'Life' starts to get ugly at Capitol

Hecklers disrupt Ritter's opposition to ballot measure

By David Montero, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published October 7, 2008 at 10:57 a.m.
Updated October 7, 2008 at 11:55 p.m.

Text size

Photo by George Kochaniec Jr. © The Rocky

Gov. Bill Ritter during a news conference on Monday to discuss the economy as well as his opposition to Amendment 46.

More Colorado Government

Comments

October 7, 2008

11:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

riverrafter writes:

I oppose this amendment and am glad to hear that the governor does, too. A mass of cells has the potential to be a human- key word being "potential", but should not be classified as human unless it is a viable entity capable of surviving without the mother.
October 7, 2008

11:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Dick_Tater writes:

I oppose both the amendment and Ritter.
October 7, 2008

11:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

BigSky182 writes:

"But Burton argues that is a scare tactic and that doctors would choose to "save the life that can be saved""

The ONLY reason that a legal definition of when life begins would be needed would be so that People can be prosecuted for murder for having abortions. This is just the latest attempt by a Political group to ram THEIR beliefs down OUR throats.
October 7, 2008

11:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cel writes:

I wonder how much time Kristy Burton has spent with "at risk" kids (or any kids) in the adoption system. How much money and time has she donated to that cause and how many children that she's "saved" live in her house
October 7, 2008

11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Danchan writes:

If this amendment passes, the entire globe is going to assume that Coloradan's are illiterate morons.
Or "home-schooled" like Burton.....
It’s kind of hard to tell the difference.
October 7, 2008

11:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

cassidy22 writes:

I am glad to see some people see the truth behind this Amendment. And very glad that representatives of the Catholic Church also recognize that it does nothing to actually reduce abortions.

It makes a myriad of other issues very complicated - that shouldn't be. The wide reaching consequences of this Amendment have not been thought out. I am hoping it doens't pass and am voting NO.
October 7, 2008

11:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

geo3453 writes:

"But Burton argues that is a scare tactic and that doctors would choose to "save the life that can be saved" — noting it would do no good to let the woman die of cancer and letting the fertilized egg perish as well."

I'm so tired of the argument from the "Yes on 48" crowd about "scare tactics" and how doctors, lawyers, judges, etc. would "not do that". There is no room for interpretation in this amendment with the way it is worded; if this horrible thing passes, a fertilized egg is a person and is entitled to all rights and privileges that go along with it. You can't put something into the constitution and then say that "well, this won't happen, we promise" - the law is the law. Stop trying to trick the voters; we all know damn well that this law will NOT be open to interpretation. If you want us to believe that this will apply "expect in cases where the woman's life is in danger and her death would also kill the fetus", SAY THAT IN THE AMENDMENT.

Anyone who has watched Burton actually speak in public about this amendment should be horrified by how little she appears to know about the subject at hand, or about the way the political system works. She acts and sounds like an uniformed religious fanatic. The last person we want changing our STATE CONSTITUTION.

VOTE NO ON 48!!!
October 7, 2008

11:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

T1anda writes:

I actually agree(gag!) with Ritter on this one!!
October 7, 2008

11:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

JluvDC writes:

This amendment is so vague and poorly thought out that the consequences if it became law would be extremely far reaching and detrimental to every woman's health. Women could end up being investigated for having a miscarriage and potentially prosecuted. Certain types of birth control including morning after pills could be banned. Its just crazy. I know the intent is to establish rights for the fetus in order to outlaw abortion, but this law is not the right way to do that.
October 7, 2008

12:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Freshynana writes:

Good to see the people are seeing this with open eye's. I got a question though. I don't know to much about ritter are all you hating cause he's a dem or is there more?
October 7, 2008

12:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

SassyFox writes:

I'm voting NO NO NO on 48!
October 7, 2008

12:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

jaybyrd writes:

This is Ritter's second major decision as governor, his first being to tell Colo citizens to turn their thermostats down. The human dynamo known as Bill Ritter really should pace himself so as to not burn himself out before his term is over!
October 7, 2008

12:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

MrJim writes:

I'm not what one would consider a religious person by any means, but I do oppose abortion about 90% of the time, but I don't think there should ever be an absolute. I don't understand why I would need my wifes signature to get a vasectomey, but at the same time, my 13 year old daughter could have an abortion w/o my being notified? That's just out and out wrong. I'm also a Co Springs resident, and a republican, but I'm not in the FotF camp or any of the Mega-C(ult)hurch's camps by any means. I'm now perplexed, because I can't believe I'm siding w/ Ritter on anything, but this is a bad amendment. Unlike you other nut-jobs here who want to bash a 21 year old girl for her beliefs and taking an Initiative, I'll just spell out a reason I haven't heard talked about as to why this is a bad idea. Kristi, I hope you're reading.....

Krisit, I'm guessing someday you will probably be wanting a family of your own. Now lets say you are married and pregnant, and you are driving somewhere, or riding w/ your husband. You get into a MINOR accident, which is determined to be your (or husbands) fault. The minor injuries you suffered led to stress and you were to miscarry. Are you now ready to face vehicular homicide or involuntary manslaughter charges? Are you ready to risk your future, and all your finances defending such a charge? Are you ready to be forced by the state to pay for proper burial, or whatever your beliefs may allow? Maybe you rear-end the car of someone, lets say a pregnant lady, totally by accident (and yes Kristi, accidents do happen) but the lady stresses out and has a mis-carriage. Are you ready to face not only criminal manslaughter charges, but potentially civil charges of wrongful death? If your mother/father/brother/sister, grandparent....you get the idea, were in such an accident, would you be willing to see them serve jail time because an unknown person had a miscarriage due to your (their) actions?

I applaud your efforts and convictions, but his is a bad, bad idea.
October 7, 2008

12:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Joanne19 writes:

The only way I see to reduce abortions is safe, affordable contraception. Good grief! A cluster of cells don't make a person. I'll be voting NO on this one.
October 7, 2008

12:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

rathmone writes:

hey milehighguy, do your research. The wording of 48 is such that it could very easily be interpreted to OUTLAW THE PILL, IUDs, and other forms of legal, safe birth control.
October 7, 2008

12:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

MrJim writes:

does anyone know of any polling showing where this currently stands?
October 7, 2008

12:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

GladysKravitz writes:

Shaggy says: "I hope one term TaxRitter lets us know how he will be voting on all the issues so I can vote opposite."

Shaggy, I am now convinced that you do not have a mind of your own, that you have to base your vote on what Gov. Ritter's position is. Pity.

What if Ritter were for 48? Would you vote opposite?
October 7, 2008

12:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

roger44 writes:

Mikehighguy, you'd have to build 40 more prisons in the state to hold all the women who fit the category of abusing the fetus, cup of coffee affects it. Get real and get off the religious band wagon, and look at life as it is, not through eyes that see utopia. It's the real world out there.
October 7, 2008

12:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

ronb writes:

Please consider the following Christian viewpoint.
- We believe that The Bible is God's revelation of truth.
- Psalms 139:13 (context is David speaking of God)
For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
- This clearly indicates that God is the force behind the development in the womb.
- Thus we firmly believe that life begins at conception.
- Thus abortion is indeed murder.
- Thus we support our government making this kind of murder illegal, and putting it in the state constitution is a reasonable place.

A very close friend of mine, who is a Ph.D candidate in biochem, and was homeschooled, also sees it this way. It will not be hard to defend your state from a view that this amendment makes us "look like illiterate morons".

All that said, I have not decided if I think this is the appropriate way to try to protect unborn children. I may also conclude to vote no. But I ask that people consider why Christians are pro-life and then respect the actions we take to protect those lives. We are amazed that people can see an ultrasound of a fetus and see it is as only "potential" for being human and a "mass of cells"

The postings without vitriol though have been reasonable and helpful.

