Amendment 48 opens a dangerous door
This letter has not been edited
L. Fortier, Parker
Published October 11, 2008 at 6 p.m.
Praise to Dr. Moffatt who pointed out the many situations in which women could die without medically aided abortions, including infections and ectopic pregnancies. Sadly, there will always be abortions. (Sarah Palin and her daughter have proven abstinence doesn’t work.) Those who vote based on this issue must realize that if medically aided abortions aren’t allowed, often the other choice is what used to be quite common and deadly: back-alley abortions. NO ONE likes the idea of abortion, but you either support one form or another. According to my physician, Amendment 48 also includes birth control pills and could lead to prosecution of parents and doctors after in vitro procedures wherein extra fertilized eggs are disposed of. This is a dangerous door to open.
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 11, 2008
8:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
LetsThink writes:
There is no question that every moral person should vote for Amendment 48.
We must not err on the side of killing an unborn baby. That solution hasn't worked. 4 Million babies have been killed since Roe vs. Wade.
Something is seriously wrong with the morals of America. And God surely must be becoming very angry with those who have killed all these babies. Let's not push Him to find out. How many abortionists will spend eternity separated from Him; because they chose to defy what He wants? Is it worth taking that irrevesible risk??
And what a waste of potential, killing an unborn baby. What if one of these babies had been a Martin Luther King, or Abraham Lincoln?? Is the baby somehow evil, just because a man forced a woman to have sex??? NO. The baby did nothing wrong. And it has great potential, that is snuffed out.
I could go on for hours. There is no defense for abortion.
October 11, 2008
8:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
Awww,c'mon.....who says medically necessary abortions won't be allowed? Birth control pills?Abortion for convenience is as legal as a vehicle inspection,and most of the abortions perpetrated are strictly for convenience.THAT'S what the anti-48s want.The rest of us would like the killing stopped.
October 12, 2008
3:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
How many first born were killed by God in the Bible? Guess he's going to hell too. he spread hate, discontent and murder. Why don't you do gooders start a billion dollar fund to take care of the unborn and set up homes for the ones not wanted? Seems to me if God wanted us all in heaven he wouldn't have created earth, why not just bypass it and go direct to heaven and prevent all this carnage? Your story won't wash. You base your pleas on a book written by men....
October 12, 2008
5:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
becca00 writes:
@ NotThinking: Yes, we know. You could go on for hours. It's all you ever talk about. Not that you make much sense when you do, but it's pretty much your single topic of conversation--I bet you're great fun at parties.
Yes, you are correct, any potential fetus could be another Martin Luther King or Abraham Lincoln. It could also be Ted Bundy, Adolf Hitler, or Josef Stalin. But it's merely potential.
Forcing women to be slaves to an accident of biology is offensive in the extreme. Forcing women to risk death is as equally offensive as abortion, if not moreso. An undifferentiated bundle of cells should in no way be considered as having more rights than a living, breathing, independently existing human being.
And I personally don't care what you think your god has to say on the subject--that's between you and your god.
October 12, 2008
8:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
denverrose writes:
The writer says MANY. I thought that it was such a small percentage that were MEDICALLY NEEDED. So much for the lies of the left.
October 12, 2008
8:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Shadow writes:
Lets break down abortion to a basic thing. Lets talk responsibility of having a child. For those who do not want a child the question should be asked why did they not use a contraceptive. If you want to play, be ready to pay.
Now not all people are responsible when it comes to this. Just look at the rise in STD's in this country. You wanna play, your going to pay.
How many children arein America now that do not have a loving family because their mother or and father didn't want a child but just wanted a little nookie? LOTS OF THEM.
Dropping the unwanted child off at a firestation or hospitol is just as bad as aborting this life. If you did not want the child, you should have been a little more careful. As stated earlier by someone many pregnacies are just an after thought because the party involved soes not want to take responsibility for their actions.
Now isn't the debate on abortion more a debate on personal responsibility and lack there of?
