U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 20, 2007 12:40 AM UTC
36 Comments
Loading ...
Kind of like asking “what’s your sign?”
in the fifteenth trimester according to Pacified.
The term “human” is a challenging concept. Big toes, potentially skillful use of opposable thumbs, laughter and tears make us distinct among primates. Looking at the fact, for instance, that humans are the only animal that cries, one could say that that first spank by the delivering doc make the newborn human. As far as I’m aware, there’s no proof of a fetus crying while still in the womb. When the mother cries, does the baby in her womb feel the sadness? One will never know. I tend to think the answer is yes, but not because the fetus has the capacity for independent feeling, but because it is, literally, no different than the life known as mother. Mom and fetus are one and the same. IMHO, that what gives the mother the ultimate choice, without ethical or moral dilemma. Over half of all zygotes naturally abort in the first month. It’s quite an accomlishment to make it into the world. Odds are less than 50% after the enjoyable act between two healthy people.
As long ago as 1581 Richard Mulcaster wrote “By nature emplanted, for nurture to enlarge”. This pithy statment has a certain ring of truth to it. What does it mean? The sperm joins the egg and is implanted in a remarkabe and remarkably enjoyable event. A “life” separate from the participants in this most enjoyable act begins. The resulting zygote (the joining of two cells to form one cell) has no chance surviving on its own, no discernable consciousness, no toes, no tears and no name. Without the second part of this statement, nurture, I would argue there will be no human.
In my opinion, a pregnant mother who drinks, smokes, snorts cocaine etc., during pregnancy, is guilty of a more serious act against her child than one who aborts her child. Why? Because she is condemning that child to a lifetime of suffering, disadvantage, a greatly reduced ability to thrive and compete for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Quality of life is arguably more important than life itself, and here the mother is quite literally stealing from creation itself the potential inherent in that original zygote. This is indisputable.
Nurturing then begins in the womb, or not. The newborn, when nurtured correctly post partum, thrives and begins the long, exciting, rewarding task of becoming a human being. I would postulate that without the benefit of being nurtured….AND I would argue that tragically there are far too few mothers who understand and are able to truly nurture their new born….one faces a truly herculean task of truly becoming a human being in the truest sense of the word.
In more depth theories, being a human means having free will; and a discerning intelligence that allows choices to be made in nearly every waking moment. It was long thought that our unique consciousness and use of language resulted from having many more genes than other organisms – perhaps as many as 100,000. With recent modern scientific coding of this DNA…well, it just isn’t so. The total is only 30,000,….. about the same as mice and a quarter less than rice.
I need to cut this short. What a crying shame that a “human” called Cho would brutally kill so many wonderfully nurtured human beings who had adapted, persisted, and used all the skills that made them uniquly human to gain the final stages of education, before sending them into the next stage of becoming human… contributing to society and having families of their own.
Great post.
I would ask the same question like this: At what point does a cluster of cells become more important than the health of an alive (beyond argument) woman?
Even if stuck with your question the way you ask it, my answer isn’t on your list of “choices.” Life (at least in human terms), to me, is defined by awareness. It doesn’t have to be complex cognition or the understanding of self, but being aware is the key. For example, I think it is beyond debate that a sperm is not aware of anything. It should be beyond debate that something without brain cells is not aware.
From there, the question becomes more difficult. Clearly a newborn baby (with functioning mental faculties) is aware. This is demonstrated by the fact that when spanked, it cries. In other words it is aware of pain. I am no doctor, so when this awareness starts I cannot say. What I can say though, is that decision should be made between a woman and her doctor, not mandated by the government.
To me, it is the same as a truly brain dead adult. Awareness is key.
two people are writing similar ideas at the same time.
And on a side note, my sperm were aware of everything around them…at least until I got married 🙂
when my dad crashed his Harley and was in a coma for 1 1/2 years, he was not aware of anything that we know of for sure. He was not brain dead but he had no idea what was going on around him.
Should I have killed him as he was not aware and was a real burden on my wife, myself, my finances, my family, etc.?
Choice is a lefty catch phrase to make themselves feel good about something that they deep down know is plain and simple, a selfish act.
You folks are so much into polls and take them as gospel. I wonder if there are any polls out there, taken on women and their mates, say 5, 10, or 15 years after their abortions, asking them how they feel about what they did?
I’m betting that if they were honest they would say they regret what they did.
to keep your dad on life support, probably because you believe it was what he wanted, right? (If he wasn’t on life support, then never mind.)
