Once again religious extremists have managed to force their hateful obsession with interfering in and eliminating a woman's right to self-determination, including a woman's right to the self defense of her own body onto our Colorado ballot with their Proposition 67 their so-called "Personhood Amendment"
I'd love to ask these self-certain folks who presume they know "God's mind": If God hated abortion so much why does he spontaneously abort over half the conceptions that occur?
Medline Plus - a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine
National Institutes of Healthhttp://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Debate discussion
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/170391-why-does-god-murder-abort-so-many-babiesKoe - Religion > Why does god murder/abort so many babies?
If your one of the religions that thinks abortion is murder why is god murdering so many babies?
Current estimates say that 60-80% of fertilized eggs probably fail to implant and then another 15-20% of the fertilized eggs that do implant spontaneously abort.
So... that gives us a 34%-16% survival rate for fertilized eggs or to flip it around God murders between 66% and 84% of all babies.
Why if God is opposed to abortions does he kill so many babies?~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"Few conceptions lead to a baby"
"However, there's some serious problems with the logic of ensoulation at the point of conception -- unless your God is a real asshole. The CDC as well as the March of Dimes and several fertility experts have conducted studies to see exactly how hard it is to carry a pregnancy to term. In general, less than 70% of all fertilized eggs will even implant into the mother's womb causing pregnancy to continue. From there, there is a 25-50% chance of aborting before you even know you are pregnant. If, however, you make it to your first month, your odds go up to 75% chance of carrying to term. So if you look at it from the point of all those little souls being given a home, only to be miscarried before they even know they are alive, that's a very mean God. …"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Seems that every election these obsessive people come back to try forcing this question onto the voters - but they have no respect for the fact that we the voters of Colorado have soundly rejected such primitive tribal thinking.
Abortion is not a government concern! It is a deeply personal tragic situation that belongs within the circle of family, caregivers and spiritual guides - the state has no right pretending it know what God is thinking and that God thinks it's OK to force harmful situation onto woman for the sake of right wing tribal principles of faith.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Regarding Colorado's Proposition 48 (2008):
Text of the Proposal"Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:SECTION 1. Article II of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:Colorado Amendment 62 (2010)
Section 31. Person defined. AS USED IN SECTIONS 3, 6, AND 25 OF ARTICLE II OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION, THE TERMS "PERSON" OR "PERSONS" SHALL INCLUDE ANY HUMAN BEING FROM THE MOMENT OF FERTILIZATION.[4]"
"Colorado Amendment 62 was an initiated constitutional amendment that appeared on the November 2, 2010 ballot defining personhood as “every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.” It sought to ban abortionin the state of Colorado and challenge Roe v. Wade."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reflections on a previous version of prop. 67, Colorado's prop. 48 (2010):
Who's a person?
Proposition 48 (now prop 67) wants to define the term “person” to include any human being from the moment of fertilization as “person” relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of Law.
What are we coming to? Can we please consider a fertilized egg for a moment? It is a seed, home to unknowable potentialities. Do proponents understand that depending upon which data you believe, fifty to sixty-five percent of all pregnancies spontaneously (god initiated?) abort?
(http://www.choice101.com/17-conception-magic.html.)
Yes, those fertilized eggs are bundles of sacred life and a world of potentialities. They deserve to be treated as sacred entities. But, death, passing on is a part of life, especially during those months of gestation. The fertilized egg must achieve genuine viability before it deserves the mantle of “personhood.” It seems most unreasonable to demand that a “Potentiality” deserves the same legal standing as an existing human.
From a political agenda perspective - I’m constantly amazed by the bizarre right-wing ability to proclaim their conviction in: “The Right to Life” and “The Sanctity of Life”... for an unborn being, then in the same breath support inflicting a thousand “9/11’s” upon another distant, yet innocent, citizenry. Right-wingers will exclaim: but that’s self-defense!
Why not ask: What about the troubled mother who must make an agonized decision based upon self-defense for herself and her existing family? How can the right-wing be so cruel to disregard the all around tragic ordeal abortion is for those involved? When will our right-wing brothers and sisters grant women their own right to self-defense, dignity, empathy?
For a most thoughtful consideration of the dilemma look up Rachel Richardson Smith’s essay: “Abortion, Right and Wrong”
What are we coming to? Can we please consider a fertilized egg for a moment? It is a seed, home to unknowable potentialities. Do proponents understand that depending upon which data you believe, fifty to sixty-five percent of all pregnancies spontaneously (god initiated?) abort?
(http://www.choice101.com/17-conception-magic.html.)
Yes, those fertilized eggs are bundles of sacred life and a world of potentialities. They deserve to be treated as sacred entities. But, death, passing on is a part of life, especially during those months of gestation. The fertilized egg must achieve genuine viability before it deserves the mantle of “personhood.” It seems most unreasonable to demand that a “Potentiality” deserves the same legal standing as an existing human.
From a political agenda perspective - I’m constantly amazed by the bizarre right-wing ability to proclaim their conviction in: “The Right to Life” and “The Sanctity of Life”... for an unborn being, then in the same breath support inflicting a thousand “9/11’s” upon another distant, yet innocent, citizenry. Right-wingers will exclaim: but that’s self-defense!
Why not ask: What about the troubled mother who must make an agonized decision based upon self-defense for herself and her existing family? How can the right-wing be so cruel to disregard the all around tragic ordeal abortion is for those involved? When will our right-wing brothers and sisters grant women their own right to self-defense, dignity, empathy?
For a most thoughtful consideration of the dilemma look up Rachel Richardson Smith’s essay: “Abortion, Right and Wrong”
Also see:
When is a human human?
and
No comments:
Post a Comment