October 12, 2008
9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
2Disgusted writes:
Why is that those who oppose abortions also oppose educating our youth to avoid pregnancies besides just abstinence? Why do they oppose making contraception more available? Why do they believe that a Federal or state law prohibiting abortions will make abortions go away? Has this worked with making drugs illegal? Why are these people who are primarily Republicans looking to the government for a solution to the abortion issue --- is this just cruel irony? Don't look to government to solve the abortion issue --- change our culture. Reduce the need for abortions; provide accessible alternatives. What if Colorado adopts 48; a woman can go to another state to get one --- we will just be exporting abortions. What if Roe v.Wade is overturned? Women will go to states that allow abortion. What if a Federal Law is passed prohibiting abortions; women will go to Canada and Mexico, both very accessible to almost all of the population of the US. Where is this anti-abortion crowd going with a political and legislative solution? I can't figure it out --- it won't solve the abortion issue. A law on the books satisifies them? Then we need to fund the investigation, enforcement, and adjudication of those laws --- more government.
October 12, 2008
9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ari writes:
"LetsThink" claims, "There is no defense for abortion." Yet implicit within "LetsThink's" other statements is the beginning of just such a defense. While "LetsThink" arbitrarily conflates a fertilized egg with a born "baby" -- despite the obvious and radical differences between the two -- "LetsThink" also points out that a fertilized egg is merely a "potential" person, not an actual one. A fertilized egg into its early development doesn't even have any organs. More importantly, it is completely contained within and biologically dependent upon the woman's body.
But "LetsThink's" post does serve an important function: it reminds us that Amendment 48 is about religious faith. It is an attempt to enforce religious dogma through force of law. Notably, existing Colorado statutes define first-degree murder as intentionally killing a "person" -- a crime subject to life in prison or the death penalty.
Diana Hsieh and I summarize and detail in our paper, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life:"
http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/...
Thanks,
Ari Armstrong
October 12, 2008
11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
TheDenverB writes:
VOTE NO!
October 12, 2008
12:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
Lies? Well,let's think about that a moment.....
The local Lefties seem dreadfully worried that a woman whose life is threatened by her pregnancy won't get care.What they're not telling you is that the overwhelming majority of abortions are done for convenience only.That makes it murder nearly all of the time,and does anyone REALLY think the very few exceptions won't be cared for?.They were even when abortion was a felony everywhere.
The local Lefties ALSO do not want you to remember that contraception has been the height of fashion for so many years that those needing contraception in the early years of high-fashion contraception grew out of that need decades ago.
The local Lefties furthermore do not want you to see the racism that permeates their pro-death position.We should remember that African-Americans are trotted out at the Lefties' every opportunity as both the shining example of the goodness and mercy of the Left and the utter evil of the non-Left(white people,that is).Those selfsame African-Americans have many more children per capita than other ethnic groups,and obviously (quite sensibly)are rejecting abortion as birth control.Sure looks like kill-whitey to me.
I guess we can stand kill-whitey as it applies to grown men who volunteer for the military,but some of us think applying kill-whitey to babies is a bit much.
Folks,you'll also note that the arguments of Our Good Frends on the Left are a tad short on logic,and a tad long on indivdual,personal attacks.You'd think that with all the trillions the Left spends on education (and the trillions more they want) we'd get a better variety of argument than that for which we have paid.
October 12, 2008
2:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
My daughter's best friend died because she was pregnant and had cancer. She lived in Florida at the time and was too far along for an abortion, or cancer treatment, which would have killed the little girl she and her husband wanted so much, they already had two boys.
She miscarried later and because of the advanced stage of her pregnancy she almost bled to death in her living room.
By then the cancer had spread to her brain. Surgery failed and she died.
A two day process to abort would have started her on treatment much sooner. She might still have died. I will not vote for an ammendment that makes this process happen to other women.
October 12, 2008
3 p.m.
Suggest removal
grandpaw writes:
How much difference is there between having a baby because you want to have a baby and having a baby because the law requires it? Which kind of parent would you want?
October 12, 2008
5:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
dianahsieh writes:
The advocates of Amendment 48 claim that a newly-created embryo -- a single cell without any human attributes except DNA -- is a human person with a right to life. They wish to force that view on everyone, whatever the costs. Consider:
* Amendment 48 would make abortion first-degree murder, except perhaps to save the woman's life. First-degree murder is defined in Colorado law as deliberately causing the death of a "person," a crime punished by life in prison or the death penalty. So women and their doctors would be punished with the severest possible penalty under law for terminating a pregnancy -- even in cases of rape, incest, and fetal deformity.
