Colorado: one step closer to outlawing abortion (and contraception?)

[MH1]

Yikes. Anyone from CO want to weigh in on this? If they get enough petition sigs, does it go on the primary ballot or the general election ballot? This will bring fundies to the polls in droves - regardless who's on the pres ticket.

http://origin.denverpost.com/news/ci_7452276?_requestid=1597102

"Personhood" initiative wins Colo. court nod

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.

.....

Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains is one of the reproductive-rights groups opposing the measure, which it said in a statement would have sweeping consequences for women using contraception to prevent pregnancy as well as for couples using in-vitro fertilization to start families.

[rodeodance]

1. THE EFFECT WOULD BE OUTLAW IT.

[pwb]

2. I tried to get a social security number for my grand fetus

Wanted to start an education account for him. i was told by our government that he was not a person.? A birth certificate is a must to be recognized as a person. Maybe a conception certificate should be considered.

[Ilsa]

18. Take an exemption for him as well. Maybe you can set up a

dependent care account during pregnancy or frozen storage of a fertilized ovum to exempt more money from taxes.

Let's hope we never go this far backwards as to have our conceptions and miscarriages counted and our private medical conditions recorded as a public record.

[katmondoo]

3. Men vote too and not all men want kids

[SharkSquid]

4. From the moment of conception

I think PP is inserting a straw man into this debate in order to get the moderates on board, the law is pretty clear and only real rabid crazies are against contraception.


They should try and stick to the issue of abortion rights and not try and get crazy with this thing.

[Toots]

5. Is the "morning after pill" considered contraception?

It is an issue with more than just the extreme crazies...

[SharkSquid]

8. I would say that the MAP is a form of abortion

As opposed to contraception in most instances unless is it preventing sperm, which can live for a while, from getting to the egg.

Like I said, force the issue of Abortion Choice, not contraception and IV fertilization.

[MH1]

16. Framing it as "abortion choice"

without letting people know that their method of contraception (that may be redefined as "abortion" later, after the initiative is passed), will become illegal:

1) will lose the argument in Colorado

2) is keeping information from people that they need to make an informed choice about their vote.

[gollygee]

48. What the MAP does

It keeps a woman from ovulating and it makes the womb unsuitable for fertilization. Most of the time when women ovulate, the sperm are there waiting for the egg. Sperm cells last for a few days (roughly three), but eggs only last for a few hours.

It doesn't prevent implantation. Implantation happens a week after fertilization (generally five to ten days). If it prevented implantation it wouldn't work so well the morning after, only pretty well the next day, and be basically worthless after that. The idea is that the sperm cells only live a few days so if you can delay ovulation until after the sperm cells would die off anyway, you're safe.

A pill that prevented implantation would be useful because it would be equally effective the morning after and five days after. Then, if one pharmacist didn't want to fill the prescription, there would be plenty of time to get it filled elsewhere.

Actually, I take that back. If you wanted a pill that prevented implantation, you'd have to take it after fertilization, and have the drug in your system continually until you menstruated. If it didn't implant on the fifth day after ovulation because you took the pill on day that, the drug would be out of your system on the sixth day after ovulation and it could just implant then.

[SharkSquid]

52. As I said, If a fertilized egg does not implant

That is an abortion...ehem, sorry "voluntary abortion"

[gollygee]

53. Read my post again

the morning after pill doesn't prevent implantation. Why did you respond without reading my post?

[SharkSquid]

54. I was referring to this part.

As well as to the IUD argument..


"A pill that prevented implantation would be useful because it would be equally effective the morning after and five days after. Then, if one pharmacist didn't want to fill the prescription, there would be plenty of time to get it filled elsewhere."

[gollygee]

55. Yes, but no such pill exists

the pill that is available is taken too early to do that.

[SharkSquid]

56. ok...understand that

<standing corrected :)

[Quantess]

20. And IUDs

Intra Uterine Devices, which make the uterus an uninhabitable place for a fertilized egg to settle in. IUDs are an excellent form of birth control for women in monogamous relationships.

[SharkSquid]

22. Ok that is abortion then

It destroys something after conception.

Lets be clear here.

[Quantess]

26. The IUD doesn't destroy anything, it just prevents the fertilized egg from attaching in the uterus.

So, is it abortion? I'm not sure. Spontaneous abortion occurs naturally, very frequently, for all early pregnancies, wanted or not. Is that "abortion"?

http://www.aafp.org/afp/20051001/1243.html
"Spontaneous abortion, which is the loss of a pregnancy without outside intervention before 20 weeks' gestation, affects up to 20 percent of recognized pregnancies."

[SharkSquid]

28. No that would be a miscarriage

Similar to when it happens later in development. Abortion is a willful act, miscarriage is natures.

[Quantess]

41. Miscarriages are also called spontaneous abortions.

But yes, "miscarriage" is more commonly used.

[SharkSquid]

49. I understand that bet we all know what we are talking about

And the connotation of "abortion" and "miscarriage", I assumed that those words would be less laborious than "spontaneous abortion" and "voluntary abortion". But to my original point which was lost in a ridiculous side debate. Definitions must be upheld in any argument, and are particlarly important in this one. When does something cross the line from contraception to abortion, when are you terminating a prgnancy or preventing it.

[Quantess]

57. These definitions are only important for people who think a fertilized egg is sacred.

At least, that's how it appears to me.

[SharkSquid]

58. Also important to how you frame the argument against this bill

Thats how it appears to me.

[Quantess]

64. Good point.

This bill could mean a lot of extra paperwork for women who miscarry. Will this mean they will have to register their miscarriages with social security, or something? How is anyone going to know about the fertilized eggs that spontaneously abort? That would be like a death that goes unreported.

Women with IUDs would not be allowed to have sexual intercourse in the state of Colorado, if it is decided that IUDs are responsible for the death of fertilized eggs.

The implications are staggering.

[yewberry]

27. IUDs primarily prevent fertilization.

They can prevent implantation, but they don't 'destroy' anything.

Yes, let's be clear.

[SharkSquid]

29. Fertilized egg is different then an unfertilized one

IMHO

[yewberry]

32. And IUDs prevent fertilization. nt

[SharkSquid]

33. But also could prevent implantation

as you said yourself

[yewberry]

34. Yup. It prevents pregnancy.

It doesn't destroy anything, though.

[SharkSquid]

36. In your opinion no

In others, yes

[yewberry]

39. You are confusing facts with opinions.

If you want to argue that IUDs 'destroy' a potential pregnancy in a metaphoric sense, then be honest about that.

Facts: IUDs prevent fertilization and can prevent implantation, thus preventing pregnancy.

[Quantess]

42. The IUD doesn't "destroy" anything.

Even if the egg is fertilized, the IUD doesn't destroy it, the IUD simply makes the uterus an inhospitable place. The egg, fertilized or not, leaves the woman's uterus and therefore won't survive. The zygote doesn't develop into anything because it doesn't attach to the uterus.

Basically the IUD gives the uterus a no-tenant policy.

[SharkSquid]

43. Sounds like a bunch of rationalizing BS to me

If you make a fertilized egg and then do not allow it to implant and grow, it is destroyed, no?

[yewberry]

46. No.

It's not destroyed. Being repetitive isn't the same as being right.

[Quantess]

47. If you see it that way, then I'm sure there are others who agree.

They would be the same people who feel stem cell research is wrong.

For the record, I'm not opposed to abortion, so it makes no difference to me how you define it.

[MH1]

7. Huh?

Some methods of contraception currently in use act by preventing the just-fertilized egg (a zygote) from continuing to grow into an embryo and then a fetus. Thus this law could potentially outlaw those forms of contraception, or any form that MIGHT prevent the zygote from developing - whether that was the normal mechanism or not.

The following excerpt makes it clear what the goal is with these laws.

http://www.all.org/associates/dec.htm

Abortion will never end as long as society approves the use of contraception. The practice of contraception means children are unwanted and provides the rationalization for abortion. It is a violation of human dignity to promote or accept the use of contraception.

[SharkSquid]

9. Is that excerpt from the law?

Or are you just drawing the conclusion by making a connection that only exists in your mind.

[MH1]

12. The definition of "zygote" is from my high school biology class.

As is the description of some forms of contraception. I double checked on google just cuz that's been a few years back.

The quoted excerpt is an example of the thinking of one of the groups who pushes these kinds of laws.

[SharkSquid]

13. Ok so the latter

got it

[MH1]

15. So, to be clear, do you support the ballot initiative described in the OP?

It sounds like you do.

Btw, I think the initiative would also put the kibosh on fertility clinics, because they would never be allowed to dispose of unused embryos.

[SharkSquid]

17. To be clear I do NOT support this initiative

I was criticizing PP's method of fighting it.

