Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Archives | Alerts | Electronic edition | Subscribe to the paper
Subscribe to RSS   Add to My Yahoo!

October 28, 2008 7:59 AM

Do Coloradans think an embryo is a person? Polls say 'No'

Colorado voters don't seem likely to make history by becoming the first state in the nation to grant personhood to an embryo.

The Rocky/CBS4 News poll shows the so-called personhood amendment losing badly: 68-27.

David Montero reports:

The bad news for the proponents of the measure can be found inside the numbers. Of the 68 percent polled who said they'd vote against the ballot measure, 61 percent fell under a "definite no" category.

With such rigidity among those saying "definite no," pollster Lori Weigel said it's pretty much a slam-dunk that it will fail on Election Day.

"Once a ballot measure falls under 50 percent support, it is very difficult to turn around that dynamic," Weigel said. "For this ballot measure, this is not a hole to dig yourself out of, it's a chasm."

The measure made a big splash when it qualified for the Nov. 4 ballot after proponents collected more than 130,000 signatures. It quickly became entangled in the hot-button debate surrounding abortion.

As the shortest ballot measure - a point co-author Kristi Burton used as a selling point - it was represented by her as a simple measure without lofty goals.

Discussion

  • October 28, 2008

    8:48 AM

    Gloria Poole writes:

    Of course, the human fetus is a human. The poll only shows that 61 % of Coloradoans are ignorant of scientific knowledge of the child in the womb. Is that statistic something to brag about? A population 61% ignorant of science?
    Human Anatomy and Physiology is a science and IF it were taught in the Colorado public schools, then most people would know what doctors and RNs know i.e. that humans in the womb, are human from human parents. In fact, that is the ONLY way humans are reproduced--from human sperm from a man and human eggs from a woman.
    Ignorant and/or wicked people have made the rules too long, and it is time for a turn-around in Colorado. I believe that If Colorado fails to vote prolife by voting for Amendment 48 to protect innocents humans in the womb, that the wrath of GOD will come down on this state like a hammer cracking a walnut! And the reason I believe that is the Holy Scriptures. GOD does not ever condone child sacrifice and that is what abortion is. The Old Testament is full of examples where GOD totally destroyed nations for allowing/condoning child sacrifice. It is written, 'be not decieved. GOD is not mocked. For whatsoever a man soweth,that shall he also reap." {Galatians 6:7] A nation or state that sows destruction and killing will reap that also. There are dozens of baby-killing centers in Colorado especially in Denver and Englewood areas and they are abomination to GOD. GOD is real and HE is not mocked.
    Some try to explain away that evil by saying JESUS did not address the issue, but HE did. HE said, 'even so it is not the will of your FATHER which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish."{Matthew 18:14}
    /s/ gloria poole, RN, and artist, Denver CO 80203

  • October 28, 2008

    8:57 AM

    jay writes:

    terrible bill.

    no surprise that it has failed miserably.

    if you're going to take steps toward outlawing abortion, i guess you'll just have to pony up the judicial activism.

  • October 28, 2008

    8:58 AM

    Dirk Digler writes:

    Bible was written by men who thought the world was flat. You can choose to live your life by its word but don't try and force everyone to believe the same unknowable things that you believe. Why not use common sense solutions to dramatically reduce the number of abortions? No reason that we should have as many unwanted pregnancies as we do. Lowest rates of abortion are in countries that actually educate their kids and have birth control available. Hard for me to respect someones opinion about abortion when they don't support common sense solutions. Handy wedge issue.

  • October 28, 2008

    9:13 AM

    Jim writes:

    Gloria is right. Since when did opinion trump scientific fact?

  • October 28, 2008

    9:14 AM

    Dr. Phil writes:

    Gloria, meet jay. He's our resident bigot ever since his first girlfriend dumped him for a Christian. This only exacerbated the feeling of low self worth he had following his father's rejection of him. Such a sad case.

  • October 28, 2008

    9:24 AM

    Badger writes:

    How wingnutty is this measure? Even Bob Schaffer opposes it.

  • October 28, 2008

    9:28 AM

    Paul Fair writes:

    As a journalist, an editor and someone who's taken a basic statistics class, I can easily say this is one of the most terribly written polls I have seen, and I am surprised to see it in the field of journalism. The headline "Do Coloradans think an embryo is a person? Polls say 'No,'" is first of all misleading, and second of all, it is, based ONLY on the actual information presented in this poor journalistic article, inaccurate.

    1.) The poll only represents those that are voting against 48--that's why it is misleading.

    2.) The poll actually says that 61% of the 68% people who'd vote against the measure gave a "definite no." That means, that, based on this poll, less than 42% of the Colorado populous answered a "definite no" when asked if an embryo is a human--that's why it is inaccurate.

    So the other 58% believe ... ? We aren't told by this article, hence another reason why this is bad journalism.

  • October 28, 2008

    9:29 AM

    Shaggy writes:

    Obama doesn't even think babies born alive are humans.
    "In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it( Obama was one of the 15 to oppose it), and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote."
    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647

    I guess it is above his pay grade to make the decision when life begins but isn't above his pay grade to choose when to end it.
    Shouldn't we give the benefit of doubt to protect life instead of ending it?

  • October 28, 2008

    9:36 AM

    jay writes:

    yes, shaggy, we all know you believe obama to be an evil, newborn killing muslim, communist with marxist plans for america.

    go play with your blocks and let the adults talk.

    gloria...what was the headline of this thread?

  • October 28, 2008

    9:40 AM

    Jon Penk writes:

    There was CSI:Miami episode last year where a woman was killed (no surprize there). As they investigated the crime, they found their killer and also found the victim was pregnant. "H" and "Calley" then said the killer was now guilty for "two counts of murder" instead of just one.

    As we all know, this show is secular and has no religous ties to it. But if a murderer is guilty of 2 counts when the victim is pregnant, how come we don't see the "fetus" as being a human in our culture?

  • October 28, 2008

    9:43 AM

    Michael F Crowe writes:

    As a husband and father of six children and two wives, I have always held to the idea that what happens between any person (male or female) and their "medical care provider" is a privately held confidential interaction, and any form of goverenmental interference, social group activities, personal interference, and most decidely, any religious interefernce, cannot be tolerated.
    So what of the fetus. That question, in this context, lies with the Doctor and the Mother.

  • October 28, 2008

    9:44 AM

    Mark writes:

    Abortion is and always should be a choice. No politician, no state law, no religious wack job should ever be able to force a decision, as personal as this, on ANYONE. Ever hear the saying "keep your rosaries of my ovaries"? Do as you do and I shall do the same. I will NEVER allow anyone to dictate a personal choice to me. EVER!
    And let's get something straight. No one is pro-abortion. People are pro-choice. Go spew your religious propaganda on someone else that is naive as you are.

  • October 28, 2008

    9:49 AM

    DuckPhup writes:

    America's scourge is NOT abortion... it is gullible morons... people who are willing to surrender and submit their will… their reason… their conscience… their morality… to the control of a person… an organization… a dogma… a doctrine… that they have been bamboozled into believing conveys a true expression of the 'mind of god/Jesus'.

