What a grand thing to ponder on this, the anniversary of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution or something or other like that.

Dan

Just another example of the religious right trying to force it's "morals" on America...

There in not one word in the Colorado Amendment 48 that states anything about criminalizing abortion due to rape, incest, or life threading complications to the mother. In fact, no ware in the title or text of the amendment can you find the word "abortion".

Fact: Kristi Burton, a 20-year-old law student, heads Colorado for Equal Rights. She, her group, and their web site are not discussing the changes that would result if the referendum were passed. Burton notes that the constitutional amendment doesn't outlaw abortion, it doesn't regulate birth control. It's just a constitutional principle. We're laying a foundation that every life deserves protection. It's very clearly a single subject. If it's a human being, it's a person, and they deserve equal rights under our law.

Uhm, Franco, did you eat paint chips as a child?

...so by your logic the 14th amendment doesn't actually outlaw slavery because the word "slavery" never actually appears in it?

Were you born without that little part of your brain that provides INSIGHT, Franco?

You stated...
"Even if having the baby would kill the mother, the baby still cannot be removed. How on this earth anyone can support an amendment meant for life that may and will kill others, I don't know."

That is a untrue. Removal of the baby to save the mother has never been the problem. Christy Burton and supporters of the amendment are not against the removal of the baby in life threatening situations. Saving the mother and the baby should always be the goal. Saving the mother never requires that the baby is dismembered or burned with saline. Sometimes when you remove the baby, it is impossible to save the baby... but that should always be the goal. As technology advances, the more we can save.

You said...

"Even if abortion is wrong in some circumstances -- and it is -- some women get raped, are victims of incest, or just fall victim to an unfortunate incident like a broken condom."

Your position is illogical. The only way abortion can ever be wrong is because it's killing a baby. If it's not a baby, it can never be wrong. You know in your heart that it is a baby... that's why you say it's wrong in some circumstances.

We shouldn't punish children for the crimes of their parents. Punish the rapist and person committing incest... not the innocent crime who has done no wrong.

As for the "victim" of a broken condom. That would be the innocent baby who you say could be killed... not the parents, who were willfully participating in an act with natural results.

"Punish the rapist and person committing incest... not the innocent crime who has done no wrong."

Exactly.

So why would you punish the mother (who is innocent) by forcing her to have a baby conceived under those circumstances?

Steve Curtis said...
"Abortion for incest emboldens a criminal to rape his young relative, helps him escape being caught, tempts him to repeat his crime and is not compassionate because it kills a baby and increases the woman's suffering."

You can't understand his statement? I'll explain.
If the rapist of young girl is a relative, they can take the girl to a planned parenthood abortion clinic and have the evidence of the crime destroyed... and he gets away with rape. Is it inconceivable to you that a rapist who gets away with it will try again?
The baby is killed and the girl is left vulnerable to suffer rape again and again.

Abortion clinics are in the business of making money. They turn a blind eye to rape to make money. If the girl is 12 and guy is 21, they do not report the man for rape. They want to make the money.

Clavos - if she has an abortion, she woudln't be a mother, would she??? Or is that part of the argument, just like, when does an embryo become a person, when does a woman become a mother?

"So why would you punish the mother (who is innocent) by forcing her to have a baby conceived under those circumstances?"

The whole episode of rape is traumatic to the mother... but I notice that you did call her a mother. She isn't a mother unless she has a baby.

If you balance on the scales...

A trauma to one innocent person vs. the killing of another innocent person, you would rather kill one innocent to avoid pain and suffering to another.

Pain vs. Life!

Life needs to trump pain.

The pain of having a baby is temporary. The ending of a life is permanent.

Hundreds of thousands of couples unsuccessfully wait in line each year to adopt and love a baby.

The victim of rape can have the satisfaction of knowing she has loved her baby enough to allow the baby to be raised by parents who want to love the baby.

Chris,
At the top of your comments section your policy states "Personal attacks are not allowed."... yet you not only allowed a personal attack against Franco to stand, you piled on with your own personal attack against Franco.

Darrell @ #9:

You apparently missed the author's perfectly valid point later in that same paragraph: "He's also making an amazing assumption that the father won't rape again after the child is born."

If Curtis gets his way in this scenario, not only is the girl still vulnerable - now her baby is as well.

And @ #12:

Chris White is a contributor to this website, not an editor. He has no power to edit or remove comments.

As the assistant comments editor for Blogcritics, I can tell you that we try to keep the comments space as open a forum as possible. We'll edit or delete particularly egregious violations and even sometimes block persistent offenders, but it's important to allow you to 'speak your mind', so we operate with as light a hand as possible.

Comments like those you object to, while not exactly classy, were made in response to the opinion expressed by Franco, which apparently seemed less than sensible to Tazzy and Chris. Believe me, there have been far worse things said on this site!

But we do watch such comments and will take action if things get out of hand.

"You apparently missed the author's perfectly valid point later in that same paragraph: "He's also making an amazing assumption that the father won't rape again after the child is born."

If Curtis gets his way in this scenario, not only is the girl still vulnerable - now her baby is as well."

You apparently missed Curtis' and my point that the living baby is evidence of the rape that can be used against the rapist to convict him. An abortion would simply enable the rapist to get away with his crime then rape again because the evidence has been destroyed.

As for her baby now being vulnerable...the baby should be protected by convicting the rapist and allowing a loving family to adopt.

You imply that you are concerned about the vulnerability of the baby, but your answer is to kill the baby?

If you have a child and some criminal was attacking your child, would you kill your child to save him from the attack?

Well said Doc

"but I notice that you did call her a mother. She isn't a mother unless she has a baby."

Call it what you want, although I (and all of the medical and scientific world) call it a fetus until born, but I say you abort the "baby" if it's the product of rape, IF the mother wants it that way.

And as far as the incestuous rapist raping again I say, punish him as well; let him spend the rest of his life in jail being raped; which is punishment to fit the crime.

"You apparently missed Curtis' and my point that the living baby is evidence of the rape that can be used against the rapist to convict him. An abortion would simply enable the rapist to get away with his crime then rape again because the evidence has been destroyed."

Totally specious argument. Any necessary evidence can and is collected long before the fetus is viable, so aborting it (again, IF the woman wants it) is not going to prevent prosecution of the monster who raped her.

You apparently missed Curtis' and my point that the living baby is evidence of the rape that can be used against the rapist to convict him.

You're making a number of assumptions here. You and Curtis assume that the rape would be reported, that the victim would tell her doctor and/or the police who the father was, and that consent for paternity testing would be given.

If you know anything at all about the way incest and abuse (not to mention the criminal justice system) works, you'll realize that you're being awfully unrealistic here.

Amendment 48 does nothing to protect the victims or their babies.

Wow, I must've missed something, 8 new comments?

Darrel: You're saying that it would be totally impossible to prove the rape unless the baby is born? The aborted fetus or the fact that there is testimony in the first place can't prove that? He'll go to jail baby or not, and you're going to force the mother to raise a child either way?

"You're making a number of assumptions here. You and Curtis assume that the rape would be reported, that the victim would tell her doctor and/or the police who the father was, and that consent for paternity testing would be given."

We were talking about abortions in the case of rape and incest. If no report of rape or incest is made, there can be no basis for a rape or incest abortion.

"Amendment 48 does nothing to protect the victims or their babies."

It protects babies from being killed... but apparently you don't consider saving their lives protection.

"Totally specious argument. Any necessary evidence can and is collected long before the fetus is viable, so aborting it (again, IF the woman wants it) is not going to prevent prosecution of the monster who raped her."

You are assuming swift reporting. Especially in the case of the rape of an under age girl, the DNA of the baby along can convict the rapist if the rapist is over age. A living baby can be used to prove a rape several years after the fact because the ages of girl and the man at the time of conception along with DNA proves rape.

If the baby is quickly aborted in a very short time, there is no physical evidence left to convict a rapist.

"Darrel: You're saying that it would be totally impossible to prove the rape unless the baby is born? The aborted fetus or the fact that there is testimony in the first place can't prove that? He'll go to jail baby or not, and you're going to force the mother to raise a child either way?"

Two straw man arguments. I never said it was impossible to prove rape unless the baby is born, but if the baby lives he is physical evidence that can be used way down the road, whereas the aborted fetus is quickly disposed of.
The more evidence the more likely a conviction occurs.
You know that I never advocated forcing the girl to raise the baby. I clearly said that adoption by parents who want a child is a good outcome.

"You are assuming swift reporting. Especially in the case of the rape of an under age girl, the DNA of the baby along can convict the rapist if the rapist is over age. A living baby can be used to prove a rape several years after the fact because the ages of girl and the man at the time of conception along with DNA proves rape."

DNA can be preserved for decades, so swift reporting is not a necessity, as long as the DNA is taken prior to (or during) the abortion.

Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted fetus to term is much more cruel than aborting it.

Darrell, in your original scenario, if I read you correctly, the father/rapist forces the girl to go to Planned Parenthood [hiss!] for an abortion to destroy evidence of his crime. No crime is reported.

Say the amendment passes, Planned Parenthood and other abortion facilities are forced to close their doors and the baby is born. The father continues to rape his daughter and, given the cycle of abuse that usually occurs, in time begins to rape his grandchild as well. Still no crime is reported.

I'm sorry that you feel I don't consider the life of the baby important*. But I'm starting to get the impression that you value it more as a piece of physical evidence than as a human being.


_{* I'm personally not happy with abortion. I see it as a necessary evil in some circumstances.}

What? DNA is kept with each abortion? It must be true because society, the father, the doctor, and the mother all want a record of killing the baby. Right?

"Two straw man arguments. I never said it was impossible to prove rape unless the baby is born, but if the baby lives he is physical evidence that can be used way down the road, whereas the aborted fetus is quickly disposed of.
The more evidence the more likely a conviction occurs."

In either case, my original point that the rapist will continue his work for years still stands. He may even rape the damn baby eventually for all we know. If your best argument here is that the baby is a piece of evidance, you've lost me.

"You know that I never advocated forcing the girl to raise the baby. I clearly said that adoption by parents who want a child is a good outcome."

I find it amazing, your lack of respect for the mothers here. In one case (mine), the mother is forced to stick with a baby she never wanted. In your case (yours), she has to go through 9 months of unplanned pregnancy only to give the baby away?

#5 --Chris "UZ" White

"Were you born without that little part of your brain that provides INSIGHT, Franco?"

Let me apologize for not making myself clear.

I was addressing (in a nice way) the opinion pieces fallacious ramblings of unrealistic and untrue assertions deceitfully riveted throughout it in a colorfully attempt to get out of answering the main issue at the heart of Colorado's Amendment 48.

Cases in point. The opinion piece you posted states........

"Even if having the baby would kill the mother, the baby still cannot be removed. How on this earth anyone can support an amendment meant for life that may and will kill others, I don't know."

"the removal of abortion rights and the ability to use birth control will both be prohibited by this amendment. It's almost to the point where they're just not allowing women to have sex at all"

"Amendment 48 will strip all rights of choice away from the woman, even if she is not healthy enough to have a child. You read that correctly. Even if having the baby would kill the mother, the baby still cannot be removed."

Those statements go far beyond informal or formal fallacies, because they are flat out dishonest. Such statements are not interested in truth, they exist instead to cover it up.

For all of this opinion pieces bantering and concerns in its statments above, lets look at the percentage of the total abortions preformed in the US each year that these statements take issue with.

From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on abortion.

3% are preformed due to the mother's health problems.
1% are performed due to rape or incest
1% are preformed due to fetal abnormalities

This opinion piece grounds its core arguments against Colorado's Amendment 48 based on this 5%. Yet ironically this same 5% of abortions are viewed as justified by an overwhelming majority of the US population as evidenced by CBS and other polls, including the overwhelming majority of pro-life supporters and activists, which also includes their support for the right to contraceptives. Not only dose this opinion piece try to deny these facts even exist, it goes over the edge with its attempt to make it appear that the opposite is true.

With over 1.300,000 abortions in the US each year, 5% equates to (65,000) abortions. As for the remaining ninety-five percents 95% (1,235,000 million) abortions, no one can dispute that at the heart of the abortion issue is the question of when life begins. But because there is no unanimous consensus which exists among scientists, doctors, philosophers, or judges, the issue of abortion is ever at the forefront.

What we all know with certainty though is that life cannot begin before the moment of conception. So hence is the question that lye at the heart of Colorado's Amendment 48.

It is not logical to think that once we have been conceived and make it out of the womb, we have the right to decide who has the right, and who dose not have the right, to make it out safely after us. What is worse then thinking we have that right, is to base it on something as selfish as inconvenience.

As a human sociality we own more respects for life and the mysteries of nature that we can not explain or comprehend.

In either event, this discussion/debate will rage on, but it should not be reduced to the level of this un-insighful opinion piece.

It should instead address the questions of what rights belong to the unborn. If we can't discuss that, and use our human intellect, then we are nothing but animals.

Franco, your defense of the Amendment on the grounds that you defend it is all very well, but in Colorado as in (I think) every other state, doesn't the state's constitution outweigh state law where the two are in conflict?

Therefore, if Amendment 48 passes and someone decides to prevent a woman from having a legal termination by appealing to the constitution, they would be successful: thereby, through precedent, effectively criminalizing all abortion within the State of Colorado.

That, I believe, is where Chris is coming from here.

Of course, such an outcome might have the (presumably) undesired side effect of also making capital punishment illegal in Colorado...

Whatever happens, claiming that all the Amendment does is to define human life seems a little disingenuous to me.

Yawn. Someone please let me know when a woman comments on the article.

The good Doctor bascially said all I wanted to there, thanks.

Also: We're ALL waiting, El Bicho. Ugh.

Franco and Darrell B's passion for this issues is strong; however, their views scare me very, very much. I do not understand why they will fight so hard for the unborn when there are so many children in this society crying out for help and support. I wish their compassion and dedication to a cause could be redirected. Help the abused, hungry, nelegected children already here!!!! I believe this would have a much greater impact on lowering the abortion rate than anything else.

Chris White, thank you for sharing this information on Amendment 48. It matters to all of us, because what happens in CO sets a precedent for the rest of the country!

Voilà, El B.

I guess it takes a woman to help us focus on real-world ethics instead of hypotheticals...

[hangs head humbly]

Thanks, Belle2. I am much more interested in hearing from people who will be directly impacted by a decision, which was my point. I give little credence to what a man feels about abortion because it's all just theory. They don't have to live with the outcome to the degree a woman does.

Belle brings up an excellent point about our society not taking of the people, let alone the children, we have already.

There should be some parameters about abortion that I think a vast majority can agree with, but my concern about government putting too many restrictions on abortion is only going to make it unsafe, which will be paid in a number of lives.

Belle 2: Please, call me UZ. :D

Just kidding. I was having a bit of trouble believing those adoption claims, but was never able to find any evidence for OR against them.

Thanks for caring about the opinion of women. This issue will only be resolved with the cooperation of both genders.

Sometimes I can discuss this issue with pro-life thinkers, but not when it is obvious they are more interested in control than saving lives. Abortion is a very personal decision. I would advocate we keep it that way.

If the abortion statistics are too high for someone's comfort level then please do all you can to bring those numbers down; however, banning legal abortion is not the way to do it.

Also, giving a baby up for adoption is a very generous thing to do. But what makes it so incredibly special is the mother chose to do it. Once again stop with the control and let those involved make the decision which is best for themselves and their families.

Dr, El, UZ and Clavos, I appreciate your thoughts on this topic. It's nice to know you are out there doing your part to direct policy and shape lives.

#28 -- Dr Dreadful

"Whatever happens, claiming that all the Amendment does is to define human life seems a little disingenuous to me."

Dr, just as it does to most all pro-abortionist who support the 1,300,000 million abortions in the US each year. So any measure presented to challenge those liberally broad abortion laws by the pro-life opposition would seem threatening.

However, the Colorado Supreme Court justices do not agree with you, as they ruled unanimously that the title involves only a single subject and that its intentions are not misleading.

If this Amendment seems disingenuous to you in light of what this opinion piece claimsthen that is your choose to feel that way, I just don't happen to agree.

I base that belief on the fact that it is not logical to think that the 5% of the life threatening issues to the mother, incest, rape, or fetal abnormalities could be legally challennged as illegal abortions given the overwhelming majority of the US population which includes the overwhelming majority of pro-life supporters as well. So much for the "hard cases"

The contention I sighted before with this opinion piece stands on the basis of its deceitful attempts to defend and uphold the liberally broad definition of the 95% of abortions by not even having the honesty to even address it up front and on the table, but instead using the 5% of these specific and rational abortion laws as backdoor scare tactics it says the Amendment aims at eliminating.

This opinion piece clearly states.......

"This amendment is the brain child of one Kristi Burton, who is part of a group ironically called "Colorado for Equal Rights. "According to the group, all abortion, even in the case of rape and/or incest, should not be permitted.

Dr or Chris, show me anywhere on the Colorado for Equal Rights website where it makes this claim or anywhere else on the internet. You can't do it because it ain't there, or anywhere else on the internet, except in this one opinion piece on BC.

This tactic by this opinion piece is truly the definition of "disingenuous". You can support this kind of rational if you want to Doc, but you'll have to count me out.

I'm seriously not catching where the flaw in that argument is, Franco.

* That group created this amendment, right?
* The amendment defines lawfulness on a human beginning at fertilization.
* Therefore any method of removing a joined sperm and egg from the body is considered murder.
* Last I checked, murder is illegal.
* This makes abortion and birth control like the morning after pill illegal.
* The amendment, and the group that CREATED it, therefore is saying abortion and birth control are illegal. No exceptions are given in the amendment itself, so obviously no exceptions are possible.

I just thought of something.

It's OK under the law of just about all states to kill in self-defense, right?

So if the amendment passes, and is subsequently construed in the courts as rendering abortion illegal, it's conceivable that one could still justify termination in cases where the mother's life is threatened - as an act of self-defense.

Interesting...

Wow! It's amazing to see people so passionate about this. I think that it's great that everyone cares, no matter their opinion. Everyone has made so great points about abortion but I don't think that's the only issue here. Besides the effects it could have towards birth control (and not all women take it just to prevent pregnancies) think about In Vitro Fertilization. The companies and doctors who perform this are also at risk. They will create multiple embryos, or "persons", (most of the time 10) and will than place maybe 4 or 5 of the embryos into the woman's uterus. The woman will normally miscarry the other 3 or 4 embryos that don't take, is that going to be considered murdering an innocent person? And how about the other 5 or 6 embryos? Isn't freezing them going to be considered cruel and unusual punishment? This according to Amendment 8 of the US Constitution is illegal. And, correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't the US Constitution trump any and all state constitutions? So not only does Amendment 48 get rid of abortion and birth control, it takes away some women's only hope of ever having her own biological children? You tell me, does that seem right? I don't think so.

Darrell,

The pain of having a baby is temporary.

unlike the pain of being an unwanted baby, which is lifelong...

If you haven't adopted any unwanted children, how can you consider yourself worthy of an opinion about someone else's reproduction rights?

The state is incompetent to care for unwanted and abused children. People who don't act to solve the problem of unwanted children don't have any business at all having an opinion about it.

One needs to put one's money where one's mouth is or shut one's mouth. Because if, as a member of a society, you want a right to make decisions about someone else's reproduction then YOU need to be the one who bears the responsibility for the consequences of your decision.

You can't have it both ways. You can't, on the one hand, by virtue of being a member of a society (because how else would you presume to have any say at all) , make decisions about what other people should do and then, on the other hand, escape the consequences to society caused by your decisions.

Anti-abortion people are irresponsible unless they actually adopt unwanted children.

I also wish I might see some sense that those who have an opinion have informed themselves about the history of coat hanger (back alley) abortions or the forced sterilization of poor women in the good old U.S.A.

According to The Coat Hanger Project, 77% of anti-abortion legislators are men, 100% of them will never become pregnant.

Finally, men should teach their sons to take some responsibility for pregnancy rather than handing them down the ongoing cultural view of women as objects of sexual conquest.

I am one of the first financial supporters of this amendment.
I support it because I am unable to accept the notion that physical reality can be defined by decree. Once an egg has been fertilized, it is a living thing.
Killing a living human ... at any stage of development is killing a living human.
Now, if the majority in our society want to make it legal to kill living humans, that's O.K., but don't be hypocritical about it!

Scott: You realize many of the people who are voting yes support the Death Penalty and war, right?

And then there are those who support the death penalty AND abortion.

Kill 'em all; let god sort 'em out...

Rape and incest. Powerfully passionate arguments- but also examples of why making something illegal doesn't make it go away. Long lines of suitable couples of waiting to adopt babies- also a compelling argument, if it's true.

I think the policy implications of 48 should be explored further.
Examples-
Foreign nationals visit Colorado legally, and conceive a new person. That person becomes a citizen with US rights, right?

Couple conceives person and within days the father dies. That person- though unborn, is his heir. The embryo may spontaneously terminate - and then the mother is the heir.

Mother is informed that her health is at risk if she continues a pregnancy. Wouldn't the unborn be entitled to legal counsel prior to the mother terminating the pregnancy?

Woman over 21 with newly conceived person unknown to her goes out drinking. Embryo spontaneously terminates. Shouldn't the embryo be entitled to legal representation to challenge the woman's behavior? Wouldn't the heir?

There are thousands of frozen embryos in storage in Colorado. When 48 passes, they'll be entitled to legal representation to determine their treatment, right?

Smarter people than I will surely think of many more lucrative and complicated issues. Trial lawyers in particular seem to always think of novel ways to apply the law and 48 would seem to create thousands, if not millions, of new people in need of representation.

"The pain of having a baby is temporary.

unlike the pain of being an unwanted baby, which is lifelong..."

Abortion has never reduced the amount of neglected and abused children. As abortion became normal, so did abuse and neglect because abortion leads to many people diminishing the value of children.

"If you haven't adopted any unwanted children, how can you consider yourself worthy of an opinion about someone else's reproduction rights?"

A totally ridiculous statement. Can I not have an opinion about the war if I'm not a soldier? Can I not have an opinion about the space program if I'm not an astronaut? I'm concerned about unborn children because I'm a caring human being.

"The state is incompetent to care for unwanted and abused children. People who don't act to solve the problem of unwanted children don't have any business at all having an opinion about it."

Yes, the state is incompetent to do so. Why would you assume the pro-lifers don't act on behalf of unwanted children? Many do. I do. I have, for many years worked with disabled people, many of who were unwanted by their families. Many pro-lifers are waiting in long lines to adopt babies.

"One needs to put one's money where one's mouth is or shut one's mouth. Because if, as a member of a society, you want a right to make decisions about someone else's reproduction then YOU need to be the one who bears the responsibility for the consequences of your decision.

You can't have it both ways. You can't, on the one hand, by virtue of being a member of a society (because how else would you presume to have any say at all) , make decisions about what other people should do and then, on the other hand, escape the consequences to society caused by your decisions."

Another illogical statement. Are you for or against laws that punish parents for abusing and neglecting children? Certainly you can't be against burning 3 year-olds with cigarette butts if you are unwilling to adopt the child. Should you not be able to ave an opinion of raping a child, if you are not willing to adopt the child. Any thinking and loving person can have a valid opinion.

"Anti-abortion people are irresponsible unless they actually adopt unwanted children."

OK, I get it. Killing your unborn child is responsible. Me not wanting you to kill your unborn child... I'm the irresponsible one? What a warped view of responsibilty.

"I also wish I might see some sense that those who have an opinion have informed themselves about the history of coat hanger (back alley) abortions or the forced sterilization of poor women in the good old U.S.A."

It is you the need to learn your history. I wonder how old you are? Do you even remember when abortion was illegal?

Coat hanger and back alley abortions wre not the same thing. Coat hanger abortions were typically self induced abortions, where back alley abortions were called "back alley" because women would enter enter the doctor's office through the back entrance after hours, because the the doctor and woman didn't want to get into trouble. Most of these abortions were performed by licensed doctors. Some were done by nurses, but most were done by doctors.

"According to The Coat Hanger Project, 77% of anti-abortion legislators are men, 100% of them will never become pregnant."

So what! The huge majority of all legislators on both sides are men.

"Finally, men should teach their sons to take some responsibility for pregnancy rather than handing them down the ongoing cultural view of women as objects of sexual conquest."

Absolutely!

But it is mostly the pro-choice men that are using and throwing away women.

Since you insisted on drawing lines based on the sexes...
Did you know that higher % of women are against abortion then the % of men against abortion?

The majority of pro-lifers are women!

So many men are pro-choice because they want to use women, then get an abortion so they can use them again.
Most of the pro-life men are totally different kind of men. They believe in loving women and becoming loving husbands and loving fathers.

Many pro-lifers are waiting in long lines to adopt babies.

How do you know?

In the first place, it's debatable whether there's a 'waiting list' at all, because there are large numbers of private adoptions taking place, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of kids bouncing around foster homes. Secondly, why would you assume that many or most of those hoping to adopt are pro-lifers?

The stats are scarce, but this survey at any rate seems to suggest that while a lot of people consider adopting at some point, enthusiasm for the idea tends to diminish fairly rapidly the more they look into it.

it is mostly the pro-choice men that are using and throwing away women.

Again, how do you know this? Who the hell gathers such statistics? Either provide a citation or refrain from making such inflammatory and offensive statements.

"A totally ridiculous statement. Can I not have an opinion about the war if I'm not a soldier? Can I not have an opinion about the space program if I'm not an astronaut?"

It's one thing to have an opinion, but something entirely different (and evil) to try to impose it on others against their will, Darrell.

The woman MUST have a choice.

Period.

It's one thing to have an opinion, but something entirely different (and evil) to try to impose it on others against their will, Darrell.

The woman MUST have a choice.

Quoted for truth.

I personally find the idea of aborting a child disturbing and distressing, but I accept that a woman should be able to decide for herself whether to carry a baby to term.

Darrell B: "the pain of having a child is only temporary." Really? REALLY?

Well, that's certainly easy for men to say. You're never going to have to go through being pregnant during middle/high school, having everyone in that school (and then some) gossip about you and taunt you endlessly, possibly have to SKIP school and repeat the year later--if at all--and then bear the child only to be haunted by the whole experience for the rest of your life. Add to that the possibility that the child is a product of rape and incest, and you think that any young pregnant girl could continue her life normally after that "temporary" pain?

My friend went through that because she was urged out of getting an abortion by very influential adults in her lives. And she's struggled with depression ever since.

I agree with Belle. Abortion is a personal, personal thing. Pompous men who think they are 'caring' for the unborn while carelessly tossing aside the pregnant girl's life should really have no say in the matter.

I personally think this whole amdendment is wrong. I mean if you want to try and make abortion illegal fine, but dont take away contraception! If you want to prevent abortions then dont teach only abstinence. Not giving people the tools to prevent pregnancy will only create more and more unwanted pregnancies. You cant have no contraception and no abortions. You cant have your cake and eat it too. Either have one or the other because unwanted pregnancies are going to happen. If youre so against it then teach people safe sex. Its impossible to teach abstinence and think that people arent going to have sex. Its going to happen! Contraception is key because people will have sex. Keep contraception and teach people it too keep unwanted pregnancies down. Education and contraception are the strongest things to stop abortion. Getting rid of abortion and contraception will only cause more problems.

People will have sex you cant change that so at least prevent pregnancy if you dont want abortions. Correct me if im wrong but if contraception is preventing pregnancy how is that murder? There wasnt life to begin so how can you kill it? That just doesnt make sense.

It is also unfair to ask a woman to have the child. If she can live with the fact that she went through it then fine. If youre against it then change peoples minds and convince them to give it up for adoption. Dont attack other women about it. Help change peoples minds.

Education and contraception are the strongest tools against abortion. You cant tell women they arent allowed to have sex unless its to concieve a child. Women should have the right to have safe sex. Contraception and education are necessary to keep abortion low.

Ok I'm first going to state that I stopped reading the comments on this after the whole argument about "saving the baby's life to prove the rape later on down the road"...

One of you said that "Pain is temporary, life is permanent." That is incorrect. The emotional pain of carrying a fetus inside of you for 9-10 months, then giving birth is carried with the mother for the rest of her life, if it is an unwanted fetus. If the having of the baby is important to prove the result of the rape - can we imagine what is going to happen to that kid's psyche, knowing that he/she was the unwanted result of something so hurtful and wrong? Why should he/she be pulled into it all later on in life to prove something happened to cause his conception?

Also, I think that main point of saying NO to amendment 48 is the fact that it's basically outlawing birth control. As a woman who depends on birth control to keep from having disabling periods and hormonal imbalances that prevent me from working, getting out of bed, or otherwise enjoying life, that's the scary part of this amendment to me. This amendment will make it illegal for me to continue to get my shots and will force me to switch to a much more "Permanent" method of birth control to stop these incidents from happening - a hystorectomy.

So, those of you who are pro-life on this one - let me ask you this - which is worse: stopping someone from being able to conceive at all because of a genetic problem that causes disabling pain throughout her life or just allowing people to choose whether they want to or don't want to get pregnant, and allowing the occasional necessary loss of "life" of an unborn fetus to happen?

On June 27th, 2008, I miscarried my (and my husband's) beautiful baby girl, Lily. There is no one I have ever loved more. The road to conceiving and becoming pregnant with her was a hard one. Due to some health issues our only option for having our own baby was IVF. Those who have had this path will testify that it is expensive, hard on the mother's body, and 100% worth every last moment the second you hear that tiny heart beat the first time. I endured months of shots, that made me feel terrible, but my desire to bring my own baby into the world drove me, and kept my spirits high. I was extremely fortunate that the procedure was successful, and we were blessed with 7 quality embryos. Our doctors implanted 2 embryos a few days later, and after a couple of weeks we got the news that one of the embryos was successful, and we were finally pregnant.

The pregnancy was going relatively according to schedule, and we got a baby doppler so we could listen to the baby's heartbeat every night. We were making plans for our future, including getting married. We had no way of predicting what would hit us like a bulldozer only a few days after our wedding. Four days after our absolute bliss, my water broke. I was at 19 weeks and 4 days. A baby does not start to develop lungs until 25 weeks or so. Our baby had no lungs, and would never live outside of the womb. I was admitted into the hospital, labor was induced to protect my from infection, and I delivered my still born precious girl 3 days later. We named her Lily - and our lives will never be the same.

What does this have to do with Amendment 48? Amendment 48 would make the legal definition of "personhood" start at conception. This is meant to give legal rights to embryos that would otherwise be legally aborted. However, the legal quagmire that would start from this amendment would effect so many unsuspecting supporters. The true problem with giving the rights of "personhood" to embryos at conception (as opposed to the current law which gives "personhood" to born babies) is that there are many scary and unpredictable things that can happen during the early weeks of pregnancy. This amendment is one of absolutes - absolutely no exceptions. Let's start at the very beginning with conception. In the beginning, if the pregnancy misplants and is an ectopic pregnancy (one that has implanted in the fallopian tube instead of the uterus), this misplanted embryo would carry all the legal rights of the mother. The embryo's right to life would trump the safety of the mother, and in the end the embryo would die and possibly kill, or greatly injure the mother. Under the new law doctors would not be allowed to intervene. Miscarriages could be investigated as for criminal misconduct and doctors and mothers could be prosecuted as murders.

I would be considered a murderer.

I am no murderer.

This amendment would outlaw birth control pills and IUDs. Personally being a barren woman, I use the birth control pill to treat PCOS (Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome) but would no longer be able to. I think that is a decision for my doctors and I to make.

Another area that this ammendment would personally effect ME, and other people like me, is that it would make it illegal to freeze embryos. We have 5 frozen embryos. We have only 5 chances at having children, period. We wouldn't have these chances if it were illegal to freeze embryos. Us, and other couples like us, would never know the joy of having our own children. People who have been through so much, with the trails of infertitlity, would be treated like criminals.

We are not criminals. We want the same things other people want. And that is why I am asking, no, begging you to vote NO on Amendment 48. Reguardless of what you think about abortion rights, this is about so much more. Together, you and us can make law makers reconsider the rammafications of this law and others like it. Please protect me and Scott, and people like us, so that we can hopefully know the extraordinary joy of bringing a healthy baby into this world.

No on 48. Period.

I don't think it'll pass. Denver, Boulder, Colorado Springs, Vail... nope, don't think so.

I agree, Cannon. Not a chance, and it'll probably have the side-effect of delivering Colorado to Obama.

I hope for the sake of all people who value freedom, that amendment 48 is defeated. I campain everyday to anyone who will listen. No on 48!

The one piece of good that can come out of this legislative turd is, it forces the ostensibly "pro-life" crowd to own up to their actual agenda; i.e. the criminalization of all birth control, really the outlawing of any sex except for the express purposes of procreation.

To the scientific geniuses who say "but a fertilized egg is a living thing" ... and unfertilized eggs and sperms aren't? The central conceit of the hard-core anti-choice movement is that there is NO difference between a micron sized fertilized egg/single cell and a full-term baby. Most pro-choice people recognize that there is a continuum of existence between the beginning and end of pregnancy, and that while a fertilized egg may contain the potential to develop into a baby (as do the sperm and unfertilized egg, before they join) that does not MAKE them a baby, any more than you can climb on board the blueprints for a 747 and fly them to Fiji. And while, according to the frothy rants of unhinged right wing radio blowhards, American women (not the good, small town stock, mind you, but the latte sucking prius crowd... you know the type) are running around en masse pregnant for 7-8 months at a time and then aborting on a whim because they decide they "look fat", the fact remains that the vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester. The way to reduce THOSE is to increase access to safe, effective birth control (certainly not to outlaw it, or empower Jesus-drunk pharmacists to dispense lectures instead of fill prescriptions) ... of course, as long as our various government institutions are run by the usual gallery of flat-Earth, creationist goobers, increased access to contraception isn't going to happen.

But like I said, this is useful in that it brings the whacked out agenda of these folks into the open- outlawing the pill, outlawing the IUD.. leaving the door open to prosecute women who use the same.. (everyone is aware that Phylis Shlafly, that great friend to her fellow females, got the line in the GOP platform about not seeking to punish women who have abortions stricken from the plank this year, right?) Lovely.

The party of smaller government, so small they can fit a little jack-booted man into your uterus, your medicine cabinet, and your bedroom.

They know the American People- most of them- don't want anything to do with their crazy fuckin' puritanical Jihad, unfortunately the corporate media is horribly complicit in portraying this as somehow about "family values"...

...as if throwing women in jail for taking the pill is really going to improve life for America's families.

I am in complete shock that this is on the ballot, or that there are people who would push for this amendment. Your backhanded way of trying to make abortion illegal will have numerous consequences down the road. By pushing the definition of a person up to the moment of fertilization, which is by the unmeasurable by any test, you are equalizing and linking the rights of a few multiplying cells with that of the woman who very likely doesn't even know she is pregnant. This could have outrageous and completely unexpected consequences. You are trying to legally obligate a woman to a life that she probably does not know exists. This ruling would not define when life begins, it would only make it more hazy.

Believing that life begins at conception is a completely out-of-date way of thinking. Don't we know enough about the human body and reproduction to understand that at the moment of conception, these are just a gathering of a few cells? How can you call this a life? If you want to clear the air about 'when a life begins' perhaps you can do it at a MEASUREABLE poing in the pregnancy, say the end of the first trimester.

And the claim that the purpose of this amendment is to define the beginning of a person is ridiculous. Clearly that is not its purpose. If this weren't connected with right-wing religious and anti-abortion ideals, why is it that these are the only groups in full support of it?

One statement. Be a woman, get raped, get pregnant, and then have to bear the child to term.

No man has any idea.

Consider in vitro fertilization. If an egg cell was fertilized with a sperm cell is it a human being? If you immediately took the sperm cell back out of the egg cell with the syringe, would it be murder? If you re-fertilized the cell would it be reincarnation?

Even from a biblical perspective, the closest argument for defining a human being comes when the first blood cell is formed (see the "life is in the blood" passages of Leviticus). That doesn't happen at conception.

Under its statute, even birth control will not be legal, as ejecting/destroying any fertilized eggs will be counted as murder. So the removal of abortion rights and the ability to use birth control will both be prohibited by this amendment.

Helloooo!! There are no fertilized eggs when you properly use contraceptives!!! Consequently there would be no ejecting or destroying anything. The use of contraceptives would prevent ALL the rest from happening... there would be no eggs being fertilized, therefore no need for abortion, and ALL the consequences of it. After an egg is fertilized it becomes a living being, you can see it's tiny little heart beating inside it, if you get rid of it, it is murder, pure and simple! Let's promote birth control, let's give out contraceptives if necessary to prevent it all from happening in the first place! And, if by chance you do get pregnant, no matter the circumstances, it's your child, a living being! Don't murder it, learn to love it!

A zygote doesn't have a heart.

Cindy, my first pregnancy was ectopic, so when it happened a second time, I had an ultrasound done straight into my body to see if the baby was located in the correct place, at 2 weeks after missing my period. What I saw and the doctor confirmed was a heart beating motion inside what looked like a bean! No, I did not see THE heart but a pulsating motion that suggested a heart beating. If that was not ALIVE there would be no motion would it! What else could make that pulsating motion other than a heart beat? You should try to see one of those ultrasounds if you can, it is an awesome proof of how early life begins. It is a sight I will never forget and will always cherish.

