Today on Blogcritics
Home » Colorado’s Amendment 48: A Horrible Idea on All Sides

Colorado’s Amendment 48: A Horrible Idea on All Sides

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The state of Colorado might be the very first state to make both abortion and some methods of birth control totally illegal under any circumstances.

This will come about if CO State Amendment 48: Definition of a Person is passed on November 4. The basic premise of this amendment is to make the new definition of “person” in the state of Colorado anything more advanced than an unjoined sperm and egg cell. Fertilization will be the new starting point of rights and privileges for U.S. bor… er, unborn citizens, so purging the unborn will now be known to the legal eye as “murdering.”

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. Those are the so-called “hard cases” for abortion that even some pro-lifers agree should be allowed. According to some groups supporting 48, though, there are no “hard cases” for abortions, and — I can’t even find the words to describe this quote:

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.

Those are the words of Steve Curtis, a vice-president of American Right to Life. The basis of his argument is inconceivable to me. He’s saying that while it’s wrong for a father to rape his daughter, whatever child she may bear will be forced upon her, no questions asked. A more blatant anti-woman statement I haven’t heard in a long time. I fail to see how a woman’s suffering will be decreased by having her own sibling as a child. He’s also making an amazing assumption that the father won’t rape again after the child is born. Perhaps Steve has never watched the news.

Possibly the worst part of the entire ordeal is the horribly vague wording on the amendment. 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. It’s almost to the point where they’re just not allowing women to have sex at all.

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. If  any of these unfortunate occurrences were to happen, 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. How on this earth anyone can support an amendment meant for life that may and will kill others, I don’t know.

If you live in Colorado, I urge you to let common sense overtake you and vote no on Amendment 48. People elsewhere, beware that this horror may come to your state next. "We are giving Colorado voters an opportunity to vote their conscience and protect the most innocent and helpless ones among us,” the organization added.

Apparently they never got the memo that they were creating new ones.

Powered by

About UZ

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan Miller

    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

  • http://bloggingontheedgeofsuicide.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Just another example of the religious right trying to force it’s “morals” on America…

  • Franco

    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.

  • Tazzy

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

  • http://paulcantplaypiano.blogspot.com Chris “UZ” White

    …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?

  • Darrell B

    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.

  • Darrell B

    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.

  • Clavos, aka Mr. Rogers

    “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?

  • Darrell B

    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.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    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?

  • Darrell B

    “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.

  • Darrell B

    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.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    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.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    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.

  • Darrell B

    “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?

  • http://bloggingontheedgeofsuicide.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Well said Doc

  • Clavos

    “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.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    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.

  • http://paulcantplaypiano.blogspot.com Chris “UZ” White

    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?

  • Darrell B

    “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.

  • Darrell B

    “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.

  • Darrell B

    “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.

  • Clavos

    “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.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    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.

  • Yorzhik

    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?

  • http://paulcantplaypiano.blogspot.com Chris “UZ” White

    “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?

  • Franco

    #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.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    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.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

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

  • http://paulcantplaypiano.blogspot.com Chris “UZ” White

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

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

  • Belle 2

    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!

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Voilà, El B.

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

    [hangs head humbly]

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    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.

  • http://paulcantplaypiano.blogspot.com Chris “UZ” White

    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.

  • Belle 2

    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.

  • Franco

    #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.

  • http://paulcantplaypiano.blogspot.com Chris “UZ” White

    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.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    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…

  • Malibo

    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.

  • Cindy D

    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.

  • Scott

    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!

  • http://paulcantplaypiano.blogspot.com Chris “UZ” White

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

  • Clavos

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

    Kill ‘em all; let god sort ‘em out…

  • MADCent

    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.

  • Darrell B

    “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.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    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.

  • Clavos

    “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.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    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.

  • Summer

    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.

  • Megan

    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.

  • Myssa

    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?

  • lily’s mom

    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.

  • ProChoiceMom

    No on 48. Period.

  • Cannonshop

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

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

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

  • lily’s mom

    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!

  • http://www.geocities.com/preconceivedbabies/ Hagbard Celine

    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.

  • Dazed in Denver

    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?

  • Lisa Solod Warren

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

    No man has any idea.

  • Scott

    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.

  • Sandra W.

    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!

  • Cindy D

    A zygote doesn’t have a heart.

  • Sandra W.

    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.

  • Cindy D

    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?

  • Concerned!

    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.

  • Cindy D

    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!

  • Franco

    ((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.

  • Cindy D

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

  • http://www.seculargovernment.us Diana Hsieh

    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.

  • Will

    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!

  • Diana

    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.

  • Diana

    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.

  • Cannonshop

    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.

  • Biiru

    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…

  • pyrochild

    Hi biiru! How’s the biiru?

    Oh, and rape is bad.

  • CherBear

    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!

  • Christopher McLean

    The Right to Life Amendment will be on the ballot this November, and I hope you vote the smart vote which would be YES.

    Most the information you will find on this is in opposition to it, saying it will destroy rights. This couldn’t be farther from the truth, it gives rights to the unborn. people trying to get others to vote no tare trying to confuse the issue to get people to say no. They say that this is not about pro-life or pro-choice, but instead about a womens right to choose. That is just a contradiction.

    The irony is its the pro-choice folks that deny the moral gravity of abortion because they dismiss abortion as a woman doing what she wants with her own body. A woman doing what she wants with her own body is a woman taking out a tooth. Removing an appendix. Getting a pedicure. Getting a tattoo. Thats a woman doing what she wants with her own There is no moral gravity to any of those issues. There is no moral concern about that. So anyone who says its a woman doing what she wants with her own body has denied any moral gravity. The whole denial of moral gravity is on the left on abortion. It is only the right that believes that there is moral gravity on the issue of abortion. anyone who says that it is a woman doing what she wants with her own body misses all moral seriousness to the problem of abortion, because no one believes that it is a problem with what a woman does with her own body. no one! right, left ,secular, christin, no one. I have never heard anybody say a woman does not have control of what she does with her body…I have heard people say a woman can not extinguish the life of another body that happens to be residing in her. That is a different issue totally. vote yes on 48.

  • Christopher McLean

    In addition, it pains my heart to see how many truly believe that having no life at all is better than one filled with difficulties. lets put aside what we think for a while, and listen to those who rather have no voice, what would they have to say?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Christopher McLean writes:

    The whole denial of moral gravity is on the left on abortion. It is only the right that believes that there is moral gravity on the issue of abortion.

    Once again, this is not a left/right issue.

    Democrats for Life

    Republican Majority for Choice

  • Benjamin Mikkelsen

    To quote the late and great Bill Hicks “you’re not a person until you’re in my phone book!”

    I agree this amendment doesn’t say anything about birth control or abortion… but unless you have no logical sense you should see it would make both of those choices in most cases murder… I feel this amendment is far too vague and all encompassing to be reasonably considered. I feel if this passed, it would be a snowball effect. So many of the people that would vote to pass it might eventually be arrested for drinking coffee while pregnant or other such ridiculous notions. A law like this need circumstantial limitations… like in the current election the debate with Sarah Pallin and the question of a child conceived during a rape, would the illegal act of the creation garner any leniency in the eyes of this Amendment?

