|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:15 pm
The articleThe article The Colorado Supreme Court today released a decision giving proponents the go-ahead for a ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution in 2008 to define personhood as a fertilized egg. ...The measure, if approved by voters, would extend constitutional protection from the moment of conception with regard to rights of life, liberty, equality of justice and due process of law. The group pushing the measure, Colorado for Equal Rights, can now begin gathering the 76,000 signatures required to put the issue on the November 2008 ballot. I don't know if this group can gather that many signatures. If they do, I'd love to see this measure get soundly rejected by the voters. Frankly, though... I think I'd rather not see it get that far. I don't think my heart can take much more of this nonsense. xp
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:27 pm
Oh, I see it getting 76,000 signatures. The majority gotten from the local cemetery. Personally, I wouldn't mind if the Colorado constitution was changed to see personhood starting at conception because it still wouldn't matter in the case of abortion. The fetus would still be infringing on the woman's bodily domain and abortion would continue for any woman who doesn't want to be pregnant. So even if this goes through, it will backfire right into Colorado for Equal Rights faces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:33 am
RedRoseSpiral Oh, I see it getting 76,000 signatures. The majority gotten from the local cemetery. Personally, I wouldn't mind if the Colorado constitution was changed to see personhood starting at conception because it still wouldn't matter in the case of abortion. The fetus would still be infringing on the woman's bodily domain and abortion would continue for any woman who doesn't want to be pregnant. So even if this goes through, it will backfire right into Colorado for Equal Rights faces. True... Regrardless, this worries me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:12 am
Quote: The measure, if approved by voters, would extend constitutional protection from the moment of conception with regard to rights of life, liberty, equality of justice and due process of law. So is miscarriage manslaughter? Because that's what this law will do. It will make any miscarriage the crime of manslaughter, and where the woman was not in perpetual bed-rest being fed a diatician approved diet, and taking a plethora of pills to ensure the best possible pregnancy it becomes negligent homicide. *golf claps* way to go pro-lifers. Sure it's not your intention to do this, but it is the reality of the law you propose... just like it is not your intention to legally classify women as second class with fewer rights than men, but it's the reality of your goals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 7:34 am
::strokes hand and cleans cuts and scrapes gained by punching a hole through the wall of fury::
I understand bodily domain and all, but dosent homicide take precidence over most anything in the legal system? If the zygote/embryo/fetus is given personhood then wouldnt that make it a homicide if a woman had an abortion, correct? And even though bodily domain applies isn't that considered to be less important than homicide?
Just wondering...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 7:54 am
Can we set them on fire yet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:42 am
caffinated_tulip ::strokes hand and cleans cuts and scrapes gained by punching a hole through the wall of fury:: I understand bodily domain and all, but dosent homicide take precidence over most anything in the legal system? If the zygote/embryo/fetus is given personhood then wouldnt that make it a homicide if a woman had an abortion, correct? And even though bodily domain applies isn't that considered to be less important than homicide? Just wondering... It depends on your views of legal, lethal self-defense. If a man is raping you, are you allowed to kill him in self defense? If a person is torturing you, are you allowed to kill them in order to escape? If someone breaks into your house are you allowed to shoot them? In many states the answer is "yes," for one of many reasons (each state has different laws): 1) You have reason to believe (by the nature of the offense) they are going to kill you 2) You have reason to believe (by the nature of the offense) they are going to seriously hurt you 3) They are currently killing you 4) They are currently seriously hurting you It is indisputable that what a fetus does to a woman is number 1, 2, and 4... where some pregnancies have number 3. As such pro-choicers make the case that a right to bodily domain justifies the use of lethal self defense against the fetus in much the same way the right to property allows you to kill intruders (in some states), and the right to bodily domain permits you to kill torturers, rapists, and attempted murderers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:31 am
That makes sense to me, but it seems like kind of a flimsy argument on which to base abortion, legally speaking. Take me for example. If I got pregnant now, I would have an abortion. Not because I think the fetus is going to kill me (insert mental picture of fetus in jason mask with big knife) but because I simply couldnt afford a baby, both because of money and emotional maturity. I base my arguments for abortion, for myself, on the lack of a personhood for the fetus. Now in a case like mine, which I know there are many of, could I use bodily domain in order to justify it?
