A group called Colorado for Equal Rights obtained an estimated 103,000 signatures, much more than the 76,000 required, to put a measure on the Colorado November ballot that would legally define a fetilized egg as a person. The measure is now called Amendment 48 and would read as follows:
Section 31. Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms "person" or "persons" shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization.
This law would mean that "killing" a fertilized egg or terminating a pregnancy would be considered homicide and doing damage to a fertilized egg or fetus would be considered assault. A fertilized egg/zygote/fetus would have the same "inallienable rights" as any other human being.
This new legal definition of personhood would conflict with the medical definition of pregnancy. Pregnancy is medically defined as the point at which an egg implants into the uterus.
The measure was created with the explicit intent of providing legal grounds to outlaw all abortions and all hormonal forms of birth control, which is bad enough in my mind, but has even farther reaching consequences.
All abortions would be outlawed, even in cases of rape and cases where a child would be born with serious genetic diseases or disorders. The only cases I could see being allowed are ones where continuing with a pregnancy would cause serious harm or death for the women. But these cases would require government permission.
Outlawing abortions would create an enormous need for increased welfare in the state of Clorado and increased funding for special education and long term health care beneftis. These would be necessary for the increased numbers of developmentally delayed individuals being born and the increased numbers children being born into poverty to low-income or single income families and to teenage mothers.
Hormonal birth control like the pill, the patch, and the shot prevent pregnancy first by preventing ovulation and by creating a thicker mucus lining of the cervix to keep semen from entering the uterus. In the small chance an egg is released, these forms of birth control prevent fertilization. But the third form of defense, if all else fails and an egg is released and fertilized, is to make the lining of the uterus inhospitable to the implantation of the egg.
Plan B or emergency contraception works in the same way and is actually a higher dose of the hormones in the pill that is taken for a few days following unprotected sex. Because these contraceptives can "kill" a fertilized egg in a small percentage of cases, using them would become illegal under this new law. Using them would become tantamount to murder. But medically speaking, a pregnancy never would have occured.
The problem with saying that life starts at conception (fertilization) is that between one third and one half of fertilized eggs never implant (according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists). And a large percentage of pregnancies spontaneously abort, usually without the woman even knowing she was pregnant.
Any act by person, including the pregnant woman or her doctor, that could damage to an egg/zygote/fetus or could terminate a pregnancy would be subject to criminal prosecution. That means that a woman who isn't taking her pre-natal vitamins (which could cause birth defects) could be arrested for child abuse or assault. A woman could be prevented from taking anti-depressants or anti-psychotics that could harm the fetus and she could be banned from medical treatments that could endanger her pregnancy like chemotherapy or radiation. As in, a woman with a strong chance of beating cancer, but losing her unborn child would never be given the choice to start treatment because she would be commiting a criminal act.
Miscarriages would be subject to criminal investigation. A woman who had recently miscarried could be ordered to undergo a medical examination to investigate whether someone caused the miscarriage.
The measure could seriously hinder couples attempts at conceiving by in vitro fertilization. Usually multiple eggs are fertlized at once and when the couple conceives, the extra eggs are either donated or discarded. The law would make discarding fertilized eggs or embryos illegal, which would seriously complicate thses fertility treatments. The measure would also make research on embryos, including stem cell research totally illegal.
This measure goes far beyond illegalizing abortion and effectively puts women's pregnancies into the hands of the government. It takes away women's rights to make their own medical decisions privately and puts the welfare of a fertilized egg above the health and well-being of a woman.
Even people who don't like abortions should be against this measure. Taking away women's rights is no solution, it only creates more problems. If people want to decrease the frequency of abortions, they should support government measures that make pregnancy a feasible option for women by making it more affordable. Affordable health care, affordable day care, public preschool, guaranteed paid maternity and paternity leave are all a great start.
So please, if you live or know people who live in Colorado and are of age to vote please vote against and encourage others to vote against this measure.
Another excellent blog!
I soon as I started reading I thought 'wow those stored fertilized eggs would have to be implanted into some not so willing woman since that last time I checked it was illegal to shove people into freezers for any extended period of time' and I laughed at my joke till I realized this is serious and could actually be a problem.
I am against abortion and government interferance. I think this law amendment was created by anti abortion morons that did not think this through. No birth control, No abortion, and we thought we had exponential population growth and over crowded schools now...but hey more taxes (provided there are enough jobs to go around) right.
Did I mention what an excellent post this is? I go to CO all the time and I plan on printing and/or sending this to someone in particular if you do not mind.
~T
All truths are easy to understand once discovered; The point is to discover them ~Galileo
Thank you so much for the compliment.
By all means spread the word. There are so many better ways to protect and respect potential human life. My view is that abortion should be available, safe, and rare. Reducing unplanned pregnancies by comprehensive sex ed and affordable, available birth control is a great step. Another step is to make having and raising a child an affordable option, like I mentioned in the blog. That's the way to respect life.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
My Latest Blog Posts
I almost want to pack up my family nd move just so I can vote against that.
~T
All truths are easy to understand once discovered; The point is to discover them ~Galileo
The beauty of our system is that you have that right.
I think it is great that the people of Colorado are going to get an opportunity to decide on this issue in a Democratic manner. That is so much better than a dictate from an unelected Court.
When the Courts resolve these issues they are never really resolved. The losing side thinks they were shafted and denied Democratic process and the winning side cannot point to a popular or political mandate. All they got is a bunch of unelected people in black robes that are strangely reminiscent of the Supreme Ayatollas in Iran.
When these issues get resolved by legislative process either through the direct initiative of the people as in this case or through the efforts of their elected Representatives then the issues are put much more firmly to rest. It really does not matter so much how the issue is resolved as that it matter that it IS resolved and does not linger and damage and divide society for decade after decade.
The entire Social Conservative movement in America is the direct spawn of Roe vs Wade. The Christian Right was never particularly involved in politics until they got shafted by the courts.
I love democracy and everything, but the problem with inititatives is that so many voters are stupid and uneducated. I know I'm setting myself up for being called elitist, but if we actually had a good education system in this country, I probably wouldn't feel this way.
As for the Christian Right only coming out of the woodwork because of Roe V. Wade, I think that's a gross oversimplification, if not totally inaccurate.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Colorado November Ballot Measure to Legally Define a Fertilized Egg as a Person
Actually I guess your not being elitist since you are right. In the perfect world The education systems would be good and the children and people would actually learn, understand, and apply the good brains they have acheived.
Now to find this 'perfect' world.
~T
All truths are easy to understand once discovered; The point is to discover them ~Galileo
I have a rather low opinion of voters too. I prefer representative government over direct democracy.
But have you ever watched C-SPAN? Our elected representatives are generally more ignorant then our every day people. I have a hard time containing my anger when I listen to the inane garbage that comes out of their mouths and passes for political debate. Almost without exception, our political class has good hair hooked to a good voice and there is not anything of substance inbetween the two. I see more intelligent conversations here at ProgU then in Congress (and as numerous recent threads have pointed out, that is not saying much).
The only things these folks are good at is collecting money from lobbiests, getting themselves re-elected and enriching themselves and their cronies.
If our politicians would do their jobs, there would be a lot less ballot initiatives. They used to be rare until a few years ago but people have gotten so frustrated with the incompetent dithering of politicians that they have taken matters into their own hands out of necessity.
It really does not take a lot of education or intelligence to make a decision in the case of the type of ballot initiative we are discussing in this thread. It is more about beliefs and stupid ignorant people are entitled to their beliefs too. Whether we have direct democracy or representative democracy our system still should yield government that reflects the will of the majority with the rights of the minority protected by the Constitution. As long as this law is Constitutional (and I am not sure that it passes muster), then if the majority want it then they should get it.
I personally would vote against it because I split the baby on the abortion issue at the point where the baby could survive independently of its mother (about 6 months pregnant). In my opinion, I think prior to that the mother should do as she pleases so long as I don't have to pay for it and after that she and the Doctor should be charged with murder in all but the most rare of circumstances.
"Our elected representatives are generally more ignorant then our every day people. I have a hard time containing my anger when I listen to the inane garbage that comes out of their mouths and passes for political debate."
Well said, well said.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
As I was first getting into politics and following them, I had such a high opinion of voters. I remember in 2000 I was so pumped when George Bush (who I formerly thought was the man) beat out the cheating liberal Al Gore. Now, I realize how much greater our world could have been with Al Gore, and how much it is screwed up because of Bush. I think that everyone goes through a stage like this in life (both ways, either being liberal or conservative), but not many get out, which is disheartening.
You guys are all so right though about the lack of movement in our government. Even though it is completely unrealistic, how good would our country be if it followed the policy of the Firemen's Congress in the new Sprint (I think it's Sprint) commercial. Instead we have hourless debates over trivial parts of bills that don't really matter, and then we have dirty politicians trying to add benefits for them in every bill. Every time Congress asks for a pay raise, it is given priority and voted on almost immediately. However, any controversial bill in the slightest, like the new cap and trade law, takes months and months of committees and then refusals and then more committee. We need a cap and trade system, Congress, so do something!
The good thing about my opinion of voters is that they will vote this down. Legislative people and citizens alike, most of the time, refuse to make any drastic changes in their lives, and this would be a drastic change. Down with this bill!
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
And down with Cap and Trade
It is just an excuse for a massive hidden tax increase and will be the most massive pork fest in USA history. The way it is structured it will hand massive wealth to the industries with the best lobbiests. It will be corruption on a massive scale. The privledged elites with deep pockets and the best lobbiests will earn vast profits by being given special rights to pollute which they can then sell while the rest of us pay higher energy prices.
If we really need to reduce CO2 (and in my opinion the jury is still very much out on that subject) lets just put a simple straightforward, plainly visible tax on carbon-based fuels and lets put it right at the source: either the well head or the mine mouth or the oil tanker. At least then we will be able to clearly see the cost to our economy and it won't be hidden in a smokescreen haze of favors to lobbiests and campaign contributors.
The idea of the government being in charge of allocating and directing the expenditure trillions of dollars of investment in alternative fuels and energy is terrifying! The only thing the government does well is collect taxes and make their corrupt rich elite friends richer. As you just agreed in your response to my post, the government is inept, stupid and corrupt. No to cap and trade!
Sorry about the threadjack. We will now return to regularly scheduled programming.
