Amendment 48 trails by 41 points in poll
Measure would define fertilized egg as a person
By David Montero, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published October 27, 2008 at 8:15 p.m.
Photo by Rocky Mountain News
Amendment 48 Rocky Mountain News/CBS4 poll
- ELECTION 2008: The latest election news and results from around Colorado
- THE STUMP: Rocky election reporters give the back story on campaigns, polls and other election news
- BALLOT BUILDER: Find out which candidates most closely agree with your views and track the issues
- CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS: See which candidates your friends and neighbors are giving to.
Amendment 48 is getting clobbered by more than a 2-to-1 ratio, making it unlikely that Colorado will become the first state in the nation to grant constitutional rights to a fertilized egg.
The Rocky Mountain News/ CBS4 News poll showed the Personhood Amendment losing, 68 percent to 27 percent.
The bad news for the proponents of the measure can be found inside the numbers. Of the 68 percent polled who said they'd vote against the ballot measure, 61 percent fell under a "definite no" category.
With such rigidity among those saying "definite no," pollster Lori Weigel said it's pretty much a slam-dunk that it will fail on Election Day.
"Once a ballot measure falls under 50 percent support, it is very difficult to turn around that dynamic," Weigel said. "For this ballot measure, this is not a hole to dig yourself out of, it's a chasm."
The measure made a big splash when it qualified for the Nov. 4 ballot after proponents collected more than 130,000 signatures. It quickly became entangled in the hot-button debate surrounding abortion.
As the shortest ballot measure - a point co-author Kristi Burton used as a selling point - it was represented by her as a simple measure without lofty goals.
All she said it was trying to do was define the word "person" in the Colorado Constitution.
But opponents saw it as a Pandora's Box that would force lawmakers and courts to sort through thousands of references in state statutes where laws would have to be changed, because passage would grant inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process of law to the fertilized egg.
Fofi Mendez, campaign manager for No on 48, said one of the big fears was that people wouldn't know about the ballot measure and what it meant until they stepped into the voting booth.
Opponents launched a massive campaign featuring television and radio commercials as well as multiple media events to get the message out.
Based on the polling, Mendez said it appeared to be working.
"We have been sharing with voters that were willing to listen that this is an extreme measure," Mendez said. "I think most voters are seeing that it's extreme and goes too far. Folks are hearing the message."
But Burton said she was skeptical of the poll numbers.
"I've heard different information from different people involved in past efforts," she said. "Sometimes, polls don't accurately represent what the numbers will be on Election Day. That's when we'll learn what the truth really is."
Rick Ridder, a Democratic pollster with RBI Strategies, said the truth is that the measure is failing, even in areas where it might traditionally receive more support.
He said a principal reason might be the pressing economic issues, or secondarily, the war in Iraq. Ridder said when those issues become paramount, social issues tend to take a back seat.
"Nobody is wondering how we define a person when your 401(k) is plummeting," he said.
The breadth of shallow support can be seen among groups that might appear to be friendly to the measure - including Republican men and women. Neither group eclipsed 50 percent support.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
October 27, 2008
10:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
no surprises here.
it was a terrible bill spawned from the top of mount dobson.
better luck next time.
try the south.
October 27, 2008
10:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
EZBakeOven writes:
Good! It deserves to fail.
October 27, 2008
10:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
But the 'low information' voters just love it!
October 27, 2008
11:48 p.m.
NeilT writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
October 28, 2008
12:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
tchoupitoulas writes:
This is welcome news. I'm a neonatal nurse, and I am fearful that voters would miss the possible implications. This amendment is so poorly worded that it could create a muriad of problems for women and their intimate partners.
My biggest concern as a healthcare provider is the very real possibility that the amendments poor drafting and nebulous wording could severely curtail a woman's abiilty to acquire the birth control that she desires, in the manner that she desires, when she desires it. I find it deplorable that anyone believes that a woman is incapable of making these very personal decisions for herself.
And guys....you have a potential stake in this, too. Can you still get a vasectomy if you so choose? Or what if you have testicular cancer and would like to have your own biological child...can you keep your germ cells in a viable state so you can have a child later when you're ready? Does this interfere with the forming of a "person", as defined in this amendment?
