Montana Catholic Bishops Will Not Support Constitutional Amendment Defining Personhood

[Joe_Kelley]

. . . You become an individual, a person and a citizen at the moment of birth. . . .

What is the moment of birth - when the head emerges? Or must the feet be out? One foot or both? What about breech presentation, does that change the criteria?

 

[Nohome]

You claim there is an essential distinction between a human entity (viz. an embryo) and a human being and I’m asking for a scientific explanation of that difference.

I didn’t say jack about an embryo. A zygote has no head, no heart, no brain, arms, legs, fingers, toes. Yes, these are physiologic characteristics of a human and no a zygote has none of them.

A zygote can split and become two or reversely, two zygotes can fuse and become one. These are things that humans just don’t do.

Does a zygote have a soul? If so and it splits, does the soul split? How about two zygotes that fuse? Do you create a human with two souls? No wonder St Thomas Aquinas said the soul enters the fetus at a later date.

Same thing with the Montana constitutional amendment, it would give one a right to own property at the moment of conception. How do you register zygotes? How do you deed them property? What if they split? Do you split the deed?

No “dancing” here, just pointing out the obsurdity of CI-100. I reiterate that the bishops were wise to let this one go.

Nohome

 

[Nohome]

What is the moment of birth - when the head emerges? Or must the feet be out? One foot or both? What about breech presentation, does that change the criteria?

I could say the same about the moment of conception.

Nohome

 

[Ender]

A zygote has no head, no heart, no brain, arms, legs, fingers, toes. Yes, these are physiologic characteristics of a human and no a zygote has none of them.

Which physiological characteristic changes a human life form into a human being and when does it happen?

Does a zygote have a soul?

The law is not concerned with this.

How do you register zygotes? How do you deed them property? What if they split? Do you split the deed?

This is a simple legal issue that is easily resolved. The right to own property should not be placed at the same level as the right to live.

Ender

 

[Nohome]

The right to own property should not be placed at the same level as the right to live.

We are in agreement. This thread isn’t about the right to life. It is about a bizarre constitutional amendment in Montana. The goal is to protect life, but it so poorly thought out that CI-100 is unworkable. Hats off to the wise bishops of Montana for seeing this proposal for what it is.

Tell you what, rather than ramble on about when life begins, why don’t you read the proposed amendment to the Montana constitution. Then let’s discuss if it was wise for the bishops not to endorse it.

Nohome

 

[rlg94086]

We are in agreement. This thread isn’t about the right to life. It is about a bizarre constitutional amendment in Montana. The goal is to protect life, but it so poorly thought out that CI-100 is unworkable. Hats off to the wise bishops of Montana for seeing this proposal for what it is.

Tell you what, rather than ramble on about when life begins, why don’t you read the proposed amendment to the Montana constitution. Then let’s discuss if it was wise for the bishops not to endorse it.

Nohome

There is no reason to be rude Nohome. You could have nipped that discussion in the bud in post #9, rather than countering Ender’s statement about the beginning of life with a discussion of acorns. You are as much at fault for “rambling on about when life begins” as anyone else.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

See Judy Brown column . the bishops of Georgia and Colorado are also opposing initiatives. It appears that most bishops believe they are the only experts on effective polical action. However, I don’t see that in their job description or in the gifts bestowed on them at ordination.

 

[Nohome]

There is no reason to be rude Nohome. You could have nipped that discussion in the bud in post #9, rather than countering Ender’s statement about the beginning of life with a discussion of acorns. You are as much at fault for “rambling on about when life begins” as anyone else.

No intention to be rude. Let me rephrase the comment to include my own guilt of wandering off topic.

Tell you what, rather than our rambling on about when life begins, why don’t we read the proposed amendment to the Montana constitution. Then let’s discuss if it was wise for the bishops not to endorse it.

Nohome

 

[rlg94086]

No intention to be rude. Let me rephrase the comment to include my own guilt of wandering off topic.

Tell you what, rather than our rambling on about when life begins, why don’t we read the proposed amendment to the Montana constitution. Then let’s discuss if it was wise for the bishops not to endorse it.

Nohome

Fair enough.

 

[Nohome]

Here is a link to the actual proposed amendment:

life2008.org/about/

If you read this, you will see that this goes way beyond protecting the unborn. For all intents and purposes, it makes the unborn citizens of Montana.

While subsection 3 defines a “person”, subsection 2 grants said persons with the rights to “acquiring, possessing and protecting property”. It goes on to say that “all persons recognize corresponding responsibilities” and I think we can all agree that a zygote recognizes nothing.

One possible outcome would be that any woman that miscarries has denied another person’s “rights of pursuing life’s basic necessities.” And that is just from looking at one tiny slice of the Montana constitution. I am confident that there are endless other conflicts.

My advice to the pro-lifers of Montana is cut bait and try again.

Nohome

 

[rlg94086]

Here is a link to the actual proposed amendment:

life2008.org/about/

If you read this, you will see that this goes way beyond protecting the unborn. For all intents and purposes, it makes the unborn citizens of Montana.

While subsection 3 defines a “person”, subsection 2 grants said persons with the rights to “acquiring, possessing and protecting property”. It goes on to say that “all persons recognize corresponding responsibilities” and I think we can all agree that a zygote recognizes nothing.

One possible outcome would be that any woman that miscarries has denied another person’s “rights of pursuing life’s basic necessities.” And that is just from looking at one tiny slice of the Montana constitution. I am confident that there are endless other conflicts.

My advice to the pro-lifers of Montana is cut bait and try again.

Nohome

I agree. All that needs to be done is to hold that life begins at conception, but distinguish different rights pre-birth and post-birth. IOW…the only right that a non-born human and zygote would have would be the protection from being killed/aborted (as opposed to a natural miscarriage). There is no need to extend all Constitutional rights to the unborn.

 

[Nohome]

I agree. All that needs to be done is to hold that life begins at conception, but distinguish different rights pre-birth and post-birth. IOW…the only right that a non-born human and zygote would have would be the protection from being killed/aborted (as opposed to a natural miscarriage). There is no need to extend all Constitutional rights to the unborn.

This would make sense. After all, the law already treats minors different from adults. It seems to me that if Montana wishes to address this constitutionally, it would be better to write a stand alone section for the rights of the unborn.

Nohome

 

[KathleenElsie]

See Judy Brown column . the bishops of Georgia and Colorado are also opposing initiatives. It appears that most bishops believe they are the only experts on effective polical action. However, I don’t see that in their job description or in the gifts bestowed on them at ordination.

A quote by Archbishop Sheen:

“Who is going to save our Church? Not our bishops, our priests and religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the minds, the eyes, the ears, to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops act like bishops, and your religious act like religious.”

 

[Ender]

This would make sense. After all, the law already treats minors different from adults. It seems to me that if Montana wishes to address this constitutionally, it would be better to write a stand alone section for the rights of the unborn.

This seems reasonable to all of us. The question is: why didn’t the bishops take this position? Why just opt out? They not only didn’t take this position they didn’t even explain their opposition. If nothing else, the proposed amendment provided an excellent teaching opportunity for the fact that life does begin at conception, and they apparently missed that opportunity as well. The were MIA on this one.

Ender

 

[Nohome]

This seems reasonable to all of us. The question is: why didn’t the bishops take this position? Why just opt out? They not only didn’t take this position they didn’t even explain their opposition. If nothing else, the proposed amendment provided an excellent teaching opportunity for the fact that life does begin at conception, and they apparently missed that opportunity as well. The were MIA on this one.

Ender

I think we are finding some common ground. They could have stated that they don’t support the Montana amendment AS WRITTEN. They could have given a lot more why, rather than just say no thanks. In fact, it may be a bit presumptuous on my part to even assume that the bishops did not endorse this because it is poorly written. For all I know, they would have opted out even if it were perfectly written.

Still, I feel sorry for the pro-lifers of Montana. They have this nut case pushing for an amendment that stands no chance. Once it fails, it will be difficult to get the necessary momentum to try again with a different version.

Nohome

 

[brycelaliberte]

Well actually, as I see it, it would show that the official reason regarding the decision in Roe v. Wade was about the fact that personhood wasn’t technically ‘defined’ for the unborn, and so the right to privacy trumped the ‘potentiality of personhood.’

Got this off Wikipedia, Roe v. Wade. While not the best source, it does summarize nicely;

When weighing the competing interests that the Court had identified, Blackmun also asserted that if the fetus was defined as a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment then the fetus would have a specific right to life under that Amendment. However, the Court majority determined that the original intent of the Constitution (up to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868) did not include the unborn./QUOTE]

If this went through, then correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that then Roe v. Wade would need to be reviewed? I don’t know, but it seems to be something I remember learning in government class last year…

It would be very important that the obvious be stated, since people are prone to finding loopholes.

 

[Nohome]

If this went through, then correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that then Roe v. Wade would need to be reviewed? I don’t know, but it seems to be something I remember learning in government class last year…

It would be very important that the obvious be stated, since people are prone to finding loopholes.

That’s the problem. The “if” is insurmountable. If the proposed amendments to the Montana constitution JUST defined a person to include the unborn, it MIGHT stand a chance of being passed and COULD challenge Roe v. Wade. As it stands, it will loose miserably, leaving no chance to challenge a federal ruling. It is a complete waste of time.

Nohome