The 'eggs are people too' argument is the stupidest in the anti-choicer arsenal. This is ridiculous, and would lead to all sorts of legal nightmares.

So all the extra ones from in-vitro fertilization are little persons sitting in freezers?

Can we enact legislation where a person is defined by breathing oxygen, instead of being a ball of cells? It's just crazy. Those pro-birthers (because most of them only care about the fetus not the baby when it is actually born) will stop at nothing. Their goal is to keep women exhausted in the never ending fight to become autonomous. That's how patriarchy continues, keep the women fighting stupid fights that should be just common sense. For example, ball of cells being defined as a human.

A fertilized egg is a person when the gummint issues it a Social Security number. And not before.

Silly. But dangerous.

Sometimes it boggles my mind how the so-called Conservative/Republican Right, which is supposed to represent "small government" (low taxation, no entitlements) and "personal liberty" (keep your hands off my gun) spends so much of its time, resources and energy fighting to strip women of their personal liberty in choosing when to have a child, and preaching to everyone what we should believe (concerning religion).

Are they so dense, or merely hypocritical, that they do not, or choose not to, see the internal contradiction between their fueding ideologies?

david

Some of these responses are far too glib for the serious issue at hand.

Bethany raises an important point about the issues this amendment can raise. (This is not addressed to you.)

However, to say that a person is not a person until the government gives you a Social Security number does not really address the seriousness of the issue. I do not want my personhood dependent on the issuance of identification by the government.

And, "ball of cells being defined as a human"? That is what we are all, at some level. it avoids the question about what makes us human.

And, the argument is not that "eggs are people too." This sounds a lot like the argument that masturbation is murder, which utterly misses the point made by this amendment.

If you are going to ridicule arguments, you should not do it with ridiculous comments. It does not speak well of your cause.

"And, the argument is not that "eggs are people too." "

What is it then?

Also, have you ever heard this little thing about how it's easier to tear down other peoples' creations/arguments than to create your own?

You did a lot of criticizing there without actually saying much of anything at all about what /you/ believe. So why don't you get on that?

We are all a ball of cells at some level, indeed. We are all carbon-based. We are all composed of complex systems. The key factor distinguishing us from the ball of cells in question is an autonomous existence, independent of a host organism. Things like breathing oxygen and having brainwaves are the intrinsic icing and sprinkles on that particular cupcake.

I think that the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice divide ultimately between Life versus Liberty.

Everyone (generally) can agree that Life and Liberty do not come into conflict on this issue after birth.

However, the issue of when life begins is what creates the conflict (for the most part). The Pro-Lifers will say that life starts with a fertilized egg with a unique human genetic structure. That is where they see the conflict beginning between Life and Liberty. The Pro-Choicers will either say that it starts at birth (meaning there is no conflict between Life and Liberty) or, even if it starts at conception (or implantation, or somewhere down the line prior to birth), the Liberty interest trumps the Life interest.

What do I believe? I believe that nobody knows when it begins.

However, having the government put a definition on it can be useful, but also dangerous (regardless of when it states that it is a person).

A serious answer? How about brain function?

When a living, breathing ADULT human loses brain function beyond any reasonable hope of recovery, that person is declared brain dead (or persistently vegetative), and his next-of-kin can make the decision to have him removed from life support. It's kind of hard to argue that a clump of cells -- on in the case of this amendment, a SINGLE CELL -- where there is no possibility of even a rudimentary nervous system, let alone a fully functioning brain, is entitled to more legal protection than that.

There is no real person there yet. Only a potential person. This law would protect the rights of a non-existent person at the expense of an actual one.

Um, Jut Gory? Sometimes being glib is okay and helps unite people in a cause. This is a BLOG, where discussion is allowed. It's not as if these people are writing newspaper articles or making speaches. It's a blog. Where people are sometimes glib.

Perhaps we should set up a fund now, just in case, for the smuggling of oral contraceptives into the state.

This law would protect the rights of a non-existent person at the expense of an actual one.

Exactly.

A simply put but well said (and non-glib) response.

Thank you avast2006

david

I'm worried by the use of the egg picture and caption. So, your point is that because something does not look human, it is not human. Let's carry that out a step -- what about when a fetus starts looking human? You have become your own strawman.

They aren't talking about fetuses, though, janet. They are talking about fertilized eggs.

Janet: what?

I'm sorry but I think you missed the mark with accusations of a "strawman," mostly because nobody cares if a fertilized egg looks like a human or not (or even if it has a smiley face on it)--what we do care about is that it's a single cell and therefore NOT a person.

One of my concerns about this legislation is this:

Many women carry fertilized eggs (that either result in a pregnancy or don't) without even knowing it. If these single cells are considered people, what sort of restrictions will be put on women? Could they be subject to pregnancy tests before having a glass of wine or smoking a cigarette? You know, just in case there's a person in there?

Exactly, carly! I just had sex last night with my boyfriend (sorry for the TMI!), and while we used a condom (not on birth control currently), what if it broke (knowingly or unknowingly)? What if an egg was fertilized without my knowing?

I'm going out to dinner tonight. Should I not be allowed to have a few beers with my pizza because an egg "might" have been fertilized? How is this egg even remotely a person, fertilized or not?!

However, the issue of when life begins is what creates the conflict (for the most part).

When life begins should be completely irrelevant in this issue. When is it right for anything -- human, animal, or clump of cells -- to use another person's body against their will? Never.

I have never been more ashamed of the state in which I was born, nor more glad I now live out West. 10 to 1 Tom Tancredo and Marilyn Musgrove are backing this fully. What about when a fertilized egg is naturally passed out of the body for whatever reason? Will the cops be collecting used tampons now to see if there's a "person" on them? What's next, passing a law that women of childbearing age (an ever-widening time frame) can't have alcohol at all, just in case? This is a disgusting bit of legislation and I will assuredly be writing to someone.

Vanessa - this proposal just happened in Ohio this week.

The intro of these bills reminds me of last year when several states started to submit identical bills that sought to have state pensions divest of funds connected to Iran. Most of those didn't get through at all. But there's a list that I guess legislators are given in every state by their respective interests or parties and there they go, trying to get them in.

This is a very serious amendment, not just for us in Colorado, but for those in other states. Colorado, because of its high profile postion this political year, is being used as a battleground state. If this passes, it will mean that these amendments will be placed on the ballots of other states, if they can be.

Folks, please, if you can, donate to Protect Famlies, Protect Choices. This is the colition of groups fighting this thing (through media, education, etc.) NARAL, Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and many others are members of that colition. And raising money is a significant need, due to the increased media prices in the Denver area with the DNC taking place here in August.

Even a few bucks will help. You can donate here:

http://www.protectfamiliesprotectchoice.org/

This a. might have been mentioned already and b. may be quite obvious, but the merriam-webster dictionary defines a person as: 'one that is recognized by law and as the subject of rights and duties. If that is indeed the case, if a woman unknowingly gets pregnant and has a beer, the fetus has committed an underage drinking crime and should therefore be punished by the law. Sounds, silly? absolutely. If a woman smokes, the fetus smokes, and therefore another law is broken. Is the fetus not committing theft when it takes precious energy and resources from the mother? Aren't people the most dangerous creatures on the planet? In that case, a pregnant mother is potentially hiding a concealed weapon. These are all far out there, but really, where should the line be drawn?

Hmm, since a fertilized egg obviously isn't a "natural person", they must be vying for the US definition of "legal person" (to which being an actual human being isn't a criteria).

Does this mean that you could then sue the egg-legal person or fetus-legal person and/or have it evicted?

You know, what with them having the "inalienable right to due process" and all...

FEMily!
That is why I said for the most part. Some Pro-Choicers might say, if we knew for certain that a fertilized egg was a person (making abortion murder), they might be pro-Life.

But to be clear, if you are saying that when life begins is irrelevant and that abortion is always permissible up to the completion of physical birth (my interpolation of your remark), then, depending upon when life begins, you would be okay with murder.

(By the way, I am not judging that point of view, I am just looking to be clear on what is at stake with that position.)

Ugh, how horrible!

My reproductive physiology teacher in medical school told us it was difficult to be sure, but about 10% of fertilized eggs actually implant.

The slippery slope of this legislation is ridiculous. What about the IVF embryos, exactly? What about women who have problems keeping a pregnancy? Are they commiting infanticide every time they have a miscarriage?

Let the medical community deal with medical issues and medical ethics.

How do they know that the zygote isnt pro-choice? I would be, as I wouldnt want to be forced onto my mother and would therefore believe she should be able to make that choice for herself. I wouldnt feel my choices can be forced over hers. I would think that when I GET a body, I would want the same respect. So, if I'm a person with full rights, then why shouldnt the laws respect my views on choice? But of course, a zygote isnt a full-grown with rights human being, so this view is completetly redundant anyways....

