Colorado Voters Will Be Asked When 'Personhood' Begins

[lily]

What a bunch of extremist! If a woman gets into a car accident, will she then be charged for murder? If she is standing next to someone that is smoking, will they both be charged with child endangerment? If the human incubator doesn't take prenatal vitamins or eats a big mac, will she be arrested? If her health is in danger, do they hook her up to machines, until the baby is born? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/12/AR2008071201615.html?nav=hcmodule)

Colorado Voters Will Be Asked When 'Personhood' Begins



By Ashley Surdin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 13, 2008; Page A04

LOS ANGELES -- A proposal to define a fertilized human egg as a person will
land on Colorado's ballot this November, marking the first time that the
question of when life begins will go before voters anywhere in the nation.

The Human Life Amendment, also known as the personhood amendment, says the
words "person" or "persons" in the state constitution should "include any
human being from the moment of fertilization." If voters agreed, legal
experts say, it would give fertilized eggs the same legal rights and
protections to which people are entitled.

The ballot initiative is funded by Colorado for Equal Rights, a grass-roots
antiabortion organization. Its purpose, initiative sponsor Kristi Burton
said, is to lay a legal and legislative basis for protecting the unborn. Its
passage would also open the door to modifying other laws for the same
purpose, she said.

As to what laws could then be modified, Burton would not elaborate. "We try
not to focus on some of the issues that will be taken care of later on," she
said, repeatedly saying that the amendment is not aimed at outlawing
abortion.


But that is the objective, according to one of the measure's biggest
supporters, Colorado Right to Life. "The goal is to restore legal protection
to preborn babies from the moment they are conceived, which is the only way
we're going to stop abortion," said Leslie Hanks, vice president of the
group.

Critics say the aim is not just to outlaw abortion in Colorado but
ultimately to overturn Roe v. Wade by igniting a court battle that would
bring the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, where, proponents of the measure
hope, a conservative majority would strike down the 1973 decision that
legalized abortion nationwide.

And the amendment carries broader implications, critics say, such as
limiting medical research involving embryos, inviting intrusive government
oversight of pregnancies, and banning certain contraception, including the
morning-after pill and the intrauterine device, or IUD.

"If we give fertilized eggs legal rights, abortion could be considered
murder and a woman could be sent to jail for making the difficult life
decision to terminate a pregnancy," said Crystal Clinkenbeard, spokeswoman
for Protect Families, Protect Choice, a coalition of medical professionals,
community groups and religious leaders who oppose the amendment.

The measure also could expand the reach of the law into other arenas, legal
experts say. For instance, if a woman miscarries, she could be held
responsible if it were found she caused it, even unintentionally. If she
smoked or drank while pregnant, her behavior might be considered negligence.
Damaged eggs might be eligible for monetary damages. The use of fertilized
eggs at fertility clinics or in medical research labs would come into
question because the disposal of unused eggs could be considered homicide.

"Because this amendment would define a person in a given way and expand the
universe of who persons are, it expands the reach of laws that deal with
persons," said Bill Araiza, a law professor at Loyola University in Los
Angeles.

The amendment also calls into question pregnant women's medical access, said
Scott Moss, a professor at the University of Colorado Law School. "If a
pregnant woman is really two people with exactly equal rights, then it is
not clear the pregnant woman can undergo any medical treatment that
jeopardizes a fertilized egg," he said, adding that the amendment would
generate a flood of litigation.

Colorado is the first state to succeed in putting this particular question
to voters, but several others have tried to recognize fertilized eggs as
persons through ballot initiatives or legislation.

"Even though the success wasn't immediate, this battle isn't over," said
Robert Muise, a lawyer with the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center, a
Christian public interest firm that has drafted language for efforts in
Oregon, Montana and Georgia. "This is just the first round."

Colorado's initiative has proved divisive among abortion opponents. Hanks,
from Colorado Right to Life, said a memo had been circulating among
legislators and antiabortion leaders arguing that the timing and language of
the measure are not right.

Groups such as National Right to Life, which separated itself from its
Colorado counterpart over a separate issue, and Focus on the Family have not
supported the initiative either, Hanks said. "They surely haven't helped
us," she said. "We've gone this alone in Colorado."

Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of issues analysis at Focus on the
Family, said the organization supports efforts to ban abortion, but not the
Colorado strategy. "In our view, you don't have to have a personhood
amendment before the court to overturn Roe v. Wade. You just need the right
court. So we are more interested in the makeup of the court than what
particular challenge comes before the court," she said.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the measure could go before voters in
November, but it is unclear whether support will be found at the polls.

[Sirk]

Voters shouldn't have their say because critics are afraid of what might happen?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Personhood can't begin while a fetus is living parasiticly, within a rights holding individual.

[lily]

Voters shouldn't have their say because critics are afraid of what might happen?


Sure they can.....but if they are going to put it this way, I wish them luck! I mean if they are already debating whether they can charge a woman for having a miscarriage ..........they're going to need it.....

[Alonzo]

The United States wasn't around for the stone age, but millions of Americans are trying to make up for that.

[Sirk]

if they are already debating whether they can charge a woman for having a miscarriage ..........they're going to need it.....
Did prosecutors bring it up because they're just itching to nail some women who have lost babies? Or critics as a scare tactic?

meh, it didn't happen in South Dakota and it's more conservative than Colorado. Even if it did happen, the people had their say and that's what they wanted. I'm never going to be against people voting on something.

[lily]

meh, it didn't happen in South Dakota and it's more conservative than Colorado. Even if it did happen, the people had their say and that's what they wanted. I'm never going to be against people voting on something.

I'm not against people having their say either, but when they are talking about such draconian things as charging a woman for drinking, smoking, having a miscariage or for heavens sake banning the IUD.......they are going to need all the help they can get, if they think it has a chance to be passed.


I'm all for a discussion on when life begins......should we leave it up to the voters........makes more sense than leaving it up to religion, or 9 people wearing robes.....but this IMO isn't the way to do it.

[Sirk]

For me it depends on the "they".
Which they is talking about this? The people who introduced this bill because they want women who miscarry in punished? Or the people trying to scare people into voting the other way?

Splitting Hairs: The IUD already was banned for years because it was bad for women. You couldn't pay me to have one.

[lily]

For me it depends on the "they".
Which they is talking about this? The people who introduced this bill because they want women who miscarry in punished? Or the people trying to scare people into voting the other way?

To me, they are one and the same....isn't that politics?

Splitting Hairs: The IUD already was banned for years because it was bad for women. You couldn't pay me to have one.[/QUOTE]

It has been improved......and saftey is not the reason they want it banned.

[xLIBREx]

Personhood can't begin while a fetus is living parasiticly, within a rights holding individual.

Sure it can, but that doesn't necessarily override the rights of the individual that person is living off of.

[tecoyah]

I am so very glad....I am Male.

That said, in my opinion a person is defined by the minimum ability (as in physical capability) to understand that they are indeed, a person.

I wonder what will happen when the inevitable result of this takes place, and some mother to be gets locked up, or forced to relinquish her rights in favor of the developing fetus. I would hate to be that Judge (or woman).

[AnnEsthesia]

Good lord. And people claim that no one is trying to legislate religion. I swear, someday someone will claim that all unfertilized eggs are also people and women should have to get permission from a male in order to take hormones or drugs of any kind.

[Blueneck]

Where do fertility clinics fit into all this?

[Six]

Personhood can't begin while a fetus is living parasiticly, within a rights holding individual.

Parisitc fetus ?? LoL !! It might be a parasite if it hadn't been put there by that persons irresponsibile behaviour. Too bad it has to pay the ultimate price right ?? Sorry, but no amount of clinical speak will make it any thing less than it is, a human.

[Osborn F. Enready]

XLIBREx said:
Sure it can, but that doesn't necessarily override the rights of the individual that person is living off of.

I agree, and should have stated my position more clearly.

Personhood CAN'T begin in the womb LOGICALLY, except by the will of the mother.

Six said:
Parisitc fetus ??

Do yourself a favor, and look up the word "parasitic" in the dictionary... ok?

It is not (a) parasite..... it lives (parasiticly), which means COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY AT THE ABILITY OF ANOTHER, WHILE CONTRIBUTING NOTHING TO ITS OWN EXISTENCE.

Main Entry: par·a·site
Pronunciation: ˈper-ə-ˌsīt, ˈpa-rə-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin parasitus, from Greek parasitos, from para- + sitos grain, food Date: 1539
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

The word as used by me, DEFINES THE METHOD OF LIFE, not the TYPE of life, which is human.


Six said:
LoL !! It might be a parasite if it hadn't been put there by that persons irresponsibile behaviour. Too bad it has to pay the ultimate price right ?? Sorry, but no amount of clinical speak will make it any thing less than it is, a human.

Nobody here said it was anything BUT a human.....

It is a POTENTIAL PERSON, but still a human, and factually, whether you like it or not, it LIVES PARASITICALLY.

[Wndrtch]

Personhood can't begin while a fetus is living parasiticly, within a rights holding individual.

I think I gave you this before.


Wikipedia:
Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species in which one, the parasite, benefits from a prolonged, close association with the other, the host, which is harmed

Please explain how a fetus is a different species than it's mother.

A fetus is not a parasite.

[potter]

The United States wasn't around for the stone age, but millions of Americans are trying to make up for that.


Back in the stone age folks had to live by wits and common sense. So it is only logical that your post is not true....we as a nation pretty much lack wits or common sense....... :nana:

[Wndrtch]

Main Entry: par·a·site
Pronunciation: ˈper-ə-ˌsīt, ˈpa-rə-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin parasitus, from Greek parasitos, from para- + sitos grain, food Date: 1539
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return


Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species in which one, the parasite, benefits from a prolonged, close association with the other, the host, which is harmed

[Wndrtch]

Good lord. And people claim that no one is trying to legislate religion. I swear, someday someone will claim that all unfertilized eggs are also people and women should have to get permission from a male in order to take hormones or drugs of any kind.

No, just if you want to kill the child he helped to create.

[AnnEsthesia]

No, just if you want to kill the child he helped to create.

Talk about refusing to address the point I was making. Good job.

[Wndrtch]

Talk about refusing to address the point I was making. Good job.

LOL!

I wouldn't want to dissapoint you!

[Osborn F. Enready]

Wndrtch said:
Please explain how a fetus is a different species than it's mother.

A fetus is not a parasite, and again, that is a purposeful misapplication of the term used.

Once again, nobody here said a fetus IS a parasite. I stated clearly that it lives AS a parasite, taking in nutrition (made available by the mother), breathing fluid the mother provides, and excreting waste THROUGH the mother, while having absolutely NO reflection of a "PERSON" LEGALLY (that would be recognized as having rights) while still being a human, and a POTENTIAL person. When that fetus is BORN, it becomes a CITIZEN, a LEGAL PERSON with limited rights. Before its born, its existence is only protected by the will, ability and discretion of the mother.

If the mother doesn't eat.... the fetus can die.
If the mother doesn't eat RIGHT....the fetus can die.
If the mother isn't healthy....the fetus can die.
If the mother is exposed to trauma or extreme stress.....the fetus can die.
If the mother is injured in an accident or assault... the fetus can die.

None of these things directly apply to a born child that is not living within another FULL RIGHTS HOLDING LEGAL PERSON. A fetus has no reasonable argument to make a CLAIM of individual rights, a right to life or any natural rights, as it is not yet a BORN NATURAL INDIVDUAL.

[potter]

On a positive note however, if a fetus is declared a person upon conception, you can declare it as a dependent upon conception....

Oops...miscarried...we'll try again....wow, I'm having triplets - three dependents....!!!!

[Wndrtch]

If the mother doesn't eat.... the fetus can die.
If the mother doesn't eat RIGHT....the fetus can die.
If the mother isn't healthy....the fetus can die.
If the mother is exposed to trauma or extreme stress.....the fetus can die.
If the mother is injured in an accident or assault... the fetus can die.


What's your reference gestational timeframe for all that, because a child had been born as early as 22 weeks and survived outside the womb, without being parasite-like.


February 20, 2007 11:48am

THE world's most premature living baby will remain under medical observation a few days longer as a precaution, a hospital spokeswoman said after US doctors reversed an initial decision to release the tiny girl today.

"They want to observe her a couple more days," the hospital spokeswoman said of Amillia Taylor, who was born at 21 weeks and six days.

When she was born on October 24, Amillia weighed just 280 grams and measured 24 cm slightly longer than a ballpoint pen, the Baptist Children's Hospital in Miami announced yesterday.

"Even though she's only four pounds (1.8 kg) now, she's plump to me," proud mother Sonja Taylor said yesterday.

No baby born at less than 23 weeks was previously known to have survived, according to the University of Iowa, which keeps a record of the world's tiniest babies.

Doctors said the baby girl is now thriving and well enough to be cared for by her parents at home. Hospital spokeswoman Marla Graves said today Amillia would be released to her parents later this week.

The baby was delivered via C-section after attempts to delay a premature delivery failed. She was breathing without assistance at birth and even made several attempts to cry.
AFP

[Wndrtch]

On a positive note however, if a fetus is declared a person upon conception, you can declare it as a dependent upon conception....

Oops...miscarried...we'll try again....wow, I'm having triplets - three dependents....!!!!

I'd go for that!

[Blueneck]

What's your reference gestational timeframe for all that, because a child had been born as early as 22 weeks and survived outside the womb, without being parasite-like.Whoever's paying the hospital bill might feel differently about that.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Wndrtch said:
What's your reference gestational timeframe for all that, because a child had been born as early as 22 weeks and survived outside the womb, without being parasite-like.

..if its born of the mothers free will, volitional choice, I am all for it.
...if its due to threat of government force, as people are trying to make it, I am not.

Women own their bodies, and whats inside them. Womens rights take precedence over the "claim" on rights any unborn has. Womens rights don't only exist when they aren't pregnant.


None of what you stated changes the facts there is no way for a fetus to make a logical claim on individual rights, much less a right to life, when entirely dependent on the mother, her ability, her mental stability, etc.


Blueneck said:
Whoever's paying the hospital bill might feel differently about that.

Exactly, and it will be the taxpayers if the parents refuse responsibility after being forced to birth.

[Wndrtch]

Women own their bodies, and whats inside them. Womens rights take precedence over the "claim" on rights any unborn has. Womens rights don't only exist when they aren't pregnant.


If that is true, then why can't I auction off one of my kidneys, or a part of my liver?

Our laws are fluid and can be altered and changed with the times. If "We The People" decide that an unborn child should have the right to its's existance, then we can draft new law extending protections to it.

You can try and rationalize it all you want, but you are still killing a child. Most parents understand that. That's why we call it a baby while in the womb, and not refer to it as "fetus".

And I said before, a 5-month old cannot survive without someone else inervening to take care of it, no different than in the womb, it just the mechanics of that care that is different.

Picking one point during the development process of a human being, and saying it's ok to end it here, but not there, is absurd and irrational.

Why are you so anxious to justify killing children? You knock someone up and want to kill it to avoid responsibility?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Wndrtch said:
If that is true, then why can't I auction off one of my kidneys, or a part of my liver?

