BURTON: 48 restores value of every human
By Kristi Burton, Special to the Rocky
Published October 7, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
In voicing its Sept. 22 opposition to Amendment 48 - the Personhood Amendment - the Rocky Mountain News expressed its concern about the uncertain impact of the initiative. Let me make it clear: Amendment 48 is about empowering you, the voter. It's about allowing the democratic process to make decisions that have been made by special-interest groups for the last 40 years while using your taxes for their own gain.
It's about catching our laws up to our science. It's about restoring the intrinsic value of every human being, no matter at what stage of development.
The Personhood Amendment doesn't change the constitution in any way, as its opponents claim; it merely clarifies the definition of "person" or "persons" as beginning at fertilization. This clarification is necessary because when the original constitution was written the biological information we now have available didn't exist. This left an ambiguity that has been seized by special interests for their own purposes. The same special interests tried to keep Amendment 48 off the ballot.
They claim they want "choice," but they don't want to allow Colorado voters to decide this issue.
The Personhood Amendment isn't an attack on women's health care, as the scare tactics of its opponents would have you believe. Mothers also possess personhood and the amendment in no way endangers their well-being. It merely provides a common-sense foundation for making future decisions. By acknowledging what we already know to be fact, we will protect lives that are in danger of being lost.
Unless our laws are built on honest premises and sound science, we continue down a dangerous slippery slope in which confusion reigns. In the last few decades, the personhood of the unborn has been confiscated. The door is opening for taking away the lives and dignity of the elderly, sick and disabled unless we act now.
On Sept. 8, I debated opponents of Amendment 48 on KBDI public television. Fofi Mendez, who represented the "No on 48 campaign," was asked by the moderator when life begins. She answered, "Individually we can all determine when life begins." In other words, each person decides. For Mendez, "life" includes being able to breathe and walk. This leaves out newborn babies and anyone in a wheelchair or on a respirator. Her response is simply a further expression of the confused, stale, outdated abortion politics that have dominated the last few decades. People, especially those of my generation, are tired of that. We need to value every person because every person counts, no matter what stage of life.
Mendez kept alluding to the consequences of Amendment 48 as "disconcerting." People my age realize a third of our generation isn't here because of abortion on demand. That's disconcerting. Requiring legislators to take into account the personhood of every individual when making laws is not disconcerting. It's long overdue.
In an obvious attempt to make their side appear more legitimate, Mendez continually pointed out that 75 "health care" organizations oppose Amendment 48. No doubt, Planned Parenthood is included since they are a large contributor. At last count, more than 80 organizations and medical professionals support personhood.
The words we choose matter. Mendez continually referred to newly formed persons as "fertilized eggs." This is a familiar strategy. In the same way, there's a reason why abortion proponents use the term "pro-choice." It shifts the debate away from the ugly reality of abortion. The repeated use of the term "fertilized egg" robs the developing human of personhood, just as the word "fetus" dehumanizes a developing baby.
It shouldn't matter if you are a Republican or a Democrat or if you are Christian or atheist, we all have a responsibility to protect innocent life. Colorado voters have an unprecedented opportunity to do exactly that by acknowledging what we know to be true. Vote yes on 48.
Kristi Burton is the sponsor and spokesperson for the Personhood Amendment. She is a resident of Peyton.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Boulder Wildfire
See photos from the Boulder County fire.
-
Legislature Blog
The Rocky's Lynn Bartels and Ed Sealover provide live updates from the Capitol.
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Who's next?
Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.
-
Weekend plans?
Figure out things to do this weekend with the help of our entertainment calendar.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's rant on what's next for the Broncos.
-
Live updates
Sign up for mobile alerts and breaking news e-mails to keep up with the latest news.
October 7, 2008
2:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
If our laws were based on honest premise and sound science, and many things have changed since man has advanced in science, religion would be a thing of the past. Laws would be changed and Preachers and churches would now be paying taxes. You cannot base a law on emotions, and that's what this is. This is a back door approach to banning abortion, it would go back to being a back room operation. it would affect anyone with a living will that states they do not want to be kept alive by machines. The Florida case showed that emotions run amok when a brain dead person is kept alive. I will vote no.