  • Mary

    FIRST – if one more person says pro-abortion instead of pro-choice I’m going to puke!! People who are pro-CHOICE are not necessarily pro-abortion. That’s a lame tactic to paint us as evil and to pull in the religious voters – YES I’m talking to you John McCain!

    This amendment leaves WAY too much leeway for the super crazies to push for the abolition of contraceptives. You can not be against abortion AND against contraceptives… unless of course you are a misogynist.

    Got a uterus? NO? Then I’m sorry, as far as I’m concerned you don’t have an opinion about what I will do with my body.

    All discussions pertaining to me and my reproductive system will be capably handled by my husband and I.

    What absolutely blows my mind, is that this was brought up by Republicans. The same people who are FOR the death penalty (so much for the sanctity of life) and smaller government. Exactly how will there be smaller government when we are monitoring womens bodies?

  • Seri

    As a mother, I am grateful to have had the opportunity to make a choice. Before my daughter, I had an abortion. A medical procedure that terminiated a pregnancy between me and my then abusive husband. Each woman’s situation is unique. There are no generalities. In the case of rape/incest, prior to the abortion of an unwanted/unintended preganancy the woman would be burdened with court proceedings proving rape occurred.
    Amendment 48 goes too far. The definition of person – is a theologic issue.
    Even the Catholic church defines person at the point of quickening. The Jewish religion recoginizes a person 8 days after the healthy birth. We are a melting pot of people and to create such a standard limits a woman’s rights to govern her own body.

  • Phil

    Let me take a moment of your time to provide you a point of view from the horse’s mouth sort of speak. I am the unwanted child of a rape. I was raised by a “mother” who wanted nothing to do with me. I use the term “mother”, on the basis that she provided the labors of birth, a mother in no other sense. She cursed me each and every day of her life. Each and every time she looked at me, she saw the man who attacked and raped her. I was born in a time when options were very limited. I wish that was not the case. She could have given me up for adoption I guess, and why she didn’t is something only she knows. She has passed on now and for her the pain is over, but I still have to deal with the emotional scars, even now after 50 years. Yes there is therapy, but how would you deal with the fact that you were the by-product of a violent crime that left the victims life in ruins. If a female is raped and in her own mind and heart knows that she can not raise the child with love, then she should have the right to terminate the effects of the rape. We have enough unloved children in foster homes now as it is.

  • Mary

    Phil… OMG your story is heart wrenching! Thank you for sharing. I hope you find resolution for yourself. :)

  • Cindy D

    Phil,

    Thanks for having the courage it took to tell your story. Real stories (from the horse’s mouth) are always the best teachers.

  • Phil

    I have to wonder, as I reread through the passages on this page. Mr. Christopher McLean you must be an amazing human being. To think that if another man stole into your home while you were gone, and forced your significant other to have sex with him, to violate her very being, demeaning her as he would devour a hamburger, that you would want her to carry that child to term and raise it with open and welcoming arms. As you wrap yourself in the gossamer cloak of your morals and beliefs, stretching it to cover the lives of each and everyone of us just how deeply would you truly love this child, the fruit of a rape. The look in the child’s eye’s as it see’s you looking at the face of the man that came into your life, the blend of two faces that made that child knowing that neither of them are you. I pray that you will never know the true answers to these questions, as I pray that you understand that I am not attacking you – just tring to widen your scope of vision. If the day does come that you are faced with having to answering these questions, I hope that your “morals” are strong enough. I hope that you are allowed to have the options to make the decisions of your own free will and that others are not making them for you.

  • http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9407/myths.html John

    The “scientific” basis of the argument was repudiated in 1994 by Marlena Sobel:

    “Science says that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception.”

    “The “genetic definition” of personhood, as developed by the evangelical Francis Schaeffer and former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, holds that science proves personhood at the moment of conception. Their argument follows that since the whole genetic code is established when the ovum and sperm is united, and each code is unique, a unique person is therefore created at the moment of conception.”

    “This logic is flawed, however, because although there is a continuum from conception to death, there is a difference between an actual person and a potential or possible person. A fertilized ovum, or zygote, is a cluster of cells; taking this genetic code argument to its extreme, each of those cells is encoded with a specific DNA. If each of these cells is then to be considered a possible human being, then any time any cell is removed, through surgery for instance, a potential life is destroyed.”

    Also consider, if the government has the right to deny an abortion, the government also has the right to demand an abortion. (Just ask any chinese woman.) Since a zygote would be considered a person under amendment 48, a lawsuit could be brought (potentially by anyone, on behalf of the child, including the state) if the potential mother’s life is in danger and she does not want to terminate the pregnancy.

    For example, say a potential mother has a 95% chance of survival with termination of pregnancy, but both the potential baby and potential mother each have a 50% chance of survival without termination, (in an ectopic pregnancy, for example) the courts could *order* the destruction of the zygote, since they are now involved in a case between two “people” (after the lengthy court case, the cells have probably developed into full fetus, in which case a more dangerous late term abortion is required.) Or, perhaps the court decides that this women who was brutally raped has “enough” of a chance of living that she is forbidden from having an abortion. Maybe they decide that more than a 50% chance of survival is “enough” to not warrant the decision. Now this woman gets to flip a coin to see if she lives or dies because of an unhealthy pregnancy by a rapist.

    It gets even worse. In about 50% of ectopic pregnancy cases, the woman’s actually body performs a tubal abortion itself (often mistaken for miscarriage). In this case the woman would likely be guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

    It sounds ridiculous, but that’s what happens when children write laws. It’s this sort of legal mess that amendment 48 creates, and while I can forgive Kristi Burton for being a naive child who doesn’t understand what she has proposed, the voters have no such excuse.

    Whether you are “pro-life” or “pro-choice”, inviting the government into your womb is a dangerous thing to do. Once there, the decisions made by the lawyers and courts may not align with your personal beliefs and, at that point, it will be too late. Amendment 48 is bad for everyone.

  • Doug Hunter

    My neighbors 7 year old is annoying, why can’t I perform a post partum abortion and bash in his skull. It would make my life more convenient and peaceful.

  • Les Slater

    re Doug Hunter,

    “My neighbors 7 year old is annoying, why can’t I perform a post partum abortion and bash in his skull. It would make my life more convenient and peaceful.”

    It is not only interesting, but absolutely pathetic, how the opponents of a woman’s right to control her own body, call the termination of a fetus, murder, and now call the MURDER of a 7 year old child, an abortion.

    Les

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    My neighbors 7 year old is annoying, why can’t I perform a post partum abortion and bash in his skull. It would make my life more convenient and peaceful.

    Because it’s not YOUR child, Doug. If you want to argue the right to kill your own child then I’m up for it, but just randomly killing other peoples children won’t do at all. Personally I think it’s much better to sell unruly children to the gypsies or trade them to the fairies for bags of straw spun into gold.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    Dave,

    “If you want to argue the right to kill your own child…”

    This ‘right’ along with the ‘right’, by virtue of ownership, for a master to kill his slave, or a husband, also by the ‘right’ of ownership (property), to kill his wife, have long been roundly rejected by secular society, and have no place for argument or debate, even in jest, just condemnation.

    Les

  • Clavos

    This ‘right’ along with the ‘right’, by virtue of ownership, for a master to kill his slave, or a husband, also by the ‘right’ of ownership (property), to kill his wife, have long been roundly rejected by secular society, and have no place for argument or debate, even in jest, just condemnation.

    Good point. How do late term, partial birth abortions fit into this?

  • JMVR

    When a pregnant woman is murdered, we charge the perpetrator with two counts of murder. Why?

    The principle that opposes abortion is that unborn children are alive, thus it is murder to destroy one of them. People certainly feel that way in the above case. But, somehow, when a woman enters a clinic with it’s antiseptic smells and gloved doctors, they suspend that principle. The unborn child that the doctor would have been responsible for if he/she shot her in the stomach is suddenly demoted to a fleshy goo substance because the doctor is using tweezers. It’s hypocrisy by virtue of convenience.

    People want freedom of responsibility, and they use these so-called “hard cases” to justify them. There’s not a person alive who disagrees that carrying a pregnancy to term is a tough price to pay for a raped girl or woman. But alleviating her of it is not worth the price of a human life.

  • Les Slater

    JMVR,

    Those laws that you refer to that make it two counts of murder when both the mother and fetus are killed are on the books as an attack on a woman’s right to control her own body. These lawmakers have not yet been able to make the case that an abortion is murder stick in a legal sense. They consider both cases murder but find it easier to use the term murder when in fact it was committed by a murderer.

    The target of these lawmakers really is the woman. The logic you use in your #93 only flows from these reactionary laws. Fundamentally your argument is circular.

    Les

  • JMVR

    Les,

    The problem with simply calling it an affront to the woman’s body is, that’s what the first charge is for. That is fundamentally the affront that any violent act is and is this encompassed in a single charge: her murder. I reject the idea that we just use the word “murder” as sort of a glorified placeholder for an “affront to women’s rights” – otherwise, they would simply call it that. You can’t mince words in the legal system.

    It seems to me that, in order to be logically consistent, you have to be either completely for, or completely against. Otherwise, your own arguement becomes your stumbling block. Let me explain.

    Take the first “hard case” and present it to the average person, who feels that abortion is wrong, but “I dunno, in some cases…”… then ask them why they believe that, in most cases, it’s wrong. Their foundation will be: it’s life. “So it’s not life when it’s from incest?” Ask them that and they’ll probably stammer: “Uh, well, no it’s just that…” Truth is, it’s just that it’s inconvenient. And it is – it’s a truly heartbreaking price that accentuates the brutality of the act itself. That man stole part of her life away. But there’s another life that, for better or worse, is now involved.

    Second example: the law I cited. The same person above will wholeheartedly stand by that. Some may use the explanation you did, but the truth is, most – I think – would be reacting out of moral and/or emotional outrage. The pregnancy was “something that was going to be that never was”, if you will. Again, it will go back to life. And then the stumbling block becomes what I mentioned in the first post, the difference between that and clinical abortion.

    There are a great many “gray” areas in our world, but I don’t think life is one of them. You either have to summise that (a) a pregnancy is not life at all until a certain point, meaning that it’s never wrong to abort it – convenience abortions included and the “double murder” law needs to be taken off the books.

    Or you have to come to the conclusion that it’s life and should not, under any circumstances, be terminated. Either way, you face a difficult decision.

    That being said, there is one – and only one situation – where I believe in making the pregnancy a matter of choice: in the event that the mother would die in childbirth. One dies, one lives either way. Let her decide.

  • Les Slater

    JMVR,

    You equate life with person. A zygote is in no way a person. Your arguments are totally unscientific.

    Les

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    There are a great many “gray” areas in our world, but I don’t think life is one of them. You either have to summise that (a) a pregnancy is not life at all until a certain point, meaning that it’s never wrong to abort it – convenience abortions included and the “double murder” law needs to be taken off the books.

    The logic of this is flawed, because it does not take into account the perceptions and desires of the mother, which are the determining factors here. If the mother considers the fetus to be alive and intends to carry it to term then that is the primary determination of whether it is human or not, absent an absolute scientific ruling on when life begins.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    That’s a good point, Dave.

    If a woman has the right to abort at least in part because she has the right to determine what is done to her body, then she should have the same right when she wishes to preserve and grow the life in her and another forcibly takes that life.

  • Les Slater

    Dave,

    If the fetus is alive, clinically speaking, that fact is true, regardless of what the mother’s opinion of it is.

    Les

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Les, a turnip is alive. Does it have rights? Obviously we have different levels of ‘alive’ which we define all the time and different rights which go with them.

    For example, if I kill a chicken it’s dinner and no one cares. If I kill my dog people frown on it but it’s probably legal if there’s a justification for it, but I might get in some minor trouble with the SPCA. If I kill my child it’s a serious crime.

    They’re all alive. Clearly not all life has the same value.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    Dave,

    My 99 was referring to your 97, to wit, “If the mother considers the fetus to be alive and intends to carry it to term then that is the primary determination of whether it is human or not, absent an absolute scientific ruling on when life begins.”

    This contains two other errors. Again, it is not the mother that determines whether it is human or not, at least if presuming that both she and her mate were human. And it has nothing to do with when life begins. Life began billions of years ago, and before, during and after conception, all elements, e.g. sperm and egg, the zygote, and its subsequent development, were alive. The forms were changed but life was continuous throughout the process. There was no beginning of life here.

    I agree with your 100.

    Les

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Les, the conventional terminology is to talk about when ‘life’ begins, but obviously we’re really talking about when ‘personhood’ with full rights attached begins. Your argument is primarily semantic and without substance.

    Dave

  • Cannonshop

    Simple enough-a Tumour is, strictly speaking, live human cells. We remove those all the time. A Fetus is, up until, oh…the middle/late period of the second trimester? completely incapable of living outside the womb-even on life-support. It may be alive, it may be human cells, but ‘taint a person yet unless we want it to be.

    Where do you draw the line at Rights? Constitutionally, you aren’t a Citizen until you’re born, IN the U.S. (or Naturalized, an event that tends to happen LONG after you’re born). there’s a balance point there-between something that is essentially a tumour, and a someone with a right to live. Amendment 48 takes it to an extreme that’s dangerous as a precedent, and relegates the rights of one person subservient to the rights of another without opportunity for redress of grievances caused by that subordination.

    i.e. it makes every fertile woman in the state a piece of STATE PROPERTY. It’s probably not the intention of the writers, but it’s the unintended consequence of passage when taken to the logical end. After all, if you can’t forcibly evict an invader in your body, how can you hope to justify eviction of an invader in your House? It is, taken literally, a massive grab for State Power that should be opposed.

    The whole purpose, after all, of citizenship, is that a citizen has rights and responsibilities that the non-citizen does not have. Included among these are the rights to self-defense, defense of home, and the right to redress of grievance. By defining an undifferentiated mass of cells as the equal of the woman it is growing inside of, you are essentially defining the woman as an incubator for the state.

