Holy mother of dog. It only takes 76,000 registered Colorado voters to sign up to get this on the ballot.
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee on Monday endorsed a proposed Colorado Human Life Amendment that would define personhood as a fertilized egg.Well, now I want to know how far Huckabee wants to take this effort. Let’s think about the practicalities of such an amendment. I’m not being flip here, because creating a “fetus citizen” status has real-world applications and will necessitate laws and regulations that the womb control advocates need to think out and explain to the rest of us.The former Arkansas governor and Baptist minister also supports a human-life amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Huckabee spoke favorably about the Colorado ballot initiative, sponsored by 20-year-old Kristi Burton and her Colorado for Equal Rights group, during his Friday visit to Colorado Springs. On Monday, Huckabee lent official support to the measure.
“This proposed constitutional amendment will define a person as a human being from the moment life begins at conception,” Huckabee said in a statement. “With this amendment, Colorado has an opportunity to send a clear message that every human life has value,” Huckabee said. “Passing this amendment will mean the people of Colorado will protect the sanctity of life from conception until natural death occurs.”
Burton’s initiative, if approved by voters in November, would extend state constitutional protections to every fertilized egg, guaranteeing the right to life, liberty, equality of justice and due process of law.
* For instance, will a post-coitus woman be able to drive in a HOV lane because she may be carrying a fertilized egg?
* Will the highway patrol need to carry pregnancy testing kits to confirm the ability for them to use HOV lanes on the spot?
* Can airlines charge a woman for two seats since the fertilized egg is a person?
* Can an impregnated woman be punished for poor eating habits, or consuming alcohol or artificial sweeteners?
* Is the boyfriend/husband an accomplice to a crime if he drives her to the abortion clinic?
* Can a woman claim her fetus as a tax deduction?
* For couples who fertilize multiple eggs for in vitro, are they guilty of murder if the unused eggs are discarded?
* Should a woman register with the state whenever she has unprotected sex (without using any form of birth control), since she might be carrying a fertilized egg?
* What about a woman who skips her birth control pills, has sex, the egg is fertilized and she later resumes her contraception, unknowingly causing an “abortion.” What punishment should she receive?
* And, of course, the current bar people on both sides banter about — consideration of the a medical emergency of the mother or cases of rape and incest — how will the state-based fetus citizen council determine punishment?
We know Pastor Hutch and friends want to have control over every womb, but if we take this thinking to its logical conclusion, the state would need to know when a man spilled his seed in a situation where creating a fetus citizen is a possibility.
114 Responses to “Huckabee endorses ‘egg as person’ amendment”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
But will the egg have the right to the pursuit of happiness?
If I broke into a woman’s house in Colorado, shot her full of weird hormones, screwed up her back, raised her blood pressure (possibly to life-threatening levels), and stole nutrients from her blood stream, don’t you think the loons who support this amendment would defend the woman’s right (or maybe her Man’s right) to shoot me dead in self defense?
“Your honor, that…person was trespassing in my womb, stealing my very sustenance, pumping me full of dangerous hormones and injuring my spine and hips. I did it in self defense.”
Not to mention that something like half of all fertilized eggs don’t even implant (that is, they don’t become a pregnancy, or if you are crazy, it means they die).
OK, sure. Get it out of me, and you can give it all the rights you think it should have. I’m not sure how long it’ll live to enjoy those rights, but that’s not my problem. If the government wants to give a fertilized egg or anything else the right to life, the government can figure out how to keep it alive.
(If a woman goes into an abortion clinic, would Child Protection Services be required to remove the “unborn child” from her custody for its protection?)
“We know Pastor Hutch and friends want to have control over every womb, but if we take this thinking to its logical conclusion, the state would need to know when a man spilled his seed in a situation where creating a fetus citizen is a possibility.”
In light of what The Bible says about spilling seed, it seems to me the state would need to be informed EVERY time a man’s seed is “spilled”, not just those times when conception is a possibility.
Men’s hands will have to be covered with some kind of abrasive gloves, to discourage “manipulation”. Photographs, which may contain women, and might temp men to engage in criminal behavior, must be eliminated from all media. Any device which might be used to stimulated those unmentionable parts, must be made illegal.
Naturally, we need to ban anything that can be used to “catch” the seed and then hide the evidence of a crime - no toilet paper, gym socks, towels, washcloths, etc.
After all, these are only very small sacrifices, compared to the importance of Protecting Human Life!!!…
That’s the problem with amendments like this — people don’t think, they just react emotionally. It’s easier to get signatures on a petition at, say, a mall when people can just sign based on a kneejerk “babies=good” reaction.
The saddest thing about this to me is it’s being led by a 20 year old woman. This person is part of the up and coming college generation, and should know better. Her group’s name is Equal Rights? How can she throw her own rights away like that? She’s one of the ones who’ll be getting pregnant in a few years, when it’s illegal in her state not to exercise daily and eat right while carrying a ‘person’.
What about identification? Why should naming be deferred until birth? Does the fertilized egg receive a Social Security number?
What about identification? Why should naming be deferred until birth? Does the fertilized egg receive a Social Security number?
If college kids can drink at 20 years and three months, this thing will pass.
Good lord he is actually darn insane. Of course, those questions would be answered in due course as the new morality regime took over. That’s the way they probably see it.
Still, not as insane as the Irish government appointing a lawyer to an unborn fetus with no brain (and which suffered from anencephaly so it would never have a brain). It happened last year.
* Can airlines charge a woman for two seats since the fertilized egg is a person?
Considering that many airlines allow passengers to carry babies up to the age of two on their laps at no extra charge, I doubt it.
Otherwise, good questions
Yes, unless the pregnancy is obvious they would need to test any claim for HOV rights.
Of course! This would be child abuse, the same as if they treated their already born children poorly.
At least on the state tax rolls. I wonder how many women will claim that they got pregnant in December and then miscarried in January. Or even better… pregnant with twins!
Clearly there is no question that disposing of those little children would be murder.
Sounds like criminally negligent homicide to me.
It’s important to remember and tell everyone you know this is an attempt to ban birth control. Birth control pills and emergency contraception work by preventing ovulation, but the wingnuts claim they work by irritating the uterine lining and depriving the male seed, er, the fertilized egg a chance to implant. IUDs work that way, but the pill does not. This needs to be understood as an attempt to lay the groundwork for banning female-controlled contraception.
