Initiative 26: The vague wording argument.

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.


3 thoughts on “Initiative 26: The vague wording argument.

  1. A fertilized egg is a person in the process of being knit together by the Creator Who gave him/her life. The grey area comes when our emotions begin to weigh in. We become fearful of what might be. What very well could be. So fearful that we lose sight of what we know to be true. Invitro is a fabulous advancement in medical science. Yet the truth is, the Creator of life decides if a new life will begin. Whether it be one egg or thirty-four. My heart aches for those who cannot conceive with or without the help or medical science. I have prayed and cried with friends over this. I praise God for those babies who have come from wombs that were implanted with tiny babies called embryos. The fact remains, it is all directly from the hand of God.
    The question for me is not about wording or frozen babies or any of that. The question for me is do I trust God Almighty enough to let Him decided the course Proposition 26 will follow if it is voted in? Do I trust Him enough to know He will honor obedience; obedience in trusting Him as I uphold the sanctity of life, the personhood of tiny babies? Do I trust Him enough to not be worried about all the babies that may burst upon the scene (that would come from His hand) of His created world, because forms of the pill are outlawed? No baby is conceived apart from His orchestration. No baby is born apart from His guiding hand. Do I trust Him enough to be possibly inconvenienced by it all?

    There are so many heartaches in this world; heartaches that seem so unfair; heartaches that should seemingly be ended. We live in a world, in a country, that has solutions for almost everything. We are blessed with advanced medical care, for which I am very thankful. We live in a society used to getting what we work hard for. I don’t mean to sound simplistic or insensitive. But it is a fact. We are not used to being inconvenienced, and not sure how to handle not being able to understand. Mostly in our advanced society, we don’t know how to trust. To truly trust.

    So for me, the question is not about the wording of Prop 26. It is about trusting God. If I show that I believe Scripture, where personhood is outlined, can I trust God with the results?

  2. These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
    (Pro 6:16-19)

  3. This is really basic Emily. Thanks for pointing it out so clearly. Statements in the Bill of Rights are general and sweeping by their very nature. More particular application is always the business of individual lawyers, legislators, and judges.

Comments are closed.