Colorado “personhood” fight very personal for one grieving mother

posted at 10:01 am on February 11, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

When does “personhood” begin? Coloradans have twice rejected a “personhood” amendment to their state constitution that would define individual life as starting at conception — a definition that would align with science, at the very least. For one mother in Denver, the failure of Coloradans to accept that definition has left a bitter hole in her life while she grieves a son the law refuses to recognize:

Heather Surovik was eight months pregnant when a drunk driver smacked into her car on a summer afternoon on the outskirts of Denver. A 27-year-old preschool teacher at the time, she was expecting to give birth within days, in July 2012, to a boy she called Brady. “I survived,” she said. “Brady did not.”

To Surovik, that was a homicide. But not according to Colorado law. “I was told that because my son did not take a breath, he was not considered a person,” she said. “He was considered part of my injuries—a loss of a pregnancy.” In her case, a repeat drunk driver named Gary Sheats pleaded guilty to driving under the influence and vehicular assault.

“Those charges didn’t matter to me because they didn’t involve my son,” Surovik said. “I wanted to figure out a way to get justice.”

The personhood movement fights to recognize life at its start in order to hold those accountable for injuring or killing it liable through the legal system, as well as an effort to end abortion. Opponents of the law argue that it’s too broad, and would have enormous consequences:

Opponents argue the opposite—that the law would work against pregnant women. “This measure would make every pregnant woman the potential perpetrator of a violent crime—whether she has an abortion, experiences a pregnancy loss, or goes to term having done anything including smoking a cigarette that someone views as creating a risk to the fertilized egg, embryo or fetus,” said Lynn Paltrow, executive director of the nonprofit National Advocates for Pregnant Women.

Thirty-eight states have laws regarding fetuses killed by violent acts against pregnant women, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Some of the laws focus on harm done to a pregnant woman and the loss of her pregnancy, while most of the laws, known as fetal-homicide, or feticide, laws, define the fetus as a person and a potential crime victim in its own right. The Brady Amendment goes beyond typical feticide laws, according to Paltrow: Feticide laws, she said, amend only a limited number of criminal laws such as murder and assault laws, not the entire criminal code.

Still, the experience of Surovik shows that there is no justice for the unborn in Colorado, even those who are loved and wanted, according to Personhood USA, which dismisses these concerns as “scare tactics”:

“Opponents have long used scare tactics like these,” said Jennifer Mason, communications director of Personhood USA. “Recognizing that there are two victims in cases like Heather’s cannot ban in-vitro fertilization, nor can it ban contraception. Recognizing that Brady is a person is a threat the abortion industry, who profits from the idea that babies like Brady are not people. Brady was a person when he was newly conceived, when he was at eight weeks gestation, 18 weeks gestation and eight months gestation. Brady was fully human, fully alive, and Colorado law should have ensured justice for Heather and Brady.”

This is the question that the US refuses to confront rationally. We have discovered, in Roe, an emanation from a previously-unknown penumbra in the Constitution that allows people to treat human life as their disposable property. At the same time, we seem to have trouble applying the 14th Amendment’s equal-treatment principle to human life, even just in the unborn context. That might be a better question for states to decide, but thanks again to Roe, they largely cannot. If Colorado passed the “personhood” amendment to address these injustices, the Supreme Court would almost certainly strike it down anyway … again, thanks to Roe.

Be sure to read it all, and kudos to NBC for featuring this story.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Tragic…

OmahaConservative on February 11, 2014 at 10:04 AM

Best wishes for success for this movement.

22044 on February 11, 2014 at 10:04 AM

Jesus weeps….

bimmcorp on February 11, 2014 at 10:05 AM

Eh, smoke some dope and turn your guns in to the local government office, everything will be fine.

Bishop on February 11, 2014 at 10:06 AM

Colorado . . . you “severely vacuum”.

listens2glenn on February 11, 2014 at 10:06 AM

This measure would make every pregnant woman the potential perpetrator of a violent crime—whether she has an abortion, experiences a pregnancy loss, or goes to term having done anything including smoking a cigarette that someone views as creating a risk to the fertilized egg, embryo or fetus,” said Lynn Paltrow, executive director of the nonprofit National Advocates for Pregnant Women.

Huh?

Electrongod on February 11, 2014 at 10:08 AM

It is not certain that the Supreme Court would strike down a life-at-conception amendment. Zerocare as a tax should have shown that predicting the Supremes is more risky than Vegas.

They could avoid the issue by citing to the Eleventh Amendment, and denying standing on that basis. No standing, no suit, as in Newdow versus the school district.

platypus on February 11, 2014 at 10:10 AM

I have a real problem with fetal homicide laws and amendments in the context of abortion still being legal. It means that the only difference between abortion (legal) and homicide (illegal) is the wishes of the mother. Does anyone else find this remotely bone chilling?

gryphon202 on February 11, 2014 at 10:10 AM

When the DNA strand is “created” or formed, than it’s just a matter of time that a baby is born…it’s that simple.

