if the fetus's life-line to her body is disrupted, such as when the umbilical cord forms a tight knot. A fetus cannot act independently to sustain its life, not even on the basic biological level possible to a day-old infant. It is thoroughly dependent on the woman in which it lives.

That situation changes radically at birth. A baby lives his own life, outside his mother. 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 whole and distinct creature in his own right, not merely as a part of a pregnant woman. He can leave his mother, either temporarily or permanently, 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. That's why the killing of a just-born infant is immoral -- and properly forbidden by law. However, while just a fetus within the woman, the only person with rights is the woman.

Recently Diana posted some comments by William Stoddard along the same lines:

Aside from the question of self-awareness, the other critical point is that the fetus does not meet a necessary condition for having individual rights: It is not an individual.

Individualism works, ethically, because we can draw a line of separation between individuals. It's possible to benefit one individual without doing so at the expense of another; individual rights provide a legal structure that makes such results not merely possible but reliable. We are not forced to trade off benefits to one individual against injuries to another. And what makes collectivism evil is that it does force such tradeoffs on us.

But if ever there was a case of collectivism in human existence, it's in the relationship between a pregnant woman and her unborn child. The fetus cannot be neutral with respect to the woman carrying it; its very existence alters her hormones, her entire physiology, and her emotional state. Even if the woman wants to be pregnant, it's all too possible, despite the achievements of medicine, for situations to arise where a benefit to the fetus entails harm to the mother, or vice versa, and where it's necessary to decide which benefit is more important. Trying to sort this out by applying the concept of individual rights just doesn't work.

And there's only one decision maker there: the pregnant woman. The fetus lacks sufficient rationality, purposefulness, and self-awareness to make choices. The pregnant woman has to decide where her priorities are. Some pregnant women will choose to take terrifying risks for the chance to have a child, and that's their right; they can say "Price no object" if they want. Others will abort, for whatever reason. Either way, they pay the price of their choices. Having someone else, who doesn't have to pay that price, make the decision for them, or tell them what they can and can't do, cannot be expected to produce better decisions.

Burton wishes us to forget the actual language of Amendment 48. It does not merely say, "We think a fertilized egg is human life" or even a person. Rather, it grants a fertilized egg the same rights to life, liberty, property, and due process of law that born babies have. Thus, it would have radical implications for the law. Burton pretends that the measure does not mean what it says. In her Vail Daily piece, she writes:

The rest of the arguments of the no on 48 campaign are designed to convince you the amendment will interfere with women's health care and cause women who have miscarriages to be carted off to jail. These scare tactics aren't true. Dottie Lamm and Linda Campbell go on at length about the possible affects of the amendment. They keep using the term, "it could" do this or that in their attempt to frighten voters.

The amendment merely extends protection to both mother and baby. It recognizes that women also are persons. I’m a woman and will probably marry and have children someday. Would I help create a law intended to unduly endanger myself?

Here we move on from Burton's Equivocation to Burton's Bifurcation. As I've pointed out at length, Burton simultaneously wants to claim that Amendment 48 would lay the basis for banning abortion, but that it would not lead to other nasty implications. Yet, if a fertilized egg is a person, with all the same legal rights as a born infant, and if such a definition is legally enforced, then the logical implications are these: all abortion must be banned, even in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and health risks that are not immediately life-threatening to the woman; all forms of birth control that may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus must be banned; all fertility treatments that may result in the destruction of fertilized eggs must be banned; and all abortions and intentional miscarriages must be criminally prosecuted. Burton keeps repeating that these implications are "scare tactics" that "aren't true." Yet they are logical implications of Amendment 48, and Burton has never offered a single argument otherwise.

Burton does let slip a concession, however: notice that Amendment 48 would not "unduly endanger" her life. What does that mean? It means that, if doctors believe that failure to abort necessarily would kill the woman, and they don't fear criminal prosecution if they abort, then Amendment 48 likely would permit the abortion. However, as I've pointed out, rarely are risks so clear cut. Amendment 48 would endanger the health and lives of some women; whether that endangerment is "undue" would depend on how the legislature and courts decided the criminality of abortion. There can be no doubt that, in some cases, Amendment 48 would result in the deaths of women.