* Amendment 48 would ban any form of birth control that might sometimes prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus -- including the birth control pill, morning-after pill, and IUD. The result would be many more unintended pregnancies and unwanted children in Colorado.
* Amendment 48 would ban in vitro fertilization because the process usually creates more fertilized eggs than can be safely implanted in the womb. So every year, hundreds of Colorado couples would be denied the joy of a child of their own.
Amendment 48 has very sharp teeth. Yet such consequences seem to be of little concern to the advocates of Amendment 48. They think that the men and women of Colorado should be forced to sacrifice for the sake these new "persons" in the womb.
So we must ask: Is a fertilized egg a human person with a right to life? The only rational answer is "NO."
An embryo or fetus is wholly dependent on the woman for its basic life-functions. It goes where she goes, eats what she eats, and breathes what she breathes. It lives as an extension of her body, contained within and dependent on her for its survival. It is only a potential person, not an actual person.
That situation changes radically at birth. The newborn baby exists as a distinct organism, separate from his mother. Although still very needy, he lives his own life. He is a person, and his life must be protected as a matter of right.
So when a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy she does not violate the rights of any person. Instead, she is properly exercising her own rights over her own body in pursuit of her own happiness.
For a detailed analysis, see the issue paper "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person" by Ari Armstrong and myself. It's available at:
http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/...
The sad fact is that Amendment 48 is based on sectarian religious dogma, not objective science or philosophy. It is a blatant attempt to impose theocracy in America.
Please vote NO on 48!
Diana Hsieh
Founder, Coalition for Secular Government
http://www.seculargovernment.us
October 12, 2008
5:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Patron_Drinker writes:
me2,
Your story is a load of bull. Florida abortion law provides for instances where the mother's life is at risk, even allowing "partial-birth" abortions in such cases.
If that person existed, either she'd have gotten pregnant knowing about the cancer and the likelihood that she'd have to terminate the pregnancy in order to obtain treatment, or the cancer would have developed and metastasized too quickly for treatment to be a possibility.
October 12, 2008
9:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
"Over and over,again and again"......Well,that's true.The Doc said it at 9:00 and again at 9:18 this evening.And Diana Hsieh said it at 5:14 this evening on this thread.She also said it at the exact same time in the exact same words on the other abortion thread.
Spam,spam,spam,spam
Spam,spam,spam,spam.
Lovely Spam
Wonderful Spam.
October 12, 2008
10:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Patronizing Drunk claims me2 is a liar. Drunk has no proof, other than me2 has a different opinion than Drunk.
But that's the cons on the right for you. Anyone who does not think the way they do is automatically a liar.
Vote No on 48.
October 12, 2008
11:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
Not exactly,Peterpi.What Patron said was a translation.Here is his statement in all the brilliance of its original PC "I regret so deeply to differ with my faithful comrade in The Great Struggle,but a non-judgemental nonbiased examination of other information heretofore withheld by the Revisionist Running Dogs of Plutocrat Exploitation indicates that while what you have told us illuminates the Great Satan for what he is,there are aspects to the entire subtext that must also be made known to the proletariat."
October 13, 2008
12:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
hunterman writes:
There is no question that every moral person must vote against Amendment 48. It is a mindless proposal put forth and supported by ignorant fundamentalists who want to shove their mindless superstitions down other's throats. NO ON 48.
October 13, 2008
12:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
it is so tough to give the american taliban any shred of credibility when you consider that their position on abortion won't actually decrease abortions...leaving us to wonder why they would adopt such a counterproductive stance.
maybe it would be easier to respect them if they had humanity's best interests at heart instead of the church's.
October 13, 2008
12:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
I(and others) have more than once invited Jay to share his reasoning for his faith in the statement he so often makes.He has never responded to those invitations,instead continuing to make his faith-based statements.I have said before that of all the sects in the American religious landscape,only Jay's religion has zero tolerance for the others-who have on many occasions exhorted us to tolerate Jay's ilk.
October 13, 2008
9:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
BigSky182 writes:
Who put you in charge of my soul?
How about you leave my relationship with God between me and God?
October 13, 2008
9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
Shadow writes: "Now isn't the debate on abortion more a debate on personal responsibility and lack there of?"
