Postmortem on 2010 Colorado personhood amendment
I can’t find more complete election results than 97%. The CO Secretary of State’s office won’t release its final tally until November 26. I’m interested because I’d love for Amendment 62’s “Yes” count to reach 30%.
Whatever, I’m relieved Personhood Colorado’s 2nd ballot initiative to define “personhood” as beginning at fertilization fared better than 2008, when it went down 73-27%. But it fared worse than organizers anticipated.
According to lead operative Keith Mason, 4 separate internal polls showed Amendment 62 getting at least 40% support going into election day. Still, it’s amazing to me that nearly 1/3 of blue state Colorado voters believe personhood begins at fertilization.
One problem, Keith told me, was liberal and teachers’ union opposition to Amendments 60 and 61. These were 2 of 3 anti-tax initiatives, the other being 101, about which slogan “Say no to all 3” was promoted. It’s easy to imagine voters mistakenly nixed 62 as the 3rd.
Another problem was pro-life opposition. Thankfully, National Right to Life, Americans United for Life, and attorney Jim Bopp have backed away from opposing personhood initiatives. But stepping into their stead were Phyllis Schlafly and her group, Eagle Forum. And for the 2nd time Catholic bishops failed to support the personhood initiative, which obviously hurt.
The biggest problem, of course, was pro-abort opposition. For example, the CO Legislative Counsel issued a biased synopsis of Amendment 62, with input from a Planned Parenthood attorney.
Final numbers aren’t in yet, but when the dust settles pro-aborts will have been forced to spend 2-3x that which Personhood CO spent, which was $300k, according to Keith.
Contributions to opponent group No on 62 are currently listed at $636.4k ($100k of which is supposedly a loan).
Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains is behind that group, and present figures show it had to cough up $389.5k to defend its abortion turf. Nine other PP groups pitched in $39.5k altogether; NARAL $84.5k; ACLU $42.5k; San Francisco-based Credo Victory Fund for Choice $38k; and Progress Now CO $13k. (Individual contributions amounted to chump change.) This is money down the drain for pro-aborts they can never spend on any other pro-abort endeavor or on themselves, fabulous.
Pro-abort messaging shifted midway through this campaign. Since 2008 opponents have focused on abortion but must have concluded this was a nonstarter. According to an email from Personhood CO’s Jennifer Mason:
They saw that they were losing public opinion when they talked about abortion, so they switched to scare tactics (women being investigated for miscarriages, IVF made illegal, contraception made illegal, etc.). At the end they had to start saying women’s eggs were human beings….
They stopped discussing the “extremes” of abortion statistics. In fact, they stopped talking about abortion altogether. It feels good to know that the only way they were able to win was with lies. We won every debate, we had thousands of volunteers, and we had truth and science on our side – it really just came down to money.
They also tried to say removing cancerous ovaries would become illegal.
BTW, the upper right photo (click to enlarge) is of signs personhood opponents illegally placed around the circumference of Veteran’s Park in Denver, across from the capital building, in the wee hours before Election Day. Yet it took a formal complaint by amendment co-sponsor Leslie Hanks midday before they were removed.
One of Schlafly’s arguments is that personhood initiatives drag down Republican/pro-life candidates. Pro-aborts agree this cost US Senate candidate Ken Buck the race, although it’s certainly to their advantage to make this point.
Amendment 62 supporters disagree, saying Buck’s renege of support of the initiative midway through the general election campaign cost him the 1% he needed for victory.
(Still others say Buck equating homosexuality with alcoholism 2 weeks before the election turned his fortunes south.)
Pro-lifers opposing personhood initiative efforts need to accept that they’re here to stay. It does no good to oppose them; doing so only helps the other side.
Keith told me Matthew 25:45 keeps coming to mind: “He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'”
Supporters believe their endeavor is as much about education as it is about victory, which they do anticipate in the longrun. To that end they distributed 850k pieces of educational material in CO. And they did better this go around. Food for thought (click to enlarge)…
Next stop is Mississippi, where a personhood initiative will be on the 2011 ballot. The argument is narrowing, and I am excited about that. The topics of discussion are down to: 1) hormonal birth control pills/morning-after pills and the fact they may cause abortions; 2) IVF.
Also on the table, particularly given the strong pro-life stance of so many 2010 candidates is the rape/incest exception.
These are all great subjects we have never been able to get to before due to pro-abort obfuscation of terms and the debate.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
It will be a great day when finally the constitutional right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness will be given to every American conceived. Of course until that day comes the opposition will always use the misfortune of a few people to keep denying the rights that they themselves were given to those who cannot speak for themselves. God help us!
The thing I have learned from the partial-birth abortion debate is, had it passed the first time a majority of the people in the United States and those around the world following the story, would not have heard about it and come to understand how horrific of a procedure it is.
Trust God that this is HIS plan… there will come a day when enough people outside of the “Prolife” world will come to recognize a human being should be protected at conception because this does not get passed right away. Time will tell.
Great insight. All in His time.
Interesting twist on the Anchor Baby controversy. Would a “child” conceived be entitled to US citizenship if conceived in the US but born in his/her parents’ home country?
What reason is there, really, for a pro-lifer to oppose a personhood measure? None. All the amendment does is clarify the meaning of a single word — person. So if a Catholic bishop says nothing about it, why should it matter? A bishop’s responsibility is to save souls while in defense of faith and morals.
In Keith’s defense, one can go to this url and see that 5 counties polled higher than 40% and many were 37% or higher:
http://data.denverpost.com/election/results/amendment/2010/62-definition-of-person/
Well done Personhood CO!!
Great news! Jan Brewer has just been re-elected as our state’s Governor! I am hopeful that there will be new pro-life legislation passed this year.
I help by being on the AUL Action email list. They send me emails when my help is needed to contact my elected officials. It’s easy. Just visit http://takeaction.aul.org/signup/ to sign up. Be sure to enter your address so they know you are from Arizona.
“Thankfully, National Right to Life, Americans United for Life, and attorney Jim Bopp have backed away from opposing personhood initiatives.”
If you mean that they were not as vocal this time around, that is correct.
If you mean to say NRLC, AUL and many other pro-life groups and activists no longer believe there are significant legal and political problems with the personhood amendment, then that is incorrect. See http://www.lifenews.com/2009/09/16/nat-5475/ for AUL’s analysis coming after the 2008 amendment, for example. I’m not aware of AUL changing its position that the amendment is flawed.
—
Also, on Buck, we pro-lifers also agree that the personhood amendment hurt him. There are many who are of that opinion — some of whom are going to start speaking out and some of whom are afraid to because they know the amendment supporters will castigate them as supposedly pro-abortion as they repeatedly do NRLC, AUL, Eagle Forum, the Catholic bishops and me.
The personhood amendment clearly contributed to the defeat of Ken Buck. Had he not felt pressured to endorse it, he would not have been besieged by millions of dollars in advertising blasting him for doing so and erroneously claiming he opposed birth control or contraception.
When he withdrew his endorsement so he could get a break from that onslaught of advertising and have a chance to win, Amendment 62 backers attacked Buck as not being pro-life! They confused faithful pro-life voters who know the truth that Buck was a friend to the unborn and would have been a consistently 100% pro-life vote in the Senate.