While Amendment 48 certainly is no laughing matter, I did get a chuckle over Burton's projection:

Resorting to repetitive use of a meaningless phrase is a propaganda tactic commonly employed when there is no substance to an argument. Opponents of 48 are hoping for what psychologists call a "conditioned response." You step into the voting booth and when you see Amendment 48 that little phrase automatically jumps into your head and you vote no.

Changing "opponents" to "advocates" and "no" to "yes," that pretty much summarizes Burton's case for Amendment 48.

Amendment 48: Letters and Replies

Today the Rocky Mountain News features a couple of online letters regarding Amendment 48, along with replies.

Dan Kushmaul writes:

A fertilized egg is not an individual. It has the potential to be a person, or two people, or many. If we declare a fertilized egg a person, does that mean identical twins are legally one individual? If a fertilized egg is a person or persons, then any contraception or procedure that prevents implantation, or perhaps even fertilization, will constitute depriving a person of life - murder. Do we really want to criminalize IUDs, condoms, and the pill, and force in vitro fertilization clinics to implant every egg they fertilize?

Kushmaul's comments point to some of the absurdities of the measure. They do not, however, get to the root of why a fertilized egg is not a person; for that, please read the paper by Diana Hsieh and me. A fertilized egg is not an "individual" person -- it is not a person at all -- but it is an individual fertilized egg, regardless of how many people it might become. The problem is that the advocates of the measure routinely equivocate on terms like "human being," "individual," etc., reading into those terms personhood where none actually exists.

Somebody called "LetsThink" posts a reply to which I responded:

"LetsThink" asks, "Can you tell us with absolutely no question, when Life begins???"

That question is irrelevant. Amendment 48 does not define when "life" begins; it (arbitrarily) defines when personhood begins. Life does not begin at conception; life precedes conception. Both the sperm cell and pre-fertilized egg are alive. Life is a never-ending chain that goes back to the first living things. So the only sensible answer to the question is "around four billion years ago."

"LetsThink" denies that "the baby is part of the mother." But that statement is ambiguous. The fertilized egg is not an element of the woman's own bodily functions, as a kidney is. The fertilized egg contains a unique set of human DNA. So, no, a fertilized egg is not like a kidney in that way. But a fertilized egg (through the fetal stage) is entirely contained within and completely dependent upon the woman's body, and that fact is central to the issue of personhoon. Biological distinction, in the sense of existing independently, physically apart from another person, is a necessary condition for personhood.

"LetsThink" declares, without offering a single example and with loaded language, "It's time for Abortionists to stop lying." No, it's time for "LetsThink" to start telling the truth.

For a complete discussion of the horrific consequences of Amendment 48, and a more detailed explanation of why a fertilized egg is not a person, please see the paper by Diana Hsieh and me titled, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life:"
http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf

L. Fortier points out that a common alternative to legal abortion are "back-alley abortions." As Diana and I point out, that argument becomes relevant only once it is established that a fertilized egg is not a person. Parker is correct in writing, "Amendment 48 also includes birth control pills and could lead to prosecution of parents and doctors after in vitro procedures wherein extra fertilized eggs are disposed of. This is a dangerous door to open."

"LetsThink" posts another reply, to which I responded:

"LetsThink" claims, "There is no defense for abortion." Yet implicit within "LetsThink's" other statements is the beginning of just such a defense. While "LetsThink" arbitrarily conflates a fertilized egg with a born "baby" -- despite the obvious and radical differences between the two -- "LetsThink" also points out that a fertilized egg is merely a "potential" person, not an actual one. A fertilized egg into its early development doesn't even have any organs. More importantly, it is completely contained within and biologically dependent upon the woman's body.