October 7, 2008
3:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
disenchanted1 writes:
could not have said it better Roger!
October 7, 2008
6:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike846 writes:
This amendment is a thinly-veiled attempt to make abortion illegal, and also to constrain medical and personal decisions about when to "pull the plug" on brain-dead people. The legal ramifications, if you think it through, could be chilling. I'm no Left Wing apologist, as those who post here regularly know. But this is a bad bill. Talk about a small population of "special interests", she's sort of being the pot calling the kettle black. Vote NO on 48. Mike
October 7, 2008
6:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrfxx writes:
If this nonsense passes I hope Ms Burton is a victim of her own law. Perhaps (and I say perhaps as many of the ultra right not only want to ban abortion in every case, but also to ban women's access to birth control, reverting to the days when only condoms were used - and only then if the man wanted them to be) this girl doesn't understand all the unintended consequences:
Any woman who has a spontaneous abortion (most folks call them miscarriages) has the possibility of going to jail - whether or not she did anything directly to cause it. For Ms Burton's information, depending on health and age of the potential mother, 15-50% of pregnancies end this way. That's on top of the fact that - as near as OB/GYNs can figure, less than 50% of fertilized eggs implant to begin with (perhaps Ms Burton should picket churches, since God is the most prolific abortionist of all - I am SO GLAD she knows better than God).
Methods of birth control preventing a fertilized egg from implanting would of course have to be banned. The ramifications include (but are not limited to) an increase of women having more children than they want (which could result in more child abuse - or a return to the deaths of women from having more children than their bodies can literally handle - if not an end to their marriages because "not tonight" is the only form of birth control the ladies would control).
In vitro fertilization in Colorado would be curtailed (if not banned), since the only way it is cost effective is to retrieve and fertilize multiple eggs - and most folks for whom this is successful don't really want 8-10 children, so many fertilized eggs are destroyed every year. Perhaps there's an upside to this - if John and Jane Doe want a child they can adopt one of the many waiting for a home.
If Jane Doe finds she is pregnant with a WANTED pregnancy, but also finds she has a medical condition that requires treatment which would end the pregnancy, before she could be treated, an "advocate" would have to be named for the fetus. Gee - which is better - a healthy mother to be (once the condition is cured, she would have the opportunity to have more pregnancies in most cases) - or the death of both?
October 7, 2008
6:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
LetsThink writes:
Thank you Ms. Burton for standing up to protect the unborn (who can't defend themselves) from those who want to kill them.
You will continue to be viciously attacked by those who do not believe in God.
But we pray that you, and other good people, will stand strong.
It is time to expose the evil of abortion. Four million babies have been killed since Roe vs. Wade.
Pray that God will withhold His wrath on America for what we have done.
October 7, 2008
7:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
And how many people did your God kill in the old testament?
October 7, 2008
7:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
ladida writes:
Let'sThink - let's clarify..."those don't believe in the God I believe in".
I'm OK with the argument for this bill if you really believe that science tells us that a fertilized egg (a couple of cells) should have the same rights as I do - I disagree, but I'm OK with your right to make the argument.
However, when the argument becomes your statements about God, you show that you are not arguing about science but trying to force your beliefs on everyone else and I'm not OK with your beliefs controlling my life.
This amendment is not good law as it does have the potential for religious zealots to push for banning any birth control that prevents implantation of the now "person". If you don't approve of sex for any reason than procreation, great...don't have sex unless you want babies. But for those who don't share your religious beliefs...leave us alone.
Kristi Burton is either naive or a liar when she says she does not believe that this amendment affects womens health. She is also speaking for "her generation" - since she's been home schooled her whole life, I wonder how she feels qualified to speak for "her generation"...many of whom she has never had significant interaction with.
October 7, 2008
7:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
ghoax writes:
not really a chance of this one passing, but, a nobel start. The problem is that this bill is only addressing the outcome of the larger issue. Abortion is one of the pillars of the left (feminism, homosexuality, environmental fascism) as the continue their crusade to ban Christianity and move this country to the Marxist utopia. To ever deal with the abortion issue or any of the above, you'd have to go back and undue the indoctrination that begins now in grade school...and fat chance without a revolution.
