Consitutional amendment, part 3

Leaving aside the Orwellian doublespeak of the proposed Kansas amendment (“giving up your rights will make you free”), what concerns me is how it does not deal with the real human issues. If we accept that all life is precious, we still need to think about some serious questions.

Who will proper take care of and protect babies? How will healthcare and counseling be provided for victims of sexual assualt, some as young as 11 years old, who will now have no choice but to give birth? How will adoption services be adjusted and properly regulated? What will be the appropriately increased penalties for rapists whose crimes will now have vastly greater consequenses?

If we think seriously from the perspective of “pro-life”, rather than just throwing around that term as a glib slogan, what is the proper role of Government here? Government needs, at the very least, to take seriously the dictum “If you break it, you own it.” It shouldn’t just take away rights, cause a big mess, and then say “not my problem.”

2 thoughts on “Consitutional amendment, part 3”

  1. The name “pro-life” confuses me. Or this is also doublespeak? “pro-life” seems you have no right to get a doctor’s help even when your life is in danger. A bit more precise name is “women-doesn’t-matter” or something like that to show that this includes a discrimination problem.

  2. I am trying to point out that the phrase itself can, and should, be taken literally, rather than as a glib political slogan. If you are really in favor of life, then you must care about the health and safety of a prospective mother.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *