'Fertilized egg is a person' ballot proposal scares doctor
By Steven K. Paulson, Associated Press
Published May 6, 2008 at 9:30 p.m.
Opponents of a proposal defining a fertilized human egg as a person warned Tuesday that it could have unintended consequences, barring doctors from treating women with cancer and banning some birth control.
"As a physician, this proposed constitutional amendment really scares me," said Dr. Mary Fairbanks. "The moment of fertilization is not a medical definition, and so defining a person in that way interferes with the practice of medicine."
The proposed ballot issue was introduced by a coalition of anti- abortion activists called Colorado for Equal Rights. The group has until May 13 to gather the 76,000 signatures needed to get on the November ballot.
Supporters did not return phone calls seeking comment.
Former state Rep. Gayle Berry, a Republican from Grand Junction, said the amendment would open the door to government control over personal choices.
"This is not a partisan issue. Both sides of the aisle can agree that if this amendment passes, Coloradans will lose the right to make decisions about their own families," she said during a rally on the steps of the state Capitol.
May 7, 2008
6:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
CaptainObvious writes:
Really? You can't keep your religion to yourself? Now you're trying to blanket the entire state with your regressive beliefs? You and your huge ego suck. Keep it in your church.
May 7, 2008
7:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
I was stopped coming out of a grocery store last Saturday by someone wanting me to sign the petition. I was with my 2 daughters and in a hurry but I stopped and listened. I declined to sign the petition because I was in a hurry and didn't have enough time to think things through and the person with the petition also had 2 other petitions he wanted me to sign. One was getting the right to work issue on the ballot and I can't remember the other. This guy probably had no dog in this hunt but was paid to get as many signatures as he could ,on as many different ballots as he could.
As far as the issue, I probably wouldn't have signed it. I think this is just a way to get the anti-abortionist to get their foot in the door to overturn Roe V. Wade. Sneaky, sneaky.
May 7, 2008
7:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
MarineGrunt writes:
Have to agree with the Capt above. SOME American do not want the church's belief system in our lives, and the church, and its zealots, seems to forget this fact.
If you cannot read "Freedom From Religion" into "Freedom of Religion" then your no better then Stalin or Hitler.
May 7, 2008
7:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
PMSXpress writes:
Ridiculous. There are many instances where a fertilized egg isn't viable, nor will implant in the uterus. A fertilized egg is not a growing human baby if it hasn't yet become dependent on the mother host. Therefore it is a moot point. This is a dig at the fertility business obviously.
Vudumom is right, these are the anti-abortionists trying to force their way of thinking upon everyone. I definitely would NOT sign a petition for this and would make a point of voting against it if it happens to make it to ballot (which I doubt).
May 7, 2008
7:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
Abortions are caused by unwanted pregnancies. In this day and age there is no reason for an unwanted pregnancy. With education and birth control this could become a moot issue. Why do anti-abortionists oppose these common sense solutions?
May 7, 2008
7:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
farsidefan writes:
Grunt, well said.
My other opposition to this is, that they want to screw with the state constitution. Again ! Our constitution is already about 3 or 4 times as long as the U.S. Constitution ( okay smart alecks not the ship! ).
May 7, 2008
7:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
This is too easy...The last century's greatest and deadest villains made it their business to eradicate both religion and freedom every where.Abortion was just fine with them.
Nothing sneaky about it,Vudumom.Roe v Wade combines Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson.Like them Roe enables us to turn millions into un-people.And the Census Bureau can't count any of them as even three-fifths of a person.
The news article says nothing about anyone's belief system,except for that of Dr.Fairbanks,who seems to think murdering children is okay when the doctor says so.
May 7, 2008
7:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
KelcyCo writes:
Based on this definition few forms of birth control could be allowed except the rhythm method of counting days could be used. Most birth control methods prevent implantation after fertilization. Or so medical science understands at this point. Therefore, under this definition would they not become murder? Also, women would need to stay home when they are of child bearing age since could there not be life stresses and activities that would prevent implantation or even miscarriage after implantation? Unless they were celibate then they could not prove they were not possibly carrying a person. This concept is so Orwellian.
May 7, 2008
7:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
Not at all,Kelcy.The Personhood Amendment can be compared to laws against drunk driving,or sexual intercourse with a child,or even the smoking ban.The point is that our society does not permit anyone to harm another for any reason.
The Personhood Amendment is also like Brown v Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act.No person or group of persons may in any way act to deny other persons status as human beings.
May 7, 2008
8 a.m.
Suggest removal
TW1ZT3D writes:
Have any of you seen your countries currency? or have you ever recited the pledge of ALLIGIANCE? (find the sysnonym to allegiance)In GOD we trust! One Nation Under GOD! yep that is right GOD GOD GOD. and to you marinegrunt, your comments (most) seem quite treacherous!
May 7, 2008
8:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
CaptainObvious writes:
Um, no Jimminy. You are way off (again--seems to be a common happening). I guess they could be compared, but it would be wrong! Just like I can compare a Cadillac to a dust mite. Sure, ok, but it doesn't make them anywhere near the same. Nice try. If you don't like abortion, Jimminy, then don't have one. Any thing else is you attempting to control women and jam your personal beliefs (small, narrow-minded beliefs I might ad) down other people's throats. Typical religious zealotry. I guess some things never change.
May 7, 2008
8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
AngelontheSidelines writes:
In God we trust=all others pay cash
Abortion is a terrible choice to make, the baby harmed no one and does not deserve her fate. At the same time a person has rights, personhood is defined by a birth certificate and a name. Without status of a breathing named legal being, unborn babies have no rights.
That is the line. Compromise by definition makes all parties unhappy, and three months into pregnancy would be a good starting point. Before then the fetus has not developed sufficient complex nervous systems to be aware and feel trauma, abortion can be taken with no restrictions.
After that point, the baby should have a chance, unless the mother has a medical condition that endangers her life abortion should be decided in court. The right to lifers can fund unborn defense attorneys and the mother can pay for her own plaintiff lawyer then a jury or judge can decide if she can abort her child.
Abortion court will make everybody unhappy except the lawyers.
May 7, 2008
8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
EZBakeOven writes:
I am firmly opposed to the fertilized egg is a person idea. The constitution guarantees us viable women the right to choose. Why don't these people put their money where their mouth is and start adopting those unwanted kids who are already HERE?
May 7, 2008
8:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
I am retracting my planned vote for MarineGrunt in 2012. I didn't realize it could be a vote for a "closet tyrant".
"If you cannot read "Freedom From Religion" into "Freedom of Religion" then your no better then Stalin or Hitler."
Same weird thinking as those who claim you can read "Freedom from Gun Ownership" into the 2nd amendment.
Same warped view as those who claim you can read "Government must regulate speech" into Freedom of Speech.
One should be able to clearly see that a supposed "freedom FROM religion" right, entitles one selfish bigot to deny the freedom OF religion for others. A real world example of this was demonstrated in Aspen when an official stated that if "one" person does not like hearing John McCain's voice on the public address intercom, then they will not use it. So one person with the power to be "free FROM the voice of John McCain" has the power to dictate what everyone else will hear.
That's called tyranny. It's a shame that some support it, as it always results in the same outcome... that person gets their way... and the rest of society suffers.
May 7, 2008
8:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
Red Herring! Smoke Screen! Front! If you right wing religious zealots want your beliefs incorporated into modern law, then I think your churches can start paying taxes. I think I'll start a ballot initiative to that effect. Beginning today.
May 7, 2008
8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bob299 writes:
For once I agree with MarineGrunt. Religion has no business in politics.
May 7, 2008
8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
I am against abortion, but this ballot proposal just plain sucks. If it get on the ballot I will NOT vote for it. The way I read this sewage is that the birth control pill and IUDs could be made illegal. Both keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb.
Hey Grunt: If you can't tell the difference between "Freedom OF Religion" versus "Freedom FROM Religion" you must have not worn your ear protection on the gunnery range one time too many. Try re-reading the Constitution.
Scott
May 7, 2008
9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
SkiBum writes:
I love how the anti-religious people want religious people to have no voice in society. Perhaps religious people should start demanding that atheists stop using their humanistic beliefs to guide them? The Constitution does not prefer or disadvantage either - all points are allowed.
If, when religious people voice an opinion, you say they are forcing their ways on you, then I say to you that as an atheist/humanist when you express your opinion, you are forcing your views and beliefs on me.
You cannot have it both ways. Whether your beliefs come from religion or secularism, they drive your worldview and neither side should be excluded from contributing.
People who are guided by religious beliefs have just as much right as those who follow humanistic beliefs. You cannot eliminate one major section of opinion because you do not like what they have to say. That is the whole point of freedom of speech. Besides, I thought the whole point of open and free society was to be challenged. Lefties and atheiests love to challenge 'traditional' ways but why is it they do not like their beliefs challenged by the 'traditional'?
Besides, there are many non-religious arguments against abortion. Anyone can tell you that killing for the sake of convenience is wrong.
To show you what the culture of abortion and disposability has done to our society, I give you Barack Obama, who considers pregnancy a punishment. This is what he said regarding an unplanned pregnancy and his girls: "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby."
Which proves exactly the pro-lifers point. That abortion is done for convenience of the mother. Note how he also called it a baby, and not a fetus. Ah, see how hard it is to keep those verbal gymnastics going? Even the best, like Obama, who is uber pro-abortion - admits the obvious. It is a baby that is being killed.
May 7, 2008
9:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
TW1ZT3D writes:
i never tried to force any thing, thought, or beleif on you "froward" or any body for that matter, just thought it quaint how all forget about GOD when it is conveinient, but as soon as a tower fell every one was patriotic and religious. and are you joeking? have you ever recieted the pledge? one nation under?????? it aint the president, come on you know?
May 7, 2008
9:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
freethought writes:
MarineGrunt/Froward69 would be a great ticket for the 2012 Presidential campaign. Scott, as usual, the lone voice of dissent.
May 7, 2008
9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
SkiBum writes:
As far as the famed 'separation of church & state' - more Americans need to read the Federalist Papers and about Jefferson. This shows the woeful state of our education system.
This phrase is no where in the Constitution. It was written by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on Jan 1, 1802.
The Baptists wrote "That no man ought to suffer in Name, person or effects on account of his religious Opinions". Jefferson agreed and went on to talk about the 'wall' - which he meant to protect Citizens and their religion from GOVERNMENT encroachment, and not to keep religion out of Government.
In a letter to Samuel Miller in 1823, Jefferson wrote : "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States [10th Amendment]." He continued "Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General [Federal] government. ... Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets."
So as you can see, what Jefferson said has been twisted to the opposite of the original meaning.
Then, there is the fact the Founders believed religion, practiced individually, was essential for a functioning republic.
John Adams, our 2nd President and a driving force behind our Independence, said this: "We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
His words are so true today. We are seeing exactly what happens when religion and morals are removed from public life. The Founders were very wise men indeed (and as a woman I have no problem saying that!).
May 7, 2008
9:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
TW1ZT3D writes:
Thank you SkiBum.
May 7, 2008
9:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
One nation under...which god? Allah, Yahweh, Buddha, Ganesh, Zeus, Thor, Lemmy?
If your point is that kids are forced to recite the pledge, when they don't know that they have the option to disagree or abstain, I agree.
May 7, 2008
9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
Funny, I thought the war was killing the most 'soldiers'. Are they guilty?
Killing a newborn is completely repulsive. But here you've hit upon the line. Born = Person, Unborn = Fetus. Personally, I'd love to see abortions OK'd or not by an ethics panel of qualified people. But I don't think it should be completely outlawed.
Also, euthanasia should definitely be allowed for terminal patients in great pain.
May 7, 2008
9:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Huh?
"MarineGrunt/Froward69 would be a great ticket for the 2012 Presidential campaign."
LOL.... that creates an image.... America would become a warped mix of the old TV show "Fantasy Island" and Cuba.
A small Caribbean banana republic dictatorship... with the "great leader" claiming that denying people freedom really means giving them freedom.... a tubby, cigar smoking, olive drab green uniform wearing little dictator and his midget sidekick running down to the beach shouting "Da Planes... Da Planes of Dee Yankee Imperialists are coming!"
May 7, 2008
9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
Yes! Thank you SkiBum
Scott
May 7, 2008
9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
Has anyone said that the country was founded on atheism? I don't believe that. What we're saying is the country was not founded on Christianity. Many of the founding fathers were Deists.
May 7, 2008
9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
MarineGrunt writes:
MAN.. one statement about how I would like to keep religious zealots out of Government and see the hell you catch!! SO much for 'live and let live"? You do know... we can have a set of rules that covers everyone and them not be religious based, right? I mean, we are smart enough to think for ourselves and all..
Why is you need a book to tell you how to live? No common sense on your part and you need 100% guidance to get thru your day?
"In God We Trust" on the money? Funny part about this is... The Gov. has NOTHING to do with this! That is called the Federal Reserve! Read up and think about that. They own the money.
As far as the Pledge of Allegiance.. I leave the 'under god' part out when I say it with Pride. But, I have the ability to do this because I can think for myself.
Some do not believe in god. So why do all you fell that your rules must be the rules EVEYONE lives by! PLUS... which god are we going to use? Why is there never an answer to these kind of questions?
Why is it christains, who have controlled the direction of this Country for so long are now mad because they are losing their grip? Could it be that magic sky fairies do not scare some and it is time to move on?
NO christains, we are not "stepping on your rights" we are tired of you shoving your beliefs in our faces everyday and we request change. Sorry this makes you all so butt hurt, but we have Rights too, you know!
And since your all good christians... forgive me!
May 7, 2008
9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
CaptainObvious writes:
Ski Bum, do you have any other voice other than your religious voice? Because we're pretty damn tired of all the religious crap surrounding us. I mean, it's on money, in the pledge, it's pretty much everywhere. And that needs to stop. Keep it in your church. And if I want to be exposed to it, I'll visit your church. But really, too much is too much. Thanks for pointing that out.
May 7, 2008
9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
MarineGrunt writes:
It might be Rick, but it if we were elected, no would would accuse us of acting like Saudi Arabia! But I digress...
"Da Plane, Da Plane" LOL... I needed a good laugh. Good way to hide hate and fear of something different.
Better then.. "Hide your children.. here come the christians!"
May 7, 2008
9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
MarineGrunt writes:
Lucyk for us Pajama... they also had the foresight to allow those NOT RELIGIOUS to have Freedoms as well..
What were they thinking? Freedom for All? Not just those who believe in god... how dare they!
And isn't the same old same old about the Country being Founded on god a little old? I mean... they still thought there were Sea Monsters and were burning so call 'witches' in the same time as this. So... maybe you should help us out with this point.
May 7, 2008
9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
TW1ZT3D writes:
wow, so much hate here. so many trying to prove or disprove others. were speaking of life, to kill or not to kill? its sad that for those undeserving of parenthood are granted this gift and some who so much would love to have a little miracle are kept from this joy. be it rape, bad dissions or plain just wrong place/ wrong time circumstances, these lives that could be, are still precious gifts. if you kill them before they have a voice doesnt that seem more moraly incorrect? people always are wishing for second chances, how can you expect a second if you are not willing to give another their first. setting religion and politics aside, human rights should be first, if it isnt a person yet it deserves the chance to become one. yes, so very unfortunate/ so very inconvenient, kill what inconveniences you - sorry you showed up late when hearts were being handed out. now some one will now right back at me with, well what if that one life complicates the health of the mother? so be it, it is her fualt and if it isnt than self sacrifice is the greatest gift next to life. and yes if a crackhead raped my daughter, wife, sister or whom ever i would hope that they would take this presious little gift to prove that you can turn hate into love.
May 7, 2008
9:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
MarineGrunt writes:
TW1.. lucky for us this is America and we all get to choose the path we go down and not a church. Thank you for pointing that out!
May 7, 2008
10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
Pajama, please paste me a quotation from the Federalist papers mentioning Christianity and its application to the new state.
May 7, 2008
10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
By the way, I had read them many moons ago. Luckily the library of congress has an e-version. Please find me your reference to us being a Christian nation.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fe...
May 7, 2008
10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
freethought writes:
We would be a "christian" nation, the moment that we would all accept christ as our saviour...all of us! Until that time, I would prefer to think of us as a nation made up of various beliefs that do not and cannot have influence over how we are governed. "All men are created equal" does not carry the footnote that reads: "unless they are not christian and then they have less rights".
May 7, 2008
10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
CaptainObvious writes:
No, TW1, you are talking about contolling another person. That is exactly what the abortion debate is--the church stepping in and saying "you don't get to make decisions about your own body. We do." And that is very scary. Think for yourself. And don't try to do so for other people--they are allowed to have their own opinions, even if they differ from yours.
May 7, 2008
10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
SkiBum writes:
Caption Obvious -
Your name is quite a misnomer. Obviously I just spoke in my non-religious voice. Obviously you did not get the memo. And obviously you did not undestand what I said because you are telling me to shut up because I am a believer.
You are showing you have no understanding of the Constitution and you have none of that beloved 'Tolerance' that your side always talks about.
You are exactly what I talked about. Atheism is a faith too. It has not been proven. It takes alot of faith to believe it's tenets. So to say atheism is logical and rational and religion is not is a cannard. Both take faith. Frankly I think it takes more faith to be an atheist.
I guess I could add a snappy remark that I will go read Darwin or go to any major University to listen to an atheistic sermon if I wanted to. Just like what you said, it is totally irrelvant to the topic at hand.
We are both allowed to speak. I am tired of all the atheistic/humanistic moral relavance that has led to the cesspool of a society we live in, but you have the right to advocate it. Under our Constitution, I have a right to speak out with a religious or a non-religious voice.
And please explain how 'In God We Trust' on the money and in the Pledge is state-authorized religion? Also, please tell me how after reading the Founders thoughts on religion and morality you can tell me that this nation was not founded on Judeo-Christian principles?
I guess I could also just resort to catchy little one-liners like many lefties do: 'If you don't like it don't say it' or 'If you don't like it, plug your ears'. I am basing that one the lovely wisdom of someone above who ran out the tired old: 'If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one'. That is what passes for 'logical and rational' discourse on the left.
May 7, 2008
10:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
MarineGrunt writes:
Nope.. Lucky for me my mother is Pro Choice and not bound by a hoaky 2000 year old "scare the kids to sleep at night' fairy tale! She was nice enough to teach me to think and make decisions based on what I have seen, lived and thought about. Too bad yours wasn't as giving...
So in turn.. too bad your mother WAS Pro Life.
May 7, 2008
10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
snowsurfer writes:
A fertilized egg is not a person. So would fertility doctors have to grow every embryo they create? Are we going to try to catch China and India and be the most populated nation? Where is the humanity in that?
May 7, 2008
10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
MarineGrunt writes:
Once again...
"in god we trust" on the money. If you have the ability to read, you would find that our money is OWNED by the Federal Reserve. NOT A GOVERNMENT OFFICE, BUT A PRIVATE ONE! Research, people..
The Pledge".. How does a Government go about 'owning' on of these? Be responsible for it? If you don't want to say 'under god' then that is your right. But you do not have to right to make me say it either. That seems to be what sticks in your gums, huh? No one is forced to recite it.
Are you using these two points to make a agrument about our Country being befouled by every religion demanding it's own way? FAIL! No... EPIC FAIL!
Could you also please address my points on 'witch burning and sea monster' above? Thank you!
May 7, 2008
10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
snowsurfer writes:
PRO-CHOICE IS NOT PRO-DEATH OR PRO-ABORTION.
PRO-CHOICE = PRO-CHOICE
May 7, 2008
10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
Pajama, I do not deny that John Jay was Christian. Here is the problem with your reply:
1. All of the references are to a creator. Like I said, many of the founding fathers were deists, who do believe in a creator. This is outside the realm of Christianity.
2. The quote you gave by John Jay is not in the federalist papers. It's been pretty clear that individuals have the right to express their own religious belief. But nowhere actually in our government documents was this the case.
May 7, 2008
10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
raysmom writes:
I'm not religious at all, and although I don't like abortion as a birth control method, and I don't think Federal Tax dollars should support it, I would rather is was legal and safe- just keep it like it is. That being said, I wish there was a way to establish in the courts the viability of a fetus as a person if it is killed or injured by someone who kills or injures the mother.
The woman in Grand Junction whose 8 month gestation baby, and yes, I consider that a baby, as she did, was killed by a drunk driver who hit the car she was driving. The Bank teller in Indiana whose twin 5 mo. gestation babies were killed by the bank robber when he shot her in the stomach, the abused girlfriend in Denver whose boyfriend beat her until the baby died, the Marine who killed the mother of his baby and the unborn child- if the mother chooses to keep her baby, and someone else kills it, that person cannot be charged for murder in the death of the child she is carrying, under current laws. Is "choice" only for the woman who wants to end her pregnancy, but not for the woman who loves her baby and considers it a person? Why can't she "choose" to consider her child a person?
I'm not saying that this is the perfect way to go about establishing "personhood"- I don't know enough about it. Abortion proponents say, "Born=Person, Unborn=Fetus". It's just not that conveniently black and white, or it shouldn't be. Something should be done to give a pregnant woman the right to consider their baby a person, if that's her CHOICE. I just get a little frustrated w/people who support a woman's right to choose to end a life, and never consider the ramifications of that agenda on society and a woman who chooses NOT to end the life of her child, and has that choice taken away from her by force.
I never hear this viewpoint discussed- it's always the abortion friends or foes attacking each other- there's more to the issue than that, and more to the issue than a political or religious soapbox, or there should be.
May 7, 2008
10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
MarineGrunt writes:
LOL.. thank you for proving that any statement is something against you and your lot.
How did I wish death on you when all I commenting on was your moms political/religious views? Your argument on this point is weak and unfounded. Any chance to turn a ant hill into a mountain for the chance to prove your point. No need to go off the bases of the argument. Please try again with an adult standing by your side.
"He said death in his statement, so he must have meant for me to be dead." Just like my egg rolls baby! Crunchy on the outside and mushy inside.. yummy!
May 7, 2008
10:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
snowsurfer writes:
Good points raysmom. There needs to be some type of definition of person vs fetus, but where to make that definition is a dificult thing.
May 7, 2008
10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Steve writes:
Don't condemn all Christianity for the actions of a few zealots. The zealots are the fundamentalists, and they are the ones trying to legislate their beliefs and force them onto others.
Most Christians are silent about their religion and go to church to remind themselves to be kinder to others. I consider most normal (non fundamentalist) Christians to be nice people. Most Christians do not try to force their beliefs on others, despite the mormons and such knocking on your doors.
This country was founded with references to basic Christian morals which is fine and a good influence. However the absolute atheists who refuse to say the word God in the pledge are just as fanatical as the fundamentalist Christians. No type of zealotry either atheist or Christian is a good influence on the country.
The ballot proposal in question is obviously proposed by zealots, zealots = bad.
That's the draw of Obama, he is not a zealot, he's trying to unify everybody, zealots included into one nation.
May 7, 2008
11:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
CaptainObvious writes:
Easy there SkiBum.
First, I never mentioned my beliefs--I keep them private (wish you would too) and I'm comfortable enough with them that I don't feel the need to have everyone follow them.
Second, you are sounding like a spoiled kid who has all the barbie toys except that one outfit, and you're screaming as loud as you can because you don't have EVERYTHING. Very spoiled. But you are entitled to your opinions and beliefs--I've never argued against that. But I am tired of having to live surrounded by your opinions and beliefs. Can't you keep them to yourself? Or is your belief so thin and frail that you have to force other people to believe just like you? Because that's what it's sounding like.
