Amendment 48
Friday, October 3, 2008 7:56 p.m.
Allowing the in-house guests to persistently talk over the scientist on screen in Pueblo is rude and counterproductive. Sen. Renfro says life begin with unique DNA is formed. Does this mean what I leave on my hairbrush or toothbrush constitutes a person? How silly.

Eric Sachaj
Friday, October 3, 2008 7:57 p.m.
While the rights of women are as important as anyone, it is unborn children not women who have little or no rights and no voice. They need protection more than anyone.

Aaron
Friday, October 3, 2008 7:59 p.m.
I think that the interruptions by Kristy and the senator, were poorly moderated. Who listened to the actual expert?

Amendment 48 is the most absurd proposition that we have had since amendment 2.

Cathy Sorensen
Friday, October 3, 2008 8:06 p.m.
You need to give religious/reproductive/family background on the people who are speaking because that will definitely affect their position on this issue. They want to enact a law that has to do with MY body, I have at least the right to know where they are coming from.

I don't understand a man who thinks he has the right to decide what happens to MY body and carrying a baby is happening to MY body, not his. I want his ideology out of MY body, he has the right to make his own choices for HIS body, not MINE! His EGO is at work here, not GODS.

I do not like the way these people are allowed to interrupt each other and talk over each other. This is not a debate, this is a shouting match at times. You need to use Roberts rules of order and enforce them.

jane
Friday, October 3, 2008 8:06 p.m.
Krissy Burton has a strange sense of scientific fact. It is obviously her own religious bias that she is trying to force on other people. Just because she doesn't want to use birth control doesn't mean she should be able to stop me from using it.

peter
Friday, October 3, 2008 8:07 p.m.
all interuptions were a real distraction of the discussion. Some people did not show a lot of good manners. Why did the moderator allow this???

Ron M; Aurora
Friday, October 3, 2008 8:11 p.m.
I too think these folks talking over each other is very rude.
It happens in many other arguments in our society.
And is a reflection of how we treat each other.
I want my Social Security 9 months before I 'was' born!
(AND any other "benefit" also.)
IF this is when my "life" began!
AND if a sperm entering a egg is "life", then
the sperm and egg of a cow, chicken, pig, etc, is "life"!
AND we should not eat other "life" created thus!
THAT would be killing "life" also!
The "SUPER Christians" want to impose their "morals'
on the rest of us when there is supposed to be
"freedom of religion"! They will NOT stop at this issue,
but impose their "bible" belief's on other issues on the
rest of us also! Until "everybody" is "Christian"!
And we become a ONE party (Republican) and
ONE religion state!

Suzi
Friday, October 3, 2008 8:12 p.m.
Eric,

Perhaps an unborn child needs protection, but a fertilized egg? This is not a child it is a very special egg, but still an egg. When it has developed to the point of having human attributes then we should thinkabout protecting it. Giving an egg the same rights as a human being is ridiculous.
Show a 3 year child a picture of an adult, a child, a baby and an egg and the child will tell you which are people and which are not!

Mary Kohler
Friday, October 3, 2008 8:14 p.m.
Kristy can define her own cells as she wishes, however, she nor the government have no right to tell anyone else how to define theirs. This amendment is obviously just step one in a plan to reduce hard won womens' rights. And, have the right-to-lifers not noticed the over population problem in the world?!?!

TJS
Friday, October 3, 2008 8:16 p.m.
When does the woman find out that she is pregnant? More than one month? By the time a woman finds out she's pregnant the baby is pretty well developed and should have protection. It is silly to talk about scenarios the moment after conception, 24 hrs after, 48 hours after or 2 weeks after when the mother does not know if she is pregnant. I understand it may abolish the morning after pills. It may not be an ideal amendment. Ideally there should be a state constitutional amendment making abortions illegal. Any means to reduce abortions would be good.

PS - I thought the women that was remotely on the screen tried to monopolized the conversations.

Linda Mulka, MD
Friday, October 3, 2008 8:18 p.m.
The possible repercussions of the passage of this amendment are enourmous. Just one for supporters to consider is the case of ectopic pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancy is a fertilized egg that grows outside the normal safe confines of the uterus and may actually become an embryo. The life-saving treatment for the woman with this pregnancy is termination under hospital conditions as, if untreated, there will be eventual rupture of an organ such as a fallopian tube or narrow part of the uterus, causing life-threatening hemorrhage with frequent death. The diagnosis is not always easy to make before death, so medical professionals must be proactive in treatment to save the life of the mother.