I was at a funeral for one of my wife’s childhood friends last week. Said friend was severely injured in a car accident in a blizzard in early March and was so brain damaged that the best outlook for her was the cognitive ability of a 6 month old, and was more likely looking at a lifetime in a coma or vegetative state. This was a woman who was extremely smart, had two bachelor’s and two master’s degrees, and loved nothing more than engaging in debate (if not plain old arguments) with other informed people. Her husband and family who knew her best knew she would not have wanted to go on that way, so they took her off life support and put her in a hospice so she would pass away in relative comfort.
Would you deny them that choice?
except for the first couple months. But since most of his bones were broken that is understandable.
After that he was in a state that the doctors could not really understand. He could breathe on his own, looked like he was doing just fine, but was not aware of anything around him. Just kinda like in limbo.
The only thing we had to do besides cleaning, medicine, etc, is feed him through the stomach tube.
So my question to Winston stands. If being aware is what determines life, should I have killed him because he wasn’t aware of anything going on around him? It would have taken a gun, a pillow over the face, or a slow death from starvation.
As it was, pnuemonia did the deed.
My opinion is that life begines when the egg is fertilized by the sperm.
After that, you lose your “choice”.
I think I missed the gist of your post. See my other post about the idea of life beginning at conception.
the irony of saying “you lose your choice” right about a quote from HRC about taking choice away from people and giving it to the government.
“Should I have killed him as he was not aware and was a real burden on my wife, myself, my finances, my family, etc.?” No, I would say you should not have killed him. But you are missing the point. You simplified the question by saying he was simply a burden. Change the situation where it is pulling the plug OR risking your health life to keep him “alive.” In that case, I would say you are justified in pulling the plug after a year and a half. But here is the key point: Just as I would think it would be unacceptable for the government to mandate that you pull the plug because that would be such a personal decision that only your family and the doctor should make… the government should also not mandate that you NOT pull the plug. It should be a doctor for his family and the doctor to make together.
There is another key difference. You said that your father was not brain dead. I am saying that a fetus that has no brain is the equivalent of brain dead. At what point that brain starts being aware will never be scientifically proven. Because of that the government shouldn’t be mandating laws in such a sensitive area. It is a personal decision. Just like it is an invasion of personal liberties that the Chinese government mandates abortion, so would it be if the government banned abortions.
Strange question but similar concept.
Hospitals everyday deal with the issue of when to call someone dead. Is it when they flatline? Is it at brain death? Is it somewhere in between?
Life may begin at conception, when the sperm meets the egg and says, “Hey, let’s party”. It may happen when the fetus starts developing simple thoughts like, “What the f*** is going on here?”
The beginning of life is only one way of looking at the abortion issue. Another way is the societal impact. I’ve seen children who never should have been born in families ten times worse than what you can imagine. I’ve heard worse stories. I would rather a fetus die in the womb than to have it unloved in life.
The Supreme Court decided that 2nd trimester abortions are illegal, so be it. They are the highest court in the land and I may disagree but will honor the law. The problem I have with the decision is the attempt to draw a line in the sand without allowing for a health exception. Now doctors must decide whether they break the law or save a woman’s life. The point is there isn’t any black and white, but there’s plenty of gray.
I would postulate that one begins to die when one stops becoming more of a human being. I believe that the human being has virtualy unlimited potential. Unfortunately, in our “culture”…for males, it often stops with their first masturbation. The target is irretrievably moved. With the female, it is too often when they become insecure compared to others and strive to overcome this false insecurity in wrong and misguided ways. (I realize I’m setting myself up for strong and justifiable criticism…these are overly broad generalizations…but with more than a few grains of truth) One truly dies when they fail to realize they’ve been brainwashed…they’re totally bought in to the dominant cultural paradigm. At that point they’re a walking, talking bileous bag of gas.
This question deserves another diary. So many stories to tell, and so little time tonight.
Do bring up the subject again some time.
but I get your gist.
When the spark of life occurs isn’t important. When that spark leaves isn’t important. What is important is to recognize, as with everything, there is a gray area.
Gecko mentioned his father and the choices he made when he was sick. Others would have made a different choice, so be it.
The important thing in our lives is the choices we make. If my wife and I decided to abort one of our children, we live with that choice, not others. If I decide to keep my terminally ill parent on life support, my choice, I live with it.
The Supreme Court decided to define the gray area as they saw fit, which is their job. And it is our job to keep fighting for what we believe in, all of us, both sides.
So as much as I dislike your extreme left views, or LIAS’s extreme right views, it is up to all of us to keep fighting for what we believe in, otherwise, we all lose.
I don’t think that the issue so much is when life begins in reference to whether or not an abortion should be legal/illegal. The issue with me is the reasoning behind seeking an abortion.
If my wife were to announce that she was pregant (s/p?), but the baby was forming in an area of her body that could cause serious health problems and or death I would be open to the idea of getting it aborted. If she were to announce that she was preggo (my favorite phrase), but she didn’t want to have the baby because she would rather spend money on shoes, I would be pissed.
I oppose abortion mainly because of a personal experience that showed me the selfishness of some and the heartache of others based on this choice.
I also believe that there is a religous aspect to it as well. I think that God will judge us more on the intent of our hearts as much as what we actually do.
All of that aside, I think it’s pointless to say “life begins here” because to say that is saying if you get an abortion before that magical point, it’s not killing and therefore somehow more acceptable or ok. Why is that the focus of our debate? It seems to me that the issue is much more than when life does or doesn’t begin.
I ask this in all due respect.
to say “life begins here” but that’s because it’s indefinable. But it’s a focus of the debate because pro-life / anti-choice (however you define that side) made it so. And it’s what that side’s whole argument is based on. We can all, as a society and regardless of any religious belief we do or do not hold, abhor murder. Defining the beginning of life is central to the concept that abortion is murder.
It’s a genius stroke to say life begins at conception for the purpose of opposing abortion because a) it’s very simple, much more so than saying it happens at any later point because there’s no way to say, A-ha, life begins at this particular moment during pregnancy (or even at birth); there’s some philosophical concept in saying such, and it’s beyond some people to ask them to grasp it. But saying it begins at conception is a concept that everyone can grasp.
However, the pro-life / anti-choice folks have painted themselves into a corner with this argument. If life begins at conception, then isn’t in vitro fertilization immoral since it requires implanting several zygotes, many of which won’t survive (which is the reason why they implant several instead of one)? And let’s not even get started on stem cells and the fact that those opposed have nothing to say about the so-called “snowflakes” which often end up destroyed.
How to make people choose life, for as long as abortion is still considered a right. I think both sides have used the “when does life begin” question to justify their view, it’s not just a pro-life/anti-choice arguement. Anti-life/pro-abortion sides have used it just as much to blur the lines.
But what about our society makes people lean towards the option of abortion? Why is destroying life the “loving” choice? If we’re going to have education about how to have “safe sex”, why not have education about things like adoption and how it’s not an “un-loving” choice? Or that the “if I can’t have it, no one can” or “I don’t want to change my life because of a baby” attitude is selfish?
Is there anyone out there that is “pro-choice” that is “pro-abortion”? Even if you think the choice is a right, does it still make it right?
Every society has abortion, whether legal or not, whether generally viewed as immoral or moral. But making girls and women carry an unintended pregnancy to full term is a rather high price to pay.
That said, I believe that hinging policy and law on the idea that life begins at conception is wrong. That idea can not be proven, therefore it is an article of faith. And we in America don’t make public policy based on faith. And that’s what makes the decision to have an abortion personal.
BTW, I don’t know that what to do in case a girl or woman becomes pregnant is or isn’t absent from sex education, but if it is I imagine that the reason is that some feel that even discussing it is somehow giving a green light to young girls that sex outside of marriage is okay. (Which it must be since 95% of Americans have had premarital sex.) As I’ve stated elsewhere today, effective sex ed, easy availability of contraception, and realistic attitudes about sex will do a lot to ensure that women never even need to make the choice.
First of all, which life do you refer too? Essentially, the decision handed down does not protect the health of the mother only the life. Is a diminished life of two better than a perfect life of one? Pro-choice activist rarely, if ever, use the “when does life begin” question to advance their cause. Correct me if I am wrong, but the only people talking fetal life in this argument are those that oppose abortion on religious grounds. Nice framing by the way.
Who says that abortion is the “loving” choice? I dont think you would be as foolish to again stake a claim that you can not back up, so I eagerly await a link point to an abortion rights group using that exact framing. On top of that, this is your definition of life, not mine, so please dont use it as if it is an universally accepted premise. The poll above clearly shows that not to be the case.
I welcome education about adoption in conjunction with safe sex. Again, who has described adoption as an “un-loving” choice? You blithely post “if I can’t have it, no one can” as if women who choose to have an abortion are a bunch of spoiled six year olds. Your other quote “I dont want to change my life because of a baby,” while just as unintelligent as the preceding comment bothers me more, because I am sure that you or someone else will say that they absolutely heard a woman say that.
