CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
October 29, 2010 02:40 AM UTC
77 Comments
Using babies to make fun of those trying to prevent people from killing them? That’s a new low for the left.
you’ll get over it.
It’s like a commercial with Jews making fun of an anti-Nazi film!!!
But, you know, keep exaggerating and lying about what abortion is. And keep being against the thing that would effectively end abortion – real sex education.
Nazis killed Jews. Abortions kill babies. What’s so hard to understand? Or is it just that you don’t want to burden your conscience with the truth?
I mean, what about the pill and other meds that prevent a fertilized egg from doing whatever it is that it does?
We’ll see more of those if Amendment 62 passes. Or we could just fill up the jails with rape victims.
Untreated preeclampsia and gestational diabetes don’t kill or permanently maim people at all. Least of all babies.
Turns out, apparently, that life begins at fertilization, but stops being precious at about four months. No doctors needed.
Vote Tancredo! He’s pro-life… if you can afford it!
can live outside of the mother, before that it is a parasite. Take some biology and anatomy and physiology classes, you might learn something.
he is a doctor. It must be on his Facebook page with all that other true stuff
whoa … them are sciences!
Y’all remember Beej was 1st (& only) in his home-skooling class and you outta know that the accredited text for him was the one with that zombie-jesus story. I doubt Beej would’ve run into those sciences.
I hate this argument because of the sheer stupidity and ignorance on both sides. Parasites and their hosts have to be of different species. DUH. Therefore, a fetus is NEVER a parasite.
The issue in abortion is not biological. It is legal. When does the fetus become a person? The law of the land is that the fetus becomes a person when he/she takes his/her first independent breath.
If you don’t like that, then act to change the constitution. If you do agree and feel that the law is threatened, then act to put an amendment guaranteeing abortion rights at all stages of pregnancy.
Otherwise. All of you, STFU. please.
where a fetus, stealing nutrients and sustainability from the mother can kill the mother. I have, I am a nurse and a fetus is a parasite.
There is no symbiosis from a fetus, it just takes from the mother until birth.
Your use of parasite is simply wrong. Isn’t symbiosis a condition of a relationship between parasite and host? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the fetus is a cancerous tumor.
But it would be helpful if you would name the conditions in which a fetus is
from the mother.
the blood and nutrients it lives off of, are drawn from the mother. Most women become anemic during pregnancy, you know why, because the fetus takes the iron from the mother’s blood. The fetus takes all of it’s nutrition from the mother through the placenta and umbilical cord.
Let’s talk about gestational diabetes and preeclamsia as well.
Women take prenatal vitamins with iron in order to guard against anemia. Cite your source for the statement:
Gestational diabetes and preeclamsia are both complications of pregnancy, not a normal condition.
Pregnancy is a normal condition, not a disease state.
Every hour, 40 pregnant women and new mothers around the world die.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
Where in the constitution does it talk about the fetus not being a baby until it draws its first breath?
Calling babies parasites? You’re starting to sound like a full blooded Aryan.
then you can decide what to do with your own uterus, until then keep your government out of my bedroom and away from my body.
Yeah Davie Chestnutz go ahead and preach to crowd about TRUTH. Tell us how you speak * live the TRUTH everyday day.
Immature, imbecilic lying hypocrites should really STFU!
the truth doesn’t matter. The anti-choice have arbitrarily decided, without any kind of observational evidence or accurate scriptural interpretation, that life begins at conception. They did this because retaining control over women is paramount and there is no lie too big to serve that purpose. Also, it was an easy slogan for the sheep (Beej and his ilk) to bleat wherever they go, and like sheep they can’t be dissuaded. Don’t waste your keystrokes.
What makes a person unique? Answer, their DNA. Life begins at conception because that is the moment when the new DNA is created.
You’re trying to base this debate in biology. You know, the same thing that tells us that evolution is how we all got here. You can’t accept some of what it tells you and reject the rest.
Trying to base an abortion debate in biology! What was I thinking?
Because you can’t reject that and make this line of argument.
Or do you reject evolution?