PS: I am not from C.Springs.
October 7, 2008

12:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

geo3453 writes:

Milehighguy writes:

"Condoms, pills, diaphrams, abstinance, vasectomies (my personal choice), etc. are forms of birth control."

Milehighguy, this Amendment would outlaw birth control pills/shots/patches. Are you aware of this? This is why there are even pro-life people voting No on this amendment - it goes TOO FAR.

"and murderers of pregnant women,"

There is already something in place for this: it's called Lacy's Law.
October 7, 2008

12:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

geo3453 writes:

ronb: we in this country have a right not to believe in God and the bible. You are entitled to your beliefs, and I am not going to tell you not to believe. But who are you to tell me and others who don't believe to conform to your morals?
October 7, 2008

12:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

GladysKravitz writes:

OY Gevalt...I thank god I vote my mind not my bible!
October 7, 2008

1 p.m.

Suggest removal

GladysKravitz writes:

Nobodyman makes a good point...if you use a spermicide is that murder too???? Yutzes, yutzes, and more yutzes, that's what home schoolin's producin'. And we wonder why other nations surpass us in education.
October 7, 2008

1:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

LadyBird112 writes:

Nobodyman writes:
"Those crazy home schooled 21-year-olds!"

You know, there are actually some smart, sensible 21-year-olds out there. They have good ideas, know how to use reason and how to think for themselves. Unfortunately, Kristi Burton is not one of them. I can't believe there is something this idiotic on the ballot from someone my age. Then again, I actually went to school and actually learned things. I'm guessing Burton's formal schooling extends to bible camp.
October 7, 2008

1:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Gillian writes:

You all sound like you have a lot of growing up to do on both sides of this issue, as well mentally, emotionally and spiritually. Not one of you grasp it either way. This is why stupid people shouldn't be allowed to vote. And yes,my standards should define what makes someone stupid or not. Each of you morons on here would be banned from the polls. It scares me that small brained, dopes like you actually will be voting. No wonder the country is going to he**.
October 7, 2008

1:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Romanesco writes:

milehighguy writes: "Abortion is wanting to change the course and consequences of one's decision to have sex, and it is despicable, and its days are numbered."

Right, like all those rape victims had a choice....
October 7, 2008

1:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Sundog writes:

freethought: We told the Nazis to not use their bodies to murder Jews. Murderers use their bodies to kill innocent people all the time. You act like it is a far greater crime to attempt to forbid such injustices because someone is telling someone else not to do it. I'm telling you: don't kill people, and don't use your body to kill someone, anyone. It's not nice. And for me to tell you that is small spuds in relation to the actual act and crime of murder. And, by the way, we all happen to be clusters of cells.
"The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters"
And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign." .
.."But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?" - Mother Theresa
Ritter may be calling himself a Catholic, but that doesn't make him one.
October 7, 2008

1:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

LadyBird112 writes:

Milehiguy writes:
"For instance if I get a girl pregnant I totally think that either she should immediately get an abortion or leave the country and never make any contact with me or my family."

You make that clear next time you get intimate. That'll be all the birth control you need.
October 7, 2008

1:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

LadyBird112 writes:

That's good nobody, I was actually directing that at milehi
October 7, 2008

1:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

LadyBird112 writes:

Then he doesn't know how to quote. Or I can't read.
October 7, 2008

1:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

kevinjjones writes:

Perhaps the early backers of 48 were so interested in promoting the ethical treatment of humans that they forgot they should also be writing good, realistic law. I could still vote for it anyway.

Amendment 48 could possibly have been improved by a clause permitting the legislature to finesse the "hard cases," such as chemotherapy for pregnant women.

Of course, the legislature wouldn't be willing to do any finessing, being rather committed to excluding the youngest of humans from the protection of the laws. They're not "one of us," because we say so.

This is a discussion we as a society need to be having. We've blundered into this situation without doing the hard thinking about the nature of humanity.

