I Know I'm Not Religious, But ...

... should Family Research Council really being asking people to play God?:

"For a case with such enormous implications, Tuesday's ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court has received relatively little media attention," today's screed began. "The Rocky Mountain region is poised to take an enormous step in the movement to defend and define the personhood of the unborn. By a unanimous 7-0 decision, the high court gave its approval to language for a ballot initiative that pro-lifers hope to put before voters in November 2008. If successful, the campaign would make Colorado the first state to vote on the question of when life begins." [Emphasis added]

Now, it seems to me that, looked at in one way, it's a stupid question. Life comes from life; live mammals give birth to other live mammals, though other species go through an intermediary "egg" stage, so since nothing ever stops living in the birth process, assigning a specific point somewhere short of birth when something is "life" can hardly be anything but arbitrary.

Of course, the theocons want The Law to say that when embryo and sperm come together, that that's "life," thereby preventing women from getting abortions — but it seems to me that by the same logic, metastasizing cancer — the uncontrolled growth of cancerous cells within the body — has a claim on that definition as well — and after all, if God created cancer (which it'd be tough for a Believer to deny), who are the religious to say it's okay to cut it out?

Just a thought... 


icon AVN NEWSLETTERS -- stay informed
AVN puts an honest, funny, and skeptical spin on the state of sexual pop culture, celebrity, and politics.
AVN Daily
Internet Weekly
Novelty Weekly
Gay Weekly
The Pulse - The Industry's Entertainment Tabloid