Heres an analogy: Dobson has posted that mormonism is not christianity, and by extension you are not christian (I am not making that assertion). To be a christian in his eyes, one would assume that you must attend his church. Should you have to change your life to be acceptable to him? If you choose not to is that selfish? Of course it isnt. Not only because it is your right to choose and attend whatever, or no, religious establishment, but also because however you choose to live your life is up to you. That is how I view abortion. Not only is it a woman’s right to have an abortion, but how they live their life is their decision.
As to your last question, yes it is both a right and right.
In response to:
At the time of this post there are three votes for this answer. This is a fascinating (alarming) position in my opinion. It is both intellectually defensible and morally reprehensible.
Let’s examine this… on the one hand the claim made by advocates of legalized abortion is that a woman has a right to her body and can make independent health and medical decisions. Thus, if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy these individuals (must) support that decision.
Now let’s for a moment define agreement between the two sides of the argument. It is safe to claim that both sides agree that – post birth – if a woman was to terminate her newly born offspring it would be murder.
The crux of the difference between the two positions is that individuals who oppose abortion slide the qualification for “murder” back along the timeline to sometime before full birth.
Individuals in opposition to abortion argue that a fully viable fetus one day prior to birth has an equal moral “life” valuation as a born infant one day post birth. Supporters of the abortion position abdicate a moral authority argument and maintain an intellectually staid argument that allows women to control the fate of the “life potential” they are hosting right to the point of complete evacuation.
I would argue that (in the case as laid out above) the moral valuation of “life” supercedes the moral authority of a “woman’s right to choose.”
is an article of faith, not a fact that can be proven. As I’ve said elsewhere, public policy should not be based on faith, particularly faith that isn’t shared by everyone.
And, as I’ve also said before, if you really oppose abortion, then support effective and realistic sex education and make contraception widely and easily available to anyone who wants it (no age restrictions, no parental consent).
If it’s “matter of faith” when “life” begins then the logical argument is that the determination of what constitutes life is 100% subjective.
I disagree. Although there are components of the “when does life begin” argument that are subjective I firmly believe that we can and should rely on science and biology to objectively classify as narrowly as possible the question and then make decisions about public policy based on the objective standard.
This is done in hospitals every day when people die… the experts (doctors) work to save/revive the patients life. They use all the science (objective data) available to them (heart monitors, brain activity monitors, etc.) and their own professional observation of the subject (also mostly objective) to arrive to a subjective and moral conclusion about whether the person is truly “dead.” Similar science methods can and should be applied to the “life issue.
If it’s “matter of faith” when “life” begins then the logical argument is that the determination of what constitutes life is 100% subjective.
And saying life begins at conception isn’t a 100% subjective determination? What does life mean if that’s the starting point?
I haven’t made an argument for life beginning at conception. And my current argument still stands… I believe we should gather as much objective evidence as we can and let that influence our subjective conclusion.
a definition of what “life” is. I don’t believe science is likely to answer that within our lifetime, so what do we do in the meantime?
The Princeton philosophy professor argues in favor of infanticide using the same arguments you get from the pro-abortion folks. If you are ‘pro-choice’ you MUST believe that you can kill young infants who are no more viable than the child in utero at 8 months. Berger has the guts to exercise a little intellectual honesty, do you?
The definition of life as beginning at birth is no less arbitrary than life after conception. I err on the safe side and favor the life from conception line of thinking.
in order to call a professor your “collegue?”
Because “instructor” doesn’t cut it.
BTW, are the standards for professorship so low that you don’t need to display any intellectual acumen to earn it these days? Because Lord knows you never display any in your posts here.
PROFESSOR Churchill.
Please save the snotty elitism. I mean, for God’s sake, look at your sign-on name. I imagine you’re the dickhead in the philosophy department with a black turtleneck and goatee just moaning all day about Bush and the fundies. I’m peer reviewed (and I’ve done the ultimate act of conservative treason–written for the Denver Post). Question my creds all you want..but I’ll take pride in the fact that my head isn’t shoved so far up my own ass that I come across like John Kerry sipping champagne on the Seine and thus utterly unable to carry on any sort of political discourse without suffering a breakdown cured only by quiche and Keith Olberman.
And who said I was a philosopher? I’ve already explained my handle several times, and it isn’t because I think I’m some pointy head.
And remember, you admitted that you have to be a professor to call another one your peer.
Your post proves my point – if Churchill can gain tenure, it doesn’t say much about CU’s standards. And I’m glad your work, like that of all the people who say climate change is happening at least in significant part because of man, is peer reviewed.
Just so we’re clear… I wasn’t questioning your creds, just your own pomposity (implying a title you haven’t earned, name dropping a Princeton professor) and that you never display any intellectuality in your posts.
You’ve “written” for the Denver Post? Or were you just quoted there?
Letters to the editor dont count.