Which raises the abortion rate, by the way. From what I understand, in the days before women had reliable self-controlled contraception, one in four pregnancies ended in abortion.
ding ding ding eggs up
Adam and Eve on a raft — wreck’em!
That’s hard-boiled diner speak for “Bring on the Menstrual Police and march the sluts through the legal system till The Law can establish whether the female goo is a crime scene or not.”
Fred Thompson had also woken up briefly and taken this position before succumbing to a nice long snooze again.
Meanwhile, prominent Repugs and “pro” life deadbeats like Tom DeLay have been out claiming that making all abortion illegal will “solve” the problem of “illegal” immigrants by creating a forced-childbirth slave race.
(See Max Blumenthal’s Generation Chickenhawk on You Tube for Mr. DeLay explaining his grand plan to the gathering of Young Republicans who are so passionately pro-life and pro-war, they can barely speak in a coherent fashion.)
In general this is true. But synthetic progestin does alter the uterine lining so if somehow an egg is produced and is fertilized it won’t implant. I would assume that the risk would be enough to outlaw all birth control pills since they all contain progestin. (The mini-pill contains only synthetic progestin.)Why discard them? As long as they exist, they’re dependent children whom you can claim on your tax return!
(BTW, this amendment could also make the USA’s “carbon output per capita” numbers look much, much better. Suck on THAT, Western European economy-meddlers!)
This is, clearly, discrimination against unfertilized eggs.
Who will protect the unfertilized amongst us?
The unfertilized have rights, too! Most notably, the right to be fertilized!
Anyway,
Does the fetus-citizen have the right to form contracts?
Does the fetus-citizen need to obtain a passport if it leaves the country?
Does it have the right to a trial by its fetus-citizen peers?
Are fetus citizens included in census counts?
Can the fetus citizen have investment or checking accounts in its name?
What rights does the fetus citizen have when it crosses state lines?
Sadly, the righties that have been behind this bit of insanity have always claimed that none of this will be the case and it will of course not change anything.
But being Christians they lie like they breath air.
It is generally assumed that the madness will start in the Springs and move on from there with the banning of IUD’s and other forms of Birth Control. Arrests of Women and OB/Gyn’s that are “evil” to follow.
It’s a great big Trojan horse that I hope does not meet threshold, but the Springs is the second biggest city in the state where the Highway (I25) is named after Reagan and Focus on the Family has it’s own Exit, so it could just about get all 76K just from there and it would be on the ballot.
So where is the central collection point for all menstrual pads and tampons going to be so the government can check and see if any “people” didn’t implant in the previous cycle? Will Always and Tampax enclose mailers with every box, or will there be a special bin in every women’s restroom and issued to every home that will be picked up by government employees?
And the funny thing, of course, is that it’s liberals who are accused of trying to control every aspect of people’s lives.
As my husband just pointed out: if the woman gets sick from her pregnancy, can she then file a police report accusing the fetus of abuse? If the mother dies of childbirth and the baby survives, can you accuse the newborn baby of murder?
I mean, with personhood comes not only rights but also responsibilities.
Sadly, the righties that have been behind this bit of insanity have always claimed that none of this will be the case and it will of course not change anything.
But being Christians they lie like they breath air.
It is generally assumed that the madness will start in the Springs and move of from there with the banning of IUD’s and other forms of Birth Control. Arrests of Women and OB/Gyn’s that are “evil” to follow.
It’s a great big Trojan horse that I hope does not meet threshold, but the Springs is the second biggest city in the state where the Highway (I25) is named after Reagan and Focus on the Family has it’s own Exit, so it could just about get all 76K just from there and it would be on the ballot.
As my husband just pointed out: if the woman gets sick from her pregnancy, can she then file a police report accusing the fetus of abuse? If the mother dies of childbirth and the baby survives, can you accuse the newborn baby of murder?
I mean, with personhood comes not only rights but also responsibilities.
As my husband just pointed out: if the woman gets sick from her pregnancy, can she then file a police report accusing the fetus of abuse? If the mother dies of childbirth and the baby survives, can you accuse the newborn baby of murder?
I mean, with personhood comes not only rights but also responsibilities.
Call me Pollyanna, but there’s a bright side to this. Not only do measures like this one consistently lose, they have the potential to be to the Left what gay-marriage amendments were to the Right: a rallying point.
I know: in a just world, women’s wombs would be beyond the tyranny of the majority. But since reproductive rights are being politicized whether we like it or not, let’s try to make sure they’re politicized on our terms.
I’m forseeing a hotline where women of Certified Reproductive Age (they will be required to enroll at first menses) can call every month when their period starts. Women will be required to collect all their menstrual blood in one of those Moon cups or Keepers and a Certified Menstrual Blood Inspector will come and pick it up, inspect it, and issue a “No Fertilized Egg Certificate”. If a fertilized egg is found, the woman will be arrested and a murder investigation will be inititated.
Women will be required to file these “No Fertilized Egg Certificates” with the Fetal Protection Board every month. Periodic audits will be held. Women without at least 13 certificates each year will be arrested under suspicion of murder.
Once a woman has entered menopause (verified by The Crone Certifying Board), she will receive her Non-Reproductive Certificate and will be allowed to withdraw from the program.
Any pregnancies that do not result in a documented live birth will be investigated and the mother will be prosecuted as a murderer.
For the record, and Douchbag McFuckwit’s (a.k.a. Huckabee’s) personal information, a fertilized egg in that state of mitosis is a zygote.
Mike Hucabee is a fucking moron. That’s scientific, too.
I’m so sick of being considered a “Womb”an instead of a Woman by the radical right. This shit needs to stop.
Alternatively, what about embryos that have been sitting in a freezer for 12 years? They won’t develop into a viable pregnancy even if they are implanted.
(Great questions, Pam!)