… you were being dishonest and don’t really believe in the science of biology. Glad we got that point cleared up, because it means that the whole thing for you is faith and no evidence.
Faith is great, but as long as many other people of faith disagree with you, then it’s fascistic to cram your views down our throats. Fortunately, we have separation of church and state, so faith-based policy is unconstitutional.
You really crumble under not very intense scrutiny, beej, because your ideas aren’t rooted in reality.
Just not the theory of evolution. In fact I have worked with biologists in the past.
Biologically, a new life begins at conception. Legally, a new person exists from the moment of birth forward. The person has full civil rights, the life between conception and birth does not.
I don’t understand why it is so difficult to understand the two concepts. It is not necessary for me to distort or deny biological reality. Why do you find it necessary? I really am curious.
I agree about the legal definition. Anti-choicers want to change that definition.
When an evangelical anti-choicer claims life begins at conception, they really mean that that’s when the zygote acquires a soul. They don’t say that directly, but calling it “the taking of a life” or “murder” is completely senseless unless you believe it has a soul. So the metaphysical debate is at the heart of the matter.
Biologically the life process is taking place from fertilization, it’s true; but is that the same as saying that it’s alive? As long as it is completely dependent on its mother (that is, until birth), the answer is No.
perhaps the law should be changed. Hence Amendment 62.
Zygotes aren’t people.
Talking to you is like banging your head against a brick wall while drinking vodka and vomiting, all at the same time. We just discussed the biological beginnings of life in the thread above. Try to think before you type.
if you understood your own positions and stick to them. You just admitted upthread that you were only taking advantage that someone brought up biology to start arguing that line; you rather quickly painted yourself into a corner because you don’t know the first thing about that discipline.
Don’t want to feel so frustrated? Another tip would be not to engage with people like me who understand these topics a whole lot better than you. Just stick to talking to basement warrior and No2Having a life, and you’ll be much happier.
You of all people seem to care about my views a lot, because you keep commenting.
Was it because he hadn’t read it? Does he expect to decide how to vote on bills without reading them first? Don’t we have enough of that already?
Welcome to the Tea Party.
but please, try to hold onto one little shred of sanity?
He never “promised not to read bills”. Liar.
Your statement, here, is bizarre.
This is why I hate the gd debate. It makes no sense and both sides throw out preposterous statements which only have validity within a religious context…on which people don’t agree.
Law shouldn’t be based on internal beliefs, upon which no consensus can be built, but there are enough voters who relate to these issues emotionally rather than rationally.
If you disagree with, or find bizarre, my statement, you’re free to share with me what you think is wrong with it. I thought the context was clear – life begins at birth. But we’ll be entering the realm of internal belief if you do. 🙂
it is not life until it can be viable on its own.
Cite a reputable medical source for your statement:
I am a woman. Sorry if I don’t want you determining what i can have living inside of me.
http://aappolicy.aappublicatio…
Just so you know.
Wow, that’s a big error. Sorry!
He/she has been preaching that Democrats should in NO way use choice vs. anti-choice as a wedge issue against Republicans. He/she believes that only Republicans are allowed to do that.
He/she has been preaching the same message this entire election cycle. Democrats shouldn’t talk about abortion at all.
Not sure why he/she isn’t upfront about it.
That, or s/he feels that it plays into their hands to talk about it.
S/he used the term “anti choice” on this very thread. I can’t see any actual anti choice advocate doing that. Well, maybe beej would when he’s being a deceitful concern troll, but that simply isn’t dwyer’s style.
Dressing it up as “taking the high road” amounts to the same as surrendering. Dems have been doing it for decades. And losing. I’m sick of Dems allowing Republicans to control the narrative when it comes to choice.
When it comes to being pro-choice and pro-gay rights, two supposedly Dem principles, when are we going to start using them as wedge issues against Republicans instead of the other way round? This election cycle has shown us that it is possible if we don’t allow our own side to derail or deter us.
thanking people like Michael Bennet voicing that choice is fundamental as a Dem and as a woman.