You may be right that a lot of energy companies will make a lot of money out of this, but with the leadership we have going on right now, it is a step in the right direction. CO2 emissions will be decreased and the environmental impact will go down, in small steps though. Until Barack becomes President, I think that this is a good start for the reactionaries who don't want to do anything before its too late. I have written three climate crisis blogs you might be interested in, since it sounds like you are a skeptic on the subject. Check out my blog at the link below.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
Hey-
Just wanted to add a point:
Some time ago, George Bush made what is going to be considered the most brilliant legal move of his presidency. He made it illegal for Americans to leave the country for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity with those under the age of 18. In other words, if you do it there, it's just the same as if you did it here. And upon your return to the USA, federal agents would be at the airport to take you into custody for ngaging in sexual relations with a minor.
Everybody has agreed this was a good idea.
One problem: the precedent has now been laid to make it illegal to travel outside the US for a safe, medically supervised abortion.
Good idea?
Chuckhoek
As an addition to my blog, because I forgot some things:
I have a feeling that the people who signed the original petition didn't know exactly what the measure was about. I think it was explained as a measure to illegalize abortion or as a measure to give "equal rights" to all Coloradans.
And I hope that there are some excellent ads that reveal the ramifications of the measure. So far I haven't seen any articles that have obtained a response from the group supporting the measure on how it would affect all these other areas besides abortion and birth control that I talked about in the blog. Please, if anyone finds such a statement, post a link.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
My Latest Blog Posts
This is an excellent blog. I'll be sure to spread it this information to everyone I know. I know a few people in Colorado now, and I'm sure many of my friends know people in the State as well.
Read my Blogs!
This is Why I'm Hot
And My Other Blogs
I am against this bill, obviously, even as an undecided between pro-life or pro-choice. If there is no birth control, then any idiot in the world would have a chance at having a kid. That is a huge problem that this bill would cause. However, I have to say that some of the arguments put forth are outrageous. For example, you said that a woman who got raped and pregnant would not be able to have an abortion. This is in no means true. There would be extenuating circumstances that would make the woman not have to have a child by a man who raped her.
I also believe the bill would be a terrible law because if this is true, the number of children going up for adoption would go up as to account for the amount of abortions not being gone through. This would have drastic effects and many, many children would be left unadopted and left to grow up in orphanages and foster homes throughout their lives. This would begin a downward spiral that would almost be impossible to get out of if the bill becomes a law.
For example, you said that a woman who got raped and pregnant would not be able to have an abortion. This is in no means true. There would be extenuating circumstances that would make the woman not have to have a child by a man who raped her.
Unfortunately, this is not an ordinary anti-abortion law, so the argument for extenuating cricumstances in the case of rape doesn't apply. The law designates the egg/zygote/fetus as a person with the same "inalienable rights" as any born person. If the measure is enacted, part of the Colorado Constitution would read as follows:
Article II, Section 25. Due Process of Law. No person, including any human being from the moment of fertilization, shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.
It will be argued that the circumstances surrounding a "person's" conception doesn't give a person the legal right to kill them.
But, I believe most people, even those who are moderately opposed to abortion, believe that a woman should be allowed to get an abortion in the case of rape.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Colorado November Ballot Measure to Legally Define a Fertilized Egg as a Person
Wow man. That is awful. Hopefully the citizens of Colorado do their duty as human beings and shoot down this law...
Kudos all day to you man. Great blog
Fantastic blog. It's easy to sympathize with the anti-abortion movement when they make it all about "saving poor babies," but people need to realize that the poor-babies routine is just a facade. These people's real goal is to roll back women's equality by outlawing abortion AND birth control, so more women will be forced out of college and careers and in to marriage and perpetual childrearing.
Conspiracy theorist, much? :)X
Sorry, I really am just joking.
Do you really think all people who are anti-abortion are just trying to make woman into farm animals?
----
Your Tongue is a Rudder; It Steers the Whole Ship, Sends Your Words Past Your Lips or Keeps Them Safe Behind Your Teeth... [Brand New]
Just the ones that signed the petition and that would sign the bill into law.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Hopefully the writer above (I think its esuffern who said this) who said that those who petitioned the bill did not realize the consequences of it, is correct. The only way that these people aren't trying to suppress women (and men through child support) are if they plead ignorance to the drastic effects of the law.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
Rather than trying to suppress anybody, I suspect the people who signed these petitions are about trying to save innocent babies which in their view are being slaughtered in a holocaust by the abortion industry.
I think they are misguided in trying to define personhood as a single celled lifeform but to me it is fairly easy to understand how people who considered abortion to be murder would be supportive of ANY measure that they felt would end such a practice.
I actually find it much harder to understand how and why the same people who are generally supportive of abortion are generally opposed to the death penalty. They have no problem depriving an innocent fetus, even one that would be viable if delivered by C-section instead of being pithed and sucked, of life without even a court order or a chance at appeal but they find it completely unacceptable to take the life of the most evil and horrendous criminals even after due criminal process and the full range of appeals. I think that is just about inexplicably inconsistent from a moral perspective.
That's an interesting standpoing that I've never thought about. So it's not OK to kill adults but OK to kill babies? That doesn't make much sense. Very nice point there.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
Or, since abortions aren't funded by the government, and the death penalty is (and it costs more to use the death penalty than to keep someone in jail for life), it could be just a matter of taxes that people oppose the death penalty, and might have nothing to do with morals.
And they're not babies until they leave the womb via birth, so there's no killing babies involved.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
"I actually find it much harder to understand how and why the same people who are generally supportive of abortion are generally opposed to the death penalty."
I love being consistent.
Yippee! Blood and guts. :D
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
I actually agree that this measure is anti-woman. But I have a hard time deciding whether I think that's actually the conscious motivation for measures like this.
I usually don't like to run with the conspiracy thing like BurningExample joked about. It just reminds about how religious conservatives like to say that homosexuals all got together and decided to ruin the sanctity of marriage (the subject of a great, funny blog by ediblewoman).
But I think there are plenty of men and women (*cough* Phyllis Schafly) in power that believe women should submit to their husbands and raise children and leave decision making and the important, tough jobs to men, because that's how women were made. I think they find women who aren't totally thrilled to get pregnant and raise children to be unnatural. But anyway you slice it its wrong, wrong, wrong.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Colorado November Ballot Measure to Legally Define a Fertilized Egg as a Person
There is no way that those who are putting this law forth are anti-women. What kind of politician would go for something like that? This whole word isn't sexist, no matter how many women believe so. It isn't sexism that causes a law like this, but it is the outrageous anti-abortion activists. This is taking it to the next level. This law is saying (except in special cases like rape) that both men and women should control themselves and not proceed with sexual acts unless they are willing to hold the responsibility of having a family. This law could be good in getting this to happen, unfortunately it is way too extreme to ever be functional in everyday life. Also, if there is no extenuating circumstances like rape, then the law should be failed (as I have already said)
This whole word isn't sexist, no matter how many women believe so.
Hmm, let's think about that. I'll name a few sexist cultural norms. Women are expected to take their husband's last name. Men are not supposed to be overcome by emotion or cry (unless they're eating a really spicy burger). Men shouldn't wear skirts or dresses. Men shouldn't wear makeup. Men, but not women are expected to deal with their anger though violence. Women are expected to like kids. Men are expected to have an aversion to commitment. Men are supposed to be controlled by their sexual desires.
I could go on and on. Sexism exists. It's everywhere, even in America. It doesn't always involve discrimination, but it affects and hurts both men and women.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Colorado November Ballot Measure to Legally Define a Fertilized Egg as a Person
Prejudices only exist if you want to see them. Anyone can overcome any cultural norm that is sexist. Females are "culturally" not supposed to wear suits (even though this is quickly becoming outdated), and yet my boss wears a suit and no one ever gives her anything for it. If you look for sexism, racism, age-ism, any type of discrimination, you will find it, but it takes a true character to overlook it. You must be the change you wish to see in the world
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
...said the white, middle class male.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
this is true
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
That reminds me of a fun song I like to sing loudly while driving fast with the car windows down. :-)
Read my Blogs!
This is Why I'm Hot
And My Other Blogs
"said the white(racist), middle class(class envier) male(sexist)."
I can see you are attempting to dismiss his argument with this racist, classist, and sexist dig. Are you totally lacking for a substantive rebuttal, or do you agree?
Denial or creating intentional blind spots is not the way to overcome discrimination or change expectations. If you refuse to see it, how can you address it?
If I'm in denial, it doesn't change the fact that almost all the children in Chinese orphanages are girls because their parents don't want their one child to be a girl and they abandon them. It doesn't change the fact that a disproportionate number of female fetuses are aborted in India because they don't want to give birth to girls. It doesn't change the fact that abstinence-only sex ed teaches girls that their virginity is the most precious gift they have to give.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Colorado November Ballot Measure to Legally Define a Fertilized Egg as a Person
"it takes a true character to overlook it."
I think it takes true character to not be the cause of it. I, for one, will not overlook anything that leaves me disadvantaged because of someone else's stupidity and arrogance.
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -F.N.
It is virtually impossible for you to change Indian and Chinese beliefs though, so what can you do? It is deeply engrained (or ingrained) in their minds that males are the preferred offspring because they carry on the name and the traditions of the family.
As for American sex ed, they do say that virginity is the most precious gift you can give, but they also direct this to boys (given that it is in a much less declarative manner as with women), but are you really complaining that sex ed teachers are trying to get women to not get pregnant? Instead, it should be a major focus that the sex ed teachers aren't focusing enough on the men. I could go as far as say that they are deliberately trying to save women more than men, but this would be an outrageous argument and would not be worth writing.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
It is deeply engrained (or ingrained) in their minds that males are the preferred offspring because they carry on the name and the traditions of the family.
Their reasons for preferring male to female children aren't so much cultural as practical. In China, since you're only allowed one kid, you obviously want the one who will take care of you when you're old, instead of the one who will go off and leave you to be part of their spouse's family. In India, the same sort of situation applies (without the one-child rule). Boys grow up to take care of their parents, while girls go off and become part of their spouse's family. That's the cultural norm, once you get married, you belong to your husband's family. But also, even though it's technically illegal, there is still a dowry system in India. So if you have a daughter you'll be in a sore spot financially later on, when you have to appease your daughter's fiancee's family with expensive gifts like refrigerators and cars. The more daughters you have, the more money you have to spend.
How horrible is it to believe that because injustice isn't occuring in our backyards we shouldn't care about it.? My mom's boss adopted two little girls from China and when they get older they will have to cope with the fact that their own parents didn't want to take care of them because they were born girls. Is that close enough for you?
but are you really complaining that sex ed teachers are trying to get women to not get pregnant?
Abstinence only sex education's focus isn't to prevent pregnancy. If they wanted to prevent unplanned pregnancies, they'd teach about contraceptives. I think abstinence only educators don't really care so much if a girl gets pregnant, as long as she marries the guy who knocked her up and that she gives birth to the baby.
The ends don't justify the means with abstinence-only ed. Especially because they don't really prevent teens from having sex. But teaching a girl that her most important quality is her virginity, belittles everything else about her. And after she finally has sex, what is she worth anymore? Or if she has sex with a guy and then they break up, she's taught to think that there's no reason any other guy would want her.
That's harmful and that's sexism.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Colorado November Ballot Measure to Legally Define a Fertilized Egg as a Person
About the situation in India and China, there are means being taken to change what is going on there, and if this is such a big deal for you, go out and help those causes! Also, you are not going to be able to change the minds of many, many Chinese families. It is an ancient Confucianist belief that boys are favored over girls. I don't know about you, but I would not like to go up to the Pope or a Priest or Mike Huckabee and say that Jesus was wrong about almost everything. This is the same thing as going up to a Chinese person and telling them that Confucius was wrong. Probably not the best idea. I will also do further research into the Hindu religion and see if this is true of them too.
As for the debate between sex-ed being abstinence only or abstinence/contraceptive or contraceptive only, I'm not sure where I stand. I am just very nervous to take that huge step and telling kids that it is OK to "hop on it" before they are married (or even adults). This is like pushing them to do it, especially if you are handing out condoms (I don't know if this actually happens, but in movie contraceptive sex-ed classes do this). Kids get bored a lot, and if they are bored and have condoms, what do you think they are going to do? Is this the right message? But I guess you could argue that those who do have sex, you aren't going to be able to stop, so you mine as well make sure they are protected against STDs and pregnancy. As for me, I'd rather take the more optimistic and idealistic approach and teach about abstinence and virginity.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
I feel like you didn't even really read my comment.
This isn't really the post to have the argument over abstinence-only vs. comprehensive sex ed, even though I love having that debate. I'd love to discuss it with you, so if you want to write a post about how you feel regarding sex ed, let me know and I'll start a comment thread on it.
And maybe you'd like to check out my post Purity Balls: For the Rich, White, Christian, and (Slightly) Perverted
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Colorado November Ballot Measure to Legally Define a Fertilized Egg as a Person
I did and I realize that you are right in some cases about the dowry and about the fact that men take care of you when you are older, but I was giving an alternate opinion. New debate on my blog or yours, in the next few days. Be sure to look and I'll read yours and comment by the end of the day (catchy title).
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
"What is it? That is the only question that needs to be answered. If it is NOT a human person, no justification is needed. If it IS a human person, no justification is adequate."
-Greg Koukl.
"Happiness only real when shared".
Too bad those fertilized eggs don't have the right to vote.....LOL
I don't live in Colorado, but I sure hope this gets voted down!
I completely agree with you. Excellent blog; I enjoyed the information (some of which I didn't already know) and the presentation (very logical).
Do you think that if Colorado passes this law, it will spread like a virus to other states and eventually become federally recognized? Also, do you know if there are any current federal laws which conflict with Colorado's "new" definition or response (besides Roe versus Wade)?
Thank you so much for the compliment.
If it passes, I'm sure it will be considered a huge victory for religious conservatives on the pro-life front. It will probably create momentum and, I'd guess, similar laws will pass in other states with very active and vocal groups of religious conservatives.
This law would have sounded much better, and been more likely to pass if they had defined a person as "from the moment of conception" instead of "from the moment of fertilization". Conception can be defined as implantation and the measure could have coincided with the medical definition of when a pregnancy begins. It wouldn't have allowed for illegalization of any contraceptions, which I think is a core part of the sponsor group's plan and the reason why they didn't word it that way, but it would have still allowed for the illegalization of essentially all abortions and made safeguarding the life of a fetus completely a government issue.
I think a huge majority of Americans are for keeping hormonal contraceptives legal, even with the knowledge that they can prevent implantation in a small percentage of cases. I'm pretty sure no one even knows how often or how successful hormonal contraceptives are at preventing implantation. I mean, women still get pregnant while on the pill, so its obviously not that effective at preventing implantation.
As for conflicting with any other federal laws, I don't know. I've kept up pretty well with the news updates on this and I haven't heard any speculation on how people will try to defeat the measure if its passed.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Colorado November Ballot Measure to Legally Define a Fertilized Egg as a Person
I completely agree with you that the majority of Americans would not allow a law to pass which prohibits (or could lead to prohibiting) the use of contraceptives. I daresay the vast majority of us (male or female) would rather not live in the dark ages with no "family planning" abilities.
I also believe that every woman has the right to choose; although I personally do not believe I would ever have an abortion (although I cannot say for sure, because every situation is different), I respect the right of a woman to have control over her own body. It is not for the government to make our decisions (whether they be personal, physical or spiritual in nature) for us.
With that said, I would agree with a law which bans abortion after the first, or maybe the second, trimester. This gives women plenty of time to determine that they are pregnant and to make a responsible decision as to whether they want to keep the fetus. After the second trimester, when a baby could potentially be born and live outside the womb, the time for a decision about an abortion is moot and the potential parent should be making the decision as to whether they would like to keep the baby or put it up for adoption.
Just the idea of, "partial birth abortions" goes against common sense and human nature (in my opinion). It takes away from some of the factors which make us uniquely human; such as compassion and individuality.
partial birth abortion do not exist. many women who terminate their pregnancy in third semester only make up 5% of abortion. the procedure used to terminate the pregnancy in the third semester, the D & L was th safest way to terminate a pregnancy.
now the doctor have to come up with a more dangerous way to terminate the pregnancy.
many of the women that do terminate their pregnancy in the third semeter discover that their fetus have adnormality, such as severe brain damage, severe down sydrome, and many disease that was not discover until the third semester, it would make life diffcult for the fetus and many fetus do not survive early life.
women who terminate their pregnancy in the third semster do not do it for fun, it is the most difficult decision that one can make. these women understand how difficult life would have been for their child and themselves if he was born and die soon afterward.
True...but who is that parent to decide whether or not life was worth living for their child? Many people with Downe Syndrome have led relatively successful lives. That is the defintion of murder and should not be allowed. Only abortions before the 1st trimester is complete should even be debated.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
If anyone should decide whether a fetus should be born, it should be the parents (but ultimately the mother). The mother/parents are ultimately the ones who have to take care of a child and watch as their child lives with their disease/disorder. Unless the government (or religious conservatives) want to provide and care for all those children whose parents wanted to spare them, they should allow abortions in the case of a genetic disease or disorder.
Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS) is the type of pre-natal genetic testing that can be performed earliest and is also fairly comprehensive. But it can be performed at earliest at the 10th-12th week of pregnancy. And it takes 1 to 2 weeks for the results to come back. Amniocentesis, which tests for defects that CVS can't detect, can be performed at the 15th-18th week of pregnancy and results take about a month. Even for CVS, once couples have the results back, they're very close to the second trimester.
I think abortions should be allowed until a baby is able to live outside of the womb.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Colorado November Ballot Measure to Legally Define a Fertilized Egg as a Person
If a parent cannot take the responsibility of raising a child with a genetic disorder that will affect the quality of life of their child, then they should not have sex in the first place. Modern people don't ever realize that actions have consequences, and what is needed is to show these people that they can't act on impulse without punishment. Now a baby with Downe Syndrome is obviously an outrageous punishment due to the pain caused in the life of the child, don't get me wrong. But it's the parents responsibility to make good decisions.
All in all, keep it in your pants if you are not ready to deal with consequences.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
Tell that to a couple of newlyweds who can barely make ends meet.
Not everyone can be asexual long enough to be capable of raising a child, and not everyone is financially capable of raising a child, and not everyone wants a child, period. Besides that, many genetic disorders cause a lot more problems than a regular child.
But since you want everyone to abstain until they can manage to raise a challenging child, I expect you to abstain unless you want to produce that child.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Its not that you want a child, its that you could have a child if necessary. If not, you have to put off immediate gratification and look at your long term goals. That's why I will abstain, because there are things I want to do in life before having a child. That is, I believe, the responsible way to go about things.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
And very very few people know whether or not they are capable of taking care of a severely handicapped kid. I know at my point right now, I'm capable of taking care of a kid (not financially at the moment, but in every other way), but I don't know if I could take care of a kid that required me to be at home most of the day.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
If a parent cannot take the responsibility of raising a child with a genetic disorder that will affect the quality of life of their child, then they should not have sex in the first place.
Have you ever raised a child with a genetic disorder that affects quality of life? Until you do... I really wouldn't make assumptions because believe me it's no walk in the park and I do it every day. It's so easy to say that you could do it with no problem or that unless you're able to do it you shouldn't have sex... until you're actually in the position of watching that child struggle every single day and knowing that child won't, no matter how much you try, ever live anything close to a normal life. We do it daily here and I know from experience, most people couldn't do it, no matter what they think.
-----
Free books need new home.
~Fallon~
"If I fall asleep with a pen in my hand, don't remove it - I might be writing in my dreams."- Pace
-----
I agree with you on all points. Especially screening for genetic diseases (including Down Syndrome). If a parent(s) chooses to have a child that they know will be a burden on society, and will not be able to care for him/herself that parent(s) should have a backup plan in case something were to happen to them, so the child would not become a dependent on the government. Unfortunately, many parents just assume their child will be cared for without benefit to society, and these children don't always get the best care after their parents pass away.
I can see the perspective where a Down Syndrome child is considered a "gift" because they are so much more innocent and selfless than the typical adult. However, I do not think it is a fair trade for a poor man or woman to be forced to a life of ignorance because they are a "gift" to society rather than a burden. That's like saying children should always be children and never grow up... but then who would support these innocents? *ramble*ramble* lol
On the other hand, how do we define "able to live outside the womb" reasonably?