Pardon me…Douche, with an “e”.
omg omg…this is going to be soooo much fun.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WB5-45N4NDH-CC&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f54fdd7c640fc007da2f57e1abff0052
Establishment of Transgenic Mice Carrying Human Fetus-Specific CYP3A7
CYP3A7 is a cytochrome P450 isozyme expressed prenatally in humans. Six lines of mice transgenic for human CYP3A7 were established by microinjecting a CYP3A7 cDNA downstream of a mouse metallothionein-1 promoter gene into the male pronucleus of fertilized mouse oocytes. The inserted CYP3A7 transgene was expressed at a mRNA level in a variety of tissues including the liver, kidney, lung, spleen, testis, small intestine, thymus, brain, skin, and heart of adult mice. The protein expression of the transgene was also detected in the liver and testis of line M10 mice. A significantly higher level of total testosterone in the serum was found in line M10 male mice. In addition, this transgenic line exhibited weight increases in the liver, kidney, and uterus but a decrease in the testis (P
http://www.univ.trieste.it/~etica/2001_1/levi.html
How can the human germline be modified ? Two possible paradigms are available to modify the genome in the germline. First of all it is possible to inject a segment of foreign DNA into an egg. In some cases (about 10% of the injected embryos) the injected fragment gets integrated into the genome. If the embryo then develops we will have obtained a “transgenic” animal. In mice and many other animals, the generation of transgenic individuals has actually proved technically quite easy. In the first widely-reported successful experiment using the germline technique, an extra gene that promoted the synthesis of growth hormone was introduced into fertilized mouse eggs and the unusually high levels of the hormone made the mice grow to twice their normal size. Transgenic techniques are also being used to modify farm animals in attempts to increase yields of meat or enhance its nutritional quality, to cause them to produce pharmaceuticals in their milk, and to make their organs more suitable for human transplantation.
Can we envisage to create, in the near future a transgenic human? Although, this techniques appears quite simple to apply, several technical problems are still unresolved. First of all, as mentioned above, only few of the injected embryos would actually become transgenic, one should therefore plan to inject many human eggs, let them develop in vitro and test them individually by blastomere biopsy to identify the few transgenics before re-implanting. A second problem consists in the fact that the foreign DNA integrates randomly into the genome, this can give rise to two different problems. First, the injected DNA could disrupt a normal gene and therefore cause the loss of its function (3) or, second, it might be integrated in a region of DNA which would induce its expression in undesired locations. This last problem (ectopic expression of the transgene) is quite common and almost unavoidable using classical transgenic technologies, when applied to humans it might cause undesirable and unpredictable effects. To avoid these last problems it has been suggested to inject into eggs “mini-chromosomes”, long DNA fragments which would not integrate in the genome, but would add genetic material which would replicate and divide with the rest of the genome. If generating a classical transgenic organism corresponds to adding a page at random within the “book of life”, this last solution would correspond to add one booklet of instructions to the set of 23 chromosomes.
—————
I used to run around posting “how to clone” your own sheep article.
I think I should do it with how to clone your own earthling.
Would you have to keep them in your own freezer to claim them?
Definitely! A (gay, Catholic, Republican) friend tried to tell me that GA’s similar amendment was to “protect the dignity” of human life. I didn’t go so far as to describe things as Mnemosyne or BadKitty did, but I did explain that half of all fertilized eggs don’t implant and that the implications of such a law are staggering. Hopefully he got the message. At least the GA legislators did–it’s been tabled.
Ectopic pregnancy? Medical intervention is required to “kill” the fertilized egg and remove it from where it implanted.
I’d love to see that court case.
jerry 101 February 26, 2008 at 12:47 pm
This is, clearly, discrimination against unfertilized eggs.”
First human cloning using adult cell (skin) had been succesful. (You have to say, each skin cell is now potential adult… onoooo)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080211172631.htm
Human Skin Cells Reprogrammed Into Embryonic Stem Cells
UCLA stem cell scientists have reprogrammed human skin cells into cells with the same unlimited properties as embryonic stem cells without using embryos or eggs
Led by scientists Kathrin Plath and William Lowry, UCLA researchers used genetic alteration to turn back the clock on human skin cells and create cells that are nearly identical to human embryonic stem cells, which have the ability to become every cell type found in the human body. Four regulator genes were used to create the cells, called induced pluripotent stem cells or iPS cells.
The implications for disease treatment could be significant. Reprogramming adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells could generate a potentially limitless source of immune-compatible cells for tissue engineering and transplantation medicine. A patient’s skin cells, for example, could be reprogrammed into embryonic stem cells. Those embryonic stem cells could then be prodded into becoming various cells types — beta islet cells to treat diabetes, hematopoetic cells to create a new blood supply for a leukemia patient, motor neuron cells to treat Parkinson’s disease.
If this passed, I would also think it would cause another problem with IVF and other fertility treatments not mentioned already. Sometimes as a result of fertility treatment, a woman can conceive many more fetuses than are safe to carry to term. In such cases, a couple may elect to have some of the fetuses aborted so that the remaining ones have a better chance to develop normally. So a couple and their doctors would be ‘murdering’ some of these ‘babies’ in order to save others. Now there’s a dilemma.
How does an IUD work?
This answer is not completely clear. Experts used to think that the IUD’s contraceptive effects kicked in after fertilization took place, preventing the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, but new evidence shows that it actually works as a pre-fertilization method of contraception. (In fact, researchers found that very early pregnancy loss was more frequent in women using no method of contraception compared with those who used an IUD.) Studies have shown that the IUD creates an environment in the cervix and uterus that is toxic to sperm, killing them; and even if a few hardy ones survive long enough to reach the fallopian tubes, they appear to be incapable of fertilizing an egg.
In addition, researchers learned that fewer eggs are found in the tubes of women wearing IUDs, which indicates that the IUD somehow is toxic to the egg as well.
Any number of results to a Google search show similar answers. This was just the most thorough of the first five results.
http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,5543,00.html
Sadly, the righties that have been behind this bit of insanity have always claimed that none of this will be the case and it will of course not change anything.
But being Christians, they lie like they breath air.
It is generally assumed that the madness will start in the Springs and move of from there with the banning of IUD’s and other forms of Birth Control. Arrests of Women and OB/Gyn’s that are “evil” to follow.
It’s a great big Trojan horse that I hope does not meet threshold, but the Springs is the second biggest city in the state where the Highway (I25) is named after Reagan and Focus on the Family has it’s own Exit, so it could just about get all 76K just from there and it would be on the ballot.
