 |
 |
Blastocysts lobbying politicians ? I always suspected Americans were weird :) Quoting Schaaf Angus / Meadow Creek Ranch <[log in to unmask]>: > Unbelievable. > This country was founded on and for religious freedoms. > Legislating morality is stupid and evidenced every day we see that > politicians are stupid too. Personal choices need to be just that and keep > the government out of our private lives and decisions. > So if you dont believe in having an abortion and want to bring whatever into > existence then do so but dont impose your beliefs on me or anyone else that > believes differently. Rob > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "rayilynlee" <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 5:00 PM > Subject: Blastocyst Protection Act > > > > #443Tuesday, May 20, 2008 > > BLASTOCYST PROTECTION ACT? > > Colorado "Personhood > > > > In Colorado this November, voters will decide on a Constitutional > Amendment > > which defines life as beginning at fertilization*. > > If approved, this religiously-driven initiative threatens the entire > field > > of embryonic stem cell research, at very least in Colorado, and if > > successful, in other states as well. Why do I call it religiously-driven, > > when so many members of faith communities (including 72% of American > > Catholics, according to one poll) support embryonic stem cell research? > > > > First, the author of the initiative, Kristy Burton, a twenty-year old > > graduate of home school high school and an on-line religious law school, > > makes no secret that religion is her motivation, publicly announcing that > > God is on her side in this issue. "And, more than anything, we have God > on > > our side (Ms. Burton) said." > > --"Anti-abortion plan gets OK: Amendment would say fertilized egg > qualifies > > as person", J. Ensslin, Rocky Mountain News, November 13, 2007. > > > > Secondly, according to the Catholic News Agency. (CNA, May 14, 2008) > "about > > 500 participating churches" helped in the effort to put the Personhood > > Amendment on the ballot. > > > > Leaving aside the Constitutional requirement of separation of church and > > state, the proposed Constitutional Amendment sounds harmless at first. > > 'The term "Person" or "Persons" shall include any human from the time of > > fertilization." > > Would it matter, if those words became a permanent part of the Colorado > > Constitution? > > The sponsor's website (http://www.coloradoforequalrights.com) gives a > hint: > > > > "To see that the Colorado state constitution is amended to include > pre-born > > from the moment of fertilization as having their "personhood" clearly > > established, so that they may enjoy equal protection under the law."Look > > closely at the words, remembering they may become law: > > > > ".the moment of fertilization." when sperm meets egg: the > blastocyst.".personhood > > clearly established." the blastocyst would be legally defined a > full-fledged > > human being. ".that they may enjoy equal protection under the law."-the > > blastocyst is quite literally entitled to a lawyer: this essentially > > invisible dot of tissue could be represented in a court of law- with > rights > > equal to all other American citizens. > > > > Why is this amendment being pushed? First and foremost, it is an > > anti-abortion law, and is recognized as such by both sides, although Ms. > > Burton herself denies this, ---------------------------------------------- This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn