Amendment 62 in Colorado gets a thumping.

Socrtease

Socrtease

Verified User
Amendment 62 would have defined personhood and given all rights at the beginning of biological developement. 71% voted no 29% voted yes. This result suprises me. That only a third of the population voted yes.
 
Its easy to get the toothpaste out of the tube, quit another matter to get it back in.
 
bravo said:
Its easy to get the toothpaste out of the tube, quit another matter to get it back in.
Click to expand...

Well, you don't seem to mind getting the KY out of the tube when it comes to Republicans. And it ain't the tube you're trying to put it back into either.
 
I think they should pass a law that would give expectant mothers $1000 if they aborted their babies. It would eliminate poverty in one generation.
 
Such an amendment would've presumably prevented abortions (assuming Roe v. Wade didn't exist and it weren't entirely futile) in case of rape, which is a much less popular position than the standard one.
 
Socrtease said:
Amendment 62 would have defined personhood and given all rights at the beginning of biological developement. 71% voted no 29% voted yes. This result suprises me. That only a third of the population voted yes.
Click to expand...

I would have been on the fence, yet I am pro-life. While I view abortion as a tragedy and there are steps we can take to reduce the number of abortions, I also believe the government should be hands-off as far as first trimester abortion is concerned. There are a lot of hearts and minds needing to be changed before we achieve equal protection under the law for the unborn. Education is the key and this is where many pro-lifers have dropped the ball. Simply saying abortion is evil and holding up gruesome abortion photos in front of the clinics does nothing to further the cause. That said, I do believe the day will come.
 
Last edited:
Voltaire said:
I would have been on the fence, yet I am pro-life. While I view abortion as a tragedy and there are steps we can take to reduce the number of abortions, I also believe the government should be hands-off as far as first trimester abortion is concerned. There are a lot of hearts and minds needing to be changed before we achieve equal protection under the law for the unborn. Education is the key and this is where many pro-lifers have dropped the ball. Simply saying abortion is evil and holding up gruesome abortion photos in front of the clinics does nothing to further the cause. That said, I do believe the day will come.
Click to expand...
I have always believe it is between a woman, her husband if there is one, the doctor and her conscience (god or whatever you wish to call it). The rest of us should stay out of it.
 
Rana said:
I have always believe it is between a woman, her husband if there is one, the doctor and her conscience (god or whatever you wish to call it). The rest of us should stay out of it.
Click to expand...
The problem with this view is it ignores that there is one other human life involved - that of the unborn child. Very sad how many people choose to completely ignore this basic fact.

And fact it is, backed by the science of biology. Those who define the unborn as "not human" are ignoring, or (deliberately) ignorant of biological science.
 
Good Luck said:
The problem with this view is it ignores that there is one other human life involved - that of the unborn child. Very sad how many people choose to completely ignore this basic fact.
Click to expand...

The fact that's ignored is a zygote/embryo/fetus' survival depends on the use of the body of a human being. Our laws, indeed, society's most basic structure is predicated on each and every "human being" being an individual. No one is entitled to use another person's body. That is fundamental to our way of life.

To imply a zygote/embryo/fetus should not only be classified as a human being but have the right to use another human being's body without their permission, even to the detriment of the other human being, is atrocious. It makes a mockery of everything we hold to be true and just.

Laws dealing with slavery, rape, kidnapping and assault, to mention but a few, all have their foundation in repudiating the idea ones body can be used or subjected to control/dominance.
 
apple0154 said:
The fact that's ignored is a zygote/embryo/fetus' survival depends on the use of the body of a human being. Our laws, indeed, society's most basic structure is predicated on each and every "human being" being an individual. No one is entitled to use another person's body. That is fundamental to our way of life.

To imply a zygote/embryo/fetus should not only be classified as a human being but have the right to use another human being's body without their permission, even to the detriment of the other human being, is atrocious. It makes a mockery of everything we hold to be true and just.

Laws dealing with slavery, rape, kidnapping and assault, to mention but a few, all have their foundation in repudiating the idea ones body can be used or subjected to control/dominance.
Click to expand...
And again you ignore science. It's not like the unborn CHOOSE their dependency. Slavers choose their way of life.

The only valid comparison to slavery and the like is the manner liberals dehumanize the unborn so as to justify their mass murder.

Another thing your POV ignores: pregnancy is temporary. Death is permanent.
 
Last edited:
Good Luck said:
The problem with this view is it ignores that there is one other human life involved - that of the unborn child. Very sad how many people choose to completely ignore this basic fact.

And fact it is, backed by the science of biology. Those who define the unborn as "not human" are ignoring, or (deliberately) ignorant of biological science.
Click to expand...

A fetus is not capable of experiencing suffering or having a desire to live. It is nothing more than a medium that grows into the shell that will eventually be the person once it starts growing the frontal lobe.

To inflict unnecessary suffering on one individual in order to prevent the suffering of something that is incapable of suffering is at best idiocy and at worst pure evil.
 
Good Luck said:
And again you ignore science. It's not like the unborn CHOOSE their dependency. Slavers choose their way of life.

The only valid comparison to slavery and the like is the manner liberals dehumanize the unborn so as to justify their mass murder.

Another thing your POV ignores: pregnancy is temporary. Death is permanent.
Click to expand...

There's no difference in the way a fetus feels before it was conceived, six months into pregnancy, and when the person it will grow into dies.
 
Last edited:
Watermarx said:
A fetus is not capable of experiencing suffering or having a desire to live. It is nothing more than a medium that grows into the shell that will eventually be the person once it starts growing the frontal lobe.

To inflict unnecessary suffering on one individual in order to prevent the suffering of something that is incapable of suffering is at best idiocy and at worst pure evil.
Click to expand...

So your maternal parent was subjected to unnecessary suffering, when she was carrying you, and she should have ended your ability to live.

I can understand that, where it concerns you.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So your maternal parent was subjected to unnecessary suffering, when she was carrying you, and she should have ended your ability to live.

I can understand that, where it concerns you.
Click to expand...

You cannot meaningfully end my life before I've grown a brain. I would feel no more ill will to my mother if she had aborted me than if she had never decided to have me. There are an infinite amount of people who were never born, and an abortion is no more a tragedy than them not being conceived.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top