Potential life is a sperm or an egg with only half the baby’s DNA.
it dies because it is dependent on its host ie mother for survival. If it can’t exist on its own it is a parasite.
They die, because they are dependent on their brains for survival.
when you can bear children, all by yourself, then you can determine what happens inside a woman.
I would doubt you have any idea what to do with a woman. Are you holding onto your virginity until marriage, if not you aren’t a very good christian.
I think you could easily go about three months without needing yours.
spoofing the Personhood video wasn’t intended to solve the abortion debate. It’s pointing out that equating the President to the “Angel of Death” is simply batshit crazy. And who better to point that out than the snarky–if somewhat absurd–Etrade babies?
where the discussion veered away from the original point. It happens.
The subject should not be spoofed. The attack on the President is god awful. One of the reasons I hate this line of debate is that the repubs have been using the issue to inflame for over thirty years.
What you people who call yourselves pro-choice don’t understand is that the so-called pro-lifers know that nothing is going to change and so they can rant and rave without seeing the law change, plus I think there is a sick interest in trotting out the gory details of abortion.
Have any of you tried to explain one of this ads to a six year old?
As far as I can tell, no one is “spoofing” abortion. The video mocks the over-the-top rhetoric decrying the President as Evil Incarnate. I’m pretty sure everyone “gets” that the Personhood breed of pro-lifers likes to rant and rave.
And why in the world would you let a six-year old watch that ad? Shouldn’t you be asking that of the Personhood people? Fair guess says they are also the ones who put bloody fetus posters into the hands of their own 6 year-olds.
It’s a little bit too close for comfort for six year olds. They just made it out of the womb alive a few years ago.
Okay, I have an old computer and old eyes. I have not seen the video nor do I know where it is being shown. Is it on commercial or cable TV? As for six year olds, other than PBS all the time, it is impossible for any kid to avoid hearing tv ads…they are already, in my house of many colors, asking what is abortion???
Kids pick up on adults uneasiness and so this is a factor….hence my question.
This is the argument I would make against it.
1) Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, it would trump any change in the state constitution regarding abortion. Passage of #62 would not immediately outlaw abortion or the pill. PERIOD.
2) If #62 were to pass, then some argue the proponents would use it to challenge Roe at the Supreme Court.
3) The argument which these pro #62 people put forth is not that life begins at conception and therefore a person exists with full rights under the constitution, from conception forward but that abortion should be decided at the state level.
So, the pro #62ers and mainstream pro-lifer/anti-choice ers do not believe in constitutional rights for the fetus, they think that state’s rights are more important that civil rights. This is part of their plot to destroy the effectiveness of the federal constitution. If Roe were overturned and #62 was the law of the state, then indeed abortion would be outlawed in the state. More likely, #62 is not going to be passed. It is increasingly possible that Roe will be overturned, alerting Coloradoans to that possibility is the ONLY legitimate reason to be discussing abortion. FRaming the debate in its legal terms would be worthwhile. But, that is not happening.
Strategically; Conservatives, particularly those of the catholic persuation require a pledge….that candidates say that they are pro-life. It is understood that this is not a call to action, it is just a rubberstamp, like kissing the bishop’s ring or saying you are for the Broncos..or were…
When the issue becomes a focus in a debate, two things happen – the conservative/catholic/republican voters are reminded, again, that the candidate is “on their side”…helps the vote for them. It also allows the catholic bishop to tell their flock who they must vote for….the anti-abortion candidates….without naming names which could compromise the churchs’ tax exempt status.
Dems go ballistic and make outrageous statements which
may inflame their base, which was going to vote for them anyway.
Pregnancy is of course not a disease anymore than being a sexually active female is a disease state. Life is not fair for women.
What the law intends, and what the law will do are two very different things.
It usually is applied to new technology. So how do you see that being relevant here? Serious question, I simply don’t know.
My assumption is that the right wing wants to champion states rights over federally secured constitutional civil rights…and that having all the states fighting over abortion would be music to their ears.
Maybe that’s something you can shrug off but I take it pretty seriously. You can’t amend our constitution to grant inalienable rights and expect it to have zero consequences.