Those interested in learning how the newly conceived human being can be reasonably described as a person should pick up Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefson's book Embryo: A Defense of Human Life. Its arguments are non-sectarian and, I think, largely correct.
October 7, 2008

1:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

DenverKnight writes:

Any law taking away a woman's right to an abortion can only logically be based on the idea it is termination of human life, and thus can only logically be prosecuted as a homicide, with all the legal consequences, including even capital punishment, and all participants (mother, doctor and staff) will be partners and co-conspirators in the crime.

Does that sound preposterous? I believe it's the very reason the Catholic Bishops, Shaffer, et al are not endorsing the personhood amendment.

I'm tempted to vote for it anyway, just to force the hands of those who are so determined to hold sway over the difficult choices a woman faces.
October 7, 2008

1:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:

Danchan writes: "If this amendment passes, the entire globe is going to assume that Coloradan's are illiterate morons.
Or "home-schooled" like Burton....."

Danchan, we home school our child because he is very high-spirited and the public school teachers simply ignored him and, as a result, he was struggling mightily. Does that make us "illiterate morons" in your jaundiced view?
October 7, 2008

2:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

Ronb......"I ask that people consider why Christians are pro-life and then respect the actions we take to protect those lives. We are amazed that people can see an ultrasound of a fetus and see it is as only "potential" for being human and a "mass of cells""

Stop making sense. It is unacceptable to some on the board to use rational, coherent thoughts, and you're sure to send some of them into hysterical rants.

Some will get hysterical if you merely point out that most Americans hold different views than some of the nuts on this board..... aka 89% of Americans believe in God.

Some will get hysterical and claim that merely pointing out what a Christian believes is "intolerant", and ironically will use their own "intolerance" in trying to deny Christians the right to freedom OF religion.

Some get hysterical and claim that merely stating that Christians believe something, means you are trying to FORCE them to believe it too. That's as stupid as saying you believe that American soldiers are patriots, and having some druggie from Boulder respond that such a statement means you are trying to FORCE Boulder residents to join the military.

Some get hysterical and start whining about other subjects.... Iraq, the price of gasoline, the weather in Kansas City, blah, blah, blah.

Some get hysterical at the idea that many Americans don't support killing children, and end up trying to attack them in other ways. By attacking "home schooling". While ignoring all facts about home schooling result. Or by attacking Colorado Springs. Or whatever they can do to change the subject from their true goal.... defending the killing of the innocent.
October 7, 2008

2:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

"Why do people care so much about abortion? Aren't their more important things in our daily lives to focus on than whether or not some impoverished urban teenage mother is aborting a baby that nobody wants in a city you don't live in? "

Sounds like the Germans who said "why worry about what is happening in the extermination camps? They're not really humans anyway."

Of course, such deranged sick people that wonder why people care about whether a baby is being aborted, will be the first to scream that people should care if they become a quadraplegic, unable to care for themselves, and people start saying "We should just terminate that guy..... afterall, he's not human since he is dependent on us for care... and we have so many other more important things to think about."
October 7, 2008

2:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Danchan writes:

SlouchingTowardBoulder writes: "Danchan, we home school our child because he is very high-spirited and the public school teachers simply ignored him and, as a result, he was struggling mightily. Does that make us "illiterate morons" in your jaundiced view?"

I used "home schooling" in quotation marks on purpose, because obviously Ms Burton was at home but not getting much "schooling". When done correctly home schooling is a wonderful thing.

Sorry for the confusion... not for the jaundice though.
October 7, 2008

3:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

Clearly many on this board are passionately opposed to abortion.

They should put an abortion ban on the state ballot, and we can debate that.

Amendment 48 is much more than an abortion ban. It gives a fertilized egg the same rights and protections of the state constitution as all of us. It lays the legal foundation for potential criminalization of routine medical practice including birth control, infertility treatments, and medical care of women with complications of pregnancy.

It is not JUST a definition as some dishonest 48 supporters would have you believe. As former state Supreme Court Justice Dubovsky explained at the governor's press conference, the Colorado constitution is self activiating. It needs no enabling legislation. If this amendment were to pass, it would insert the government, courts and lawyers into private life decisions of every type. It would impact more than 20,00 statutes throughout the state.