    In other words... puppets.

    The so-called 'pro-life' stance is a policy of IGNORANCE.... and a harbinger of death. For example, the influence of pro-life puppet-masters on the foreign-aid policy of the USA has contributed DIRECTLY to the spread of AIDS... MILLIONS of deaths... MILLIONS of orphans. The religiously-deluded seem to be concerned mainly with RIGHTS of fertilized eggs and undifferentiated clumps of cells... but I'm talking about PEOPLE.

    Ohhhh... wait a minute... I get it. You're worried about fertilized eggs, or clumps of undifferentiated cells, being deprived of their RIGHT to develop to the point where they become viable as human beings, and get delivered into the world and endure a short and miserable life of disease, pain, loneliness and starvation, so that they can then mercifully die and be magically swept into the IMAGINED sweet and loving embrace of a NONEXISTENT invisible, magical, all-powerful, supernatural sky-fairy... right?

    Then there's this "Life begins at conception" nonsense. Biologically speaking... scientifically speaking... well... that's not just WRONG... it is also droolingly stupid. Life is a CONTINUUM.

    Whether you know it or not, these 'life begins at conception' beliefs come from the medieval idea that the sperm contains an actual and complete (but inanimate) human being, in miniature... a 'homunculus'. The act of 'conception' was a MIRACLE... a divine act in which the homunculus was made animate by god imparting a 'soul'... the animating force. At that same instant, the 'soul' was blackened by the taint... the curse... of 'original sin', which is passed down to the next generation in the sperm. Of course, after birth, this is easily rectified by a magical 'soul douching' ceremony (baptism), in which a priest (witch doctor) makes magical passes with his hands, mutters prayers and incantations (plunk the Magic Twanger, Froggie), a little magical water, and POOF... the evil force is vanquished.

    I hope that makes some of you feel stupid. It ought to.

  • October 28, 2008

    9:52 AM

    Cassidy22 writes:

    Those who oppose this bill do NOT necessarily disagree with the fact that conception is when human development begins.

    What we OBJECT TO is the radical and extreme repurcussions OF this law (that does not belong in the constitution)

    This amendment would not only make 100% of all abortions illegal, including those for rape, incest and cases where the mother's life is endangered, it would also make many forms of birth control illegal.

    THIS is why people oppose it. "Personhood" has never been defined before. Doing it blindly can have extreme ramifications. Those of us that oppose this measure don't want to face those ramifications, because they go beyond the scope of the intention.

    Pro-lifers, if you have any guts, try to pass a bill that explicitly states what you are trying to do - ban abortions. Don't use some back door political BS like this to push your agenda - and force me to lose my reproductive rights to planning a pregnancy, and protecting myself from medical emergencies, such as ectopic pregnancies.

    I will NOT support making the pill (ring, patch, IUD, etc) illegal. I will NOT support making abortions for rape and incest victims illegal. I will NOT force my doctor to consult a lawyer prior to any medical procedure I need ever for the rest of my life. I will NOT make women who miscarry subject to criminal investigations.

    and I will never support this bill. (besides, banning abortions doens't stop them - it just puts them back into back alleys with coat hangers, making them dangerous. Just like prohibition didn't stop people from drinking, it just put them at risk of drinking dangerous moon shine with contents unknown) Making things illegal doens't always stop them from happening.

  • October 28, 2008

    9:55 AM

    Anonymous writes:

    ******HIT THE POST BUTTON ONE TIME THEN HIT REFRESH/RELOAD******

    IT IS SET UP ON A DELAY SO EVERY TIME YOU HIT THE POST BUTTON IT IS GOING TO MULTIPLE POST.

  • October 28, 2008

    10:11 AM

    Awards Committee writes:

    Duck - Congrats! You win today's "Stupid Post of the Day" award! Congrats! Today's prize is a $50.00 Chili's gift card, and a commemorative wall plaque. Please stop by the RMN building on Broadway during normal business hours to claim your prize.

  • October 28, 2008

    10:20 AM

    Amy Busby writes:

    "I believe that If Colorado fails to vote prolife by voting for Amendment 48 to protect innocents humans in the womb, that the wrath of GOD will come down on this state like a hammer cracking a walnut!" Quote from Gloria Poole

    I agree with you! Thank you for your comment.

  • October 28, 2008

    10:44 AM

    Kevin J Jones writes:

    Mark Wolf has provided us with a misleading headline.

    The "definite no" doesn't indicate whether Coloradoans think the embryo is a person, it indicates whether they think Amendment 48 should be passed.

    A Sept. 28 Rassmussen poll showed 40 percent of CO voters believe, correctly, that life begins at conception. But that doesn't mean their support is automatic.

    Lots of strict pro-lifers aren't sure if now is the best time to pass such a measure, especially since it's useless under Roe v. Wade's mandated ultra-permissive abortion law. Even the Colorado Catholic Conference hasn't endorsed it.

    Belief in the personhood of the embryo isn't only justified on religious grounds. For a rigorous, rational defense of the proposition that life begins at conception, see Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen's book _Embryo: A Defense of Human Life_. Or see the review of it I wrote over at YourHub.com.

  • October 28, 2008

    10:45 AM

    Rigg writes:

    The issue at play is merely an arbitrary opinion.
    It should not matter whether a being is partially or wholly dependant on another. That point is moot. What matters is that the very definition of 'person' does not preclude a fetus, a living human being. At the moment of conception there is the beginning of growth into a human being; how can one claim at any stage of development you actually become 'human'? Biologically from conception to adult we ARE human. The compacities of a fetus is different than that of an infant, and in turn, the compacities of an infant is different than that of a grown adult. It has been argued in the past (in sporadically even today)that the mentally challenged, the minority races, the comatose, etc. are not 'persons'.
    Since this measure does NOT ban abortion in any manner opposition is morally irreprehensible.
    My stance is that rape/incest/mother's health are the only instances abortion should be allowed or any abortion so long as it is performed prior to the 4th month. Also as long as they -prevent- contraceptions, birth control, too, is ok.

    Let the juvenile insults on me begin.

  • October 28, 2008

    10:48 AM

    Jason writes:

    Ok, lets see......Gloria needs to read the title of an embyro being a human or not, not talking about live babies in the womb. Shaggy you need to find a post where your point is related, not just bash Obama.

    Onto the acutal topic. Since we are not talking about partial birth abortions, just embryos. God will not come down and kill people for wrong doings, because there has been plenty of wrong in this world and GOD has not shown up yet. People make the mistakes and live with the consequences. The choice should be there(coming from a person that if i got a girl pregnant would never want an abortion from her, but she still has the choice), the cons are a much bigger list if abortion was banned than if the choice was there. I do not looked down on Christians for thinking this way since its what they believe. Both sides of the argument has valid points, but bannign abortions causes way too many problems.

  • October 28, 2008

    10:48 AM

    cassidy22 writes:

    The wrath of God?

    I thought you folks read the bible. God made us a covenant. He would no longer destroy us for our sins (a la Noah and the flood).