Gina
Friday, October 3, 2008 8:20 p.m.
Kristy based her definition on the "evidence" in medical textbooks not religious beliefs. Perhaps more biomedical research needs to be done so that a medical definition is agreed on by the experts. An expert panel of medical professionals, ethics, attorneys, lay public, religious is appropriate. I think this is a discussion that needs to happen. Not just for the moment of conception but for the time of death. As our society ages and health care financial resources decrease, we have a moral imperative to address human dignity and the right to life. I for one do not want to be 95 years of age and have limited medical options due to lack of resources and an absence of the respect for life. I applaud the efforts of a 21 year old woman, Kristy, to bring this topic up for debate.

Sylvia Wagner
Friday, October 3, 2008 8:24 p.m.
We've been consistent viewers of Colorado State of Mind for a long time, but this week I very nearly turned the program off. The steady stream of interuptions and people talking over each other did nothing to promote either side of this issue. It was very poorly moderated.

Speaking the loudest and longest does not necessarily make your point of view right. It only shows your disdain for the opposing side and completely destroys any chance of presenting your "opinions" to allow the viewers to make their own decision about an issue.

Shame on all of you!!

john
Friday, October 3, 2008 8:37 p.m.
A question for supporters of this amendment: how will you determine when fertilization occurs? You can't use a "post-fertilization" point (i.e. implantation) to define it. That will sort of defeat your whole purpose. If you have no means of pinpointing this moment how will the amendment be workable?

Robert
Friday, October 3, 2008 8:41 p.m.
After watching the senator and Kristy ignore all scientific comments brought up by the doctor it is obvious no amount of medical facts will ever play a role in their beliefs. That is true of deeply held religious beliefs, they will be held in the face of any research or new findings.
The senator seems hung up on the fact that the fertilized egg is living, but aren't other cells in the body living? How does a kidney transplant work unless the kidney cells are living? Does that make the kidney a person?

Disagreeing with this amendment in no way show disrespect for life, but rather shows that human life has more to it than merely the combination of an egg and sperm. It is the unique moral conciousness of a complex individual that makes us human with all our strengths and frailties.

ridiculous
Friday, October 3, 2008 8:54 p.m.
That last answer was funny. It is ridiculous to change all those laws. I can only imagine how much that would cost taxpayers. Since that child shares my DNA and is part of my body, would that child not be part of me and therefore, a person? The "protection" an unborn child needs is from people who want to tell us what choices to make. I don't mean to be cynical but with a troubled economy, overpopulation, and more unqualied parents than ever before, are we really willing to risk our doctor's right to prescribe contraception and a women's right to take it? Maybe a troubled, poor mother should drop her baby at Kristi's door instead of the fire station when she can't take care of him. Is Kristi willing to take responsibility for the repurcussions of this amendment?

Chet Cromwell
Friday, October 3, 2008 9:47 p.m.
The discussion of when does personhood begin was an example of an unskilled facillitator permitting a verbal onslaught in which practically no one listened to one another. Interruptions took place with three people talking at once on numerous occassions. The objective seemed to be to outshout, to barge into another's right to be heard and cut them off. The process of the interactions represented such a low that I was ashamed to wittness it as a PBS program. We all expect high quality from PBS. I urge you to cancel this weekly program or clean up the discussion process.

It was an excellent topic which needs to be discussed but little value came from this program.

How about a topic "How can discussions be structured to insure productive outcomes?"

I oppose the the ammendment

Linda J.
Friday, October 3, 2008 10:12 p.m.
The pro-abortion crowd is so intent on making their points that they lose all vestiges of courtesy. If I were pro-abortion, I certainly would never want Dr. Murray speaking for me. She lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned.

Linda J.
Friday, October 3, 2008 10:16 p.m.
If unborn babies from the moment of fertilization weren't considered persons in the first place, then why did the Supreme Court Justices decide to take away their personhood?

TJS
Friday, October 3, 2008 10:38 p.m.
There are some comments in this thread about "it is my body" and I can do anything I want. Well, it is a fact that there are two bodies during a pregnancy (unless they are pregnant with twins or more). Pregnant ladies are only providing an abode for the little humans.

Good question from Linda on personhood and Roe v Wade:

This concept of personhood is absent from U.S. law and was the driving rationale behind the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion across the United States. If passed, the Colorado amendment would exploit a fundamental weakness in Roe that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun admitted to exist when he wrote the decision.

Blackmun then had concluded: "If this suggestion of personhood [for the unborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."

dismayed
Friday, October 3, 2008 11:13 p.m.
"Pregnant ladies are only providing an abode for the little humans" from TJS. Already we can see how this provision can disempower women. With this type of sentiment the status of women would rapidly diminish. TJS may consider a women to be worth no more than a fertilized egg that may or may not become a human being. I for one believe the women of Colorado to have more intrinsic worth than being simply a pregnancy abode.

Aaron
Saturday, October 4, 2008 12:12 a.m.
In his/her response to Linda, TJS is explaining exactly what this Amendment is all about: to undermine Roe v. Wade.

It IS that simple. I find it hard to understand (and frightening) that the people who wrote and support this Amendment can't admit this.

Loretta
Saturday, October 4, 2008 12:55 a.m.
WHO writes these amendments to our state constitution? Very few are worthy of the voting procedures.
And, who let the abortion issue become a point of law for our nation? The means of handling it were well defined in society before Roe v Wade.
And, why do women (and men) put themselves above God and the Ten Commandments? The time to say "No" is before conception not when another life becomes involved. And, teach the males to know what they are doing; stop blaming the females for "allowing" a pregnancy.
And, yet another item: why is the law-making arm of the United States government trying to make it the law of the land to perform partial-birth abortions?
Why is an abortion legal and a confused young unwed woman can be arrested and prosecuted if she kills her baby?

Linda J.
Saturday, October 4, 2008 6:31 a.m.
You hear much talk about a woman's (female's) right to choose. What about the female inside a woman's body? What about the grandmother's rights to have her grandchild? What about the father's rights to have his baby born? In this society of only protecting a woman's right to choose, everyone else is left out of the picture. Just how selfish have we become? We all need to start taking responsibility for our actions, and not rely on abortion as the final method of birth control. An unselfish person would have the baby and either take responsibility for the baby, or give it up for adoption. We are no longer a nation of responsible people, we only care about ourselves.

Jan
Saturday, October 4, 2008 6:55 a.m.
Kristi Burton should do more research before she tries to change our State Constitution. She repeatedly dismissed the idea as absurd that women would be denied life-saving treatments under this Amendment, yet that's exactly what has happened in Nicaragua under an identical law. Women's deaths have risen and doctors and women have been sent to prison. (Read Human Rights Watch report: "Over Their Dead Bodies.") If Colorado passes A-48, we will join the ranks of Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Chile--the only countries in the world to pass total abortion bans in the last 20 years! We would be moving backward while most of the world moves forward--read Resolution 1607 passed by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) to see how thinking people handle this problem.

Robert
Saturday, October 4, 2008 7:49 a.m.
Loretta asks why people try to put themselves above God and the Ten Commandments. In a society with seperation of Church and State, our legistlations are not the Ten Commandments and religious laws, but secular laws. This ammendment is an attempt to place individuals own interpetations of religous concepts into our constitution.
Where in the Ten Commandments does is say that a single cell is considered a human? Yes it does say "Thou Shall not Kill". Why then are people so much more concerned about saving fertilized eggs which only MAY develop into a human instead of putting their energy into preventing war and capital punishment where we are clearing killing human beings?

Patti M
Saturday, October 4, 2008 7:58 a.m.
Abortion is clearly against God's will. An innocent life is being taken. However how can we be protecting an individual life right at fertilization when we do not even know it the cell will develop into a unborn child or not? If we take away the ability for women to use effective contraception will there not be more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions (either illegal or crossing state lines)?
Why could Kristy not put a real question on the ballot rather than something silly that will do more harm than good? Was it trying to trick people into passing this, rather than asking a honest question that deserves an honest answer. Lets honestly ask the people of Colorado what they want to do about allowing abortion.

Martha
Saturday, October 4, 2008 8:36 a.m.
Several years ago I had an ectopic pregancy. Shortly after arriving in the emergency room I was rushed for a life saving operation. I had lost lots of blood and needed tranfusions. How can this ectopic pregnancy that destroyed my falopin tube be a person? If the doctors could not remove this "person" I would be dead. I now have a new born baby from doing IVF. I thank the doctors and their team so much for my beautiful person.
If doctors in Colorado were not able to treat me I would not be alive nor would my daughter. Please do not take away the right of women to have reproductive care.

John C.
Saturday, October 4, 2008 8:51 a.m.
My wife and I watched Colorado State of Mind on Friday, Oct. 3th concerning the Amendment 48. We were shocked by how rude the doctor from Colorado Springs was toward the young lady and the Senator. They were barely able to gt their views expressed, before the doctor and the lady against the amendment cut them off. Regardless how strongly you feel, there is the need for common courtesy toward other people.
We also felt that Greg Dobbs should have been more in control and not allow the continous interruptions by the doctor. It was a painful program to watch.

Corrine
Saturday, October 4, 2008 9:19 a.m.
I was really appalled also at the talking over each other. Everyone seem to be doing it. However it seemed by having the doctor offsite she was consistently ignored unless she really raised her voice. Why not have everyone in the same room?
It seemed the program was trying to promote this interaction by having this set up. When each individual was asked a question it was answered in turn. Most debate formats have turn about answering questions, it seemed Greg Dobbs specifically wanted to make things heated and confrontational. Any time he wanted it could have been a more directed, turn about discussion. More moderation is needed in passionate topics.

Christy Felton
Saturday, October 4, 2008 12:19 p.m.
Ms. Burton does NOT have my frozen embryos best interest in mind. Nor mine, nor my husband. Her constant inturruptions showed her immaturity and inability to debate her stance effectively.
One fact that needed raised - If a woman does drugs or drinks during pregnancy, and miscarried, could she be charged with cild abuse resulting in death? If a woman loses her baby in a car accident, would the driver be charged with manslauter? How you see a "child" in your hear and soul (I know I resently miscarried my first at 20 wks - and she was a child to me), is different than changing the law. The law in unemotional for a reason. Please stop trying to impose on our rights.

Ron M; Aurora
Saturday, October 4, 2008 1:53 p.m.
A definite concensus is that the 'moderator' of this program needs to have more control over the guests speaking. One person needs to speak at a time and respect the others. Perhaps, one minute could be allotted to each person speaking "one at a time" with absolutely NO interuptions! I know this is asking a lot but worth a try. And maybe each person's microphone could be connected only when they are speaking! "When there is a will, there is a way" !
Personally, I think the 'right to lifers' are so "deer in the headlights" fanatically, brain washed to their cause that they can see no other person's opinion. Maybe, one could check out the website below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1-ip47WYWc
which is 'bible lesson' from the tv show "West Wing"!

Annonomus
Sunday, October 5, 2008 6:19 a.m.
1st: IF the doctor is correct, the logical conclusion would be ...... only untill the egg sucessfully completes the process of fertilization AND is viable as 1 and 1 ONLY human life, then it could be possible to define it but not before that point.

2nd: Human life is sacred, but we cannot micro-define certain terms relating to the constitution so narrow that
unltimately the ability to create laws and govern effectively are taken away from us.

Pat Greenbeg
Sunday, October 5, 2008 11:22 a.m.
What other possible purpose can this amendment be for other than to begin eroding other rights with follow up legislation. Defining the moment that life begins is not as innocent as it seems on the surface - we'll end up with legislation that says you can't even use an IUD because an IUD prevents the fertilized egg from adhering to the uterine wall. Bad law, bad results.

Michael lang
Sunday, October 5, 2008 3:27 p.m.
Imagine your a fireman and you enter a pediatrics ward which is about ready to burn down. You look into the ward and there is fire everywhere. On one side of the ward there is a baby in a crib crying and on the other side is a vat containing 1000 frozen embryos. You only have time to either save the baby or the embryos. You can't do both. So what do you do? Well if you believe in proposition 48 you save the embryos and let the baby burn to death.

Kepari
Sunday, October 5, 2008 8:59 p.m.
Kristi Burton has no right to tell me that I cannot control my reproductive choices. She needs to grow up and experience a little bit of the real world before she tries to impose her fantasy world on the rest of us. Coloradans are surely too intelligent to fall for this measure that would plunge us back into the dark ages.

Ann
Tuesday, October 7, 2008 1:08 p.m.
I appreciated Martha's comments. As a mother of IVF twins - I oppose Amendment 48 - because if that passes, people like me wouldn't get to have children. The pro 48 bumper stickers say "every person counts" - I agree - every person - including my twins do count - which is why I'm voting NO on 48 - and I hope other people understand the ramifications of this amendment if it passes and oppose it and vote against it as well!

Brent
Tuesday, October 7, 2008 6:42 p.m.
If Amendment 48 passes will the Census Workers (FOR THE 2010 CENSUS) have to count every fertilized egg in Colorado since it is their job to count EVERY PERSON?

Part 1 due to size limit
Tuesday, October 7, 2008 6:49 p.m.
Dear Editor,

Amendment 48 is about making a law that will make a fertilized human egg a person, fully, within the laws of our land.

Clearly this is an abortion vs anti-abortion Amendment. The other issue is that not everyone believes in the Christian Bible, Jesus, and God. Abortion is a legal issue, and the separation of church and state has never been more important than now. The chief architect of our country, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814 "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

I think we might all agree the problem is preventing unwanted pregnancy. This is where both sides must come together on the abortion issue. Whether you teach abstinence, (not a good system, because of human instinct to mate) or

Part 2 due to size limit
Tuesday, October 7, 2008 6:50 p.m.
or birth control, or both, prevention of unwanted pregnancy should be the focus. If we're going to vote on abortion, let's be clear that's what we are doing.
Amendment 48 has far-reaching legal ramifications. Fertilized eggs of parents trying to conceive through clinics will all be granted "personhood." Fertility clinics implant several fertilized eggs and get rid of the rest. What are those parents who are so desperate for a baby to do? Raise thirty babies? Would the fertility clinic worker be charged with murder? This Amendment means all the existing laws stating 'persons' will have to be redone to include the concept of an unborn fertilized egg being a person. This means all laws related to inheritance, land and property, as well as tax laws. You could keep 30 embryos frozen,

Part 3 due to size limit
Tuesday, October 7, 2008 6:51 p.m.
and claim them all as tax deductions! If this law spread to Alaska, each "person" would be eligible for the annual Permanent Fund and people could keep freezers full of embryos. If they are alive on thawing, they are certainly alive when frozen! In an age when people frequently do not have adequate health care, we would have to extend any and all possible intrauterine medical interventions to these "new people." This would be via state funding or insurance coverage to provide equal care for fetuses developing with life threatening conditions that would generally in nature cause a miscarriage or fetal death. Insurance rates would rise, as would taxes for Medicaid. Natures own wisdom would not be allowed to prevail.

If religious fundamentalists want to preach no abortion, go ahead. If

Part 4 due to size limit
Tuesday, October 7, 2008 6:54 p.m.
want to preach no abortion, go ahead. If they want to make people feel guilty for having an abortion, sorry, that is imposing a personal belief system on others. This is infringing on our rights as citizens to be free from religious persecution. Although I believe most mothers who chose abortion are torn forever in their hearts over it, those that aren't are not going to make good mothers anyway.

If your daughter gets raped do you want the law making the decision for you? Or do you, with your own set of values make the decision with her? How would you react to an amendment requiring abortions for all rapes that result in pregnancy? And if you want to make the decisions about your behavior and your loved ones behavior, let others do the same. Do not canonize a religious fundamen

Final part, thank you
Tuesday, October 7, 2008 6:55 p.m.
fundamentalist belief system into the state Constitution via an amendment. Save amendments for those things the architects of our democracy forgot, which fortunately are not many.

Vote NO on Amendment 48, it's filled with expensive legal traps. We do not need a law to tell us what to believe.

Robert Finlay
Physician Assistant

M Logan
Wednesday, October 8, 2008 6:41 a.m.
I never thought I would have to defend my freedom from religion in America. This Fundamentalist religious referendum should never have been allowed on the ballot due the restrictions of the introduction religious articles into the Constitution. It follows many other attacks on our religious freedom, such as amendments to ban gay marriage and the introduction of creationism in our public schools.

It is a false belief that we are truly free in America, fascism has come carrying the cross.

It is time to defend America.

Robert
Wednesday, October 8, 2008 3:44 p.m.
Michael Lang's question is so utterly profound and gets to the absolute core of the matter. I wish someone could ask Kristi Burton and the Senator this question. If they say they would save the baby then they do not believe that the embryos are as "much" of a person as a living human, if they say they would save the vat of embryos then they are liars, because no one would let a live baby burn over a vat of cells.

