I really don’t have the desire to debate the issue contained within the text of Georgia HR 536, The Paramount Right To Life Amendment. Most of you know where I stand, and I know where most of you stand. To debate what you believe and what I believe about when human life begins will end-up exactly where we both started: a lot of disagreement and exasperation. Let’s skip that feeling all together, okay?

However, a rather interesting post I read on PeachPundit.com tonight sparked my mind to start thinking about this legislation in a completely different light. AND…it is a light that actually may cause a lot of the pro-life legislators to become quite against HR 536, and for the pro-choice legislators to actually turn in favor of it.

Or, it might not do either. After all, I do, on occasion, think that the people we elect to office possess and practice the same basic commonsense that I have…and I’ve been more and more disappointed in the validity of THAT presumption over the past 4 years.

The blog post I read concerned someone celebrating the “birth” of their new baby…and the fact that on this year’s tax form, that new baby gets to be a deduction: Two people filing jointly become three deductions on the 1040 Form…all because a baby was “born.”

Now, I am putting the words “birth” and “born” in quotes because although we currently have definitions of what those words mean, if HR 536 were to pass on the ballot, those words would actually become meaningless in this state.

The text of HR 536 states the following:

(a) The rights of every person shall be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life. The right to life is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person.

(b) With respect to the fundamental and inalienable rights of all persons guaranteed in this Constitution, the word ‘person’ applies to all human beings, irrespective of age, race, sex, health, function, or condition of dependency, including unborn children at every state of their biological development, including fertilization.

Now, if you bestow “personhood” on the human zygote in the womb (or, even the amoeba) at the moment of conception, then that means the following can, and, as it often is in our system of laws, WILL happen:

1) The legal birthday of that “person” becomes the date of conception. (I guarantee you even the most average of lawyers would be successful in arguing that to be the correct interpretation of the law.)

2) At that date of conception is when the parent(s) can begin deducting that “person” on their taxes. (Again, even the most average of tax attorneys could successfully argue that to be perfectly valid.)

3) All of the “welfare moms” who now receive monthly checks from the government for their children will be able to start receiving those checks right after the date of conception. What’s that? I’m hearing mumblings from pro-life conservative Republicans who don’t feel like allowing these 9-months-prior-to-normal-birth-welfare-moms to start collecting money on their new “persons” in the wombs. (What’s that? You’re going to pass another law that disallows this money until the zygote actually forms into a fetus and gets “born” the old-fashioned way? Well, that’s okay, we’re used to your continual and consistent demonstrations of sheer hypocrisy.)

4) At the moment of conception, the “person” will be assigned a social security number, and be eligible for anything a regular, air-breathing “person” is eligible for now.

5) If this were to become a constitutional amendment, either in Georgia or on a national basis (Huckabee supporters, pay close attention here), that would mean that in the event of any cessation of the life of the zygote, the blastocyst, the fetus, etc., that death would be immediately subject to a law enforcement examination into whether the “death” was involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, or murder. Those are three very possible categories of causation of death that could be applied to explain the death of the “person” in the womb.

Why should the usual pro-choice, mostly Democratic Party members jump for joy at this? Because it instantly adds more mouths to the government dole. Why should the pro-life, mostly Republican Party members re-think their positions? Because, again, it adds more people to the government dole. Just think…rather than just the newborn child being added as a tax deduction, ALL expenses from the moment of conception until the child is 18 can be deducted on the tax form. Most births cost a whole lot more than taking a child to the doctor for sniffles. With this amendment, and subsequent reinterpretation of tax-deduction laws, a whole new world opens-up in the field of taxation.

And, since ALL of you pro-lifers’ efforts are singularly focused on preventing the woman from taking any action she wishes to voluntarily abort the pregnancy now, in the event of the “person’s” death, the most likely explanation would be that the woman must have done something she should not have done, and she needs to be held criminally liable. And, of course, be thrown in jail. (Hey, but pro-life people will think that’s perfectly fine since it’s darned difficult for THAT woman to get pregnant again in an all-women’s prison…and, we certainly don’t want to risk another “person” possibly ending-up in the womb of a murderer, do we?)

Or, perhaps in the event that someone else besides the mother actually does cause the cessation of the growth of the “person”, THAT person can be charged with one of these: involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, or murder. So, under this new amendment, the person driving the car that hits the pregnant woman and causes the death of the “person,” that driver should just go to jail for the rest of his/her life.

From what I understand, Rep. Martin Scott believes that nothing will happen in Georgia if this passes as long as no “new” legislation is passed. Martin Scott is too stupid to breathe air.

The fact is that if the amendment were to pass, ALL laws that apply to “persons” now will be re-interpreted to include the new definitions of “personhood” and…then it will be a free-for-all.

Oooohhh, yeah. What a wonderful new existence we would have in this society were “personhood” to become defined as starting at the moment of conception. That’s reeeeeeeeally good thinking, Folks. Really, really gooooooooood conservative, [Mr. Subliminal wants you to insert the word “moronic” here] “Republican” thinking is going on in our legislature with this type of proposed legislation.

– Bill Simon
(A Republican who will remain one because of the OTHER principles…you know, the ones the pro-life people like to ignore in favor of THIS one issue…weird stuff like liberty and less government intrusion…yeah, those principles that have yet to be practiced by any American-based Republican government administration in this decade.)

This entry was posted by Bill Simon, on Sunday, February 17th, 2008 at 10:52 am and is filed under Law and Justice, Odds and Ends, Political Boxers and Tagged: Erick Erickson, GOP, human being, human life, life, PeachPundit.com, person, personhood, pro-choice, pro-life
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.