You can, assuming you can deal with the risk of being caught by your nanny-statist government for breaking their code of law on your "moral" disposition.

In fact, in the black market, you could fetch quite a chunk of change......

Wndrtch said:
Our laws are fluid and can be altered and changed with the times.

What country do you live in?

Rights are unalienable here, but you have a point when saying that the current and recently past governments have done it, while still claiming to be "valid" representatives.

So are you saying you agree with the concept that rights aren't unalienable, but instead entitlements granted by the state which at any time they can revoke? (or only when it suits you?)

Wndrtch said:
If "We The People" decide that an unborn child should have the right to its's existance, then we can draft new law extending protections to it.

You could, assuming you discredit the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the fabric of liberty which built this nation equally to the bi-partisan corruption in Congress now....

We have had an unconstitutional system for some time now, so what you talk of would be "more of the same"......

What will it do? Put more people in jail, tie up the legal system, remove rights from women based on pregnancy status, etc, etc, etc.... but a bunch of "moral elitists" will feel better at night as they pull the wool over reality a little farther in their secluded little mental world.

Wndrtch said:
You can try and rationalize it all you want, but you are still killing a child.

A human... not a child. A potential person... not a child. A fetus.....before it reaches the state of childhood.

Wndrtch said:
Most parents understand that. That's why we call it a baby while in the womb, and not refer to it as "fetus".

Now you speak for all parents? Did I miss the election?

Wndrtch said:
And I said before, a 5-month old cannot survive without someone else inervening to take care of it, no different than in the womb, it just the mechanics of that care that is different.

Yes, the mechanics of using force to remove the will of a non-willing woman, and force her to carry to birth, or remove it against her will, or try her for removing it.....

Rationalize it all you want... its still authoritarianism.

Wndrtch said:
Picking one point during the development process of a human being, and saying it's ok to end it here, but not there, is absurd and irrational.

Not at all, if you understand where rights eminate from.

A fetus and a born person share little in comon OTHER than species, and of course the obvious difference that one is LIVING WITHIN a FULL RIGHTS HOLDING CITIZEN and one is not.

The platform of your entire argument is flawed as a fetus has no logical or rational claim on the rights of born persons.

Wndrtch said:
Why are you so anxious to justify killing children?

Im not, I am anxious to prevent moral nazis from trying again to remove the rights of BORN CITIZENS based on their petty subjective beliefs.

Wndrtch said:
You knock someone up and want to kill it to avoid responsibility?

Not at all.... never had a child, or a potential child aborted.

I have no personal stake in this at all....except that when the people allow rights to fall for one person, they fall for all people.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

Wndrtch said:
If that is true, then why can't I auction off one of my kidneys, or a part of my liver?

You can, assuming you can deal with the risk of being caught by your nanny-statist government for breaking their code of law on your "moral" disposition.

In fact, in the black market, you could fetch quite a chunk of change......

Wndrtch said:
Our laws are fluid and can be altered and changed with the times.

What country do you live in?

Rights are unalienable here, but you have a point when saying that the current and recently past governments have done it, while still claiming to be "valid" representatives.

So are you saying you agree with the concept that rights aren't unalienable, but instead entitlements granted by the state which at any time they can revoke? (or only when it suits you?)

Wndrtch said:
If "We The People" decide that an unborn child should have the right to its's existance, then we can draft new law extending protections to it.

You could, assuming you discredit the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the fabric of liberty which built this nation equally to the bi-partisan corruption in Congress now....

We have had an unconstitutional system for some time now, so what you talk of would be "more of the same"......

What will it do? Put more people in jail, tie up the legal system, remove rights from women based on pregnancy status, etc, etc, etc.... but a bunch of "moral elitists" will feel better at night as they pull the wool over reality a little farther in their secluded little mental world.

Wndrtch said:
You can try and rationalize it all you want, but you are still killing a child.

A human... not a child. A potential person... not a child. A fetus.....before it reaches the state of childhood.

Wndrtch said:
Most parents understand that. That's why we call it a baby while in the womb, and not refer to it as "fetus".

Now you speak for all parents? Did I miss the election?

Wndrtch said:
And I said before, a 5-month old cannot survive without someone else inervening to take care of it, no different than in the womb, it just the mechanics of that care that is different.

Yes, the mechanics of using force to remove the will of a non-willing woman, and force her to carry to birth, or remove it against her will, or try her for removing it.....

Rationalize it all you want... its still authoritarianism.

Wndrtch said:
Picking one point during the development process of a human being, and saying it's ok to end it here, but not there, is absurd and irrational.

Not at all, if you understand where rights eminate from.

A fetus and a born person share little in comon OTHER than species, and of course the obvious difference that one is LIVING WITHIN a FULL RIGHTS HOLDING CITIZEN and one is not.

The platform of your entire argument is flawed as a fetus has no logical or rational claim on the rights of born persons.

Wndrtch said:
Why are you so anxious to justify killing children?

Im not, I am anxious to prevent moral nazis from trying again to remove the rights of BORN CITIZENS based on their petty subjective beliefs.

