The Denver Post, via Crooks & Liars
A proposed amendment to the Colorado state constitution which would determine that a fertilized egg is a “person” even before implantation in the uterus is causing some serious concern. This is an emotional subject for many people, but scientists unanimously agree that pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus. Under this amendment, certain forms of birth control which prevent the implantation of the fertilized egg could be considered homicide.
Even without the use of drugs, many eggs just naturally fail to implant in the uterus. Likewise, many eggs are implanted only to result in a miscarriage in the early days or weeks of pregnancy — often before the woman is even aware she is pregnant. Should a woman who suffers a miscarriage be charged with negligent homicide because she failed to protect a fertilized egg she may not have even known she carried? Should a man who fertilized an egg be entitled to file a civil lawsuit against a woman who miscarries, charging her with the wrongful death of his week-old fertilized egg?
Unfortunately, none of these possibilities is far-fetched. They would be the almost certain results of the mischievous interaction of the proposed Colorado constitutional amendment with the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Here’s the proposed state amendment: Section 31. Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms “person” or “persons” shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization.
Here’s the relevant portion of the U.S. Constitution: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Are we prepared to have the rights of a fertilized egg outweigh the rights of a living, breathing woman? If the anti-choice crowd has their way, women will be reduced to the role of host to any number of pregnancies, wanted or not. Any attempt to exert her own rights as a person would be over-ruled by a fertilized egg, implanted or not.
Women in this country would be under constant scrutiny: Is she ovulating? Is she sexually active? Fertile women of any age would have to be treated as “potentially pregnant.” Would pregnancy tests be required before any x-ray, dental work, or Saturday night out? How many medications would we be forbidden from taking, because of possible harm to a potential pregnancy?
This is a legal nightmare in the making, and I hope the Colorado voters will reject this proposed amendment to their state constitution.
37 Comments
June 9, 2008 at 12:43 pm
For the anti-choice crowd, legalities (and reality) tend to be things to be ignored unless they favor them.
June 9, 2008 at 12:56 pm
“..but scientists unanimously agree that pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus.” are you talking about defining pregnancy or personhood? don’t equivocate.
Can you cite a reference for the unanimity you assert?
What you call emotional decision, pro-lifers call a moral decision.
I have little faith that you will call “anti-choice” advocates pro-life, but I believe it is only charitable to call a group by their self-professed name, as I do when calling your side, “pro-choice”, even though I consider it something neither positive nor choice-enabling for the child.
June 9, 2008 at 1:04 pm
a zygote is simply not a person. It is a cell. This ideas seems as hairbrained as all those states that tried to define life as beginning at conception without realizing that they had shot themselves in the foot relative to all age based laws since suddenly everyone became 9 months older. No one is encouraging abortions just acknowledging the private nature of reproductive choice
June 9, 2008 at 1:20 pm
dbad,
Mature humans are simply an accumulation of cells differentiated into organs. Ergo mature humans are cells and not persons either.
Thanks for clearing my iron-age thinking up.
June 9, 2008 at 1:23 pm
philagon,
In 1965, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists adopted the definition: “conception is the implantation of a fertilized ovum.”
In 1972, that definition was clarified to “conception is the implantation of the blastocyst,” in order to be more precise, since at the time of implantation, the zygote is called a blastocyst.
I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em, philagon. The “pro-life” crowd is not “pro-life” unless it opposes the death penalty, so try to be consistent.
June 9, 2008 at 1:33 pm
philagon:
So are you suggesting that experiences and self reflection are not a part of being a person?
Thanks for clearing that up for me. Again no one is encouraging abortions just acknowledging that reproduction is a private matter. Those opposed for whatever reasons should simple not have them.
June 9, 2008 at 1:36 pm
I am assuming you meant differentiated into tissues as the organs are comprised of combinations of tissues but whatever. Actually I was just looking for an excuse to say “whatever”. Zooey is charmed by that…
June 9, 2008 at 2:19 pm
This amendment doesn’t go far enough.
It should include a clause that indicates that male children are not considered valuable because one male can produce offspring with numerous females so females children are more valuable. Besides males are too aggressive. So the amendment shall include a clause stating that only double X sperm will be allowed to fertilize an egg and with government permission, XY sperm may fertilize an egg. Exceptions will be made if the government forsees a major war occurring in 18 years.
