Colorado is a little crazy!

So for those that dont read the NY Times on a daily basis, or decide to read some other paper like USA today, i have decided to spotlight an interesting article from the Nov 18th paper, "Proposed Colorado Measure on Rights for Human Eggs" please enjoy!

DENVER, Nov. 16 -- A proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution that would give legal rights to fertilized human eggs may be headed for the ballot next year, raising the prospect of a heated local debate over abortion at the same time that Democrats are gathering here for their
national convention.



The ballot measure, which passed a legal hurdle this week when the Colorado Supreme Court upheld an administrative panel's ruling about its wording, would give Colorado perhaps the most sweeping language in the nation about the rights of the unborn, legal experts said.




The proposal must go through several other steps between now and Election Day 2008, including gathering of enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.



But both sides agreed that the measure, if it passed, would have immense ripple effects. The measure, just one paragraph long, would ask voters whether inalienable rights, due process rights and equality of justice rights as defined in the state Constitution should be extended to "any human being from the moment of fertilization."



The deputy director of Naral Pro-Choice Colorado, Toni Panetta, said state courts could be swamped by suits claiming specific rights for a fertilized egg that the broad language of the ballot measure did not clarify.



"All fertilized eggs could use the courts, and that lays the foundation for a potential onslaught," she said. She said the language would open up challenges to birth control, including oral contraception and intrauterine devices, which make the uterine wall inhospitable to the developing egg.



A lawyer who represented supporters of the proposal, Michael J. Norton, said the real impact of the proposal would be in its simplicity, asking a profound philosophical and moral question.



"The whole issue centers on when does life begin," Mr. Norton said. He said that though the word "abortion" would not appear in the language of the proposal, it would effectively make an abortion "the destruction of a person" and therefore illegal.



"Whatever rights and liberties and duties and responsibilities are guaranteed under the Constitution or other state laws would flow to that life," Mr. Norton said.



A spokesman for the Colorado Democratic Party, Matt Sugar, said he thought the measure was perhaps timed in an effort to highlight divisions over abortion in Colorado at a time when much attention will be focused here. But he said he thought it could play into the United States Senate race even more than the convention in August, by forcing candidates to talk about the subject. Senator Wayne Allard, a Republican, is not seeking re-election, creating an open seat.



Dale Schowengerdt, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal organization based in Arizona that supported the ballot measure before the Colorado Supreme Court, said the timing of the proposal was "pure coincidence," to next year's elections.



"It's an important debate that people ought to have, and Colorado ought to have, about when does life begin," Mr. Schowengerdt said.




So, in going along with the argument that fertilized eggs will have right to due process and equality of justice and therefore be able to have appointed legal representation, will a woman be charged with manslaughter if she has a spontaneous abortion and in doing so kills the fertilized egg? Could a women be charged if through no fault or planning of her own, be charged for killing a "fertilized human egg" if her own body rejects the zygote that results in a miscarriage???

I think this is def going to spark some interesting discussion on the origins of life, and the implications of defining those origins in a constitution and therefore granting equal rights and protection under the constitution, esp because at the present time women still do not have equal rights under the federal Constitution??? but the possible future offspring will be able to have lawyer represent in a court of law.....really?? are they serious?? I know this is just semantics, but come on is this really necessary to define when life begins?


My personal thoughts on the subject of when life begins.....i like to call it viability. When the fetus can survive outside the womb in the most basic sense, able to breath, circulate blood. That is as simple as i can make it, and this is what i believe. if you chose to believe something else congratulations that is your right as an American living in a democracy where we can debate all viewpoints