Proposed Ballet Initiative to Define a Fertilized Egg as a "Person"?

Question

Colorado is getting closer to letting voters decide if a fertilized egg should be defined as a person, or not. What do you think...

Will the group who needs to raise 76,000 signatures be able to do it in time to get the this on the state ballot?

If our scientists and religious leaders can't coming to an agreement on when life begins is it right to let the public to decide?

Do too many young Pro-Choice supports take their reproductive rights for granted?

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/11/colorado-high-court-oks-ballot.php

Answer 1

As Larry K's answer indicates, this kind of law would affect not only abortion, but all forms of birth control except barrier methods. Bye bye pill! Since most pills work by preventing implantation, they would constitute abortion under this definition. Most people do not realize this. I seriously doubt that the majority of pro-Lifers do, and they probably would be shocked by the results once it was too late.

Answer 2

It doesn't matter if a fertilized egg is a "person" or not. It's still inhabiting a woman's womb against her will, sucking nourishment from her food, and generally ravaging her body. Pregnancy is one of the worst things that can happen to a woman, health-wise. Seriously, the toll it takes is dramatic. I saw a program on 60 minutes, several years back, about women and aging. They compared several women and estimated which one would age the best. The one who won the contest did not have a healthy diet and rarely exercised. The reason she won?? Because she did not plan on ever having children. Both of the other women did. Just goes to show you what a massive effect it can have. It's not like you're back to normal after the 9 months are up.

Anyway, sorry for the ramble. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how intelligent a fetus is, whether it can "feel", etc. Even if it could do complex physics equations and compose epic poems, that wouldn't matter. What DOES matter is that the woman has a right to do what SHE wants with her body. If she does not want the massive negative effect that pregnancy will have on her body, she should not have to be forced to go through it.

Using her body like that against her will is just a slow form of rape. She isn't an incubator.

Answer 3

As Bill Hicks once said:

You're not a human being...until you are in my phone book.

A fetus has no more right to life than a sick patient has the right to be connected up to a non consensual blood donor for 9 months.

Allowing a child the right to be bought to term in the third trimester is a concession to its capacity for independence, yet it is still in every sense a dependent on someone, until it can hunt and gather its own food and generally support itself within the world.

The debate about when life begins, and the reduction of the argument to such utterly crass terms serves nobody. It DEHUMANIZES the fetus and life in general by reducing the argument to what life is. A friggin amoeba is alive, k?

The serious issues around abortion, and frankly childcare in general are far more important. Welfare, education, support, counseling, health and so on.

Lastly I don't care how many votes are involved. As far as I'm concerned my body, and anyone elses body - is a dictatorship. My body, my choice. Your body, your choice.

Answer 4

The genetic code and the cell dividing process that defines a particular human being and life is put into place at conception. To willfully terminate this life after that point is wrong. If anyone here on these forums was terminated after they were conceived, they would not be here today. Trying to define a point after conception in which the embryo/zygote becomes a human life runs into nothing but a lot of logical potholes.

Feminism, humanism, and socialism all peddle evil under the banner of "freedoms" and "rights". And that is the banner under which abortion is sold. A women's rights or freedoms stop where someone else's right to life is at stake -- an unborn baby. If the right to life isn't fundamental then what is?

Birth control methods that are "abortifacient" are like pulling food away from a viable life trying to continue living. If one starved their baby to death from not feeding it, they would be criminally negligent for the death of that baby.

Answer 5

Why shouldn't the people decide for themselves how they wish to be governed? Isn't that what democracy at the state level is all about? I think it's a sign of a healthy democracy. The alternative would be for the state to dictate what should be done. The state only exists because the will of the people is done. Without the people to back them up, the state's decision will not stand and rightfully so. I don't think that those who wish to pass the initiative will get their 76,000 signatures however as this is rarely done.

Answer 6

That is why I tell you people all the time, do not spend all your time in social science and humanities classes, but get an education in science. We scientists know that the question " when does life begin " is incoherent. It is the ignorant who think this question has a definite answer.

" Object . " I know full well that a theory that attempts to explain everything, explains nothing. As usual, you did not read my answer, or you would have seen that I said we make no hard and fast determinations on when life begins.

" Social scientism " is the cult that thinks it can explain anything about human behavior. The only superstition is your lack of education.

BEWARE THE CULT OF INCOHERENT SOCIAL SCIENCISM

Answer 7

How pathetic - mob rule. Tyrrany of the masses.

This is not a matter for voters to decide. Something more appropriate would be ... whether or not to build a new swimming pool in the community.

Yes, I think that the "I'm Not a Feminist BUT Feminists" have put women's choices in a precarious position.

On the other hand, neither the medical community nor the legal community 'go for it'. What happens to all those frozen embryos, for example?

The idea is unworkable, and ultimately cooler heads will prevail.

Answer 8

Do these people even realize that most fertilized eggs pass out of the body naturally? How exactly do they plan to stop that from happening?

Answer 9

this is certainly not something voters should be deciding; it is best left to the courts. calling a fertilized egg a person is ludicrous. but i am not sure how much it matters anyway. i have always been pro choice not because a fetus is a lesser life form, but because gestation cannot be mandatory, and nothing has the right to inhabit your body. so give a fetus personhood, abortion would still be a right.

edit: rebel f's answer rules. she said it way better than me.

Answer 10

Life begins at conception, yes. But that baby can't support itself until the second trimester, in some cases, the third. They have no right to dictate a woman's uterus OR unborn child. It's NOT a citizen, its out of their control. Abortion should be available to ALL.