It's bad policy, bad law, and bad medicine.
October 7, 2008

3:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

BroncoRick69 writes:

Ritter was actually right. I believe There needs to be some sort of legislation similar to this, but this bill did not quite hit the mark. It would have to be more specific, and have cases where for example for medical reasons there would be some exemptions. It's pretty hard to determine when exactly 2 cells meeting constitutes a person doesn't it. I'm just glad Ritter didn't give in on this particular one.
October 7, 2008

3:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

JluvDC writes:

Another issue that the creators of this amendment really need to address is ectopic pregnancy. What is a woman in that situation to do if this passed? The fetus (and possibly the woman) will die when it gets too big and ruptures the fallopian tube, but there is no safe way to remove it without killing the fetus either. This amendment is reckless.
October 7, 2008

3:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

MBR693 writes:

nobodyman writes:

"People are always criticizing Boulder but Colorado Springs is far worse. Can we get a measure on the ballot defining Colorado Springs religious zealots as subhumans?"

That's a good idea. Then when your New Order comes to power we can just kill off the people who have different political and social values. There's lots of historical precedence for vilifying one's opponents in order to do away with them. Let's see...Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Peron, Robespierre...

You're a zealot too. You just have a different value system.
October 7, 2008

3:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

O_TRAIN writes:

Ritter will vote no, I'll vote no and the majority of citizens will vote no. Not really surprising.

The real story would be; "Ritter opposes Personhood Amendment AND Illegal Immigration"
October 7, 2008

3:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

Dr. Surrey, a leading infertility doctor who spoke at the press conference, discussed ectopic pregnancy, the leading cause of death in the first trimester:

"I may not be a lawyer, but I can read, and I don't see anywhere in this amendment that it makes any exceptions if that "person" is an ectopic pregnancy."
October 7, 2008

4:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

LadyBird112 writes:

If crazies like NutChuckie will be inhabiting FantasyLand, I mean, heaven, then I am gung-ho for goin' to hell with the sinners, I mean, the realistic people who don't let bedtime stories rule their life. What's more, I'll enjoy an afterlife that isn't filled with self-righteous ninnies.
October 7, 2008

5:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

NeilT writes:

allen12 (your age?) is a weak, brainwashed fool and proud of it!
October 7, 2008

6:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Sundog writes:

nobodyman-
"And then we, along with the British, bombed the crap out of the civilian target Dresden after the Russians had nearly descended on Berlin, killing an estimated 20-60,000 civilians, including babies, born or otherwise, for no reason other than revenge."

This is typical lib-garbage; two wrongs justify your position, which is killing babies. Your fingers weren't really all that dangerous there.

"Let me guess, you support the Iraq war wherein the initial invasion we killed 30,000 civilians- also including fetuses, zygotes, embryos, alien-looking-things, fishythings and what have you- supposedly "spreading freedom and democracy." Abortion is the least of our issues when it comes to murder."

Sorry, can't let you guess if you will do so in such a typically lib-garbage way again. Two wrongs don't make your position right, and putting words into my mouth doesn't work either. And remember that you were a fishything yourself, cocky. Lucky bit of fortune for you that your Mom was not a murderer, or we wouldn't have the benefit of your lame reasoning, and you would not have the benefit of anything, never having seen the light of day.

But if you stay true to your previously evident line of thinking (such as it is), your argument will run something like, "yeah, and I'll bet you endorse the killing of innocent Mayan women and children by the believers of their gods, and the killing of the poor soldiers of Xerxes by the Spartans, you killer Neocon, you."

Your conclusion that abortion is not of any importance, that a mother can kill her own child in a war of preferences, and call it an issue of freedom of choice is no different than the freedom of choice a rapist/murderer makes. Freedom of choice, and he/she chose to murder....well we don't respect that choice either.

