The Oct. 16 Herald editorial came close to the truth when it stated, “(I)f any potential life is a person, any loss of that life is potentially wrongful...” The problem with this statement is that there is no such thing as “potential life.” There is either life or there is not. Science has shown that a unique, unrepeatable, human person is present from the first moment of its creation, something the editorial refers to as a “fertilized egg.” This language seeks to dehumanize the new little person, so that we feel free to violently discard her without bothering our consciences.

The problem is, it doesn’t work. You see, that “fertilized egg” is a new baby with the exact DNA that she will have when she is a toddler which is the exact same DNA she will have as a teenager and the exact same DNA she will have when she is a senior citizen. That baby isn’t a “potential future human being” any more than you are. That baby is a person from the first moment of her existence.

This fact requires us to recognize that new child’s inherent rights, something that we all possess by virtue of our existence. Amendment 67 simply acknowledges this fact and includes the preborn in the protections of the law that the rest of us enjoy. Ignoring this fact is greatly harmful, not just to pregnant women and their preborn babies, but to each of us and society. When we don’t stand up for the rights of others, we diminish our own rights. The primary purpose of government is to protect our inherent rights, especially those of the weakest among us. Government does not confer rights, but if it isn’t required to secure and defend the rights of all, then eventually we’ll find that, in the eyes of our government, none of us have rights.

Good government unites people to work toward a common good. There is no greater common good than life. Let’s unite to secure the rights of all residents by voting for Amendment 67!

Mickey O’Hare

Ignacio