Wndrtch said:
You knock someone up and want to kill it to avoid responsibility?

Not at all.... never had a child, or a potential child aborted.

I have no personal stake in this at all....except that when the people allow rights to fall for one person, they fall for all people.....

[Wndrtch]

You can, assuming you can deal with the risk of being caught by your nanny-statist government for breaking their code of law on your "moral" disposition.

In fact, in the black market, you could fetch quite a chunk of change......



What country do you live in?

Rights are unalienable here, but you have a point when saying that the current and recently past governments have done it, while still claiming to be "valid" representatives.

So are you saying you agree with the concept that rights aren't unalienable, but instead entitlements granted by the state which at any time they can revoke? (or only when it suits you?)



You could, assuming you discredit the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the fabric of liberty which built this nation equally to the bi-partisan corruption in Congress now....

We have had an unconstitutional system for some time now, so what you talk of would be "more of the same"......

What will it do? Put more people in jail, tie up the legal system, remove rights from women based on pregnancy status, etc, etc, etc.... but a bunch of "moral elitists" will feel better at night as they pull the wool over reality a little farther in their secluded little mental world.



A human... not a child. A potential person... not a child. A fetus.....before it reaches the state of childhood.



Now you speak for all parents? Did I miss the election?



Yes, the mechanics of using force to remove the will of a non-willing woman, and force her to carry to birth, or remove it against her will, or try her for removing it.....

Rationalize it all you want... its still authoritarianism.



Not at all, if you understand where rights eminate from.

A fetus and a born person share little in comon OTHER than species, and of course the obvious difference that one is LIVING WITHIN a FULL RIGHTS HOLDING CITIZEN and one is not.

The platform of your entire argument is flawed as a fetus has no logical or rational claim on the rights of born persons.



Im not, I am anxious to prevent moral nazis from trying again to remove the rights of BORN CITIZENS based on their petty subjective beliefs.



Not at all.... never had a child, or a potential child aborted.

I have no personal stake in this at all....except that when the people allow rights to fall for one person, they fall for all people.....

I have enjoyed these back & forth's with you but it is very obvious we are going to have to agree to dissagree on this.

I just have to point this one item out to you, though. I just can't help it.

You asked where "Rights" are derive from. The Declaration of Independance says we are endowed by our "Creator" with certain inalienable "Rights", being Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

"The Creator", "Divine Providence", "God". What does the Bible say about when God knew you? IF our Rights are from God, and God recognises life in the womb, then doesn't it stand to reason that your Right to your life begins at conception?

[GhostintheMachine]

I have enjoyed these back & forth's with you but it is very obvious we are going to have to agree to dissagree on this.

I just have to point this one item out to you, though. I just can't help it.

You asked where "Rights" are derive from. The Declaration of Independance says we are endowed by our "Creator" with certain inalienable "Rights", being Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

"The Creator", "Divine Providence", "God". What does the Bible say about when God knew you? IF our Rights are from God, and God recognises life in the womb, then doesn't it stand to reason that your Right to your life begins at conception?

Our Rights are derived from the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. Take a history lesson. The Declaration of Independence was influential, but it holds no constitutional weight. So if I do not believe in God, you cannot make a law establishing that your religious belief is the Truth.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If you believe abortions are wrong because of your religious beliefs, don't get one. You have no right to limit that right to others.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Wndrtch said:
I have enjoyed these back & forth's with you but it is very obvious we are going to have to agree to dissagree on this.

I can live with that, and I too enjoy the back and forths when there can be an "agree to disagree" option.

Many I argue this point with don't have, or won't accept that option.

Wndrtch said:
I just have to point this one item out to you, though. I just can't help it.

You asked where "Rights" are derive from. The Declaration of Independance says we are endowed by our "Creator" with certain inalienable "Rights", being Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Well, the Declaration of Independence was one of many times rights were mentioned, debated or noted, but it is not the arbiter nor does it have any legal standing as was pointed out by Ghost in the Machine above.

Our rights are the logical application of our abilities and requirements by birth, to nature.

Ayn Rand encapsulates the entirety of the most salient points in these three quotes.....

". . .the source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational."

["This Is John Galt Speaking," Atlas Shrugged, 976.]

"Man's rights can be violated only by the use of physical force. It is only by means of physical force that one man can deprive another of his life, or enslave him, or rob him, or prevent him from pursuing his own goals, or compel him to act against his own rational judgment."

["The Nature of Government," The Virtue of Selfishness, 126.]

"Since the protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of a government, it is the only proper subject of legislation: all laws must be based on individual rights and aimed at their protection."

["The Nature of Government," The Virtue of Selfishness, 128.]

Our individual rights are the logical requirements for an individual to BE ABLE to live, obtain happieness(subjective to the individual), and maintain respect for others NOT LIKE HIM.

If you look at the actual term, it is "NATURES GOD", not a Christian God, a Jewish God, a Muslim God, or any god other than nature itself, whatever its explanation may be.

I also notice you totally ignore the portion about the "laws of nature"......

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html


Wndrtch said:
"The Creator", "Divine Providence", "God". What does the Bible say about when God knew you?