Its just odd to me that women were able to win the right to toss out their responsibility for another human being, a responsibility that they are born with by the mere fact they are a female. Somehow women were able to change the rules, toss out any personal responsibility for their actions, got the "right" to murder their unborn child, and we now have the gay agenda doing the same tactics.
And they did that citing that millions of phantom women who became pregnant due to rape or incest. The gays are parading their victims to push forward their legislation and indoctrination to to the same...all while most clear thinking Americans watched them and did nothing. While Margaret Sanger outwardly proclaimed that abortion was necessary to rid the world of the lesser of the species (that included blacks), she is now praised as a leading feminist rights leader. Imagine that, a racist as one of the left's royalty.
Yet the economic impacts of this "enlightened" thinking are never discussed and just now rearing their head, think about this, that house you're trying to sell...they buyer was aborted 25 years ago.
The heart of the matter is the self-centeredness of the left, and the time to stop that was long ago. They won, and they have the government on their side from feminists to environmental police. The sad thing is that it'll be the immigrants that will eventually bring about a movement back to normal thinking in many matters, however, our great country will have become the real "New Mexico"
October 7, 2008
7:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Dub writes:
I would support a bill to allow a person to terminate a pregnancy up to and including the 18th year on grounds of general sorriness. And no, I don't vote for bills that "Make me feel good Daddy".
October 7, 2008
7:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
JohnStockwell writes:
Amendment 48 reminds me of another ill-fated amendment known as the "equal rights
amendment". Each were poorly written, overly broad in scope and ill-defined in language,
and ultimately unnecessary and undesirable. Both were more about the flexing of political
muscle by special interest groups, than about benefitting the public.
Miss Burton attempts to cloak her amendment in the mantle of "science" without
mentioning the fact that a large number of pregnancies end in miscarriages. Estimates
vary, but lowball estimates show that on the average of 30% of pregnancies do not make
it to term. These percentages increase for women who have difficulty conceiving, to
100% in some cases. Biologically speaking, fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses are
expendable.
The message that proponents of Amendment 48 are sending, without realizing it, is that
every woman out there who is trying to get pregnant is deliberately killing "persons".
For women who have difficulty conceiving, this could
be as many as one "person" per month. Yet, where is the moral outrage of the "prolife"
movement? The answer is simple, even they do not consider fertilized eggs, embryos,
and fetuses in the early term to be "persons".
Indeed, nobody knows the full ramifications of Amendment 48. It may threaten parental
rights and the right of women to determine the disposition of their own bodies, or it may do
nothing at all. This uncertainty alone is sufficient grounds to vote against it.
October 7, 2008
9:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
INC writes:
Genesis 2:7 Clearly states BEATH of life. our laws are currently written based upon this biblical passage. if 48 passes then any birth control that prevents a zygote to implant in the uterine wall would then become illegal. along with miscarriages and stillborn would then be determined murder. prosecuting the Mother (who is already saddened by the event) for a natural occurrence...
NO on 48
October 7, 2008
9:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
I am a pro-choice person, but I have a question that continually nags me. Why is it that so many pro-life evangelicals are willing to do whatever it takes to save an egg, but are so willing to put Jesus asside and revert to the Old Testament to sentence criminals to death? Is it not true that the New Testament offers absolution if you confess your sins and ask the Lord and Jesus Christ the savior for forgiveness and repent, that it wil be granted. Where in the New Testament does Jesus say it is ok to put people to death. I have not found it. I find a complete disconnect here with the Bible thumping Evangelical's philosphy and the text of the New Testament.
What Gives?
October 7, 2008
10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
Marshdale-
If we're talking New Testament,I think the answer can be found in the old canard that says "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto Christ that which is Christ's",which dovetails with another canard,which in King James reads "Thou shalt do no murder".
Leaving religious doctrine entirely aside,the assumption is that the taking of human life very deeply damages society in ways not entirely understood,and therefore while murder clearly CAN be committed,it MAY NOT be committed without a very formal,sober,carefully-arrived-at consensus that the consequences of not murdering the person under discussion are worse than the consequences of doing the murder.Thus we have death-penalty statutes,"make-my-day" statutes,and declarations of war,as well as the human sacrifice rituals of the Aztecs/Spanish Inquisition/French Revolution as well as the more recent human sacrifice rituals of Radical Islam and Naziism/Communism.