May 7, 2008
11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
PJ, I think I've said this multiple times. I not believe the constitution was founded on atheism. Nor was it founded on christianity. Nor was it founded on any religion. The references actually in our constitution were specifically left as general as possible (Nature's God, Creator, etc...).
So maybe you should refrain from such statements like "For goodness sake, know your subject before you speak lest you make yourself sound silly." unless you actually know the subject as well.
May 7, 2008
11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
snowsurfer writes:
PajamaPulitzer, I think he was talking about your mother's narrow-mindedness and how that got transfered to you, not that you should have been aborted.
May 7, 2008
11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Bagel: "But here you've hit upon the line. Born = Person, Unborn = Fetus."
On another abortion thread, someone said something very similar, only much more harshly. He didn't care if someone aborted their baby two minutes before birth, as it was not a person yet.
Is this a view you ascribe to, as well? You see nothing wrong with aborting a nine month old "fetus" because it technically hasn't been born yet?
May 7, 2008
11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
snowsurfer writes:
See comment from raysmom for more insight into the Born = Person, Unborn = Fetus debate.
May 7, 2008
11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
snowsurfer writes:
I doubt anyone would argue that life doesn't matter. Why is it that many anti-abortionists are also strong supporters of the death penalty? When does life matter and when does it not? When it suits your needs/beliefs? Life, life, life. We must make these choices for ourselves.
May 7, 2008
11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
mychoice writes:
Pajama: Don't be so sure his mother was pro-life. Being a champion of choice does not prevent you from bearing and raising children. What a ridiculous and ignorant assumption to make.
I sincerely hope that all of you anti-choicers never find yourself the victim of rape or an unintended pregnancy that may put your life or well-being in danger. I hope that your daughters (and sons) are well educated in preventing pregnancy and are never faced with this choice. What you fail to realize is that YOU have always had the choice. Pro-choicers would never force you to have an abortion when you wanted a child and were well equipped to care for it, it was your choice. So, where do you get the right to force others to have a child they are ill-equipped (mentally, financially, whatever) to care for?
Any unwanted child suffers throughout life and did nothing to deserve that. No child is asked to exist, they are simply thrown into this world. Doesn't it make sense for every child to have parents who love it and are able to care for it? Every child a wanted a child.
And to you Christians: "Brothers, do not slander one another... There is only one Lawgiver and one Judge...But you-who are you to judge your neighbor?" (James 4:11-12)
May 7, 2008
12:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
CaptainObvious writes:
Is that your non-religious voice, SkiBum? The one talking about how we all need religion to combat the cess-pool of our lives? Yikes! Or is your religious voice the one full of insults and derogatory remarks for someone who disagrees with you? How very Christ-like. I think we need fewer "religious" people like you, and a lot more people who can live good lives without trying to force change on others.
But I'm sure you, in your religous superiority, will have plenty of put-downs and negative comments exalting your loving god. Thanks for proving my point.
May 7, 2008
12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
PJ, I mainly understand your point, but I think most deists would take offense at being lumped in with the Christians. It's true that Jefferson greatly admired Christ as a moral figure, but he soundly rejected any claims of supernatural divinity as being hogwash.
May 7, 2008
12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytofi writes:
Funny - when I read a post that uses the word "obviously" liberally, I tend to ignore, as that is often a tactic used to redirect attention from an important point that the poster knows to be their weak point.
May 7, 2008
12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
mytwosense: no, I don't share that position. But coldly speaking I do see the born/unborn line as the only scientifically significant criteria. This is more in response to the goal to declare a fertilized egg as a person. At no point in development can a clearer line be drawn than born/unborn.
That being said, I'm against so-called 'casual' abortion. I would like to see anyone hoping to obtain one to explain their case to a medical ethics panel. These people could judge late-term abortions based on medical factors that are beyond me. Personally, I would never EVER let my wife sacrifice her life for an unborn baby. My wife's life-worth has been proven to me.
May 7, 2008
12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
CaptainObvious writes:
PJP: "For goodness sake, know your subject before you speak lest you make yourself sound silly."
You should heed your own advice, silly.
May 7, 2008
12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
jvb writes:
Those blankety blank Christians are at it again anxious to bring back the Dark Ages where their dictator, incompatible, with our Constitution seeks to set up shop.
May 7, 2008
12:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
MGD writes:
It doesn't require any specific religious faith to think that abortion is wrong. If you believe that there is a baby whose life is terminated, I would hope that you would not require religious doctrine to think that's wrong.
Why is it a baby when you are trying to get pregnant and a zygot or fetus when you are just having fun?
Pro choice? Yes, choose whether to have sex or not. If a woman is not given that choice then she should still be able to exercise it to a certain point. If a woman decides to have sex, she unfortunately has to deal with the consequences, however she still made the CHOICE to have sex. We can't help it that it's only women who get pregnant, it's just the way it works. Sorry women, but make smart choices and be prepared for dealing with the consequences.
May 7, 2008
12:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
MarineGrunt writes:
"Snowsurfer: Let the Grunt make his own lame excuses."
Well Well... The points you argue are weak and have very little subject matter in them. Nothing more then a mindless, emotional rants. That clear fact you have zero bases for your side of this discussion and want nothing more then to stomp your feet, pound on your chest and make excuses for something you nothing about, while funny, is mostly sad. See how quick your fellow christians want to distance themselves from you?
If, and when, your able to talk about something with out being ignorant, I would love to continue this with you.
May 7, 2008
12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
mtnsrfer writes:
The U.S. constitution was written 93 years after the Salem witch trails. I doubt any of the founding fathers were around then.
Sea monsters do exist. If my wooden ship was attacked by a colossal squid I would say I was attack by a monster.
I'm not defending or attacking anyone, but to say that our founding fathers were witch hunters is wrong.
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy". Ben Franklin. Ben Franklin was a very smart man.
I actually side with pro-choice even though I personally think most cases of abortion are wrong.
May 7, 2008
12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
MarineGrunt writes:
Neither was I mtnsfer.. try and keep thinks in text please and not pick out slim pieces.
Over done.. yes.
Meant to be factual... no.
Meant to maybe put a picture in someones head, something to reference off of... yes.
May 7, 2008
12:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
How ironic. Those who are defending the act of abortion (original subject), are using the words of a proven slave owner and pedophile to justify it.
May 7, 2008
12:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
mtnsrfer writes:
Sorry, the constitution was "ratified" 93 years later in 1787.
Just clearing that up.
May 7, 2008
1:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
BeefEaterGrins....
The first lesson for those who support the killing of innocent children, is to learn that relying on pedophiles and slaveowners to justify your position is the epitome of intellectual vacuousness.
The second lesson, the phrase "your not helping", is a grammatical mistake that most 8 year old children learn to overcome.
Are there any intelligent people willing to defend the killing of innocent children? Obviously not.
May 7, 2008
1:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
CaptainObvious writes:
Um, rickg, the topic is abortion. And abortion is legal. 'Nuff said.
Would you like to discuss the killing of innocent abortion doctors, maybe?
May 7, 2008
1:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Blair writes:
What I find funny and troublesome are the anti-abortion crowd jumping head first onto this bandwagon with a TOTAL lack of thought for the unintended consequences as a result of this proposed amendment. This may be considered a stupid question by the anti-abortionists, but, here it is. When will this new "person" be required to apply for a Social Security number? There will be numerous other unintended consequences if this amendment were ratified and if you have not taken the time to consider them, now would be a good time to remove your head from the sand BEFORE the tide comes in!
May 7, 2008
1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
raysmom writes:
snowsurfer- Thanks. I respect your perspective on this, also.
Bagel- I understand what you are saying, but the born/unborn issue argument is so ambiguous, really. Say a 6 month gestation "fetus" is born pre-maturely and is living and takes two breaths and dies. This child is given the rights of a person. If it died due to trauma, it is a crime. The family grieves the death of their baby, and they have the right to call it that, legally and morally, by the standard the current laws apply.
Say that same "fetus" dies, under the exact same circumstances, but it dies in utero one minute before emerging, and never draws a breath outside it's mother's womb. This child has no rights as a person, and the law cannot punish the party responsible for it's death, and the parents have no recourse to claim the fetus as their baby, under these same standards. How can that be a fair or reasonable standard?
I don't propose to outlaw abortion or birth control- that would be unwise for society, unfortunately. I do wish that we did not need to de-humanize a human fetus in order to justify the needs of the woman, though. This is what sociologists say we do to make it more acceptable to kill another person- we dehumanize them- that's the basest kind of justification. If an abortion is the route that the woman chooses, or must do even if she would not choose to, then let it be legally acceptable to take a life for that reason, but to say that it isn't a life and to not let the woman and society have a right to say it is, is wrong. A person's lifeworth should not have to be proved- it is worthy of our respect by it's very nature.
As I said in my previous post, I do not have a religious or political agenda. I really do think we could look at this whole issue more objectively without all the attacks on "religious dark-ages nuts" or "atheist baby-killers" and the like- We can value ALL life if we aren't required to attach labels to it to justify the prejudices of society. I'm not sure how we go about that, because people have become so polarized by politics and religion, but some common sense and middle ground seeking would be a good place to start.
May 7, 2008
1:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
raysmom, from an emotional perspective I don't disagree with anything you've said. From a logical point of view the birth line is very black/white to me.
I can't think of a way to solve the crime issue without adversely affecting a mother's right to choose abortion. I'd certainly be interested to hear ideas on that line.
May 7, 2008
1:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
CaptainObvious....
"the topic is abortion. And abortion is legal. 'Nuff said."
So... when the US Supreme Court ruled that it was legal to own slaves, and forcibly return them to their "masters", you would have supported slavery?
When the US Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v Ferguson that it was legal to require African Americans to use separate public accomodations, such as water fountains or bathrooms, you supported the use of "Jim Crow" laws?
Need more examples of the stupidity of relying on a handful of lawyers to dictate your moral beliefs for you? There are numerous examples of deranged court rulings to prove the stupidity of using the excuse of "its legal. Nuff said."
"Would you like to discuss the killing of innocent abortion doctors, maybe?" Sure. Easy softball lob there... killing innocent children, and even abortion doctors, is wrong. Next time, find a better excuse for your support of the killing of innocent children. That one is too easily swatted down.
Got any better excuses for supporting the killing of the innocent and helpless? The ones you offered, are the weakest that anyone can offer.
May 7, 2008
1:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
rickg, a fertilized egg is not a child, no matter how cute Bruce Willis was in Look Who's Talking.
May 7, 2008
2 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Blair...
You win. Of course, what you won is the "Strangest Excuse for Killing Children" award for the day.
You claim that the "unintended" consequences of not killing innocent children includes...
"When will this new "person" be required to apply for a Social Security number?"
Wow... killing children so that the workers at the Social Security office won't need to process as many requests for an SSN a few years from now! Sure sounds like one warped reason to support abortion.
Of course, what about the "unintended consequences" of your weird excuse for killing innocent children. Do you also allow the killing of newborn children, so that pediatric nurses can get longer breaks? Do you support the killing of the young adults, so the DMV workers don't have to process as many driver's licenses?
I know it requires a depraved level of morality to defend abortion, but your post proves that it also seems to attract the intellectually challenged as well.
May 7, 2008
2:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
mindcrash writes:
So, um, does this mean we'll all be 9 months older? Will kids turn 18 when I actually turned 17 years and 3 months old?
May 7, 2008
2:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Bagel...
"a fertilized egg is not a child"
How many days after conception, do you start calling it a child or baby?
May 7, 2008
2:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
Birth.
May 7, 2008
2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
mindcrash writes:
Are we going to start celebrating fertilization days instead of birthdays?
Will I get to retire at 64 years and 3 months old now?
May 7, 2008
2:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
MarineGrunt writes:
Rick is funny... This is why they do not allow normal people to go and mess with the patients in the mental hospitals! It gets them all frothy at the mouth.
So, if you support abortion rights your a pedophile and slave owner?
With your math.. that makes you a Pinko Commie that Deals drugs, Rick?
May 7, 2008
2:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
mindcrash writes:
So if I knock someone up, can I claim the fertilized egg-person as a dependent on my taxes???
May 7, 2008
2:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
mindcrash writes:
These are serious questions people!
May 7, 2008
2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
MGD writes:
Bagel, would you honestly support an abortion occuring 3 minutes from birth? A fully developed human being ready to come into this world?
You've drawn your line in the sand, do you honestly think that it's right?
May 7, 2008
2:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
I've already said multiple times my personal feelings about how abortions should be handled.
And if that 3 minutes meant the difference in my wife living or dying, absolutely.
Luckily it's a moot point, because I really don't think there are as many 3-minute til birth abortions occurring as people here seem to indicate.
May 7, 2008
2:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
what i just really don't understand about the anti-choice crowd, is their inability to justify and rationalize their position when confronted with the fact that it actually doesn't decrease the occurence of abortions, but rather just makes them more dangerous for the woman.
that said, it is hard to frame their arguments in a way not chained to superstitious dogma.
May 7, 2008
2:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
CaptainObvious writes:
rickg, nice try, poor stretch. Again.
Come back when you have valid points.
(Apparently I must remind you, again, abortion is legal. And luckily there are enough people with common sense who think for themselves that it will remain legal. Thanks. And thanks, in the future, for keeping your controlling, narrow-minded views inside of your church, where they belong. If I feel the need to have some fictional thing tell me how to live, I'll stop by. But don't count on it--I find Shakespeare much more entertaining and a better writer.)
May 7, 2008
2:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
MarineGrunt writes:
I do believe Ricks mangina is hurt and he limped away...
May 7, 2008
2:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
MGD writes:
I know you have sort of answered that question.
Remove you and your wife from the question. Should an abortion be legal in a situation where no life is in jeapardy and just a few minutes from natural birth?
Yes or no.
May 7, 2008
2:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Bagel, when you originally drew your line in the sand, you provided no such caveat concerning the mother's life. I think you're backtracking. And frankly, I don't blame you, because the view you originally presented is not only scientifically questionable, it's morally heinous.
MGD: "Why is it a baby when you are trying to get pregnant and a zygot or fetus when you are just having fun?"
Exactly.
May 7, 2008
2:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Blair writes:
rickg19611,
I asked a question concerning unintended consequences and you say I am using Social Security registration to justify "killing". This amendment will establish a new LEGAL definition for personhood and will effectivly outlaw abortion, which, obviously, is the ONLY thing you are willing to consider. Are you so blind or unwilling to see that there are other LEGAL issues that will result from this new definition or is it that you don't care? If you practice birth control, have you thought about how this definition will affect your chosen means? If you don't, God help the rest of us.
May 7, 2008
2:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
What is scientifically questionable? The definition of a fetus is until birth. That's cold hard medicine, no doubt about it.
Please see my post from 9:22 am. "I'd love to see abortions OK'd or not by an ethics panel of qualified people." I (tried to) imply that I was not a qualified person. Maybe that didn't come across. And mytwosense, as this was my first post specifically related to abortion, I don't see how I've backtracked from this.
May 7, 2008
2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
And since I didn't specifically answer your question:
Should it be legal? Yes.
Should it be done? That's up to the doctors to decide, as far I'm concerned.
May 7, 2008
3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
MarineGrunt writes:
So... as I asked in another thread and I believe it would fit here.
Would the christian right be so against an aborting if they knew the baby was going to grow up and be gay?
May 7, 2008
3:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
CaptainObvious...
Using your "logic".... you also would have supported slavery when that was legal. And denying minorites the right to vote. And segregated public facilities.
Using "it's legal" as a justification is the dumbest excuse one can make. But then you don't have anything better, so desperation is your last resort.
May 7, 2008
3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Why is it, on the one hand, there's resisitance in defining a fetus as a child when abortion is on the agenda, but when someone kills a pregnant woman, and the unborn fetus dies, then it's killing two lives? Apparently, we can have it both ways. Whatever's convenient at the moment.
By the way, going with the religion talk........ the USA was founded on Christianity. Sorry if that bothers any of you, but it's a fact. The Constitution was founded on Christianity. If you don't think there's religious influence in our government, or that there shouldn't be, you're wrong and it's too late.
PS- I believe in pro-choice for the most part.
May 7, 2008
3:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Blair writes:
Dan2,
Your 3 strikes senario does not seem to include any deterence factors for the other party involved in the "unwanted pregnancy". Are you proposing that the only responsible party would be the female having the abortion? Selfish comes to mind.
I have not read anything from the anti-abortion side willing to address the legal questions brought forth. Would that be because they are so wrapped in words "killing" and "murder" that they cannot think of anything else?
May 7, 2008
3:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
CWilly, it's very convenient to say that with no proof. I've already been over with this with PJ, but merely stating that a few of the founding fathers were Christian is not strong enough evidence to say that the USA was founded on Christianity.
May 7, 2008
3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
I absolutely think the fertilized egg is a life. What I said is it's not a person.
You're confusing the issue by putting the act of choice outside where abortion rights advocates put it. No one would force you to get an abortion if it were legal. I'm sure the Federal prosecutor would not put the Bald Eagle in prison for breaking its own egg.
May 7, 2008
4:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
sysop writes:
Of course a fertilized egg is a person, since no additional genetic material is ever added, and since persons can be identified by their DNA, and prosecuted by their DNA, you also can be protected by the fact that you possess a unique set of DNA, you cannot have it both ways.
If you have a full set, you are a person. Why are people even arguing this ? It does not matter how much food you have eaten or how old you are, you are still a person. There is no simpler definition available for what DEFINES a person, everything else is ARBITRARY.
Read about the "SUPERCLASS" here: http://teaminfinity.com/COMMUNICAE-12...
May 7, 2008
4:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
mindcrash writes:
Why don't you stay out of my life and I'll stay out of yours?
Would a miscarriage require a police investigation and an autopsy?
May 7, 2008
4:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
mindcrash writes:
You know what, why not take this further and also protect semen and the egg, prior to them getting to know each other?
May 7, 2008
4:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Driver8 writes:
Time for the acid test - If this law is passed, and a woman miscarries; will she be prosecuted for manslaughter,... or eligible for survivor benefits and a life insurance claim?
May 7, 2008
4:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
4gColoNative writes:
At what exact point in time (development) does human life begin?
The *closest* humanity could ever come to a leading answer (think "Family Feud: "Survey says...!) would be "at fertilization." I DON'T AGREE with this but there will never be a more common answer.
So all we can do is fight the religious zealots from legalizing a definition.
May 7, 2008
5 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
sysop, you and I disagree on terminology. I would say a human begins at fertilization, but not a person. The point (at least for me) is not whether or not we are destroying life. We destroy life all the time, if you use anti-bacterial handwash or eat meat. The point is whether or not we are destroying valuable (I would say sentient) life.
May 7, 2008
5:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
junglegymco writes:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
This proposed law is an attempt to make an end run around the First Amendment by forcing a religious definition of a person onto all of society.
My religious beliefs do not recognize that there is a human being at the moment of fertilization. If others RELIGIOUS beliefs have them believing thus, that is THEIR choice; it should NOT be forced upon me.
May 7, 2008
6:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Blair writes:
If any are willing to read the 3 articles of the state Constitution that will be changed to incorporate the new definition of a person, you will not find any reference to the word “abortion”. These articles define the rights afforded a “person”, one of which is the right to own property. Another allows for a person to make medical decisions. The parents are now allowed to make medical decisions for the fetus prior to birth. By changing the legal day/time definition of personhood to the moment of conception, you have not only outlawed abortion, you will have removed the parental authority to make medical decisions. Will medical procedures require the consent of this new “person”, a court appointed child advocate or maybe some government committee? How many other laws will need to be addressed and changed? Would not some forms of birth control become illegal if it prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus? Remember that this fertilized egg is now a LEGAL person with all the rights and privileges. Any miscarriage would have to be investigated for criminal intent. Start thinking about how you wish to define criminal responsibility if the mother should fall in a manner that would induce a miscarriage. One post asked if this new definition would allow him to claim a dependent. Would this apply only to Colorado taxes? Would it be fraud if applied to your Federal tax return?
I presented a SSN scenario in an earlier post and was accused as using this to justify “killing” an unborn. I never used the word abortion or kill or murder and yet the connection is implied by those that refuse to accept or see there are issues other than abortion tied to this amendment.
As I said before, now would be a good time to pull your head out of the sand BEFORE the tide comes in.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
May 7, 2008
7:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
SockRayBlue writes:
Unintended consequences...........Like a spontaneous abortion? Does the possibility of an unknown pregnancy aborting spontaneously pass as a murder? These are more common that one would expect. Does this also mean the the physician has to report this?
Things are starting to get a bit out of control and this ballot issue will be thrown out simply because of its far reaching consequences. I also think it is rather vague and as a blogger before stated, the petition was signed in haste.
May 7, 2008
8:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
mychoice writes:
sysop: Am I understanding you correctly? A full set of DNA is what makes you a person? So, what separates a person from a, say, an elephant? That's beside the point.
The fact of this amendment is that on the surface, it has nothing to do with abortion. This amendment, if passed, would define person-hood as beginning at fertilization, which is, for the record, prior to conception or pregnancy by medical definition. Anti-choice groups have lost the abortion battle repeatedly and are now trying to force a back-door amendment that would, as a side effect, prevent abortion. What is being (mostly) ignored are the other side effects of this proposal. The ONLY way to stop abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Abortions will happen whether legal or not. Defining personhood from the moment of fertilization is not only medically impossible but could prevent most forms of birth control from being legal.
In case you weren't offered health education in school, birth control pills work by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, thus preventing pregnancy, not fertilization. This means that if personhood begins when the egg is fertilized but before it implants, birth control pills could become illegal. Outlawing birth control pills will drastically increase the number of unwanted pregnancies. I think it is safe to say no one wishes for that to happen.
May 8, 2008
12:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
We've discussed this issue here before. Check out the discussion at http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...
I drove the debate towards biological reasoning at 5:56 p.m. and got intelligent responses from a guy with a user ID of 'Reason' so both sides of this debate may learn a thing or two.
May 8, 2008
7:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
mychoice writes:
By the way Pajama, our mothers have perpetuated their choice on us. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who asked/chose to be born. It is the mother's choice to carry out a pregnancy and it should be the mother's choice to end a pregnancy. There are plenty of people out there who do not properly care for their children, yet no one takes the right to have children away from them. It's their choice. It is not the place of anyone but the woman to decided the fate of the thing growing in her uterus, no matter what you call it.
Another issue not fully addressed: If this amendment is passed, what happens to all the unwanted children once they are born? There are already hundred of thousands of children awaiting adoption. Countless more in abusive foster care homes. And no one knows for sure how many thousands of children are in homes with their natural parents where they are abused or neglected. We already have a problem of with too many unwanted children on our hands, let's not perpetuate it.
My goal is not to convince anyone to take either side, although I think it is clear which side I am on. My goal is to point out that there are negative side effects to this amendment and if it makes it to the ballot, I hope everyone fully understands what they are doing when they go to vote.
May 8, 2008
9:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
mychoice, a full set of DNA does make you a human. A different full set of DNA makes an elephant. sysop is quite right in this regard.
May 8, 2008
9:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
rationalize your positions all you wish, but the fact remains that the anti-choicers aren't advocating for fewer abortions (they'd have to be pro-choice for that). considering that, it's easy to see they're beating the drums on behalf of their superstitious beliefs.
furthermore, the majority of the country wants to keep abortion safe, legal and rare. they do not want to overtturn roe.
this is yet another case of our national policy decisions being influenced by a 2000 year old fairy tale.
May 8, 2008
9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
rg writes:
This ballot proposal explains why I am at war with Christianity, Islam, and all the millions of brands of snake oil (and not the credulous believers: They know not what they think). Richard Grimes, deicide.
D