Jut, I may be going out on a limb here (I doubt it), but I think it's safe to say that no pro-choicer will ever come to that conclusion since we do know that a fertilized egg isn't a person.

Of course, if we had the power to start to arbitrarily modify the very fabrics of literal reality, anything would be possible.

Also, if nothing else, according to a famous comedian, *life* began about a billion years ago, and is an ongoing process that keeps rolling, and rolling, and rolling along...

A lot of things can correctly be considered life, or human, or human life, and still not be actual people.

Has anyone seen any polling on this? Is there a snowball's chance this idiocy might pass? I hope NARAL and the other organizations are trying to get the word out to the average person about how much this might damage.

And if it does, do any of you legal types know if the SCOTUS could rule that the change to that state constitution violates the U. S. Constitution (assuming someone files against it)?

Ugh...I hate the state I live in! I cant help but wonder if who I just passed on the street was one of those 131,245 idiots in my state who was stupid enough to sign this petition! This is completetly insane!A zygote is NOT a full assed person with lawful rights! Government shouldnt even be wasting our time on this crap!

Like TheNerd said:

This would put hormonal contraceptives in danger. Since one of the functions of the Pill and other forms of hormonal contraceptives is to make it harder for fertilized eggs to implant, one of the logical conclusions that this amendment could lead to is the banning of the Pill because it would harm persons.

Scare the shit out of anyone else, or is it just me?

This is some serious scary shit. I'm not rolling in the dough by any means, but this is defnitely worth making a small donation to the education efforts for and I don't live in Colorado.

This is some serious scary shit. I'm not rolling in the dough by any means, but this is defnitely worth making a small donation to the education efforts for and I don't live in Colorado.

Since one of the functions of the Pill and other forms of hormonal contraceptives is to make it harder for fertilized eggs to implant

Just an FYI: There is no actual proof that the pill stops a fertilized egg from implanting. The only know and provable mechanism by which the pill works is by preventing fertilization.

Anti-choicers often like to use the idea that the pill/EC works by not letting a fertilized egg implant to classify it as an abortifacient, which it is not.

Again, just an FYI.

Still scary, though, as the anti-choice side would definitely work hard to outlaw the pill and other hormonal contraceptives based on that erroneous assumption. They don't seem to let little things like reality and facts get in their way.

I want someone to get three fertilized eggs (one from a human, one from a chimp and one from some sort of reptile, avian or aquatic life), place them side by side and do a blind study on if anyone can spot the differences, or tell which of the eggs is human. To help, have pictures of the just born, juvenile and adult versions of the eggs presented. Ask the difference between the different stages of life after birth of each creature then ask them what makes the fertilized eggs different.

If they answer "It's human." please proceed to bitch smack them for being stupid and crazy. Also ask them to point out the human embryo. When they get it wrong, tell them "Nope, sorry, not even remotely human." When they try to say "Well, how am I supposed to tell, they're all alike." or "This proves nothing." Say "Exactly." or "It proves that what makes us human doesn't exist at this stage of development if you can't spot the human egg."

...just something that came to me when I saw that picture and read the post. Sarcasm is my friend and I really hate people who stupid on purpose.

Toni

Reply to orchid: I am not a scientist but I think that a fully developed human is much more than a ball of cells. Yes, we have cells but we also have much more. If I looked up human in the dictionary I would hope that it would say more than: human – ball of cells.� That was not the point of my comment though; it was used to express the frivolity of the legislations’ creators. Do they have nothing better to do than to try to get a fertilized egg defined as a person! How do they ever enjoy sex! They must have sex very carefully with full body condoms on. HA… what a great visual image.

Anyways, this legislation is terrifying! It crosses so many lines and puts a woman’s right to choose whether to have a child or to be on birth control into a scary murky gray area; a place that no women wants to go. To quote My Angry Vagina, “those vagina mother fuckers.�

Reply to orchid: I am not a scientist but I think that a fully developed human is much more than a ball of cells. Yes, we have cells but we also have much more. If I looked up human in the dictionary I would hope that it would say more than: human – ball of cells.� That was not the point of my comment though; it was used to express the frivolity of the legislations’ creators. Do they have nothing better to do than to try to get a fertilized egg defined as a person! How do they ever enjoy sex! They must have sex very carefully with full body condoms on. HA… what a great visual image.

Anyways, this legislation is terrifying! It crosses so many lines and puts a woman’s right to choose whether to have a child or to be on birth control into a scary murky gray area; a place that no women wants to go. To quote My Angry Vagina, “those vagina mother fuckers.�

Sorry orchid that was supposed to say, “reply to Jut Glory�. I also accidentally posted twice. Oops.

Sorry orchid that was supposed to say, “reply to Jut Glory�. I also accidentally posted twice. Oops.

Caitlain: preliminary polling indicates a decent chance of it passing as of right now. However, the same polling also indicates that educating the public on the possible reprucussions of the amendment, as well as carefully choice of how that education is messaged changes the chances to not very possible.

That's why there is no choice but a concentrated campaign to fight this thing.

GopherII: IW, Colorado is a wonderful state, for the most part, and we have a great pro-choice and pro-woman base here. It's just a state with quite a bit of diversity in background and belief, and we have more than our fair share of nutsos. But it's worth it living here.

You know, if this piece of horseshit passes, I'd be tempted to have my last frozen embryo shipped to Colorado.

Why? Because if it's legally a person, I guess I could legally claim it as a tax deduction, right? Could I apply for death benefits when we defrost it, do you suppose?

Standard Feministing fare. 99% of the comments are about how those "anti-choicers" are so bad, but never address the moral and ethical issues surrounding abortion. Obviously, to do so is to admit that there is another side - that it's not about imprisoning women, tiring them out, or other b.s., but about preventing cold-blooded murder.

Here, for example, is a description of a D&X, by a nurse:
The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.
The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp.

Now, ladies, when someone wants to ban that, is it because:
1) they hate women; or
2) it is beyond inhumane?

By the way, this amendment in Colorado doesn't protect eggs. Once sperm meets egg, it's not an egg anymore; the term "fertilised egg" is, in fact, medically inaccurate.

Keep thinking that it's all about you, your orgasms, and your sex lives. Makes it easier to beat you in the polls, the ballot boxes, and the legislative office - which, incidentally, is what happens. Most Americans (59%) believe that abortion should be illegal after the heart beats - a mere three weeks after conception.

I'll now wait for the ad hominems, because hell will freeze over before any woman here puts together a discussion of why a human being should be killed at will.

I am glad I don't live in Colorado anymore...geez!

This reminds me of patents on stuff taken from the Earth and processed into something. Then capitalizing on the item as if we all don't own anything. So, now it seems like Colorado wants to not have women own who they are.

It reminds me of this quote from Chief Joseph..."How can you buy or sell the sky? The warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. Yet we do not own the freshness of the air or the sparkle of the water. How can you buy them from us? Every part of this earth is sacred to my people."

Onephile: I could address your inflate rhetoric, your choice of a misleading and overly emotional description of a medical procedure, your unwillingness to admit that very few abortions are performed before actual brain activity begins (and those that are performed are done in cases of real emergency, such as life/health of the mother and extreme deformation or imminate death of the fetus), or the fact that your criticism of "fertalized egg" as innaccurate is actually a criticsm of the language that the anti-choicers supporting this bill used. I could attack your comment in many ways without even breaking a sweat.

Sadly, I need to spend my time fighting these freaks from placing a truly frightning piece of language in our State Constitution, one that opens up all sorts of hellholes for every citizen of the state. And I have to do it while ignoring the typical anti crazies that like to call us murderers and whores and fat and ugly (or skinny, or frumpy, or what have you) when we go to work, trying to be sure that all women in the community can afford pap smears and breast exams and birth control (and that men can afford services as well), and educating school kids on positive, healthy, safe sexuality.

So, I'm not really inclined to take your comment apart, easy as it would be.

reply to oenopahile: That is because it is not a moral issue. Women have been terminating pregnancy's since we became hominids with forethought.

It is not about morals it is about health. If abortion is restricted women suffer and by suffer I don't mean less orgasms (which would be pretty horrible). Women from all walks of life become desperate and their health becomes in jeopardy. We go to "back-ally abortions" where women are mutilated.

Honestly, I am so sick of the fight about abortion. It is absurd and exhausting. I would never force someone who didn't want to have an abortion have one and I expect the same respect. I don't want to be forced to have a child per laws enacted under a patriarchy.

My American history teacher brought this up today in class and I freaked out on him.

It should NOT be the state legislature's decision if abortion is moral or not. It should be up to the woman. Not her boyfriend, not the state, not her parents, but the woman.