So now we are saddled with six years of pro-abortion Michael Bennet, NARAL’s best friend, who will continue to spend your tax dollars and mine paying for abortions both here in overseas.
The rest of us pro-life people in Colorado are sorely disappointed that we lost the governor’s race and the Senate race. The time, money and effort spent on an amendment that never had a chance from the start could have been put towards pro-life Tom Tancredo and pro-life Ken Buck.
Now, as it stands, we have a governor who will continue to force us to fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business with state taxpayer dollars and who will not sign legislation passed by the Colorado House, which now has a GOP majority. Had we not been so sidetracked by Amendment 62, there’s a chance Tancredo would be governor and we could have de-funded Planned Parenthood.
—
I believe you will begin to see more pro-life groups and activists speaking out against the wisdom of putting forward the amendment because it’s time those of us who want to truly end abortion ask the question: Why are we continuing to spend so much time and money on an amendment that didn’t come close to passing even in the most pro-life-friendly political environment in two decades?
The time has come for the pro-life movement to ask itself some hard questions. Are we just wasting our time and money on an amendment that will not win and will not be upheld by the current courts? The answer is yes.
And what’s worse. A62 supporters are ready to come back in 2012 with another amendment and ready to dilute the limited resources of the pro-life movement that needs to be focused on defeating President Barack Obama.
If Colorado backs Obama in 2012 because we’ve deflected our attention again from the real battles to get us to the place of stopping abortions, then amendment backers owe pro-lifers a serious apology. And if Colorado backs Obama and that results in him staying in office and giving us more pro-abortion judges who will keep abortion legal for decades, then we can forget about ending abortion in our lifetimes.
“What reason is there, really, for a pro-lifer to oppose a personhood measure?” In 2012, it’s the fate of abortion itself.
Let’s keep our eyes on the prize and not keep putting the cart before the horse. We have to change the Supreme Court and to do that we have to change the White House and the Senate.
For anyone who truly supports personhood for the unborn, the only way to get a personhood amendment, or a human life amendment, or a state abortion ban, or Roe overturned, or whatever your goal is, is to focus on defeating Obama in 2012 and getting a pro-life majority in the Senate. Any other distraction results in keeping abortion legal.
—
I’m sure I’ll be called pro-abortion, not a Christian, a collaborator with Planned Parenthood or whatever other false smears some use against those of us who want to actually do the best we can for the unborn… but I won’t be responding to responses because there have been enough flame wars on Jill’s blog and the time wasted in those needs to go to the unborn.
If someone has a legitimate response or refutation to my analysis on how best to end abortion and how the personhood amendment doesn’t do it and wants to correspond with me in a non-accusatory manner, please email me via LifeNews.com and I’d be happy to listen and correspond.
Steve,
Please don’t expect to come here, throw your own flames, and then back out of the conversation here. You brought up several points and should be willing to debate them here. If not, please don’t comment.
Back on topic, do you take a public position on hormonal birth control, the IUD, and IVF?
I’m thrilled the PP and its cronies just spent so much of their money – good. Let’s see if we can drain their coffers in more states next election!
13% is what a movement needs to attain “critical mass.” This was a lost battle, but a huge gain in terms of public awareness.
I agree with Steve and Jill!
Steve, you brought up some excellent points that I would like to see flushed out, ie. your analysis of how to end abortion.
I hope you will continue to comment on this blog.
Jill,
I haven’t flamed anyone. I don’t attack, or even mention, a single person in my post outside of political figures. I provided an opinion on the situation and stuck to the issues at hand without engaging in any ad hominem attacks.
What’s sad is that even uttering a single word that dare questions the sacrosanct nature of the personhood amendment is now considered a “flame.”
Jill, I am altogether happy to discuss the issues here or in any forum. But what I’m not willing to do is to put up any longer with the asinine attacks my Christianity and pro-life views from defenders of the personhood amendment in other forums that are taking placeright now as we type, and that have taken place on your blog before.
I would be happy to respond to on-topic, non-personal responses to my comments and your forum. But I hope I can rely on you as a moderator to keep people abiding by the very appropriate rules and guidelines you’ve set forth without having to endure the typical false accusations the come with this topic.
You go out of your way (which I applaud!) to request that people who post comments do so in a respectful manner and provide a list of rules and guidelines to follow. We shouldn’t have to apologize or be criticized for not wanting to be attacked and I would hope you, as the moderator of the comments on your own blog, would be sensitive and not scornful to that.
I was trying to do you a favor Jill. But I’m not interested and won’t participate in responses that are personal attacks.
If someone can respond in a respectful manner, keeping the debate to the issues and without launching into personal attacks, I’ll respond. Here. It typically doesn’t happen, but I would be delighted to see something new…
—
Jill, my position and that of LifeNews.com has been consistently opposed to any drug, pill or device that acts as an abortion agent.
And on IVF, LifeNews.com has consistently highlighted the numerous anti-life problems in-vitro-fertilization poses including one on the recent Nobel Prize given to its inventor: http://www.lifenews.com/2010/10/04/bio-3190/
Anyone can search at http://www.lifenews.com to see a range of articles over the years on various problems and topics concerning IVF.
Thanks,
Steven
Andrew, I think I articulated that in my post in terms of needing to change all three branches of government to acquire the legal protection for unborn children we all so desperately want.
I know some groups favor different vehicles to do that — be it federal amendment, personhood amendment, South Dakota-style abortion ban, overturning Roe and letting states ban it, etc.
I don’t want to debate the pros and cons of each one in terms of whether they would be the best approach following a favorable coomposition of members on the Supreme Court. But all of those approaches require a Supreme Court willing to reverse Roe or uphold an amendment/ban and, sadly, we don’t have a pro-life majority to do that today.
So, as I said, the quickest path to prohibiting abortions lies in the 2012 elections and securing a pro-life President and a pro-life Senate yielding a pro-life Supreme Court. For all of us who favor an end to abortions, those elections ought to occupy our attention day and night.
And in the meantime, we all ought to be helping with the legislative, crisis pregnancy, abstinence, activist and educational efforts that can stop as many abortions as possible until the day comes we can protect every baby.
For those of you interested, Steve and I will be debating this very topic on Troy Newman’s blog…www.operationrescue.org…in a couple of weeks. Stay tuned.
“…the constitutional right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness will be given to every American…” – what about the ones who are already here? The ones who walk, talk, eat, study, work and love?
unborn babies are already here, they just need to be born and then they can show their potential to be doctors, nurses, teachers and friends. If you deny them the right to be born, the right to be loved, then you will never discover what they have to offer.
“Interesting twist on the Anchor Baby controversy. Would a “child” conceived be entitled to US citizenship if conceived in the US but born in his/her parents’ home country?”
.
Are you intentionally misunderstanding?
.
This is a human rights issue not a civil rights issue.
.
All foreigners in the US have human rights. That doesn’t make them citizens with the right to vote etc. Duh. Come on, Hal, surely you know the difference.
What about the already born Liz?
Those who wish to be doctors, nurses, teachers and friends but are prevented from doing so because of an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy?
I support euthanasia but it could be said that the logical extrapolation of your ‘save the fetus, ignore the existing life’ concept is enforced euthanasia.
Wow, I didn’t realize that there were no doctors or nurses with families. My extended family has 3 nurses who have children. but I didn’t realize they were so rare. My cousin was just saying to me the other day, “Gosh, I wish more pre-born babies could die so we could hire some new nurses!”
