Hey Sprots

[danielh41]

I know that we are on totally opposite ends of the political spectrum, but I do have a question to ask you. I've been reading about Amendment 48 in Colorado. I don't want to get into a debate on the merits of the proposed amendment. I don't think that would be constructive after the Pro-Life thread I started. But I would like to know what the general feeling is there in Colorado. What are the polls saying? Are the campaigns for and against it really going at each other? I guess what I want to know is how hot of a topic is Amendment 48...

[SportsFan68]

I know that we are on totally opposite ends of the political spectrum, but I do have a question to ask you. I've been reading about Amendment 48 in Colorado. I don't want to get into a debate on the merits of the proposed amendment. I don't think that would be constructive after the Pro-Life thread I started. But I would like to know what the general feeling is there in Colorado. What are the polls saying? Are the campaigns for and against it really going at each other? I guess what I want to know is how hot of a topic is Amendment 48...

Yes, it's hot. Yes, the proponents and opponents are really going at each other. I posted this the other day in the Colorado politics thread:

"Burton (one of the chief proponents) repeatedly agreed that discussions on controversial topics such as abortion, birth control and a mother's rights need to take place, but hesitated to discuss any single topic in detail.

" 'Before we deal with these important life issues, let's decide who we believe a person is and who we're going to protect and has rights in our society,' she said."

And yet, she refused to discuss the right of a person to terminate a pregnancy which had been caused by rape or incest. Even if 48 did pass, it would almost certainly be declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Can you imagine any court requiring a woman or girl to bear her rapist's child?

This weekend, I learned from a Kentucky transplant about a high school kid who was raped by a repeat offender, a pregnancy resulted, and her parents forced her to carry the child to term. My friend said it was as if the light had gone out in that poor kid's life. Even after the birth, she just went through the motions. The child was put up for adoption, and no one would adopt because of the violence stigma. When my friend left Kentucky, the poor child was still bouncing around foster homes. The young woman was still like a zombie.

That's bad, but I'm sure that you will say that all was well in that case, because after all, everybody did live. Beyond that, I found troubling the fact that Burton would not address situations where someone is going to die. In ectopic pregnancies, both the woman and fetus are going to die if she's not treated, and there are cases where the fetus is so badly deformed that it can live for only a few minutes outside the womb, and they can tell that from very early in the pregnancy. But Burton would only say that we had to pass it, and then we'd deal with the other issues, conveniently forgetting that 48 would draw such an inflexible line that it would be impossible to address them. Look in on the link that WheresFanny posted for how things are going in Nicaragua, where the definition outlined in 48 is the law.

When the proponents refuse to discuss that sort of ramification, I have to think that even they recognize that their proposal is fatally flawed. They just won't admit it.

[SportsFan68]

I forgot to answer your question about polls -- I found one about a month old that said 48 had 39% support. I couldn't find anything current.

[danielh41]

If it does pass, it will be interesting to see what does happen in the courts. Justice Blackmun wrote in the Roe V. Wade decision: "(If the) suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."

This amendment attacks the admitted weakness of the Roe v. Wade decision...

[SportsFan68]

Again, I'm certain it will be thrown out. 48 would give an ectopic pregnancy fetus the same personhood status as the woman even though if it is untreated, it will kill them both. I just can't see any court mandating continuation of a doomed fetus which will kill an otherwise healthy woman if left untreated.

[danielh41]

Again, I'm certain it will be thrown out. 48 would give an ectopic pregnancy fetus the same personhood status as the woman even though if it is untreated, it will kill them both. I just can't see any court mandating continuation of a doomed fetus which will kill an otherwise healthy woman if left untreated.

I haven't read the text of Amendment 48, but in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, I can't imagine anyone saying that the right to life of the enbryo would take greater precedence than the rights of the mother. It sounds more like an attempt to spread fear in order to protect the pro-abortion's precious Roe V. Wade ruling. But like I said, I haven't read the text of the amendment.

[SportsFan68]

Again, I'm certain it will be thrown out. 48 would give an ectopic pregnancy fetus the same personhood status as the woman even though if it is untreated, it will kill them both. I just can't see any court mandating continuation of a doomed fetus which will kill an otherwise healthy woman if left untreated.

I haven't read the text of Amendment 48, but in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, I can't imagine anyone saying that the right to life of the enbryo would take greater precedence than the rights of the mother. It sounds more like an attempt to spread fear in order to protect the pro-abortion's precious Roe V. Wade ruling. But like I said, I haven't read the text of the amendment.

No problem! Here you go:

Amendment 48
Definition of Person
1 Ballot Title: An amendment to the Colorado constitution defining the term "person"
2 to include any human being from the moment of fertilization as "person" is used in those
3 provisions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice,
4 and due process of law.
5 Text of Proposal:
6 Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:
7 SECTION 1. Article II of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE
8 ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:
9 Section 31. Person defined. AS USED IN SECTIONS 3, 6, AND 25 OF ARTICLE II OF
10 THE STATE CONSTITUTION, THE TERMS "PERSON" OR "PERSONS" SHALL INCLUDE ANY
11 HUMAN BEING FROM THE MOMENT OF FERTILIZATION.

Again, I suggest a look at the link WheresFanny posted. In Nicaragua, under the same law as above, women are being prosecuted for seeking abortions to protect their health, and some are dying because they won't risk prosecution. If you had a daughter, and if she were raped resulting in a pregnancy, I can imagine that you would mandate her to carry her rapist's baby to term, but I cannot imagine a U.S. court doing so. I believe that Amendment 48 will not pass, but even if it did, I cannot imagine it surviving the inevitable court challenge.

[hf_jai]

Again, I'm certain it will be thrown out. 48 would give an ectopic pregnancy fetus the same personhood status as the woman even though if it is untreated, it will kill them both. I just can't see any court mandating continuation of a doomed fetus which will kill an otherwise healthy woman if left untreated.

I haven't read the text of Amendment 48, but in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, I can't imagine anyone saying that the right to life of the enbryo would take greater precedence than the rights of the mother. It sounds more like an attempt to spread fear in order to protect the pro-abortion's precious Roe V. Wade ruling. But like I said, I haven't read the text of the amendment.

See, that's one of the things I don't understand about the anti-abortion argument. If a fetus/embryo/fertilized egg is a person with the same right to life as the woman who bears it, then that has to be just as true for a fetus (etc) involved in an ectopic pregnancy. Personhood is personhood; it either is or it isn't. I also think the fact that most people would not preserve the life of the fetus in a situation like ectopic pregnancy at a risk to the life of the mother shows that most people don't really believe the fetus is a person with the same rights.

Fwiw, I say this as a woman who had an ectopic pregnancy that ruptured a fallopian tube and almost killed me. I was in the middle of a military move from Europe to Arizona, so I hadn't seen a doctor since discovering the pregnancy. But if I had, and if the doctor had told me the pregancy was ectopic, there's no doubt in my mind I would have terminated it. I happen to believe to do otherwise would have been an immoral act (my son was 4 at the time), altho I would never presume to make that decision for someone else. Of course, not every situation is as clear cut, which is why I believe the decision should be made only by the woman, in consultation with her husband, doctor, and/or clergyman as she chooses.

[danielh41]

Again, I'm certain it will be thrown out. 48 would give an ectopic pregnancy fetus the same personhood status as the woman even though if it is untreated, it will kill them both. I just can't see any court mandating continuation of a doomed fetus which will kill an otherwise healthy woman if left untreated.

I haven't read the text of Amendment 48, but in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, I can't imagine anyone saying that the right to life of the enbryo would take greater precedence than the rights of the mother. It sounds more like an attempt to spread fear in order to protect the pro-abortion's precious Roe V. Wade ruling. But like I said, I haven't read the text of the amendment.

See, that's one of the things I don't understand about the anti-abortion argument. If a fetus/embryo/fertilized egg is a person with the same right to life as the woman who bears it, then that has to be just as true for a fetus (etc) involved in an ectopic pregnancy. Personhood is personhood; it either is or it isn't. I also think the fact that most people would not preserve the life of the fetus in a situation like ectopic pregnancy at a risk to the life of the mother shows that most people don't really believe the fetus is a person with the same rights.