But "LetsThink's" post does serve an important function: it reminds us that Amendment 48 is about religious faith. It is an attempt to enforce religious dogma through force of law. Notably, existing Colorado statutes define first-degree murder as intentionally killing a "person" -- a crime subject to life in prison or the death penalty.

Diana Hsieh and I summarize and detail in our paper, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life:"
http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf

Perhaps someday an advocate of Amendment 48 will actually attempt to reply to the arguments of that paper. But I doubt it.

Amendment 48 Sponsor Hedges on Implications

A recent debate about Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution, pit the obfuscater against the appeaser, as a story by David Montero of the Rocky Mountain News makes clear. We begin with Kristi Burton, the measure's sponsor:

She criticized those who argue that her amendment would create a legal morass because the word "person" appears in more than 20,000 state statutes.

"A definition doesn't have that power," she said. "A definition lays down the foundation . . . but it doesn't guarantee any particular result."

Yet Burton has made clear that her intention with Amendment 48 is to ban abortion except to save the life of the woman. So clearly she does think that a mere definition -- in reality a fundamental change in the state constitution -- can "have that power," contingent on federal changes.

If Amendment 48 can ban abortion based on the legal fiction that a fertilized egg is a person, then it can also do all the other things that Diana Hsieh and I outline in our paper, Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life." It can ban the birth control pill and other forms of birth control that can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. It can ban fertility treatments that often involve the destruction or freezing of fertilized eggs. It can ban medical research involving fertilized eggs. And it can subject women and their doctors to criminal prosecution for obtaining an abortion or intentionally causing a miscarriage. These are not merely hypothetical scare stories; they are logical implications. True, the amendment may not be consistently interpreted or enforced, and its implementation depends on federal changes, as Diana and I write in the paper, but if the measure is implemented those other consequences naturally follow.

Against Burton, Pat Steadman said, "I think it's hard to imagine there not being unintended consequences." That response is pathetic. First, the consequence that even Burton openly advocates -- a near-complete ban on abortion -- is horrific. It would massively violate the rights of women of reproductive age, along with their partners and doctors, and it would lead to police-state controls. It would force women to bring to term pregnancies even in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and health risks -- that is, when the health risks did not cause the woman to die first.

Second, the other consequences that Diana and I outline are fully intended and openly stated by the honest advocates of Amendment 48. Various members of the religious right openly call for bans on the pill, bans on select medical research, and severe criminal penalties -- including the death penalty -- for women who get abortions. It is true that Amendment 48 would have many other consequences that are unintended, but it is evil precisely because of what its backers intend.

Burton also continued her unsubstantiated assertions that a fertilized egg is a person. Montero begins, "Science now knows that life begins at the moment of conception, the initiator of the Personhood Amendment told an audience of 30 at the University of Denver Thursday night." Yet life does not begin at conception; it precedes conception.

Burton claimed "that medical science tells us that when an egg is fertilized at conception, a human being has been created." Yet as Diana and I write in the paper, Burton relies on an equivocation on the term "human being" to fudge her case. A fertilized egg is human, in the sense that it contains human DNA, and it is a potential person, but it is not an actual person. But Burton is not interested in promoting honest debate or answering her critics. Hers is an agenda of religious faith, and the facts be damned.

Amendment 48: Ritter's Faith-Based Strategy Backfires

Bill Ritter came out against Amendment 48 on October 7. But the way he did it actually helps the advocates of the measure.

As Tim Hoover reports for The Denver Post, Ritter said at a rally at the capitol, "I believe the amendment goes too far." In this line Ritter follows the slogan of the main campaign against the measure, a position that implies some restrictions on abortion, birth control, and fertility treatments would be fine. That line makes those opponents of Amendment 48 look like cowardly hypocrites. That's why Diana Hsieh and I don't repeat that line and criticize its use in our paper.

But Ritter's main problem is that he tried to oppose a faith-based measure while appealing to faith. As Hoover reports, Ritter said, "In spite of the fact that I'm pro-life, I can look at this and really find reasons I think it is just such an extreme position to take... My understanding is that there are things about calling a fertilized egg a person that do not square with church doctrine."