Hey, if these crazies want to push their crap down our throats, then I have some crazies for them, too. Next thing you know, we will have cameras placed on our bodies someplace and women will be required to take their temperature before engaging in intercourse. The cameras will be there to make sure the thermometer is used. It’s called code enforcement.
Did my rant sound crazy enough? Couldn’t be any crazier that those self loathing creeps that want to add this amendment to the Colorado Constitution.
June 9, 2008 at 2:30 pm
I found it interesting to read the article, as I have been making the same arguments for several months now.
If a fertilized egg is a legal “person” then every miscarriage is a potential homocide charge. Last I checked, that’s about 100,000 homocides committed each year in the U.S. These women whose bodies kill innocent babies could be prosecuted and sent to prison. Their doctors, too, could be charged with negiligent homocide. Any guess as to what that will do to malpractice insurance rates for ob/gyns?
The only way to avoid such results is to somehow say that miscarriage, under certain circumstances, is an Act of God. That, of course, leads to the inescapable conclusion that God murders tens of thousands of innocent babies each year. And you tell me your God is “pro-life?”
June 9, 2008 at 2:37 pm
BnF – what about all those women who have miscarriages after their third month. Now we are talking about a fetus and not an embryo. Should they be charged with homicide? Would these crazies consider this spontaneous abortion by the woman’s body an illegal abortion? WTF is wrong with these people? They have no qualms about killing pregnant women and babies and children in Iraq and other wars but they are “concerned” with a fertilized egg floating down a fallopian tube.
June 9, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Briseadh na Faire:
That is an avocet is it not?
June 9, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Didn’t this sort of thinking contribute to Anne Boleyn’s death?
Blaming her for not producing a male heir? (how dare that wench miscarry!)
Talk about dark ages mentality……
June 9, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Also,
A bunch of cells does not equal life, even though a pregnancy begins at implantation
Dictionary.com:
fe·tus /ˈfitəs/ –noun, plural -tus·es. Embryology. (used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.
I also believe the Puritans (remember them?) were able to end a pregnancy until the “quickening” – the ability to hear a heartbeat.
Those crazy Puritans.
OK – sarcasm off.
June 9, 2008 at 3:11 pm
db, you are correct. It is an avocet. I chose it for it’s nickname.
June 9, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Hi, true! Thanks for the added info.
June 9, 2008 at 3:13 pm
I guess we convinced philagon.
Good work, y’all!!
June 9, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Ugh – a troll.
It came to the wrong site for that.
How’s it going, Zooey?
June 9, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Briseadh na Faire
I very beautiful choice but a species that has not made my yearly list in quite some time. My last encounters were in Chincoteague VA along with large numbers of black necked stilt. I confess to know not any colloquial names. My version of birding is a little warped though as I think our charming friend trueblue might attest.
June 9, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I did chuckle at your description, db, but I still think you are a sincere, if unconventional, birder.
June 9, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Oh, thank you for the compliment.
I’d do the blush face but I don’t know how.
June 9, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Hey I’d have liked the crappy doctor who didn’t do what was necessary to recognize that I was in danger of having a miscarriage to be thrown in the slammer for homicide. It would be much easier to prove than all the malpractice doctors get away with.
June 9, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Personal story –
My sister was 6 months pregnant when an ultrasound showed that the baby had a severe form of dwarfism. The internal organs were normal, but the body cavity wouldn’t be able to sustain them to term.
Continuing the pregnancy was a death risk to my sister, because everthing else was growing too big.
No choice but to deliver knowing the baby would die. It was termed an elective abortion and the health insurance didn’t cover any of it. She had to fight corporate insurance while grieving a baby who lived for an hour to cover what they termed was “elective”.
This law is so narrow minded. More stories like this will emerge if this law goes through.
June 9, 2008 at 4:40 pm
There are cases where the unborn twin, albeit a glob of mixed cells, was entrapped inside the abdomen of the other twin. Would it be considered homicide when the unborn twin, the mass of cells is removed from the abdomen of the other twin? What happens in the case of conjoined twins? See, the makings of life is too complicated to be legislated.
June 9, 2008 at 4:41 pm
trueblue – sorry to hear about your sister’s loss.
June 10, 2008 at 12:56 am
True, Cats,
it just goes to show, what we post in the abstract, has real – very real – meaning in reality.
“People” uses these issues to divide and control others. It’s not about reality, it’s about power.
The Master doesn’t try to be powerful;
thus he is truly powerful.
The ordinary man keeps reaching for power;
thus he never has enough.
The Master does nothing,
yet he leaves nothing undone.
The ordinary man is always doing things,
yet many more are left to be done.
The kind man does something,
yet something remains undone.
The just man does something,
and leaves many things to be done.
The moral man does something,
and when no one responds
he rolls up his sleeves and uses force.
When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos.
Therefore the Master concerns himself
with the depths and not the surface,
with the fruit and not the flower.
He has no will of his own.
He dwells in reality,
and lets all illusions go.
http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html
June 10, 2008 at 11:01 am
dbad,
I may be wrong but sarcasm doesn’t seem as effective if you simply cut + paste my sarcasm, “thanks for clearing that up”
“So are you suggesting that experiences and self reflection are not a part of being a person?” -no, I am simply trying to make your definition consistent; a task which I, and you apparently also, are both unable to effect.
Zooey,
I am disturbed to know that between 1965 and 1972, due to the uncertainty of the definition, there were no pregnancies. And I was certain that I had some friends over 35!
As a sidenote, it is sad to see that some of your “audience” only wants to hear opinions of the same ilk- the very definition of close minded, I believe.
June 10, 2008 at 11:06 am
Sorry, philagon. I’d given you credit for having some intelligence. I can see I was wrong. I apologize. It won’t happen again.
June 10, 2008 at 11:07 am
“I guess we convinced philagon.”
Sorry gents and gals, I work during the day. Although I would love to give and take with you immediately when you reply.
June 10, 2008 at 11:13 am
So about those miscarriages? Are there any circumstances in which philagon supports the termination of a pregnancy? I myself have both a day and a night job. What’s your point? Try not to preach about minds. It reads annoyingly
June 10, 2008 at 11:13 am
“I’d given you credit for having some intelligence.”
This from a site that has 911truth .org as the first link on the blogroll?!? Show some semblance of charity and tolerance.
June 10, 2008 at 11:16 am
phil,
I think if you look closely, you’ll see that our blog roll is in alphabetical order — numbers show up first.
We have 20 Critters on this site, and there are interests and opinions on a wide varitey of topics.
Are you now playing the victim card? Do you feel like you require charity and tolerance?
June 10, 2008 at 11:31 am
Listen phil, first I think you misunderstood dbadass’ intentions. You see, he’s a scientist. So what you mistook for sarcasm was actually intelligence. And some of us around here believe in the literal translation of scientific terms as opposed to the literal translation of the bible. You can see where we might not be on the same wavelength as your “ilk”. Thanks for the stab a witty banter though. You achieved half of it.
June 10, 2008 at 11:47 am
My point about your blogroll isn’t what order it is in. Rather that you would audaciously link to such a fringe site as 911 conspiracists believe in; you should realize that most people believe this at least as nutty as you consider me, and therefore I was expecting a level of respectful give and take.
Sorry to upset your blog, so to speak. I am interested in serious dialogue and argument (not that you aren’t), but it seems I am receiving only acrimonious reactions.
I won’t nag you with my replies any longer, as this does not seem the forum for such a discourse.
Respectfully,
Philagon
June 10, 2008 at 11:49 am
Hold on there philagon. I was looking forward to serious responses to my questions. I think the problem with the 911 thing is that you start out trying to make a point about whether or not minds are open then seem to contradict the very point you seem to be tryting to make
June 10, 2008 at 11:56 am
I suspect phil would be perfectly comfortable with a climate change denier site.
June 10, 2008 at 12:09 pm
phil,
You’ve got nothing, and you know it. That’s why you diverted to the scary 9/11 conspiracy issue.
You’ve outed yourself as a single issue voter — more concerned about sticking your nose into other people’s business, than you are about the state of this country.
Abortion has always existed — not only since Roe v. Wade — and it will always exist.
As a person who feels the need for charity and tolerance, I’m surprised that you favor the return of abortion wards.
Ugly business…
June 11, 2008 at 2:56 pm
I really think we had an influence on phil.
Good or bad….?