The procedure religious conservatives dubbed "partial birth abortion", medically known as D&E (dilation and extraction), is most importantly used in cases where a woman would give birth to a stillborn baby, which can be very dangerous for the woman.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Colorado November Ballot Measure to Legally Define a Fertilized Egg as a Person
When does this occur? Do they wait for the 9 months to be done, or immediately after PBE? Also, what about miscarriages, is that the same situation?
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
What is the proposed action for ectopic pregnancies? The egg is fertilized, but not in the uterus, so how would they go about protecting the fertilized egg and the pregnant woman at the same time?
Great question, I assume that they will wait it out and see what happens, unless there is a corrective surgery to move it to the uterus. I am only vaguely familiar with this birth complication
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
Ectopic Pregnancies can be caused by endometriosis, defects in the fallopian tubes, scarring from past surgeries, the morning after pill (rarely) etc. Sometimes, a cause is not known. Additionally, women using in vitro fertilization, and women who have had tubal sterilization in the past are at an increased risk.
With an ectopic pregnancy, the fertilized egg implants in the fallopian tubes (95% of the time, the other 5% is dived among the cervix, abdomen, and ovaries). In 100% of these cases, waiting it out to see what happens will result in the area bursting as the fetus continues to grow. This causes severe internal bleeding, leading to shock and, if left untreated, death of the mother.
Treatment involves either stopping the growth of the embryo with an injection of a certain drug, or removing it via surgery, if the pregnancy is too far along. Ectopic Pregnancies cannot continue to birth. The embryo must be removed to save the mother's life.
Read my Blogs!
This is Why I'm Hot
And My Other Blogs
Well then waiting it out would be a terrible decision. Thank you. If you remove it through surgery, do they place it in the uterus or is it a guaranteed abortion?
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
It's a guaranteed abortion.
With the ectopic pregnancy, once the embryo settles, it lacks the nourishment it needs to develop. Additionally, it wouldn't just be the embryo or fetus being moved; it would also be the amniotic sac and the placenta. The placenta won't normally just reattach itself somewhere else and, once removed from where it is, the embryo/fetus loses its entire blood supply. There is nearly no way to place everything in the uterus and no surgeon in their right mind would attempt it.
Waiting it out would also be a terrible decision because, the earlier these are caught and taken care of, the more chance the mother has of being able to conceive and give birth again.
Read my Blogs!
This is Why I'm Hot
And My Other Blogs
In addition, anything done at that stage of pregnancy (<12-18 weeks or so) the involves intruding on the uterus carries with it an increased risk of miscarriage. That's why doctors are hesitant to do things like amniocentesis and the mother has to sign waivers saying that she knows performing the procedure increases her chance to miscarry (which is already high, I might add, at 20-50% before week 18). So, even if they could move everything and successfully reattach it, it doesn't ensure the survival of the fetus/embryo.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
So under that proposed law in Colorado, what would be the legal course of action with an ectopic pregnancy, seeing as how the fertilized egg would be a "person."
My best guess is that women will have to obtain permission from the government to have an ectopic pregnancy, or any life-threatening pregnancy, terminated. They will probably have to show medical documents or signed affadavits from doctors attesting to the life-threatening risk involved with continuing the pregnancy. With an ectopic pregnancy this should be rather straight-foward. With other risky pregnancies, it might not be so straight-foward.
What sucks is that part about women not having the right to make their own medical decisions and that that decision-making is up to the government.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Colorado November Ballot Measure to Legally Define a Fertilized Egg as a Person
I hope that you're right about this, but is it really that bad that the government would be making the decision? In 100% of these cases, the government is not going to say that both mother and child would have to die. The only downside is that you will be exposing to someone (I'm not sure who'd be in charge) you're condition. I don't see that it is that big of a deal, unless you, as the pregnant mother, did something harmful in your youth that caused the situation.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
The fact that you'd need to obtain permission AT ALL is horrible. Doctors have the right to refuse treatment, and OBGYNs already have the highest malpractice insurance of any other specialty. Do you want to make it worse by threatening murder charges if they have to perform some procedure in an emergency that results in the death of the fertilized egg?
The government should never be in control of which medical procedures I want done to my body. The only ones involved in the process should be my insurance company (who has to pay for it, or can refuse to pay for it, resulting in me going elsewhere for funds), the doctor who will perform the procedure (who chances getting sued for doing so), and the person undergoing the procedure, me. If the child inside of me is going to kill me at any stage of the pregnancy, I alone should have the right to decide if I want something done about it, not the government.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
In a bad pregnancy, the clock is ticking. Jumping through government hoops can take weeks (sometimes months, depending on the case). At the rate a fetus grows, the mother doesn't have weeks, especially if the ectopic pregnancy isn't found early enough. In some cases, she may be lucky to only have a few days to get it taken care of because generally, she doesn't know she's pregnant and it starts feeling like really bad cramps. Even in situations where the pregnancy starts out good, it can turn bad within hours and even a few minutes can be the difference between life and death for either the mother or baby.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I can't believe anyone would be in favor of that....
I don't remember where my comment is where I began talking about sex ed and then got asked to write another blog, but I recently wrote the blog and am interested to hear other viewpoints. Please read it and comment. http://www.progressiveu.org/171241-comprehensive-sex-ed-should-we-be-tea.... Thanks.
