Colorado HB 22-1279

CONCERNING THE CODIFICATION OF A PERSON'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MAKE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH-CARE DECISIONS FREE FROM GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE

This bill is making it's way through the legislature and neither the media nor anyone else has much to say about it. I know it's a hot topic and people have pretty much given up on arguing because it can be political or social suicide to stand against it.

People need to grow some balls and speak out against this evil shit. Simply letting it happen because it's uncomfortable to talk about is cowardice.

Every one of us who have had babies knows that a baby doesn't magically turn into a human at birth. Some of us have had babies early, some late. No matter when they are born, each one is a human at birth because they are a humans before birth. Babies deserve protection more than anyone.

I don't care where you stand on the nuances of abortions, but anyone who thinks it's A-OK to kill a babies right before the moment they're born is an evil bastard. There shouldn't be any argument there from normal people. There is no room for opinion on that. That's black and white. People have many different opinions regarding if or when abortions should be allowed. I may disagree. But one thing every sane person should agree on is that killing babies literally anytime until they are born, even a day or hour before, is depraved.

This bill allows it.

25-6-403

(2)A PREGNANT INDIVIDUAL HAS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO
CONTINUE A PREGNANCY AND GIVE BIRTH OR TO HAVE AN ABORTION AND
TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT HOW TO EXERCISE THAT RIGHT.
(3) A FERTILIZED EGG, EMBRYO, OR FETUS DOES NOT HAVE
INDEPENDENT OR DERIVATIVE RIGHTS UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE.

How do you propose to enforce your anti abortion laws? Abortion inducing means have been known for a longer period of time then we have known about our solar system. Will you try and destroy the knowledge?
Are you going to do a pregnancy test before and after any out of state travel? Will there be a grand jury after any miscarriage?

"(3) A FERTILIZED EGG, EMBRYO, OR FETUS DOES NOT HAVE

INDEPENDENT OR DERIVATIVE RIGHTS UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE."

^^^There is the evil.

Some humans have rights and some don't?

Perhaps once they?ve successfully excluded unborn children from having any rights it will be easier to exclude rights to grown adults based off of their religious beliefs, the color of their skin, or their sexual preferences?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earplug

How do you propose to enforce your anti abortion laws? Abortion inducing means have been known for a longer period of time then we have known about our solar system. Will you try and destroy the knowledge?
Are you going to do a pregnancy test before and after any out of state travel? Will there be a grand jury after any miscarriage?

---

Natural miscarriages are very different than medically induced abortions. You know that.

Be straight. Do you think it's ok for anyone to kill a 9 month old human 'fetus'?

That's what this law allows. Unrestricted abortions at anytime. That's evil. My belief in freedom is WIDE ranging, but it doesn't extend to murder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hollohas

There shouldn't be any argument there from normal people...

---

Well...that didn't take long.

The sick thing is you tell these same people you want to kill unborn puppies your dog may have because you don’t want to take care of a litter of puppies and you would get a totally different response from these sick fucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ray1970

Perhaps once they?ve successfully excluded unborn children from having any rights it will be easier to exclude rights to grown adults based off of their religious beliefs, the color of their skin, or their sexual preferences?

---

Ultimate end goal.

Ability to not only exclude but eliminate dissenters without public "concern".

Evil, plain and simple.

There have been plenty of people who I have discussed this with. I have pointed out that per our legal system there are several things that differentiate one individual from another. Basically several markers that the courts use to say person x committed the crime and not person y. The first of those is fingerprints. While fingerprints do not occur till later in the pregnancy they certainly occur well before the birth. The biggest tho is DNA. From the earliest point in a pregnancy the baby has its own distinct set of DNA. Different from that of the mother. As such...it is its own individual. It is not just part of the mother and thus not subject to her desires.

I am on an email list for Jay Sekulow and per things he has sent out the abortion industry is pushing laws that would allow "abortions" even up to 4 weeks after the child had been born.

Some of you have said this is evil...I whole heartedly agree.

The left pushes "coexist". While we all know that only applies to people they agree with, I'm fine with that. I have ZERO interest in coexisting with people who are cool with killing babies, left or right. People who think that are monsters and I will never coexist willingly with them. There is no middle ground on this and I will never accept it as simply part of our culture now.

We can't just chalk it up as a loss and move on. I hope people don't forget this when they vote, but I'm sure they will.

