Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Duck is a Duck, and Human a Human

Let's switch the language a little then, and see if this, too, is illegal. Let's pass a law that states:

"As soon as the fetus develops the features of a human being, it shall considered a human being. These features being body parts (head, torso, arms and legs), a beating heart, and a developing brain."

How could such not be considered a human being? How could it be illegal -- unconstitutional -- to declare something that has the features of a human being to be a human being?

Yet, today's news tells of the Oklahoma Supreme Court striking down a ballot initiative in Oklahoma that would have pronounced that life begins at conception. The Oklahoma Court said the initiative was "clearly unconstitutional" and "void on its face."

Pro-Choice supporters have characterized efforts to define an embryo as a human to be part of a war on women, and they say eggs should not be allowed to trump the rights of women.

I say, though, what is wrong with saying if it looks and has the features of a human, then it is a human? Let's write the legislation so it says little more than that a human is a human. If someone were to propose a law saying, "If it looks and acts like a duck, and has ducks for its parentage, it will be considered a duck," would that be unconstitutional?

A duck is a duck, and a human a human. How saying that becomes unconstitutional is beyond me.

The Oklahoma case will be appealed, and if declaring an embryo to be a human is to lead to Roe v. Wade being overturned, that could still happen.

But, should the effort fail, let's declare a human to be a human. It seems the courts would be hard pressed to call such a law illegal. It won't save all the unborn, and it won't end all abortions. But, the lifes of many might well be saved.

No comments:

Post a Comment