Regarding the present debate,the presence of 48 on the ballot shows the public to be very deeply concerned that current abortion-on-demand law does not provide the sober,careful,formal determination that those murders are necessary to good order.
We pro-lifers consider it a self-evident truth that the preborn are human and therefore entitled to the same protection of secular law as any other human being resident here.
October 7, 2008
11:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Romanesco writes:
Jimminy writes: "We pro-lifers consider it a self-evident truth that the preborn are human and therefore entitled to the same protection of secular law as any other human being resident here"
That said, you would charge a woman with murder if she terminated a tubal pregnancy?
October 7, 2008
11:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
Romanesco: "That said,you would charge a woman with murder if she terminated a tubal pregnancy?".......
The 11:19 post illustrates the damage done to society by murder without due consideration.The poster ignores my contention that sometimes the damage done by not taking a life is greater that the damage done by taking that life,but that the determination of justifiability requires more,and better consideration than permitted under Roe.To answer Romanesco directly: To the extent of my knowledge,a tubal pregnancy is fatal to both child and mother and would seem to justify the murder of the child in order to save the mother' life.The operative word here is still "murder",although most would accept its more polite interpretation "justifiable homicide".
October 7, 2008
12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Romanesco writes:
Yes or no, please.
October 7, 2008
2:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
12:18-You have gotten a good faith answer that is clear,concise, and sufficient.Your feigned ignorance shows your bad faith just as clearly,concisely,and sufficiently.....Next poster,please.
October 7, 2008
4:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Woogford writes:
I have a question. If I knowingly gave a pregnant woman a drink with something in it that caused her to abort her baby yet was perfectly harmless to the mother what could I be charged with?
October 7, 2008
4:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Romanesco writes:
Ok, then, let me rephrase.
If you were a criminal prosecutor, would you charge a woman with murder had she terminated a tubal pregnancy?
October 7, 2008
6:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
4:23-Nothing.The act described is not now illegal.
4:29-No.Terminating a tubal pregnancy is likewise not now illegal.
I'll repeat my earlier statement that should 48 pass,pregnancies threatening the mother's life will undoubtedly receive permission for termination as a matter of routine,as they did before Roe.
Again,if 48 should pass,those who terminate a pregnancy for convenience,by abortifacient or other method would undoubtedly find themselves in the same position as anyone else who kills a baby.
October 7, 2008
10:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
I love it when pro-lifers, usually men, talk about women terminating a pregnancy for convenience. They make it sound like a woman wakes up one morning and says "Let's see, I have a beauty appointment at 3pm, I have to buy groceries, then I have a couple of hours to kill, ... Oh! I know! I'll have an abortion. How can I possibly go to that charity ball in two weeks looking like this?"
Give me a break!
And the latest craze of social conservatives is to invoke sound science. Not just science, sound science. It's a smokescreen. They wouldn't know sound science if a copy of Sir Isaac Newton's "Principia Mathematica" landed on their head. Sound science is science that agrees with their outlook. Science can not answer the question of when personhood happens, and they know it. Same with the question of when "human life" begins. Those are philosophical questions, theological questions. Not science questions.
October 8, 2008
10:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Ms. Burton-
If you are followign this thread, I would appreciate a response.
If this law passes, what is to be done with the leftover fertilized embryos from the invitro process? I saw your debate and your answer to this question was, "the democratic process will figure it out." However, if a fertilized embryo is now given all the same rights as a living breathing human being, the democratic process cannot decide that it can be discarded. Legally, it would be the exact same thing as killing a living breathing person. There is no legal way to create legisislation that can allow a living breathing person to be killed for no reason, without due process as we have in the death penalty. It would be unconsitutional at all levels.
So please, Ms. Burton, I would like your insight.
October 8, 2008
10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
And I love it when gay activists like10:17 start in on heterosexuals.You no play-a da game,you no make-a da rules.
