Update: In Colorado’s election 2008 (November), the Personhood Amendment is Amendment 48. I will be voting YES on 48.
This week the Colorado Personhood Amendment submitted more than 130,000 petition signatures in order to put the proposed amendment on the ballot in 2008. This is huge, and I am very excited. The campaign is only beginning, with a battle coming in the next several months to get the word out.
Abort73.com, about which I wrote several months ago, has a collection of embryology textbook quotes and government on-the-record conclusions about when life begins. You can read it and other related information here. So far I haven’t found any specific resources describing the implications of the proposed amendment. To be honest I have not looked too hard. A reporter for Townhall, Michael Foust, wrote an article summarizing the history of the amendment very well.
There have been some objections to this amendment from reasonable people. Some people at my church thought that petitions and anything government-related did not belong at church. I took my petition to church, and collected about ten signatures there. My opinion waffled. I offered it to my Sunday school class. It was in the bulletin and I stood in the foyer with it. Only a few times, with people I thought I knew well enough, did I ask if certain friends had signed it. I’m naturally a non-aggressive person. There were other people taking the aggressive position with their petitions at my church. That reassured me, actually, that the audience for my petition was covered, just not by me. I don’t disagree with the other petition circulators.
One problem many people have begun to recognize and address at church is that we don’t connect our education or our spiritual experiences with obedience and action. There are no laws against circulating petitions at church, and the amendment is definitely not associated with any political party. Church is a community gathering, a great place to talk about what really matters. What better place to invite people to sign a petition that is, rather than bringing politics to church, bringing truth into politics.
Another objection is that, while a Christian and a scientist and any thinking or moral person may realize that life begins at conception, the government should stay out of it. There is flawed logic here, but I think the problem is in the view of government. What is a government’s role? What does the Bible say about it? Abort73.com says, “God established government to be His legal representative on earth (Romans 13:1,2). God established government to keep sinful people from doing evil against each other (Romans 13:3). While it is true that individuals are called to “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39), the government is not (Romans 13:4). The government is called to execute judgement upon those who do wickedly. Arguing that the government must not restrict an individual’s free moral agency, is nothing more than an argument for anarchy.”
Finally, a lot of people are worried that the personhood amendment is a sneaky way of outlawing birth control and contraception. Roe v. Wade pointed out the lack of concensus and official definition of person – the definitions by which the constitutional protections and due process would become relevant. The amendment closes the loophole, and gives legislators and judges a platform on which to act and enforce. But the question should not be, “Are religious people trying to tell me what to do and change the way I am used to living my life?” but, “If life begins at conception, what must I do to respect that life?” Ultimately, the fact that this amendment is out there, being discussed and advocated, is going to make people face the question: am I harming or killing a human life?
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
Lisa of Longbourn 
If a woman has an abortion, is she committing a premeditated murder?
If so, then should she be put to death or spend the rest of her life in jail?
If not, then why not?
Mike,
Yes a woman is morally committing murder, and no: legally she is not.
No, she should not be put to death. Nor at this time would there be any legal way to put her in jail. Such laws are not retroactive.
If the laws changed, then I would say that the hypothetical woman could be punished, but I would not say life in prison – something shorter. Any person knowingly aiding in providing an abortion at that time (money, transportation, escort) should be legally liable as well.
However, if laws changed and any doctor performed an abortion, or any person performed an abortion, for them I would advocate the harshest sentence for murder. Also their nurses or assistants would be accessories.
I do not believe it is possible for abortion to be legal and rare. If it is illegal, it is more rare. As far as safe, abortion is never safe for at least one of the parties, and often unsafe for others, even when it is legal.
Women and young girls have been lied to about the nature of abortion. If it is publicly recognized that an unborn baby is a human person, then those considering conception will be more thoughtful. Those who have conceived will have to face that reality, and the cultural norms around them in addition to potential consequences. Schools and other public facilities (crisis care centers, emergency rooms, doctors) would be forbidden from suggesting that a life be terminated. Government money would also be unavailable to fund providers or promoters of abortion. And those who presently make their living as abortionists would have to change their job, or go black market which would be considerably less profitable. 40 million deaths since Roe v. Wade is much higher than that of black market abortions if abortion had remained illegal.
I think that prosecution would focus on providers, and that if one was caught their clients may be discovered and charged as well. It’s sort of like going after drug dealers instead of the junkies. Or you can think of prostitution rings.
To be clear, the Personhood Amendment suggests none of these things, nor does it advocate them. It is simply a consitutional definition forcing legislatures and courts to make and interpret laws accordingly. And whether passed or not, this amendment is causing thought and discussion where before there was pure confidence and/or ignorance.
To God be all glory,
May He change hearts,
Lisa of Longbourn
Good, well thought out response. Why so lenient towards the mother, and so harsh towards the doctor? She’s the one who got pregnant and she’s got to be held accountable… plus, that makes drugs like RU-486 very attractive if there is no serious penalty.
“And whether passed or not, this amendment is causing thought and discussion where before there was pure confidence and/or ignorance.”
… so, Lisa, how has this changed your opinion?
In my case I am more lenient toward the mother for several reasons:
1. She had more at stake.
2. She was hormonal and distressed (something similar to pleading temporary insanity).
3. She is not getting paid to commit the atrocity.
4. Abortion can be coercive to different degrees.
An abortionist:
1. Knows all the scientific facts
2. Observes what is happening to the baby
3. Receives payment for murder. (I don’t know if sentencing is harsher for hit men than for homicides of passion, but it seems like more deterrent is needed for the disinterested conscienceless hit man.)
Drugs like RU-486 would, in my ideal world, not even be produced, let alone available.
The amendment has changed my opinion in that it caused me to look into abortion history, particularly the laws and the accepted scientific facts. I didn’t know that basically no one disagrees about when human life begins – it’s intuitive, but people deny a lot of intuitive things. In promoting the amendment and writing about it, I did a lot of research and asked myself a lot of questions about logical defenses of my positions. What I have written is largely a result of changes in my opinion: in new things I learned and new convictions I have. My activity in the field of abortion opposition has increased tremendously as I began to understand the issue better and to hope for change in the laws of this country – and revival in all of our hearts.
When I stand outside the clinic praying, the biggest thing I ask God is how on earth human beings could pass all the truth, all the conscience, all the natural instincts and proceed to viciously murder helpless babies. We need revival, spiritual enlightenment, to come to this country and reveal right and wrong. I pray I’m one of the lights God uses to accomplish that.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
[deleted by blog author – CJ had posted a rude comment saying that since rape is also wrong, it would be wrong to try to force a woman to have a baby she does not want. CJ wants “you all” to stop forcing our beliefs on society, but rather to uphold the purpose for which America was founded, “FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Freedom to do what is best for an individual.”]
To which this author replies,
Everyone has heard the saying, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” That rape is wrong – and those opposing abortion are not lacking in compassion for such victims – is no reason to make it worse by putting murder on the conscience.
We are not using this as a ploy. The truth is all scientists and embryology textbooks and biology textbooks agree that life begins at fertilization. That being the case, we must make a legal recognition of that fact and deal with the consequences.
The very fact that people in our modern era consider murder an option to deal with difficult circumstances is unfathomable to me. Our country was founded, in a civilized era, to ensure the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No where does that guarantee every choice to remain an option. That’s ridiculous. In any case, for a choice to supercede life is clearly outside of the intentions or purposes of government, even in the gloriously free United States.
CJ, if you wish to post any further comments, or retry your first one, you are welcome to do so without name calling or such hostile ad hominem tones. Thank you.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
Lisa…
I appreciate your sentiments. I am a physician, and Christian, and know abortion is wrong. This amendment has a problem, though. The problem is molar pregnancies, which are an abnormal fertilization of an egg by two or more sperm. This is not a person, but becomes what is called gestational trophoblastic neoplasia, and, if not treated, has the potential to become malignant. If any fertilized egg is considered a person, this could cause many problems in treating this somewhat common medical problem.
I would be fine, though, with an abortion ban on the ballot.
Doctor,
When then would you say that life begins?
There are eptopic pregancies, too. But we in the pro-life community don’t expect women and babies to be forced to die in such tragic cases.
I don’t see that rare case as an issue with the personhood amendment.
Thanks for your comment.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
For most of the past two millenia, the church, or at least significant portions thereof, have considered abortion early in pregnancy to be permissible, even if undesirable. St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. Thomas Aquinas–three of 33 Doctors of the Church–would very probably be pro choice if around today.
St. Jerome, as you might recall, produced the Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Bible that was the main Bible used in Europe for a thousand years and Aquinas was possibly the most important Catholic thinker of the middle ages; these are not marginal figures.
Several Popes, including Innocent III and Gregory XIV, disagreed with the claim that all abortions were murder; they believed that early term abortions were permissible.
The history of Christian thought on the matter is more complicated than most would like to admit. You might find the following site interesting:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm
Lisa,
I’m not convinced that the passage of the Personhood Amendment would outlaw abortion.
People say, “If a fetus is a person then abortion is murder”. This saying does not take into account the fact that the relationship between a mother and her unborn child is unparalleled. To murder, one must do active harm to another person. When a woman aborts she is simply ceasing to provide nurture to an individual with whom she is choosing not to relate.
We all need others to survive, but only the unborn need one particular ‘other’ who cannot be replaced. That’s why the relationship between mother and unborn child can not be governed by the laws that pertain other kinds of relationships.
A developing fetus is a person, but abortion is not murder. Abortion doesn’t happen to be something I would advise, but it’s not me who’s deciding.
Paul,
I’m not convinced it would outlaw abortion either.
I agree that a relationship between a mother and her unborn child is unparalleled. She ought to be more protective than anyone because the child depends so much on her.
Incidentally, a woman can’t simply choose to no longer provide nourishment and protection for her child. In abortion an outside party introduces foreign substances that chemically poison, burn, or suffocate infants – or they introduce forceps and vacuums that tear the child to bits. That is not simple neglect. It is violent, horrible murder!!!!!!!!!
How angry I am, and I hardly ever get angry.
Also, an infant who has been born needs someone to care for it, but the law protects the life of that infant, whether it is his mother who neglects him or his father or his grandparents or a hired professional. There is no difference except location.
Plus. The Constitution guarantees rights to all persons. Your argument is legally invalid, attested in the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade (granted one of the worst decisions every handed down, even from a legal perspective). The Constitution makes no exception for location or for capability of living independently (feeding and sheltering one’s self).
May you realize the truth and defend the innocent persons who are being slaughtered.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
Jacob,
I don’t care that much what the Catholic church says. I care what God said in the Bible.
I also find your assertion that these people would “probably be pro-choice” doubtful.
These people lived in a world where capital punishment was administered without fair trials, violent capital punishment like crucifixion. Exposure of children after they were born in order to kill them was common. Slaves accounted for about half of the population of Rome.
Rather the opposite of your point, the church has traditionally even been against birth control in any form.
http://lawngospel.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/luther-calvin-and-pink-on-the-call-to-be-married-with-children/
Jerome said:
You may see many women widows before wedded, who try to conceal their miserable fall by a lying garb. Unless they are betrayed by swelling wombs or by the crying of their infants, they walk abroad with tripping feet and heads in the air. Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when (as often happens) they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder.
– Epistula 22
St. Augustine of Hippo:
Therefore brothers, you see how perverse they are and hastening wickedness, who are immature, they seek abortion of the conception before the birth; they are those who tell us, “I do not see that which you say must be believed.”
– Sermon 126, line 12
Both of the preceding quotes are in a collection of similar statements by early church fathers found online at: http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/earlychurchfathers/fatherscover.html
The link you offered, Jacob, has very few translations of quotes, which makes it pure propaganda. It does however agree that the earliest church fathers (those closest to the apostles and the writing of the New Testament) were entirely against abortion. The argument that until a body is formed in which to contain a soul, abortion is permissible is – in light of the science and understanding we now possess – obsolete. We now know that all the information for the mature body that will be is contained at fertilization. Bodies begin forming very soon. I would take this quote at this day and age to defend the concept of personhood from fertilization, since it is at that point that the life has its own shape. Also bodies continue to form well into the teen years. Yet no one denies that teenagers have souls, or the right to be legally protected against murder.
We in this advanced scientific and medical age have no excuse for claiming not to know when life begins. Defend life.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
I have really enjoyed reading your blog on the amendment. Although there are many aspects to the abortion issue, you made it clear that one thing remains the same. When life begins. I applaud you for being so wise in your responses.
Valerie
Lisa,
Another legal problem for this admendment is that it will make most forms of birth control illegal as well. Who will take care of the hundreds of unwanted and abuse babies bore because of this law.
TJ,
I am so glad you brought this up. Many people do not know that most forms of birth control can actually infringe the rights of a person at their most innocent and helpless state. This is done by stimulating the mother’s body to reject or be inhospitable to the newly conceived baby.
Just as when you deny shelter and nourishment to a two year old, he dies, so a few-days or less old preborn baby dies when nourishment and shelter are denied it.
Rather than addressing this fact from the perspective of a person who does not want to be inconvenienced by another life, the proper response is to deal with reality and real morality concerning this life. This is Amendment 48’s goal.
No one makes the argument that because a 2 year old is unwanted or abused, we should take his life away. This Amendment addresses the scientific and moral reality that there is no difference.
Who will take care of the hundreds of unwanted and abused babies born (not bore) when not aborted? First, there are hundreds of couples eager to adopt infants. Second, a culture that gives a consistent message about the value of life is more likely to produce parents who will want and care for their children. The logic goes like this: if it is ok to murder a person because they are small, because they are helpless, because they are still in the womb – why is it wrong to abuse a person just because he is a little bigger, still helpless, and out of the womb? There is no difference. We must send the message that life has value from its very beginning. Doctors, legislators, judges, men, women, and all of society must be held accountable to this reality.
Finally, Amendment 48 merely makes a positive statement about the definition of person in the Colorado Constitution. It gives no details about the implementation of the principle. We need this amendment to have a law that is able to be comprehended. And more than that, these innocent children, our most precious resource, need this law.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
Thanks Lisa for all your research, knowledge and well argured points. I often thought in the past that women who choose abortion will be judged by God and that we should not press this issue. After growing in my walk with the Lord, I realized that point of view was not looking after the unborn. I also recently learned that more youth christians were able to talk young ladies out of abortion then us middle age women wanting to press our religious conviction on them, so Glory to GOd for using our youth as messengers. I am concern by all the talk of this ballot that couldl eventurally outlaw contreception. I cannot go that far and would rather not vote at all on the ballot issue if this is the case. Can you be more specific on this portion of this bill to help my understanding? I am interested in protecting the unborn, not being God on people immoral conduct.
God Bless you
Jenny
Goes too far.
It would ban all contreception except barrier methods. People aren’t going to stop having sex just because the pill is illegal. Do we really need a generation of unwanted babies? Where will they all go? Perhaps the supporters of this ammendment would like to raise them?
Jenny,
Thank you for your comments and your interest in protecting life. The exact wording of Amendment 48 is on your ballot and in the blue voter guide. No surprises. There is no “abortion,” “contraception,” or “birth control” in the text of the proposal.