Get a dishrag or towel, you've spilled Kool-Aid all over the front of your tie dye shirt. You should pay more attention to your fingers after all.
October 7, 2008

6:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Sundog writes:

Sorry, Nobodyman, "Free"thinker was the author of the above quotes.
October 7, 2008

6:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

NeilT writes:

allen12-"Come on NeilT buddy. What's wrong? Truth hurt?"

What truth? Your little book? That little instruction manual of yours that you wouldn't know what to do without? Yeah, you're weak and brainwashed.

allen12-"Yea, I am 12 years old because somebody didn't scape out of a womb."

It's never to late, "buddy." Do your mama proud, son. Free her from the years of regret due to her poor choice.
October 8, 2008

2:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

LockeRobster writes:

The amazing thing to me in all of this is that everyone posting to this thread was once a "little mass of cells". How conveniently some forget that all human life begins in the same manner, with a fertlized egg. And how quick we are to dismiss and end such life because it gets in our way.

How far we have "evolved" as a species and society! Life isn't actually life anymore, as long as we say it isn't.

And to the argument that a child is actually a person when it can exist separated from its mother: If being dependent on the mother for life means that life can still be terminated, then why can't a mother end the life of her dependent child after birth? The child after birth is still dependent on the mother for its care and well-being, and we hold those mothers accountable for neglecting those children. Should we do away with those laws, too?

The inhumanity of those who want to continue to kill unborn children at-will is the exact same thing as what the Nazis did to the Jews: A group of people are deemed unwanted, and are subjected to extermination for no other reason than someone wanted them dead.
October 8, 2008

7:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

blu_boi writes:

How about if this country just enact a law requiring Fundamentalist Christians and other religious fanatics to register as such and if they break any of the laws of their faith they suffer the penalty proscribed by their archaic tomes?

Some Examples:
Disobey your parents = Death by stoning
Overeat = Death by plague
Loose women = cut off their nose and ears
Rape = rapist and victim forced to marry each other

The rest of us could enact sensible laws designed to protect living, breathing human beings (not globs of cells) from acts of violence and greed in order to avoid social chaos. No more laws to protect us from ourselves, no more laws based solely on moral principles, no more laws designed to socially engineer a politically correct society…
October 8, 2008

8:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

blacksho89 writes:

"Danchan writes:

If this amendment passes, the entire globe is going to assume that Coloradan's are illiterate morons."

No apostrophes are needed to indicate plurals, you illiterate moron.
October 8, 2008

8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

cassidy22 writes:

You can continue ranting on about Nazis and religious fundamentalism.

I'm standing by the stance that this Amendment is too vague, too extreme and VERY far reaching.

Pro-lifers, if you want to ban abortions, then petition for a law that bans abortions. And quit claiming "it's only a definition"

This definition also will ban several forms of very responsible birth control. It will put women with ectopic pregnancies at risk of death. It will put pregnant women with cancer in a place where they have no choice. It could very well put women who don't even know they are pregnant at risk for reprisal for their behavior - when they don't even know.

So quit throwing your bible verses at me. Quit calling me a baby killer, and face the fact that this Amendment was poorly thought out, vaguely worded, and it's impacts could be too far reaching. Even Catholics are against it, because they can see the reality of it. It's reckless, and dangerous. So have the nerve to try to push the laws you really want, don't hide behind this poorly written piece of propoganda. Write the laws you really want, and then let's vote. If you let this pass, then you want total control over a woman's body during her reproductive years, and that disgusts me.
October 8, 2008

8:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sundog writes:

Blueboi: "...no more laws based solely on moral principles..." I suppose you don't realize that your little rant there is based on your own moral principles, and your proposal would further your own political correctness.
October 8, 2008

9:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

blu_boi writes:

Sundog,
Yes, I do have moral principles but I don't expect laws to be enacted based solely on my principles. As far as being politically correct I'm a gun toting, lesbian. I recycle, drive an electric car around town, a SUV across country and I eat red meat. I drink beer and I smoke. Sometimes I vote Republican, sometimes Democrat and every once in a while I'll vote for a third party candidate. I don't expect others to think or act like me and I refuse to conform to anyone elses idea of political correctness.
October 8, 2008

9:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

FlyfishDude52 writes:

So if they become a person at conception can we use them as a tax deduction?
October 8, 2008

10:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

BigSky182 writes:

blu_boi: Marry Me?
October 8, 2008

10:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

BigSky182 writes:

Things to think about if a fertilized egg "would enjoy all the protections of the state constitution, including inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process, supporters say.":

Miscarriage = Social Security Death benefits. Someone owes my family for the loss of 11 children over the past 15 years.

Pregnant women can ride in the HOV Lane

Fertilized egg now qualifies for welfare benefits

Pregnant women cannot enter a bar. Egg is under 21 and can't be left outside.

Having sex with a pregnant woman could cause you to be arrested as a pedophile for having sex in front of a minor.
October 8, 2008

3:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

LisaofLongbourn writes:

"Ritter, an anti-abortion Catholic, said the measure doesn't take into account cases of rape or incest - putting a fertilized egg in front of a mother's health." - the article

So what exactly would Ritter like the amendment to say? "Person shall be defined in the Colorado Constitution as a human being from the moment of fertilization except in cases of rape or incest, in which case person shall be defined as beginning at birth"? That's pretty inconsistent.

We the supporters of Amendment 48 are trying to make laws based on reality, rather than agenda. Sure, we want abortion to be illegal. But look at it this way. There is no other point at which to draw the line of personhood. At fertilization an egg and a sperm unite to form a zygote, a unique self-building cell with all the chromosomes and unique DNA of an individual. You cannot draw the line at viability because advancing technology continually changes that point. Nothing changed in the baby to make it more viable this century than last. You cannot define personhood at birth because no one can identify a difference in the baby/fetus/embryo between one hour prior and one hour after delivery.

Yet our Constitution uses the word "Person" without definition. It is clearly not self explanatory (I would argue the rights of personhood have been withheld in practice from minors and possibly from the seriously ill.) Since the Constitution is vague, we are trying to fix it in order that it may be correctly and consistently applied.

This would cause legislative difficulties? If our other laws are built on a false premise of this magnitude, ought they not be changed, abolished, or differently enforced? I understand that there are concerns such as the case of eptopic pregnancies. This amendment does not say that one life of one person trumps the life of another person. It may, by defining the rights already guaranteed under our Constitution, cause the life of one person to trump the choices of another person - but this is consistent with the rest of our law, as has been stated: the choices of a murderer do not trump the rights of a person to life. So it should be.

To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
October 8, 2008

4:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

LisaofLongbourn writes:

"Abortion increases breast cancer risk by 40%. Vote yes on 48."

There are statistics and studies on this. Was the Race for the Cure the best place to demonstrate? Maybe not. But don't women have the right to know what risks they're causing? And the Susan G. Comen foundation supports Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest provider of abortions. That sounds about as suspicious as Enron to me.

"milehiGUY is telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. Isn't that just like a Republican MALE!!!" - freethought

I don't think we're trying to tell women what to do with their own bodies. We're telling them what a person is, and thus that if a person is in their bodies, they shouldn't murder them.

To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
October 8, 2008

4:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

LisaofLongbourn writes:

"God doesn't have anything to do with anything because he's a mythological being.
- Thus we firmly believe life begins when someone is born."
- nobodyman

I must say that even if your first statement was a provable fact, nobodyman, the second does not logically follow as the original logical statement that you are mocking did. If God is mythological, there is no reason to believe that life begins at any specific moment. Life, matter, energy, thought, and belief are all random.

"As long as it's unborn life, I am sure. If it's not Christian, not straight, not white, not inline with what you wackos think is moral I am sure you don't respect it." - nobodyman

Christians respect life more than choices. We don't have to respect the choices of anyone for any reason, but we don't try to take that choice away with the life of the chooser. That is true respect for life. You don't see Christians running around chopping arms and legs off of people because they disagree with them. This is what is done to preborn persons.

