Posted on 11/03/2010 6:12:22 AM PDT by Colofornian
Colorado voters on Tuesday rejected what was said to be the nation's only pro-life amendment.
Personhood Amendment 62, which would have given human rights to the unborn, was defeated by a nearly 3-to-1 margin. This is the second time the pro-life measure was voted down.
"Tonight’s victory sends a strong message that Colorado is a pro-choice state," Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Monica McCafferty told The Colorado Independent.
After a failed attempt in 2008, "pro-life missionaries" and volunteers were optimistic this time around as they mobilized churches and the pro-life faithful. Language was also altered to define "person" to include "every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being" as opposed to "any human being from the moment of fertilization."
Opponents criticized the amendment, saying it would not only outlaw abortions but also ban emergency contraception that interferes with the implantation of a fertilized egg as well as embryonic stem cell research.
But proponents of Amendment 62 pointed to the approximately 20,000 deaths through surgical abortion that occur every year in Colorado. Tens of thousands more are killed through chemical abortions and research, said Personhood Colorado Director Gualberto Garcia Jones.
"Twenty-thousand people is enough to fill the Pepsi Center. Twenty-thousand people with little arms and legs, eyes and ears, eyelashes and fingernails, and rapidly beating hearts are exterminated," he wrote in an earlier commentary.
"Amendment 62 stands for the revolutionary ... proposition that all human beings are created equal and are endowed by their Creator, not the government or the Supreme Court, with inalienable rights such as the right to life, due process of law, and equality of justice," he said. "Amendment 62 loves all human life with a wild abandon; the opposition loves power of the developed over the developing human being with a fierce defiance of science, reason and humanitarianism."
The measure was endorsed by Pam Tebow, mother of NFL rookie quarterback Tim Tebow.
"A child's right to life begins at conception, not at birth," stated Pam, who had been pressured to have an abortion by her doctor when she was pregnant with Tim.
Amendment 62 was the only pro-life law on the 2010 ballot in the nation, according to Personhood Colorado. Meanwhile, signatures are being collected in other states, including Florida, to get a personhood measure on a future ballot.
So you're saying legal abortion is a commie practice which shouldn't be opposed? Which side are you on?
I'm not positive the data back up your claim. On the national level, strict pro-lifers are twice as numerous as strict pro-choicers as far as likely voter polls tell us. Personhood also does relatively well in Dem strongholds like Pueblo.
The past fifty years or so of attempting to make "social" issues into political issues has been detrimental to both our society and politics. That's a fact. Otherwise, our politics would be Constitution based, our economy would be fiscally sound, and our culture would be morally sound. "Social" conservative politics has been a disaster all around.
No morally sound culture allows legal abortion. Fifty years ago, abortion was illegal. It is left-wingers who have made this a political fight. You're advocating surrender to a leftist agenda that warps the constitution to invent a right for a doctor to kill an unborn baby.
Perhaps social conservatism is only a disaster because it keeps allying itself with false friends and saboteurs instead of taking the battle to the enemy within the Democratic Party.
The Personhood backers in Colorado don't play well with others and get annoyingly purist. But I'll side with them over anybody who rants about how stupid their positions are.
No, that is not what I said. Single issue ultimatums or referendums during a hotly contested election are counter-productive to the proclaimed cause of "social conservatives", precisely because these referenda bring out larger numbers of opponents, who also vote against conservative candidates who would have moved the "social conservative" issues forward, had they been given a chance to win politically. When I lived in Colorado, I watched this happen several times with anti-gay, anti-abortion, and parental sovereignty amendments, all of which I supported, but which turned out to create a backlash against conservative candidates, candidates who would have moved these issues forward had they been elected. The proper avenue would have been to get the conservatives elected first. Now, for instance, you have the open borders, gay mayor becoming governor, and the Obama rubber-stamper continuing as US Senator.
Perhaps social conservatism is only a disaster because it keeps allying itself with false friends and saboteurs instead of taking the battle to the enemy within the Democratic Party.
No, social conservatism is a disaster because its proponents continually put the cart before the horse, getting their issues shot down along with good conservative candidates, instead of getting good conservative candidates elected first, and letting those candidates legislate, instead of trying to change state constitutions or legislate by ballot referendum. (Yes, I recognize that such referenda are legal in some states, Colorado being one.)
In these recent elections, TEA party conservatives won coast to coast (except in Colorado and a very few other places), by confining their campaign message to appeal to the widest majority of the population on the issues that affect that wide majority, such as the financial disaster our country is currently in. Ballot referenda to change a state constitution are going to get massive resistance, and rightly so, regardless of the topic.
I'm not arguing against pro-life or any other "social conservative" issues. I'm arguing against attempted methods of political change that have repeatedly proven to be counter-productive to stated objectives.
(Yeah, personally I prefer the Solomon approach...let's de-puricize this "issue" by justing cutting the pre-born babies in half...acknowledge the personhood of the pre-borns to the pro-lifers and allow them to hold a real funeral service for that pre-born...and then allow the pro-aborts to continue reference the "evidence" as a "mom's choice".../sarc)
Post #23 applies to your rhetoric as well, NS...
Utter ignorance on your part. The government regulates morality every day.
Laws on the books for...
...murder
...theft
...fraud
...bigamy
...robbery
...etc.
...all reflect somebody's morality...
...unless you think murder, theft, etc. are amoral -- and you can simply "take it" or "leave it" whether you engage in that behavior.
The past fifty years or so of attempting to make "social" issues into political issues has been detrimental to both our society and politics. That's a fact.
