| Subscribe RSS

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Pro Lifer calls opponents to Colorado Amendment 48 illogical, and my irony meter explodes

| |

Found in this post, which is taken from this site, although I couldn't find that article there.

The state of Colorado will soon be voting on Amendment 48, The Personhood Amendment. From the Colorado for Equal Rights website:
"The Personhood Amendment will see that the Colorado state constitution is amended to include pre-born from the moment of fertilization as having their 'personhood' clearly established, so that they may enjoy inalienable rights, equality of justice and equal protection under the law."

so far, so good. can't really dispute that.
Now, it's important to clarify that the Personhood Amendment does not change the constitution in any way.

By definition, an amendment does change the constitution. It also makes it much more difficult to change than passing a law in the state legislature, which is, I'm sure, the main reason the anti-choice crowd is pushing for it to be an amendment.
It merely clarifies the definition of a 'person' as beginning at fertilization. Medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception. This means that the moment an egg is fertilized by a sperm, it brings into existence a zygote, which is a genetically distinct human being. This isn't biased information. These are basic, indisputable biological facts that have been affirmed by medical professionals worldwide for decades.

(emphasis mine). First of all, "merely" is bullshit. That would be a fundamental change in the way our legal system works regarding women, pregnancy, and medical care. Secondly, they provide no sources for their "indisputable biological facts". In reality, there is no consensus among doctors, scientists, are anyone else. In 1989, an amici curiae brief prepared for the Supreme Court case of William Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 167 scientists and physicians, including twelve Nobel laureates, argued:
There is no scientific consensus that a human life begins at conception, at a given stage of fetal development, or at birth. The question of "when a human life begins" cannot be answered by reference to scientific principles like those with which we predict planetary movement. The answer to tha question will depend on each individual's social, religious, philosophical, ethical, and moral beliefs and values.

so, where are these "indisputable facts"?
With the tantrums being thrown by pro-aborts, it's amazing to think that this 'attack on women's health', as they deem it, is merely an attempt to keep our laws updated with modern science. Establishing medical facts pertaining to the development of the preborn is no more an attack on women's health than challenging the flat earth theory is an attack on nautical travel.

Using the word "tantrum" is an ad hominem attack with no bearing on the issue. However, I agree with keeping our laws updated with modern science. It's just that science and medical facts do not agree with the anti-choice crowd. For the record, no one is "pro abortion". I contend that people who call themselves "pro life" are anything but pro life. They care about a collection of cells more than the life of the mother, the life of the doctor, or anything else.
We would do well to remind our pro-abort friends who love to paint themselves as the picture of modern progression, that to ignore the advance of medical science is archaic, antediluvian, and (dare we say it?) intolerant.
For a group of people who love to discredit their opposition by claiming to be above uninformed, religious opinion, it's amazing to watch their persistent ignorance to the basic biological and medical facts of prenatal development. Who would have thought that in the 21st century, fairly intelligent individuals would persist in rejecting science, in the face of strong evidence, so that they can sit back comfortably in their subjective, faith-based worldview that killing a child is the equivalent of pulling a tooth?

Again, they make claims about these "medical facts", yet fail to cite a single example of any. Claiming that evidence exists without showing it is demonstrating a "lack of logic" on their part.
Seriously, just think about what voting No on Amendment 48 entails. What you are being asked to do is to ignore the advancements of medical and biological science to placate the subjective political opinions and faith based claims of a group of individuals. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the definition of "Faith" is, "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." Since the statement, "a fetus isn't a child" is not based on any tangible data, and in fact goes contrary to all established evidence - it is quite literally a faith statement. It is an opinion. It is not grounded in reality.

This is just one more example of the religious right lying and accusing their opponents of what they are the ones doing. Science has consistently said that there's no consensus on the beginning of personhood, and you can't find many anti-choicers who are not motivated purely by religion.
When you listen to pro-aborts sputtering out nonsense about "a fetus is just a formless blob", "it's the woman's body", etc.. you are listening to faith statements that directly oppose the most fundamental precepts of medical knowledge. You must willingly adopt ignorance and become intellectually handicapped to believe the faith statements dehumanizing the fetus. And they call us the extremists?

yes, you are extremists because you try to force your religious views on the rest of us. Opposed to abortion? Don't have one. Perhaps instead of indulging in lying, distorting the facts and forcing your religion on everyone else, you should invest your time in properly educating young people in sex education and teaching them about contraception. (I realize that it's not just teens and the younger crowd who have abortions, but they are the easiest for the religious right to intimidate).
What kind of sad society is it where the self-appointed intellectual elite are in essence saying, "The Personhood Amendment, where accepting the facts of elementary school science make you an extremist!"

Again, show me the science.
The question of when life begins isn't relative. It is clearly definable in terms of science.

Correct. Life began about 4.5 billion years ago.
To keep a belief grounded in the elusive playground of 'what's right for me' is not progressive. It does not a benefit womens health. The only way anyone can justify voting no on 48, is to deny the medical facts, or to admit that abortion is the act of ending a human life. Not too many individuals seem to be overly fond of openly admitting support for mass child murder, so anti-life groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL are ready to spew out lies and deceptions to prevent Colorado from catching up with fifth grade biology.

This is utterly false. Again, they mention medical facts without citing them. They also accuse Planned Parenthood and NARAL of lies in deception in the same sentence that they spew nothing but lies and deception. Typical right wing behavior.
This really is an intellectual war. Not counting Colorado pro-lifers, you have to realize that your state is essentially made up of two groups of people. Those who are uninformed or misinformed when it comes to the medical facts of personhood, and those who remain willfully ignorant of the medical facts of personhood. One group is being deceived by the other.

This is correct, but I strongly disagree which group is willfully ignorant.
Your job as an activist taking a stand for life is to clear the fog. Tell it like it is. This is literally a case of faith vs. science.