With this statement, Ritter granted that church doctrine should guide the law. What Ritter should have said is that as governor he has a responsibility to protect the separation of church and state, and Amendment 48 clearly seeks to impose religious dogma by force of law.

Predictably, Hoover's follow-up article for today carries the headline, "Bishops chide Ritter on view of personhood." Hoover reports:

The archbishop of Denver on Wednesday publicly scolded Gov. Bill Ritter... for comments he made about whether a fertilized egg is a person.

In a statement given to news outlets, Archbishop Charles Chaput, along with Auxiliary Bishop James Conley, said Ritter's comments on Amendment 48 "seriously confused" the issue. ...

Ritter's comments about the church's stance on a fertilized egg are false, the bishops said.

"Catholic teaching holds that human life is sacred from the moment of fertilization, commonly called 'conception,' to the moment of natural death," the bishops wrote in the statement. "Separating a 'fertilized egg' from the dignity of human personhood is bad theology and bad public policy.

"And Catholic public officials should know better."

Catholic bishops should know better than to push around Colorado's elected officials, who are charged with enacting and executing nonsectarian laws, not imposing Catholic doctrine on the state. But Ritter invited the rebuke by resting the matter on religious faith.

At least Bishops Chaput and Conley have reinforced what was already obvious: Amendment 48 is about religious faith, nothing else. The Catholic church regards a fertilized egg as "sacred," and that is the end of the argument.

Meanwhile, Kristi Burton, sponsor of the measure, continues her inane defense of it. Hoover reports in his first article:

"The governor's position directly contradicts the overwhelming modern scientific evidence that now recognizes what we all know in our hearts," said Kristi Burton, who sponsored Amendment 48, "from the moment of conception, a new unique individual has been created."

Notice that Burton often throws around claims about "modern scientific evidence," on the pretense that the measure somehow reaches beyond religious faith. Yet there is no substance whatsoever to her claims about "science," as Diana and I explain (see pages 11-13 of the paper). To briefly summarize, a "unique individual" fertilized egg is still not a person, as (besides the fact that it is only a microscopic clump of cells) it is wholly contained within and dependent upon the woman's body.

At least Burton distinguishes between her cart and her horse. Science, allegedly, merely "recognizes what we all know in our hearts" -- that is, what her religious faith has already asserted.

As if we needed any more lessons regarding the dangers of pandering to faith-based politics, two letters in the Rocky Mountain News also point to the problem. On September 22, I wrote, "Then Mayo McNeil quotes Genesis and Exodus to 'refute' the view that a fertilized egg is a person. Put this in the hefty folder titled, 'With Friends Like These...'"

Sure enough, on October 8 Mary Lou Fenton replied:

Read further in your Bible and you will find Psalms 139:13-16:

"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. . . .

"All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."

This is a very clear pronouncement of a divine creator who gives us life and knows us intimately. An incredible truth that invests each life with meaning, value and purpose.

There can be no doubt: Amendment 48 is a prime example of faith-based politics, the attempt to impose religious dogma by force of law and to criminally prosecute those who violate that dogma.

McNeil made essentially the same mistake that Ritter made. Rather than try to undermine Amendment 48 with his own assertions of religious faith, the governor of Colorado should boldly declare his support for the separation of church and state.

Rocky Recycles Burton's Evasions on Amendment 48

On September 19, the Pagosa Daily Post published an op-ed by Kristi Burton that was filled with distortions and evasions. I replied. Then, on September 25, The Denver Post published the same op-ed. That didn't surprise me, because nobody can actually sustain an argument in favor of Amendment 48. But it did surprise me that the Rocky Mountain News published virtually the same op-ed yesterday; usually the papers try not to publish the same pieces.

My previous reply answers Burton's main points. However, given the widespread distribution of her piece, I thought I'd extend my reply here.

Burton writes: "Let me make it clear: Amendment 48 is about empowering you, the voter."