Well said, Shadow!
Personal Accountability. Once you know where a person stands on the issue of personal accountability - you know where they stand on 90% of everything else.
a) Every abortion ends with a dead baby.
b) The question is: Is it worth a dead baby to you?
Plain and simple. Sometimes that answer is "yes". I believe abortion can be justified when the mother's life is at risk or in the case of rape, but that doesn't change the fact that we are talking about a baby and we are talking about a life.
Sex Ed SHOULD be taught - in the home where it belongs. Schools have enough on their hands trying to teach English, Math and Science without also being responsible to raise your kids for you. Have overall teen-pregnancies gone up or down since we've move Sex Ed. into the schools?
October 13, 2008
9:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
CWW writes:
To quote an old saying that I grew up with:
"Keep your laws off my body!"
Vote NO on 48!
October 13, 2008
9:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Danchan writes:
hunterman writes:
"There is no question that every moral person must vote against Amendment 48. It is a mindless proposal put forth and supported by ignorant fundamentalists who want to shove their mindless superstitions down other's throats. NO ON 48."
SECONDED. And I can joyfully state that I already have voted "NO" on 48 and I hope that all moral thinking adults will do the same.
October 13, 2008
10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
ladida writes:
I think it's interesting when the argument is made "well, they should have used birth control if they didn't want a baby". First, no birth control other than sterilization is 100% effective. Even if someone was using birth control to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, there is a chance it could happen.
Second, if this amendment passes, most forms of birth control could be against the law since they prevent implantation of a fertilized egg...which would then be a "person" with all of it's own rights.
Hard for the people sponsoring this amendment to say that the don't just want to push their moral views on everyone when, by default, that's exactly what this proposal does.
October 13, 2008
10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
cassidy22 writes:
Ladida has it right. On one hand, we are being told we are immoral by voting no on this amendment AND being told that we want to kill babies by not supporting this amendment. but then, this amendment will ban most forms of birth control - the pill being one of the most commonly used forms (also used for medical reasons other than birth control) so how does that help reduce unwanted pregnancies? You have now taken control of family planning away from women, as we can't use any form of hormonal birth control (pill, patch, ring, etc) and have to rely on abstinence (doens't work) or surgical sterlization (which most docs won't support until you are of a certain age, or have had a family)
So, this is a lose-lose situation for everyone. Now we have more unwanted pregnancies, and no legal option for any woman in danger or otherwise - so it's back to coat hangers in back alleys. I don't understand how ANYONE could support such vague and far reaching language as this. Seriously, pro-lifers, have the BALLS to introduce an abortion ban - this is subversive, restrictive, and inane.
October 13, 2008
11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
walong writes:
What is dangerous is ignoring known science in order to perpetuate one's personal bias. Science has long established that a new human being begins his/her life at conception. It is that simple, and there is no other "magic moment" which serves a a scientific justification for when legal personhood could/should otherwise be bestowed.
It is equally wrong and dangerous to advocate the denial of legal personhood for any living human being, but that is what pro-abortion has done for decades. This is why 90% of Downs Syndrome babies are aborted -- people put judgments of valuation and convenience on human life.
Opposing 48 is to continue to deny known facts and assert that human life is a disposable commodity.
October 13, 2008
11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
ladida writes: "First, no birth control other than sterilization is 100% effective."
You missed one. If you're not emotionally ready to deal with the possibility of getting pregnant - keep you knickers on. That's 100% effective too.
Choies and Responsibility.
October 13, 2008
11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
walong writes:
dianahsieh writes:
> So we must ask: Is a fertilized egg a human person with a right to
> life? The only rational answer is "NO."
> The sad fact is that Amendment 48 is based on sectarian religious
> dogma, not objective science or philosophy. It is a blatant attempt
> to impose theocracy in America.
dianahseih: You are asserting misinformation as fact, and misrepresenting fact as opinion or dogma. Clinical embryology openly refutes your attempts to dehumanize human life at its earliest stages of existence:
KEITH MOORE AND T.V.N. PERSAUD, The Developing Human: Clinically
Oriented Embryology (6th ed. only) (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company,
1998): "Human development is a continuous process that begins when an
oocyte (ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (or spermatozoon)
from a male. ... the embryo begins to develop as soon as the oocyte is
fertilized. ... Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte
and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an
embryo). ... Human development begins at fertilization, the process
during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or
oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly
specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a
unique individual."