There are plenty of pro-choice people who would never get abortions themselves! They are just people who are fighting for a woman's right to choose, which I think that she should have.

Another thing is that this whole abortion fight is so incredibly religiously based. Abortion is tsk-tsked by all religions. This is most definitely the reason why people are saying that it is not "morally correct". But, just because this goes against their religion, it doesn't mean that a woman has to listen to them.

So yes. There are people who believe the zygote is a "person". Well alright. There are also people who believe that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a functioning part of the woman's body which she has the right to have removed at will.

And is it constitutional to force a woman go through child birth? That is a long-term amount of pain and suffering. There is a lot of seemingly irreversible weight-gain and fun health risks that can come with pregnancy, and its understandable why a person would be weary about going through it.

When I brought this up in class, one of my classmates said "just get an epidermal!"

Ha. Ok. So if you get an epidermal, child birth won't be incredibly painful. I didn't know that.

I'd like to see those pro-life republicans give birth to a child.

Besides, a zygote is a single cell. It's not even a tissue or an organ. How can we label it as a person?

My American history teacher brought this up today in class and I freaked out on him.

It should NOT be the state legislature's decision if abortion is moral or not. It should be up to the woman. Not her boyfriend, not the state, not her parents, but the woman.

There are plenty of pro-choice people who would never get abortions themselves! They are just people who are fighting for a woman's right to choose, which I think that she should have.

Another thing is that this whole abortion fight is so incredibly religiously based. Abortion is tsk-tsked by all religions. This is most definitely the reason why people are saying that it is not "morally correct". But, just because this goes against their religion, it doesn't mean that a woman has to listen to them.

So yes. There are people who believe the zygote is a "person". Well alright. There are also people who believe that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a functioning part of the woman's body which she has the right to have removed at will.

And is it constitutional to force a woman go through child birth? That is a long-term amount of pain and suffering. There is a lot of seemingly irreversible weight-gain and fun health risks that can come with pregnancy, and its understandable why a person would be weary about going through it.

When I brought this up in class, one of my classmates said "just get an epidermal!"

Ha. Ok. So if you get an epidermal, child birth won't be incredibly painful. I didn't know that.

I'd like to see those pro-life republicans give birth to a child.

Besides, a zygote is a single cell. It's not even a tissue or an organ. How can we label it as a person?

ojibwayangel,
I'm looking for a grad school OUT of state! Or perhaps out of the nation?

"Colorado is a wonderful state, for the most part, and we have a great pro-choice and pro-woman base here. It's just a state with quite a bit of diversity in background and belief, and we have more than our fair share of nutsos. But it's worth it living here."

Sure, the mountains and snowboarding are great, but everything else....

As far as 'its worth it to live here,' sentiment, I BEG to DIFFER.

I also wouldnt consider completely stupid, misogynistic and unethical
crap like this to qualify as "diversity." I'm sure the same idiots that signed this petition also believe the world is flat. Thats not diversity, just idiocy. It would be nice to live in a progressive, more liberal area.....something that represents more evolution, than knuckledragging.

Oops, I forgot to congrat missriss613 on calling out her teacher on the pro-choice thing. Its important to not be complacent to bullshitters in the educational system. I dont know if he was espousing anti-choice propaganda, or simply wasn't being detailed enough, but its important to not allow distortion permeate this issue.

"...very few abortions are performed before actual brain activity begins (and those that are performed are done in cases of real emergency, such as life/health of the mother and extreme deformation or imminate death of the fetus)..."

Can I get a hell yeah, Jenna?

When I was trying to decide what position to take concerning abortion, I decided to read as much as I could about it, even the parts that turned my stomach. So yes, I know what an intact D&E involves. I also found out what the non-intact version, which some doctors may have to do now that there's been a ban on "partial birth abortions", involves. And I know why these things are done.

I have yet to read of one single corroborated case in which a woman simply said, "Oh, I know I'm almost due, but I've changed my mind. Kill the li'l bugger." No, D&E's are done in cases in which it is found that the fetus isn't viable -- cases where trying to bring the fetus to term would be more cruel.

You're bringing the emotional big guns, oenophile? How about these: in some hospitals, they have specially-made hats for the aborted late-term babies, so that if their mothers wish, they can hold them and say goodbye. These were wanted children.

Glad to see this finally getting it's own post on feministing. Thanks, ladies!

For those of us on Facebook, I've made a group to spread awareness about this issue:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=18649924011

Is an EGG a CHICKEN?