Ship of Fools: "Personhood", Colorado

Thread: "Personhood", Colorado Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030784

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

While rambling around reading bits and bobs around t'interweb today, I stumbled across this article on Huffington Post .

Is it true?
Could it pass?
Are people talking about it? We've not heard anything over here in the UK about it.

From the article;

quote:

...
Coloradans will vote on something called Amendment 67, aka "Personhood." If the election were held today, some polls show it would pass. That's why I'm so scared.

Amendment 67 is what's also known as "Personhood".
Personhood, if you've never heard of it before, is the movement to give fertilized eggs all the same rights as people -- two cells would have the same rights as you or your best friend.
...
This year, the Personhood USA folks are more deceptive.They've disguised "personhood" as something else. This year, they say they simply want to "protect pregnant women."
...

Here's what Amendment 67 would really do:
Outlaw all abortion in Colorado, even in cases of rape and incest.
Ban some of the most common and effective forms of birth control, including the Pill and IUDs.
Make it illegal for a pregnant women with cancer to choose treatment that could save her life.
Restrict options for women wanting in vitro fertilization.
Any birth that isn't a live-birth -- so miscarriages and still births -- could be deemed suspicious deaths and would be investigated by police.

Is this actually a thing with significant chance of passing into law somewhere, or is this article just a journalist over-reacting?

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

Sadly enough, the same idea has cropped in a number of states in the U.S. and has been mentioned as a national possibility. It has not passed anywhere as far as I know.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Is this actually a thing with significant chance of passing into law somewhere, or is this article just a journalist over-reacting?

It's just a journalist over-reacting. Huffington Post is not exactly a reliable news source, and the left in the US gets all hysterical over abortion the same way the right gets hysterical over guns (any new law is inevitably on more step on the slippery slope towards taking them away).

Here is a slightly less hysterical version.

Thirty-eight states have fetal homicide laws and it has not led to the elimination of abortion. What's more likely to eliminate abortion is the regulatory tricks they're playing in terms of requiring places that provide abortion to have X,Y, and Z where X, Y, and Z are expensive changes to the existing facilities.

[ 09. October 2014, 22:28: Message edited by: saysay ]

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

Have a go at googling anacephaly to see why this is not a brilliant idea. And anyone who supports personhood should be contacted as first point of call to adopt and care for life all babies born with major congenital anomalies. Not to mention the rape/incest babies - the idea that they would force pregnant women to carry to term if they did not wish to do so, just because life is precious (whose life?) is a bit heavy duty.

I don't agree with abortion as an easily accessible means to deal with unexpected pregnancies, for various reasons. But pregnancy and childbirth is a primal blood and guts occupation that should not be further complicated by fluffy bunny brigade idjits poking their noses in.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I think it's a crazy and cruel idea.

But, at the same time, I do think we need to be clearer as to when a feotus becomes a 'person'.

A cluster of cells can't possibly be a person, but it's pretty young in life that we have all we need to survive and then just need to grow to be a viable person - 20 weeks? After that I think the argument changes. Not entirely to prevent all abortion, but to make it a much harder and bigger deciion.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think it's a crazy and cruel idea.

But, at the same time, I do think we need to be clearer as to when a feotus becomes a 'person'.

A cluster of cells can't possibly be a person, but it's pretty young in life that we have all we need to survive and then just need to grow to be a viable person - 20 weeks? After that I think the argument changes. Not entirely to prevent all abortion, but to make it a much harder and bigger decision.

Life is continuous through the female line right back to year zero. And to some extent there is also a conscious connection back through that line - certainly to 2 or 3 generations back. Life is viable separate from the mother at only a few weeks before term - babies born too early don't do very well. Quite honestly, the foetus from day 1 can tell if the mother is not interested (or even hates it). I would discourage abortions in general, but also require that they are available as part of normal medical services. A baby that has been carried term by a mother who is overwhelmed and has all kinds of conflicting emotions is already carrying far too much for a very small being. First we should support people into proper emotional relationships. Then the abortion issue will not really be much of an issue at all.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
A baby that has been carried term by a mother who is overwhelmed and has all kinds of conflicting emotions is already carrying far too much for a very small being.

I know what you are saying, but babies are also very resilient!

I was entirely overwhelmed, stressed and conflicted when I was carrying my eldest. He did (and still does!) very well indeed.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

Yes - there's something rather marvellous about that [Smile]

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Have a go at googling anacephaly to see why this is not a brilliant idea. And anyone who supports personhood should be contacted as first point of call to adopt and care for life all babies born with major congenital anomalies. Not to mention the rape/incest babies - the idea that they would force pregnant women to carry to term if they did not wish to do so, just because life is precious (whose life?) is a bit heavy duty.

I'm sorry, but how exactly would this change the mind of someone who thinks that a law that wouldn't prohibit abortion but allows for the prosecution of a man who beats his girlfriend's stomach because she didn't have the abortion he wanted her to have might be a good idea?

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

I can read that in about three different ways. saysay - can you please put it into readable grammar?

wrt anyone who acts like said boyfriend, that's nothing to do with abortions being legal, illegal or even available or not - it's about violence, oppression and a lack of human respect, and i't's thankfully also an offence under the law whichever way you look at it.

If the suggestion is that abortions should be made available so as to stop boyfriends doing the equivalent by physical assault, that misses the point entirely. If we have provide abortions because society is so violent and the law so powerless to prevent this kind of action, maybe there are bigger and more immediate priorities that can be agreed on - rather than trying to solve to through legislating on a topic that clearly everyone disagrees on.

[ 11. October 2014, 01:04: Message edited by: itsarumdo ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:

If the suggestion is that abortions should be made available so as to stop boyfriends doing the equivalent by physical assault, that misses the point entirely.

I thought it was the suggestion that a boyfriend who acts in such a way should be able to be prosecuted for the murder of the foetus, not just the assault on the mother.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

Those who want to maintain the subordination of women always frame it as "protection."

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
I can read that in about three different ways. saysay - can you please put it into readable grammar?

wrt anyone who acts like said boyfriend, that's nothing to do with abortions being legal, illegal or even available or not - it's about violence, oppression and a lack of human respect, and i't's thankfully also an offence under the law whichever way you look at it.

If the suggestion is that abortions should be made available so as to stop boyfriends doing the equivalent by physical assault, that misses the point entirely. If we have provide abortions because society is so violent and the law so powerless to prevent this kind of action, maybe there are bigger and more immediate priorities that can be agreed on - rather than trying to solve to through legislating on a topic that clearly everyone disagrees on.

I admit that I'm having similar trouble parsing the meaning in your post.

My basic point was that I don't see how any of the things you mentioned have any relevance to the proposed law, the text of which can be found here.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I'm sorry, but how exactly would this change the mind of someone who thinks that a law that wouldn't prohibit abortion but allows for the prosecution of a man who beats his girlfriend's stomach because she didn't have the abortion he wanted her to have might be a good idea?

Thanks to the link you posted, I discover that punching a pregnant woman in the stomach to kill her foetus is already a specific crime in Colorado, thanks to HB13-1154, which was signed in to law a year ago.

I'm a little mystified as to why you think the personhood amendment wouldn't prohibit abortion. The amendment would change the constitution so that "the words "person" and "child" in the Colorado Criminal Code and the Colorado Wrongful Death Act must include unborn human beings."

At that point, all intentional abortion becomes murder.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

Well, I'm not a lawyer and legalese tends to baffle me. But the reason I think it might not prohibit all abortions is from my last link:

quote:
Amendment 67 focuses on including fetuses in the Colorado Criminal Code and the Colorado Wrongful Death Act, while past attempts sought to simply change the definition of a person to include fetuses in all areas of law.

As far as I understand it, other states have fetal homicide provisions that don't include abortion precisely because a legally consented to medical abortion doesn't fall under the Criminal Code and Wrongful Death act.

That said, I could be completely wrong. As I said, I'm not a lawyer. I also don't live in Colorado. As a matter of fact, I try to going there, as the state seems to be some bizarre cross between James Dobsonite-s, the military, and California, which means everyone seems to speak some language I don't know.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Well, I'm not a lawyer and legalese tends to baffle me. But the reason I think it might not prohibit all abortions is from my last link:

quote:
Amendment 67 focuses on including fetuses in the Colorado Criminal Code and the Colorado Wrongful Death Act, while past attempts sought to simply change the definition of a person to include fetuses in all areas of law.

From the Colorado Criminal Code:

quote:

A person commits the class 1 felony of murder in the first degree if:

a) after deliberation and with the intent to cause the death of another person, he or she causes the death of that person or of another person; 18-3-102 (1) (a)

As I read it, this bans abortion, but doesn't get into the tangle of giving property rights and so on to foetuses, which a global personhood amendment would.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

sometimes the law and ethics are intractably in conflict

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
As I read it, this bans abortion, but doesn't get into the tangle of giving property rights and so on to foetuses, which a global personhood amendment would.

Oh, you're probably right. But I imagine if it passes there will be a lot of legal wrangling over what an "unborn human being" is and whether or not a fetus only qualifies as an "unborn human being" after a certain stage of development.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

<bump>

Because this seems to be the right place to point out that another "pro-life" activist has murdered several people and left several BORN children without a parent.

