Coloradans Decisively Defeat Egg-As-Person Amendment
November 4, 2008 - 10:03pm (Print)
In overwhelming numbers, Coloradans today refused to extend legal personhood rights to fertilized eggs. With eight percent of precincts reporting, voters oppose Amendment 48, an initiative that would ultimately criminalize abortion, ban forms of hormonal birth control, and outlaw IVF a whopping 75% to 23%. Amendment 48 was opposed by medical and legal professional organizations as well as pro-life Governor Bill Ritter, and, apparently, a vast majority of Coloradans.
Tune into our election night live-blog for more real time results on ballot initiatives!
Thank God common sense prevailed.
Egg as person? If you're gonna get on pro-lifers for using terms like Partial Birth Abortion, then you might do well to use proper terms as well - zygote.
If hormonal birth control doesn't act in such a way as anti-BC groups say it does, then why would it be banned? Or does it only work that way when its needed to scare up votes?
I'm seriously surprised that you do not see how silly your post is... a zygote is the cell formed by the union of the sperm and the ovum (look it up: ovum = EGG) This formation process is called fertilization (fertilized egg.) Referring to this insane legislation as "eggs-as-persons" is complete accurate... although it may sound ridiculous (that's because the concept is completely inane.)
Atheist means that after fertilization the egg ceases to be just as the sperm ceases to be. Calling a zygote a fertilized egg is on par with calling an infant a "born fetus." While it is technically true, it is misleading and yes, silly.
Scientifically it is conclusive that after fertilization a new genetically distinct human organism (not an organ, or body part) but a whole human organism comes into existence. I challenge you to find one reputable scientific journal that challenges only these basic facts.
Now of course personhood is an entirely different unscientific matter (science can't define what a person is anymore then it can define what "love" is since both are subjective notions).
I would like to know what the difference is between a human organism (like a zygote, fetus, or newborn infant) and a human person (which most, but not all people consider infants to be as well as normal adults). And don't say the relevant difference is born humans are persons but the unborn are not. Give me a non-circular reason.
"Calling a zygote a fertilized egg is on par with calling an infant a "born fetus." While it is technically true, it is misleading and yes, silly."
I'm surprised to hear such quibbling coming from folks so silly they regularly call zygotes/fertilized eggs and 4 week old fetuses 'innocent babies' and abortion 'infanticide'.
You boys wouldn't be feeling cranky the day after the election, would you?
Are you beginning to suspect how unpopular your's and Mrs Palin's views actually are?
I don't have anything else to do right now, so I'll bite.
In my opinion (and I do not claim to speak for the entire pro-choice side), the difference is primarily (but not entirely cognitive/sensory). Humans aren't 'special' lifeforms intrinsically. There is no reason our DNA is any more 'special' than the DNA of other lifeforms on this planet. So what makes it imperative to consider humans as possessing of rights to a far greater extent than say, turnips or housecats?
It is in the objective qualities we possess. Without the ability to feel pain, there is no reason to consider protecting a lifeform from suffering it can't experience. Without the ability to process emotion, there is no reason to consider protecting such a lifeform from hardships that cause emotional pain. The fact is we judge lifeforms to be deserving/undeserving of rights all the time.
The livestock we kill and eat have are not seen to have the right to live, but animals have the right to be protected from abuse to the extent they can percieve suffering (I.E. great apes and such are considered to have the right to greater protections, because they have the ability to suffer to a greater extent).
I look at the fetus in the same way. It is a lifeform that does not possess qualities which would entitle it to rights, and in the case of abortion, there happens to be a lifeform who possesses all of those qualities, who's interests must therefore be given priority.
And just as obviously, the fetus will develop these qualities as it gestates, therefore I fully support a reasonable time limit on elective abortion, if only the anti-choice side would stop trying to create ridiculous delays and barriers to make the process more difficult. (Though the mother's health and life should always take priority at any time in the pregnancy. To do otherwise would be to grant the fetus rights a grown adult does not possess.)
Calling a zygote a fertilized egg is on par with calling an infant a "born fetus." While it is technically true, it is misleading and yes, silly.
Actually, calling a zygote a fertilized egg is on par with calling an infant a neonate.
Scientifically it is conclusive that after fertilization a new genetically distinct human organism (not an organ, or body part) but a whole human organism comes into existence. I challenge you to find one reputable scientific journal that challenges only these basic facts.
What difference does that make? A zygote has the possibility of becoming an embryo and an embryo has the possibility of becoming a fetus... certainly if the sperm and ova are human the fertilized egg couldn't be anything other than human. Why would one be required to challenge fertilization and/or human reproduction in order to be pro-choice? None of that changes the status of the woman facing an unwanted pregnancy nor does it change the fact that the pregnant woman is the most qualified person to decide the course of her own pregnancy.
I would like to know what the difference is between a human organism (like a zygote, fetus, or newborn infant) and a human person (which most, but not all people consider infants to be as well as normal adults). And don't say the relevant difference is born humans are persons but the unborn are not. Give me a non-circular reason.
Oh, you could ask 100 people (including scientists, theologians and philosophers) this question and get 100 different answers. I suppose I could offer that my value (and that of my loved ones) consists of more than simply possessing unique DNA.
You are correct though, "personhood" is a very difficult concept to articulate (much like explaining what "love" means.)
Further, I do not believe that my opinion or personal beliefs about personhood, pregnancy and/or life should have any bearing on your pregnancy at all. If you believe a person is present at conception, certainly my opinion about your pregnancy would be irrelevant (just as your opinion about my pregnancy is irrelevant.)
Do you really think it's just DNA that makes someone a person, Derek? I think what makes us people is the ability to think, to make judgments, to interact, to feel emotional and physical pain. Foetuses can't do those things. I'm also not anthropocentric - I don't think human life is intrinsically any more valuable than non-human life. An animal being slaughtered for food is going to suffer a whole lot more than a 10 week old foetus being aborted, given that the latter doesn't have a developed nervous system at that point.
Here is my two cents worth. If you are against abortion, dont have one. My child bearing years are over. I am old enough to remember the days of woman loosing their lives due to illegal abortions, unwed mothers homes. I also remember the days, if a person had means, they could go to Mexico or overseas to get an abortion. When I was 15 years old, my mother had a topical pregnancy and had to have a D&C in England, that medical treatment saved her life. My husband and I tried very hard to have a baby, after four miscarriages, I was blessed to have a healthy baby. If this "personhood" amendment was the law, I could have been investigated, and had to prove those were indeed miscarriages. While I am against using abortion as a birth control method, I do not believe in governments intervention in this personal, private matter.