[MH1]

19. Ah, okay.

I see now. But I think that the problem is that some forms of contraception currently in use will be determined to really be "abortion" because they interfere (or potentially interfere) with a zygote becoming a baby. I think PP is just trying to draw attention to that. Maybe it isn't clear in soundbite form though.

[yewberry]

21. I really disagree.

I don't see a straw man here--and the moderates should be on board.

On the face of it, this initiative would outlaw abortion; that's a given. Granting a fertilized egg 'personhood' would clearly jeopardize some forms of contraception and IVF. Where's the straw man?

And it's true that the real rabid crazies are against contraception...unfortunately, there's no shortage of them.

[SharkSquid]

31. Is there a line for you at all?

Just wondering, because I do not see any real definitions or patterns here or in Law.

[yewberry]

35. Can you rephrase? I simply don't know what you're saying.

What definitions or patterns here or in law?

Abortion is currently legal in this country. Contraception and IVF are currently legal in this country. What's not clear?

[SharkSquid]

37. Exactly

When does a fetus become "alive" to you.

Late term abortions are restricted in many states.

[yewberry]

40. What bearing does that have on attempts to make abortion illegal?

We're not talking about late-term abortions, we're talking about all abortions and contraception.

I don't get to tell anyone else what to believe, and neither do you.

[SharkSquid]

51. Whats the difference between a late term abortion

and any abortion, ban all or ban none.

I am in the ban none category.

[originalpckelly]

6. I wonder if these same conservatives consider illegal immigrants people too?

:shrug:

[SharkSquid]

10. What the hell are you talking about

What is your rational for that statement?

[MH1]

14. I think the poster is drawing attention to perceived hypocrisy, or

at least misplaced priorities. There seems to be a significant overlap among people who want to outlaw non-procreative sex, and people who want to "crackdown" on non-white people they suspect of being illegal immigrants.

I do agree with that poster, although I sense that you do not.

[Quantess]

24. Misplaced priorities are the hallmark of republicans.

However, I'm with Squishy Squid on this one. Why drag illegal immigrants into this? How about Buddhist Monks, while we're at it.

[MH1]

25. Well, I agree it's a bit of a tangent

But it is always good to keep in mind that "pro-life" doesn't really encompass being "pro-human".

[slackmaster]

11. The silly word games people play

Changing what words you use to describe something doesn't change its nature.

[ellie]

23. And I was just

reading that Colorado was becoming less right wing.

[mark414]

30. does that include the right to sue?

[gollygee]

38. How are they going to give a fetus the right to liberty?

My goodness. :(

[SharkSquid]

44. ?

I would assume the rational would be that by giving it the right to live you are giving it the opportunity to enjoy liberty when born.

[gollygee]

45. We don't need a law giving that right as it already exists

But I agree that fetuses should have the opportunity to enjoy those things if they become people.

[SharkSquid]

50. And there is the question

when do they become people, who defines it?

[gollygee]

59. Since it's impossible to define it

we should leave it up to the woman who owns the uterus it's inhabiting.

[SharkSquid]

60. Nothing should be impossible

to rational thought :)

[gollygee]

61. When "personhood" exists

is a religious issue. Not necessarily dependent upon a belief in god, but still it's an issue of spirituality. There will never be any kind of consensus upon this. There is something 100% sure though. My uterus belongs to me.

[SharkSquid]

62. You uterus aside...we agree on that

There are those who talk about late term abortions, etc on here, that was the main focus of my posts because you can not play little games saying abortion is ok here and not ok here. All or nothing...

[Quantess]

65. Not even a fetus---a fertilized egg!

I suppose that means women can count their fertilized egg as a dependent for tax purposes.
Women who have just conceived could drive in the carpool lane.

[SharkSquid]

66. If you agree that life begins at conception

the concept of FE, Zygote and Fetus does not exist.

To them, there is only gamete to human life.

[paulk]

63. to answer your question, which no one else seems very

interested in doing, being too busy arguing -

This is a constitutional amendment to the Colorado state constitution. If there are enough signatures, it will be on the 2008 election ballot.

I doubt that this will pass - while there are enough RW whackos to get it on the ballot, the state has been moving steadily toward a more moderate position politically.

It may bring the fundies to the polls, which is the primary reason the Republicans are pushing this - but it will also bring opposition to it to the polls.

--------------


It may also help in a move toward restricting constitutional changes through a ballot initiative process, since it's become pretty clear that the process is being abused by narrow interest groups. Some suggestions I've seen are requiring a 2/3rds vote to change the constitution through this method.