The heart begins to beat at about 5 weeks.

The problem with this whole discussion is that no one can seem to agree what exactly makes anyone a person. Is it when the heart starts beating?

How can we presume to decide what is murder (the crime, not the personal belief) if we can even unanimously agree on what is a human being?

I don't think that it should matter on the argument of weather or not it's alive or not, because this in now really stepping into my personal space of telling me what I can and can't take. Kind of like if they told you that you can't take advil if you have a head ache.

I think the real problem lies in what will happen if this law passes. How will girl's deal with the unwanted pregnancies? Suicide, trying to take care of it themselves (which leads to many other problems), overdoses, just those thoughts alone are frighening. I don't think that anyone should tell me what to do with my body. If I want birth control that should be my choice. I myself would never have an abortion but really I don't think that it's anyone's business but my own what I do with my life and my body.

I don't think that it's anyone's business but my own what I do with my life and my body.

Now there's a thought!

((I don't think that it's anyone's business but my own what I do with my life and my body.))

Now there's a thought!.........That dosn't go far enough.

It has never been a question about your life or your body.

Great! I take it you've invested in some very large flasks.

Thank you for your opposition to Amendment 48, Chris!

You (and the slew of commenters here) might be interested to read an issue paper published by the Coalition for Secular Government: "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person" by Ari Armstrong and myself.

We discuss some of the serious implications of this proposed amendment, including its effects on the legality of abortion, birth control, and in vitro fertilization. And we offer a strong defense of abortion rights based on the biological facts of pregnancy.

Diana Hsieh
Founder, Coalition for Secular Government

The Coalition for Secular Government advocates government solely based on secular principles of individual rights. The protection of a person's basic rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness -- including freedom of religion and conscience -- requires a strict separation of church and state.

I don't think many people here have actually read the Amendment. Click the link, its the real deal, and the writer of this did not read it either.

All it states, and I quote,

"Ballot Title: An Amendment to the Colorado Constitution defining the term "Person" to include any human being from the moment of fertilization as "Person" is used in those Provisions of the Colorado Constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of Justice, and Equality of law"

If passed the Colorado constitution would read:

"Section 31. Person Defined. As used in sections 3, 6 and 25 of Artical 2 of the State Constitution, the Term "Person" or "Persons" shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization"

THAT is all it says, however, well this writer has IGNORED the whole amendment and added items that are not on it, he is for the most part correct.

Some forms of birth control would have to be banned, abortion itself, banned. Incest, rape, nothing would allow for the excuse for an abortion.

I heard, and do not quote, that Kristi Burton said something to the effect of "All the rest of the laws will fall in place".

This is by far on of the worst amendments on this years ballot here in Colorado. I urge everyone in Colorado to vote a firm NO!

This amendment would ruin many lives of young Americans. A 13 year old girl raped by her father would be forced to have the child. An 18 year old couple with a broken condom would lose any chance of College to take care of their kid. And because some birth control destroys or ejects fertilized eggs, many teens who suffer from horrible cramps and other side effects from their Period's would lose that control, and have the side effects return (my girlfriend takes birth control for that reason first, sex second).

People need to realize what fertilization is. This occurs when the sperm contacts the egg. Seeing how early this happens, does this also mean having a period would be considered murder? Its technically killing a "Person" in some cases.

If this passes, I can see some wild murder traial in the future.

PS. If some of my information is incorrect, I apologize, I am not a robot!

-Will
Denver, Colorado

Support the SS Untied States, America's Flagship
Write to Congress, Tell them to help Preserve her!

Thank you. I'm worth more than my anatomy. I would have died had it not been for the hormone replacement therapy that I received several years back; hormone replacement therapy is the same medicine as birth control. This amendment would outlaw it. Choose life; let my doctor and I dictate what happens to my body, not the state.

To many of the gentlemen with whom I have spoken: if you are more concerned about the potential life than the possibility of my own continuing, I suggest that you have surgery and carry the baby for me.

It's worth it, right? For life? I mean, like you said, pregnancy isn't a permanent state of being.

Glad this isn't on the ballot up here. 48 looks a lot like some bad, bad, law that's got LOTS of unintended or ill-thought-out consequences.

Funny how a lot of men have huge opinions on this...
We don't know enough to decide when life begins, also the big rape and incest thing is ridiculous. It's up to one's own moral view, nobody can say for sure when it's murder. Amendment 48 is a very bad idea and its sure to have many unforeseen consequences, and you people who say 'oh it'll never ever pass' don't be so sure with how uninformed and blinded by religion people are these days...

Hi biiru! How's the biiru?

Oh, and rape is bad.

I am a mother of a child with special needs in Colorado. I would like to share our story as a real-life example of why it is ABSURD to pass amendment 48. My son has a very rare genetic disorder which has caused him severe medical challenges and global developmental delays. He will likely need life-long care; care which will cost Colorado tax-payers tens of thousands of dollars over his lifetime. I am a carrier for this genetic disorder, which means that I have a very high likelihood of having other children with this same genetic defect. I currently have an IUD, a form of birth control which would be illegal if this law should pass. So, with the passage of this amendment I would be unable to use birth control, and unable to terminate any pregnancy that would result in another child with severe disabilities. I would be left with few choices...to have my tubes tied, which sounds a lot like state mandated sterilization, or to have more children with severe disabilities which will ultimately end up a strain on Colorado's already limited resources. How absurd! Amendment 48 is a huge step backward for Colorado and for women everywhere!