What makes you think I have an ounce, a shred of respect for the bible, the Quaran, or any other mythical book? How does this apply to my rights under the laws of nature which WE ARE ALL BOUND BY, regardless of books which say otherwise?

When you mix religion and politics, all you get is violence, for and against.

Wndrtch said:
IF our Rights are from God, and God recognises life in the womb, then doesn't it stand to reason that your Right to your life begins at conception?

AS soon as (a) God testifies to such, perhaps I will consider it, after he explains how and why he is a God, and proves it.

If someone wants to abort a fetus in THEIR BODY, it is their problem, not yours, gods or anyones government.

And on a sidenote... the "god" you are speaking of supposedly gave man free-will.... why would you attempt to lobby for force to prevent such free-will choice, no faith in that god to find justice? He obviously trusted himself, since HE GAVE US FREE WILL, right?

[Wndrtch]

Our Rights are derived from the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. Take a history lesson. The Declaration of Independence was influential, but it holds no constitutional weight. So if I do not believe in God, you cannot make a law establishing that your religious belief is the Truth.

"Rights" are not derived from the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. Those are nothing but parchments with ink-splater all over it. "Rights" are concepts. You have "Rights" because other humans chose to observe those concepts for you.

The Declaration of Independance defines the concept of "Rights" The Constitution and Bill of Rights simply define government's role in protecting those Rights.


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If you believe abortions are wrong because of your religious beliefs, don't get one. You have no right to limit that right to others.

My objection to abortion is not based on religion. It's based on science. If a child can be born at 22 weeks and survive, then it should be wrong to terminate a child after that 22 week timeframe. It is illogical to say a fetus is any less human than a child of 2 years old. They are simply two different stages of human development. Why is it it OK to terminate a child at 22weeks gestation, but not at 4 years gestation?

The only logical time to accept abportion as an option, is if the mother's life is in jeapardy. No one has a right to take your life, or more importantly, you have a right to defend your life with deadly force if need be.

See! I didn't have to say "I knew you in the womb". I only mentione God before, because it was asked where "Rights" derive from, to which I quoted the Declaration of Independance.

[Wndrtch]

I can live with that, and I too enjoy the back and forths when there can be an "agree to disagree" option.

Many I argue this point with don't have, or won't accept that option.

It's the American way, and the reason we haven't had a bloody revolt since our founding.

Our individual rights are the logical requirements for an individual to BE ABLE to live, obtain happieness(subjective to the individual), and maintain respect for others NOT LIKE HIM.

If you look at the actual term, it is "NATURES GOD", not a Christian God, a Jewish God, a Muslim God, or any god other than nature itself, whatever its explanation may be.

I also notice you totally ignore the portion about the "laws of nature"......

That's because "laws of nature" is survival of the fittest. Your right to exist is soley dependant on your ability TO survive. That's Nature's way.


What makes you think I have an ounce, a shred of respect for the bible, the Quaran, or any other mythical book? How does this apply to my rights under the laws of nature which WE ARE ALL BOUND BY, regardless of books which say otherwise?

And where can I read these Laws of Nature? Plymouth Rock? Are they scribled in a cave somewhere? Some misterious seeweed with unexplained writings on them? Where do I find Nature's court to address grievences? As I said above, Natures Law is survival of the fittest.

If someone wants to abort a fetus in THEIR BODY, it is their problem, not yours, gods or anyones government.

But it is a problem for the fetus.

And on a sidenote... the "god" you are speaking of supposedly gave man free-will.... why would you attempt to lobby for force to prevent such free-will choice, no faith in that god to find justice? He obviously trusted himself, since HE GAVE US FREE WILL, right?

That same argument could me made for murder, theft, pedophilia, etc...

[GhostintheMachine]

My objection to abortion is not based on religion. It's based on science. If a child can be born at 22 weeks and survive, then it should be wrong to terminate a child after that 22 week timeframe. It is illogical to say a fetus is any less human than a child of 2 years old. They are simply two different stages of human development. Why is it it OK to terminate a child at 22weeks gestation, but not at 4 years gestation?

52% of all abortions occur before the 9th week of pregnancy, 25% happen between the 9th & 10th week, 12% happen between the 11th and 12th week, 6% happen between the 13th & 15th week, 4% happen between the 16th & 20th week, and 1% of all abortions (16,450/yr.) happen after the 20th week of pregnancy.

The only logical time to accept abportion as an option, is if the mother's life is in jeapardy. No one has a right to take your life, or more importantly, you have a right to defend your life with deadly force if need be.

See! I didn't have to say "I knew you in the womb". I only mentione God before, because it was asked where "Rights" derive from, to which I quoted the Declaration of Independance.



What you are addressing is late term abortions, and they are very rare. I would be less opposed to banning late term abortions, but we must also face the reality that whatever is banned, there is always a increased risk of illegal abortions(which are very dangerous) or infanticide. I think pro-lifers would be much more effective if they focused more of their energy on positive solutions such as adoption and contraception rather than on trying to ban something that will always take place.

[PostmodernProphet]

Personhood can't begin while a fetus is living parasiticly, within a rights holding individual.

sure it can.....if a law is passed that says it does.....

[Wndrtch]

52% of all abortions occur before the 9th week of pregnancy, 25% happen between the 9th & 10th week, 12% happen between the 11th and 12th week, 6% happen between the 13th & 15th week, 4% happen between the 16th & 20th week, and 1% of all abortions (16,450/yr.) happen after the 20th week of pregnancy.

ok.

It is illogical to say a fetus is any less human than a child of 2 years old. They are simply two different stages of human development. Why is it it OK to terminate a child at 9 weeks gestation, but not at 4 years gestation?

What you are addressing is late term abortions, and they are very rare. I would be less opposed to banning late term abortions, but we must also face the reality that whatever is banned, there is always a increased risk of illegal abortions(which are very dangerous) or infanticide. I think pro-lifers would be much more effective if they focused more of their energy on positive solutions such as adoption and contraception

I agree. Give folks another "choice" beyond killing.

Actually, part of my objection to abortion, is that today, there is no excuse for an unwanted pregnancy. There are a ton of options for people to use and avoid getting pregnant in the first place, many of which can be gotten for free. Your "choice" should come before penetration. If you're stupid and "chose" to take the chance and loose, it's not the fetus's fault, is it?

That too is NOT a religous objection. It's a common-sense kind'a thing.

rather than on trying to ban something that will always take place.

So, because there will always be murderers, we shouldn't outlaw murder? :ponder:

[Osborn F. Enready]

Wndrtch said:
That same argument could me made for murder, theft, pedophilia, etc...

No, it can't.

Murder, theft and pedophillia are against the law because they are violations of BORN PERSONS, LEGAL RIGHTS HOLDING PERSONS rights.

You can't observe rights for something that doesn't have the ability to observe its own.....

Is this not obvious?

As for the laws of nature, as far as rights are concerned, they are self-evident as I have explained before.

The only way rights can be removed from you is by force, and you are attempting to remove a born persons rights in favor of a potential persons rights, knowing full well that a fetus not only CAN'T recognize individual rights (since its not an individual, has no memory of the womb, and has nothing similar with the rights of born PERSONS because it is not a born person) much less can you dismiss the carrier of that life, and HER stake in the process.

Wndrtch said:
It's the American way, and the reason we haven't had a bloody revolt since our founding.

Check your history.....

One witch was actually called a "Civil War", is notable...
there is also several events like Kent State....though they are downplayed.

:sadly: :embarrased:

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
sure it can.....if a law is passed that says it does.....

Keep dreamin....eventually you'll die and see about heaven or hell personally. It seems that is all that will please you.

You still don't get it, do you?

People only accept reasonable laws 9 times out of 10.

This is far beyond "reasonable".

Abortions won't go down if the law is passed, there will just be more women made criminals and victims of state abuse of their rights.

[Wndrtch]

No, it can't.

Murder, theft and pedophillia are against the law because they are violations of BORN PERSONS, LEGAL RIGHTS HOLDING PERSONS rights.

You can't observe rights for something that doesn't have the ability to observe its own.....

Is this not obvious?

As for the laws of nature, as far as rights are concerned, they are self-evident as I have explained before.

The only way rights can be removed from you is by force, and you are attempting to remove a born persons rights in favor of a potential persons rights, knowing full well that a fetus not only CAN'T recognize individual rights (since its not an individual, has no memory of the womb, and has nothing similar with the rights of born PERSONS because it is not a born person) much less can you dismiss the carrier of that life, and HER stake in the process.



Check your history.....

One witch was actually called a "Civil War", is notable...
there is also several events like Kent State....though they are downplayed.

:sadly: :embarrased:

LOL! Round an round we go, were we stop, NOBODY KNOWS!!

How does my 5month old observe rights? I can't even get him to hold his head in one position as I try to get a spoon in his mouth!

HER stake in the process is to chose before she gets pregnant. After that, she has no more a right to end that life than ending a 5month old's life. They are just different points along the development of a person, and should have rights! For crying out loud, Rights exist to protect the weak from the tyranny of the powerful. What's more weak than a fetus?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Wndrtch said:
LOL! Round an round we go, were we stop, NOBODY KNOWS!!

How does my 5month old observe rights? I can't even get him to hold his head in one position as I try to get a spoon in his mouth!

He is born, out of the womb, an individual that breathes, excretes and ingests its own food, has legal rights though limited, a legal name, a legal identity in the actual world.

A IS A, it is born, it lives in the world bound by natural law and now faces the plight all men have faced once seperated from the mother. NOW IT HAS ITS OWN RIGHTS, as it is legally recognized, a citizen.

WE observe those rights as does the child as it LEARNS what LIFE is, how WE THE LIVING live outside the womb and are responsible for ourselves.

The born infant is learning from the moment its seperated, taking in visual facial cues, body actions, movement, etc.


Wndrtch said:
HER stake in the process is to chose before she gets pregnant.

And again, the same tired argument.

People have a right to birth control if they so choose, pre and post conception, and for several obvious reasons... the biggest being that sometimes PRE-conception birth control methods fail.

Wndrtch said:
After that, she has no more a right to end that life than ending a 5month old's life.

