NationStates Jolt Archive

So, people of NSG, what do you think about this proposed amendment? I have a hard time believing opposition to abortion would necessarily result in support for full human rights for a fetus, but apparently this group managed to make that leap in logic.

:headbang: is all I can say.

A proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution is asking voters a very simple question:

But both sides agreed that the measure, if it passed, would have immense ripple effects. The measure, just one paragraph long, would ask voters whether inalienable rights, due process rights and equality of justice rights as defined in the state Constitution should be extended to “any human being from the moment of fertilization.”

NY Times Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/politics/18ballot.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)
AP Link (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hHbhKzL-q6SbazRgpk6_Ino2YPZwD8ST5NG80)
The proposal passed a legal challenge to its wording a few days ago when it was approved by the Colorado Supreme Court, so the question will likely be put to the state's voters in a year or so if it garners enough signatures. Supporters of the amendment are anti-abortionists attempting to make abortion illegal, while opponents claim that this measure is so broad as to invite challenges to contraception and birth control.

The deputy director of Naral Pro-Choice Colorado, Toni Panetta, said state courts could be swamped by suits claiming specific rights for a fertilized egg that the broad language of the ballot measure did not clarify.

“All fertilized eggs could use the courts, and that lays the foundation for a potential onslaught,” she said. She said the language would open up challenges to birth control, including oral contraception and intrauterine devices, which make the uterine wall inhospitable to the developing egg.

A lawyer who represented supporters of the proposal, Michael J. Norton, said the real impact of the proposal would be in its simplicity, asking a profound philosophical and moral question.

“The whole issue centers on when does life begin,” Mr. Norton said. He said that though the word “abortion” would not appear in the language of the proposal, it would effectively make an abortion “the destruction of a person” and therefore illegal.

“Whatever rights and liberties and duties and responsibilities are guaranteed under the Constitution or other state laws would flow to that life,” Mr. Norton said.

So, people of NSG, what do you think about this proposed amendment? I have a hard time believing opposition to abortion would necessarily result in support for full human rights for a fetus, but apparently this group managed to make that leap in logic.

This won't work because then every woman who has a fertilised egg that doesn't get implanted or suffers a miscarriage would then be liable for destroying a human life.

“All fertilized eggs could use the courts, and that lays the foundation for a potential onslaught,” she said. She said the language would open up challenges to birth control, including oral contraception and intrauterine devices, which make the uterine wall inhospitable to the developing egg.

From the article.

As many as 75% of fertilized eggs are flushed out of a woman's body instead of attaching to the uterine wall. If these are human beings, they are owed protection and emergency services. Every woman who engages in intercourse will have to have a paramedic escort her everywhere so if she meunstrates or otherwise accidentally discharges her occupant, the paramedic is on scene to save the life. Negligent homicide charges should probably also be considered. *nod*

In addition, all used sanitary napkins should be considered a potential crime scene. *nod*

It's a fertilized egg, not a human. Chimps deserve more rights than any fertilized egg or fetus.

Whats the term that comes to my mind... oh yeah.. re-fucking-dicoulous.

Unfortunately, the innate silliness of this amendment will not be clear to its supporters. The actual science behind the reproductive cycle cannot be taken into consideration by them, as it pokes funny holes in their whole theory.

I wonder, if it passes, will lawyers file suits on behalf of frozen embryos that the mother has decided not to implant demanding that she be forced to implant them and carry them to birth?

This is crazy.

And I'm opposed to abortion!

This is crazy.

And I'm opposed to abortion!

I don't think this has anything to do with abortion. This is about crazy people who think they can legislate reality.

But the sun will rise tomorrow, whether they will it or no.

People who think of this stuff are fucking idiots.

its a shame that the fact that nobody, not even anti-abortion activists, actually thinks that blastocysts are persons will probably play no role in the debate here. it really should, and its so easy to demonstrate. i could probably even put it into soundbite format if pressed.