I respect my patients' beliefs regarding when life begins in utero. Every patient has a different perspective that is valid and warranted and right for her. It's a personal choice that women do not take lightly. They've done a remarkable job so far, and I have a feeling that they'll continue to do so without having to be hand-held by some governmental mandate.
October 28, 2008
12:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
LadyBird112 writes:
I guess there are more smart people in Colorado than religious nuts. Thank the Lord.
October 28, 2008
5:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
BigJoey writes:
This initiative is an ill-conceived move by religious extremists. Thank God it's failing. We can't even yet offer health care to all of the Americans have already been born. Add this to the falling stock market, the housing crisis, rising gas prices, and the war in Iraq, and you see that there are a lot more pressing issues that need to be addressed. If the authors of this amendment want to contribute to society, then they should pull their heads out of the sand and redirect their efforts to address problems that are truly threatening the country.
October 28, 2008
6:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
nicolec writes:
I'm just devastated...I was hoping to elect the first fetus to congress...
Humor aside, I agree with the previous posts- it was poorly worded and vague in many areas. It would have been very difficult to uphold without taking a lot of people's rights away.
October 28, 2008
7:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
This was just an attempt by the extreme anti-abortion nuts to slide in making it illegal to have an abortion. Sorry people the Colorado voters are a lot smarter then you give them credit for.
October 28, 2008
7:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Francesca writes:
But the 'low information' voters just love it!
Really me2? I guess any woman (and man) that doesn't want the government to make their personal healthcare and family planning decisions for them must be a 'low information' individual by your reasoning then. I disagree. Along with a lot of other people apparently.
Excellent post tchoupitoulas!
October 28, 2008
7:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
EXrepublican writes:
Gathering signatures at churches should raise the attention and Ire of everyone, as to the tax free status of denominations that engage in politics from the pulpit...
Government has no business in telling churches how to conduct themselves. Thus religion has no business in dictating to government what laws to have, or whom/what to vote for.
48 is an ill conceived wedge issue, thought up by an immature mind.
(pun intended)
October 28, 2008
7:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
ClarenceDarrow writes:
What?!
But it's such a short question! With so many small words! How could it fail?
This must be the work of Satan!!
October 28, 2008
8:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
LadyBird112 writes:
Why the confusion, freethought?
October 28, 2008
8:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Grim_Reefer writes:
crash and burn......
October 28, 2008
8:29 a.m.
Hola writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
October 28, 2008
8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Buckwheat writes:
Sorry, had no where else to put this.... Hey RMN..Why'd ya pull the story on #59 after only 3 posts??
October 28, 2008
8:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
MiddleEighth writes:
It strikes me that the proportion of Yes voters in that graphic is essentially the same as the proportion of people who still support soon-to-be-ex-President Bush.
If ever a group needed to be disenfranchised, it's this one.
October 28, 2008
8:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
Hola- You a disgusting human being!
October 28, 2008
8:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
The same margin that supported the Dred Scott decision in 1857.
The same margin that opposed women's right to vote in the 1800s.
"It is better to be with the minority and right, than with the majority and wrong." - Martin Luther King
"“When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong.”" - Eugene Debs, American Labor Organizer
"A majority of the people in the South once believed in black slavery. Did that make it moral?" - Robert Ringer
"When people ignore their conscience in the name of 'majority rule', then lynch mobs are the inevitable outcome." - Howard Reins
October 28, 2008
8:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
666 writes:
Looks like Colorado will defeat another effort by Fuhrer Dobson and his Focus on the Fallacy stormtroopers of ignorance.
You can bet that they had some substantial stake in creating this astonishingly foolish amendment. It's right up their alley (which is where it belongs).
There's no end to the ways this amendment would screw up the law if approved: you couldn't arrest a woman without also obtaining an arrest warrant for all, if any, potential fertilized eggs in her body. The state would have to issue Social Security cards at the moment of conception (provided the mother-to-be is even aware at that point), and potentially have to retire many of those Social Security numbers, since a fertilized egg has only about a 70-75% chance of taking root and becoming a child.
October 28, 2008
8:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
frosty writes:
Well said Big Joey!
October 28, 2008
9:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
Where is our resident theologist and doomsayer, LetsThinks? Perhaps he/she won't pontificate in the face of a massive loss.
I feel reassured that Coloradans can make logical choices and not succumb to the pressures of the radical right.
October 28, 2008
9:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"There is a consensus that abortion should be reduced and ways are being examined as to how to reduce it."
yep...which is why intelligent folks educated on this issue support realistic sex ed and access to contraceptives.
the majority of the country prefers that abortions remain legal, safe and rare.
this bill represents the kind of backdoor tactics that have become so common from the american taliban.
if you want to outlaw abortion you're either going to have to pony up the judicial activism on the supreme court to do it or you're going to have to live with disappointment.
i hope that one day, if the latter is the case, the fundamentalists on the religious right will stop letting poor performing politicians pull their strings every couple of years.
it would be good for the country.
October 28, 2008
9:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
why not seek common sense solutions to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies? In Norway abortions are legal, safe and RARE. They educate their kids. Don't you believe our kids can be educated? No reason for an unwanted pregnancy in this day and age. How many of you who support this measure don't believe in birth control?
October 28, 2008
9:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
BMat writes:
If this egg is the definition of person-hood then is is that egg the definition of chicken-hood?
October 28, 2008
9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
UNV_ME writes:
Abortion is and always should be a choice. No politician, no state law, no religious wack job should ever be able to force a decision, as personal as this, on ANYONE. Ever hear the saying "keep your rosaries of my ovaries"? Do as you do and I shall do the same. I will NEVER allow anyone to dictate a personal choice to me. EVER! And let's get something straight. No one is pro-abortion. People are pro-choice. So spew your religious propaganda on someone else that is naive as you are.
October 28, 2008
10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
zivo24 writes:
rickg19611 writes:
The same margin that supported the Dred Scott decision in 1857.
The same margin that opposed women's right to vote in the 1800s.
"It is better to be with the minority and right, than with the majority and wrong." - Martin Luther King
"“When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong.”" - Eugene Debs, American Labor Organizer
"A majority of the people in the South once believed in black slavery. Did that make it moral?" - Robert Ringer
"When people ignore their conscience in the name of 'majority rule', then lynch mobs are the inevitable outcome." - Howard Reins
***********************************************************************
Hmmm....Rick?
Just wondering if you believe the same reasoning you apply to this measure also applies to equality for gays in marriage and serving their country openly and honestly?
Will you concede that "mob rule", fueled by bias and rhetoric and politicans who use them to divide people over a wedge issues, is what is keeping gay Americans from equality?
October 28, 2008
10:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
wow writes:
"As the shortest ballot measure - a point co-author Kristi Burton used as a selling point - it was represented by her as a simple measure without lofty goals."
--------
Evil is always simple.
October 28, 2008
10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
BigSky182 writes:
This is why I can still vote for McCain/Palin even though I disagree with their position on abortion.
They can oppose abortion all they want... the American People are never going to allow legislation that bans it.
October 28, 2008
10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
I'm as shocked as anyone that RickyLee is capable of using common sense. Yes stop the presses
October 28, 2008
10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
kevinjjones writes:
The "definite no" doesn't indicate whether Coloradoans think the embryo is a person, it indicates whether they think Amendment 48 should be passed.
A Sept. 28 Rassmussen poll showed 40 percent of CO voters believe, correctly, that life begins at conception. But that doesn't mean their support is automatic.
Lots of strict pro-lifers aren't sure if now is the best time to pass such a measure, especially since it's useless under Roe v. Wade's mandated ultra-permissive abortion law. Even the Colorado Catholic Conference hasn't endorsed it.
Belief in the personhood of the embryo isn't only justified on religious grounds. For a rigorous, rational defense of the proposition that life begins at conception, see Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen's book _Embryo: A Defense of Human Life_. Or see the review of it I wrote over at YourHub.com.
ExRepublican writes:
"Gathering signatures at churches should raise the attention and Ire of everyone, as to the tax free status of denominations that engage in politics from the pulpit..."
It shouldn't raise anybody's ire. Issue advocacy is in no way forbidden to churches under our tax policy, though doubtless our ultra-secularist tyrants want to change that.
In fact, our dumbly restrictive tax policy only forbids churches from criticizing candidates because Lyndon Baines Johnson wanted to retaliate against some of his critics in Texas.
October 28, 2008
11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Macita183 writes:
Thank goodness it's failing! I believe every woman has a choice. To prevent unwanted pregancies the focus should be on safe-sex education, not abstience only programs (they don't work). For all those people that are pro this amendment are you willing to adopt all the unwanted children that would be born?
October 28, 2008
11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ashley writes:
Thanks, Colorado, for showing common sense. I have never understood the fundamentalist "lifers" on this issue. I, as an abortion supporter, am not trying to force anyone to have an abortion; I'm simply allowing everyone to make their own choices. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. That's between you and your god or doctor or spouse or whoever. Not my business.
But since you are so adamant about life, let's talk about being pro-life, because I'm pro-life: I believe in protecting the life that already exists. That's why I support abolition of the death penalty, strict gun control, family planning services for everyone, am worried about global warming, want healthcare for everyone, support social safety nets for people who fall and support Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, A Woman's Place and countless other organizations that take care of the people who are alive and struggling. Either every single life, from those of children we choose to have to criminals, is sacred -- or none of it is.
But somehow, in the view of many "lifers," the life of the unborn is much more holy than the life of a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy. Why is that? Is it because the unborn hasn't made any mistakes yet, and that woman perhaps has? What sort of life can you guarantee for that child once it's born, particularly if it's unwanted? You are the very people stripping the safety nets from those who need your help to care for those precious children you so desperately want born. How can you stand to look at yourselves in the mirror, as filled with hypocrisy as many of you are?
Amendment 48: Now that's powerful stupid.
October 28, 2008
11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
zivo24 writes:
"Just wondering if you believe the same reasoning you apply to this measure also applies to equality for gays in marriage and serving their country openly and honestly? Will you concede that "mob rule", fueled by bias and rhetoric and politicans who use them to divide people over a wedge issues, is what is keeping gay Americans from equality?"
Right and wrong are NEVER determined by counting.
The majority believed the world was flat at one time. Were they right or wrong?
The majority believed that slavery should be legal. Were they right or wrong?
The majority believed that refusing to allow women the right to vote was the right thing. Were they right or wrong?
Majorities or minitorities have NOTHING to do with right and wrong.
Of course, many of the cheerleaders for abortion on here are the same type that would be saying "The lynch mob must be right, since they outnumber the victims!"
October 28, 2008
12:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
BigSky182 writes:
Rick... what makes your opinion superior to mine?
Who gave you permission to dictate to me what MY morals ought to be?
Many religions believe that Marriage to multiple women is not only acceptable but preferred.
What makes your religious beliefs more sacred than theirs?
October 28, 2008
12:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Faux_Noise writes:
Rick,
I believe you're saying that the unpopularity of gays marrying or serving openly in the armed forces has no bearing on the justice of those manifestations of being treated as full and equal members of society... Good for you!
Good for you too, for being the only resident pro-birther with the guts to show up in this discussion. It appears that LetsPray, Yankee and Jimminy have turned tail and run.
October 28, 2008
1:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sunrunner writes:
The majority believed the world was flat at one time. Were they right or wrong?
The majority believed that slavery should be legal. Were they right or wrong?
The majority believed that refusing to allow women the right to vote was the right thing. Were they right or wrong?
Majorities or minitorities have NOTHING to do with right and wrong.
You're right - they don't have anything to do with right and wrong. The examples you quote are misleading. It wasn't the majority who believed that the earth was flat, it was the royalty. If you didn't agree with them, you didn't count. In an 1860 US census there were approx. 4 million slaves out of a total population of 12 million in slave states. Of all the families in those 15 slave states, about 1 in 4 had any slaves. That come out to about 8%. Is that a majority? As far as women being allowed to vote, that wasn't about what the majority thought. It was about who held the power.