Fwiw, I say this as a woman who had an ectopic pregnancy that ruptured a fallopian tube and almost killed me. I was in the middle of a military move from Europe to Arizona, so I hadn't seen a doctor since discovering the pregnancy. But if I had, and if the doctor had told me the pregancy was ectopic, there's no doubt in my mind I would have terminated it. I happen to believe to do otherwise would have been an immoral act (my son was 4 at the time), altho I would never presume to make that decision for someone else. Of course, not every situation is as clear cut, which is why I believe the decision should be made only by the woman, in consultation with her husband, doctor, and/or clergyman as she chooses.

I'm not a doctor, and I don't know what the proper treatment would be for an ectopic pregnancy. But in such a case, it would seem clear that to leave it untreated would result in the death of both the mother and the child. So it seems clear that some kind of procedure is necessary. If the procedure results in the death of the embryo, then I don't see any violation of anyone's rights. The fact that the embryo implanted in the fallopian tube is itself a fatal blow to that embryo and should be considered a natural death.

I am in favor of granting personhood status to the unborn. They are as human as anyone else. Who are we as a society to say which human beings should be allowed the God-given right to life as stated in the Declaration of Independence? In the 1700s and early 1800s, it was assumed that certain people with dark skin were less developed than those with white skin. This led to the belief that it was OK to enslave and treat as property those people of color. In the 1930s and 40s, the Nazis looked at Jews as being less than human when compared to the desired Aryan race, so they believed that it was OK to kill the Jews off. Today the pro-abortion people consider unborn children to be mere lumps of tissue rather than human beings so they can therefore be killed just because they would be an inconvenience to someone. In all three instances, the same rationalization of evil is at work.

I believe this amendment would break new legal ground, so I don't think Sprots should be so quick to assume that it would get struck down in the courts. This goes beyond Roe v. Wade in regards to whether abortion should be legal or not. This addresses the question that Roe v. Wade left unanswered, and that question hasn't yet been addressed. This would be an entirely new argument. I'm hoping that 48 passes if only so we can see how it does play out in the courts.

[SportsFan68]

I am in favor of granting personhood status to the unborn. They are as human as anyone else. Who are we as a society to say which human beings should be allowed the God-given right to life as stated in the Declaration of Independence? In the 1700s and early 1800s, it was assumed that certain people with dark skin were less developed than those with white skin. This led to the belief that it was OK to enslave and treat as property those people of color. In the 1930s and 40s, the Nazis looked at Jews as being less than human when compared to the desired Aryan race, so they believed that it was OK to kill the Jews off. Today the pro-abortion people consider unborn children to be mere lumps of tissue rather than human beings so they can therefore be killed just because they would be an inconvenience to someone. In all three instances, the same rationalization of evil is at work.

I believe this amendment would break new legal ground, so I don't think Sprots should be so quick to assume that it would get struck down in the courts. This goes beyond Roe v. Wade in regards to whether abortion should be legal or not. This addresses the question that Roe v. Wade left unanswered, and that question hasn't yet been addressed. This would be an entirely new argument. I'm hoping that 48 passes if only so we can see how it does play out in the courts.

OK, let's forget the courts. What say you, DanielH? Let's say you have a high school age daughter, and she's raped, and pregnancy results. I'm guessing from the first quoted paragraph that you will require her to bear her rapist's child. But that's just a guess. What will you do?

[danielh41]

I am in favor of granting personhood status to the unborn. They are as human as anyone else. Who are we as a society to say which human beings should be allowed the God-given right to life as stated in the Declaration of Independence? In the 1700s and early 1800s, it was assumed that certain people with dark skin were less developed than those with white skin. This led to the belief that it was OK to enslave and treat as property those people of color. In the 1930s and 40s, the Nazis looked at Jews as being less than human when compared to the desired Aryan race, so they believed that it was OK to kill the Jews off. Today the pro-abortion people consider unborn children to be mere lumps of tissue rather than human beings so they can therefore be killed just because they would be an inconvenience to someone. In all three instances, the same rationalization of evil is at work.

I believe this amendment would break new legal ground, so I don't think Sprots should be so quick to assume that it would get struck down in the courts. This goes beyond Roe v. Wade in regards to whether abortion should be legal or not. This addresses the question that Roe v. Wade left unanswered, and that question hasn't yet been addressed. This would be an entirely new argument. I'm hoping that 48 passes if only so we can see how it does play out in the courts.