No-one said anything like that ninek.
People – that is, those who are here, are existent, walk, talk and eat – who wish to be doctors, nurses or teachers, may be prevented from doing so if they are unable to access abortion.
Sounds like your cousin is suffering from a misconception. There is no logic to her statement. None.
We need ‘X’ number of nurses. For the purposes of the exercise lets say 1% of the population. So the overall total of the population may be any number at all, one in each one hundred will be nurses. If the population falls due to abortions, we won’t suffer a defecit of nurses. 1% of whoever is here will be nurses. More abortions, less abortions, would make no difference.
A problem only arises when the people who are here are prevented from becoming nurses because of an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy.
Cranium, I hate to break this to you, but ninek was making a joke.
She was making fun of the idea that simply having a baby (oh no!!!) would prevent a young pre-med, medical or nursing student from continuing her studies. Many, many women have continued on in those circumstances, finished college and become whatever they want to. They are all the more likely to do so now, after Feminists for Life has pointed out the lack of resources for pregnant college students and begun remedying them. NARAL and Planned Parenthood, to my knowledge, have never done anything of the kind. So much for “choice.”
How exactly do you think lack of access to abortion would prevent young women from becoming doctors? Just how?
cranium, Not everyone “here” can walk, talk, or eat by themselves or without help. Whether disabled or, say, being two years old.
I hate all this tongue-sticking-out at human fetuses and saying: “Nyah! Nyah!” You can’t do what I can do!” And thinking you’ve proved they’re not human. How about giving them a few months or years to meet your lofty standards?
“This is money down the drain for pro-aborts they can never spend on any other pro-abort endeavor or on themselves, fabulous.”
Not if they spent it smartly. They now have updated donor lists and volunteer lists, extra social connections formed during the campaign, and other returns on their investment. On this point, the Personhood Amendment split the pro-lifers and united the pro-aborts.
I am unsure whether Personhood was the “last straw” that broke Buck’s candidacy. The same ads attacking Buck on abortion also attacked his stand supporting free trade and “outsourcing” jobs.
Some of the fiscal amendments in the Colorado Ballot were defeated by even larger margins than Amendment 62. They would have cut govt spending significantly and therefore triggered an “all hands on deck” alarm among the Democratic coalition dependent upon such spending. (Some GOP pundits and analysts will never consider whether and when fiscal issues and free trade are negatives.)
There is also talk of a “Latino Firewall” because the Buck campaign failed to do the proper outreach to garner another 10-15% of the Hispanic vote.
It’s quite possible that the “Personhood backlash” played a role. I just think it was a side issue in this election and I’d like further proof.
One concern is if the Latino turnout that supposedly saved Sen. Bennett also depressed Amendment 62. Did the state pro-aborts use the opportunity to sway more Hispanics to their cause?
If presented with a petition to put Personhood on the ballot again, I might decline to sign it. The SCOTUS votes aren’t there, and neither is the popular consensus. I mainly voted for 62 in the general election to keep pro-aborts from crowing about how it is a failing issue.
cranium
November 5th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
“Those who wish to be doctors, nurses, teachers and friends but are prevented from doing so because of an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy?”
Pregnancy does not prevent a woman from doing any of those things. I actually know women who have done them all while pregnant.
Steven E. Was King Herod wicked for endorsing the killing of some innocent children? Are politicians just as wicked for endorsing the killing of some innocent children ( aka exceptions)?
Every person is different. And while many people are quite capable of fulfilling their ambitions whilst dealing with unplanned circumstances, of varying sorts, not everyone can.
It is marvellous that people, especially women, are getting support and resources to assist them if and when they require it.
Of course none of this would have taken place, and women could not become doctors or lawyers, if a patriarchal society had persisted. Part of that change has included abortion.
Hi Cran!!
Too much going on tonight but wanted to say HI!
A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said: ‘Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even one year old, and I’m pregnant again. I don’t want kids so close together.’
So the doctor said: ‘Ok and what do you want me to do?’
She said: ‘I want you to end my pregnancy, and I’m counting on your help with this.’
The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: ‘I think I have a better solution for your problem. It’s less dangerous for you too.’ She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request.
Then he continued: ‘You see, in order for you not to have to take care of 2 babies at the same time, let’s kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we’re going to kill one of them, it doesn’t matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms.’
The lady was horrified and said: ‘No doctor! How terrible! It’s a crime to kill a child!’
‘I agree’, the doctor replied. ‘But you seemed to be OK with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution.’
The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point. He convinced the mom that There is no difference in killing a child that’s already been born and one that’s still in the womb. The crime is the same!
Ugh, please stop recycling this little morality tale. First, you’re shooting yourself in the foot by drawing a distinction between the unborn and the post-born. But I’m glad you agree there’s an important difference!! Second, by characterizing pro-choicers as baby-haters, you conveniently ignore liberal policy that HELPS women continue their pregnancies, directly undercutting support for pregnant women. How much less effective would crisis pregnancy centers be if they couldn’t link women to publicly-funded prenatal care through Medicaid?
I hate all this tongue-sticking-out at human fetuses and saying: “Nyah! Nyah!” You can’t do what I can do!” And thinking you’ve proved they’re not human. How about giving them a few months or years to meet your lofty standards?
Well said, Hans! How soon such people forget they too were once in their mothers’ wombs!
A nascent child is a developing baby just as a baby who has been born is a developing adult. To willfully, purposely end that natural process at any point is murder.
The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: ‘I think I have a better solution for your problem. It’s less dangerous for you too.’ She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request.
Then he continued: ‘You see, in order for you not to have to take care of 2 babies at the same time, let’s kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we’re going to kill one of them, it doesn’t matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms.’
Well said, Carla! This is simple fact. What a clear illustration of the folly of abortion.
Megan, I don’t know why you thought Carla shot herself in the foot by relating that anecdote??? That makes no sense to me. And, when you think about it, a more accurate term for ‘pro-choice’ is indeed ‘anti-baby’ — because, in order to justify abortion, one must needs demonize the baby; one must perceive her or him as ‘the enemy’, the one standing in the way of his/her plans. The baby gets NO consideration, no ‘choice’.
Never mind the fact the baby didn’t ask to be conceived — this is the mindset. If it wasn’t, people who are only positive about abortion would instead be open to far more positive solutions, far-better solutions; solutions which do not require that anyone die, but instead give good options for all concerned so that ALL involved can have the best opportunity to live, and live well.
Megan, I experienced a crisis pregnancy when I was much younger than I am now, not a Christian, and not nearly as knowledgeable about life in general. I’ve learned so much during the intervening years. But one thing I knew instinctively then, was that my child was just that — he was nothing but a human being. Small? Yes. Non-living? No.
He was developing, yes, just as he continued to develop after he was born — for years and years. He is now grown, with a child of his own, and living a very good life. My allowing him to live did not in any way hinder his spiritual, mental, emotional, moral, or physical development (or mine either). On the contrary, his life is full and rich — he has a strong foundation, he is very intelligent, he has an outstanding sense of humor, he is very sensitive to others’ hurts, he literally does not meet a stranger. His son thinks he hung the moon. I cannot take credit for any of this; the Lord showed mercy to me (and him) even before I became a believer.
I cannot count the many, many times I have thanked God that I did not take “wiser” adults’ advice and allow him to be killed. One relative is still angry with me about that, after all these years, even though he is a personal favorite! Does that make sense to you? To me it is a clear illustration of the folly and double-mindedness of pro-abortion thinking.
Hi Megs,
I didn’t write that little anecdote.
The mom wanted to kill and the dr. merely pointed out that killing the already born child would be much easier. She was horrified even though killing a growing child inside of her didn’t seem to bother her in the least.
Are you ok?
Claire,
I hope this doesn’t come off as snark. Your choice had a beautiful outcome, clearly. But for many women, adoption is painful, as painful as an abortion might have been for them. I don’t know what the solution is–it’s a tough decision, but one the government shouldn’t be making for them.
Megs,
You do know the difference between open adoption and an abortion don’t you??
Shall I spell it out for you?
Ok. In an abortion a mother(motherhood begins at conception)pays to have her own child killed. You have done that. So have I. The child is dead.
In open adoption a mother carries her baby to term and is allowed to CHOOSE the family she believes is going to be everything she wants for her child. She puts her own selfish desires aside for her child. My friends see their babies at least every other week, get photos and are part of the family. Painful? Hardly. Try courageous.
“Motherhood begins at conception” is a linguistic variable. Not everyone agrees. Some believe motherhood starts at the birth of a child. Nor does everyone consider the fetus to be a child. That’s another linguistic variable.
So instead of “a mother pays for her child to be killed” it could be “a pregnant woman pays for the termination of the fetus”. It’s all subjective really.
Yeah. Keep telling yourself that, cran.
It’s all you’ve got.
I paid for my child to be killed via abortion.
That is irrefutable.
I’ll keep telling others Carla.
I’ve got a lot more than that.
No worries.
I’ll keep telling others as well.
‘Preaching to the converted’ isn’t going to get you far.
Adoption isn’t a panacea and it’s terribly wrong to pretend that everything ends up A-ok for both parties. In reality, young girls do get tricked into “open adoptions” that, in reality, have little legal binding. I’ve been looking more and more into adoption, and I’m horrified with what I see happening here: stratified reproduction between young and poor birthmothers and wealthy adoptive parents.
“I moved into the maternity home provided by the Blessed Trinity Adoptions in Texas, which is no longer in business. While I was still unsure about giving my child up, the pressurized atmosphere of the maternity home convinced me that I would not be the better parent for my child because I was young, unmarried, and did not have a four-bedroom house on a cul-de-sac”
http://www.firstmotherforum.com/2009/03/un-open-adoption-adoptive-parents-lie.html
Where you anti-aborts have gone too far is in trying to define a zygote as a person. Microscopic undifferentiated cells cannot exercise 14th amendment rights even if you succeed with your “personhood” movement. It is a ridiculous, foolish idea that prevents a common sense use of extra IVF embryos destined for the dust bin for medical research. You righties like common sense don’t you?
Personhood for cells is a crazy idea and has many outcomes other than a ban on abortion. I don’t think your efforts will be successful, but in the meantime, my Parkinson’s disease goes uncured.
cran,
You are hilarious! Seriously! LOL
Megan,
I love it when you use the word panacea. :)
I never said there weren’t some situations that do not turn out well. But do you honestly think adoption and abortion are both equal in responsibility toward children?
Um. One kills a growing child. I’ll let you figure out which one does that.
Rayilyn,
Welcome.
You were once a zygote, sweet pea. When did you get your rights?
“All foreigners in the US have human rights. That doesn’t make them citizens with the right to vote etc. Duh. Come on, Hal, surely you know the difference.”
So, when do you become a citizen? When you become a person, or when you are born? Don’t see why we should draw an arbitrarily line at birth, the person is a person from conception forward, right? So, a person who becomes a person (i.e., conceived) in the U.S., is a U.S. citizen, just like babies born here. Why would you call a person who was conceived in Colorado a “foreigner” just because her or she was born in Mexico with Mexican parents?
I got my “rights” when I was born alive on December 1, 1935. You cannot realistically give rights to microscopic undifferented cells and you are going to find it impossible to convince people you can. Thinking people will not favor throwing away extra IVF zygotes rather than using them for research. It makes no sense, sweet pea.
I love it when trolls come here and tell me that what we do is impossible!!
Watch and see.
It matters not what you think, Rayilyn in the big scheme of things.
I agree that it matters not what I think, but as long as I can I will oppose ignorance and misguided people. Too many acutal lives depend on it.
Calling me a troll does not advance your argument. There may be a good one for banning abortrions, but “personhood” for cells is not it. Obviously, cells and even fetuses are not persons. There is a reason they have those names. You are wasting everyone’s time and effort in an unrealistic and unproductive quest.
Fetus is Latin for little one. Zygote, embryo, fetus are all medical terms for stages of development of a growing human child. Proaborts use them to dehumanize a preborn baby. I have yet to be invited to a fetus shower. Or congratulate someone by saying HAPPY EMBRYO when they tell me they are pregnant.
I wonder why proaborts are always so concerned with what prolifers do with their time?
Don’t worry. I’ll keep saving mothers and their babies from abortion and you keep coming here to tell me I am wasting everyone’s time. :)
Oh, my quest is not for the faint of heart, Rayilyn!! I shall stay the course and err on the side of life.
If you are not a troll what brings you here?
Being a 15 year prisoner of Parkinson’s disease I am an advocate for stem cell research and I provide people with Parkinson’s (PWPs) on PIEN with PD news, treatments, research, etc.., you name it. I have done this for 10 years and am 75 years old. Right now the “Personhood” movement is a barrier to medical research that could perhaps provide a path out of our suffering…..not just PWPs but millions who have incurable diseases and conditions. I do not appreciate anti-aborts confusing abortion with stem cell research for the public. Very few of us PWPs are “faint-hearted”; we struggle every moment to move, speak, write and do things you daily take for granted. PD is a real bitch of a disease and there is no hope. I have had DBS brain surgery twice (for which I had to be awake) to stop the killer tremors. I have electrodes in the STN of my brain attached to “pacemakers” in my chest. I am an arterio-venous fistula and an ovarian cancer surviver as well. IF you want to know more email me rayilynlee@cox.net.
Rayilyn, babies do not have to be murdered in order for stem cell research to advance. Doctors and scientists have proved that stem cells from umbilical cords are just as effective — often, more so. I am very sad about your ordeal with Parkinson’s Disease, and I would like to ask you a sincere question: If advances in genetics continue so that it can be determined that a nascent child would develop Parkinson’s Disease later in life, do you believe that should be a ‘reason’ to take that child’s life before s/he has had a chance to live outside the womb?
Also — please be aware that “anti-aborts”, as you call us, are opposed to abortion BECAUSE we are opposed to infanticide, which is what abortion really is.
We do not see murdering the youngest, most innocent, most defenseless, and most helpless among us as a ‘solution’ — only an exacerbation of a very real national sickness and perversion.
I enourage you to read up on Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL back in the ’60s, who by his own admission murdered 75,000 nascent children, including at least one of his own — UNTIL he saw the truth of the nascent child’s life via the advent of ultrasound in the mid-’80s. He has a website where he reveals the many underhanded ways he and his NARAL co-horts used deception and cleverly-crafted words to desensitize and beguile the American public (though Americans were never fully fooled, which is why Roe v. Wade wasn’t enacted by a vote).
Recommended reading:
Blood Money: Getting Rich Off a Woman’s Right to Choose, by Carol Everett, and
Won By Love, by Norma McCorvey (“Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade)
Fetus is Latin for little one. Zygote, embryo, fetus are all medical terms for stages of development of a growing human child. Proaborts use them to dehumanize a preborn baby. I have yet to be invited to a fetus shower. Or congratulate someone by saying HAPPY EMBRYO when they tell me they are pregnant.
Carla, you can say that again — and again — and again — and again, ad infinitum.
This is THE TRUTH, and the truth sets people free if they will receive it.
As long as I can I will oppose ignorance and misguided people. Too many actual lives depend on it.
This is the conviction of my heart! FAR too many babies have died already: 50,000,000 and counting. It is unconscionable.
So instead of “a mother pays for her child to be killed” it could be “a pregnant woman pays for the termination of the fetus”.
What’s the difference, cranium? Fetus is simply the Latin word for “offspring”. A human offspring is a baby. A human offspring is a child. A human offspring is nothing but a baby, a child, a little person.
Megan, your reply didn’t come across as snarky at all. It was quite refreshing, actually. :)
Yes, adoption can be painful (although I personally know of hundreds of adoptions which have turned out incredibly well for all concerned).
A crisis pregnancy is just that; there is often no perfect solution (though I have seen real miracles occur).
The death of the innocent baby is clearly not a ‘solution’. Two wrongs don’t make a right. There is no justification for infanticide.
Adoption simply cannot be as painful as abortion — because no one is forced to die. Can you see that?
You say, ”The government shouldn’t be making [that decision] for them.”
My responses to that statement:
~ Why then should the government have the authority to make a decision concerning any other form of murder?
~ Read Blood Money: Getting Rich Off a Woman’s Right to Choose, by Carol Everett (who once owned a string of abortuaries in Texas). You’ll see why popularly-believed myths about abortion are just that, and get a true picture of the devastation caused by abortion.
~ Read Won by Love, by Norma McCorvey (‘Jane Roe’ of Roe v. Wade). Her perspective, including all she learned, is invaluable.
~ Read at Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s website. More invaluable learning, from the perspective of an OB who co-founded NARAL and committed 75,000 abortions before his eyes were opened to the truth.
P.S. to Megan, who said, “Your choice had a beautiful outcome, clearly.”
Megan, you seem to think I gave my son up for adoption. I didn’t; I made the very difficult, the very unpopular, the right choice to keep him. As I said before, I can’t take credit for that; I was young, confused, worried, scared stiff. I simply knew in my heart that the child I had conceived was just that.
One situation rarely discussed anywhere (and I haven’t seen it mentioned here) is the plight of the nascent child’s dad who sincerely cares and genuinely wants to rear the child, even if the mom isn’t interested in doing so. The politically correct, feminist view is that the dad has no rights, period.
In my case, a key adult in my life pressured me to have an abortion. My pregnancy was seen as an embarrassment, a disgrace, a very inconvenient wrench in the plans which had been laid for my life. In that adult’s eyes, the child (and my feelings, for that matter) were of no consequence — the important thing was to get rid of the baby, and the sooner the better. As I said earlier, that adult has not forgiven me for carrying my son to birth, even after all these years!
Out of the blue, my baby’s dad, who was almost as young as I and certainly not prepared for the responsibility, did in fact step up to the plate and shoulder his responsibility — to me and to the baby. Like me, he had not grown up in a Christian home, yet he instinctively knew the baby was just that – and he wanted to rear the child even if I didn’t want to!
In the midst of all that turmoil we got married. People said we were too young. They said it wouldn’t last. After all, we hadn’t finished our education yet. Neither of us was ‘ready’ for life. We didn’t always feel tremendous feelings of love for each other, though we did both feel we were doing the right thing by giving our baby two parents who were committed to each other and to him. (BTW, a large number of those doomsayers were highly-educated young professionals who had done ‘all the right things’ in their lives — and are divorced today.)
My husband and I were (still are) far from perfect, we had messed up royally, we couldn’t change anything that had happened in the past. Nevertheless, we have now been married more than 30 years, and our first son has several siblings. Through all these years we haven’t always felt tremendous feelings of love for each other — we’ve had our ups and downs — but we have always been totally committed to each other and to our children.
Though we did not realize it way back then, the God we did not yet know was able to work in our lives in a loving, powerful way to change us both from the inside out, little by little, until He had led us into a whole new life.
RE: Your statement, above:
I had no way of knowing how my situation would turn out. I had no reason to expect my baby’s dad to do as he did — I honestly expected just the opposite; I dreaded telling him about the pregnancy. I just knew the baby was indeed a baby, and I could not purposely take his life from him. If it had come down to just him and me, alone in the world, I would have had to take it one day at a time and do the best I could.
In the intervening years, I have spent hours upon hours helping young girls and women who are as desperate as I was way back then. I often see myself in their scared, worried eyes. God has been so good to me, so faithful and true, I want to give something back; I want to stand in the gap for those who, like me, have relatives who are cold and unfeeling and unwilling to do anything positive for them.
It has been the great delight of my life to help these girls and women get prenatal care, maternity and baby supplies, to connect them with people who can help them finish their education and/or get a job, and to stay connected with them long after their babies have been born. Many of them have become close friends. It might surprise you to know how many of their babies’ dads were like mine and did not abandon them, but stepped up to the plate. As I mentioned above, this is very under-reported – yet is very significant.
Please forgive me for going on and on. I’m sure you realize my passion. I just wanted to clarify, I had no way of knowing my situation would turn out as it has. The main story we hear through media and pro-aborts is that there is no help, no ‘solution’, except abortion — IOW, the baby must die in order for everyone involved to have a ‘good life’. I can tell you, after more than 25 years of working with young women/men/families in crisis pregnancies, that is simply not true. There is hope.
Hi Rayilyn.
You continue to call the embryo a bunch of undifferentiated cells. Are you aware that modern biology has shown that the human organism begins during the process of fertilization and continues to grow from the zygote stage onward, developing into a fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent, and adult (etc.) and that these names are simply names to describe a stage of development and not what the thing is intrinsically? It is a whole organism- whole in the sense that “[it is] whole at the point at which *it* and not some external maker is internally unified and responsible for its further development, including the growth and development of its parts.” (Christopher Tollefsen) You seem to think that personhood is the problem, so I must ask: what is it that makes someone a person? What must they do or have done to them or go through in order to make them worthy of dignity and garner the right to not be killed?
I am truly and deeply sorry for all the pain and suffering you have had to go through. I can not image what that is like. But I am not sure how it is either the fault of those who wish all humans to not be killed or why it would be acceptable to relieve your suffering if it meant killing someone.
A zygote is not by itself ever going to become a person unless it is successfully implanted in a human uterus. We are talking about a fertilized egg created in a petri dish that would otherwise be discarded after being frozen, not fetuses, babies, kids, or people.
Abortion has nothing to do with embryonic stem cell research. If you keep affording more “dignity” to microscopic cells than to a living PWP who has rigor mortis without benefit of death, you are harming not only medical research, but the anti-abortion movement itself.
