Mississippi's Proposition 26- Some Thoughts

J+M+J

Proposition 26, a ballot initiative in the State of Mississippi that would have amended that State’s Constitution to define the term “person,” was defeated on Tuesday night, and it wasn’t nearly as close as expected. Here is the text of the proposal:

"Initiative #26 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to define the word 'person' or 'persons', as those terms are used in Article III of the state constitution, to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof."

I was very surprised to read analysis today, (like this on CNN) indicating that women “weren’t even sure how far-reaching [the amendment] would be because the language was so ambiguous.” Ambiguous?

We (you, me, Americans in general) have lost the ability to be honest with ourselves. There is nothing ambiguous about the proposed amendment. It is something like a first principle: a thing that is either true or it is not true; something with which you can either agree or disagree. There’s nothing ambiguous about first principles. The State Constitution either should, or should not, define the term “person” to include human beings from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or their functional equivalent.

We are dishonest because it is easier to let ourselves believe that the language is ambiguous, rather than face the fact that we know the truth, and we don’t like it - perhaps because we have violated the principle.

I can understand a person voting no because they do not think that a fertilized egg is a human being; I certainly don’t agree with it, but I understand it. If they really, truly think that, then they are being logical. But I think that a great majority of those that voted no on the proposal think that a fertilized egg is a human being from the moment of fertilization. They lied to themselves.

No, the proposed amendment was not ambiguous; not even the repercussions of the proposal are ambiguous. We can agree, for example, that an adult woman is a person. There is no ambiguity contained in that sentence (she either is or isn’t). Neither is there any ambiguity in the repercussions of that statement: violating (that is, killing, hurting, stealing from) a grown woman is wrong, and society recognizes that by punishing someone who does it. So, if a fertilized egg is a person? The same repercussions follow: that hurting or killing a fertilized egg is wrong and should not be allowed! Of course, there are particulars to every case; if a person is being attacked and defends himself, society recognizes the subjective specifics of the situation, and does not punish the self-defender. (Would a woman who experiences a miscarriage be put on trial? Really?)

I think voters are hiding behind feigned “ambiguity,” simply because they don’t want to address the real question that an honest vote raises: Do my actions reflect my beliefs? We all put blinders on to our wrongdoings; we find ways to trivialize them, justify them… or we ignore them altogether. Modern science - and those who package it and provide it to us - is great at allowing us to focus on exactly what we want to focus on, and to ignore everything else. To be clear: for a woman taking the pill, there is a chance during each cycle that a fertilized egg will be flushed from her body - prevented from implanting by the direct working of the pill she takes to suppress ovulation every day. But she doesn’t see that, she doesn’t feel it. There’s only the possibility of it - she might not even know about it (except for the publicity this amendment has given to this very likely possibility). It’s so much easier to ignore.

So let’s be honest:

Do you believe that a fertilized egg is a person? In your heart of hearts… when no one is looking… what percentage of people can really, honestly say “no” to themselves?

If you believe that a fertilized egg is a person, and you knew that taking a pill could (and over the course of taking the pill for ten years, almost certainly will, more than once) force that person to be flushed from its temporary home, how can you go on taking that pill?

As many as 70% of women of child-bearing age use the pill. I ask you to look inside your heart and ask yourself: do you believe that a fertilized egg is a human being, with a soul imbued by God? Do you understand that it is a medical fact that the pill acts by preventing fertilized eggs (humans with souls, unless you really think otherwise) from implanting in the uterus and forces them to be flushed out? Can you really go on doing this to your babies?

We don’t need laws or constitutional amendments to tell us what’s right and what’s wrong; more of us need to stand up and do the right thing, regardless of what society tolerates. What we must do is pray: pray and do what we know in our hearts to be right, and help our friends and family to do the same. If enough of us do that, maybe then we can change the world. Change will not come from the top down; no politician cares enough to change the world. It has to start with us.