Note that that's her leading argument. And it's completely meaningless. Every ballot measure "is about empowering you, the voter," to decide the measure. But in a deeper sense, it is not about "empowering" the voter, for there is no such thing. Rather, it is about empowering those with the faith-based view that a fertilized egg is a person to impose their police state on the rest of us.

To reiterate, Amendment 48 would ban all abortions except perhaps to save the woman's life. It would force women to carry their pregnancies to term even in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and health risks (and obviously in cases in which the woman decides she is unprepared to bear a child). It would necessitate criminal penalties -- perhaps including the death penalty if current statutes remain in force -- for abortion. It would ban practically all fertility treatments. It would ban the birth-control pill, IUD, and other forms of birth control. For details, see "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" by Diana Hsieh and me.

Burton writes, "It's about allowing the democratic process to make decisions that have been made by special-interest groups for the last 40 years while using your taxes for their own gain."

This is ridiculous. These "decisions" have been made individually by millions of women and their partners, the Supreme Court, and various politicians and activists. True, some tax dollars have gone to Planned Parenthood, which I oppose (because I oppose the transfer of tax dollars for any health-related expense). But obviously that issue is separable from the matter of abortion. (This should serve as a warning to the left, however: if you keep begging for tax funds, you keep giving the religious right more opportunities to control the funded organizations.)

Burton claims she wants to ensure "our laws are built on honest premises." That's a laugh; she lies in the same op-ed by claiming the "Personhood Amendment doesn't change the constitution in any way." That line remains inexcusable (and I'm frankly amazed that the state's major newspapers have let her get away with the obvious distortion). Amendment 48 is a constitutional amendment.

Burton writes:

The words we choose matter. Mendez continually referred to newly formed persons as "fertilized eggs." This is a familiar strategy. In the same way, there's a reason why abortion proponents use the term "pro-choice." It shifts the debate away from the ugly reality of abortion. The repeated use of the term "fertilized egg" robs the developing human of personhood, just as the word "fetus" dehumanizes a developing baby.

There's a reason why opponents of Amendment 48 use the term "fertilized egg." The reason is that Amendment 48 itself uses that language. Amendment 48 would add the following new section to the state's constitution: "As used in Sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms 'person' or 'persons' shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization."

At least Burton grants that she wants to outlaw "abortion" of a fertilized egg even before it implants in the uterus, the usual marker of pregnancy.

Burton commits the same fallacy of which she accuses her opponents. She calls a fertilized egg a "person," as if that arbitrary definition alone can carry the debate. The difference is that she has never offered a single, coherent argument as to why a fertilized egg is a person.

By contrast, Diana Hsieh and I offer a detailed argument as to why it's not. So it's correct to refer to a "fertilized egg" as a "fertilized egg," but it is wrong to refer to it as a "person," as Burton does.

But Burton doesn't have any actual arguments to back up her position, she just has faith. She can't even be bothered to discuss most of the measure's implications.

Some weeks ago, I suggested to a friend a set of questions that I wish Burton would answer. Perhaps in a future op-ed, she'll address these points. I'll not hold my breath. Here are the questions:

1. Do you believe that the birth-control pill or IUD may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus?

2. Do you believe that the birth-control pill, IUD, or any other form of birth control should be banned?

3. At what risk to the woman's life, if any, do you believe an abortion should be legal, and who should be the final authority in deciding such matters? (Note: Burton has granted that she would allow abortion if otherwise the mother certainly would die, but she still needs to address the real issue of what to do about weighing uncertain risks and health problems that are not immediately life-threatening.)

4. Do you believe that in vitro fertilization that may result in destroyed or frozen embryos should be banned?

5. What criminal penalty do you believe is appropriate for women who get abortions? What about their doctors?

6. Do you believe that women should be forced to carry to term fetuses known to suffer Down Syndrome or other serious health problems?

7. Do you believe that abortion should be completely banned in cases of rape and incest?

8. Do you believe that all stem-cell medical research should be banned?

9. Why do you believe that a fertilized egg is a person (as opposed to "life" or something that contains human DNA)?

Hsieh Deciphers Amendment 48 Polls

Diana Hsieh issued the following media release today. I'll have some comments of my own about the recent polls in the near future.