However, the amendment would have implications. All persons ought to be protected under the law. At present they are not. If personhood begins at fertilization, which is the only logical place, and accepted by science as the origin of a new life, that life ought to be protected. Some forms of contraception are potentially fatal to the smallest of human persons. For more information, see: http://www.abort73.com/HTML/II-D-birth_control.html
There are several forms of birth control that do not threaten human life. The first is abstinence, which Ben points out is rather unpopular. Another kind is also mentioned by Ben, as “barrier methods.” These would not be outlawed. If a couple still chose to have sex and wanted to avoid pregnancy, they have options. Also there is no guarantee that the government would enforce laws like this in the case of birth control, which is unfortunate. But the government fails to enforce many of its laws, good and bad.
Ben, nice talking point. I can read “goes to far” on any sign or advertisement against Amendment 48. The slogan is not particularly enlightening or relevant, but at least gives me an idea how much thought you have given to the matter.
To answer your questions: We need a generation with more babies. The current population reduction is going to devastate our economy, among other things. See the documentary made by university scholars (rather than family advocates), Demographic Winter.
Are they unwanted? No. As you say, the upporters of this amendment would like to raise these babies. Also if you had bothered to read the above comments, you would see that I already refuted this point by addressing how we created wantedness. Abortion and abortificient birth control create unwantedness in people. If a child is worth so little that it can be destroyed and thrown away before birth, parents are not being given a consistent reason to value their children after birth.
There is no law that goes too far in defining human life. Either a person is a person, no matter how small, or it isn’t. There’s no other way to define person, however. This is the only logical option. MURDER is what goes too far.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
Thank you Lisa,
Your convictions are unwaivering and that is rare. Life begins at conception, period. I will vote on any bill that protects the unborn. But I feel I am protecting the children of the world by promoting contraception. The recent Headline news of Caylee and thousands just like her is what I fear without contraception.
My own college student daughter was one cancelled appointment away from being aborted and is why I feel pasionate about pro-life. I did not come to the Lord until I was thirty, we live in a Society that is dark. So to advocate abstinence is commendable, but is impossible with a culture filled with pornography, Sex on TV, and the hollywood role models.
Thank you for this platform, I learned so much and will come back to it
(Paul made an *unpublished* comment on eptopic pregnancies, asserting that under Amendment 48 to remove the baby – who will die no matter what – will be illegal.)
This Amendment defines person as beginning at fertilization. An eptopic infant is a person. So is the mother. No one is saying that the right to life of one person trumps the rights of another person. The smaller, newer life is – at our present state of medical technology – going to die. Death is inevitable, which is tragic. No one in their right mind – yes, we pro-lifers are in our right minds – would tell a woman that she must risk her life to allow a dying infant to live a few days longer. That’s not the point.
I’m really tired of people bringing up worst case tragedy scenarios to say that we can’t protect human life from conception. You have to allow that this fertilized egg is a human being, and as such ought to be protected under the law. Amendment 48 says nothing about eptopic pregnancies. No pro-lifer says that a baby should be kept at the cost of the mother’s life, especially when the baby is going to die anyway. And if the pro-lifers don’t want to prosecute in a tragic situation like an eptopic pregnancy, I can’t think of anyone else who would.
Seriously, Paul. Name one person who has stated they would prosectute something like that.
No, the eptopic pregnancy argument is a straw man designed to discourage compassionate moral people from making the moral choice.
Vote YES on 48. Every life counts.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
Lisa, the fact that the amendment DOESN’T say anything about eptopic IS THE PROBLEM!
If it DID, I honestly wouldn’t have a big problem with it.
But the FACT that it DOESN’T, and that no supporters of the amendment are even DARING to confront this issue, is what puts ALL Colorado women at risk! Yeah, no one has said they would prosecute a case like that, but you sure as heck can’t find one legal professional who can say the state CAN’T if 48 passes.
And your right, no one in their right mind would ask a woman to suffer that horribly for a fetus that will die anyway. TOO BAD amendment 48 will trump over that right-minded logic! The whole “ask” part of that scenario will be thrown out the window! Women WILL BE TOLD that they have to suffer until the fetus is officially dead, because every doctor will fear they’ll be prosecuted for murder otherwise!
You may be “tired” of the worst-case scenario, but you HAVE to consider it. Real people have been through the worst-case scenario, and many many many more will in the future. Again, what if it happened to someone you love? What if you HAD TO WATCH her go through that pain? All because 48 passed? I don’t know about you, but I feel ill just thinking about putting someone I love in that situation.
We NEED to vote “NO!” on 48 RIGHT NOW to protect women and families! Maybe in the next election, we can have an amendment that tackles more of these issues, rather than just pretend they don’t exist. 48, as it stands right now, is far too general, and effects so much more than it was intended for.
Paul T. Shoink
Summit County, CO
PS, why not publish my last post? Medical facts and terminology too much? Sorry, I grew up with a sex-ed teacher for a mom. I’ve read so much literature on these sorts of things, I actually know how often these abnormalities occur and the horrific, graphic details of what happens. I just pray that women don’t have to go through anything like that (I actually held back a lot of details in that last post) and voting “no” on 48 is the only way to protect Colorado women from it.
Hello, Lisa!
Thank you for your tireless work on this ammendment. I serve as a sidewalk counselor at a notorious abortion clinic in Orlando, Fl. I serve with a ministry that acts as a last opportunity intervention on behalf of the pre-born. I cannot express to you how thakful I am for your research and shining example. I just read that the ammendment was rejected; however, don’t dismay! Progress will be attained one step at a time. Take comfort in the movie “Amazing Grace” based on the life of William Wilburforce. He fought to outlaw slavery in England. He met many challenges and refusals, but in time…we know the outcome 🙂 I would love to talk with you more about pushing to add this ammendment in Florida. Let’s keep this up!
check out the following link: http://www.22weeksthemovie.com
The movie is based on an actual live birth late term abortion in Orlando, Fl. Please spread the word on this movie- we are praying it will serve as an “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” for our country today.
Thank you again for all you do- may you feel encouraged by the awesome power of the Holy Spirit-
Spring Mingey
I am so relieved that the people of Colorado do not share your extreme taliban-like attitudes and have voted the “person”hood amendment down by an overwhelming majority. Your so called “battle” to save the unborn is over. May it never blight the earth with it’s attack on women ever again.
Paul, I did not post your comments for several reasons.
1. You did include graphic language which I was not in the mood to include on my blog.
2. This is my blog. Planned Parenthood and other anti-life groups pumped money into the No on 48 campaign, and did not need any extra help from comments spewing their lies.
3. In some cases you were obviously dishonest. For instance, you said every lawyer in Colorado agrees with you. This is not true. Amendment 48 had the help and approval of many lawyers in Colorado. I do not have to publish lies. And you gave no references for your assertions.
4. As this is my blog, the purpose of comment moderation is that I get to control the direction of the conversation. I will repeat that the issue to be debated over Amendment 48 was whether the assertion was true. Is a fertilized human egg a person? If not, when do you become a person and when do you stop? Yes, of course there are implications to this reality. But we should accept reality and deal with the implications, not debate about how inconvenient or uncomfortable or complicated it will be to avoid the destruction of human life wherever possible. The Colorado majority proved itself among the most selfish, foolish, reprobate, and deceived persons in history. All the same I grant your rights to due process and free speech.
Mark,
The fight to protect the unborn is most certainly not over. I went to the Planned Parenthood in Denver this morning myself to intercede for their lives. Ten small people were slaughtered there today. Half of all abortions in the US are a more vicious attack on women than any pro-life law ever imagined. Their arms and legs were ripped from their bodies. That reality seared on my mind will not allow me to give up the battle.
May your heart be softened to the truth.
Spring,
Thank you for your encouragement. This morning at the abortion clinic a friend was saying that he is hopeful. We still believe in a big God whose purposes are being done. This is my general view of things that don’t go my way. If I have so much prayed for things to go otherwise, and God says no, it is for an awesome good reason beyond my imagination. I believe He wants His people to get their priorities straight, and that He will get more glory, more people turned to Him for their only hope of salvation from sin and hell. We know the end of the story. May we have the courage to share wherever we go!
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn