Welcome to the Personhood Blog

As we discuss the possibility of overturning Roe vs. Wade, we must remember that the foundational question is not primarily a question of a woman’s right to privacy, control over her own body or even her material well-being. We would agree that she has those rights within the limits established by our laws. Additionally, we would assert that it is not about various methods of birth control or the imposition of some outdated morality. Correctly viewed, it is, by it’s very nature . . . a civil rights question.

You and I are human beings. A human being is simply a living organism of the species Homo sapiens. All human beings in the U.S. have certain inalienable rights that are recognized and protected by the State . . . the highest of these is the paramount right to life. Without this basic right to live, all other rights are moot, including a woman’s right to choose. The courts agree with this reasoning and have established this to be the law. Hence, in Georgia, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act prosecutes an individual for TWO counts of murder whenever a pregnant woman and her fetus dies from a criminal act.

I highly recommend, Prof. Charles Lugosi’s thesis entitled, Conforming to the rule of law: when person and human being finally mean the same thing in Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence. In it he has pointed out that once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live. Some argue that humanity doesn’t matter, but how can one’s humanity be irrelevant to the question of whether someone has the right to kill him? Wasn’t the black person’s humanity relevant to the issue of slavery, or the Jew’s humanity relevant to the ethics of the Holocaust? Not only is the unborn’s humanity relevant, it is the single most relevant issue in the whole abortion debate.

A human being is also a person, but unfortunately, an unborn human being is not considered a “person” in the eyes of the Supreme Court until it is born. The 14^th Amendment clearly affords the full protection of the State to all “Persons”, hence if a fetus were a “person” abortion would then become unthinkable, as would many of the current operations being performed on living, growing human beings, the end of which, is their death and disposal. Justice Blackmum, writing the majority opinion in Roe vs. Wade in 1973 said this, “(If the) suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14^th] Amendment.” Thus, the personhood of the preborn child is the single point on which the entire debate turns.

Dr. Lugosi went on to say, “It would behoove us to remember that there was once a time when human slavery was legal. The segregationists of the 1800’s argued that certain classes of humans beings were not persons and that they had no constitutional rights to life or liberty.” The Supreme Court agreed. Dehumanizing, derogatory or clinical language was used to depict this caste of non-persons as property . . . property to be disposed of at the will of the owner. The segregationists complained that the abolitionists were trying to impose their morality upon others. Huge financial profits were derived from the backs of those that the Court had determined to be only three-fifths of a person in the eyes of the law.

Today we have substituted age, size, gender and physical location as the grounds for the legal and institutional discrimination of unborn humans. Today’s segregationists center their argument on choice and thereby escape the glaring lapse of morality that occurs when one human enslaves or kills another for it own benefit. In order to advance their “quality of life” agenda, today’s segregationists promote abortion, cloning and the destruction of living human embryos.

Lugosi concludes, “Must we be reminded that it was not Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation proclamation which freed the slaves, but rather, the waging of a great Civil War. Civil unrest, political party polarization, .court battles, violence against abortionists, RICO charges, restriction on free speech and a nation that is deeply divided on the issue all point to the inescapable conclusion that we are engaged in just such a war.”

The opening battle of this national conflict was waged by a local woman, Sandra Cano of Doe vs. Bolton, 1973. These battles have continued to rage for over 34 years. It is only fitting that the last battle, the Personhood Amendment, may actually be fought right here in Georgia. Let’s let the people of Georgia decide the outcome.

Dan Becker
V.P. Georgia Right to Life