All In Favor

Being citizens of a democracy we like to vote on all sorts of matters. We vote for candidates for political office. We vote for singers and dancers on reality shows. We vote for our favorite movies and television shows and bedtime snacks. And some of us, in faith communities with congregational polity, even vote for our spiritual leaders. So I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised when I read in yesterday's New York Times (10-26-11) that there is now a movement afoot to vote on amendments to various state constitutions that would establish the legal definition of the beginning of human life.

Called the personhood movement, it appears to be most advanced in Mississippi, where anti-abortion forces have banded together to place a proposition on the ballot that amends the constitution of that state to read "the term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent." This amendment, presented as Proposition 26, would thereby criminalize all abortions. Even those involving rape or incest. Even those involving ectopic pregnancies. One of the ironies of the amendment, according to scientist Randall Hines, who is cited in the Times article, is the simple fact that, in his words, "the majority of fertilized eggs don't become people" because they never implant in the uterus! (New York Times, 10-26-11, A-16)

I was alarmed, though not really surprised, to read in the same article that there is an attempt here in Florida to introduce similar legislation. I will need to follow up on it.

The whole personhood movement strikes me, however, as rather illogical. After all, those who are promoting such measures as Proposition 26 are opposed to women exercising any choice when it comes to abortion. And most who are opposed to abortion would argue that we have no right to choose, because to do so interferes with divine prerogative. Yet in the very method they are using, voting, they are relying on voters making choices about when life begins. They are suggesting it is a matter not of divine prerogative, but rather majority rule.

If anti-abortion folks believe God has said abortion is wrong, then for them it is wrong. It doesn't matter what voters might say. But protecting their right to believe that way and to act on such beliefs requires protecting the rights of others to believe and act else wise.

There are some things that just shouldn't be subject to a vote. There are some things that must remain a matter of personal choice. And in our nation, those things must include those matter rooted in religious convictions.