    So you actually think that those of us who vote NO on this ridiculous bill are going to be struck by lightning?

    I'm waiting!!!

  • October 28, 2008

    10:49 AM

    history buff writes:

    I read where a fetus is not considered a person at common law. The common law is the great judge made law that developed in England more than a thousand years ago and is part of our laws in the USA. The attention over Amendment 48 largely concerns abortion, but there surely will be many unforeseen consequences if centuries of settled law is overturned by a new and radical definition of person.

  • October 28, 2008

    10:49 AM

    Ashley writes:

    Fine. You can believe that god's wrath will descend. Your ilk have been saying that since Roe was initially decided -- what, is god just a little slow? Look, abortion is a choice. If you don't believe in it, then don't have one. I'm not the one trying to make you do anything; I'm just giving you options. And since when is gleefully anticipating god's evidently vengeful and violent wrath compatible with pro-life? I'm pro-life. I believe in protecting the lives of people who are already here, through abolishing the death penalty, healthcare for all, welfare for those who need aid, Medicare, Medicaid, family planning and support services. I do not believe that relegating women to breeding chattel is in any way, shape or form, a pro-life view. Nor do I believe in restricting birth control options (which 48 can do) so that the self-righteous can turn back the clock and deny me the right to enjoy my husband's body without worrying about living in a constant state of pregnancy. I don't care whether you believe in birth control; if you don't, don't use it. None of my business. But don't force me to accede to your personal choice.

  • October 28, 2008

    10:54 AM

    fiesty writes:

    To answer the blog question, I believe a fetus is a person, but an embryo is not.

    While I personally support pro-life, legislatively I support pro-choice. The reasons are:

    1. The fact is that there is no consensus, scientific or otherwise, at what point an embryo or fetus is "alive". Most would agree that later in the pregancy, when a fetus is capable of living outside the womb, that the fetus is alive. But what about when it's just a mass of reproducing cells? Is that life or just the *potential* for life?

    2. I recognize that I have no right to legislatively impose my personal (or religious, as the case may be) beliefs on another person person who doesn't share them.

    3. Superceding the rights of a person to their own body, in favor of "saving the life" of another, is a slippery slope. Should we force mandatory, involuntary blood donations on the same basis? What about organ donation? At what point does it stop?

    4. For the religiously inclined, even Christ acknowledged that sometimes it is permissable to do that which he disagreed with; in other words, not everything is black and white. Remember when his disciples asked him about Moses and divorce? While Christ made it clear he did not approve of or support divorce, he did make allowances and say it was acceptable, citing the example of a "hardened heart" from marital sexual immorality/infidelty.

  • October 28, 2008

    10:57 AM

    cassidy22 writes:

    Thank you, Ashley! It seems the uber-religious proponents of this amendment don't want to even consider the further ramifications.

    They just want to blather on about god's wrath, and protecting babies (when it's OK to harm a mother, or kill someone else in a religious war)

    The hypocrisy amazes me. And the ignorance does too.

  • October 28, 2008

    10:58 AM

    Jason writes:

    Ok, lets see......Gloria needs to read the title of an embyro being a human or not, not talking about live babies in the womb. Shaggy you need to find a post where your point is related, not just bash Obama.

    Onto the acutal topic. Since we are not talking about partial birth abortions, just embryos. God will not come down and kill people for wrong doings, because there has been plenty of wrong in this world and GOD has not shown up yet. People make the mistakes and live with the consequences. The choice should be there(coming from a person that if i got a girl pregnant would never want an abortion from her, but she still has the choice), the cons are a much bigger list if abortion was banned than if the choice was there. I do not looked down on Christians for thinking this way since its what they believe. Both sides of the argument has valid points, but bannign abortions causes way too many problems.

  • October 28, 2008

    11:02 AM

    Mark Wolf writes:

    Don't agree with Kevin that the headline is misleading, but that's fine and makes for good debate.
    By the way, here's a link to his review of the book referenced in his post:

    http://denver.yourhub.com/Arvada/Stories/Voices/Politics/Story~540776.aspx

  • October 28, 2008

    11:09 AM

    SASQUATCH writes:

    ACCORDING TO GOV. RITTER...a fetus can not be a person until it actually starts paying his cornucopia of new tax and fee hikes.

  • October 28, 2008

    11:22 AM

    Rigg writes:

    fiesty writes:
    1. There is scientific consensus. It is life. What we have is people arguing semantics and their personal opinion... in opposition to science.

    2. Your statement has the same logic to say we can't force our view that murder is wrong onto other people.

    3. There is no superceding of rights. No one is arguing for the mother to die just to carry the child. No one is arguing to carry a child from incest/rape. Of the coutless options available to -prevent- contraception, and outside the health/rape/incest, at WHAT POINT is personal responsibility entered into the discussion? For all your other examples, organ & blood donation is -taking- from someone and not permissable. Plus you lose rights upon death, so the donation questions are moot.

    4. You Christians do not hold the morals to the world. We Hindus also believe abortion is wrong. I allow exceptions, as I stated in my previous post. Both sides... stop talking about the "Christian" view of everthing, there are OTHER religions.

  • October 28, 2008

    11:45 AM

    jibbons writes:

    I am opposed to abortion and fully supportive of adoption and contraception, CONTRACEPTION being the more important of the two. This bill goes beyond protecting an unborn fetus, to dictating what types of medicines can be used by women to prevent an unwanted pregnancy before it is conceived.

    If you are against stopping pregnancy and you are against abortion, then you have created a self defeating mechanism.

    I would vote for this bill if it took women's health and right to choose how to treat their bodies prior to conception seriously, unfortunately they have chosen to ignore reason in favor of dogma.

    Lets give these girls some pills so that they can easily avoid the problem of unwanted children, that will certainly drive the number of abortions performed (legally or illegally) down.

  • October 28, 2008

    11:57 AM

    ColoradoArtist writes:

    Shaggy- Obama voted against that bill because there was already a law that protected these babies.

  • October 28, 2008

    12:16 PM

    am 760 writes:

    http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/28
    Here's a good article about how Americans are becoming more and more ignorant.

  • October 28, 2008

    12:30 PM

    Jason writes:

    Ok, lets see......Gloria needs to read the title of an embyro being a human or not, not talking about live babies in the womb. Shaggy you need to find a post where your point is related, not just bash Obama.

    Onto the acutal topic. Since we are not talking about partial birth abortions, just embryos. God will not come down and kill people for wrong doings, because there has been plenty of wrong in this world and GOD has not shown up yet. People make the mistakes and live with the consequences. The choice should be there(coming from a person that if i got a girl pregnant would never want an abortion from her, but she still has the choice), the cons are a much bigger list if abortion was banned than if the choice was there. I do not looked down on Christians for thinking this way since its what they believe. Both sides of the argument has valid points, but bannign abortions causes way too many problems.

  • October 28, 2008

    12:31 PM

    Roger writes:

    A fetus is a living thing, Not a human being( YET). The bible itself says "We are alive, but dead, till we receive the BREATH OF LIFE". No organism is truly alive an self sufficient till "IT" can breath on its own. A fetus can not live on its own; it depends on the HOST( read mother,surrogate,etc.) for survival. A tapeworm depends on a "host" to survive; but I would not call it "human" just because it lives inside of a "surrogate" or mother. A unborn fetus, by reason, has to be considered the same. It CAN NOT live on its own; it does not breath "The breath of Life". Does not the bible say: "better that a child NOT break the womb, than be brought into this world of sin".

  • October 28, 2008

    1:01 PM

    Rigg writes:

    peterpi writes: "As usual, the pro-48 folks confuse the issue. The issue is calling a fetus or embryo a "person".
    * * I fully & properly explained my support for this issue. In no way have I 'confused' the issue. Read back a few posts.

    "Amendment 48 is a backhanded method of banning abortion and many contraceptives. It's also dangerous in the extreme."

    * * Instead of rhetoric, provide some evidence. Since this is a debate, you must properly prove the 'slippery-slope' argument that this bill (in which is no way bans abortion nor birth-control pills) will do so.

  • October 28, 2008

    1:04 PM

    DEMSBETTER writes:

    What is scary is that such a divisive subject as abortion has been used by the GOP to push policies that are very un-Christian. I don't fault right to lifers for their beliefs I just worry about their singleness of mind. This one thing dominates them so completely they are blind to any other bad policies that a party that gives them lip service has.

  • October 28, 2008

    1:10 PM

    DEMSBETTER writes:

    Hey Mark!

    Did you ever come up with an explanation for why they are filtering dissenting opinions on the assassination plot article? Pretty fascist tactics there Mark. So do you believe in freedom of speech or do you think the filtering of dissent lives up to the function of a free press? I think the folks pointing the fingers and calling others socialists are doing much worse things that are more fascist and dangerous than giving the middle class a tax break while taking away tax breaks for the rich. I guess the owners of the RMN must be pretty rich to throw away integrity to save their wallets.

  • October 28, 2008

    1:15 PM

    me2 writes:

    Gloria, a human fetus is human. Check. But it is not a person before the law with the same legal rights as a born person.

    Who do we contact to let them know that this site is seriously messed up? No one wants to post multiple times, but if we don't, sometimes we don't post at all.

    You folks who have figured this out and only post once, you geniuses among us, what method do you use?

  • October 28, 2008

    1:18 PM

    jay writes:

    this issue will remain unresolved as long as those who hold beliefs in the supernatural continue to be the puppets of the republican party.

  • October 28, 2008

    1:23 PM

    LetsThink writes:

    The deceivers did their job again.

    They launched a massive onslaught using the media (letters to the editor), use the usual 'fear' tactics to scare voters away from supporting Life.

    None of these abortionists would acknowledge how they somehow determined that life doesn't exist until the baby is breathing (totally arbitrary, to fit their agenda).

    They wouldn't acknowledge how many preborn babies are killed every day. They wouldn't describe the abortion procedure. They wouldn't confirm how many pregnancies actually result for 'valid' (not consensual) rapes/incest. They wouldn't acknowledge that a baby almost never has to be killed to protect the health of the mother.

    It never ends. A person who is willing to kill a child, certainly will resort to flagrant lying.

    We need to pray for their salvation.


  • October 28, 2008

    1:36 PM

    Observer 2.0 writes:

    DEMSBETTER,
    Don't you know that smoking crack gives you hallucinations?
    If you actually knew what was going on it is the media that has helped to get Obama to where he is because they protect him and Biden.

    You do realize that Mark W does not run the other blogs.
    He runs RTL with Mark Wolf.

    I can't believe the stupidity coming from Obama supporters.

  • October 28, 2008

    2:06 PM

    RegLib writes:

    LetsThink: I disagree with the Bible, which clearly says that life begins when the first breath is taken (one can argue that the Bible really means something different by the "breath of life," but that is arguing that the Bible is not literal). To think that a fetus somehow magically becomes human by passing through the birth canal is ridiculous.

    But just as ridiculous is the notion that two conjoined cells is a human being. Maybe they are, but the Bible is completely silent on that.

    Therein lies the challenge: Where during that astounding nine months does a collection of cells become a human being?

    Until someone can provide a scientific answer to that question, no law is workable. And until that time, those of us who are troubled by abortion can only work to minimize unwanted pregnancies *before* a woman becomes pregnant, and maximize a woman's options to abortion when an unwanted pregnancy does happen.

    That means rational sex education, programs to aid pregnant women, and greatly expanded adoption programs. It also means an economy in which an unexpected pregnancy is not financially devastating.

    All the things Democrats support and Republicans oppose.

  • October 28, 2008

    2:14 PM

    feisty writes:

    Riggs, nice try. First, there is NO scientific consensus. After all, even the fertilization process takes time, so it's argued where the line between life and POTENTIAL life is. Second, our laws are not based upon morality, but upon protecting our rights while respecting others. Murder violates the constitutional right to life. An embryo or fetus can't live on its own, and scientifically speaking, is no different than a parasite or cancer. Third, you danced around the question. Pro-lifers argue that abortion should be illegal, i.e. the mother temporarily loses her control over her own body, due to the baby's right to life. This position ignores the possibility, granted not high with today's science, that the mother could die during birth. Further, the question I asked is valid- if saving a life is sufficient grounds to (even temporarily) terminate a person's right to control their body, where does that logic stop? Lastly, I never said I was Christian so your comment is completely irrelevant. The point was that we are NOT a theocracy, where religious beliefs are allowed to become law, nor are we a dictatorship, where a person's personal opinions become law. No one has the right to tell someone else they have to abide by their beliefs, especially when those beliefs are controversial and contested- we are not only guaranteed freedom of religion, but freedom FROM religion.

    As I pointed out in the other blog on this topic, I'm almost scared of the way pro-lifer opinions are being expressed on this blog- the pro lifers sound so fanatical, and convinced of the utter rightness of their belief, that I can't tell the difference between their rantings and some of those from Islamic terrorists. I'd also like them to walk the talk- you want to save the life of an innocent child? Go over to the hospital and give up a kidney- you can live on one, and there are many young children and babies on waiting lists. Want to save a life? Become a foster parent. I see very few pro-lifers doing more than lip service to their beliefs, and making (unchristian) belitting/insulting comments againsts those who don't agree with them.

  • October 28, 2008

    2:48 PM

    hunterg writes:

    LetsThink libels: "None of these abortionists would acknowledge"

    I can't really think of anything more dishonest or downright creepy than calling a pro-choice individual an abortionist.

    I am quite sure that you are a Bush supporter from past posts. May I call you an Iraqi baby-killer? The level of moral equivalency is identical.

    As to your other "points", the number of published letters has certainly run in favor of Amendment 48. The problem is that you have lost in the court of public opinion, as fanatics often do, and so now you and your ilk resort to ominous mutterings and threats of divine retribution. Well, we've heard you spout that tripe endlessly for 2,000 years, and we're still not impressed...

  • October 28, 2008

    2:55 PM

    hunterg writes:

    LetsThink libels: "None of these abortionists would acknowledge"

    I can't really think of anything more dishonest or downright creepy than calling a pro-choice individual an abortionist.

    I am quite sure that you are a Bush supporter from past posts. May I call you an Iraqi baby-killer? The level of moral equivalency is identical.

    As to your other "points", the number of published letters has certainly run in favor of Amendment 48. The problem is that you have lost in the court of public opinion, as fanatics often do, and so now you and your ilk resort to ominous mutterings and threats of divine retribution. Well, we've heard you spout that tripe endlessly for 2,000 years, and we're still not impressed...

  • October 28, 2008

    3:16 PM

    Karen writes:

    If you believe the in the Bible, how can you argue with this: Psalm 139: 13-16

    For you created my inmost being;
    you knit me together in my mother's womb.
    I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    your works are wonderful,
    I know that full well.
    My frame was not hidden from you
    when I was made in the secret place.
    When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body.
    All the days ordained for me
    were written in your book
    before one of them came to be.

    If you only believe in science then watch an ultrasound and listen to the heartbeat. Thank God for his mercy.

  • October 28, 2008

    3:34 PM

    Dirk Digler writes:

    several people could use this product
    http://www.stupid.com/fun/BLVE.html

  • October 28, 2008

    4:03 PM

    RegLib writes:

    Karen: That's a beautiful passage describing the formation in the womb. But while it refers to the body, it does not explicitly refer to life.

    Job said, "All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils." I don't think that passage means life begins at the first breath either; I'm merely pointing out that the Bible is not explicit about when life begins.

  • October 28, 2008

    4:09 PM

    DEMSBETTER writes:

    Observer 2.0,

    I don't smoke crack. I just say what is on my mind and apparently the right wingers who do control the blogs find my thoughts and words threatening enough they have me filtered out. They think they are sly by letting them appear when I am logged on but they don't show up when I am not logged on. I guess if they are threatened by what I say that shows how weak they are. I just think it is fascist to block my comments and before you accuse me of smoking crack you should look at the number of comments on that story and count the actual posts that are displaying. I guess my statement about the wing-nut that had the assassination plot has a GOP elephant tattooed to his right arm is bad enough to block my posts and remove the picture so be it. I'm happy to be an American and if that is too much for the Republicans running the RMN posts to handle they can be as anti-American as they want.

  • October 28, 2008

    4:24 PM

    Hunterg writes:

    "They think they are sly by letting them appear when I am logged on but they don't show up when I am not logged on."

    Someone else posted about that behavior. It is an exceptionally cowardly form of censorship; it is a shame the News doesn't have the guts to admit when they are deleting posts, especially when the one I saw reposted did not appear to violate their terms of service in any way.

    It is rather disgraceful to have to say this to a newspaper, but censorship is not American. M'kay?

  • October 28, 2008

    4:31 PM

    RegLib writes:

    Demsbetter: I really hate to say anything against a fellow liberal, but... HUH???

  • October 28, 2008

    4:32 PM

    DEMSBETTER writes:

    Hunterg,

    Will you do me a favor and show this link to the right wingers on the assassination plot blog and point out the GOP elephant tattoo on his right arm. They have me blocked from posting and I see you have not been filtered out yet.

    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jsCEnrVzDQoU5tg63njLNy0UTDNAD943LEAG0

    THANKS!
    Big_D/DEMSBETTER

  • October 28, 2008

    4:42 PM

    DEMSBETTER writes:

    RegLib,

    Just try it. Count the number of comments and compare it to the number displayed on the home page. You will find the discrepancy particularly with the political blogs at the end of articles. It is sort of like the exit polls in Ohio in 2004. They have less voters showing than the number of people that voted.

  • October 28, 2008

    4:57 PM

    DEMSBETTER writes:

    RegLib,

    Watch I will add a comment to the “Missing Denver ballots head to voters’ mailboxes” at 4:46 and it will not show up. My post is “Nice elephant tattoo on that assassination plot guy.” Now go look at the story and see if you can see my post. Now log in as DEMSBETTER with a password of charlie and see what you can’t without my special glasses. I cleared my account information so don’t try and find me here in Greeley.

  • October 28, 2008

    5:58 PM

    DEMSBETTER writes:

    Did you try it? I reset the password now so I hope it was informative.

  • October 29, 2008

    12:10 AM

    Brian writes:

    Let's see...what age do you remember?? If you were terminated at 1...2...negative 3 months...would you remember. No way a embryo is a person. The woman carrying it is and she has the choice. Damn all that think they can control her!!!

  • October 29, 2008

    7:37 AM

    richard writes:

    Anyone who has EVER bought a pack of rubbers knows when life begins.

  • October 29, 2008

    7:51 AM

    TommyJohnson writes:

    I love when the religous nuts start trying to quote science and the bible at the same time. These 2 do not play well together.

    First of all, the Bible was written by people who believed the world was flat, and had no inkling as to cellular knowledge, or how humans develop within the womb.

    Per the Bible, God also gave people free will. Guess what that means. Anyone? Choice. The ability to make choices, our own choices. You take that away from people, you are disobeying the will of God. Remember, it pissed off some of the angels in the beginning. We got free will, they did not. Any bible thumpers remember what happened after that? Per the Bible, free will was a fundamental right given to people by God. As soon as he supposedly created Adam. Hmmm, that was our first right from God. Let me guess - that does not apply to you? Just like all religous zealots (Catholic, Christian, Muslim, etc), only pick the pieces you want to believe in and live by.
    -----
    No lets take a look at the science.

    First - "a fetus in the womb is a person". So upon conception they are people? Funny, conception does not actually ocurr in the womb. It happens in the fallopian tubes. Basic anatomy courses.

    But wait, the fetus does not even have blood in it for 3 weeks AFTER being attached to the uterine wall. Is it a person before that or after that?

    Until the last month of pregnancy, the fetus does not even have fully developed lungs. It can not survive on its own, and requires major invasive medical intervention to keep it alive. If a life can not sustain itself, is it a person??

    And a person from conception?? Most women do know they are pregnant until anywhere from 4 - 8 weeks in to their pregnancy. So if my tomboy, rough and tumble, 4-wheel loving wife does not know she is 3 weeks pregnant and ends up miscarrying while bouncing around on her ATV, does that mean she committed a crime? According to this bill - YES. She could be charged with negligent homicide. Don't belive me? Watch. The religous zealots who want this will do it if this passes. Vote for this and this means instant bed rest for all pregnant women for their full term. Just to make sure.

    Religion and science quoted by Bible thumpers. What a joke. The 2 are mutually exclusive. Don't believe me? Check out the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Nothing they say can be disproven. It reads like a real religion, and can not be disproven by science. But they can use "religous science" to say its true. http://www.venganza.org/

  • October 29, 2008

    9:03 AM

    cassidy22 writes:

    LetThink, let's try this again. You stated "(totally arbitrary, to fit their agenda)"

    That is how I feel about this entire amendment. It is totally arbitrary, made to fit YOUR agenda.

    Forget about abortions for one second, because I think there are cases when they are warranted and you do not. We will never agree there.

