To Seth Anthony:
I enjoyed reading your insightful article on Amendment 48. I found it interesting to hear that you are “strongly pro-life,” but you oppose the amendment. I, on the other hand, am not “pro-life” but support the amendment.
I do not know what the term “pro-life” means; it is too vague. Instead, I choose to take the “pro-indirect and/or unintentional abortion” stance or the “anti-direct abortion” stance.
In other words, I believe that women who take chemical contraceptives, which could possibly and unintentionally prevent the embryo from implanting, should not be charged with murder.
I also support indirect abortion, which is a medical procedure that attempts to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of the fetus, but tragically and inevitably the fetus dies as a result of such surgeries.
Amendment 48 complies with my semi-pro-abortion stance. Since there is no way of determining when blastulas fail to implant, there would be no way of determining if a women’s chemical contraceptives are causing an abortion, thus these women could not be prosecuted.
Furthermore, indirect abortion would also remain legal since both the mother and the unborn child are being treated as “persons,” and the doctors are attempting to save the patient’s lives instead of end them. Amendment 48 would not make chemical contraceptives illegal, nor would it make abortion illegal when the life of the mother is at risk.