As for me, I worry about the impact Amendment 48 will have on the judicial system, law enforcement, right to privacy under HIPPA, and dictating patient care. Do we really want to bog down already swamped judicial system with issues that will come of this? Do we really want to pull law enforcement officers away from protecting us and our children from DUI drivers, drug abusers and dealers and gangs? Is it right to take away a woman's right to choose how invasive her medical treatment is during pregnancy? For that matter, is it right to deny a group rights to benefit another group? Wasn't the taking over Kuwait by the Iraqi government the primary reason we went over there in the first place? Abortion and the legality and morality of that is only a small part of what this amendment will impact if it passes, and I truly hope it doesn't.
October 28, 2008
2:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
BigSky182 writes:
"what makes your opinion superior to mine?"
Because I possess the intelligence to know the level of support for or against a political issue has ZERO relevance to whether the issue is right or wrong.
Just as abolitionists knew that the majority of Americans did not support the abolition of slavery.... they also knew that the majority were dead wrong on the issue too. And now anyone with IQ above 12 knows that the majority were dead wrong.
"Who gave you permission to dictate to me what MY morals ought to be?"
You can have any moral beliefs you want. It's your loss if you choose to support slavery, or genocide, or any other sleazy actions just because others do so.
"Many religions believe that Marriage to multiple women is not only acceptable but preferred."
And some people support NAMBLA. But just because some support it, does not make it right. Just as a lynch mob is not right, just because it has the majority opinion.
"What makes your religious beliefs more sacred than theirs?"
Why are you straying off subject? Your hatred of religion, belief in some cult, or whatever you're doing by bringing up religion has zero relevance to the subject.
October 28, 2008
2:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Faux_Noise writes:
"Rick, I believe you're saying that the unpopularity of gays marrying or serving openly in the armed forces has no bearing on the justice of those manifestations of being treated as full and equal members of society... Good for you!"
I'm saying that the support for or against any issue has zero relevance to whether that issue is right or wrong. There are times when the majority is right. And times when the majority is wrong. Same with the minority.
The fact is that it is impossible for anyone to determine "right or wrong" based on the outcome of a poll. Or an election.
Anyone who mistakenly bases their morals or beliefs on the outcomes of polls or elections will be one confused individual. That will result in the person supporting an issue one day, opposing it after the next election, and then back to supporting it after the following election.
As for gay marriage..... it's wrong. Even though the majority of Americans now oppose it, it will still be wrong if the majority in the future supports it. I won't care what the polls say then, any more than I do now.... because it will still be wrong.
I don't base my beliefs on polls or elections. I have more intelligence and substance to my beliefs than to allow the temporary whims of the masses to influence my beliefs. Others can choose to be weak and believe what the crowd tells them to believe. I will never do so.
"Good for you too, for being the only resident pro-birther with the guts to show up in this discussion. It appears that LetsPray, Yankee and Jimminy have turned tail and run."
I doubt they have gone anywhere. Likely, just busy with life like everyone else is from time to time.
October 28, 2008
2:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
BobEnyartKGOV writes:
Abortion is wrong because it's a baby. It's always wrong to intentionally kill a baby. We have a God-given right to life that comes not from the delivery doctor at birth but from our Creator when we are created. And abortion for incest is cruel because the abortion clinic emboldens the would-be rapist and covers up the crime of incest, often sending the victim back home with her rapist.
October 28, 2008
3:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sunrunner writes:
MaximusM, you sound like Yankee. Could you be one and the same? As I said to Yankee previously:
You are ignoring two critical points to the Nazi "legislation". Abortion was banned only for Germans, NOT for anyone not deemed worthy of the "master race". Those were encouraged and even forced on women. The abortion and sterilization laws were amended to allow both sterilizations and abortions on eugenic grounds. Just to be clear - eugenics: The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding. If a "blemish" was found in a German's family, they were removed from associating with anyone of the "master race". My husband's grandmother and her family were forced to flee her home in Germany because of a person of Jewish decent who had married into the family A FEW GENERATIONS before she was born. All but her youngest sister escaped with their lives. She was captured in France and sent back to Auschwitz where she was killed.
The Nazis used sterilization and abortion to eliminate "inferior" races. Nazi policy has NOTHING to do with opposing Amendment 48 or women's rights. To even suggest otherwise is truly offensive, bigoted and horrible. I hope you will think before you make such rash statements.
As for me, I worry about the impact Amendment 48 will have on the judicial system, law enforcement, right to privacy under HIPPA, and dictating patient care. Do we really want to bog down already swamped judicial system with issues that will come of this? Do we really want to pull law enforcement officers away from protecting us and our children from DUI drivers, drug abusers and dealers and gangs? Is it right to take away a woman's right to choose how invasive her medical treatment is during pregnancy? For that matter, is it right to deny a group rights to benefit another group? Isn't that one reason why the Civil War was fought? Abortion and the legality and morality of that is only a small part of what this amendment will impact if it passes.
October 28, 2008
4:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
"If the media ever had the guts to show an actual abortion being performed on a reconizable baby at any stage in it's development, abortion would come to a screeching halt."
True. True. True.
We've seen the "I didn't realize" issue before in history.
After WWII, when Germans were asked why they allowed the death camps to exist, their response was that they did not know what was happening in the camps.
Likewise, the pro-abortion crowd in the US will do ANYTHING to prevent people from seeing what is happening. They go hysterical if a woman is even offered an ultrasound prior to an abortion, because they fear the woman will change her mind. So much for "choice".
Imagine the result tomorrow if a media organization agreed to broadcast an abortion on live TV. The pro-abortion crowd would be hysterical! Out of the fear that people will learn what is happening, instead of being spoon fed with rosey, glossed over depictions of so-called liberty.
When pro-abortion supporters are willing to allow the American people to see what happens when their "procedures" occur..... THEN they can claim that they are different than the same types who hid their actions from the world in places like Bergen-Belsen.
October 28, 2008
4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
I hope this amendment serves as a wake-up call to certain conservatives. The majority of people in the US do not believe that a fertilized egg should have the rights of a person. This is because most people do not believe a fertilized egg is, in fact, a person.
A fertilized egg may become two people (identical twins). A fertilized egg may merge with another fertilized egg (chimera). Etc. People cannot merge into each other or divide into clones of each other. There's also many other qualities people have that are not shared by a fertilized egg.
In addition, if you consider a fertilized egg to be a person than the rate of infant mortality around the world would be much worst than you believe, since fertilized eggs do not always attach to the uterus resulting in many unreported natural abortions.
October 28, 2008
11:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
TallGirl writes:
Rickg- why don't you stop avoiding the questions people ask you? You have yet to explain why your opinions are "RIGHT," period, end of discussion, you win, etc. You post all your BS with the utmost degree of arrogance I have ever seen. It's pitiful! Where do you get off, exactly? You make all these statements about things being "right" or "wrong" according to YOU but when questioned about where you come up with your "absolutes" you dance around the subject.
So again, WHAT MAKES YOU THE END-ALL-BE-ALL-EXPERT???
you said: "Imagine the result tomorrow if a media organization agreed to broadcast an abortion on live TV. The pro-abortion crowd would be hysterical! Out of the fear that people will learn what is happening, instead of being spoon fed with rosey, glossed over depictions of so-called liberty."
You think you know so much? I sat with a friend of mine when she had an abortion, for reasons that are NUNYA. She bawled through the entire thing. It was a very difficult decision but the right one for her. And I saw the whole thing. It is NOT what brainwashed pro-lifers think. I don't care what people THINK they know about abortions, there is not some tiny little baby that gets its "arms and legs ripped off one by one". That is such BS! Any video or whatever people have seen that shows something like that is using special effects and computer-generated gore to stir up the emotions of people for propaganda.
And at the end of the day, if you think it is SO WRONG to have an abortion, don't have one! :) If you think it's a "sin," well we'll all have to face our Maker one day and why don't we just let him handle it?
For anyone who votes "yes" on 48, I think your name should be put on a list, and you all can take the unwanted babies and raise them, pay for their clothing, food, medical expenses, college, etc. You can pay for the therapy for the mothers who were raped and forced to carry the child to term despite the emotional trauma it inflicted. You all can pay for the funerals of women who die from ectopic pregnancies. You all can raise her other orphaned children. Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
October 29, 2008
12:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
dianahsieh writes:
I hope this new poll is accurate, as prior polling by Rasmussen showed much, much greater support for A48 -- 39% in favor, in fact.
http://www.ColoradoVoteNo48.com
Diana Hsieh
Founder, Coalition for Secular Government
http://www.seculargovernment.us