    But why would you pass a bill that will ban birth control? OK, you might be Catholic, I was once too. but never agreed with the Pope on that crap.

    Why would you pass a bill that could have women who miscarry (it happens to 40% of all pregnancies) possibly investigated for murder?

    Why would you pass a bill that makes ANY medical procedure that MAY impact a woman who MAY be pregnant something that a doctor may now refuse because of the potential for murder charges?

    Most women don't even know they are pregnant until WEEKS after conception, and the moment of conception can't be pinpointed in any way. Heck, it's so elusive that pregnancies are tracked by weeks since your last menstruation - NOT from the moment of conception because we can't accurately predict when that happened.

    This wording is so vague. WHY are you OK with all the extreme ramifications of this bill? If you want to ban abortions, than take the time to put together a well thought-out proposal that does what you want (banning abortions won't stop them)

    But the rest of the fall out from this amendment is completely unacceptable and you will NOT address that! SO please, stop talking about baby killing for one minute, and tell me your views on why it is OK to limit birth control options, have miscarriages be considered homicide, and tying a doctor's hands whenever he is dealing with women in child bearing age?

  • October 29, 2008

    9:39 AM

    prima facie writes:

    Courts have held that a fetus has legal standing. A fetus can be an heir or subject to a custody dispute. A fetus can be a crime victim; drive drunk a kill a pregnant woman, you're on the hook for two murders.

    On the other hand, courts also deny that fetus its legal standing when its mother does the killing.

    That incongruence must be resolved before anything else. This proposed amendment won't do it.

  • October 29, 2008

    10:20 AM

    BigSky182 writes:

    Rigg:

    * Instead of rhetoric, provide some evidence. Since this is a debate, you must properly prove the 'slippery-slope' argument that this bill (in which is no way bans abortion nor birth-control pills) will do so.


    Yes, this would ban abortion and birth control. If a fertilized egg is granted the full rights and protections of "personhood" then it would be murder to prevent the fertilized egg from implanting itself in the uterus wall.

    Condoms would still be legal. So would sponges and Diaphrams. Those all prevent the sperm from getting to the egg.

    IUD's, the Pill, and the morning after pill all prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, so the fertilized egg passes out of the uterus with the next menstral cycle.

    All of these, if the fertilized egg were granted "personhood" could be construed as murder.

  • October 29, 2008

    10:37 AM

    Cassidy22 writes:

    BigSky - don't forget the patch, the ring, the implant, and the shot - lots of options for women who want to responsibly plan their pregnancies are now out the window. They are also the most effective ones.

    Add on top of that, that I take birth control to control very extreme cramping, that without it, leaves me almost immobile for 2 days out of every month. If I can't take the pill anymore, I will require heavy duty narcotics to relieve the pain. That's not an option to me. This bill takes away a safe option for me to continue to work during those days, and not rely on pain medication that could be addictive to get through those times. Why should I, and other women who have similar issues as me, be OK with someone taking that away from us?

  • October 29, 2008

    10:43 AM

    philmacre writes:

    Hopefully Mark Wolf will read this.

    This is terrible reporting.

    As a pro-life Catholic I voted against this bill because it's a bad bill and would never hold up.

    Why waste tax-payers money on bad legislation. It does not mean that I've changed my stance that I believe that life begins at conception.

    The headline is a typical Rocky red flag that doesn't even try to say anything true.

  • October 29, 2008

    10:50 AM

    Rigg writes:

    BigSky182 writes: "Yes, this would ban abortion and birth control. If a fertilized egg is granted the full rights and protections of "personhood" then it would be murder to prevent the fertilized egg from implanting itself in the uterus wall."

    * * Under what statues? What law governs this? How does 48 define this action as murder? Nowhere.

    "All of these, if the fertilized egg were granted "personhood" could be construed as murder."

    * * Not all birth control pills allow feritilization. And the actions of preventing the egg from attaching to the wall is NOWHERE defined as murder if given 'personhood' status.

    Try again.

  • October 29, 2008

    11:05 AM

    Rigg writes:

    cassidy22 writes: "But why would you pass a bill that will ban birth control?"
    * * It doesn't. Stop lying.

    "Why would you pass a bill that could have women who miscarry (it happens to 40% of all pregnancies) possibly investigated for murder?"

    * * It won't. Stop lying.

    "Why would you pass a bill that makes ANY medical procedure that MAY impact a woman who MAY be pregnant something that a doctor may now refuse because of the potential for murder charges?"

    * * Now you're using the fear-rhetoric of the right but now used for leftist purposes.

    Everything you state, you need to prove. Of course... you don't. It's all "might" & "possibly" or "could". Stop fear-mongering. Your opinion of is not fact. Don't treat it as such.

  • October 29, 2008

    11:18 AM

    cassidy22 writes:

    RIGG, I'm not the one that is lying!

    If you give a fertilized egg "personhood" status, than any LAW that uses the word "PERSON" applied to this fertilized egg. Therefore, anything that may effect its status as a "person" would be considered murder.

    Just like you say abortions are murder, then using the pill is also murder - you just may not be consciously aware that it is going on because you may or may not know that your egg has been fertilized.

    Quite trying to hide the repurcussions of this amendment by calling those of us who are thinking it through clearly liars! You are trying to deceive yourself, and in doing so, are supporting a VERY dangerous bill!

    And then, if you really believe this amendment has NOT impact on reproductive choices for women, why fight so hard to protect it, if it doens't do anything? Why do we need it if it's so empty? I don't believe you, and don't want to take my chances.

    and Rigg, YOUR OPINION ISN'T FACT EITHER, so stop fear mongering by calling anyone who opposes this bill a baby killer!

    I don't want to vote yes on this, thinking, well, they might NOT ban the pill... just to find out they DO. I'm not taking my chances on an ambiguously worded amendment that DOES have far reaching consequences. Get your head out of the sand, this amendment doens't belong on my constitution, and your BLIND religious agenda does not belong anywhere NEAR ME.

  • October 29, 2008

    11:44 AM

    jay writes:

    wow...only the true brainwashed footsoldiers are still trying to defend this pos bill.

    it was doomed from the get go.

    i watched the woman speak who spawned this ridiculous initiative and she is simply dumb.

    d u m b. dumb.

    or willfully ignorant, like our friend trigger up there.

    i honestly don't know which one is worse at this point.

    i think i have more respect for the stupid than i do for the willfully ignorant.

  • October 29, 2008

    11:47 AM

    John Stockwell writes:


    Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution
    defining the term “person” to include any human being from
    the moment of fertilization as “person” is used in those
    provisions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable
    rights, equality of justice, and due process of law?

    What's a "human being"? A "person" can be a
    corporation, but without defining "human being"
    this bill means absolutely nothing.

    What is the "moment of fertilization"? Apparently,
    it isn't a moment, but some extended time?

    What about clones? What about identical twins and
    triplets? How about chimera (individuals
    containing the cells of multiple fraternal
    twin eggs)? Is a twin half a "person"? Is
    a chimera a multiple person? Clones are not
    the result of a fertilized egg. What happens
    to that whole "birth certificate" thing?

