Human rights “personhood” amendment – Extending rights to the unborn
Should Human Rights, as defined today in America, extend to yet unborn babies? The American Life League says yes, and along with other pro-life organizations has announced its intent to propose a “Personhood” Human Rights Amendment to the Florida State Constitution.
A Press Conference was held Friday, September 11 at Florida’s State Capitol in Tallahassee to announce their intent. With pre-released media announcements, the group was already receiving criticism from pro-choice and abortion rights organizations.
The Amendment would recognize human rights for all human beings from the beginning of their biological development. Florida would be the first state to pass such an amendment. The Florida personhood movement recognizes unborn children as having the same inherent rights, dignity and value as every living human.
The proposed Amendment to the Florida Constitution reads in part as follows:
SECTION 28. Person Defined–
(a) The words “person” and “natural person” apply to all human beings, irrespective of age, race, health, function, condition of physical and/or mental dependency and/or disability, or method of reproduction, from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.
This connects with the Founding Fathers’ understanding of life as God created it:
As much as the colonists wanted to separate from Great Britain—and as much as American society today tries to obliterate the founding fathers’ faith in God— the words, faith and theories of English lawyer and judge Sir William Blackstone greatly influenced original American law.
Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” written circa 1765, was used to help shape the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. If our judges who presided over Roe v. Wade had gone back and read some of what Blackstone said on life, they would find these statements (italics and bolding are mine):
“Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it
begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter…”
“An infant in ventre fa mere [in the mother’s womb] is supposed in law to be born for many purposes. It is capable of having a legacy, or a surrender of a copyhold estate made to it. It may have a guardian assigned to it; and it is enabled to have an estate limited to it’s use, and to take afterwards by such limitation, as if it were then actually born.”
Blackstone’s opinion was obviously formed with a Biblical basis, echoing a key Bible verses which commands respect for early human life:
Psalm 139:13: For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
This writer is not receiving remuneration or recognition of any kind from the organizations mentioned in this article.
See the writings of Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on The Laws of England, Book I, Of The Rights of Persons, Vol I. Section 1, originally written in 1765, reprinted Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1962.