That's just your opinion. The "fact" is that everything these days is politicized by somebody -- and most often it's the other side that has politicized the social dimension ...haven't you realized that? or do you have your head in some beach sand somewhere?
Let me give you an example: Corporate bathrooms have become an issue with transgenders and transexuals. Now who politicized that? Conservatives? (No way)
Who politicized the womb? Conservatives? (No way) The womb is suppose to be the most basic private sanctuary on this planet. But when a group of blood-thirsty, $-making, and feminists overwhelm publicly attempt to overwhelm the womb, we have two choices: We can either let the pre-born babies absorb the onslaught all by themselves, or we can become their advocates. It's that simple.
11 Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. 12 If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay everyone according to what they have done? (Prov. 24:11-12)
Every time they stick one of their single-issue ultimatums on the ballot, the commies show up to vote in record numbers, and every conservative candidate suffers.
Let's say for a moment this is so. If conservatives can't get more excited and passionate and zealous about protecting those most vulnerable in our society, and turn out in record numbers exceeding those "commies show[ing] up in record numbers" because of their blood-thirstiness over the womb, then I could easily see God saying, "Hey, these conservatives deserve what they get."
You are right, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead, kill everyone on board because I have an agenda, and none will escape, I have spoken!!!
BTW, all the crimes you mentioned, are not covered by the constitution,those are state crimes,. as they should be, Quit being a nanny elitist by telling other folks how to lead thier lives
The left simply cannot kill enough, their lust for innocent blood is unquenchable...evil exists folks and he lives in the minds of the liberals.
They are going to get to kills lots of people with Obamacare. The eldery and handicapped are the next on their chopping block through the denial of care. They use a formula to decide if you are worth the treatment to the economy. If you are retired or handicapped...too bad.
(Oh, I didn't consider that. Well, then. You, Eastforker are right! Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead! Kill everyone on board, including all babies on board within their moms! Because YOU have an obvious agenda! And none will escape, including no baby within the womb! YOU have spoken!)
Do you ALWAYS go around refuting yourself in one fell phrase?
Have you actually NEVER stopped to analyze your worldview?
(It doesn't appear that you have...so allow me to do so...so others can avoid your sheer folly)
ALL: Eastforker's definition of a "nanny elitist" is: "Telling other folks how to lead thier" [sic] "lives"
Eastforker thinks that's a primary "no-no"
The "topper" here is that he tells me (I qualify as one of those "other folks") how to lead my Internet-posting life by directing me to "quit" telling others how to lead their Internet posting lives.
Hmmm....and you see no contradiction here how?
Eastforker, you have just qualified yourself as a "nanny elitist." Congrats!
BTW, here's another self-refuting statement so that you can compare your own to:
The only absolute is there are no absolutes [except the absolute that there are no absolutes...oh, I guess that means there is at least one absolute, after all...but you know, that doesn't stop a person from believing there are no absolutes...as long as you realize there is at least one absolute...ad infinitum]
From here on hence, we shall call your similar contribution the "Eastforker Freeper Principle," which I restate for all thusly:
"The primary absolute
is that you shouldn't tell others how to live their lives;
and should others break that Primary Commandment,
then I'm going to have to tell that 'other' that he/she shouldn't live his/her life that way."
ALL: Allow me to "translate" this for you:
No matter how morally corrupt the idea of abortion is =
#1 "Hey, well, I don't think it's 'corrupt' if I postulate this as an up-for-grabs premise...I mean, come on, had I really thought this was corrupt, I'd tell them to 'quit' doing this like I did in post #27."
#2 "Note how cleverly I reduced 'abortion' to a mere 'idea' here -- as if it was some abstract impersonal issue. I have now taken the reality of 4,000 dismembered pre-borns each day and have abstracted them into the mental debate of arguing 'ideas.' Why the next thing ya know, I might on one of these threads describe my eyewitness experience of seeing an 18-wheeler drag a man and his scooter in a local intersection as just an 'idea'!"
most Americans wish to retain that option
#3 "Why see how clever I am. Planned Parenthood talks about 'choice' without ever discussing what they are choosing upon whom. Like Planned Parenthood, I have used a free-floating intransitive verb of being 'pro-option' without really delineating the realities of what that 'option' is...and, of course, I'm quite clever because I was able to use a parallel word to the pro-aborts' fave euphemism for abortion ('choice') without anybody on this thread calling me for it."
"if it is in their interest."
#4 "Why, see how casually I have pulled this off? I float into usage of the word 'interest' as if we're talking about a book club interest, or a chess club interest. Why you'd never guess we were talking about flesh, blood, and guts by the way I deftly stated that."
Your post is a steaming pile of bovine excrement.
Such a silly sentence from the "Christian Post" exposes the inexcusable ignorance of those who should be on "our side."
In America, the right to life of every innocent person is recognized as being God-given, and therefore unalienable.
The right to life does not come from man, it comes from our Creator.
It is not given by Constitutions, or amendments, or human laws.
And any Constitution, or amendment, or law, or court ruling, that violates unalienable rights is itself lawless, and destructive of our form of government and our liberty.
OH, and BTW, for you information, I am not pro abortion.
Such a silly sentence from the "Christian Post" exposes the inexcusable ignorance of those who should be on "our side." In America, the right to life of every innocent person is recognized as being God-given, and therefore unalienable. The right to life does not come from man, it comes from our Creator.
Excellent point/distinction.
It’s a fact. And you are as obtuse as ever.
Ping.
And this was a STATE initiative. So what's your point?
Quit being a nanny elitist by telling other folks how to lead thier lives
So tell me, just how is granting humanity to the unborn telling people how to live their lives?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.