    Does an embryo or a fetus get automatic
    citizenship? Are clones not citizens?

    What about the +50% of pregnancies that never make
    it to term? Do we tell women who are trying to
    get pregnant that the are murdering a person
    a month?

    Vote against 48.

  • October 29, 2008

    1:21 PM

    feisty writes:

    Rigg- your last post was sheer hogwash, and Cassidy is right. 48 is amending the Constitution to include the DEFINITION that the word "person" includes from the moment of fertilization. After being passed, any LAWS regarding persons will automatically be using this definition.

    Let's look at the law regarding murder; I just did, and there's many levels to it, ranging from Manslaughter to Murder of the first degree. But the wording essentially boils down to one "person" causing the death of another "person", either intentionally or accidentally. A woman with a miscarriage would therefore be liable for prosecution for manslaughter if she accidentally has a miscarriage or murder if she deliberately does. If using a birth control method that eliminates the embryo after fertilization (which can occur in the fallopian tubes), she could be prosecuted for murder since she used it with "intent". What about ectopic pregancies? Once again, could be prosecuted since she had "intent", unless the argument of "self-defense" comes to play.

    Don't try to minimize the seriousness of 48. It opens up a horrible legal quagmire.

  • October 29, 2008

    2:25 PM

    feisty writes:

    Rigg- your last post was sheer hogwash, and Cassidy is right. 48 is amending the Constitution to include the DEFINITION that the word "person" includes from the moment of fertilization. After being passed, any LAWS regarding persons will automatically be using this definition.

    Let's look at the law regarding murder; I just did, and there's many levels to it, ranging from Manslaughter to Murder of the first degree. But the wording essentially boils down to one "person" causing the death of another "person", either intentionally or accidentally. A woman with a miscarriage would therefore be liable for prosecution for manslaughter if she accidentally has a miscarriage or murder if she deliberately does. If using a birth control method that eliminates the embryo after fertilization (which can occur in the fallopian tubes), she could be prosecuted for murder since she used it with "intent". What about ectopic pregancies? Once again, could be prosecuted since she had "intent", unless the argument of "self-defense" comes to play.

    Don't try to minimize the seriousness of 48. It opens up a horrible legal quagmire.

  • October 29, 2008

    4:56 PM

    Rigg writes:

    cassidy22 writes: "If you give a fertilized egg "personhood" status, than any LAW that uses the word "PERSON" applied to this fertilized egg. Therefore, anything that may effect its status as a "person" would be considered murder."

    * * Again, provide ONE statue that covers this?

    "Just like you say abortions are murder"

    * * Quote me where I call abortion murder?

    "so stop fear mongering by calling anyone who opposes this bill a baby killer!"

    * * Again, quote me where I call the opposers 'baby killers'. You can't. Stop fear-mongering.

    "I don't want to vote yes on this, thinking, well, they might NOT ban the pill... just to find out they DO. I'm not taking my chances on an ambiguously worded amendment that DOES have far reaching consequences."

    * * Your opinion... no facts. Prove the 'slippery slope' here, will you?

    "Get your head out of the sand, this amendment doens't belong on my constitution, and your BLIND religious agenda does not belong anywhere NEAR ME."

    * * Oh right. It's always 'religious' zealots. Sure. Keep believing that. It's sickening though.

  • October 29, 2008

    5:03 PM

    Rigg writes:

    Jay... insults are the last refuge of the unintelligent.

    Keep that in mind at all times.

    When you break from the juvenile postings, come back to the mature world of discussions here in RMN, ok?

  • October 29, 2008

    5:06 PM

    Rigg writes:

    Jay... insults are the last refuge of the unintelligent.

    Keep that in mind at all times.

    When you break from the juvenile postings, come back to the mature world of discussions here in RMN, ok?

  • October 29, 2008

    5:19 PM

    Rigg writes:

    John Stockwell writes: "What's a "human being"? A "person" can be a corporation, but without defining "human being" this bill means absolutely nothing."
    * * The bill grants the rights of a 'person' to that of an egg/embryo/fetus.

    "What is the "moment of fertilization"?"
    * * You're joking, right? I hope so.

    "What about clones?"
    * * Doesn't apply.

    "What about identical twins and
    triplets? How about chimera?"
    * * Same as an individual.

    "Is a twin half a "person"? Is
    a chimera a multiple person?"
    * * You aren't joking. No & no.

    "Clones are not the result of a fertilized egg."
    * * What human is the result of cloning? This, of course, is a different ethical topic.

    "Does an embryo or a fetus get automatic
    citizenship?"
    * * Can't see why not.

    "Are clones not citizens?"
    * * Clone a human and we'll talk about it.

    "What about the +50% of pregnancies that never make it to term?"
    * * Spontaneous abortions occur in approximately 35-40% of pregnancies. Don't inflate numbers to prove a point. And again, nothing will happen to the mother.

    "Do we tell women who are trying to
    get pregnant that the are murdering a person
    a month?"

    * * IF you want to but that's a personal (and sick) choice which does not fall into Admend. 48's sphere of influence.

  • October 29, 2008

    5:40 PM

    Rigg writes:

    feisty writes: Let's look at the law regarding murder; I just did, and there's many levels to it, ranging from Manslaughter to Murder of the first degree. But the wording essentially boils down to one "person" causing the death of another "person", either intentionally or accidentally.
    * * Boils down? That's the extend to your argument, a misleading summation of the laws? It does not 'boil down' to counting abortion as murder in the context of the current laws.

    "A woman with a miscarriage would therefore be liable for prosecution for manslaughter if she accidentally has a miscarriage or murder if she deliberately does. If using a birth control method that eliminates the embryo after fertilization (which can occur in the fallopian tubes), she could be prosecuted for murder since she used it with "intent". What about ectopic pregancies? Once again, could be prosecuted since she had "intent", unless the argument of "self-defense" comes to play."

    * * How about instead of bringing up 'hypotheticals', you provide some evidence that a precedent was set or a specific statue(s) is in place that that abortion falls under 'murder' and/or birth control becomes a 'murder weapon'?


    "Don't try to minimize the seriousness of 48. It opens up a horrible legal quagmire"

    * * I do not deny there'll be some legal challenges made however one must place the hyperbole of the 48 opposers into context. Are these hypotheticals of what may happen as what WILL happen...?
    The same case was made against voting Bush II into office (that he'd overturn Roe vs Wade). Eight years, two appointments to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department loosely under his command and at one point the highest approval ratings of any president plus a Republican controlled Congress... Roe vs Wade was never challenged.

    This discussion does intrigue... and I found many here that support abortion moreso than it just being a "woman's choice" argument.

  • October 30, 2008

    12:30 AM

    SMartha writes:

    I am convinced that a lot of people have not read Roe v. Wade or the concerns that the judge who wrote it had. He was persuaded by the SCIENTIFIC evidence, however, to write the case based upon "viability." The individual has the paramount interest in the first trimester, when there is no "viability". It is a thoughtful, well reasoned decision. In spite of the patronizing air quotes John McCain put around women's "health", late term abortion, misnamed as partial birth, is the option when things go terribly wrong...and the result will be that both mom and baby will die. I lost a dear friend who did not have the late term abortion that the doctor said would save her life. She left behind kids who grew up without a mother.