Oh, no! This potential law is terrifying; if abortion is illegal, then the organized crime rate skyrockets because women start having backalley abortions in minivans and end up with severe injuries. There are many abortion vans in China to abort unborn female fetuses. When an untrained individual attempts to perform an abortion, the procedure can go horribly wrong. This is why Roe v. Wade is essential: to keep abortion safe and rare, it must be legal.
~Violinstef
Hopefully this bill will not pass. The way I see it, its more a less another way for those who believe in abstinance-only sex education to drive their point home. What I don't understand is how abortion is even an issue for the government to decide. Since when is it the role of an elected official to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body? What's next, will they be telling me that I can't get a tattoo or that I have to stop shaving my legs?
If this bill does pass, who exactly will be responsible for alerting the authorities that a woman has had an abortion? Black market abortions will start to multiply. The wealthy aristocracy who can afford abortions will still continue to have them, while lower class women who would actually really need them wouldn't be able to afford them. This could cause a huge strain on the economy and continue to widen the societal gap between the two classes.
Would the doctor performing the abortion also be subject to fines/jail time? If both parties agree never to speak of the abortion, how can the government really control this? I really don't see this bill passing simply because of the ridiculous measures that would have to be taken in order to enforce it.
"Music expresses that which cannot be said and on which it is impossible to be silent." - Victor Hugo
Yup, I'm a music nerd.
I haven't found any specific sentences or punishments for breaking this law. The measure is supposed to provide legal grounds to create laws that would illegalize abortion (under any circumstance), illegalize hormonal contraceptives including Plan B, and severely complicate medical treatment of pregnant women, highly regulate invitro fertilization, and more.
So the laws created because of this measure would dictate sentencing. But every law I've come across that illegalizes abortion in any way punishes both the woman and the abortion provider (even if they're a doctor). Usually the woman gets jail time and the provider gets jail time or a fine.
But this measure would create a different sort of law against abortion. Usually the law says that abortions are illegal just because, but this measure would illegalize abortions becuase they are considered murder. That would, I would guess, make punishment much harsher for both women and abortion providers. If the woman managed to self-abort, she would be tried as a murderer, but if she obtained an abortion by someone else, the abortion provider would be tried as a murder and she would be tried as an accomplice (as far as I can tell).
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Colorado November Ballot Measure to Legally Define a Fertilized Egg as a Person
That's all I have to say
You love taking rights away from women? Good to know.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
You love the ballot??? or the length of discussion?
I love it when the 'talking' here goes as long as this has. The measure was not well thought out.
~T
All truths are easy to understand once discovered; The point is to discover them ~Galileo
There is no chance that the death penalty costs more than life in prison. If you consider the average cost of life in person per day to be $88 dollars (food, paying the guards, health expenses, etc.), and a person is in prison for 25 years, this is a total of $800,000 for the government to pay to keep a criminal alive. To kill someone using the death penalty, it would cost at the most $50-$100,000 (lawyer fees, medical expenses, etc.) But that is just an estimate.
However, I do not support the death penalty. Our government should institute a life in prison policy that does not give prisoners the right to medical help (at the government's expense). This is the main reason why prison costs are so high. If the prisoner wants medical help, then they can either work it off in the prison system or get money from their famiies and friends. Otherwise, you shouldn't have done what you did to get in prison.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
Kindly do your research. I have.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/COcosttestimony.pdf
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
That testimony is basically saying that poorly run death sentence programs are more costly. But, it also says that if the death penalty was 100% efficient, it would only cost $216,000 per execution, which is equal to about 6-7 years in prison.
So what I'm saying is that we should change the way our incarceration system works because both sides (death penalty and imprisonment) waste way too much money. That website said that each execution costs about $1 million dollars to the taxpayers. That's $800,000 wasted, and some have more. And taxpayers should not be paying for criminals to live comfortably.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/nharris1032
This is unreal. I rather I make the choice not some pencil pusher.
Published Author and Poet
Teacher Education Student.
Very interesting, and correct, in my opinion.
I would, however, add that there is perhaps a point at which abortion would be considered murder unless under extenuating circumstances, but fertilization is not that point.
I'd think that when an unborn child become conscious, it would probably be a bad idea to abort. However, this is usually in the third trimester (sixth or seventh month?), and most people will generally reach some sort of decision as to whether to abort or not, before that point.
However, I'd even go further: While the child is for all intents and purposes physically inseparable from the mother, the mother should have final decision as to whether or not to detach the child from her. Until the child is born, it is physically the sole burden of the mother (arguably [and hopefully] the emotional burden of the mother and the father, also), and she should have final say either way. Since the debate underlying this whole discussion is often what we classify as life, the question is one of whether abortion is killing, not of whether killing is wrong.
Strange debate. Personally, I fully support the right to abortions.
The argument of this blog is well presented against a poorly thought out law. It has really gotten a great thread of discussion going. Which is why it suprises me that nobody has made this point:
Even if the referendum passes it will not outlaw abortion.
Roe vs. Wade is a Supreme Court of the United States decision. It supercedes MANY state laws that outlawed abortion when it was rendered. Colorado can pass any law that it wishes, and abortion will remain legal.
If the SCUS overturns Roe vs. Wade then the various state laws would regain force. The Colorado law would, or could, have an impact on the non-abortion aspects you point out.