"The zygote was using my uterus with out my permission" Even if I dont really believe that it's going to kill me (it wouldn't, i'm healthy 21 years old with nothing that would indicate a problem with a pregnacy) could it work?
Im kind of hedging my bets here, If this sort of thing gets passeed in CO it's only a matter of time before it comes further east to where I am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:40 pm
Feministing Kathryn Wittneben of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado said in a statement, "Proponents of this initiative have publicly stated that the goal is to make all abortion illegal — but nothing in the language of the initiative or its title even mentions abortion...If that's not misleading, I don't know what is." She also puts forward some interesting hypotheticals: “Does this mean fertilized eggs can petition the courts to make it illegal to use the most effective forms of birth control if those contraceptive methods create an inhospitable uterine environment for fertilized eggs? Does this mean that a fertilized egg can sue a pregnant woman if she miscarries?" Litigious eggs! Sounds funny, but anti-choicers are leading similar initiatives in five other states. Not funny. I have to agree that if this comes to pass those funny hypotheticals will become sad realities. We must stop this. An egg is not a ******** person. An implanted egg maybe but even then it cannot interfere with the LIFE of a born woman who does not want to remain pregnant. I can see how killing fetuses might be wrong but ******** think about the damn women. [/frustrated rantything]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:48 pm
Would that include fertilized eggs that don't attach to the uterine lining and end up, you know, on a tampon?
'Cause that's just stupid. neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:33 pm
They do realize that said law would do nothing, right? The rights it would be granted do not include "the right to violate the rights of other people." Granting a fetus personhood is utterly useless, as the right to security of the person exists, and on a higher level of law. Colorado would have to strike down that right, however, that would never happen as it would effectively legalize rape, as well as forced organ donation - not to mention the Universal Declaration of Human Rights supersedes the constitution of the State of Colorado, due to the fact that the United States is a signatory to the Declaration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 3:05 pm
Scary, scary law.... Setar, what you say makes sense but fails to reassure me. They could ignore that and get away with it if people didn't care... caffinated_tulip ::strokes hand and cleans cuts and scrapes gained by punching a hole through the wall of fury:: *GASP* GERM KILLER!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 3:56 pm
LadyInWhite Feministing Kathryn Wittneben of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado said in a statement, "Proponents of this initiative have publicly stated that the goal is to make all abortion illegal — but nothing in the language of the initiative or its title even mentions abortion...If that's not misleading, I don't know what is." She also puts forward some interesting hypotheticals: “Does this mean fertilized eggs can petition the courts to make it illegal to use the most effective forms of birth control if those contraceptive methods create an inhospitable uterine environment for fertilized eggs? Does this mean that a fertilized egg can sue a pregnant woman if she miscarries?" Litigious eggs! Sounds funny, but anti-choicers are leading similar initiatives in five other states. Not funny. I have to agree that if this comes to pass those funny hypotheticals will become sad realities. We must stop this. An egg is not a ******** person. An implanted egg maybe but even then it cannot interfere with the LIFE of a born woman who does not want to remain pregnant. I can see how killing fetuses might be wrong but ******** think about the damn women. [/frustrated rantything] I wonder if this means pro-lifers, still not satisfied with successfully manipulating the legal system to work in favor of outlawing abortion, will start trying to make forms of contraception illegal because it would create an "inhumane" environment for a cute wittle baby. And it is very possible that miscarriage would be considered manslaughter, because the woman neglected the wittle baby inside her and let her body kill it. Remember, a fetus may not be able to speak, but it'll always have pro-lifers to speak for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
