bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2008/01/28/news/20wilmer.txt
How is it detrimental to the cause?
Because it has absolutely no hope of ever passing. Each time something like this fails (and it will) you are right back at square one. You would get much further chipping away at abortion rather than going for the hail mary pass.
What one person’s chipping away might be another person’s “Hail Mary” pass.
What? I thought, as Catholics, going for the Hail Mary would be a natural.
I suspect the amendment’s chances of passage would be improved if the bishops actually supported it but we’ll ignore that for the moment. As I understand the amendment it would put in the state constitution a definition of a human being that is in accord with the scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception. I guess the subtleties of the situation escape me; I don’t perceive what part of this looks foolish.
When life begins and the definition of a human being are two different things. Is an acorn an oak tree? Did I have scrambled eggs for breakfast or scrambled chicken? These are the kind of things that become problematic with such a definition.
Nohome
What situations would you approve of an abortion?
I, too, would appreciate reading their reasoning. I seem to recall that when the Georgia (the state, not the country) bishops decided against supporting a similar measure, they didn’t make their reasoning known to the public, which only added to my perplexion.
My point exactly. The issue isn’t about whether a zygote should enjoy constitutional recognition as a person, but that people wish to ban abortion. If that is the case, then pursue an end to abortion. Smoke and mirrors make these people look dishonest, like they are trying to trick Montana into ending abortion.
Having the constitution acknowledge that the unborn are persons is hardly dishonest unless a person is stupid enough not to know what the implications would be. Abortion on demand didn’t change overnight and neither will banning abortion be changed overnight. This is an excellent first step and the Bishops should be ashamed of themselves for not supporting it. Bishops are not political and/or legal experts.
I think personhood is the heart of the abortion controversy. There is no question that a zygote is human life - what other species would it be? What pro-choicers have been arguing is that a fetus is not a human being, which is to say, it is not fully a person.
I will grant at least this difference: the former is a scientific fact and the latter is a philosophical construct that means whatever someone wants it to mean … as blacks and Indians can affirm.
I find the concept bizarre. The Church allows such operations today - do you suggest that the Church allows murder today?
It is difficult to take this possibility seriously. Planes have occasionally made emergency landings on interstates - should I avoid interstates because the possibility exists that a plane may land on my car? I think the likelihoods are similar.
We both recognize absurdities in this situation, we just disagree over what they are.
montanaknights.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/bishopsstatement.pdf
No, but they understand the wise use of resources. They understand that their limited resources are better spent on other initiatives (see the Bishops memo in a previous post). Frankly, it is futile to attempt to overturn a federal consitituion ruling with a state constitution ruling.
The question isn’t about species, or if it is human life. They are calling a zygote a human. I defer back to my statement about breakfast, did I eat scrambled chicken this morning?
Last time I checked, the State of Montana was not governed by the Catholic Church. Church law would have zero influence on how this constitutional ammendment would affect the interpretation of State law.