Photos of aborted fetuses are more effective IMHO than a law to bestow 14th amendment due process rights on an egg.
In IVF technology there is already ‘gene biopsy” where a cell is extracted from an embryo to test for genetic diseases. The identification and etiology of genetic diseases is determined by studying embryonic stem cells. The cause of PD is unknown. Some think genes are the cause for some people. Everyone is different.
Also, ESCs are not only needed to study adult and iPSCs, but to test for new drugs and treatments.
There is no evidence that umbilical cord cells will cure PD. Would I know or not? Brain surgery while awake is the best we can do for last 10 years.
I agree, babies don’t have to be murdered to improve life for the living. Get off this phony charge!!
Hi Rayilyn.
“A zygote is not by itself ever going to become a person unless it is successfully implanted in a human uterus.”
So is that what it takes to be a person? If you implant in a uterus, then you are a person. Is that correct? What about being implanted in a uterus means that you have dignity and moral worth that one who has never implanted in a uterus is lacking? Why should I place value on something because it has implanted in a uterus and not value something which has not implanted in a uterus?
“We are talking about a fertilized egg created in a petri dish that would otherwise be discarded after being frozen, not fetuses, babies, kids, or people.”
We are talking about human embryos. There is no such thing as a fertilized egg. Fertilized, being an adjective, applies to “egg” the “whatness.” Biologically it is not an egg. It is a human organism. So teh whatness of the object in question is human organism, not egg. You mention that it will be discarded after being frozen. What does that have to do with the moral question of what it is? Is the idea that if it will be “discarded” then we can do whatever we want with it?
“Abortion has nothing to do with embryonic stem cell research. If you keep affording more “dignity” to microscopic cells than to a living PWP who has rigor mortis without benefit of death, you are harming not only medical research, but the anti-abortion movement itself. ”
All this does is assume that the unborn and embryos are not persons. If they are not, then of course I agree with the above. But if my position is correct and the unborn are persons, then your argument is simply question begging.
And again, they are not cells. You’re a bunch of cells. We’re all made up of cells. That doesn’t really address anything. All it is is a smokescreen. And they’re microscopic. So what? What is the implication here? If I need a microscope to see you, then you are not worthy of life? What does one’s size have to do with their moral worth?
“I agree, babies don’t have to be murdered to improve life for the living. Get off this phony charge!!”
Haha, nice. Here is what I said:
“But I am not sure how it is either the fault of those who wish all humans to not be killed or why it would be acceptable to relieve your suffering if it meant killing someone.”
Where did I say that you are saying that babies have to murdered? The fact that the embryo is human is a scientific fact. I am very careful to use all the pro-choice jargon so that no one can disregard my arguments by appealing to the use of “improper words.” So I never say an abortion kills a baby, I never say h-ESCR is murder because I know that pro-choicers will argue against my use of the terms “murder” and “baby.” I mentioned neither of them in my critique, yet you STILL managed to “call me out on my straw man.”
So what are you saying? ESCR murders/kills a cell or a person or “someone”? All I can say is this “personhood” for cells is going to be hard to implement and is a hard sell.
As a young woman I never needed an abortion so I don’t know what I would have done. Anyone who came of age in the 1950’s knows it was a crime for an unmarried woman to become pregnant. Societal attitdes are different today and that should work in your favor. Contraceptives in the 1960’s were progress and I don’t think people will like losing them.
My Mormon cousin opposes ESCR because she thinks it “keeps people from being born”, as she literally believes “souls” are just waiting for bodies. When I pointed out that her use of contraceptives to limit her family to three children kept people from being born, she refused to speak to me any more.
Thanks for listening.
“So what are you saying? ESCR murders/kills a cell or a person or “someone”? ”
My CLAIM is that it is a person, but that is what I am trying to convince you of. Using the word “someone” I don’t think is controversial because biologically the embryo is a human being (so a someone) but perhaps does not have the same rights or dignity that a “person” (however one understands that) has. (which i think is similar to what you are saying)
In any event, I would of course disagree with your cousin as to the reason why she is opposed to ESCR. Actually, to be more precise, it is not the fact that scientists are experimenting on embryonic stem cells that is the problem. That is fine. To state teh problem more accurately, we are opposed to HOW the esc are obtained. They are removed from an embryo, which immediately results in teh embryo’s death. Now if there was a way to obtain esc without killing the embryo, I might still have some qualms about taking parts of the body of someone without their consent, but it certainly wouldn’t be nearly as objectionable, and I could possibly be convinced that it was okay. But teh main problem is that obtaining an esc requires taking it from an embryo, immediately resulting in its death.
But again, Rayilyn, I can’t imagine how debilitating having Parkinson’s must be, and how much I can even try and sympathize with your pain.
Gene biopsy currently allows a cell to be removed and tested for genetic defects without destroying the embryo. IVF children born after this procedure are fine. However, if used for ESCR you would still have those thousands of extra embryos at IVF clinics destined for the dust bin.
I am just not convinced that a zygote is a person; Ii believe it is a human cell and therefore potential life like an acorn is not an oak tree.
I don’t believe PD will be cured by any kind of stem cell replacement, at least not until the cause is known. Spinal cord injury is not caused by disease or genes so it is another story. I’ve already listed the other uses of ESCR.
I hope I understand your position, I just don’t agree with it.
Gene biopsy for IVF embryos: Its called PGD or preimplantation genetic diagnosis, I checked it out.
Acorns don’t become maple trees. Human zygotes are human beings. Just as young as you can be, that’s all.
Hans
If I may ask, what is your take on sperm and egg germ cells? Are they half humans not gern cells?
Also do personhood folks all agree that these cells are persons?
Rayilyn, we are talking about the human being that results when the sperm enters the egg. Before the average woman even knows she is pregnant, the baby’s heart is beating and the spine is developed. One of the main criteria doctors use to determine the presence of life is the beating of the heart.
Every living thing on earth starts out as a miniscule form, and then develops from there. To intentionally, forcefully interrupt the process of development of a human being is murder, period — whether it is before birth, or afterward.
I am just not convinced that a zygote is a person; Ii believe it is a human cell and therefore potential life like an acorn is not an oak tree.
Sperm and eggs are human cells. A zygote is a human being with its own unique DNA. The only “potential life” would be the sperm and egg BEFORE the sperm fertilizes the egg. At that point, both have the “potential” to give rise to a new life. But upon fertilization, there is no “potential.” Life has occurred.
The zygote is a living being. It is not a blood cell, a liver cell, or a brain cell, and neither is it any longer a sperm or an egg.
Every cell in my body has my DNA that theoretically could be cloned.
Saying that a zygote is a human being does not make it one. It has no heart, brain or spine and will never have them unless it is implanted in a uterus and develops into a born alive human being; implantation is when doctors and scientists say life begins.
Please explain murder of a cell. I guess you all don’t agree.
Although cells are awesome and amazing they are not human beings or “beings” of any kind.
one last question I promise – is it OK or not OK to interfere with fertilization of an egg?