With the DNA, it can’t be a fish, or a hyena, it’s a human by definition…

It’s definitive, it’s absolute, and it’s the most obvious “marker” that a human is about to arrive within months.

right2bright on February 11, 2014 at 10:11 AM

I have a real problem with fetal homicide laws and amendments in the context of abortion still being legal. It means that the only difference between abortion (legal) and homicide (illegal) is the wishes of the mother. Does anyone else find this remotely bone chilling?

gryphon202 on February 11, 2014 at 10:10 AM

That is why this law isn’t passed in Colorado, the “slippery slope”.

But even in liberal states, they swallow the irony, and admit that it is a baby…yeah, it’s weird, but at least it shows that they really do understand what abortion is.

right2bright on February 11, 2014 at 10:13 AM

Does anyone else find this remotely bone chilling?

gryphon202 on February 11, 2014 at 10:10 AM

Yepm for many years now. Worse part is that any state could defy it and there would likely be no consequence. Eleventh Amendment immunity.

platypus on February 11, 2014 at 10:13 AM

The drunk driver, Sheats, committed suicide before serving any time.

Well, there is that.

There is no way that the left who goes rabid for even the idea that third trimester abortions are immoral are going to allow a humane and sane approach to unborn life.

Happy Nomad on February 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM

Huh?

Electrongod on February 11, 2014 at 10:08 AM

They apparently subscribe to the Orwellian school of organizational nomenclature.

SoRight on February 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM

I have a real problem with fetal homicide laws and amendments in the context of abortion still being legal. It means that the only difference between abortion (legal) and homicide (illegal) is the wishes of the mother. Does anyone else find this remotely bone chilling?

gryphon202 on February 11, 2014 at 10:10 AM

I find the whole notion of abortion and the zest for which the Gosnell Groupies have for the barbaric act extremely bone chilling.

bimmcorp on February 11, 2014 at 10:15 AM

“This measure would make every pregnant woman the potential perpetrator of a violent crime—whether she has an abortion, experiences a pregnancy loss, or goes to term having done anything including smoking a cigarette that someone views as creating a risk to the fertilized egg, embryo or fetus,”

Yeah, that is what motherhood means: you are responsible for a child and will be called to account if you mistreat it. You dont want that? Dont become pregnant!

Valkyriepundit on February 11, 2014 at 10:16 AM

If she can prove the baby would have been gay the lefties would drag the perp out of his house and beat him to death.

Bishop on February 11, 2014 at 10:16 AM

My son, who turns 1 on March 9th, was born 7 1/2 weeks premature (c-section due to my wife being preeclamptic). He means the world to me. To say that had he not had to been delivered early that he then he wouldn’t had been a person is highly insulting. He was a person to me since we first found out that he was concieved.

Prior to my son being concieved my wife got pregnant months ealier. She miscarried about 7 weeks into it. We didn’t think “oh well, it was just a clump of cells”. We felt like a whole child had died.

PP makes me sick!

DethMetalCookieMonst on February 11, 2014 at 10:17 AM

I went to get personhood for my childhood teddy bear. I still love it very much.

thuja on February 11, 2014 at 10:19 AM

I like to remain optimistic, and I would like to think that someday abortion will be an evil we come to regret like slavery or segregation (rather disgusting the left is, once again, promoting the destruction of blacks through abortion). I know it seems like nothing will ever change, but unfortunately it often takes several lifetimes to undo evil. And I don’t really care if future “progressives” steal the credit for ending abortion as long as it is ended.

NotCoach on February 11, 2014 at 10:19 AM

I went to get personhood for my childhood teddy bear. I still love it very much.

thuja on February 11, 2014 at 10:19 AM

Idiot…

OmahaConservative on February 11, 2014 at 10:20 AM

I went to get personhood for my childhood teddy bear. I still love it very much.

thuja on February 11, 2014 at 10:19 AM

If you can demonstrate your teddy bear is a human being then I will support you.

NotCoach on February 11, 2014 at 10:20 AM

When normal people find out that “life” begins at conception means that common forms of birth control such as the pill and the IUD are murder, they don’t like the definition.

thuja on February 11, 2014 at 10:21 AM

don’t feed the proabort

22044 on February 11, 2014 at 10:21 AM

“This measure would make every pregnant woman the potential perpetrator of a violent crime—whether she has an abortion, experiences a pregnancy loss, or goes to term having done anything including smoking a cigarette that someone views as creating a risk to the fertilized egg, embryo or fetus,” said Lynn Paltrow, executive director of the nonprofit National Advocates for Pregnant Women.

Baby murder advocates bring this up a lot, and it seems even more absurd each and every time they do.

changer1701 on February 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Democrats are the party of science… until we talk about abortion.

Shump on February 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM

To say that had he not had to been delivered early that he then he wouldn’t had been a person is highly insulting. He was a person to me since we first found out that he was concieved.

DethMetalCookieMonst on February 11, 2014 at 10:17 AM

The left will give you a long explanation about personhood as a legal definition versus personhood as a matter of viability outside the womb.

A child pretty much has to climb out of the womb and graduate from grad school before the left will acknowledge them as a human being. Unless, of course they are gay, female, or a minority. Then, they might get “person” status earlier- but only if they’ve been bullied.

Seriously though, anybody who tells you that PP is more than the big box retailer of abortion is a liar.

Happy Nomad on February 11, 2014 at 10:24 AM

When normal people find out that “life” begins at conception means that common forms of birth control such as the pill and the IUD are murder, they don’t like the definition.

thuja on February 11, 2014 at 10:21 AM

When dishonest ghouls find that people aren’t for killing babies they lie like Obama.

Birth control pills do not cause abortions. They prevent ovulation, and do not terminate if a pregnancy occurs anyways. Continuing to take progestin though after a pregnancy occurs can kill a mother.

NotCoach on February 11, 2014 at 10:25 AM

If you can demonstrate your teddy bear is a human being then I will support you.

NotCoach on February 11, 2014 at 10:20 AM

The teddy bear has cells I have sloughed off and thus has human DNA. That should be enough? It’s not any different than claiming personhood begins at conception. Personhood is being defined by having the right DNA molecules.

thuja on February 11, 2014 at 10:26 AM

Of course I’ll get slammed for this, but -

Consider having a little fender-bender with the woman who has just discovered she’s 4 weeks pregnant and then she has a miscarriage at 6 weeks.

The personhood movement fights to recognize life at its start in order to hold those accountable for injuring or killing it liable through the legal system

Oh, what a lawyer bonanza. It’s hard enough to convince a woman who’s has a miscarriage at 8 weeks that the “little kick from my toddler in the stomach when we were playing” didn’t cause it.

Marcus on February 11, 2014 at 10:26 AM

Coloradans have twice rejected a “personhood” amendment to their state constitution that would define individual life as starting at conception — a definition that would align with science, at the very least

It always amazes me that those who support abortion will always refuse to accept the scientific fact that all human life begins at the moment of conception. That should be clear as day to anyone on either side of the abortion debate.

The whole “personhood” notion seems to be a more recent one. Most proponents of abortion have their own definitions of when a human being becomes a “person”. The criteria is always changing, but alas, Ed’s right in that Roe v. Wade has set the legal federal standard. And to America’s shame, will never be overturned.

JetBoy on February 11, 2014 at 10:27 AM

There needs to be room in a personhood law for feces to occur. Because sometimes bad stuff happens before and during birth. I don’t want doctors on the hook in the event of a late miscarriage, or mothers, should they go for a home birth, as long as both parties were not negligent (such as attempting VBAC at home, or not putting a woman with an incompetent cervix and a job on her feet on bed rest early, so her maternity leave could kick in)

Sekhmet on February 11, 2014 at 10:27 AM

Many people such as myself–not so mainstream of a conservative–think killing human fetuses not wanted by their mother is morally fine. I want to praise people who help the mother do the killing. I certainly don’t want them murdered or hindered in any way.

thuja on January 23, 2013 at 11:07 PM

Yep, my skin crawls every time I read that.

Bishop on February 11, 2014 at 10:28 AM

>It wouldn’t be fair to Mr. Sheats to punish him for something the abortion industry does thousands of times each day.

- Lynn Paltrow, executive director of the nonprofit National Advocates for Pregnant Women

pwrefugee on February 11, 2014 at 10:29 AM

Baby murder advocates bring this up a lot, and it seems even more absurd each and every time they do.

changer1701 on February 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Yeah, they claim you can’t define life beginning at conception because that would make abortion tantamount to murder at the same time they have no problem with killing children who would be viable outside the womb. Wendy Davis’s whole campaign is based on the idea that murdering one’s child is a mother’s right.

Happy Nomad on February 11, 2014 at 10:29 AM

Continuing to take progestin though after a pregnancy occurs can kill a mother.

NotCoach on February 11, 2014 at 10:25 AM

What nonsense. Progesterone is used often in pregnancy especially in recurrent miscarriages. Although birth control tablets are most certainly not recommended in pregnancy, there isn’t one instance of fetal or maternal harm from taking them even MONTHS into the pregnancy.

Marcus on February 11, 2014 at 10:29 AM

The teddy bear has cells I have sloughed off and thus has human DNA. That should be enough? It’s not any different than claiming personhood begins at conception. Personhood is being defined by having the right DNA molecules.

thuja on February 11, 2014 at 10:26 AM

The teddy bear did not produce any of those cells itself.

Now mister clump of cells, please explain to us what a human zygote is if not a human being? What has a human zygote ever become, replicating its own cells, besides a human being?