In your opinion..... which doesn't even enter the equation for anyone in the world except you and your immediate family when making this decision.

That fetus lives at her expense, contributing NOTHING to its existence while in the womb, while greatly reducing the physical and mental ability of her to live as she sees fit. IT lives entirely at her will, by her ability, and only with her knowledge if she chooses not to tell anyone.

How is law going to change that?

Wndrtch said:
They are just different points along the development of a person, and should have rights!

I know you are trying to make the point they should have rights, but you have provided no logically compelling arguments to rebutt the points I have made.

Wndrtch said:
For crying out loud, Rights exist to protect the weak from the tyranny of the powerful. What's more weak than a fetus?

Your argument. ;)

[PostmodernProphet]

Keep dreamin....eventually you'll die and see about heaven or hell personally. It seems that is all that will please you.



not true.....it will please me if folks like you stop promoting the murder of children.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
not true.....it will please me if folks like you stop promoting the murder of children.....

Who is promoting?

I am preserving a choice to prevent unwanted birth.

[Wndrtch]

He is born, out of the womb, an individual that breathes, excretes and ingests its own food, has legal rights though limited, a legal name, a legal identity in the actual world.

A IS A, it is born, it lives in the world bound by natural law and now faces the plight all men have faced once seperated from the mother. NOW IT HAS ITS OWN RIGHTS, as it is legally recognized, a citizen.

WE observe those rights as does the child as it LEARNS what LIFE is, how WE THE LIVING live outside the womb and are responsible for ourselves.

The born infant is learning from the moment its seperated, taking in visual facial cues, body actions, movement, etc.




And again, the same tired argument.

People have a right to birth control if they so choose, pre and post conception, and for several obvious reasons... the biggest being that sometimes PRE-conception birth control methods fail.



In your opinion..... which doesn't even enter the equation for anyone in the world except you and your immediate family when making this decision.

That fetus lives at her expense, contributing NOTHING to its existence while in the womb, while greatly reducing the physical and mental ability of her to live as she sees fit. IT lives entirely at her will, by her ability, and only with her knowledge if she chooses not to tell anyone.

How is law going to change that?



I know you are trying to make the point they should have rights, but you have provided no logically compelling arguments to rebutt the points I have made.

LOL!

Dude, you're most likely a young man with no obligations or comitments (and would like to keep it that way for now), that wants the option to ride bare-back with the right woman and all, but that's no reason to kill something if you take the risk and loose.

As far as a logical argument, I have made them, you refuse to see them. It is illogical to pick some point along the development path of a human being and decide it's ok to kill it here, but not there!

But don't worry. I have faith that soemeday (assuming it's your choice to), you will be in the Dr's office with your mate, and be looking at the Ultrasound watching your child's heart beeating, somretime after the 5th week. Then, your veiws on life & death in the womb will change.

Remember, you start out a Liberal, and with wisdom and time you turn conservative.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Wndrtch said:
Dude, you're most likely a young man with no obligations or comitments (and would like to keep it that way for now), that wants the option to ride bare-back with the right woman and all, but that's no reason to kill something if you take the risk and loose.

Dude, you couldn't be more wrong. 36, married and divorced, no kids (because I know how to properly use birth control and got lucky the few times they failed), and my personal stake has no bearing on this issue for me at all, unlike those of you arguing from the subjective moral standpoint....

Wndrtch said:
As far as a logical argument, I have made them, you refuse to see them. It is illogical to pick some point along the development path of a human being and decide it's ok to kill it here, but not there!

Yet, you totally ignore the role the mother plays in this.... you totally ignore that its ENTIRE TIME AS A FETUS, it lives WITHIN ANOTHER RIGHTS HOLDING CITIZEN, yet you claim that isn't a valid argument against a REASON to decide it ok to abort it.....

Talk about denial....

Then you make the claim it has a claim on rights, even though it shares NOTHING in common with BORN PERSONS (right holders) other than species....much less an independent life form, as it lives ENTIRELY parasiticly on the mother, contributing NOTHING to its existence.

And on top of all this... you refuse the impact it would have DIRECTLY INFRINGING OR ABRIDGING ENTIRELY THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN WHO BECOME PREGNANT.

Thats like a logical double strike on your argument....and you talk about ME failing to see something? Check your eye for a mote brother.

Wndrtch said:
But don't worry. I have faith that soemeday (assuming it's your choice to), you will be in the Dr's office with your mate, and be looking at the Ultrasound watching your child's heart beeating, somretime after the 5th week. Then, your veiws on life & death in the womb will change.

No, they won't. I would love to have a child, but I didn't when I was married because the time wasn't right. Luckily, I waited, because we divorced, and I am not a big fan of one parent homes, and wouldn't have let a child of mine go with her.

You need to climb off your moral high chair, remember that morals are subjective and individually relative, and keep your nose out of innocent womens womb.

Wndrtch said:
Remember, you start out a Liberal, and with wisdom and time you turn conservative.

Remember, building an argument on logical contradiction, always results in failure.

IF you won these rights for a fetus, it wouldn't be long until all rights were legislated out of existence, since the entire argument would be built on subjectively relative, moral hand holding.