Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

fizzgig

(24,146 posts)
Thu Oct 16, 2014, 01:05 AM Oct 2014

Colorado's 'personhood' Amendment 67 more ambiguous than partisans say

What’s in a nickname?

Both supporters and opponents of Amendment 67 call the measure on this year’s ballot “personhood.” But they disagree sharply on what it actually does.

Reproductive rights groups argue A67 falls right in line with 2008 and 2010’s failed personhood measures, which were designed to ban abortion by extending legal rights to life from the moment of conception.

But backers say that while their measure does recognize every stage of a pregnancy as a legal person, its scope is far more restricted than in past years, and won’t affect abortion or any other medical procedures.


the rest from colorado public radio

like those mouthbreathers wouldn't immediately use it to restrict abortion access.

i can't believe we're still voting on this shit
2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Colorado's 'personhood' Amendment 67 more ambiguous than partisans say (Original Post) fizzgig Oct 2014 OP
Had a conversation with a proponent madamesilverspurs Oct 2014 #1
ugh fizzgig Oct 2014 #2

madamesilverspurs

(16,010 posts)
1. Had a conversation with a proponent
Thu Oct 16, 2014, 03:14 AM
Oct 2014

about four years ago. He became increasingly agitated over my abject refusal to agree with him. I nudged him further by suggesting that the measure really didn't have anything to do with babies, and he actually blurted "No, it doesn't!"

When he realized what he'd admitted, he couldn't back down; so he stuck his jaw out and said it was part of a plan to preserve the Constitution. He further admitted it was intended to take away women's rights, then it could be used as precedent for taking away the rights of others who should never have had them anyway (!). Their goal, he explained, was to return the Constitution to its original state of 'purity' before it was "corrupted" by the Bill of Rights.

We asked his wife if she'd be okay with surrendering her right to vote, to own property, etc.; she nodded, and said it would only be temporary. Uh huh. We also asked her if she'd be okay with reinstituting slavery, she just shrugged and nodded, and he smiled and smirked.

It was September 12th, and they walked away and across the street to the park where they joined other tea partiers at the local Glenn Beck rally. Scary, creepy people.

Latest Discussions»Region Forums»Colorado»Colorado's 'personhood' A...