To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
October 8, 2008

4:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

LisaofLongbourn writes:

"Aren't their [sic] more important things in our daily lives to focus on than whether or not some impoverished urban teenage mother is aborting a baby that nobody wants in a city you don't live in? - nobodyman

I can't think of anything more important than saving lives. What do you suggest?

"It gives a fertilized egg the same rights and protections of the state constitution as all of us. - queen_gorgo

Yes, exactly. Nicely put.

"It's pretty hard to determine when exactly 2 cells meeting constitutes a person doesn't it. [sic] - broncorick69

No, that isn't so hard. See my first comment. How do you know you're a person? How do you know your coworkers are people?

"I may not be a lawyer, but I can read, and I don't see anywhere in this amendment that it makes any exceptions if that "person" is an ectopic pregnancy." Dr. Surrey quoted by - queen_gorgo

This is obviously because the amendment doesn't advise anything to be done about persons, except that their rights be duly enforced just like yours and mine. Again, the Constitution gives rights to persons. What is a person? You cannot possibly say that a person is less a person because of its physical location. You might say that the person's life will tragically end due to our limited medical capabilities, and that to preserve the life of another human, it MUST be taken before it would naturally die prematurely, but you cannot say that it is any less a person.

I requested that the comment by NeilT advising suicide for a twelve-year-old commenter be removed.

"And to the argument that a child is actually a person when it can exist separated from its mother: If being dependent on the mother for life means that life can still be terminated, then why can't a mother end the life of her dependent child after birth? The child after birth is still dependent on the mother for its care and well-being, and we hold those mothers accountable for neglecting those children. Should we do away with those laws, too?
- Lockerobster

To end on a good note, I completely applaud your comment, Lockerobster.

To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
October 8, 2008

5:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Sundog writes:

Bluboi: That is nonsense. Of course you would expect laws to be passed in your favor. For example, if you lived in Iran, being a lesbian, you would be buried up to your neck and stoned to death. How's that for a law? Be in favor of that one? If you "refused to conform" to Sharia law then good luck. Thank God we don't live in such a system, but to act like it doesn't matter to you is, well, not accurate, I'm sure.
October 8, 2008

10:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

Lisa the liar (are you related to Liar in Chief Yankee?),

"You might say that the person's life will tragically end due to our limited medical capabilities, and that to preserve the life of another human, it MUST be taken before it would naturally die prematurely"

What Colorado statute says that? What doctor is going to want to be the first one to take that chance to find out?

"Abortion increases breast cancer risk by 40%. Vote yes on 48."

There are statistics and studies on this.

"In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer. A summary of their findings, titled Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop, can be found at http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-... ."

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/fa...

Take your lies elsewhere.
October 8, 2008

10:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

"a unique self-building cell"

try self building without a uterus.

Did you study at the Yankee school of biology?
October 9, 2008

5:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

blu_boi writes:

Sundog,
You keep skipping over the word "solely". I wrote, "I don't expect laws to be enacted based solely on my principles" and I shouldn't have to follow laws based solely on your principles.
There should be a separation between moral codes and laws in a society that respects freedom of (and from) religion.
October 9, 2008

9:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sundog writes:

Ok, now we are getting down to it. You don't have a morality to offer, and that's the problem with agnostic/atheist arguments. If this is incorrect, perhaps you will enlighten us with some basic tenets of the moral codes that you espouse which are not linked to any Judeo-Christian or other religious thought. I doubt if you can. Rejecting such codes is not a code in itself, for it puts forward nothing. Yours is a commonly-heard line of thinking that offers nothing except rejection and frequently belittlement of Christianity. Take away the rejection of Christian principles and atheism is totally vapid.

Home › Politics › Colorado Government

'Life' starts to get ugly at Capitol

Hecklers disrupt Ritter's opposition to ballot measure

By David Montero, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published October 7, 2008 at 10:57 a.m.Updated October 7, 2008 at 11:55 p.m.

More Colorado Government

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs

Published October 7, 2008 at 10:57 a.m.
Updated October 7, 2008 at 11:55 p.m.