OK, let's forget the courts. What say you, DanielH? Let's say you have a high school age daughter, and she's raped, and pregnancy results. I'm guessing from the first quoted paragraph that you will require her to bear her rapist's child. But that's just a guess. What will you do?

You're asking if I would allow my daughter to commit murder? That answer is no. That being said, there would have to be decisions to be made regarding the baby and the daughter. But just because one crime has been committed doesn't give anyone justification to commit another crime, especially against an innocent child.

[Bob78164]

I am in favor of granting personhood status to the unborn. They are as human as anyone else. Who are we as a society to say which human beings should be allowed the God-given right to life as stated in the Declaration of Independence? In the 1700s and early 1800s, it was assumed that certain people with dark skin were less developed than those with white skin. This led to the belief that it was OK to enslave and treat as property those people of color. In the 1930s and 40s, the Nazis looked at Jews as being less than human when compared to the desired Aryan race, so they believed that it was OK to kill the Jews off. Today the pro-abortion people consider unborn children to be mere lumps of tissue rather than human beings so they can therefore be killed just because they would be an inconvenience to someone. In all three instances, the same rationalization of evil is at work.

I believe this amendment would break new legal ground, so I don't think Sprots should be so quick to assume that it would get struck down in the courts. This goes beyond Roe v. Wade in regards to whether abortion should be legal or not. This addresses the question that Roe v. Wade left unanswered, and that question hasn't yet been addressed. This would be an entirely new argument. I'm hoping that 48 passes if only so we can see how it does play out in the courts.

OK, let's forget the courts. What say you, DanielH? Let's say you have a high school age daughter, and she's raped, and pregnancy results. I'm guessing from the first quoted paragraph that you will require her to bear her rapist's child. But that's just a guess. What will you do?

In California, currently, he wouldn't get to make that decision. She would. I don't know Texas law on this issue.

For the third time in (I believe) the last four years, there's an initiative on the California ballot that would require parental consent or a judicial bypass. It's lost twice before, and I have no reason to believe the result will be any different this time.

As for the effect of Proposition 48 on the state of the law, I cannot imagine how a state-law definition of life could in any way effect the federal interpretation of "person" as that term is used in the federal Equal Protection Clause. Legally, the argument is a non-starter. Politically, though . . . . --Bob

[Bob Juch]

I am in favor of granting personhood status to the unborn. They are as human as anyone else. Who are we as a society to say which human beings should be allowed the God-given right to life as stated in the Declaration of Independence? In the 1700s and early 1800s, it was assumed that certain people with dark skin were less developed than those with white skin. This led to the belief that it was OK to enslave and treat as property those people of color. In the 1930s and 40s, the Nazis looked at Jews as being less than human when compared to the desired Aryan race, so they believed that it was OK to kill the Jews off. Today the pro-abortion people consider unborn children to be mere lumps of tissue rather than human beings so they can therefore be killed just because they would be an inconvenience to someone. In all three instances, the same rationalization of evil is at work.

I believe this amendment would break new legal ground, so I don't think Sprots should be so quick to assume that it would get struck down in the courts. This goes beyond Roe v. Wade in regards to whether abortion should be legal or not. This addresses the question that Roe v. Wade left unanswered, and that question hasn't yet been addressed. This would be an entirely new argument. I'm hoping that 48 passes if only so we can see how it does play out in the courts.

OK, let's forget the courts. What say you, DanielH? Let's say you have a high school age daughter, and she's raped, and pregnancy results. I'm guessing from the first quoted paragraph that you will require her to bear her rapist's child. But that's just a guess. What will you do?

You're asking if I would allow my daughter to commit murder? That answer is no. That being said, there would have to be decisions to be made regarding the baby and the daughter. But just because one crime has been committed doesn't give anyone justification to commit another crime, especially against an innocent child.

So you're against a "morning after" pill as well?

[danielh41]

OK, let's forget the courts. What say you, DanielH? Let's say you have a high school age daughter, and she's raped, and pregnancy results. I'm guessing from the first quoted paragraph that you will require her to bear her rapist's child. But that's just a guess. What will you do?

You're asking if I would allow my daughter to commit murder? That answer is no. That being said, there would have to be decisions to be made regarding the baby and the daughter. But just because one crime has been committed doesn't give anyone justification to commit another crime, especially against an innocent child.

So you're against a "morning after" pill as well?

It it's purpose is to kill a fertilized egg, then yes. From what I've read, they aren't very effective anyway, and they have a much higher risk to the mother than conventional birth control pills.

[Bob Juch]

You're asking if I would allow my daughter to commit murder? That answer is no. That being said, there would have to be decisions to be made regarding the baby and the daughter. But just because one crime has been committed doesn't give anyone justification to commit another crime, especially against an innocent child.

So you're against a "morning after" pill as well?

It it's purpose is to kill a fertilized egg, then yes. From what I've read, they aren't very effective anyway, and they have a much higher risk to the mother than conventional birth control pills.

Yes, they have a higher risk than birth control pills, but that's less of a risk than pregnancy. They don't kill the egg but do the same thing as regular birth control pills: prevent a fertilized egg from being implanted in the uterus.

[hf_jai]

I'm not a doctor, and I don't know what the proper treatment would be for an ectopic pregnancy. But in such a case, it would seem clear that to leave it untreated would result in the death of both the mother and the child. So it seems clear that some kind of procedure is necessary. If the procedure results in the death of the embryo, then I don't see any violation of anyone's rights. The fact that the embryo implanted in the fallopian tube is itself a fatal blow to that embryo and should be considered a natural death.

You can't have it both ways. An embryo attached to a fallopian tube is as alive and as "human" as one attached to a uterus. But in the former case, the only thing that willl save its mother's life is to terminate the pregnancy. The doctor removes the still living embryo from the womb, which causes its death. It is essentially an abortion. And it is a "natural death" only in the same sense that removing life support from someone with a terminal illness is "natural." Not someone who is already brain dead, mind you, but someone who is otherwise healthy except that they are going to die anyway.

Aren't we all going to die anyway?

Now to me, a fertilized egg is obviously not a person. In fact, I find it insulting to equate a lump of cells which doesn't even have a brain, much less thoughts or feelings, to a Jew or a black person. I believe that you diminish the horror of the Holocaust or slavery when you do. I also believe a dog or a cat is much closer to a human being than is a fertilized egg or embryo. A dog or cat has a brain; it thinks and feels; it loves; it does the things that most make us human. You can choose to believe otherwise, but that's all it is -- what you CHOOSE to believe.

[danielh41]

You can't have it both ways. An embryo attached to a fallopian tube is as alive and as "human" as one attached to a uterus. But in the former case, the only thing that willl save its mother's life is to terminate the pregnancy. The doctor removes the still living embryo from the womb, which causes its death. It is essentially an abortion. And it is a "natural death" only in the same sense that removing life support from someone with a terminal illness is "natural." Not someone who is already brain dead, mind you, but someone who is otherwise healthy except that they are going to die anyway.

Aren't we all going to die anyway?

Now to me, a fertilized egg is obviously not a person. In fact, I find it insulting to equate a lump of cells which doesn't even have a brain, much less thoughts or feelings, to a Jew or a black person. I believe that you diminish the horror of the Holocaust or slavery when you do. I also believe a dog or a cat is much closer to a human being than is a fertilized egg or embryo. A dog or cat has a brain; it thinks and feels; it loves; it does the things that most make us human. You can choose to believe otherwise, but that's all it is -- what you CHOOSE to believe.

I'm not diminishing the horror of the Holocaust or of slavery. They were two of the most extreme cases of evil the human race has ever seen. What I am doing is calling abortion for what it is--an evil that is on the same level as anything else in human history.

To say that a dog or cat is closer to human than an embryo is just ignorant. A fertilized egg is most definitely human. I was once a fertilized egg and so were you. That we have grown into adulthood from those fertilized egg is a gift from God. It is true that many fertilized eggs never achieve implantation and perish as a result. For whatever reason, God did not grant those the gift of life. That is up to His divine will. It is not up to humans to supersede God's will through the murder of the innocent.

And from what I've read, most ectopic pregnancies, if left untreated, will resolve themselves. For those others, the embryo has normally already died by the time treatment becomes necessary. The intentional killing of a child at any stage is wrong. As a Christian with strong convictions, I cannot let evil just continue without opposing it or speaking out against it.