Incongruous Terminology

referenced from

referenced from

I almost wish I hadn’t used the “personhood” cartoon in my “History Ignored” post, because it would fit perfectly here.  How was I to know that it was becoming such a current issue in North Dakota?
This article is the first I’ve seen that indicates the the personhood movement may be making serious progress.  Dangerous progress.  They’re relying on confusion to pass a very significant legal decision in the form of an amendment qualifying an embryo at any stage as a person with inalienable rights.  The article lists some of the many issues with both the ambiguous phrasing and the momentous potential behind them.  It would open up pathways for fertility clinic regulation and lawsuits, birth control restrictions, and basically anything else that could be even remotely connected with the idea of “personhood.”  The amendment is designed to attract people who would otherwise be unsure about the pro-life vs pro-choice arguments that are typically made.  It essentially seems designed to trick people.  I don’t know about you, but I tend to think that amendments should be passed based on informed decision.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s