Yes, it is a case of science vs. faith. Your faith vs. the science that says no consensus exists about the beginning of personhood.
And since our opposition pride themselves on being scientifically savvy and morally progressive, let's ask them: If you are so progressive and science-minded, then why are you opposed to catching our laws up to date with medical science?

The laws already are caught up with medical science. You're trying to roll the legal system back to medieval times.
Be blunt. Be bold. Write letters to the editor. Challenge advertisements and opinion columns that are openly stating falsehoods and anti-life fabrications. Get the word out. Here's the nitty-gritty: Like toddler and adolescent, the terms embryo and fetus do not refer to nonhumans, but to humans at particular stages of development. And stage of development does not alter human worth. The pre-born are undeniably human and as such deserve equal rights. It really is that simple!

No, it isn't that simple. One of the main problems I have with religion is that it turns every issue into a black-and-white, "simple" problem with only one clear answer. The problem is, religious people can't agree with what those simple answers should be. Life is never simple, and issues like abortion are particularly complex. To pretend otherwise is dumbing down the issue.
As pro-life activists, it is irritating lacking the funds to get the truth out, especially when we're up against a behemoth of lies. However, unlike our opposition, we don't have to exhaust our limited resources in fixing up lies into believable little pills for the public to swallow. All we have to do is tell it like it is. Let's remove politics and religion from the equation and look at this for what it is.. the acknowledgment of established biological fact.
I know I've repeated this to the point of redundancy, but this is the only way we'll get through to the masses: We play by their rules. You want to protect women? You despise primitive faith-based rhetoric? Good! The hypocrisy stops here. Let's close our Bibles and open our biology textbooks. Modern science is very clear and concise on when human life begins. Once the fog is cleared, I think the masses will agree.. in light of medical science I personally don't have enough faith to pretend that a preborn child is the equivalent of a pulled tooth.
- Gingi Edmonds

Again, show me this modern science of which you speak. If it were so cut and dried, scientists and doctors all over the world would be jumping on the anti-choice bandwagon. Nonsense such as Gingi Edonds is spewing makes me want to beat my head against the wall. Willful ignorance like this needs to fought tooth and nail to preserve our constitutional rights.


jessica said...

Hey, I'm new to this whole issuse. I totally agree with you, but I want to get more info on the subject before I form a solid opinion on the matter. A friend of mine is saying the same stuff this chick is but I keep telling her, it's bull and there is no way to tell when life begins. If you have any sources to where doctors disagree on when life begins can you send them my way? Cause I keep hearing the same "All doctors agree" crap.

Also, what was Gingi Edmonds responce?


Btw, I new to blogger.com so I hope I'm doing this right. I just found your page when I ran a search for Colorado Amendment 48.

jessica said...

Hey, I just ran a search and the article is from


It's kinda obvious, right? I feel kinda silly for having to run the search. hehe

mathyoo said...

it's good to remember that Google is your friend.

Suzi said...

Did you ever get a response to the gal who wrote the article? Seems like you went to alot of trouble with all your counter points to her points, too bad she didn't reply. I'm with the other person who commented, I'd like a list/reference to the proof the docs and scientist say about NOT knowing when life begins. Seems like that's what really is at issue here, right? I have to admit I get confused as to why a person can get into legal trouble if they destroy an eagle's egg, but ending a human pregnancy is okay. Any thoughts on that?

mathyoo said...

no response, and frankly, I lost interest after the issue was defeated so soundly in the election

clevergirl17 said...

No way! I totally got in to an arguement with that moronic excuse for a human being just last week! I posted it on my blog too-feel free to check it out on blogger, it's on the entry dated January 6, 2009-your opionon of her and her trash mouth will be even lower after you read the ridiculous atrocities spewing from her odious little mouth.

People like her make the rest of us look bad.

I dig your blog by the way. Way to stick up for woman's rights. :-)

jessica said...

You guys want to hear something really funny?! I'm Gingi's sister! That's right! However, I didn't lie about being new to blogger.com so if it doesn't say my name this time I'm Jessica, the one who posted earlier.

Why'd I lie? Couple reasons...

I thought it was hilarious that you kept digging on Ging for never siting medical text where doctors agree when human life begins. I found it funny that you were so pissed about her doing that, that you mentioned it about 80 times. Yet not once did you provide "facts" that prove medical science dosen't agree whenlife begins (you couldn't do it because you had no "facts".) I even gave you the opportunity to bring forth your "facts", and guess what? You couldn't do it.

The other reason, and pretty much the main one to why I first wrote to you. You tried to make it look like you made this an open letter to my sis, yet I know as well as you that you never tried to contact Gingi. I even made a joke about feeling silly about not looking up her name in the first place. Because it was so painfully obvious that you never tried to contact her. You would either have to be completly retarded when it comes to computers (which I know you aren't, seeing as you can figure out this site when I can't) and not know how easy it is to run a search. Or, you wanted to make it appear you posted this "brilliant" blog and Gingi was too scared to respond.

I gave you an out! I said, "Also, what was Gingi Edmonds responce?". All you had to say was, I never sent it to her or, I've never contacted her. But, no...you had to prove me right again.

I'll break it down for you. Medical science HAS ALWAYS AGREED when life begins. Since I know you know your way around a computer do your own research before you post a blog boasting your own willful ignorance. Otherwise you just look foolish.

And last of all, (this may sound harsh) grow some balls. If you spend all that time "debunking" and "ripping apart an opposing view" have the balls to say it to someones face. Otherwise you'll just look like a coward who is too afraid to engage someone with an opposing view.

These views are entirely my own. If you want to talk to my sister I suggest contacting her.

God bless,

mathyoo said...

I responded to your post here.