I feel I need to address another argument concerning Initiative 26. I have included this in my original post, (please read it first, if you haven’t already) but feel I need to address it separately as well.
Argument #6 The initiative is poorly written.
I will admit I am probably as much baffled by this argument as by any other. I have heard it stated, “I am a Christian and I am against abortion, but the wording is too vague.” Too vague? Let’s have another look.
“…to define the word person…to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent…”
Vague? Hardly. The wording could not possibly be any more clear and concise. May I suggest that this is a misunderstanding concerning the purpose of an amendment? Take a look at our Bill of Rights. These amendments are one sentence. ONE SENTENCE! They do not address every possible implication of the amendment. They couldn’t possibly. They do not address ONE SINGLE implication. That’s not the purpose.
The purpose of this initiative is ONLY to establish a foundational truth, a fundamental principle. As of right now the concept of personhood is not defined in the constitution. IT SHOULD BE.
Now, if we are talking about the implications of this initiative being unknown, I whole heartedly agree. However, the initiative Is Not Vague. There will always be unknowns. Always.
Are there absolute implications if this amendment passes? YES! I am voting for this amendment for that reason, as well as the fact that there are ABSOLUTE IMPLICATIONS IF IT DOESN’T PASS.
We can’t be sure how some things will be interpreted if it passes. We CAN, however, be sure that the courts will continue to treat the unborn as expendable if it does not pass.
Friend, I ask you the question again, Do you believe that an unborn baby is a person?
Initiative 26 only establishes the personhood of the unborn.
This is the only question.
If you believe that an unborn baby is a person, vote yes.
Please stand up and speak for those that can’t defend themselves.