I think we need to add another question to Pam’s excellent list:
Will such an amendment finally get Amy Sullivan to shut up?
(Answer: No. She will write another article about how evangelical Christians are so maligned by the big, bad secularists.)
Tlazolteotl February 26, 2008 at 1:13 pm
If this passed, I would also think it would cause another problem with IVF and other fertility treatments not mentioned already. Sometimes as a result of fertility treatment, a woman can conceive many more fetuses than are safe to carry to term.”
that amendment will create so many problems, it will implode upon itself. First of all, at current rate, we can expect human cloning from adult cell to happen in less than 5 years.
so then they have to answer what exactly is “conception”? (my personal take. there is no such thing as ‘moment of conception’. the biological aspect of life is fairly continuous, albeit in cycle. Second a human being is not just ‘biology’. There is the social aspect and livelihood.)
If somebody blathers about ‘conception’ any biological cell will in the future potentially be grown into full adult anything. It’s only a question of engineering challenge.
So on balance, biology alone is not sufficient to define ‘conception’.
Pesto:
* For couples who fertilize multiple eggs for in vitro, are they guilty of murder if the unused eggs are discarded?
Why discard them? As long as they exist, they’re dependent children whom you can claim on your tax return!
That is… brilliant.
Mike Huckabee’s utopian future: millions upon millions of “children”, kept youthful and carefree forever (as long as the electricity bill gets paid), while their parents pay no taxes.
Who can argue with a vision like that?
chingona, I dunno about those IUD stats… not only myself but a few children I know who are much younger than I were concieved while and IUD was in place and put our mothers through considerable worry and discomfort as doctors had to remove the device without impacting the pregnancy (since the mothers decided that they wanted to continue the pregnancy). I know that the plural of anecdote isn’t data, but i’m jsut saying that there’s a few holes in the theory.
Personally I like to argue with people who are all about doing away with the pill “for the baybeez”. I start saying that the matter is between a woman and her doctor and go on to make the argument that there are other applications for the pill that have nothing to do with preventing pregnancy (which they always pooh pooh). Then I pull out the big guns and explain that I have a hormonal imbalance which, if left to its own devices would likely leave me effectively sterile. I need to take the pill to balance my system so that if at some point in the future I wish to get pregnant it’s still a possibility. That shuts them right down…
But I’m only one person and can’t reach many on my own, so bills like this one worry me, since I am still undecided about wanting children some day I’d like the possibility to remain open and the safest, surest way at the moment is for me to continue with my BC.
“How does an IUD work?”
Arguments about HOW any particular form of BC works are irrelevant to the promoters of Gilead. The same is true for all arguments based on fetal viability.
Logic, science, and understanding are at the heart of what they are fighting. Those things have lead directly to the cultural changes they hate. They are not tools that can be successfully used to changes the mind of a knee-jerk anti-abortion activist. Absolute surety in the merits of their chosen cause is a hallmark of the True Believer.
THEY. WILL. NOT. STOP…until the rest of us freethinkers, feminists, atheists, libruls, etc., are locked up in the Brand New Shining Theocracy they have in mind.
I truly think there is no way they can be reached…
I for one will say…
Save the mouse! they are human too. (can I get a tax break, they are member of my family you know.)
I dunno about you, but I LOVE the idea of requiring itty bitty seat belts for my zygotes. How cute! Now if we could just figure out a way to reach up into my uterus and strap those babies in.
What about ectopic pregnancies? Does the fertilized egg (human) have the right to stay in a woman’s (for example) fallopian tube, because that’s where God decided it should be, or can it be forced to move to the uterus via invasive surgery on the woman?
Do fertilized eggs have the right to die? And what about molar pregnancies? If the fertilization process results in abnormal tumor growth in the uterus, how are we to punish the woman? Or the man, as it could be his chromosomal abnormalities that resulted in an abnormal fertilization?
And what about threatened miscarriage? How many hours do we give a pregnant woman to get to the hospital for treatment of a miscarriage in its earliest stages?
And what about excessive caffeine intake? That can cause spontaneous abortion. Will women have to submit to daily pregnancy tests before they can order beverages from Starbucks? And if they do drink coffees daily and Starbucks serves them, is Starbucks complicit in the murder?
not only myself but a few children I know who are much younger than I were concieved while and IUD was in place and put our mothers through considerable worry and discomfort as doctors had to remove the device without impacting the pregnancy (since the mothers decided that they wanted to continue the pregnancy).
I know that the older versions of the IUD were a lot less reliable that the current versions, leading to a fair number of pregnancies about 10- 20 years ago. the new style (Copper and progesterone) are 99% + effective (as long as they don’t decide to expel themselves, which is fairly unlikely but definitely does happen).
And these religious fanaticos WONDER why so many adults are either abandoning their faith or switching to another brand?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23337807/
Yay, unaffiliated!!!
They’ll have to ban mothers from breastfeeding too, since the contraceptive effect of breastfeeding works by preventing implantation. Why, you’d almost think God was an abortionist, on the assumption that He designed things that way.
When this nonsense fails, can we then call him “Huck-ty” Dumpty??
Tonight on CSI:
“You only think it’s a bloody tampon. But there’s a fertilised fetus American in there - natural death or murder?…”
kodiak, no kidding. I have a hormonal imbalance, easily and cheaply (and completely) controlled by the pill. When I was 12, it led to an acute condition that could have been extremely dangerous or even deadly, if it hadn’t been caught in time. It’s not highly likely, but it could happen again. It’s not a particularly rare or exotic hormonal imbalance, either.
Even if I ran away and joined a secluded Catholic convent, and never saw a man again, I’d need to stay on the pill. (There’s a thought — would they let me?)
If we had a scientifically literate population, stuff like this wouldn’t get off the ground. People would understand that it’s not as simple as “have sex and get instantly pregnant”, and would understand that birth control and Plan B make it so the guy doesn’t have a target to shoot at, and won’t do a damn thing if you ARE already pregnant.
But the people who either don’t want to know — or do know, and intentionally lie — are able to snooker a lot of people who just don’t know any better.
I didn’t offer any statistics, only a description of how it works. No birth control method is perfect. IUD is as effective as sterilization, but sometimes people get pregnant after tubal ligations. Very rare, but it happens. So I don’t know that your story really means anything in terms of how an IUD works. Whether it works by damaging sperm or by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting, either way it occasionally fails. And then, yes, it does have to be removed because it raises the miscarriage risk well through the second trimester, and even if you intend to terminate, it’s much better to get that over with than just wait around waiting for a miscarriage that could come late in the pregnancy or not at all. (I believe that very occasionally, if an IUD is very hard to get to without damaging or dislodging the fetus and the woman wants to carry to term, it will be left in place and is expelled during birth.)
My point was only that it is not clear that the IUD prevents fertilized eggs from implanting, or if it does, that is just one of several ways it reduces the risk of pregnancy.
I agree. I only put it out there as an FYI because Amanda said the IUD works by preventing implantation, and it’s just not clear that that’s true.
Just to be nitpicky, it’s post-coital.
All this nitpickery about uterine lining should be delayed until they explicitly detail in legal terms what other medical phenomena they intend to criminalize in connection with this..
If this is where they want the battle to be, bring on the Menstrual Police and the prosecutors who are prepared to give equal protection, or prosecution, under the law, or equal religious PERSECUTION of people who potentially damage fertilized eggs.
This includes placing a dizzying variety of individuals and companies on notice for personal & private habits and products and services that might aid and abet this crime.
I’d start removing all products from the shelves that are a danger to Overicans and Spermericans.
I am so ready for class action against all companies that endanger single cell americans. (that ought to bring the corporatist wing of GOP to shut the envangelical nutjob side pronto.)
All this discussion assumes that pro-lifers actually are pro-life and have a liberal/progressive (and dare I say Judeo-Christian) view of law — i.e. laws are pragmatic sorts of rules that help keep society running smoothly (kinda like the rules of the game which are the sine qua non of any sport except for Calvin-ball). Nu? If you think fetus=person under the law, that means you think that we should treat fetal death the same as person-death, and we do (and rightly so) treat person-death very seriously.
But do so-called pro-lifers really think deaths should be investigated that seriously? And anyway, do they think of laws in the same way we do? Remember many of these people buy into the Pauline critique of the pragmatic view of law: any laws are futile and will be broken anyway. So to them a law isn’t like a rule of sport but rather a message sent by society of what is ideal. They simply don’t treat laws and the legal process (ever had a conversation with a conservative Christian about lawyers? I have …) seriously as they believe laws are all futile anyway.
Can a woman claim her fetus as a tax deduction?
Holy smokes, you may be on to something here. Imagine the tax audits of the future:
“Of COURSE my wife and I have 88 kids! Little Becky is over there, and the other 87 are in a petri dish down at the fertility clinic.”
“Why yes, I’m a single head of household. I had 17 children during tax year 2007; they all failed to implant. Go ahead, try to prove otherwise.”
One more problem that I rarely see addressed in these sorts of discussions are those situations where even anti-choicers (grudgingly) concede that an abortion is the only answer. Life of the ambulatory incubator, for instance. Take ectopic pregnancies–if the zygote implants outside the womb (e.g. in the fallopian tubes), everyone involved WILL die. Easy, right? Abort. But this is America, and that fertilized egg has the right to due process under the law–and we can’t execute it for a crime it has yet to commit! What is this, Minority Report?
didn’t we already do this in romania and see how horribly it failed?
also how do they keep young women so confused and hoodwinked that they buy this shit? i get scared reading things like this now, but i would have been even more scared reading this five years ago…is it just the age and the family/patriarchal conditioning or what?
Huckabee answers the question - which comes first, the person or the egg?
I suppose it will also be impossible to arrest or imprison a pregnant woman, since the fetus will have habeus corpus rights, but won’t be guilty of any crime.
I… don’t understand the hate that Amy Sullivan seems to get here? Does she have some actual history of rightwing-apologetics that I don’t know about (I couldn’t turn anything up in a brief search) or is it about her “progressives should be working to achieve a left-wing ‘religious values’ presence” angle?
“Huckabee answers the question - which comes first, the person or the egg?”
…and he also answers the question “Who comes last?” The answer is any woman unlucky enough to still be fertile…
DAS has a point. It’s also part of why they can’t answer the “How much time should she serve” question, come to think of it.
“Why yes, I’m a single head of household. I had 17 children during tax year 2007; they all failed to implant. Go ahead, try to prove otherwise.”
And just think, you could be entitled to Grief Leave every month, if your employer offers such a thing. That’s what, an extra 2 or 3 days off?
No, the pill causes changes in the uterine lining which may in theory reduce - not eliminate - the chances of implantation. The number of things which fit into that category - including asprin, ibuprofin, and in fact just about any medication with the exception of Tylonol; any foods likely to harbor parasites - including soft cheeses, undercooked meat and fish - even raw fruits and vegetables…the list is absurd. If that’s their standard, there isn’t a sexually active heterosexual woman on the planet who’s not a murderer. This is not even vaguely about saving lives. It’s about finding as many excuses as possible to punish women.
If that’s their standard, there isn’t a sexually active heterosexual woman on the planet who’s not a murderer. This is not even vaguely about saving lives. It’s about finding as many excuses as possible to punish women. - an anonymous kate
Following up on my earlier comments (and annejumps, I always have a point … it’s just that sometimes even I can’t figure out what that point is
), as far as they are concerned, there isn’t a person alive who is not guilty of some grave, grave sin. As far as they are concerned it is impossible for us to follow either God’s laws or the laws of humankind — we’ll always screw up so badly that nothing we can do can make up for our screwing up (which is why they might not care about innocent people in jail, as far as they are concerned all of us deserve to be locked up in jail for life): the only redemption occurs through the blood sacrifice of Christ Jesus.
They don’t care about punishing women, and not just because of their misogyny — they just really don’t care who gets punished, hurt or whether anybody can lead a moral life. As far as they are concerned, the quest to actually follow ethical principles is a distraction.
And they call us secularists moral relativists and nihilists? As Nietzsche would have put it had he lived long enough to be aware of the work of Freud: that’s some heavy duty projection goin’ on right there!
Charlequin:
This place is populated by athiests, so Sullivan’s “play nice with the Christian” rhetoric doesn’t go far. Accompanied by the fact that most here don’t quite trust people who say “my faith makes me a liberal” when in all actuality, general human decency should make people more liberal.
Also, Sullivan wants the Dems to reach out to the religious vote using right wing frames(like her recently discussed denial of being pro-choice, even though that is exactly what she is, but equates pro-choice with pro-abortion, since that is the exact opposite of “pro-life”).
Many of us also have zero patience with the belief that Christians are oh-so-special and important that they must be pandered to, so as to get their vote. Isn’t it enough that they have been the most powerful members of society, that every president has been Christian, that the birth of their savior is a national holiday, and that almost every current day politician play acts as a Christian.
I guess this means all the men in CO will have to use condoms if they don’t want to hand over those big child support dollars every month.
Heck with the tax deductions, I’m looking for AFDC, General Assistance and social security disability. “Adopt” a bunch of vials of frozen whatever, and for $70 a year in storage fees watch the subsidies roll in. (I wouldn’t be filing on my own behalf, of course, but rather as trustee for the personsicles.)
And no, a pregnancy test wouldn’t be sufficient to rule out the presence of a conceptus, because the numbers don’t go up until days after the egg is fertilized. So anyone who arrested a sexually active woman in Colorado would be presumptively guilty of unlawful imprisonment.
My recollection is that there are a bunch of respected IVF clinics in Colorado. They would, of course, all go down under RICO.
Actually George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe were not Christians. Jefferson wrote his own version of the new testament that told the life of Jesus with no miracles and ending with his death on the cross.“There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.” - Thomas Jefferson
I’m sure people discuss it in the earlier post, but the basic problems reality-based liberals have with her is that (in the words of Willy Wonka’s Grandpa Joe) she’s a nitwit. If she truly wants to help the Dems, as she claims, she’d be better off shutting her yap.
Why? Her basic premise is that Democratic candidates should pander to as broad a group as possible of evangelist Xtians so as to pick up some new voters. And if you think playing to the lowest common denominator a good idea, you’re probably a fan of reality television who’s puzzled why intelligent and educated TV viewers have left the networks for HBO and cable.
Would the 14th Amendment have to be changed?
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
I mean, fetuses aren’t born yet… or would they be automatically naturalized by virtue of being in the mother? In which case, the “born or” part could be stricken through.
DAS, I’m aware of the aspect of their world view that you’re pointing out. However, they’re not trying to outlaw extramarital affairs for men, or working on the sabbath, or lying to get someone into bed or any one of a million other major or minor transgressions. The fact that the focus of their legislative efforts are controlling female reproduction and persecuting homosexuality are not just random happenings.
I’m so damned confused…
I was born in Maine, but conceived in New Jersey. My elder daughter was born in Maryland, but conceived in Pennsylvania.
So what the hell STATE are we from???
FWIW, the video here:
http://www.squarestate.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=4999
is pretty telling about the person “in charge” of this ballot initiative.
Aeryl,
Well, there are some of us liberal types who would say “my faith makes me a liberal” but usually in contrast to those who would say “my faith makes me a conservative”: i.e. to remind people that even those of us who are Bible-thumpers might reach some very different conclusions about morality, law and politics. Of course, a liberal society can accomodate those who maintain for themselves a conservative morality while a reactionary society cannot accomodate a liberal morality, so it seems to be that given the wonderful diversity of human opinion, liberalism is just a good idea, ain’t it?
As far as reaching out to the religious vote — I think we should be careful about what we can get, but we shouldn’t discount it. Someone who thinks gay marriage and abortion are teh evil are not going to vote for Democrats unless we abandon our commitment to social liberalism (in which case they still won’t vote for us because we would have demonstrated that our commitment to social liberalism was based on “politics” not deep personal beliefs).
However, I think we liberals, while fully aware of the importance of, e.g. “even the liberal New Republic thinks that you need to support Cmdr. Cuckoo-bananas’ invasion of Iraq to be ’serious’ about national security(TM)” in selling the Iraq war have not fully grasped how similar lines of thinking could work for us. We all know social conservatives who would never vote Dem but who are good people and who have certain viewpoints that track closer to the Dem. party than the GOP.
Unfortunately, such people, even if they claim to be “political independents” are close enough to the GOP on certain key issues that they happily drink the kool-aid and hence manage to remain confused about what Dems. stand for and thus think that “Obama is the worst candidate as he is soooo liberal” even if, of all the candidates, outside of a few hot-button “social” issues, Mr. Conservative would agree with Obama more than Clinton or McCain.
The thing is that, even if Mr. Conservative would never vote for Obama, if he does realize that he actually agrees with Obama on certain issues (and more than the other candidates) all his friends and acquaintances will be saying “I used to think Obama was a moonbat, but even Mr. Conservative thinks that Obama is right about issues X, Y and Z”, which’ll go a long way to getting out the vote for Obama (or whomever the Dem. candidate is).
Holy crap, what kind of morons are they????
The Pill is hormones…and hormones sure as hell have applications all across the board. Do they think God marked the chemicals with a tag that says “Work only to prevent pregnancies”?????
Good point, especially considering how Huckabee supporters feel about immigrants. If they’re so upset about so-called “anchor babies”, imagine how crazy they’ll get when “dusky-hued” married couples visit the U.S. on honeymoon or for a dirty weekend. and can prove the resultant offspring is a citizen on the basis of a US border agent’s stamp.
Until and unless the 14th Amendment is changed all those in utero and in vitro persons will just be an immense invasion of illegal immigrants. Will expecting parents have to fill out forms to get them landed status until they arrive in due course or will they have to be ejected by ICE? All those little proto-persons are currently protected by their lack of legal staus, but how do you arrest those little trespassers without violating their mothers’ rights? I think this is all a plot by unscrupulous lawyers, I can see the fees piling up on this one.
Since eggs have a “right to life”, doesn’t this mean that women will have to be forcibly impregnated with fertilized (aka “snowflake”) eggs? How will the forced impregnation be implemented–by lottery, draft status (wide hips, non smoker, white, upper class=A1 draft status)? Will the forced impregnation responsibility be allocated to the IRS, the DOD, Dept. of Health & Human Services, or a totally new division? How will forcibly impregnated women be monitored for proper behavior–ankle bracelet, computer chip, barcode?
So many unanswered questions…
“Will the forced impregnation responsibility be allocated to the IRS, the DOD, Dept. of Health & Human Services, or a totally new division?”
I suggest The Ministry of Reproductive Freedom, which will naturally be in charge of eliminating reproductive freedom.
Or the Ministry of Population Control, which eliminate our ability to control our fertility…
Hey but on the bright side, this could be the back door to the Equal Rights Amendment. After all, if a blastocyst has full constitutional standing, then its mother must as well. Right? Right….
I’m sure they’ll get right on that um, next or something.
MiniRep? MiniPop? Awesome!
A few thoughts:
If zygote-Americans enjoy full personhood rights, does that mean their
incubatorsmothers can sue corporations for toxic waste, polluted air & water, chemicals in all sorts of products which likely cause many miscarriages? Hmm…I doubt our corporate overlords will be happy with that.What about women who, absent any hormonal regulation offered by contraception, only menstruated every 4-8 weeks (like me and my sisters)? Will we be brought in for questioning about our lack of proper menstrual timing?
Will women be banned from certain activities, professions, and environments in order to protect the zygote-Americans?
“If zygote-Americans enjoy full personhood rights, does that mean their incubators mothers can sue corporations for toxic waste, polluted air & water, chemicals in all sorts of products which likely cause many miscarriages?”
Of course not. Duh…
When Our Littlest Americans gain personhood, their vessels must lose theirs. So the incubator - not actually being a citizen - has no legal standing to sue anyone.
But in the case of miscarriage, the incubator can still be sent to prison. Prisons don’t care if you’re a person or not…
But synthetic progestin does alter the uterine lining so if somehow an egg is produced and is fertilized it won’t implant.
Please provide your evidence, because all I’ve ever seen says that there’s no reason to believe this and no evidence whatsoever of this effect. I wait eagerly, because everything I’ve seen says that there is no reason to believe this is true.
I realize you mean well, and I totally agree that there’s no moral difference between sloughing off a fertilized egg and simply not fertilizing one in the first place, but some women believe there is a difference. I would hate to see women resort to using kinds of contraception that leave them more vulnerable to unwanted pregnancy because they have fallen for this myth.
And no, a pregnancy test wouldn’t be sufficient to rule out the presence of a conceptus, because the numbers don’t go up until days after the egg is fertilized.
IIRC, the pregnancy test doesn’t tell you anything until implantation occurs, which is the actual beginning of a pregnancy in non-bizarro-fundie-world (aka medical science).
Via this article, note that up to 90% of the cells in a human body are not human and that these (mostly) bacteria affect us in many ways (perhaps even in terms of emotion and so on). This goes with this thread in two ways:
1. are the non-human cells in our body also human and deserving of some rights? All of them or only the cells that are beneficial?
2. since these non-human cells only colonize us after we are born and they might affect much of what we are (they aren’t in our brain, so they don’t decide how we think but they might affect it to some extent), does our human life only start after we are born?
I don’t have medical journal articles (not familiar with that sort of thing or how to search them), but …
From WebMd:
From about.com:
From the student health web site at the University of Illinois:
And I could go on.
Me too. Which is why I clarified how an IUD works.
We get sucked into these “how many angels on the head of a pin” discussions because we are in this political environment where we are knocked back on the defensive. But really, we cannot guarantee that the Pill never causes any fertilized eggs to have a hard time finding a good resting place. And we cannot guarantee that the IUD doesn’t do the same thing. But women also slough off fertilized eggs all the time for unknown reasons, and women also manage to end up pregnant despite using these birth control methods, so it’s not like no eggs end up managing to attach to these inhospitable uterine linings and it’s not the primary way hormonal or IUD contraception works.
The real point is that, leaving abortion aside for a moment, the medical definition of pregnancy is when a fertilized egg successfully implants. Backing it up beyond that makes no sense and makes a lot of things more complicated. Defining a fertilized egg as a person is problematic for the gazillion reasons laid out in the post and in comments. One of the biggest reasons it is problematic is it could be used to ban the most common and most effective forms of birth control because we cannot prove the negative that no fertilized eggs are ever harmed. Given that 95 percent of American women use or have used birth control, if that isn’t a good enough argument against this thing, than we’re really really fucked.
So does this mean that fertility clinics will be bannedfrom Colorado?
Because they discard unused embryos every day, yet I don’t see fundies like Huckabee diving into the trash to save them.
I wonder who wrote those articles, because the phrasing is really kinda weird. The WebMD one in particular seems to ignore the fact that stopping ovulation makes the rest of the description irrelevant. And they all seem to play fast and loose with the difference between “inhibit” and “prevent”, as thousands of women with particularly persistent ovaries can tell you…
Not surprised to see this happening out of Colorado Springs. I live there. There’s a huge fundy population here - dont forget this is where Ted Haggard’s ex church and Focus on the Family are located.
The flip side is that there are also more pagans here than you can shake a stick at, and in a small town bordering the Springs, I’d guess more pagans per square foot than anywhere in the US outside of Salem, MA. It’s an interesting juxtaposition.
So while I think they’ll have no problem getting this *on* the ballot, I wouldnt exactly count on it passing. People in the rest of the state arent that insane, I dont think, and a lot of people even here in FundyWorld dont subscribe to their world view. They just make a lot more noise than we do
Paul, I think the idea is that if the pill somehow fails to stop ovulation, it will also help in those other ways. Actually, there are a lot of medical treatments and interventions whose exact mechanisms are poorly understood, so it’s not that weird. I suspect it depends on how the exact hormone combination in your pill interacts with your body chemistry. For example, when I was on the pill, I had such light, almost non-existent periods, there is little doubt it was having some effect on my uterine lining. Sufficient to prevent implantation? I would have no idea. On the other hand, my sister-in-law has been pregnant four times on the pill. No problem with her uterine lining. (And yes, she is looking for another form of birth control.)
With regards to EC and effects of the uterine lining, a very brief review of the actual literature can be found here, under “mechanism of action”. Somewhat conflicting results, but the evidence currently seems to indicate that if a woman has actually already ovulated, EC won’t cause failure of implantation. And when you consider that progesterone is a frequently used fertility treatment to help make the uterine lining more prepared to accommodate a fertilized egg, that a synthetic would do the opposite seems unusual.
Under existing laws this modification would probably make abortion unequivocally legal in all cases. No, seriously.
So if the zygote (embryo, fetus) is a person, we can assume it’s a minor; you don’t get much younger than negative n months, and age is still counted from birth. And by any reasonable criterion, a pregnancy carried to term and delivered will definitely cause bodily harm (think “passing a watermelon”). It’s also potentially deadly to women in poor health (although not at a probability high enough to justify the use of this defense, for women in good health).
Now, in most states a credible threat of bodily harm and potential murder is grounds for self-defense with deadly force, even if the threat comes from a minor. For instance, if a 14-year-old rapes a woman at knifepoint, she is legally entitled to respond with deadly force. So for a woman in poor health with an unwanted pregnancy, the application of deadly force (abortion) is authorized.
It’s a little more complicated for women in good health and likely to be able to carry the pregnancy, because a threat of bodily harm alone is not sufficient for retaliation with deadly force. However, since no non-deadly force can be applied in this case, a test case would probably be required. It’s difficult to imagine, though, that in such a situation the perpetrator’s right to cause bodily harm without any retaliation at all would be upheld.
The other interesting question would be whether a woman with an unwanted pregnancy would be able to charge her male partner with conspiracy.
IIRC that is already the case in El Salvador. Ectopic pregnancies cannot legally be terminated until the fallopian tube ruptures, i.e. until the embryo dies “naturally”.
I hardly need state the additional risk and pain this imposes on the pregnant woman.
Nono, ectopic pregnancy is a credible death threat! You see? So the woman has the legal right to defend herself with commensurate force.
I don’t think studies that are using EC can be used to generalize about routine use of the contraceptive pill. It may be that EC simply doesn’t have time to change the uterus.
Contraceptives do not contain progesterone but rather progestin, a synthetic form of progesterone, that exhibits SOME of the biological activity of progesterone but not all.
…so, if the fetus kicks, can you file assault charges?
Are you just trying to be contrary Tom? Your response is fairly nonsensical.
Does the fertilized egg get a Social Security number?
Colorado’s had ammendments like this on the ballot before (and this one’s been batted about since…last fall, I think? I can’t remember if I dropped a comment on Pandagon about it then or not).
Anyway, the accomplice to murder wouldn’t be an issue, since I think this would ultimately ban abortion in Colorado. The “logical” implication *I* see is that it would make the morning after pill, hormonal birth control of all kinds, and copper IUDs illegal, since all can cause abortion of fertilized eggs (however unlikely that is). And I somehow don’t think Colorado’s citizens actually want THAT–but of course, no one’s talking about that, so everyone just sees the “Cool, we could ban abortion!” aspect (this IS Colorado).
The other issue is that, given the high rate of miscarriages, many so early the woman never knows she’s preganant–wouldn’t we need to file a lot more accidental death reports? Would miscarriages all have to be investigated for possible negligent homicide? Would we need to all take regular pregnancy tests in order to KNOW when we had a first-month miscarriage?
The whole thing freaks me out.
P.S. I’d note that even though the chances of HBC preventing implantation of a fertilized egg are small, an overdose of hormonal birth control pills works a lot like the morning-after pill, only with more vomitting. Since we seem to be well on our way in Colorado to making pseudoephedrine cold pills illegal because a few people make meth from them (it hasn’t happened yet, but it’s becoming more and more dificult to get it every year), I think that argument could be made.
I’m also wondering if they would manage to hunt through women’s medical records and court-order women with copper IUDs to have them removed.
They’re not being upfront about the measure being anti-birth control because they know it wouldn’t get far that way.
I’m sorry if I’m not being clear.1) Do you believe that taking a large doses of hormone at once (EC) will give the same effect as taking smaller doses over a longer period of time?
Or
2) Do you believe that progestin and progesterone behave identically in the human body?
Here is another question:
If the FairTax was implemented, should women be ordered to pay a 46% sales tax on everything she buys?
Anyways, I hate the fact that Tyra had this misogynist nutjob on her show.
Tom, you may want to read this article by biologist PZ Myers about how Plan B works. There is new information (as in, studies reported within the past two years) that seems to show that birth control pills (and, by extension, Plan B) do NOT interfere with an egg’s implantation.
No and No. Nor do I think my post would have indicated my answers would be otherwise. Nor do I think such questions have any relevance in the context here so far.
For the record however, levonorgestrel, the progestin in EC, does mimic progesterone quite well though certainly not perfectly, which is probably why it is used.
I’ll also second Mnemosyne’s link to PZ.
At this point it isn’t clear if it does or does not since the studies seem to be contradictory. It would be a shame if it didn’t since that would lower the window of EC effectiveness.
I might remind you that my comments started when Amanda wrote this, which made it sound like she had never heard of any studies about progestin and its possible effect on the uterus:
Than answer this, if progestin is so good at mimicking progesterone, they why is progresterone used for fertility treatments and progestin used in birth control pills?
You keep grasping for those straws though. I’ll also point out that I was only talking about one specific progestin that is used in EC and some OCPs, not all.
And shall we conclude from your continued failure to actually cite any sourced review or actual study that you in fact aren’t knowledgeable about the claims you’re making. Yes, I think we shall.
I didn’t see any reason to quote sources since some of the sources you included supported the point of view that progestin does prevent implantation. I have no idea why you seem to need for that to be wrong, but at this point for someone to make a blanket statement that progestin does not prevent implantation is unsupported by the evidence. I have no idea if it does or does not and neither do you.
Hmm, let see… first I think I’ll just quote you @ 100.
The studies cited in the review I linked look only at one progestin, levonorgestrel. That does not support your claim that progestins (plural, they are a class of a variety of molecules, not a singular entity) have been shown to prevent implantation. If those particular studies that suggest levonorgestrel does alter the uterine lining were the only studies on the subject, then you could honestly claim that levonorgestrel would prevent implantation, but they aren’t so you can’t. It is actually rather clear that the evidence in whole supports the conclusion that this particular progestin doesn’t prevent implantation. The strongest evidence coming from studies that actually look at implantation, all of which find no preventative effect. None of this can be used to generalize about all progestins, which I have never done, though you have, going so far as to claim actually studies exist that support you. So, feel free to at any point dispense with your dishonest hypocrisy and either cite those studies or admit that you’re ignorant of the science on this topic.