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 [omitted]

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 http://tinyurl.com/4huary.)

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 http://tinyurl.com/4mm59r.)

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.

State Senator Greg Brophy Endorses Amendment 48

In a recent e-mail, State Senator Greg Brophy writes:

Amendment 48 Yes – Ignore all the hype over this one, it is really a straightforward question. Should all abortions except those where the life of the mother is threatened be banned in Colorado? That is what A48 really does and it is purposefully written to challenge Roe v. Wade. It doesn’t ban contraception, it does ban RU 486, and it would raise a due process question in those rare pregnancies where the life of the mother is at stake. In those cases, the unborn baby would be represented in a court action as well as the mother.

At least Brophy is forthright about some of the implications regarding the measure. As Diana Hsieh and I write in "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," the measure is indeed intended to overturn Roe v. Wade and outlaw abortion in Colorado -- even in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and health risks. Brophy also admits that the life of the egg/embryo/fetus would be weighed against the life of the mother. Legal action could prevent or delay an abortion from proceeding in cases of health risks -- causing the deaths of some women. Doctors who performed an abortion over health concerns also could face "court action" -- i.e., criminal prosecution -- preventing treatment in some cases and causing the deaths of some women.

While Brophy doesn't come right out and say it, he believes some women should die in order to legally protect fertilized eggs as "persons."

Laughably, on his web page Brophy claims to endorse "Limited government" and "Personal responsibility." Exactly how is subjecting women and their doctors to "court action" for health-related (or any) abortions -- thereby using government force to kill some women -- an instance of "limited government?" Brophy, along with many other Colorado Republicans, have proven that they are mortal enemies of individual rights.

I sent Brophy the following question via e-mail:

In a recent e-mail, you state that Amendment 48 "doesn’t ban contraception." However, a popular birth-control pill says right in its prescription literature that it can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Do you believe that the pill or IUD can do that? If so, do you advocate a ban on those forms of birth control? (Yes, I intend to publicize your answer.)

I referred him to pages 3-5 of the paper.

When Brophy encourages voters to "Ignore all the hype," he is asking them to ignore some of the real legal implications of Amendment 48 and impose religious dogma through force of law.

Burton Continues to Dodge Amendment 48 Implications

Kristi Burton has been tight-lipped about the legal implications of Amendment 48. She's admitted she wants to ban "abortion on demand," but she hasn't discussed related issues, such as criminal penalties, birth control, and fertilization treatments.

At least she has offered one more minor detail about her take on the measure:

"Doctors should be able to decide which life they can save," she said. "If she were to die, the baby would die, too. It should be up to the mother and family and the doctor to save the life that can be saved instead of letting both die."

But that statement is hardly revealing. Burton again dodges the real questions.

Obviously, if the pregnant woman and the egg/embryo/fetus certainly would die without treatment, saving one "person" is better than losing two. But medical choices rarely involve such clear-cut risks.

Notably, Burton outright admits that it might be possible to save the fetus and kill the woman. Is that not the meaning of the statement, "Doctors should be able to decide which life they can save"? If a fertilized egg is arbitrarily declared a person, legally its life must be weighed against the life of the pregnant woman.

According to some opponents of abortion, not even an ectopic pregnancy necessarily threatens the very life of the mother. See page 10 of the paper by Diana Hsieh and me. In other cases, such as cancer treatment, the mother wouldn't necessarily die prior to child birth, so her ability to get treatment would depend also on its impact on the egg/embryo/fetus.

The upshot is that doctors would be legally bound -- subject to criminal prosecution -- to weigh the life of the fertilized egg against the life of the woman, in all cases in which death of the woman were not a certainty. Because such decisions would be second-guessed by prosecutors and the courts, doctors often would err on the side of inaction. The inevitable result would be more deaths of women. As Diana and I summarize, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life."