It's no coincidence that Colorado Springs is home to several terrorist <cough> excuse me, radical Christian conservative groups. My bad, I keep forgetting only Muslims can be referred to [as] terrorists in the USA.

[ 30. November 2015, 13:24: Message edited by: Soror Magna ]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

We have to vote the only way they will understand it in Colorado. I refuse to go there, and certainly will never move there. Too dangerous. If enough of us do this, they'll feel it in the only place they care about, their wallets.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

From all descriptions I've read the man was unbalanced. This issue is what he fixated on, but it could have been anything.
This crime is a mental health issue, not an abortion issue. For fucks sake, get mad for the right reason.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Meh. I doubt the die hard skiers would bat an eye or give up their condo rentals or lift passes over it. I find it interesting that Colorado is also the state that has legalized marijuana. Extreme social conservatives and libertarians make strange bedfellows.

ETA: In reply to Brenda.

[ 30. November 2015, 16:39: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
From all descriptions I've read the man was unbalanced. This issue is what he fixated on, but it could have been anything.
This crime is a mental health issue, not an abortion issue. For fucks sake, get mad for the right reason.

Whenever it's a white terrorist the claim is made that it's a mental health issue. Plenty of people have mental health issues. It doesn't make you a murderer. Incitement by a bunch of smirking misogynist dominionists can and does.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
We have to vote the only way they will understand it in Colorado. I refuse to go there, and certainly will never move there. Too dangerous. If enough of us do this, they'll feel it in the only place they care about, their wallets.

So you're going to refuse to go there (and spend money there) until they do what, exactly?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Until I need not worry about being blown away while seeking health care, or sitting in a movie theater? You understand that it is not me, with my single movie ticket or pap smear bill, that will have any effect. It is the cumulative hit to tourism that will worry the state authorities. Which could also be affected by the global warming that will dry up those lovely ski slopes.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Until I need not worry about being blown away while seeking health care, or sitting in a movie theater?

But what would cause you to not need to worry about being blown away while seeking health care or sitting in a movie theater?

quote:
It is the cumulative hit to tourism that will worry the state authorities.

OK, but I still don't understand what it is you would like the state authorities to do.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

A Colorado Boycott was tried in the 1990s because of some cities' anti-gay policies. It doesn't seem to have accomplished very much.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
]Whenever it's a white terrorist the claim is made that it's a mental health issue.

Sorry, I am not an apologist for white people. Read about his behaviour prior to and following. He clearly is not a rational person.

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

Plenty of people have mental health issues. It doesn't make you a murderer.

Never said it did. The vast majority are of no harm to anyone.

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

Incitement by a bunch of smirking misogynist dominionists can and does.

I am certainly not defending either of those.

Just saying that in this case, mental health is the problem more than anything else.

[ 30. November 2015, 23:55: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
]Whenever it's a white terrorist the claim is made that it's a mental health issue.
Sorry, I am not an apologist for white people. Read about his behaviour prior to and following. He clearly is not a rational person.

Yes, he was acting irrationally, which apparently doesn't make what he did an act of terrorism. But, if he'd been a muslim acting irrationally who wants to bet how fast the word "terrorist" would be on the lips of Republican politicians?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

No betting from me, Alan. There have been terrorist killings at abortion clinics. IIRC, you are correct in how they were responded to.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

Can you be crazy and still be a terrorist?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I'm certain you can. But the difference with this man and previous bombings and murders is focused intent. IMO, at least.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Sorry, I am not an apologist for white people. Read about his behaviour prior to and following. He clearly is not a rational person.
Yes, he was acting irrationally, which apparently doesn't make what he did an act of terrorism. But, if he'd been a muslim acting irrationally who wants to bet how fast the word "terrorist" would be on the lips of Republican politicians?

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Can you be crazy and still be a terrorist?

Given that suicide is usually considered a sign of mental illness and we don't seem to have any difficulty in describing suicide bombers as "terrorists", I'd say yes, you can be crazy and still be a terrorist. (Unless someone wants to take up the argument that suicide bombers are all perfectly sane and well-adjusted individuals acting in a rational manner for their particular circumstance.) It does seem to be impossible to be white and a be considered a terrorist though.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I'm trying to remember here, the language used in and of Northern Ireland some time ago.

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm trying to remember here, the language used in and of Northern Ireland some time ago.

Yes, but you see, they were Irish. And that means foreign and other. Therefore they can be terrorists too.

Its another case of them/us - we are not terrorists because that might mean we have to address a problem. But them, well, they are not us, and therefore if they are terrorists, it can't possibly be our fault.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0