Jeff
Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:54 p.m.
Read all of my view please. My hand is a part of my body and I can do as I please with it. I can punch a bag, or a wall. Or maybe your face. Hey - it is my hand and I can do as I please. Does this make sense? Sure - it is YOUR body - and something else is in the way - a spark of life. Please don't run over it! I'm just a guy, but Iswore an oath to protect every American, especially the smallest of us. One Marine's viewpoint.

Haley
Tuesday, November 4, 2008 9:53 p.m.
Im sixteen and have a six week old baby. I had the choice whether or not I wanted to abort him, or give him life. It is not the child's fault if a woman gets pregnant. If she was raped, or it was a case of incest, the rapist, should get punished, not the innocent baby. Why would you punish the baby if it is not his fault?

Diana
Thursday, November 6, 2008 12:33 p.m.
That's a ridiculous comment. I'm glad it didn't pass. It's not the baby getting punished it's the person who had to go through it. They might be in the condition that they can't support a child, and look at our foster care system in America. NOT the best. It is your irresponsiblity for being pregnant at sixteen and it's your choice to have it, don't pin your opinions on others.

Amendment 48
Friday, October 3, 2008 7:56 p.m.
Allowing the in-house guests to persistently talk over the scientist on screen in Pueblo is rude and counterproductive. Sen. Renfro says life begin with unique DNA is formed. Does this mean what I leave on my hairbrush or toothbrush constitutes a person? How silly.

Eric Sachaj
Friday, October 3, 2008 7:57 p.m.
While the rights of women are as important as anyone, it is unborn children not women who have little or no rights and no voice. They need protection more than anyone.

Aaron
Friday, October 3, 2008 7:59 p.m.
I think that the interruptions by Kristy and the senator, were poorly moderated. Who listened to the actual expert?

Amendment 48 is the most absurd proposition that we have had since amendment 2.

Cathy Sorensen
Friday, October 3, 2008 8:06 p.m.
You need to give religious/reproductive/family background on the people who are speaking because that will definitely affect their position on this issue. They want to enact a law that has to do with MY body, I have at least the right to know where they are coming from.

I don't understand a man who thinks he has the right to decide what happens to MY body and carrying a baby is happening to MY body, not his. I want his ideology out of MY body, he has the right to make his own choices for HIS body, not MINE! His EGO is at work here, not GODS.

I do not like the way these people are allowed to interrupt each other and talk over each other. This is not a debate, this is a shouting match at times. You need to use Roberts rules of order and enforce them.

jane
Friday, October 3, 2008 8:06 p.m.
Krissy Burton has a strange sense of scientific fact. It is obviously her own religious bias that she is trying to force on other people. Just because she doesn't want to use birth control doesn't mean she should be able to stop me from using it.

peter
Friday, October 3, 2008 8:07 p.m.
all interuptions were a real distraction of the discussion. Some people did not show a lot of good manners. Why did the moderator allow this???

Ron M; Aurora
Friday, October 3, 2008 8:11 p.m.
I too think these folks talking over each other is very rude.
It happens in many other arguments in our society.
And is a reflection of how we treat each other.
I want my Social Security 9 months before I 'was' born!
(AND any other "benefit" also.)
IF this is when my "life" began!
AND if a sperm entering a egg is "life", then
the sperm and egg of a cow, chicken, pig, etc, is "life"!
AND we should not eat other "life" created thus!
THAT would be killing "life" also!
The "SUPER Christians" want to impose their "morals'
on the rest of us when there is supposed to be
"freedom of religion"! They will NOT stop at this issue,
but impose their "bible" belief's on other issues on the
rest of us also! Until "everybody" is "Christian"!
And we become a ONE party (Republican) and
ONE religion state!

Suzi
Friday, October 3, 2008 8:12 p.m.
Eric,

Perhaps an unborn child needs protection, but a fertilized egg? This is not a child it is a very special egg, but still an egg. When it has developed to the point of having human attributes then we should thinkabout protecting it. Giving an egg the same rights as a human being is ridiculous.
Show a 3 year child a picture of an adult, a child, a baby and an egg and the child will tell you which are people and which are not!

Mary Kohler
Friday, October 3, 2008 8:14 p.m.
Kristy can define her own cells as she wishes, however, she nor the government have no right to tell anyone else how to define theirs. This amendment is obviously just step one in a plan to reduce hard won womens' rights. And, have the right-to-lifers not noticed the over population problem in the world?!?!