Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

HSIEH: There's nothing wrong with abortion, but 48 is wrong

By Diana Hsieh

Published November 3, 2008 at 12:01 a.m.

Text size  

More Speakout

More stories »

On November 4th, voters in Colorado will face a stark moral choice: vote yea or nay on Amendment 48 to alter the “Definition of a Person” in our state Constitution. This amendment would grant fertilized eggs the legal standing of persons, including “inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law.”

If fully implemented, all abortions would be outlawed in Colorado, including in cases of rape, incest, and risk to the woman’s health. Any woman who terminated a pregnancy would be guilty of murder, subject to life in prison or the death penalty. Colorado would also ban forms of birth control preventing the implantation in the womb, including the birth control pill.

Roe v. Wade would not necessarily protect women against these ominous legal restrictions. Rather, supporters of the amendment hope to use it as grounds for challenging that landmark case in the Supreme Court — or perhaps as fuel for a nationwide movement for a similar federal constitutional amendment.

Despite its draconian implications for reproductive freedom, this proposed amendment has gathered solid support from Colorado voters. Polls show that 35 percent favor it, 52 percent oppose it, and 14 percent 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 an unborn child’s right to life.

It is part of a “culture of death.” Consequently, most Americans regard abortion as morally suspect except in those rare cases 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 basic biological facts of pregnancy.

The opponents of abortion claim that embryos and fetuses have the same right to life as babies because they are distinct, living human beings. Certainly, a 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 because it’s a potential human person. That human person will become actual at birth. Then, and only then, does this new person have a right to life.

The fetus is only a potential human person, even when well-developed, so long as in the womb. In the womb, it 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. A fetus cannot act independently to sustain its life, not even on the basic biological level possible to a day-old infant.

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. He has a life of his own that must be protected as a matter of right.

The fundamental biological differences between a fetus and a baby show that 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.

That’s why, to protect a woman’s moral right to her own life and happiness, the people of Colorado must answer a resounding “NAY” to Amendment 48 tomorrow.

Diana Hsieh is founder of the Coalition for Secular Government.

Comments

  • November 3, 2008

    9:25 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Ed_Thompson writes:

    I deeply resent the unconscionable attempt by the religious right to impose its Biblical doctrines upon me by force of law. If you are one of them, I ask you with the respect that has not been afforded to me to vote NO on Amendment 48. If your beliefs have merit, you should be capable of persuading others to your position, voluntarily.

  • November 3, 2008

    9:34 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mtnrunner2 writes:

    I agree with Diana Hsieh, both about the intent of the "pro-life" movement to overturn Roe v Wade, and on the proper definition of a person as beginning at birth.

    You simply cannot equate a few cells inside a woman's body with a human being. It is utterly preposterous, and shows the extreme irrationality of Amendment 48. Its advocates claim that their notion of personhood is based on sober scientific inquiry, but nothing could be further from the truth. To claim that a collection of a few cells has legal rights is mind-boggling.

    Rights come from the need to protect an independent being's ability to live and prosper. Hence the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Rights cannot belong to something that is not even a biologically independent being yet.

    Finally, we should not accept the idea that Amendment 48 is merely a harmless educational exercise. Its intent is to end abortion in America. Don't fall for it.

  • November 3, 2008

    10:02 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    SylviaBokor writes:

    I agree completely with Diana Hsieh's Op-Ed. It's surprising that so many people are concerned about an egg before it's born, yet ignore the welfare of the woman carrying it. An egg has no moral status, no ability to think or choose. Birth alone is the mechanism that changes the parasite to human being. Only then is it endowed with individual rights.

    There is nothing holy about a sperm penetrating an egg. One would think religious people---if they really are as compassionate as they claim to be---would be more concerned about a woman's welfare than an undeveloped conglomeration of chemicals, which is claimed to be "alive." Weeds and algae are also "alive." Life is a very broad abstraction, encompassing countless forms and types of organisms. One may not give human status to all forms of life, which includes eggs.

    It is an unfortunate but unsurprising consequence of faith that it tries to force everyone to do what it wants---and to hell with individual rights, love, and respect for others.

    Sincerely,
    Sylvia Bokor
    Albuquerque, NM

  • November 3, 2008

    10:51 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    gidreich writes:

    Diana's Hsieh eloquent op-ed lays out the rational case against proposition 48. The absurd, faith-based notion that a fertilized egg, a zygote, is a person with rights must be defeated. The right to abortion is part of a woman's right to life -- thus support for abortion rights is the real pro-life position.

  • November 3, 2008

    11:39 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    dianahsieh writes:

    For more on the Coalition for Secular Government's case against Amendment 48, see:

    http://www.seculargovernment.us/a48.s...

    Diana Hsieh
    Founder, Coalition for Secular Government
    http://www.seculargovernment.us

  • November 3, 2008

    12:43 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    JeremyS writes:

    Religous dogma - no matter how deeply held - rightfully has no place in our government. Amendmant 48 is a threat not only to women's productive rights but is also serious assault on the seperation of church and state. Thank you RMN for publishing this op-ed.

  • November 3, 2008

    1:13 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    ILoveChipotle writes:

    Diana Hsieh is a left wing - abortion on demand - radical. Her attempts to convince people that abortion is a responsible form of birth control is absurd.

    Amendment 48 is not a faith based initiative, it is a common sense initiative that will protect the helpless from being slaughtered.

  • November 3, 2008

    1:39 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Danchan writes:

    ILoveChipotle writes that, "Amendment 48 is not a faith based initiative, it is a common sense initiative that will protect the helpless from being slaughtered."

    No. Common sense had nothing to do with the creation of this amendment. It is the product of a simpleton trying to make a complex issue easier for her to understand.
    I bare no malice to Ms. Burton, but until she develops some critical thinking skills, she needs to stay away from the law.

    The consequences of this ill-conceived amendment passing are horrific.
    Vote no on 48.

  • November 3, 2008

    3 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Macita183 writes:

    If this amedment came into affect how many abandoned newborns would there be? How much would the demands of welfare be strained? How many women would be killed/seriously injured due to bothced alley abortions?
    Safe sex education is the key to reducing unwanted pregancies, not banning every form of contraception. If these people want to ban the pill would they go so far as to prevent a woman from having a hysterictame (I know I spelled that wrong) to help stop cancer?
    If it cannot sustain life by itself, I'm sorry it's not a human with rights. While I don't believe abortion should be a form of birth control it is a woman's right to choose. You have no right telling someone what to do with their body.

  • November 3, 2008

    4:47 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Bryan_Armentrout writes:

    Diana is exactly right and I will vote "No" with regard to this horrible amendment on election day.

  • November 4, 2008

    7:16 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ILoveChipotle writes:

    So Macita would rather have welfare running smoothly than have children murdered? Macita would rather kill a child than have an abandoned newborn be adopted by a loving family? Macita would rather have millions of babies be killed than have a few people try back alley abortions? A newborn outside the womb cannot sustain life by itself either Macita, does that mean it can be killed out of convenience?

    I'm sorry but your arguments are idiotic.

  • November 4, 2008

    12:24 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    ILoveChipotle writes:

    Diana says Colorado will face a stark moral choice: vote yea or nay on Amendment 48. So she admits that it is a moral issue. One could argue that murdering children is immoral. Therefore, Diana has admitted that she has no morals.

  • November 4, 2008

    8:07 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Johnathan_S writes:

    This op-ed by Diana (coincidentally, in ancient mythologies both Goddess of the Hunt and Patroness of Childbirth) inspires this modest proposal:

    A fetus is indeed no more than a clump of cells, like a hand or a heart. A hand or a heart is clearly not a person with rights. Neither is a fetus. That means having an abortion is like taking a shower and washing a few dead skin cells down the drain, clipping your toenails, or having a wart removed.

    But here's the rub: What to do with the remains? A zygote aborted is simple to dispose of: wash the remains down the drain (though hopefully they are removed by those cities that recycle drain water for human consumption). But a fetus aborted in the latter stages of pregnancy greatly resembles a human infant; its bulk is too great to simply flush away. Burying its remains implies it's human. Incinerating the remains seems such a waste--after all, biologists tell us the remains have nutritional value.

    While pondering this conundrum, I read about the poor wolves in Alaska being shot from airplanes. Eureka! The perfect solution. We hermetically seal the fetal remains in plastic bags and ship them to Alaska where they are fed to the wolves from low-flying airplanes. We solve an irksome problem and strike a blow for women's rights--and we help wildlife to boot.

    But why think small? We could turn the remains into premium pet food more nutritious than many current varieties, making a tidy profit for the abortionists. We might induce women to have and abort their children for profit, helping to reduce the pay gap between men and women. I'm sure the reader can think of other possibilities.

    Yes, these ideas may be hard to swallow initially, but remember: these are not the remains of real human beings--just potential human beings with no rights.

    Anyone who fails to see the merit of this modest proposal is none too swift.

  • November 11, 2008

    5:16 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    bellacullen2394 writes:

    johnathan, your sick. a fetus is a baby, not dog food. get over it, i'm only 14 and obviously i know more on the subject than you!
    what do you have to say? give me one good reason why someone that looks different and happens to be residing in you can't be human and have rights?!

  • November 13, 2008

    6:52 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    bellacullen2394 writes:

    Oh, and by the way, if FETUSES are parasites, then your a leech. Thats for you johnathan you son of a bad word you are so lucky that i do not like to swear because trust me you would get it in the face if i did. so -----------------------!!!! take that you -----------!!