Colorado HB 22-1279

[FoxtArt]

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.

[earplug]

Thank you FoxArt for your analysis of historic societies trends.

[hollohas]

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?

[fmj50]

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

Representative
Meg Froelich

REPRESENTATIVE
Daneya Esgar

SENATOR
Julie Gonzales

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

[TheGrey]

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.

[00tec]

My wife is into the religious stuff
I am not

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

[FoxtArt]

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.

[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?

[WETWRKS]

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.

[FoxtArt]

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.