October 8, 2008
11:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
KelcyCo writes:
Ms. Burton does not have the courage of her convictions. She is afraid that if the option of choice is available to her she will not make the right choice as she sees it today should she become pregnant. Or maybe she has already made what she considers that wrong decision and this is to salve her guilty conscious. (When men harp on the issue I think it is all about control.....good old male control over females.)
In actuality though, even if illegal, if the will is strong enough Ms Burton will find a way to end that unwanted pregnancy (unwanted be it due to rape, financial reasons, health, whatever). She might die in the attempt but she will try. This has been true for all time. It is not something unique to this time period, this culture, this country. It is something that has been and will be.
October 8, 2008
12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
ILoveChipotle writes:
It amazes me how passionate people are about their "right" to kill unborn babies. I hope the people of Colorado are smart enough to finally stand up and protect the rights of these unborn children. It also amazes me how the "tolerant & open-minded" left is so intolerant of Christianity.
October 8, 2008
1:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
In this debate, the Left isn't being intolerant of Christianity. First off, Christianity has more than one response to Amendment 48. Many Chrisatians are adamantly opposed. Second, non-Christians have as much right as Christians to have their voice and opinion heard. Third, to automatically call all opponents of Amendment 48 anti-Christian is a cheap shot intended to stifle discussion. Fourth, there is no state religion in the US, but 49 would impose on the State of Colorado a definition of "personhood" that not every religion, theology, or philosophy agrees with. That dog won't hunt.
Jimminy, heterosexuals make legal judgments on gay people all the time. I hardly see how my opining on abortion makes any judgment on heterosexual couples, but if you think it does, so be it.
October 8, 2008
1:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
ILoveChipotle writes:
I'm not saying voting no on 48 is anti-christian, I'm saying the anti-christian comments are anti-christian. Obviously you haven't been reading the comments above peterpi. Next time you should try to follow the discussion before you put in your two cents.
October 8, 2008
3:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Well I see that Ms. Burton or anyone else won't address my earlier question. Too bad.
Also, did I miss something or why is Jimminy calling peterpi a "gay activist??"
October 8, 2008
9:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
How about this,JB......No one knows for sure what the law would do,but a tentative prediction might be that conferring "personhood status" upon upon fertilized embryos does not confer a right to be implanted.It might also mean that destroying a fertilized embryo would be illegal,but then again the incidence of illegal acts depends largely on how vigorously law enforcement pursues the perpetrators.See "Illegal Immigration"
As to Peterpi,the expression "gay activist" does not imply that the activist is gay.Peterpi has previously told us that he works with gays,and his postings on gay matters show that he favors their cause.That of itself indicates only his sympathies,not his preference.Indeed,that I call Peterpi male is only an assumption,partly generated by the difficulty of couching all of this in gender-neutral terms.But I do think that since gay coupling is by nature infertile,they really don't have a dog in this fight.
October 10, 2008
4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Danchan writes:
Ms. Burton wrote that, "It's about catching our laws up to our science."
I've been trying to read what I can from Ms. Burton, but I honestly don't know if that statement is made in complete ignorance of science or out of trying to stay on point politically so people won't realize that this amendment has nothing to do with "personhood" and everything to do with abortion.
I hope that every Coloradan who votes "yes" on this amendment volunteers to cough up the cash that will need to go towards the legal battles that it is going to create. Because otherwise the tax payers are going to have to foot the bill for proving that Ms. Burton and her supporters are to dim to be creating law.
October 10, 2008
4:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
hunterman writes:
Boy, I certainly hope Kristi is applying her home-schooled genius to a way of catching those millions of pesky fertilized ova that fail to implant, so they can be given a proper Christian burial. Maybe while she's occupied with that the rest of the world needn't be annoyed by her fantasies.
October 10, 2008
7:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Patron_Drinker writes:
If an egg fails to implant, how do we know whether it's been fertilized or not? Is there some solid proof that this occurs or is it mere pro-abortionist conjecture?
It seems to me that those opposed to this amendment are looking for extreme cases to test it, hoping to make its supporters look vicious. I'm undecided but leaning toward voting for it, mostly because of the rhetoric used against it.