  • http://jetsnewsviews.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Do you realize that there is DNA in a human hair? That means every time someone gets a haircut they’re killing potential babies.

    Poor Mr. Nalle, now he’ll never get pregnant.

  • http://jetsnewsviews.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Using the same twisted logic as the legislation, a dog could become pregnant and a vet’s exam revealed that the bitch has 7 golden retriever puppies in the earliest stage of developing.

    by rights, the owner of the dog can sell each at market price, and the buyer is stuck if the one they selected was stillborn, because at the time of the sale that little group of cells was legally a dog…

    …right?

  • Clavos

    Constitutionally, you aren’t a Citizen until you’re born, IN the U.S. (or Naturalized, an event that tends to happen LONG after you’re born).

    Sorry, Cannon, but not so. I wasn’t born IN the US, and I was a citizen the moment I drew my first breath, because at least one of my parents was a citizen (that’s the legal requirement, but actually, both my parents were citizens). I was (and am still) also a citizen of the country in which I was born from birth.

  • Cannonshop

    Point being, (though I may have gotten the “Moment of Citizenship” slightly off), you had to be breathing first, as in alive, outside of mom’s womb, no longer a schrodinger’s Cat (could be alive or not), a person Born, as opposed to a mathematical potential for a person.

    Which is, imho, a reasonable standard for citizenship under the most primitive conditions (that is, not having lots of medical knowledge and expensive gear to determine alive or dead status).

    And the other point, is that the amendment makes some citizens effectively property of the State, uncompensated chattel, um… second class.

    This is unacceptable, and the Amendment’s terms make this second-class status so vague that it can be used to do exactly that. If humans laid eggs externally in the manner of reptiles, such a law would be acceptable, as there is a definite separation between the interests and rights of the parent-body and the interests and rights of the offspring, however, until the offspring is delivered into the world, it is a potential person, as opposed to an actual person. There ARE limits to this, however-reasonable limits. The point at which the offspring can be separated (even with external life-support) and exist without mom, develop normally without her, and such, should be taken into consideration (there’s also the rule of natural consequences to consider, and holding people accountable for both decisions, and indecisions-once the kid is viable outside the womb, there is some need in a moral society to account for the rights of said potential kid. Roe vs. Wade, read strictly, provides a dividing line that is, in my opinion, reasonable between the rights of Mom and the rights of Offspring. If you’re waiting until Eight Months, fifteen days to decide you don’t want to do it after all, well…there has to be limits.)

  • JMVR

    Les,

    #96 is where we reach our impasse, because that’s the core arguement – is a zygote life? My only additional point would be to add that most people at least feel uncomfortable about unrestricted abortion. Which supposes that there is some kind of inherent belief most have that, even if not life, it will BE life. They just believe it’s best judges situationally, for sake of – ironically – convenience. After all, if it was completely lifeless – a fleshy goo substance – it really doesn’t matter whether it’s an abortion of convenience or not and would be no different than getting a haircut.

    #104,

    Which brings me to this absurd point. The difference between a haircut and an abortion (I can hardly believe I have to explain this) is that an abortion actually extinguishes a DNA code or identity from existence. Hair is made up of dead cells.

    #97,

    Let me make sure I follow – you’re saying a pregnancy is only alive if the woman gives it the thumbs up? You’re ascribing the woman god status over life? It’s either alive or it isn’t, despite the woman’s misgivings.

  • troll

    ….that’s the core arguement – is a zygote life?

    nope: the core argument is over whether or not a zygote is a person – different question

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    by rights, the owner of the dog can sell each at market price, and the buyer is stuck if the one they selected was stillborn, because at the time of the sale that little group of cells was legally a dog…

    In thoroughbred animal sales they actually have contracts defining terms under which the sale can be retroactively negated, because of early death, failure to display certain genetic characteristics or inability to breed successfully. So those animals are effectively declared non-viable well after birth. They usually aren’t killed, but they are sterilized at the very least.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    JMVR,

    Your criticism of Dave’s 97 is totally correct. Dave strays from a scientific analysis when he ascribes metaphysical qualities to the fetus.

    Cannonshop,

    I agree with your 103, good job.

    I would like to add that if the woman wishes to go to term, then the state shows absolutely no interest, there is no right to health whatsoever, including prenatal health and nutrition. This is also true after birth. The God-damned state could give a fuck except laying the responsibility totally on her shoulders.

    Along with your 103, I might also add that those that deny a woman the right to control her own body have no qualms whatsoever of using the coercive force of the state to render her an incubator for the state and their own sick morality.

    Les

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Let me make sure I follow – you’re saying a pregnancy is only alive if the woman gives it the thumbs up? You’re ascribing the woman god status over life? It’s either alive or it isn’t, despite the woman’s misgivings.

    No, I’m saying that it is the woman’s determination whether that fetus has a future in which it will be a viable human being or not.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I would like to add that if the woman wishes to go to term, then the state shows absolutely no interest, there is no right to health whatsoever, including prenatal health and nutrition. This is also true after birth. The God-damned state could give a fuck except laying the responsibility totally on her shoulders.

    In most states this is absolutely untrue, Les. CPS will prosecute you for neglecting the health of a child and in many cases even for not receiving proper prenatal care, and in those states there are generally ways to get free prenatal care and healthcare for children as well.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    Dave,

    I have made criticisms of some aspects of your remarks. I meant them constructively. I do believe you are quite intelligent and I generally agree with most of where you’re coming from here, at least in your recent comments.

    Les

  • Les Slater

    “Les. CPS will prosecute you for neglecting the health of a child and in many cases even for not receiving proper prenatal care…”

    As I said, “The God-damned state could give a fuck except laying the responsibility totally on her shoulders.”

    Your pointing to ‘prosecution’ only reinforces my point. It’s on her shoulders.

    “…and in those states there are generally ways to get free prenatal care and healthcare for children as well.”

    This is limited and inadequate, at best. These, if available at all, are often not convenient, and any transportation, and or necessary childcare are not offered. There is also no right to shelter or the suitability, thereof.

  • JMVR

    #109,

    If you grant that a zygote is life, you have to accept it as a person. If zygote = life and it’s a human zygote, then human zygote = human life. You’re tripping over semantics.

    #112,

    And why is that?

  • Les Slater

    JMVR,

    “If you grant that a zygote is life, you have to accept it as a person. If zygote = life and it’s a human zygote, then human zygote = human life.”

    You start with, “If you grant that a zygote is life, you have to accept it as a person.” Then, “If zygote = life and it’s a human zygote, then human zygote = human life.”

    You never make any connection of live zygote with personhood. You just reiterate what’s already accepted. Your “If you grant that a zygote is life, you have to accept it as a person.” Is just left standing with no further development.

    Human life does not necessarily equal person. From Wikipedia:

    “The term person is used in common sense to mean an individual human being. But in the fields of law, philosophy, medicine, and others, it means the presence of certain characteristics that grant a certain legal, ethical, or moral standing.

    “For example, in many jurisdictions, the law allows a group of human beings to act together as a single composite entity called a corporation, and the corporation is considered a legal person with standing to sue or be sued in court. In philosophy and medicine, person may mean only humans who are capable of certain kinds of thought, and thus exclude embryos, early fetuses, or adults with certain types of brain damage.”

    Les

  • http://jetsnewsviews.blogspot.com/ Jet

    The hair DNA remark was a joke. Did I really have to point that out?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    The argument over when life begins will doubtless continue until each of us discovers exactly when it ends…!

    However, the problem with Amendment 48 is that it seeks to fix, legally, the moment of conception as the beginning of life. It supporters claim, disingenuously, that that’s ALL it does.

    To which the natural response is: “OK. And?”

    And that’s when the cat escapes from the bag.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Why does Colorado’s constitution need 48 amendments anyway? Was the damn thing really that badly written?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    This is limited and inadequate, at best. These, if available at all, are often not convenient, and any transportation, and or necessary childcare are not offered. There is also no right to shelter or the suitability, thereof.

    Well Les, this goes off the theory that if you are pregnant you really should try to avoid getting pregnant. In general our society assumes that even the most destitute have a certain level of personal responsibility at least when it comes to their own bodies.

    To date the pressure is not there to change this kind of policy because most prenatal neglect is a matter of choice, not necessity in our affluent but often irresponsible society. The number of people who are homeless and destitute and pregnant of necessity rather than choice is so small that it’s not considered statistically meaningful.

    If that changes. If we go back to the 1930s with huge numbers of homeless people, then a change in policy towards what I assume you would advocate would start to make some sense.

    Dave

  • JMVR

    I made the connection. It’s an “if A = B and B = C, then A=C” arguement.

    Again, we have to get from human zygote to person, right? Okay, so if a human zygote is a life, by virtue of bring human, it is a human life.

    That’s the foundation of 48 – to equate “human life” with “person”… the ethics of giving corporations the designation of person is another matter, of which I oppose.

  • Les Slater

    JMVR,

    “if A = B and B = C, then A=C”

    That only gets us to that the zygote is alive and is human, it does not get us to ‘person’.

    I agree that corporations should not be considered a person in any sense.

    What do you think about ‘adults with certain types of brain damage’ not being a person?

    Les

  • JMVR

    I would actually disagree with the brain damage one, too. They may not be fit for society and may require hospitalization, but surely a court could order that without removing them the designation of “person”, could they not? Might be a state-by-state thing.

    Back to the point. Human zygote gets us to human life. 48 will get us to decide whether or not “human life” and person are synonymous. My stance is obviously yes – unique DNA, unique individual. I see “fetus” and “zygote” as stages of an individual’s life, such as “infant”.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    48 will get us to decide whether or not “human life” and person are synonymous. My stance is obviously yes – unique DNA, unique individual.

    I’ll say it again: “OK. And?”

  • JMVR

    And what? If unique DNA denotes an independent person, it is then murder to terminate that individual. Not quite sure what you’re asking for here.

  • Les Slater

    JMVR,

    I think it is possible that at a certain level of brain damage that body may not be considered a person.

    Let’s say it was me and a blood clot caused no oxygen to the brain for an extended amount of time. It would be possible that there was plenty of blood being pumped by the heart to supply itself and the rest of the body except higher functions of the brain. There could even have been artificial electrical stimulation of the heart muscles with the proper rhythms requiring not even lower level functioning of the brain. I would be in what is considered a vegetated state.

    Even though much of my body might be functioning, there would be no me, no person, no personality, no personhood. There would be no functioning neurological basis for any memory of my previous life. My person, my life, would be over. There would be no me to have any stake in the survival of the remaining body.

    However, it is possible, maybe in the future, that all functioning of the brain could be restored, maybe through some sort of stem cell therapy, or something else. The restoration could include the same DNA codes as the rest of the body, namely what used to define the unique body of Les Slater. The whole body could be restored to perfect health.

    But would it be me? Without any memory of past functioning, of socialization, learning to negotiate my environment, with no education, no memory of, not to mention access to, my parents, who are long deceased, could I have any personality more than a newborn kitten, much less any part of what developed into what personality, personhood, that I have presently, writing this reply.

    But, there would be potential. This fully developed, physical organism, could and would develop a personality. But it would not be me. It would be someone new. We would end up with a new, and of course, unique person, but not me.

    Here we have a situation of a different, unique person, who is not Les Slater, but who has the same DNA.

    DNA does NOT determine uniqueness of the individual.

    Les

  • JMVR

    So are you attempting to equate brain activity with life?

  • Les Slater

    No, I am trying to demonstrate, by one example, that DNA uniqueness does not necessarily determine unique personhood.

    I also demonstrate that a unique DNA must develop substantially before it can be considered any person, nevermind, a unique one.

  • JMVR

    Develop to what point, would you say? When, in your opinion, does “life” begin? You really can’t say birth, as no significant developmental changes occur for the child during birth. So that really sort of leaves 3 options: conception, heart activity or brain activity.

    The latter two occur three weeks into gestation. One of the more popular argements for conception is that, at that point, it begins. A series of events, if you will, has gone underway that will result in birth. So even if you refuse to acknowledge conception, you at least have to warrant it as one of the latter two markers.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    And what? If unique DNA denotes an independent person, it is then murder to terminate that individual.

    Exactly. This is the whole can of spermatozoa which the supporters of 48 keep insisting won’t be opened.

    If it becomes homicide to terminate at any point at all in the gestation period, then not only does abortion become murder, but so do certain forms of contraception. A pregnant woman could be charged with manslaughter if she crashed her car and lost the baby… or even if she miscarried after drinking alcohol when she didn’t even know she was pregnant. A doctor would be wary of performing any medical procedure on a pregnant woman, and might be reluctant even to prescribe drugs to her for fear of possible homicide charges if something went wrong.

    These are the sorts of ‘gray area’ cases which should be decided using common sense at a state law level (if they even get that far), not by an overriding, overweening and immutable constitutional decree.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    When, in your opinion, does “life” begin? You really can’t say birth, as no significant developmental changes occur for the child during birth. So that really sort of leaves 3 options: conception, heart activity or brain activity.

    So how old are you, JMVR? What date do you (not to mention the entire world) reckon your age from?

    How would you even determine the other three with any degree of reliability?

  • Yamileth

    How could anyone possibly agree to such a crime.

    I mean in some cases yeah abortion should be allowed like in a rape situation or incest, but I mean if the girl was smart enough to open her legs then she should be smart enough to know the consequences. If she while doing this knowingly had sex then she should be responsible enough to take care of a child she had coming in a way.

    But a rape victim didn’t ask for what happened to her and had no say or choice in doing it with this guy, then she shouldn’t have to carryaround a burden of a child she doesn’t want. It will increase her suffering knowing how she got that child in the first place.

    But serioulsy the people who are trying to stop are on crack or something!

  • Kd

    This doesn’t force a women to be burdened with a baby. She can put the baby up for adoption if she doesn’t want to raise the baby. Also in a lot of states she could bring the baby to a hospital or police station and safely leave the baby there and have no questions asked.
    The fact is a baby is a baby even in the womb (why else would baby eagle eggs be so protected?) and this amendment is trying to protect them from being slaughtered by people who are “inconvenienced”. I know of a married couple who had an abortion just cause they didn’t want to start having kids yet. That’s as selfish as you get. Let someone adopt that baby if you don’t want him/her.

  • Sane

    If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. Period.

    A fetus is not a sentient being.

    This whole anti-abortion movement is led by semi-literates, with a made-up deity to prop up their ignorance of basic biology.

    Why don’t these yokels outlaw spontaneous abortions, while they are at?

    Phew!

  • Cannonshop

    #135 and Sane presents the OTHER extreme in the discussion.

    #134 kd, in most states the mother can be charged with Child Abandonment/endangerment or Neglect-and face prison time for doing what you suggest. Most states also have social-services people at the hospital who can expedite legal adoption proceedings (Which is NOT child endangerment, abandonment, or neglect, but allows the kid’s adoptive parents to have a medical history so that the kid can get treatment if/when something goes medically wrong.)

    But it doesn’t address certain core issues-like dangerous pregnancies (that is, pregnancies that can kill mommy AND infant), pregnancies that WILL result in burdens on society (most incestuous couplings produce seriously defective kids. Inbreeding BAD), nor does it address the fundamental right of the mother to all the same rights to property others have-if you don’t own your own body, you’re by definition a slave. Slavery corrupts both Master and slave, even if the “master” is the STATE and the Slave has the vote.

    The point where the Mother’s rights and the child’s rights has to be balanced-I’m often surprised in real life by how many people who spout pro-life lines state a willingness to shoot trespassers on their property. Likewise, I’m often shocked at how “pro=choice” people will go to great lengths to preserve the lives of proven violent criminals by opposing the death penalty.

    I myself am pro-death (or choice, take your pick) because I prefer to preserve the rights of non-criminal citizens already in existence, over the rights of potential human beings who are not in existence yet. I also favour execution for those who (like Ted Bundy) have proven that they do not deserve to live through their actions.

    Google the actual TEXT of Roe-vs.-Wade, it provides a ‘balance’ point in the actual decision, and while I may not personally agree with it, it is reasonably sound, denying both “abortion on demand” And permitting Abortion under reasonable circumstances. Groups at both extremes have pushed and pushed this debate to the point of ridiculousness, both sides have shown an alarming interest in big-government as a tool to achieve what is a moral, rather than legal, debate.

  • Joshua

    I have read many statements concerning amendment 48 and the potential things that could happen as a result. However, if we are all truly honest with ourselves sex outside of marriage is a crime in and of itself. The people who are unwilling to admit such a truth do so because they have trapped themselves into a false reality attempting to justify moral decay, and the degrading of true virtue. If you look around when no one else is with you and in that quiet moment open your heart to reality it is very clear that as a society we need to make some big time changes, and perhaps one of those changes is that we should return to the kind of morals and virtues that so true respect one to another so that we can eliminate the false realities that seem so popular and yet are so self-destructive in more ways then just one. You can chose to deny the validity of these words all you want, but in the end you are only fooling yourself. Best wishes to all who read this.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Joshua, I can’t take your views seriously when you base them upon such a demonstrably incorrect sentiment such as

    “However, if we are all truly honest with ourselves sex outside of marriage is a crime in and of itself.”

    I’m honest with myself almost all day long and I have never and probably will never agree with such a notion.

  • janna

    yeah that bull. if that amendment passes then Colorado is officially the dumbest state in the country. No one benefits from that, now we are going to have so many pregnant women, from age 13 and up. It’s not going to stop people from having sex, it’s just going to piss off a lot of people

  • coloradowoman

    So, if a fertilized egg is a “person” with the same rights as you and I then if a pregnant woman get’s in a car accident that is her fault, but an accident and has a miscarriage, she would be charged with Vehicular Manslaughter, even if she didn’t know she was pregnant. It would be just like if she killed someone in another car.

    If she rides a horse while pregnant and has a miscarriage, would that be murder?

    If you see a pregnant woman picking up something heavy, would you charge her with endangering a child?
    You see the Pandora’s box this could open?

  • Zoe

    I would just like to say that I find your thoughts to be unjustified. How on earth is it equal rights to kill a baby yet it isnt fair if the mothers life is possibly at risk?! There is a definite death if abortion is committed, yet a possible death if the mother carries. And it is far more traumatizing to abort a baby and face all the pain and guilt of killing your own child then it is to carry the baby of incest. Please do not assume that your opinions are what’s believed by people who have lived though the pain and guilt of having an abortion.

  • Susan

    And to comment #140- You are reading into this! The obscure stories of miscarrying is completely different then mudering the baby knowingly! If you consciencely go into murder the infant then the right of personhood comes into play, but if the mother miscarries from unknown causes then of course the mother isnt going to be charged with murder. The differences is nature causing the miscarriage of the hands of a doctor robbing the child of the chance to face nature and have the run of it himself. Dont be ignorant and make wild hair brain questions like that seem even plausible, BECAUSE THEY ARENT! This is pandoras box, this is a child life.

  • http://squarestate.net sufimarie

    to Susan @ #142: Just exactly how do you think there would be no “charges” against a miscarraige? Because of the findings of the investigation? Going in to “knowingly” kill the “infant” “consciencely(– you didn’t even use the correct word there,) is not what abortion is.

    I know you feel bad for the babies. I am sure most people who are against abortion are really fighting for what they think is right but in reality they are having a major break from reality. The fight against abortion is the fight to control the uncontrollable, at the expense of freedom and liberty. Take a history lesson (not the bible, it doesn’t count) and the try some compassion and not knee-jerk handwringing.

  • Tiddles

    Another yahoo idea from some radical right wing religious nut job who feels the need to force their ideals upon the whole world. This is yet another example of these idiots not only ignoring but blatantly disregarding everything that scientists have worked hard to teach us for years. A fertilized egg is just that, a fertilized egg….not a human by any means, a developing embryo. This is stupid, utterly stupid and I am shocked that anyone with any kind of education beyond the 3rd grade would conjure up such nonsense let alone support it. Despite the fact that I am surrounded by so many retarded ones, I am actually proud to be a human…however I find the thought of me being considered the same life form as a fertilized cell hanging out in some random chicks uterus highly insulting.

  • http://paulcantplaypiano.blogspot.com Chris “UZ” White

    Wow, almost 150 comments in such a short time. I’m touched by the amount of controversy and discussion my article has been able to bring about, I still feel that this is the most important amendment in quite a long time on the Colorado ballot.

    It’s the day before the big election day, so I’m making my final plea to the people with a couple of points that I would’ve put into the original article.

    * Bar none, you cannot argue that if something happens with the baby where the mother dies or something similar, the baby won’t be charged of anything. There is no “except for” or “unless” included in the amendment’s wording. If a baby kills it’s mother while being born, it’ll have to serve a life sentence like any other murderer. I’d just love to live my life like that, eh?

    * This amendment will still clog up the law system something awful. New laws and exception attempts all based on this one amendment will pop up daily for long amounts of time, stopping actual crimes from getting reported and stuck through the system. This is the dumbest thing since illegal drugs.