WILLIAM J. LARSEN, Human Embryology (New York: Churchill Livingstone,
1997): "In this text, we begin our description of the developing human
with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells
or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic
development of a new individual. ... Fertilization takes place in the
oviduct ... resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single
diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this
point. .... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as
the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
RONAN O'RAHILLY AND FABIOLA MULLER, Human Embryology & Teratology (New
York: Wiley-Liss, 1994): "Fertilization is an important landmark
because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human
organism is thereby formed."
October 13, 2008
1:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Cowboy, we are talking personhood -- a legal and ethical/religious concept -- not human beingness.
Funny how all these pro-lifers are suddenly jumping on the bandwagon of contraception. Most pro-lifers I've met are just as opposed to contraception as they are abortion. Women are for making babies, don'tcha know? Men rule the world, and leave the little missus to take care of minor details like raising kids and housework.
Lastly, as far as "not having sex" is concerned, there are way too many cultures where, if a woman refuses sex from a man, that is the absolute worst insult a man can face in that culture, and men in that culture are free to take whatever action is necessary to erase that insult.
Amendment 48 is one group's efforts to impose its view on everyone else.
You think abortion is an abomination? Don't have one.
You think birth control is libertine sin? Don't use it.
But, please leave the rest of us alone!
October 13, 2008
4:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
Aww,Peterpi....Are you telling us that THIS culture is one where women may not refuse sex? And most pro-lifers are against contraception? You've been hanging too long with too many of those who no play-a da game and don't make-a da rules.
And those who DO have abortions don't have them all the time.When they DON'T have abortions,they also DON'T leave the taxpayer-or the taxpayer's pocket-alone.
October 13, 2008
4:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"I (and others) have more than once invited Jay to share his reasoning for his faith in the statement he so often makes.He has never responded to those invitations"
this is a lie, jiminy.
I (and many others) have given you this information many times. in fact, the last time you shook the etchisketch, i offered to just point you to one of the threads in which this point was established.
just because you are uncomfortable with answering politically or theologically inconvenient questions doesn't mean that you get to just stick your fingers in your ears and take your ball and go home.
you folks on the far religious right simply can't justify your dogmatic, counterproductive position on abortion.
you want to reduce abortions?
support realistic sex ed and access to contraceptives.
otherwise, you're part of the problem, not the solution...all because of your beliefs in the supernatural....just like you are on stem cell, gay marriage, creationism in science class, etc, etc, etc....
start being part of the solution.
leave your "feelings" at the door when it comes to public policy.
October 13, 2008
5:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
walong writes:
> you folks on the far religious right simply can't justify your dogmatic, counterproductive position on abortion.
Can you cite scientific evidence to refute the embryologists?
I thought not.
> otherwise, you're part of the problem, not the solution...all because of your beliefs in the supernatural
I'm asking for facts, all you're delivering is diatribe. That's certainly the root of the problem.
October 13, 2008
5:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
what do embryologists have to do with your position being counterproductive because it doesn't actually reduce abortions, walong?
again...if you're not part of the solution (ie, actually reducing abortions through the support of realistic sex ed, access to condoms, etc) then you're part of the problem (ie, worrying more about the church's best interests rather than humanity's)
October 13, 2008
8:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
walong writes:
> what do embryologists have to do with your position being
> counterproductive because it doesn't actually reduce abortions,
> walong?
Why is there any need to reduce the number of abortions at all, if abortion is safe and legal and there is nothing wrong with it?
October 13, 2008
8:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Why is there any need to reduce the number of abortions at all"
personally, i'm with the majority of americans...keeping abortion safe, legal and rare. i'm kind of surprised that you're not interested in reducing abortions. how did that come about?
i'm seriously curious. at what point did you decide that it was more important to follow the will of your church than it was to actually support efforts that are effective at reducing the number of abortions performed in this country every year?
but hey, it's a free country. and you folks in the minority on this issue serve a very special purpose too.
you are a very good reminder for those who consider using "feelings" as the foundation for their public policy positions instead of facts.
just out of curiosity....how do you feel about embryonic stem cell research?
October 13, 2008
9:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
walong writes:
> ... keeping abortion safe, legal and rare. i'm kind of surprised that
> you're not interested in reducing abortions. how did that come
> about?
Nice try, but that isn't what I actually said.
You haven't answered the question: Why "rare"? By your logic: IF there is nothing wrong with abortion, and it is safe & legal, there doesn't seem to be any logical reason to make it "rare" or attempt to reduce the number of abortions.
But by saying it should be "rare", you necessarily infer that there IS some underlying reason to object to abortions.
This "safe, legal, and rare" is a self-contradictory position. So please come down off your horse about religion and explain the logical reason(s) for wanting to make abortions "rare".
October 13, 2008
10:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Queen_Gorgo writes:
When's Wally going to start quoting the Declaration of Independence?
October 13, 2008
10:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
i'm not following your rationalization for not supporting steps to reduce abortions, walong.
there's nothing "wrong" with heart attacks, but i'm not sure why you would support a position that doesn't reduce them either.
again...can you tell us how you came to holding a position that doesn't actually reduce abortions in lieu of one that does?
October 14, 2008
8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
walong writes:
Come on jay, it's a simple question: why do you think abortions should be rare?
October 14, 2008
5 p.m.
Suggest removal
grandpaw writes:
Most people would like for divorces to be rare. But that doesn't mean that getting a divorce should be a criminal offense. There are all kinds of social activities that most people wish were rare, but that doesn't mean most people think they should be criminal offenses. Most people wish abortions were rare because that would mean a society in which fewer people chose not to have abortions, and such a society is more desirable than the current situation. But choosing not to have an abortion because of one's moral feelings is quite different from choosing not to have one because it is criminal. Criminal laws rarely improve morals.
October 14, 2008
8:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
Well,folks,Jay STILL has not told us of the information he used and the logical steps he took in reaching his conclusion that making abortion illegal won't reduce the number of abortions.Again,Jay,please tell us the information you used and the logical steps you took in reaching your conclusion that making abortion illegal won't reduce the number of abortions.You've told us your conclusion so many times with such conviction and certitude that the reader would want for you to share whatever information it is that so convinced you.Me,I am convinced otherwise,and so are many others.
October 14, 2008
8:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
Grandpaw,you're right.Criminal laws rarely improve morals,but the intent of criminalizing a behavior isn't moral uplift.The intent of criminalizing a behavior is the enhancement of public safety that results from the diminuition of the undesired behavior.
October 14, 2008
8:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
walong writes:
> Most people would like for divorces to be rare. But that doesn't
> mean that getting a divorce should be a criminal offense.
I don't think the equivalence holds, since divorce doesn't set out to deliberately take the life of a human being.
Evidently Jay is too busy or has chosen to go silent. Does anyone else care to tell us why abortion should be "rare"?
October 14, 2008
10:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
Walong, how about this......Abortion is homicide,the intentional ending of another person's life. There are on rare occasions,circumstances that necessitate the taking of life,such as the death penalty,or make-my-day kinds of self-defense.In all of those instances,whenever justification is asserted,there is intense review as to the justifiability of the homicide.Why should not abortion be treated just like other homicides,and subjected to the same scrutiny?
Even Jay sensibly concedes that homicide of any sort damages society in ways both obvious and subtle,that the risk to society from indiscriminate murder demands very strict,very tough management.
Jay asserts justification,but wants a pass on the scrutiny?
We don't think so.
October 15, 2008
2:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
walong writes:
> Why should not abortion be treated just like other homicides,
> and subjected to the same scrutiny?
Apparently, because (a) it's too convenient, and (b) it's a multi-billion dollar industry, and (c) decades of misinformation have paid off.
October 25, 2008
3:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Atilla17 writes:
I am only 13 and I believe that we should vote no on amendment 48 for a ton of reasons. First of all, we should all have the option. What about the case of rape? What people are not realizing is that this affects everyone. I f you do not believe in abortion, then just don't get one. You don't have to make the descision for everyone else, too. Abortion is may be the only way that the mother stays alive. The baby may have a disease and may not live long anyway. Why should we make it suffer. What I am trying to say is that everyone should have the choice. VOTE NO!