  • October 30, 2008

    7:49 AM

    feisty writes:

    Colorado Law-

    Murder in the first degree (18-3-102)
    -------------------------------------
    A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if:
    (a) After deliberation and with the intent to cause the death of a person other than himself, he causes the death of that person or of another person; or
    (b) Acting either alone or with one or more persons, he or she commits or attempts to commit arson, robbery, burglary, kidnapping, sexual assault as prohibited by section 18-3-402, sexual assault in the first or second degree as prohibited by section 18-3-402 or 18-3-403 as those sections existed prior to July 1, 2000, or a class 3 felony for sexual assault on a child as provided in section 18-3-405 (2), or the crime of escape as provided in section 18-8-208, and, in the course of or in furtherance of the crime that he or she is committing or attempting to commit, or of immediate flight therefrom, the death of a person, other than one of the participants, is caused by anyone; or
    (c) By perjury or subornation of perjury he procures the conviction and execution of any innocent person; or
    (d) Under circumstances evidencing an attitude of universal malice manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life generally, he knowingly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to a person, or persons, other than himself, and thereby causes the death of another; or
    (e) He or she commits unlawful distribution, dispensation, or sale of a controlled substance to a person under the age of eighteen years on school grounds as provided in section 18-18-407 (2), and the death of such person is caused by the use of such controlled substance; or
    (f) The person knowingly causes the death of a child who has not yet attained twelve years of age and the person committing the offense is one in a position of trust with respect to the victim.

    Murder in the second degree (18-3-103)
    --------------------------------------
    A person commits the crime of murder in the second degree if the person knowingly causes the death of a person.

    Manslaughter (18-3-104)
    -----------------------
    A person commits the crime of manslaughter if:
    (a) Such person recklessly causes the death of another person; or
    (b) Such person intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide.

    Criminally negligent homicide (18-3-105)
    ----------------------------------------
    Any person who causes the death of another person by conduct amounting to criminal negligence commits criminally negligent homicide.

  • October 30, 2008

    8:18 AM

    feisty writes:

    Riggs- as you can see, all the laws I just posted in regards to murder specifically use the word "person". So, if 48 passes, an embryo would legally be a "person", and all laws that use the word "person" would be applicable.

    Since you can't seem to grasp the concept when I posted examples of what could potentially happen, let me spell it out now that we have the legal wording for murder:

    A woman who deliberately causes a miscarriage or has an abortion (legally the death of another person if 48 passes) could be charged with, at a minimum, murder in the second degree since she "knowingly causes the death of a person", or murder in the first degree since she "after deliberation and with the intent to cause the death of a person other than herself, she causes the death of that person or of another person."

    If a pregnant woman goes horse back riding, falls, and unintentionally has a miscarriage (legally the death of another person if 48 passes), she could be charged with manslaughter, since she "recklessly caused the death of another person".

    If a pregnant woman simply fails to take care of herself, and has a spontaneous abortion, she could be charged with criminally negligent homicide as she "caused the death of another person by conduct amounting to criminal negligence".

    And that's just the murder aspect in the event the embryo dies! What if a pregnant woman delivers a damaged baby? Let's say she drinks/smokes (known to cause problems to a developing embryo) while pregnant? Since the baby would have been a legally recognized person while an embryo, the woman could be charged for behavior that serious damaged another person (the embryo)- probably grevious bodily harm or such.

    This would truly open a can of worms if it passes.

  • October 30, 2008

    10:37 AM

    Rigg writes:

    Feisty, you refute yourself under 18-3-102 & 18-3-103, in the subsections (b),(c),(d),(e).
    No prosecutor would file charges under 1st or 2nd degree.

    "A woman who deliberately causes a miscarriage or has an abortion "could" be charged with, at a minimum (((legal precedent?)) , murder in the second degree since she or murder in the first degree"

    * * You have not offered any evidence that charges -will- be filed by prosecutors. No precedents, and a carefully placed "could".

    "If a pregnant woman goes horse back riding, falls, and unintentionally has a miscarriage, she could be charged with manslaughter, since she "recklessly caused the death of another person".

    * * Ask yourself why the mother is horseback riding. Yet, this does not fit into your examples of outlawing -abortion-. Besides there has been charges filed on mothers with a crime under these types of dangerous actions. Poor example.

    "If a pregnant woman simply fails to take care of herself, and has a spontaneous abortion, she could be charged with criminally negligent homicide."

    * * Tenuous at best. No prosecutor will file charges and the court would not waste time in attempting to prove the woman WAS pregnant, DID NOT keep healthy, and that the spontaneous abortion WAS CAUSED by the mother's (poor) health.

    "Let's say she drinks/smokes while pregnant?"
    * * In a roundabout way you are defending the actions of the smoking/drinking/drug using mother.
    Why should she NOT be charged with child abuse?

    "Since the baby would have been a legally recognized person while an embryo, the woman could be charged for behavior that serious damaged another person (the embryo)- probably grevious bodily harm or such."
    * * The rules should apply for child abuse to those of the unborn.

    Your fear of muder charges is unfounded. Amendment 48 will allow for child abuse laws to cover the unborn. In essence, you should be arguing that child abuse laws would be used against the monthers... not murder charges. And you have not provided -evidence- or -precedence- that abortion will be counted as murder.

  • October 30, 2008

    12:32 PM

    feisty writes:

    Riggs- really, you cannot be this dense.

    1. I never said that charges WILL be brought forth, but the mere fact that if 48 passes, they COULD since the examples cited MEET the LEGAL definitions of MURDER. The reality is that if 48 passes, women could be charged under these laws (regardless of whether there is a precedent or not). Whether, in reality, they will be charged, we don't know at this point- which is why you try to catch poorly written laws BEFORE they are passed and cause problems like these.

    2. Further, you are confusing what someone can be charged with (the law), and the winning of a court case (evidence). Nor is a precedent required to prosecute someone under the law.

    3. Yes, I have provided evidence that abortion "counts" as murder- I have provided the laws that state, if 48 passes, legally it WILL be.

    Whether or not you like it, whether or not you feel charges would be brought for, whether or not you think evidence will hold up in court if a woman is charged, the fact remains that passing 48 opens the door for women who have abortions/miscarriages to be charged with murder, child abuse, etc- which I think was the whole intent of the teen who came up with the idea.

    For the last time, here are the FACTS
    1. The laws cite that a person can be charged with causing the death of another person. (Notice it does NOT say anything about precedent! And evidence is the responsibility of the police.)
    2. If 48 passes, the embryo now is a legally recognized person.
    3. So if a person (mother) causes the death of another person (embryo), she can be charged. (Whether or not that happens in reality, we don't know.)

Join the discussion

Required
Required (Will not be published or sold)

Talk to me

Featured today

Today's poll

Search this blog

Recent posts

Chat transcripts

Caption this!