    * Finally, even if you were considering voting yes on this amendment, please consider what America is supposed to be, and that is secular. Forcing your religious beliefs upon everyone else is not only unconstitutional, but incredibly selfish on your part. If you’d just consider that and only that… perhaps people will make the right choice.

    * Vote Libertarian :D

  • Pink Girl

    I am against 48 just because it forces people to do “the right” thing. I know this sounds heartless but if you know you don’t want to have a baby you don’t want to have a baby. Whatever’s on the inside of you is YOUR business and your bussiness alone. In the case of an unborn baby the father has a right to know so he has the chance to stand up and take on his responsibilty as a man. If he doesn’t then he loses his say so in the matter and it’s NO ONE else’s business what the woman does after that. That’s the problem with the Pro-Life side, because THEY think life is precious they think everyone should and not everyone does. That’s why some people commit suicide. They try to make a law against killing YOURSELF by saying God doesn’t approve. Well God’s got it made it’s us mortals that have to stuggle day to day with these horrible living conditions that have to worry about the people we bring into this world and why we might choose not to. So bottom line we all need to agree to disagree because you have no idea of what someone else is going through AND it’s none of your business what someone else does with what’s INSIDE their body!!!!

  • hanna

    Amendment 48 gives Colorado a bad name. I hope black-and-white thinking, 21 year-old Cristy Burton feels just as strongly if she’s gang raped by a pack of hoodlums and is forced to bear a child with severe physical and mental disabilities. I hope she is prepared then to stand before everyone with her child in pride. But I doubt it – she’d run off quietly to abort that child straight away. Hypocrites, the whole lot of them!

  • Kristina

    I am a christian and I grew up in the church. Almost two months ago my boyfriend and I found out that we were pregnant and decided to have an abortion. It was the right decision for us. I can honestly say that there was no suffering for me. I was at work the next day feeling like I was having regular cramps. If this amendment passes then we are telling women all over Colorado that their views, their opinions, their feelings, and most of all, their rights no longer matter. I was not and am not ready for a kid and with all of the defective foster homes and adoption agencies out there, there was no way that adoption was an option. Honestly, I think that anyone who has never been in a position of having to make that decision has no idea what they believe. In September I did the opposite of what I lived my whole life telling myself I would do and I don’t regret making that decision in any way. If you haven’t voted yet, please vote no. Let women keep their rights.

  • EJ

    There’s a lot of talk about the abortion spect of this, but what impact will this have on juvenile law? Currently, juveniles cannot legally speak for themselves and are not technically guaranteed the same legal rights as adults. Now you want to give those rights to a fetus? Do you then take them away when the kids reach a certain age or do you completely rework the legal system — which would involve removing a parent’s right to do what he or she feels is in the best interest of the child.

    Further, I strongly appose abortion, but the fact of the matter is that a fetus simply is not a viable life form until at least 20 weeks. If you remove it from the woman’s body it will simply die.

    Regardless of what you feel the intent for this action may be, remember there is always someone more radical than you… Someone WILL use it to challenge the legality of contraception and quite possibly win depending on how the judge reads the intent. What happens then? People (esp kids) will not simply stop having sex because we want them to. The abstinence only approach has actually seen an INCREASE in teenage sexual activity since the Bush administration imposed it on the schools in 2001. (See the CDC reports)

    Finally, let’s not forget every day each of us kills millions of single celled organisms that CAN exist by themselves why don’t we protect them while we’re at it? Remember that God made those as well, and loves them too!

  • Chad

    Less than 1% of abortions are due to rape and incest. Lets kill the rest of the 99% because of the 1%. To me it is unbelievable. I love it that most people that are for this are also against killing animals. Wow, what has this world come to, Lord please help our nation, we do not know what we do.

  • Life

    For those who believe a fetus or embryo isn’t a “sentient being” and that the unborn fetus is not a child, watch the video on http://www.durarealidad.com and tell me what you think. If you really think there is nothing wrong with abortion, then this video won’t disturb you any more than “cutting your hair” does. After all, it’s “just a clump of cells” like your hair follicles, right?

  • Les Slater

    Life,

    You certainly have a right to your opinions, but Colorado voters rejected the ‘embryonic personhood’ amendment by a 3 to 1 margin.

    Les

  • http://paulcantplaypiano.blogspot.com Chris “UZ” White

    OP HERE! AMENDMENT 48 WAS SOUNDLY DEFEATED!

    Thanks, any of you who happened to live in Colorado. :D

  • Floyd

    “Take a history lesson (not the bible, it doesn’t count) and the try some compassion and not knee-jerk handwringing.”

    #143 – There in lies the real issue. What gives you the authority to say that the Bible doesn’t count? Are you a historicity professor? I majored in European history at a secular college. What I discovered is that there are 4 major tests to discover whether or not a document is historically accurate. These tests remember were taught at this institution that for the most part ridiculed me for being a Christian. So you can trust that they weren’t trying to make me feel good. Did you know that the Bible has been proven, by those 4 independent tests, to be the most hisorically accurate document ever. This is widely accepted by even most non-Christian historians. So again, why not allow it to get into the debate. Unless, for the obvious reasons.

    Also, the previous comment by Les assumes that if a majority votes to pass something, that immediatley means it is the right thing. I know that you didn’t quite think that through Les, because for a long time the majority didn’t let women, or african-americans, vote in this country. So, unless you support that view, which would now put you in the minority, then the majority at that time must have been wrong. So simply because something was not allowed to happen through voting, like the instances I just mentioned, doesn’t make it the wrong thing do to. Sometimes it can be quite the opposite.

    You would agree with that right?

    #146 – Well God’s got it made it’s us mortals that have to stuggle day to day with these horrible living conditions…

    Pink girl let me ask you this. Would you consider someone being hated by his own family, made to wander without a home, being falsely accussed, beaten within an inch of his life, nailed to a cross naked for all to see, stabbed in the side, and then buried with no funeral, not struggling and good living conditions??

    Before you talk about God having it made, you should understand what He has done, and continues to do, for you. He knows about the horrible living conditions, He knows about how we all struggle daily. I, personally, had a very difficult childhood (4 different dads, alcholism, abuse, you name it), and I used to look at God and say “where the hell are you man!” Until I fully understood how much He has done for me, and how much He truly loves ALL of us, I felt just like you do. Maybe what I just wrote is just a bunch of foolish trash to you, but I hope not.

  • Les Slater

    Floyd,

    “…Les assumes that if a majority votes to pass something, that immediatley means it is the right thing.”

    We are not talking abstract arguments here. We are talking specifically about an amendment conferring personhood to an undivided cell. The argument does not stand up to any notion of modern science. The sponsors were not able to sell this to a relative well educated population.

    Your argument put this informed decision in the same category as supporting disenfranchisement of real people. I think you will find a better positive correlation with those that tend to support disenfranchisement and those that backed this amendment.

    In a long average of things, this has to be seen as a moment of progress and enlightenment.

    Les

  • Vincent

    Really relieved, after the last month passed discovering your beautiful colorado state, and listing radio/TV, seeing you have rejected amendment 48.