I guess you would say it is not OK to throw away extra IVF embryos??? Should people be forced to “adopt” unwanted embryos….Snowflakes has only found “parents” for about 100 of the 400,000 or so in IVF clinics. Should only personhood supporters, not scientists, be allowed to dictate what kind of research can be done?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote
“A zygote (from Greek ??????? zyg?tos “joined” or “yoked”, from ?????? zygoun “to join” or “to yoke”),[1] or zygocyte, is the initial cell formed when a new organism is produced by means of sexual reproduction. A zygote is synthesized from the union of two gametes, and constitutes the first stage in a unique organism’s development. Zygotes are usually produced by a fertilization event between two haploid cells—an ovum from a female and a sperm cell from a male—which combine to form the single diploid cell. Such zygotes contain DNA derived from both the mother and the father, and this provides all the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. The term zygote is also used more loosely to refer to the group of cells formed by the first few cell divisions, although this is properly referred to as a morula.
In mammalian reproduction, after fertilization has taken place the zygote travels down the fallopian tube, while dividing to form more cells[2] without the zygote actually increasing in size. This cell division is mitotic, and is known as cleavage.[3] All mammals go through the zygote stage of life. Zygotes eventually develop into an embryo, and then a fetus. A human zygote exists for about four days, and becomes a blastocyst on the fifth day.[4]”
Implantation is when pregnancy is said to begin. Not life. Life begins at fertilization. http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/8/scientists-attest-life-beginning-conception/ Please take the time to read the quotes there.
Rayilyn, what additional genetic information is added to the zygote during the process of development? Are you stating that in order to be considered “human,” one must have a heart, brain and spine and be implanted in a uterus? What if I have all the genetic information necessary to form a heart, brain and spine? No? Not human enough for you?
one last question I promise – is it OK or not OK to interfere with fertilization of an egg?
If an egg is not fertilized, there is no resulting unique human life. There is simply a female ovum. Why would that be an issue?
Rayilyn, we are talking about the human being that results when the sperm enters the egg. Before the average woman even knows she is pregnant, the baby’s heart is beating and the spine is developed. One of the main criteria doctors use to determine the presence of life is the beating of the heart.
Every living thing on earth starts out as a miniscule form, and then develops from there. To intentionally, forcefully interrupt the process of development of a human being is murder, period — whether it is before birth, or afterward.
Rayilyn,
“Every cell in my body has my DNA that theoretically could be cloned.”
Right. But the problem is that what-it-is biologically (and I would argue philosophically) is not a human being. Here is the major difference between a skin cell and a zygote. A zygote has the natural potential for further development into the embryonic, fetal, toddler, and adult stages while a skin cell does not. That is, given the proper environment and nutrition, the zygote will develop ON ITS OWN into those stages. A skin cell does not. A zygote is an integrated whole. It grows itself, just like you and I grow ourselves. Sure, we happen to be in the proper environment to survive (planet earth) and are given the proper nutrition (food) but the growth is interior, not brought about by some external force. Remember that quote from Christopher Toffelson I mentioned above:
“[An organism is whole when] *it* and not some external maker is internally unified and responsible for its further development, including the growth and development of its parts.”
This can be said of the zygote. It cannot be said of a skin cell.
“It has no heart, brain or spine and will never have them unless it is implanted in a uterus and develops into a born alive human being; implantation is when doctors and scientists say life begins.”
Now this is interesting. At implantation, the embryo has none of those things- it does not have a heart, a brain, or a spine. Now I must ask- is it the fact that you have a spine that I value you, Rayilyn? When we think about what it is that makes us born humans valuable, is it the fact that we have a spine, or a brain, or a heart? You mention life beginning at implantation. I think the “new” definition that some have made up to suite their agenda is actually PREGNANCY begins at implantation, but life. The scientific fact, though, is that most of us began development as a zygote. There is no substantial difference between the embryo who has implanted and the embryo who has not implanted. I have plenty of quotes from scientific and embryology texts which verify the fact that the human organism begins developing in the zygote stage. Do you have any scientific evidence that the non-implanted embryo is of a different kind than the implanted embryo?
“Although cells are awesome and amazing they are not human beings or “beings” of any kind.”
Actually cells are beings. Anything that exists is a being. It bes. A zygote is made up of cells, but as we mentioned above, it is more than just cells. It is an integrated whole which self-directs towards growth, just like you and me.
“I guess you would say it is not OK to throw away extra IVF embryos???”
Here I am not sure that there is any moral action that can be taken with the frozen embryos. There was an evil done by bringing them about. There may be no good solution. If an evil action has been done, one does not have to give some way out of that evil action.
“Should only personhood supporters, not scientists, be allowed to dictate what kind of research can be done?”
Clear moral thinking should be allowed to dictate what kind of research is done. For if any scientist can dictate how any kind of research is done, why not just do research by making up numbers and fudginging data? If you insist that scientists must conduct their research without making things up, you are playing a scientist and keeping them from doing the research they want to do, right? Of course not. Scientific inquiry must be guided by ethics. We certainly would not say that we are dictating how scientists do their research if we insist that they can not remove organs from livin elderly people. Thus, science should indeed be at the mercy of clear, moral thinking.
and the penalty for murdering a zygote is?
one major misconceptpion you promote is that zygotes develop on their own if left alone.
not true of IVF embryos.
if you google “preimplantation genetic diagnosis” you will find articles and pix of PGD
do you think childless couples who have had children via IVF think it is evil ?
nobody wants organs from living elderly people. you’ll recall organ transplants were once opposed by “clear moral thinkers”
“and the penalty for murdering a zygote is?”
It depends. Like all things, it depends on the situation, the circumstances, the culpability, one’s level of knowledge, etc. just like any other injustice. But the question is- if killing a zygote is indeed killing a person, what is wrong with saying that if one engages in that action, then there will be a penalty under the law?
“one major misconceptpion you promote is that zygotes develop on their own if left alone.
not true of IVF embryos.
if you google “preimplantation genetic diagnosis” you will find articles and pix of PGD”
I’m not positive if this third statement is supposed to be evidence for the claim in the second quoted sentence. No one claims that they can grow apart from the proper environment and nutrition… I guess I don’t understand how the existence of PGD refutes the claim that zygotes will develop on their own given the proper environment and nutrition. A properly functioning zygote, mind you. Indeed, sometimes fertilization can result in a non-zygote, such as when it forms a hydatidiform mole, but this is an exception and not the rule. We are talking about a zygote.
“do you think childless couples who have had children via IVF think it is evil ?”
Maybe. I don’t like to speculate about what others think.
“nobody wants organs from living elderly people.”
This is a moot point. We could all of a suddenly develop a technology tomorrow such that organs from elderly people would be beneficial. Or we could want them simply to study the chemitry of how organs age, or any number of other things. The question is not is there a need- teh question is would it be moral to take organs from the elderly? If the answer is no, then it turns out that science needs to be informed by ethics.
“you’ll recall organ transplants were once opposed by “clear moral thinkers””
I actually don’t recall that. Not saying it isn’t true, but I have never heard that claim made before. But suppose it has been. How does it then follow that anything I put forward is then wrong? In other words, how does their being wrong imply that I am wrong now? The fact that some people have been wrong in teh past doesn’t at all address the issue of whether or not what we are discussing now is moral or clear or ethical.
You don’t rercall opposition to organ transplants because you’re young. There was opposition to IVF for “playing god”. It seems when something works minds are changed.
PGD has nothing to do with the ethical status of a zygote although it could for osme people.
I am disabled and can’t type very long as my hands are like paws and I have to correct. it is difficult to do so you wonn’t get long responses from me.
Ii think the hpr obleml with personohood is that hit affects more than ab ortion – IVF, contraceptives and ESCR, all of owhichi you oppose. it results in l ong diatribes that are unconvincing.
Rayilyn, there is quite a difference between an organ being transplanted and a preborn baby being killed.
Saying this as gently as I can, realizing you are dealing with Parkinson’s Disease – do you really advocate the murder of babies so that your symptoms can hopefully be eased?
Denying their humanness does not change the fact they are indeed human beings.
If advances in genetics continue so that it can be determined that a nascent child would develop Parkinson’s Disease later in life, do you believe that should be a ‘reason’ to take that child’s life before s/he has had a chance to live outside the womb?
My last post timed out, Rayilyn. This link shows the viability (not to mention the humanity) of using umbilical cords in stem cell research:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/nov/10111008.html
what is wrong with you people? You are talking about the very basic, most primitive stages of human life, which would not progress unless a woman agrees to give up her body for the process. We are not talking about toddlers, or even babies, but ZYGOTES. You would privilege a zygote over the interests of an adult woman experiencing tremendous suffering? You seem to like the idea that having a new set of DNA is requirement enough to be considered a human being. Why is this self-evident? You like to invoke biology, as if pro-choicers don’t know anything about developmental embryology. But the fact of the matter is that your definition of “personhood” is just as “arbitrary” and ideologically-motivated. You scoff when Rayilyn asks whether gametes are “half-persons,” but why is this line of thinking unsound? Also, again, why not consider miscarriage to be manslaughter? Who cares if all the causes are unknown–the outcome is still the same! We do know that smoking is bad for pregnancy, and is a risk factor for miscarriage. If Personhood 62 were made law, why wouldn’t the State be able to jail smokers who experienced miscarriage?
Babies and toddlers and you and I start out as zygotes. Pretty simple really.
Claire
I don’t want a baby to be killed to cure my Parkinson’s disease. Zygotes are not babies, they are microscopic undifferentiated cells. There is no baby aborted in order to do embryonic stem cell research. And we are only talking about frozen cells that will be thrown away. How is that an example of “clear moral thinking”?
When PGD advances to identifying a gene for PD, if there is “one” that would be up to the donors to decide whether they wish to attempt implantation of that embryo or one free of disease.
for myself, I don’t think life is worthwhile. PD is worse than cancer; it never lets you go. It is like being buried alive and cancels out any good I’ve done in my life. This does not mean I favor killing babies for a cure. It is just my judgement on a life with disease. Spinal cord injury must be worse. You have to have a certain amount of physical ability to successfully kill yourself. you could end up worse off.
you know YOung Onset Parkinson’s is becoming prevalent. a young gal in her late 20’s who was a Director like me of the Arizona Chapter of the National Parkinson’s Foundation killed herself after her DBS brain surgery. She was before my time on the
Board and one of othe reasons I favor actual living people over fighting for the dignity of cells.
Rayilyn, a preborn baby is a living human being from the moment of conception — there is no ‘magic moment’ when a “non-baby” suddenly becomes a baby. And his/her heart is beating and the spine is developed before the average mom even knows she is pregnant.
As you already know, a beating heart is a major criterion doctors use to confirm the presence of life.
I don’t know why you are adverse to the use of stem cells from umbilical cords. Doctors and scientists say they are at least as good, perhaps better, than “harvested” stem cells from human offspring. And the humanitarian issue is HUGE. A life does not have to be sacrificed for another.
It is not any baby’s fault that the young woman you cited died. 52,000,000 babies have been legally murdered since January 1973. This is unconscionable, and it needs to end. Life has been way too devalued already.
If advances in genetics continue so that it can be determined that a nascent child would develop Parkinson’s Disease later in life, do you believe that should be a ‘reason’ to take that child’s life before s/he has had a chance to live outside the womb?
the zygotes in question are never in a womb
I GET IT! OR AT LEAST I THINK I DO.
I’m assuming you know that when I’m talking about embryonic stem cell research I’m also talking about human reproduction by IVF (in vitro fertilization methods), not the old fashioned way.
No one is going into a pregnant woman’s body to retrieve cells of any kind, as in amniocentosis (spelling); these preembryos or zygotes have been created outside the human body in a petri dish in an IVF clinic.
They consist of a few microscopic (can’t be seen by the naked eye) undifferentiated (aren’t anything, blank cells) cells that will be frozen until (1) they are implanted in a human uterus, (2) discarded, or (3) used for research.
PGD or preimplantation genetic diagnosis is where a cell is taken from the zygote to screen it for some diseases, gender, and general health. Donors can then decide which embryos they want to try to implant.
Now, you may still want to argue that zygotes equal persons because they have DNA and we all started that way, but at least you have some idea of what we are talking about.
I apologize for the misunderstanding. Abortion is not my main concern as it is yours. My focus is on the stem cell research that the “personhood” movement blocks. I am so involved in it I assume everyone knows about IVF techniques and their relation to stem cell research.
Rayilyn, I get your concern too. I really do.
But whether a sperm impregnates an egg in a womb or outside a womb, a person is created. The person does not start out a “non-person” and then suddenly become a “real person” at some magic moment in time.
Why are you adverse to the use of stem cells from umbilical cords? Doctors and scientists say they are at least as good, perhaps better, than “harvested” stem cells from human offspring. And the humanitarian issue is HUGE. A life does not have to be sacrificed for another.
If advances in genetics continue so that it can be determined that a nascent child would develop Parkinson’s Disease later in life, do you believe that should be a ‘reason’ to take that child’s life before s/he has had a chance to live outside the womb?
Claire
I agree that how something is created has little to do with whether it should be or not. IVF is fact; whether it is moral is opinion. Your repeated references to “beating hearts” give the impression that your knowledge of IVF and its relation to ESCR is limited.
All I ‘m trying to do is to let people know the “what” of this issue.
I’m not going to change your mind, but I’m not sure you understand IVF or ESCR.
I favor all kinds of stem cell research and we won’t know what works for which disease unless the research is done.
I’m guessing your Parkinson’s question refers to amniosentesis, not preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Being pro-choice I don’t advise people to either abort or not abort.
If its PGD don’t use that embryo.
If the child in question was my own I would probably attempt to have it and hope there would be a cure by the time she was old enough to get it although Young Onset is a concern. Huntington’s or ALS I would probably abort if people like you were still opposing research. These diseases are complex and it will take forever to cure them.
Good question, but at the age that could have happened to me I knew nothing about PD. I’m 75 now and my main job now is getting from one room to another without falling on my face.
thankfully abortion is one question I have never had to face.
I am so happy that evil lying dog Buck lost!
How dare he try to get power by stabbing the babies in the back!
Rayilyn, you are 75 years old. You have had the opportunity to live a whole lifetime; no one aborted you. I wish you were willing to extend that same right to other nascent children.
I am truly sorry you are pro-abortion and that you have no problem with using aborted babies’ bodies to ‘harvest’ stem cells.
If advances in genetics continue so that it can be determined that a nascent child would develop Parkinson’s Disease later in life, do you believe that should be a ‘reason’ to take that child’s life before s/he has had a chance to live outside the womb?