Having lived in a neighborhood with alcohol syndrome and crackhead damaged children I don't think most of the posters are willing to adopt or pay for the life time maintenance there advocating.
Its fine to rally around some religious belief when its not your time or money.
Later the same prolife advocates complain when there supporting a homeless mental wreck who is creating more issues.

All human life has the same value. This is their way of stating that value is zero.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earplug

Having lived in a neighborhood with alcohol syndrome and crackhead damaged children I don't think most of the posters are willing to adopt or pay for the life time maintenance there advocating. - why not kill mother instead, would stop her from making anymore defective children.

Its fine to rally around some religious belief when its not your time or money. - when the .gov gives grants to planned parenthood then it is my money.

Later the same prolife advocates complain when there supporting a homeless mental wreck who is creating more issues.

---

Their point of view has to be something akin to “the world needs less humans (or the Earth is doomed) how can we make an impact?”

the answers I’ve seen lately look like:
Viruses
Wars
Abortions

you’d think they’d be pro gun, except that would mean they can’t be as “efficient” with their genocides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sawin

Their point of view has to be something akin to “the world needs less humans (or the Earth is doomed) how can we make an impact?”

the answers I’ve seen lately look like:
Viruses
Wars
Abortions

you’d think they’d be pro gun, except that would mean they can’t be as “efficient” with their genocides.

---

Perhaps it's time to identify as a Ukraine citizen, they have no problem supplying them with weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earplug

Its fine to rally around some religious belief when its not your time or money.
Later the same prolife advocates complain when there supporting a homeless mental wreck who is creating more issues.

---

Not murdering babies is not a religious belief. It's a human one.

And "religious" people donate a shit ton of time and money to help support people going through those troubles. Religious families also adopt at a much higher rate than most.

1st amendment says freedom from religion. Defining when a human is a human is playing god. Most of the prolife groups don't agree on a time. I really don't care what a religious group does as long as they leave me alone.
As some cultures don't count the 1st year of life due to mortality issues, and some cultures remove infants from the gene pool due to medical or gender issues how is one supposed to agree on what religion is to mandate rules in a nation?
The dominate religion in the USA can't agree on when a person needs baptism and at what age. or What book to read or if someone should intercede between their god or if a infant is born into a state of sin or works there way into that state.
I wish to be left alone and to let others make their own choice based on best outcome.
I prefer fix a issue at the lowest level practical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earplug

Most of the prolife groups don't agree on a time.

---

I've never seen a pro life group that considered anything later than conception.

God says life begins at conception. Today's science doesnt disagree.

I prefer that people take responsibility for their actions. If they did, they might find out what a blessing children are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earplug

As some cultures don't count the 1st year of life due to mortality issues, and some cultures remove infants from the gene pool due to medical or gender issues how is one supposed to agree on what religion is to mandate rules in a nation?

---

So, you're totally cool with that?

I'm not.

Babies are live human people, that has NOTHING to do with religion. Killing them is murder.

As someone mentioned before, by your logic, it should be totally legal to murder anyone of any age. Who's to say when people become people, am I right? It's just cultural! 1 month? 1 year? Maybe they're not people until they turn 18, they are just children after all. It should be up to their parents if they live, right?

What an absolutely ridiculous argument.

Not weighing in on the side of abortion here at all, but it is a fallacy to think ethics/social mores have ever been clear cut or there is a resounding answer and consensus to any ethical issue. Things may seem that way to an individual, but across humanity and history it is not. Some of our current mores are outright bizarre for instance and inapposite of history or sound logic.

"Every life deserves saving despite any future consequence" - it's the current majority belief that even if the survival of a person will cause an elevated level of death and suffering in others, then we should ignore all outcomes and preserve their life against those they affect. [hedonistic/illogical]. This is a theoretical proposition, but lets say someone is patient 0 for a new virus that has the potential to kill millions. If private Carl shot patient 0 in the head, it would be considered atrocious, a murderer by most people. On the other hand, if patient 0 resulted in millions dying after the virus released, it is merely considered unfortunate, or a unavoidable tragedy. It has not, however, always been that way, it's a more recent shift.

On the other hand, just a few decades ago, if someone beat the shit out of a guy simply for being a gay, a good portion of the population would of at minimum, looked the other way, if not supported the practice. Yet, from a standard, or even religious perspective, it is, and always was, atrocious. We're not that far removed from all sorts of atrocious behavior, and it was all committed by people whom thought, and even knew, that they were "in the right". We're not that far removed from 75%+ kids having a background that involved either and absent, or an alcoholic or abusive parent. Yet its easy for people to look at single mothers or a divorce rate and say it didn't use to be that way (oh, it most certainly did).

Point being, ethics shift like tides and across societies way more than we acknowledge, even among those that argue it's always been crystalline. It's easy to take quick positions, it's hard to take truly consistent ones based on any sound principles across the spectrum of action and life.

Thank you FoxArt for your analysis of historic societies trends.

Foxtart, nothing you wrote has any analogy to killing babies for convenience.

Any of these babies proven to be the next mass murder? No.

And nobody is arguing about societal treads or history. The argument is it's not ok TODAY. I don't care what people may or may not have thought was ok a decade ago, or a centruy ago. I'm talking about legislation that is moving through the state TODAY.

Slavery was accepted by society at one time. But it's not now. If someone wanted black slaves TODAY would you also say "that's totally cool, we can't judge because slavery was once accepted so who's to say we shouldn't accept it today too!".

Of course you wouldn't.

Still waiting for earplug to stop skirting the issue and put it in the table. Do you think it's ok for anyone to murder babies at any time?

To put names and faces to the EVIL ones who started the bill ......
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb22-1279

Attachment 89860 Representative
Meg Froelich

Attachment 89861 REPRESENTATIVE
Daneya Esgar

Attachment 89862 SENATOR
Julie Gonzales

Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earplug

1st amendment says freedom from religion. Defining when a human is a human is playing god. Most of the prolife groups don't agree on a time. I really don't care what a religious group does as long as they leave me alone.
As some cultures don't count the 1st year of life due to mortality issues, and some cultures remove infants from the gene pool due to medical or gender issues how is one supposed to agree on what religion is to mandate rules in a nation?
The dominate religion in the USA can't agree on when a person needs baptism and at what age. or What book to read or if someone should intercede between their god or if a infant is born into a state of sin or works there way into that state.
I wish to be left alone and to let others make their own choice based on best outcome.
I prefer fix a issue at the lowest level practical.

---

Um, no. It's not "freedom FROM religion," it's "freedom OF religion."

The first amendment, simplified, reads : "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You can have all the abortions you want, earplug.

Convenience, or the "what if they grow up to create Skynet" or whatever your reasons, great. Just as Churchill stated, " The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins," this argument will go around and around for milennia. The Churchill saying would apply equally to pro-life or pro-abortion, too. The only losers in the debate are once again those indivuals that just want the right to be left the hell alone.

I'm actually glad of the conundrum, because it serves as a touchstone to humanity. It will ever be a topic of debate, forcing people to look at all sides. I worry as to when the debates are silenced.

My wife is into the religious stuff
I am not

Don't kill babies. It's a matter of principle.

I agree, personally. The difference I have with most posters is that I am not bound up by my own principles to say that abortion in every case, for other people, should be dictated by MY morals, or that my beliefs are superior to everyone elses on the topic, or that my beliefs are sufficiently well informed or all encompassing to make an easy, hard rule.

Some of you that think it is BLACK AND WHITE, but even then its only the surface that is so for 99%. If life begins at conception, Incidentally, women better abstain from everything that could cause early termination even if they don't think they are pregnant, otherwise the loss of a single celled zygote would be manslaughter in gods eyes.

No drinking alcohol or smoking anything, ever. We would have to make that illegal. Heavy work or exercise, illegal. So on, so forth. 99% of people that profess these simple ethics find they are not so simple at all, and you'd soon have to be a horrible person, looking at scorn and potentially prosecuting women whom have had miscarriages for any avoidable reason if life truly begins at conception and has all the same value. Clearly, the belief held by most of these people is more truthfully that life begins at conception, but it is not exactly the same value as life that is farther along, otherwise the deeper subset of their ethics would be in moral conflict. But that is what people do... Hold others to the rail against some imperfect standard, while adjusting it to meet their imperfect life, e.g. levels of hypocrisy. It is not a black and white issue and beliefs will very greatly on the details. Is plan B an abortion? Is contraception "a sin"? Should abortion after rape or incest be permitted? Etc. Many will again, profess a golden standard on all of these verbally until their daughter gets raped, or their wife has a miscarriage after a hard day of working in the garden. Then suddenly, its not the same thing as murder or manslaughter of a baby.

I am against abortion in all forms in my personal life. I am not motivated to dictate what everyone else does down to the moment of conception in others' life. I do think it should be banned after whatever point a fetus can feel and perceive pain based on science, which is a consistent principle based on SOMETHING. The "moment of conception" argument is filled with its own inconsistencies and is based primarily on religious belief (it is a horrible sin) as so many other beliefs are founded (bacon is a horrible sin...to some). But to those who don't believe in your heaven, let me ask, what makes the murder of a single (or 2, or ten celled zygote) the same as murder of an Adult?

What are you going to do with the millions of zygotes cryogenically frozen? Is it your duty to use your family to give birth to them all?

It you want a rule, all the details of it better be consistent, sound, logical, based on more than personal religious beliefs, and not have exceptions with a blind eye to, or the principles of it are already fallacious.

Long winded way of saying you ok with early term abortion because you don't consider early term fetus to be human and worth protecting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earplug

1st amendment says freedom from religion.

---

Most people who make this claim are intentionally twisting the 1st to say what they want it to say. It is an intentional lie. Hopefully that is not the case with you and you are just repeating what you have been told in ignorance of what it actually says.

There is no freedom *from* religion. There is freedom *of* religion. The intent of this is to stop the government from choosing a state religion and doing what Europe was doing at the time and attacking every other religion. What it does not do is stop religion from being involved in politics. It also does not allow the government to tell you what religion you can and cannot be part of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buffalobo

Long winded way of saying you ok with early term abortion because you don't consider early term fetus to be human and worth protecting?

---

BS fallacious response. I've said a position should be consistent and provided a lot of inconsistencies with the knee jerk post such as yours. Clearly, you have no answers either, and scrub and ignore whatever inconsistencies your belief has.

Otherwise, IVF is murder too. Otherwise, miscarriage is manslaughter. I don't take a strong position on single celled zygotes because there is no basis in science, no consensus in society (ever) and one group advocates an inconsistent moore that doesn't hold to their own purported belief. AKA, holier then thou bullshit. Some believe any conception is a sin too with similar reasons, and their beliefs are no more invalid than your own. Should be ban that too because SOME people.believe it? You came up with a consistent ethical standard of murder is at the moment of conception, I'd love to hear it. But ya'll don't even think hard enough to realize what you profess to believe and I already know none of you can come up with a clear rule of how "this should be judged" so you retort with single sentence quips lacking any thought out response. For me personally, I wouldn't do it. I think it is wrong. But I don't equate to knee jerk responses, it is nothing like the murder of a beating-heart, pain perceiving fetus or baby. But ya'll think its a simple blanket rule when you already ignore and exempt all sorts of instances without explanation, your belief is like swiss cheese.

I should add, I don't support the bill. I also don't support giving zygotes exactly the same fundamental rights of a born human. By example, to have that be consistent, I am pretty sure you can't freeze "born" humans without their consent.

I am sick, and tired, of people not thinking through their BS legislation on both sides of the isle and selectively applying law only as it suits their bias. If you pass a law, you better apply it as written. Things should be thought through and consistent if you want society to fairly abide by it. Thus, giving zygotes the same "rights" as everyone else is not the solution some posters think it is. Is there a better solution? Likely...

So, picture a young mother with her first pregnancy. She is 38 weeks pregnant, excited to start her new family. She takes care of herself and her unborn baby, goes to all her prenatal appointments and takes her vitamins. She prepares for the moment her baby is born, has the crib set up and nursery ready. On her way to the her 2nd to last prenatal appointment, she gets hit by a drunk driver. It "kills" her "baby," and she is crushed, basically ruins her life. What happens to the drunk driver? He gets a DUI and maybe a vehicular assault charge.

Next mother has been trying to get pregnant for a couple of years. She finally gets pregnant, surprise, with twins. She goes to her prenatal appointments, does everything right. She is 38 weeks along, suddenly has a medical emergency. She is rushed to the hospital, goes into cardiac arrest. The husband asks to try and save the twin boys. Doctor refuses. All three die. Coroner shows boys were completely formed and viable. Husband sues doctor and hospital. Doctor and hospital are protected because the twin boys were not born. Doctor gets to retire years later and enjoy his family and life on the beach while to father has to wonder why he didn't atleast try.

Serious thoughts of the consequences of lawmakers making up laws. It would be nice if some of them would look at the other side of some of their laws.

My post has always been about this particular legislation that allows literal murder because it's limitless. The bill is very sort. If any of you haven't read it, go do it. It's basic. It will allow all abortions, no matter what, no matter when. Literally up to the moment before birth.

NOBODY can from a serious argument that a 9 month old fetus is not a full human person that deserves some sort of protection under the law. Nobody. Everyone has seen a baby the moment it's born. That baby is a person and it was even before birth. A few second difference in time from before birth to after doesn't change that baby from a nothing pile of cells into a person. That's not a religious belief.

And this is a slippery slope because there are now states that are seriously debating if "abortion" after birth should be legal. For real. If you argue that a baby the second before birth isn't human, which this bill does, then it's very easy to argue a baby after birth isn't human either. Those seconds mean nothing if that's your argument.

I'm not arguing black/white on abortions. I'm arguing that THIS particular bill is fucked and so is anyone who supports it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hollohas

My post has always been about this particular legislation that allows literal murder because it's limitless. The bill is very sort. If any of you haven't read it, go do it. It's basic. It will allow all abortions, no matter what, no matter when. Literally up to the moment before birth.

NOBODY can from a serious argument that a 9 month old fetus is not a full human person that deserves some sort of protection under the law. Nobody. Everyone has seen a baby the moment it's born. That baby is a person and it was even before birth. A few second difference in time from before birth to after doesn't change that baby from a nothing pile of cells into a person. That's not a religious belief.

And this is a slippery slope because there are now states that are seriously debating if "abortion" after birth should be legal. For real. If you argue that a baby the second before birth isn't human, which this bill does, then it's very easy to argue a baby after birth isn't human either. Those seconds mean nothing if that's your argument.

I'm not arguing black/white on abortions. I'm arguing that THIS particular bill is fucked and so is anyone who supports it.

---

Without going into the meat and potatoes of this legislation ( I haven't yet ) we are in agreement.

Do late term abortions ever happen? By most information, it seems unbelieveably rare. This is a reaction to other republican led states banning abortion at 4 weeks, etc. Both parties are dumb. Our political system is an abject failure in most regards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doodguybro

Do late term abortions ever happen? By most information, it seems unbelieveably rare. This is a reaction to other republican led states banning abortion at 4 weeks, etc. Both parties are dumb. Our political system is an abject failure in most regards.

---

Based on the numbers I see from 2019 it appears about 7% are late term...so about 7 out of 100. But it probably also depends on the definition of late term. They may monkey with that definition just like they are trying to pass bills allowing abortion even 4 weeks after the birth of the child.

Compare that to the reasons for abortions...per Planned Parenthood's own records only 2 out of 1000 are because of rape, incest, health of the mother or child...so 998 out of 1000 is simply because they don't want to have a child.

I am one that believes people need to take responsibility for the decisions they make. If you don't want a child...don't get pregnant. Either take measures to make sure you don't get pregnant or...don't have sex. Don't have sex is the most assured way to not get pregnant.

We did fine for countless years, allowing women and doctors to make decisions without government interference. What happened to the limited government concept?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earplug

We did fine for countless years, allowing women and doctors to make decisions without government interference. What happened to the limited government concept?

---

Obesity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doodguybro

Do late term abortions ever happen? By most information, it seems unbelieveably rare. This is a reaction to other republican led states banning abortion at 4 weeks, etc. Both parties are dumb. Our political system is an abject failure in most regards.

---

As a matter of fact, they happen more often than Republican-led states trying to ban abortions at 4 weeks. Where have you heard of this? I've seen attempts to reduce the period from 26 weeks to 22 to even 20 based on medical advances in sustaining the life of the child but have never heard of anyone proposing 4 weeks. Then again, I'm not surprised at a relatively new account with a total of 13 posts spreading disinformation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earplug

We did fine for countless years, allowing women and doctors to make decisions without government interference. What happened to the limited government concept?

---

Everyone loves big government when its doing THEIR bidding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WETWRKS

They may monkey with that definition just like they are trying to pass bills allowing abortion even 4 weeks after the birth of the child.

---

Got a source for this?