What is Personhood & the harm it is intended to promote?

I have often illustrated that the moral and rational objectives of any political act can be reduced to answering the question of which position results in “The Most Harm to the Most People”?

Consider the initiatives being – once again – proposed by those who, under the guise of opposing abortion, wish to redefine personhood as beginning with conception.  Their true agenda is to inflict untold harm on as many people as possible, and impose a condition where moral imperatives will cause the destruction of our society – or, if we are to believe scripture, result in the damnation of the vast majority of “faithful”.

Consider this:
1.  Old Testament Scripture defines birthright as beginning with birth, and the termination of a fetus only counts as murder, if the termination is the result of a brutal assault upon a pregnant woman.  Absent those two conditions, at a time when abortions were common, scriptural law said nothing about the act of abortion being wrong.  Moreover, the New Testament makes no mention of th practice of abortion – which was common in both Hellenistic and Roman society.  It is therefore clear that the source of scripture had no objection to abortion – even abortion which sterilized, or even costed the life of, the mother.  Thus the moral imperative just can’t be supported – especially when it means redefining life as scripturally defined.  Obviously, those who go against scripture are immoral – at least in terms of those who claim scripture as their moral guide and basis for their behavioral mandates.
2.  Defining personhood from conception means issuing a death sentence for a woman who has an  Ectopic pregnancy – which, under any circumstances, cannot be defined as a viable pregnancy.  So the purpose is obviously change then law so as to kill those women.  That is, in North America, 19.7 of every 1,000 pregnancies, or roughly TWO percent of all pregnancies – as is, a single factor which currently accounts for 9% of all pregnancy-related deaths.  The GOAL IS TO KILL one in fifty woman who seek to have a child.  That is the chief objective of individuals like Keith Mason – the individual identified as a driving force behind the current movement.  By having the law changed, Mason and his cohorts can commit mass murder.  CONSIDER the scope: Each year there are approximately 4 million births in the United States; if, for the sake of simplicity, we count them as the only pregnancies, than this change in law will cause EIGHTY THOUSAND deaths annual – or the equivalent of, at least, twenty-nine times the deaths caused al Qaeda on 9/11.  In short, Mason et al are promoting more deaths than Bin Laden could conceive of through any single action, or series of actions.

Then there is the issue of the children produced.
A.  Since only about half of all fertilized eggs  actually result in an ongoing pregnancy, there is an issue as to how we account for those that spontaneously abort.  Do we have a coroner’s inquest for each, so as to determine the cause was “natural” and not “murder”? 
B.  Of those that survive, as we have bestowed personhood, do they now gain legal rights?  Are they citizens?  And if conceived outside of United States territory, are they aliens who must then be naturalized – regardless of the nationality of their parents?  Conversely, are they citizens if concieved in the United States – regardless of whether or not mother was only in transit through US Territory at the time of conception?  Get the feeling we would be clogging the courts with conception cases?  If you do you have realized the 9/11 economic agenda of Mason and his associates – cripple the American economy with necessary legal actions related to citizenship rights.
C. In terms of crippling the economy, there is the matter of healthcare, education and a multitude of other costs associated with children whose parents might, or might not, want to assume support obligations (enforcement again brings the courts & social service agencies into play).  If we wish them to be productive, we need to pay for education – which Mason’s supporters, uniformly, want to decrease.  As to medical costs, Mason’s associates and related politicians, uniformly, want to decrease medicare and medicaid to the point of requiring people to purchase their own medical insurance – meaning that the poor will receive no medical care and will increase in numbers.  This will increase crime and disease – thus, again imposing a Bin Laden style 9/11 economic agenda designed to destroy American society.

The change in “personhood” is therefore both scripturally immoral and a deliberate terrorist act aimed at the destruction of America – by imposing  “The Most Harm to the Most People.”