Huckabee thinks eggs’ rights trump women’s

zygoye.jpg
Not a person.
Mike Huckabee has endorsed Colorado’s “Human Life Amendment,” which defines a fertilized egg as a person.

“This proposed constitutional amendment will define a person as a human being from the moment life begins at conception,” Huckabee said in a statement.
“With this amendment, Colorado has an opportunity to send a clear message that every human life has value,” Huckabee said. “Passing this amendment will mean the people of Colorado will protect the sanctity of life from conception until natural death occurs.”
[This] initiative, if approved by voters in November, would extend state constitutional protections to every fertilized egg, guaranteeing the right to life, liberty, equality of justice and due process of law.

Women, not so much.

and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

57 Comments

  1. Posted February 27, 2008 at 11:49 pm | Permalink

    Crazy shit like this is why I signed up with Planned Parenthood to be an activist and go to Albany and lobby.
    Unfortunately “you fucking moron” isn’t a particularly eloquent or convincing argument.

  2. Posted February 28, 2008 at 12:23 am | Permalink

    As for the “seed” vs. “tree” some have used. Exactly, What kind of seed grows into a tree? A “tree seed.”
    In this case, “tree” and “seed” are two names to describe the SAME entity, just at different points in time.
    Kind of like “zygote” and “baby.”
    Thanks for making my point.

    No, you still have no point. “A seed is a tree at a different point in time” makes absolutely no sense. That’s like saying a 23-year-old is a 100-year-old at a different point in time. If I ever reach 100 years old, I’ll still be the same entity as I am now, but I’m not going to be 23, just like I’m not 100 now.

  3. werechick
    Posted February 28, 2008 at 1:38 am | Permalink

    Papist:
    If some random woman were to walk up to you, and slice from your abdomen your left kidney, how would you react? She doesn’t consult you, she doesn’t ask for your permission, she just slices it from you, on behalf of some unknown person. How do you react to that?
    What if, on a much smaller scale, some woman decides your blood should be available at any time, and will take you out of your home, school, place of business, wherever you are, regardless of what you are doing, and drain you of a couple of pints. How would you feel about that? Would you be outraged?
    If you have a right to be outraged when your body is highjacked by some hypothetical woman on behalf of some other person, and, obviously, not outraged when a woman’s body is hijacked by very real men on behalf of a proto-person, you have some serious questions to answer. Namly: why is a woman’s body public property?
    A woman’s body is HERS.

  4. Laurie Feiner
    Posted February 28, 2008 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    I am so staunchly pro-choice, and I think this is bullshit, but I do have to point out a problem in the argument a lot of us are using.
    There is a difference between a woman randomly going up to someone and slicing out their kidney and a fertilized egg using their kidney.
    To become pregnant, you have to have sex. You are taking a risk of pregnancy every time he ejaculates in or near you. So it’s not like a random person came up to you and stole your kidney.
    That being said, I think I came up with a better metaphor. Let’s say Kate signs up to be a bone marrow donor, because it makes her feel good and charitable. One day, a stranger asks her to be a donor to keep, I don’t know, a brain dead coma patient alive. Kate doesn’t want to, ’cause, like, she’s not ready to make such a big commitment; sure, she signed up to donate, but that doesn’t mean she HAS to. No one would FORCE Kate to give this person her marrow.
    On another note, I’d like to add that Huckabee is a stupid, stupid little man, and I hope he gets a paper cut that won’t stop bleeding for nine months.

  5. Laurie Feiner
    Posted February 28, 2008 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    Oh and I have a question for these religious pro-lifers:
    If life begins at conception, were Adam and Eve fucking aliens?

  6. werechick
    Posted February 28, 2008 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    But the possibility of pregnancy isn’t the goal, just a known side effect of the decision to have sex. When a person signs up to be a donor, that’s more aptly compared to a woman trying to concieve, which is a different circumstance.

  7. Wade
    Posted February 15, 2009 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

    At conception-when the sperm is joined with the ovum (egg)-a new cell is created. This cell is smaller than a grain of rice, BUT, it contains a unique genitic blueprint. This new life has inherited 23 chromosones from each parent, 46 in all. The Childs sex, hair and eye color, heigth, skin tone ect have all been determined at this early stage in life. Why is it so hard for us to see this as a human being? doesnt life have to start somewhere? why not at conception? Do we determine the value of life by the degree of their size? or dependency??? We see human beings as people who are out there walking by us every day, being pushed in strollers….
    is there any reason why our life cannot begin in the womb? Life begins as conception and we just have to accept it and let life run its course, not end it before its had a chance to develop.

168 queries. 0.630 seconds