NotCoach on February 11, 2014 at 10:30 AM

The teddy bear has cells I have sloughed off and thus has human DNA. That should be enough? It’s not any different than claiming personhood begins at conception. Personhood is being defined by having the right DNA molecules.

thuja on February 11, 2014 at 10:26 AM

Oh, thuja…that’s disappointing.

There’s a huge difference between a teddy bear having your dead skin cells on it, and a living, growing human fetus with DNA from it’s father and mother.

JetBoy on February 11, 2014 at 10:30 AM

Abortion is a religion. A child sacrificing bloody religion. This is why basic scientific facts are ignored for the faith of the noble Woman’s right…to kill small women. And men.

It’s all that matters to them. It is what their world revolves around. They must be able to sacrifice their offspring. Otherwise they might be…inconvenienced.

bossmanham on February 11, 2014 at 10:31 AM

When dishonest ghouls find that people aren’t for killing babies they lie like Obama.

Birth control pills do not cause abortions. They prevent ovulation, and do not terminate if a pregnancy occurs anyways. Continuing to take progestin though after a pregnancy occurs can kill a mother.

NotCoach on February 11, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Here’s a link to a recent bit of news on a pro-life website:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/setting-out-into-the-deep-a-pharmacists-hard-choice-after-discovering-the-p

thuja on February 11, 2014 at 10:31 AM

National Advocates for Pregnant Women.

Show of hands of anybody who thinks that this group really advocates for pregnant women (as opposed to advocates for the right of mothers to kill the children they’ve conceived). They’re into advocating for pregnant women as much as PP does anything but provide abortions.

Happy Nomad on February 11, 2014 at 10:31 AM

The teddy bear has cells I have sloughed off and thus has human DNA. That should be enough? It’s not any different than claiming personhood begins at conception. Personhood is being defined by having the right DNA molecules.

thuja on February 11, 2014 at 10:26 AM

Except those are your skin cells, not a growing human being with its own DNA, using energy to grow and develop.

bossmanham on February 11, 2014 at 10:33 AM

I went to get personhood for my childhood teddy bear. I still love it very much.

thuja on February 11, 2014 at 10:19 AM

I defend the lives of the unborn because every living human has an inherent right to life.

If you can demonstrate that your teddy bear is a). alive, and b). human, I will join you in your cause. I don’t think genetics are in your favor on this one.

Baby murder advocates bring this up a lot, and it seems even more absurd each and every time they do.

changer1701 on February 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Doesn’t seem like much of an issue to them when they wanna ban Big Gulp sodas, does it?

The Schaef on February 11, 2014 at 10:33 AM

When dishonest ghouls find that people aren’t for killing babies they lie like Obama.

Birth control pills do not cause abortions. They prevent ovulation, and do not terminate if a pregnancy occurs anyways. Continuing to take progestin though after a pregnancy occurs can kill a mother.

NotCoach on February 11, 2014 at 10:25 AM

False. BC pills can prevent a fertilized egg, a human embryo, from implanting in the uterus. Thus causing a miscarriage; an abortion of the life of the new human.

Nice try though.

bossmanham on February 11, 2014 at 10:33 AM

I went to get personhood for my childhood teddy bear. I still love it very much.

thuja on February 11, 2014 at 10:19 AM

Somehow I doubt that a soulless ghoul such as you ever knew the love of childhood. Your insensitivity and lack of human compassion is nauseating, albeit typical of your left wing absence of morality.

bimmcorp on February 11, 2014 at 10:34 AM

Happy Nomad,

Google that group. It’s a total Planned Parenthood front, with moar advocacy for druggie moms

Sekhmet on February 11, 2014 at 10:34 AM

What nonsense. Progesterone is used often in pregnancy especially in recurrent miscarriages. Although birth control tablets are most certainly not recommended in pregnancy, there isn’t one instance of fetal or maternal harm from taking them even MONTHS into the pregnancy.

Marcus on February 11, 2014 at 10:29 AM

It increases the likelihood of ectopic pregnancy (if pregnancy occurs), which can be life threatening to a mother. And I’m talking about progestin only pills.

NotCoach on February 11, 2014 at 10:35 AM

The teddy bear has cells I have sloughed off and thus has human DNA. That should be enough? It’s not any different than claiming personhood begins at conception. Personhood is being defined by having the right DNA molecules.

thuja on February 11, 2014 at 10:26 AM

The teddy bear does not “have DNA molecules”. Some of your DNA is resting ON it, but that is a far cry from being comprised of DNA.

This has to be the most intellectually bankrupt idea since the double-decker couch.

The Schaef on February 11, 2014 at 10:35 AM

Well you know, Science. Science is very convenient when you can get all of the liberal scientists to agree with Algore, but when it comes to the facts of life, well, SMH…

kirkill on February 11, 2014 at 10:36 AM

False. BC pills can prevent a fertilized egg, a human embryo, from implanting in the uterus. Thus causing a miscarriage; an abortion of the life of the new human.

Nice try though.

bossmanham on February 11, 2014 at 10:33 AM

So, NotCoach, do we ban the pill and the IUD since the mother uses them to murder the unborn baby?

thuja on February 11, 2014 at 10:37 AM

And liberals fancy themselves champions of “civil rights”.
Disgusting.

gwelf on February 11, 2014 at 10:38 AM

False… Nice try though.

bossmanham on February 11, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Actually, no, he’s exactly correct: the specific chemicals used in BC are primarily designed to disrupt the ovulation process. As a bonus it can have a deleterious effect on “the boys” as they make their journey, but if there’s no egg, the point is moot.

What you are talking about is a possible side effect if there happens to be an egg, but there is no way to know that, and no way to determine that it will cause a miscarriage (people can and do get pregnant while on BC).

Standard BC is not an abortifacient drug.

Nice try though.

The Schaef on February 11, 2014 at 10:40 AM

55 million babies murdered…and counting.

And the same people that support abortion and infanticide, support amnesty and open borders.

Left_is_Wrong on February 11, 2014 at 10:41 AM

I went to get personhood for my childhood teddy bear. I still love it very much.

thuja on February 11, 2014 at 10:19 AM

So children are just property just like a Teddy Bear.

Got it.

gwelf on February 11, 2014 at 10:41 AM

So, NotCoach, do we ban the pill and the IUD since the mother uses them to murder the unborn baby?

thuja on February 11, 2014 at 10:37 AM

Actually, no, he’s exactly correct: the specific chemicals used in BC are primarily designed to disrupt the ovulation process. As a bonus it can have a deleterious effect on “the boys” as they make their journey, but if there’s no egg, the point is moot.

What you are talking about is a possible side effect if there happens to be an egg, but there is no way to know that, and no way to determine that it will cause a miscarriage (people can and do get pregnant while on BC).

Standard BC is not an abortifacient drug.

Nice try though.

The Schaef on February 11, 2014 at 10:40 AM

NotCoach on February 11, 2014 at 10:42 AM

When does “personhood” begin?
…define individual life as starting at conception — a definition that would align with science, at the very least.

Indeed.

When was your DNA established?

When did your body begin growing?

ITguy on February 11, 2014 at 10:43 AM

Well, the Chief Priest of Molech is right on time. Anyone else smell unresolved guilt?

CurtZHP on February 11, 2014 at 10:47 AM

And the same people that support abortion and infanticide, support amnesty and open borders.

Left_is_Wrong on February 11, 2014 at 10:41 AM

Certainly not true in my case! The glaring problem I see is that most of the people who support amnesty and open borders also want a higher minimum wage. And then there are those Chamber of Commerce folks who want cheap labor, but ignore that cheap labor is going to vote for higher taxes.

thuja on February 11, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Colorado can go to hell for all I care……..

ultracon on February 11, 2014 at 10:48 AM

DethMetalCookieMonst on February 11, 2014 at 10:17 AM

My sincerest sympathies. I also miscarried, at 10 weeks. People who do not go through that have no idea what kind of trauma and despair it causes.

cptacek on February 11, 2014 at 10:51 AM

Many people such as myself–not so mainstream of a conservative–think killing human fetuses not wanted by their mother is morally fine. I want to praise people who help the mother do the killing. I certainly don’t want them murdered or hindered in any way.

thuja on January 23, 2013 at 11:07 PM

Yep, my skin crawls every time I read that.

Bishop on February 11, 2014 at 10:28 AM

Wow, that’s disturbing.

changer1701 on February 11, 2014 at 10:51 AM

Yes on 67 to protect the ONE made in the image of God

personhoodCO on February 11, 2014 at 10:51 AM

Call me hard-hearted, but I’d like to know Heather Surovik’s opinion on abortion- pre- and post- crash. I also wish that photo showed a little more of her left hand.

Yes, I am judgmental. It beats being too lazy to form an opinion.

M240H on February 11, 2014 at 10:52 AM

@NotCoach and The Schaef

Here is an article in the Altantic about pill “render[s] the uterine wall inhospitable to any accidental zygote”

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/12/the-pill-contraceptive-or-abortifacient/266725/

If this is all false information, I would like to know that I was wrong to bring this up.

thuja on February 11, 2014 at 10:53 AM

Continuing to take progestin though after a pregnancy occurs can kill a mother.

NotCoach on February 11, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Progesterone is used often in pregnancy especially in recurrent miscarriages. Although birth control tablets are most certainly not recommended in pregnancy, there isn’t one instance of fetal or maternal harm from taking them even MONTHS into the pregnancy.

Marcus on February 11, 2014 at 10:29 AM

Progestin != Progesterone

I took bio-identical progesterone in oil shots my entire pregnancy to help me carry my second pregnancy to term. As you say, bcp are not recommended, while progesterone is.

cptacek on February 11, 2014 at 10:55 AM

If this is all false information, I would like to know that I was wrong to bring this up.

thuja on February 11, 2014 at 10:53 AM

You were wrong to bring this up, but not because your information is false. It is because a). the state of the uterine wall is a moot point if no ovulation takes place, and b). the article notes a substantial bloc of pro-life advocates who do not object to non-abortifacient contraception.

In short, your article supports my position, and does nothing to substantiate your teddy bear’s existence.

The Schaef on February 11, 2014 at 10:56 AM

Happy Nomad,

Google that group. It’s a total Planned Parenthood front, with moar advocacy for druggie moms

Sekhmet on February 11, 2014 at 10:34 AM

I’ll take your word for it. I don’t feel clean after going to sites like that. I wonder how much federal money they get for convincing druggie moms that they should go ahead and abort lest their habit result in a medically challenged child.

Happy Nomad on February 11, 2014 at 10:58 AM

Actually, no, he’s exactly correct: the specific chemicals used in BC are primarily designed to disrupt the ovulation process. As a bonus it can have a deleterious effect on “the boys” as they make their journey, but if there’s no egg, the point is moot.

What you are talking about is a possible side effect if there happens to be an egg, but there is no way to know that, and no way to determine that it will cause a miscarriage (people can and do get pregnant while on BC).

Standard BC is not an abortifacient drug.

Nice try though.

The Schaef on February 11, 2014 at 10:40 AM

You contradict yourself. Primary design: disrupt ovulation process. Bonus: disrupt mucous pathways so sperm can’t join an egg if ovulation occurs. Possible side effect: not allowing a fertilized egg to implant. That is the abortion-causing effect, and you saying “Standard BC is not an abortifacient drug” is wrong. You said it yourself. It is possible for it to cause an abortion by not allowing the fertilized egg to implant.

cptacek on February 11, 2014 at 10:58 AM

Certainly not true in my case! The glaring problem I see is that most of the people who support amnesty and open borders also want a higher minimum wage. And then there are those Chamber of Commerce folks who want cheap labor, but ignore that cheap labor is going to vote for higher taxes.

thuja on February 11, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Nice that you’re willing to compartmentalize like that. Probably makes it easier for you to sleep at night that way. The murdered babies, most of whom probably feel pain, would probably disagree though.

Left_is_Wrong on February 11, 2014 at 11:01 AM

It is because a). the state of the uterine wall is a moot point if no ovulation takes place, and b). the article notes a substantial bloc of pro-life advocates who do not object to non-abortifacient contraception.
The Schaef on February 11, 2014 at 10:56 AM

The state of the uterine wall is a huge point if the birth control pill fails to stop ovulation and fails to hinder the sperm, resulting in a fertilized egg.

Let me guess…your wife takes BCPs.

cptacek on February 11, 2014 at 11:01 AM

It is possible for it to cause an abortion by not allowing the fertilized egg to implant.

cptacek on February 11, 2014 at 10:58 AM

There are a lot of things that are “possible” given the right circumstances. A person can overdose on any number of drugs and kill themselves; that does not make the drug a euthanizing agent unto itself.

The drug is not designed to destroy an embryo, and people are not taking it for that purpose. It is a deleterious side effect. I am not contradicting myself in saying so.

The Schaef on February 11, 2014 at 11:02 AM

Wow, that’s disturbing.

changer1701 on February 11, 2014 at 10:51 AM

There’s more:

“Yes, there was some real human suffering here, but real human suffering means real humans, not the fetuses intended to be killed anyway. That’s not human suffering.

thuja on April 12, 2013 at 11:28 PM”

Bishop on February 11, 2014 at 11:02 AM

Of course I’ll get slammed for this, but -

Consider having a little fender-bender with the woman who has just discovered she’s 4 weeks pregnant and then she has a miscarriage at 6 weeks.

The personhood movement fights to recognize life at its start in order to hold those accountable for injuring or killing it liable through the legal system

Oh, what a lawyer bonanza. It’s hard enough to convince a woman who’s has a miscarriage at 8 weeks that the “little kick from my toddler in the stomach when we were playing” didn’t cause it.

Marcus on February 11, 2014 at 10:26 AM

Are you comparing “a little fender-bender” with drunk driving that would have been called vehicular homicide if it had happened a few weeks later?

ncinca on February 11, 2014 at 11:05 AM

Are you comparing “a little fender-bender” with drunk driving that would have been called vehicular homicide if it had happened a few weeks later?

ncinca on February 11, 2014 at 11:05 AM

Yeah, there’s a difference there. One’s an accident, the other is a felony.

CurtZHP on February 11, 2014 at 11:06 AM

that would define individual life as starting at conception — a definition that would align with science, at the very least.

Uh no. Science does not provide such a definition. Amusing, though, how those who reject most of what science has to say are so happy to cite it when they perceive an advantage in doing so.

MJBrutus on February 11, 2014 at 11:08 AM

Uh no. Science does not provide such a definition. Amusing, though, how those who reject most of what science has to say are so happy to cite it when they perceive an advantage in doing so.

MJBrutus on February 11, 2014 at 11:08 AM

It doesn’t? Citation, please.

And what other science do we reject? I’d love to know.

NotCoach on February 11, 2014 at 11:11 AM

Democrats are the party of science… until we talk about abortion.

Shump on February 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Exactly.

bartm on February 11, 2014 at 11:12 AM

There’s more:

“Yes, there was some real human suffering here, but real human suffering means real humans, not the fetuses intended to be killed anyway. That’s not human suffering.

thuja on April 12, 2013 at 11:28 PM”

Bishop on February 11, 2014 at 11:02 AM

Good lord, that’s messed up. I imagine the Holocaust was borne out of a similar mindset.

changer1701 on February 11, 2014 at 11:12 AM

Yeah, there’s a difference there. One’s an accident, the other is a felony.

CurtZHP on February 11, 2014 at 11:06 AM

Loss of life occurs everyday in automobile accidents, of course. And many of those ostensibly at fault are not charged with felonies, of course.

NotCoach on February 11, 2014 at 11:13 AM

The state of the uterine wall is a huge point if the birth control pill fails to stop ovulation and fails to hinder the sperm, resulting in a fertilized egg.

Interesting that you accept as a given certain low-percentage possibilities of the drug failing – failing to stop ovulation, failing to hinder the sperm – but give no wait to the possibility of the drug failing to alter the uterine wall.

I mean, if we’re defining drugs by the things that might happen if they fail in their designed purpose, I guess BC is actually a fertility drug, since there is the possibility that someone can become pregnant.

Let me guess…your wife takes BCPs.

cptacek on February 11, 2014 at 11:01 AM

Let me guess… you’re the kind of guy who thinks he can marginalize the fact-based views of others by trying to undermine their morality as being driven by what’s most convenient to them individually.

The Schaef on February 11, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Corrections to the above: should have been a quote, not a strike, and “weight” not “wait”.

The Schaef on February 11, 2014 at 11:16 AM

Uh no. Science does not provide such a definition. Amusing, though, how those who reject most of what science has to say are so happy to cite it when they perceive an advantage in doing so.

MJBrutus on February 11, 2014 at 11:08 AM

Science most certainly shows human life, a growing and viable human, begins the moment sperm meets egg. That’s undisputed…and simple scientific fact. You may not assign it “personhood”, but it most certainly is human life.

JetBoy on February 11, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Are you comparing “a little fender-bender” with drunk driving that would have been called vehicular homicide if it had happened a few weeks later?
ncinca on February 11, 2014 at 11:05 AM
Yeah, there’s a difference there. One’s an accident, the other is a felony.
CurtZHP on February 11, 2014 at 11:06 AM

I’m certainly not comparing the death of a fetus that could have survived outside of the uterus to a first trimester fetus either. What I’m saying is laws with “from conception” in them are a Pandora’s box for affixing any blame at any time during the pregnancy, and miscarriages are almost always chromosomal mismatches, not auto accident related. But the lawyers would love it.

Marcus on February 11, 2014 at 11:18 AM

It doesn’t? Citation, please.

And what other science do we reject? I’d love to know.

NotCoach on February 11, 2014 at 11:11 AM

You want me to cite something that does not exist? How many other negatives would you like proven?

As for other science, I have debated with a rather large number of creationists here who reject just about everything that science has to say.

MJBrutus on February 11, 2014 at 11:19 AM

JetBoy on February 11, 2014 at 11:17 AM

One is free to call a fertilized egg whatever one chooses. Science does not provide a definition for “personhood,” “individual life,” or whatever other political euphemism you want to use.

MJBrutus on February 11, 2014 at 11:21 AM

National Advocates for Pregnant Women.

Libs and their dreamy names, sort of reminds me of Affordable Care Act, Job Stimulus Bill, Cash for Clunkers…*golf clap*

hillsoftx on February 11, 2014 at 11:23 AM

I have a real problem with fetal homicide laws and amendments in the context of abortion still being legal. It means that the only difference between abortion (legal) and homicide (illegal) is the wishes of the mother. Does anyone else find this remotely bone chilling?

Cultural changes must sometimes be taken in small steps. Pass the law and let this reality seep in over time. I believe the correct conclusion will eventually be reached.

Ricard on February 11, 2014 at 11:24 AM

You contradict yourself. Primary design: disrupt ovulation process. Bonus: disrupt mucous pathways so sperm can’t join an egg if ovulation occurs. Possible side effect: not allowing a fertilized egg to implant. That is the abortion-causing effect, and you saying “Standard BC is not an abortifacient drug” is wrong. You said it yourself. It is possible for it to cause an abortion by not allowing the fertilized egg to implant.

cptacek on February 11, 2014 at 10:58 AM

Do you have a link to what you consider a good source for this information?

My first thought is that The Shaef makes a valid point that the pill isn’t intended as an abortifacient and thus we should ignore any unintended consequence. This is no different than we still take aspirin despite it being responsible for some deaths.

thuja on February 11, 2014 at 11:26 AM

You want me to cite something that does not exist? How many other negatives would you like proven?

As for other science, I have debated with a rather large number of creationists here who reject just about everything that science has to say.

MJBrutus on February 11, 2014 at 11:19 AM

What is a human zygote? And if you’re having trouble with this simple concept I suggest you avoid science discussions in general.

NotCoach on February 11, 2014 at 11:27 AM

The solution is simple. If the woman kills the baby, it is legal. If it dies at the hands of another- it is murder.

Many states use this method. And yes, it is dumb on its face. How can one be one and not the other, but we are dealing with a PC issue here, and that means logic and common sense were left at the door.

archer52 on February 11, 2014 at 11:27 AM

One is free to call a fertilized egg whatever one chooses. Science does not provide a definition for “personhood,” “individual life,” or whatever other political euphemism you want to use.

MJBrutus on February 11, 2014 at 11:21 AM

“Individual life” seems easy enough. Is it alive? Is it distinct from other life forms? Done, and done.

The Schaef on February 11, 2014 at 11:27 AM

The Schaef on February 11, 2014 at 11:27 AM

As I said, call it what you like, but please don’t tell me that “science” has your back.

MJBrutus on February 11, 2014 at 11:27 AM

I was born sometime between 4-6 weeks early. I was a person when I was born and prior to my birth I was still a person.
That drunk driver MURDERED Brady-and little Brady and others deserve justice.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 11, 2014 at 11:28 AM

My first thought is that The Shaef makes a valid point that the pill isn’t intended as an abortifacient and thus we should ignore any unintended consequence. This is no different than we still take aspirin despite it being responsible for some deaths.

thuja on February 11, 2014 at 11:26 AM

As long as people don’t take that to mean that I don’t support Hobby Lobby in their lawsuit. The entire problem with the ACA is its meddling in private contracts and complete disregard for First Amendment objections, and HL is an excellent benchmark for this intervention.

The Schaef on February 11, 2014 at 11:28 AM

As I said, call it what you like, but please don’t tell me that “science” has your back.

MJBrutus on February 11, 2014 at 11:27 AM

Well, then, maybe “science” can tell me why this is not regarded as human life.

Is it not alive?
Is it not human?
Both?
Why?

The Schaef on February 11, 2014 at 11:29 AM

One is free to call a fertilized egg whatever one chooses. Science does not provide a definition for “personhood,” “individual life,” or whatever other political euphemism you want to use.

MJBrutus on February 11, 2014 at 11:21 AM

Sure, like I said you can call a fertilized egg…or a fetus at any stage of development, a “person” or “individual life”. But science absolutely shows that once sperm hits egg, human growth begins. Immediately. Every one of us began our lives the very same way. And any willful termination of a human at any stage of development is, IMO, murder.

JetBoy on February 11, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Let me guess… you’re the kind of guy who thinks he can marginalize the fact-based views of others by trying to undermine their morality as being driven by what’s most convenient to them individually.

The Schaef on February 11, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Uh, dude, I’m a woman. I’ve had fertility issues and have extensively studied (in a lay way) the mechanisms of fertility. I had 5 doctors try to prescribe BCPs to me to “fix” my PCOS, which it doesn’t fix it and it doesn’t help preserve your fertility, and when I read of all the potential side effects – INCLUDING possible abortion of a fertilized egg – I found another doctor. Went through that many times. Finally found one that would help me in a science based, pro-life way, and help me conceive and carry my son through intensive hormonal therapy throughout the pregnancy (after miscarrying one due to low progesterone, not chromosomal issues).

You are contradicting yourself. You are acknowledging that abortions can occur due to the lining of the uterus being compromised but say that BCPs can’t cause abortions. That is simply incorrect and logically inconsistent.

cptacek on February 11, 2014 at 11:29 AM

changer1701 on February 11, 2014 at 11:12 AM

thuja gets off on the murdered unborn.
Ignore the bastard.
Bishop likes to get a rise out of people-but he’s one of ours.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 11, 2014 at 11:32 AM

Do you have a link to what you consider a good source for this information?

My first thought is that The Shaef makes a valid point that the pill isn’t intended as an abortifacient and thus we should ignore any unintended consequence. This is no different than we still take aspirin despite it being responsible for some deaths.

thuja on February 11, 2014 at 11:26 AM

? You yourself provided two links in this thread?

cptacek on February 11, 2014 at 11:33 AM

And any willful termination of a human at any stage of development is, IMO, murder.

JetBoy on February 11, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Murder is a legal term, referring to the unlawful taking of a human life. When such a taking is lawful, as in a lawful abortion, it is not murder by definition.

MJBrutus on February 11, 2014 at 11:33 AM

Those mill stones will not be heavy enough.

crosshugger on February 11, 2014 at 11:34 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3