Maurice,
Now that the vote has failed in Mississippi, I believe it is easier to discuss the potential implications of such a law without as much emotional baggage to taint the discussion.Also, before I begin, I would like to say to those who believe in such an amendment or statute that unlike them, I have the ability to see the "other side." If I truly believed, as they do, in humanity beginning at conception, I would probably be fighting the same battle they are. The problem, in its simplest form, however, is that they are unable recognize the possibility that they could be wrong.

If any law is passed that provides legal status as a "person" to a zygote, its implications would, indeed, be as "grave" as people have imagined (pun intended). ALL abortion would be illegal (I can make arguments to the contrary, but that would be the natural outcome of the legislation), doctors, nurses, OR technicians, and a bevy of others including those who merely counsel such an action would be able to be held criminally liable. Moreover, it would seem to place physicians in the unenviable position of sacrificing a grown woman's life because they would have no authority to terminate a pregnancy that would lead to her death; yet that death would ultimately lead to the death of the zygote - person anyway.

There is no "science" behind any of these legislative efforts, only religious dogma and personal philosophy. Moreover, there can never be any science behind either side, since we are discussing a matter of definition and belief rather than fact. I will therefore try to apply a maxim, not of science but of law.

When interpreting an ambivalent statute, one of the first maxims that attorneys and courts use is that any interpretation must not produce irrational results. We have laws forbidding homicide in every jurisdiction in the world, but most also allow exceptions such as self defense and defense of others. Any other interpretation would be irrational and, as such, not truly enforceable. Such would be the case with this type of statute or constitutional amendment. If the life of a mother were in danger, she would be allowed to terminate the pregnancy as "self defense," and the physician could be held exempt under the doctrine of "defense of others." This is far from an ideal situation, and would still lead to criminal prosecutions, but it would greatly ameliorate the effective criminality created by the law.

More likely than this, however, is that it would be struck down by even the most conservative courts as being unconstitutional (under the US Constitution, which supersedes state law) for failing to allow the exceptions, and thus criminalizing the saving of life as well as the taking of it because, there would be NO scenario where physicians could do the "right" thing. If they save the mother's life by terminating the pregnancy, they would be criminals. On the other hand, if they simply allow the mother to die when a simple procedure could save her nearly 100% of the time, they would also be criminals. Not even the most conservative member of the US Supreme Court would allow such a law to stand.

My final message to those who would pass such laws; DON'T! Even if we grant you the best motives, you are facing a law yourselves - the law of unintended consequences. Julius Caesar once wrote that all bad laws begin with good intentions.

Maurice,
First, those who favored the law were unconcerned about the consequences. They had a political and religious agenda that needed to be satisfied. I suspect they thought they could deal with the consequences, intended or unintended later.

Secondly, no; a statute or amendment doesn't needt to show that it was screened for anything. If it did, we would never have had the Volstead Act. That is left to the state legislors and the votors.

There are two answers to your question, and they are inherent within the question itself. As physicians and scientists, we can make certain determinations involving fetal development, as well as its implications. For instance, we can observe when the fetal nervous system is sufficiently developed for us to believe it has the potential of becoming self aware. On the other hand, "personhood" is something that is defined in terms of our beliefs and philosophies and, to a certain extent, arbitrarily.

An example would be that we could define "personhood" or humanity as that point when a fetus can or does become self aware. Prior to that, abortion, and many of the activities you mentioned would be perfectly legal (albeit not very smart in most cases). After that point, we would need to define other concepts as to when the risk to the mother outweighs the risk to the fetus, etc., and when a killing becomes a double homicide. These are questions I've thought a good deal about, but my answers are too long to write at this point. Still, I think the most important point to come away with is that whatever we do, our answers are, and of needs must be somewhat arbitrary. Let's hope they are not also capricious.