The Rocky Mountain Collegian

To be fair, I applaud the Collegian for putting this article in the Opinion section. Their first "news" article on the amendment, from 9/22, belonged there, too. And, given the perspective they've taken (with which I fully disagree), there arguments aren't that bad. However, their conclusion is laughable. It seems that they want people to vote no on 48 because "it would not only redefine a person, but also redefine the rights of American women and doctors." Yes, it would. And, know why? Because it is EXTENDING rights (specifically, to the unborn). WHENEVER rights are extended to a group, it is at the cost of the rights of others. When blacks were treated as full humans, that came at the cost of the previously legal rights of slaveholders and whites in general. When women were given the right to vote, that came at the cost of men who previously held the exclusive right to vote. Sometimes, the aftermath of extending rights is severe. Certainly this was the case with emancipation, and true human rights weren't granted blacks for another century. However, it is neither the fallout nor the curtailing of existing rights that should guide us to make decisions about extending rights, because those consequences will ALWAYS accompany such a decision. Rather, we should be guided by whether the entity in question deserves human rights. Blacks do, women do, and, in my opinion, humans in the womb do. (You can see my other postings on this website for my reasoning as to why they're human.)

What a ridiculous proposition this amendment is.

If I had never been pregnant because I always made the right choices in life then I may be pro-life.

If I had never been pregnant because, well...I
guess, luck, it would be easy for me to be swayed into being pro-life (especially by huge pictures of aborted fetuses).

If I were a man it would be easy for me to be pro-life because I don't know what it's like to bear a child.

If I followed a religous faith that tought me that abortion is wrong it would be easy for me to be pro-life and to call others baby murderers.

But I am a woman who doesn't want to bear children. I am a woman who does not practice your faith. I am a woman who may not have always made the most responsible choices in life (have you?). I am a woman who uses birth control, but nothing is 100%. I am a single professional woman with hopes of getting that job, that job that
you are up for too, but because you decided what I should do with my body, I am 8 months pregnant at home on bedrest and waiting for my welfare check. Thank you.

It is easy for you to think you can dictate what to do with my body. Please leave that between me and my doctor and out of our government!

NO ON 48!

Amendment 48 doesn't just "present negatives." It's a completely unjust and indefensible attack on the rights of women to control their own bodies.

For more, see this web site outlining the case against Amendment 48:

http://www.ColoradoVoteNo48.com

We discuss the issue in greater detail in an issue paper published by the Coalition for Secular Government -- "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person" -- by Ari Armstrong and myself. It's available at:

http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf

In the paper, we discuss some of the serious implications of this proposed amendment, including its effects on the legality of abortion, birth control, and in vitro fertilization. And we offer a strong defense of abortion rights based on the biological facts of pregnancy.

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

Years ago, I took part in one of those pscyhological surveys that graduate students conduct right here at CSU. One of the questions stated, "Even though you are pro-life, can you admire the efforts of those who strive for abortion as a woman's right?" (That wasn't exactly the wording, but that's the best I cam remember.) My answer is yes. EVEN though I believe that the child inside a woman is fully human and that taking his/her life is no better in any way whatsoever than taking the life of another human being, yes, I can. I can in the sense that I respect, even admire, such an advocate's courage of conviction, and because I realize, given his/her perspective, I would do the same. That certainly doesn't cause me to believe any less that abortion is fundamentally wrong, but it does remind me of the humanity of people on BOTH sides of the debate, and I generally try to stop screaming at people or calling them "morons" or "murders/woman-haters" or what have you. The sad thing is, I have yet to meet a pro-choice individual that shares this view, that can recognize that I am acting out of my courage of conviction, that my reasoning isn't arbitrary or delusional, and that, in my shoes, he/she would do the same. The posted comments on Collegian.com only make me all the more hopeless that I shall ever find such a person on the other side of fence. It really is too bad.