ixthusAgitator

I voted Obama, and in Colorado, against the amendment declaring personhood to a fetus at fertilization. Guess I’m not a very good Christian. I did vote for saloons to be legal again, though, so at least I’ve got that going for me.

I voted Obama despite his “lack of experience” because one man does not, cannot, run the country (unless you’re a maverick or a Dick…Cheney or tater). The President is largely a figurehead, a force for driving discourse and pulling people together toward a common purpose and representing the rest of us in the affairs of the rest of the world. The President is also Commander-in-Chief and chief decision maker, but again, none of that is, or should be, done in a vacuum. General Petraeus has not been the great leader he’s been without wise advisors and experienced followers helping him. Obama’s no different—the test of his mettle will not be “executive experience” but who he chooses to advise him, and so far Obama has proved himself there. He’s not a maverick, he’s a community organizer—someone who puts the good of the common person above himself and inspires enemies to work together for the good of everyone. America needs a leader like this, as does the rest of the world, and McCain is not this kind of leader.

I voted against the Amendment because 1)the definition of personhood is not biologically sound—fertilization happens in the fallopian tubes but it is not viable until it implants in the uterus. This is a crucial difference with 2)important political ramifications. If legal rights are conferred to a fertilized egg in the fallopian tubes, then something as simple, routine, and important as “fixing” an ectopic pregnancy would legally be murder. Other important, basic public health measures would become problematic, such as simple birth control for impoverished people, not to mention cases of rape and incest.

Forget about the lefty “right to choose” argument—the tables would be turned on everyone as the now overly restricted AMA would also finally have the power to obstruct a couple’s “right to choose” an out of hospital birth. The general opinion of the AMA, despite inconclusive evidence, is that birth is safest in the hospital and, in 1 out of 3 cases, under the knife. With their influence, an out of hospital birth could be construed as neglect and abuse, landing well-meaning and well-informed parents in jail. Is that pro-family?

These are just a few problems off the top of my head. Simply put, I don’t trust anyone from the religious groups to the AMA to the politicians to correctly handle a constitutional declaration like this. Until we the people have the will to quit fear-mongering and choose the right thing on our own without legal pressure, abortion legislation will never change and I’m not convinced it should. I’m happy this Amendment was struck down so decisively. Someday, perhaps we’ll see a less reactionary proposal that is mre carefully thought through and with a stronger, wider base of support. I welcome that day.

Put these together, Obama and fetuses, and you’ve got a potent cocktail of Christian umbrage and outrage against the president-elect. No doubt, Obama’s track record is disturbing in this area, but I’m not a one issue man and the “pro-life” camp has proved itself largely inconsistent here. But Obama, in the way I hope he continues to work, has Casey, a Catholic advisor, who I hope will help him put a plan together to reduce the number of abortions by an extraordinary amount in the coming years. This would be a much better and organic way to achieve the goal most people want anyway without legislation. Because, let’s face, no one LIKES or WANTS abortions—they need more options and that’s what I hope Obama et al will work toward.