    For those who still have regrets :
    Please dear american cousin, listen your mother, sister, daughter, friends…. and allow her decided -herselseves- what they want to do with their own belly, and their resulting lives.
    A child must be desired.
    If after a long thought (and the night are clearly long when it’s happened : long time to think) the potential mother (and the “father”) doesn’t feel in herself the courage to make and educate the child, (and even if it’s for you a wrong choice), …..it’s HER choice.

    In every church, you grant forgiveness for the mistakes, and for those who believe in god you’re proud of it (I don’t believe in old legends, sorry, but I let the others done, if they fell better with), ; But…..why this “mistake” (or drama, in case of rape) should be definetly unforgivable ?

    Vincent (France)

  • Floyd

    Les,

    “…disenfranchisement of real people.”

    Who are real people in your opinion? Those that by modern science have been declared “real people”? You sound like a thinking person, so I am genuinely interested to hear what you have to say.

  • Pink Girl

    Floyd,
    Thank you so much for proving my point. You tried to use jesus’ CHOICE to insult me but he and god both made a CHOICE. As far as god doing things for me, you know absolutly nothing about me or my life experience so get off your soap box cause you don’t know squat. The point i’m trying to get across is that NO ONE has the right to stop anybody from making a decision about what’s going on INSIDE their body whether it’s alive or not. As far as anyone that says an abortion is like getting a haircut is seriously misguided and anyone who believes that people who get an abortion truely believe that is misinformed. When I had my abortion do you honestly think I believed the counsler that told me that it was just tissue? NO!!! If I believed it was just tissue I wouldn’t have cared about the situtation that I was in and exposed that poor child to it. Yes it hurts because I miss my baby, but I know that at the time I was NOT able to provide a safe enviorment for that baby. And if anyone tries to tell me that adoption was an option, one of my own family members became a ward of the state because of abuse and instead of putting her with safe family they put her in a foster home with people who beat and raped her. So I’m not handing my kid over to strager who could very easily fake the process and be an even worse fate than death.

  • Floyd

    Pink Girl,

    Who’s proving who’s point?

    “….you know absolutly nothing about me or my life experience so get off your soap box cause you don’t know squat.”

    In one breath you talk about God as if you KNOW Him, but then rail against me because I presume to know you. I guess use it if it works for your argument right?

    If you read my comments before that was my point exactly…you shouldn’t bring God into it if you don’t actually want to try and KNOW Him. But I can hear them now, for me when I speak about this topic, it’s a soap box, but when you or pro-choicers talk about it…it’s passion.

    I’M not trying to guilt you. Also, don’t blame me for things God has said. I simply CHOOSE to believe Him. If you feel guilt that’s not MY doing. The tragedy is that you would feel and carry that guilt around for another second when you don’t have to.

    Furthermore, you speak as if you acknowledge that “it” was a “baby”. So which is it? I don’t doubt that it was a very painful and emotional experience for you, as it should have been.

    When you speak about “…NOT being able to provide a safe enviroment for that baby” that is a slippery slope. What if my wife and I had a child, and then 6weeks later we got into a horrible accident. My wife dies, and I am a quadrapelegic. I am no longer able to work, or AT ALL provide a safe enviroment for my baby. Can I kill it? That kind of logic to support abortion falls apart before it even gets started. If you are going to have the debate then it must be on “what is life?” Then we can talk about who has the right to do what.

  • Dr. Rajanna

    Every embryo in the early stages of development within the womb should be aborted unless the embryo itself agrees to be born. No one should be forced into to being born.

  • Floyd

    #160 Why? On what authority are you basing your argument? It sounds as if you are stating that they are alive and should have rights. Is that correct? Who gives them rights? Embryo cannot verbally speak to request this, so is silence a vote in favor of or against birth? If against, we cease to exist, if for then ALL should be born. Correct? Your logic is so feeble that I hesitate to repsond, but let’s see it through shall we. Let’s just say your married, and your wife is pregnant. The baby (embryo) cannot audibly speak or gesture in an agreed upon manner for or against birth. What do we do? Please respond… your baby, and millions of others hang in the balance.

  • Pink Girl

    You know what? Whatever! Obviously you really believe you’re right and you are entitled to your opinion. Don’t you dare take me missing my BABY as guilt. I did what I had to. All that crap you said as if you been though what I had I don’t see anything that actually lead you to a life or death situation.
    As far as knowing god, I only brought him up because YOU started in with jesus. Also I was raised by a religious fanantic just like you, so I do KNOW about your terroristic beliefs. Yes somewhere in your twisted little brain somehow I’m the terrorist bringing death and destruction, even though I’m not the one who believes that some invisible guy is going to punish me because of some choices I made. I’m by no means saying you shouldn’t feel the way you do about abortion but pulling dumb senerios out of your butt and telling people about god is NOT going to get what you want accomplished.
    I didn’t tell the people on this site about my abortion so you(the pro-closed minded) could say “got what you deserved.” I’m trying to show you how people like you are actually hurting your own cause. You keep preaching to everyone and no one wants to hear it because you’re more worried about the baby they don’t want instead of what they’re going through, so naturally they don’t care what you have to say and the baby will die anyway. It will always remain so as long as pro-lifers keep sticking their noses where they don’t belong without first trying to understand why a person feels that that’s the option that they have.
    As much as we as a society try to pretend we’ve made so much progress, we really haven’t. What about the girl that has sex with someone outside of her race and is now afraid her family will disown her? Shelfish? Yes, but it’s a real problem that many girls still have to face. What about the girl who was told by some jerk that he’d be there so she leaves everything behind to raise his child only to find out that he’s married to some other woman and never intended to help her and her child out at all?
    This stuff happens everyday and it’s easy to sit around and judge when you haven’t been through it. I know these women and call us all what you will but this was what we did and somehow we can all be better for it because we KNOW what happens before, during, and after and we can really help people whatever they decide.

  • Pink Girl

    Strike the god comment. But pro-lifers do like to throw that around alot and they need to stop

  • guy who should have no voice in a WOMENS decision

    Alright yall, lets say youre wife is on her way home and gets carjacked. Then suspect decides shes too hot to get away and rapes her, do you keep the child? 2 1/2 months later youre told that if she goes through with the birth her kidneys will die, giving her less than a year to live on dialasis, do you still keep them? Please keep in mind donor lists are YEARS long. Now fast forward to 6 1/2 months later,said child is diagnosed with AIDS, still happy about youre choice? Sounds far-fetched? Its not,every day hundreds of women are raped and left with longer lasting effects than abbortion, like disease and mental illness. Thats not to say abbortion doesnt have a list of side effects as long as my arm, but givin the correct information any and all women are perfectly capable of making an informed, healthy deciscion about there body, child, and life. To “outlaw” abortion is not the way to handle this debate. Information is.

  • Floyd

    Pink girl, do you really see me as a religous fanatic, and a terrorist?? As a father of two children don’t I have as much of a right to fight for the right to life cause as you have to defend the abortion cause? I am simply trying to have a thoughtful debate, and you go to name calling. That’s seem to be the way it is in this most critical cause. The ones who want to talk about the reasons why a chld shouldn’t be aborted are fanatics or zealots, and the ones who want to defend abortion are “open minded.”