Civil Religion reader Spyguy asks an excellent question located on the comment board under Abortion: Dehumanizing the Vulnerable:

“From a biological standpoint, there is a reason the AP uses that terminology. Not that they are right or wrong, but an explanation should be done. For there to be a pregnancy, TWO things are required (and, in full disclosure, I have no medical background). One, fertilization of the egg by the sperm. Second, the fertilized egg (using AP’s wording) needs to be implanted in the uterine wall to effect development. Then, and only then, does pregnancy happen. AP’s point is that the Colorado law would define a person at the first point, not the second. As you likely realize, the point of this law is to ban emergency contraception, which stops the second point, stopping pregnancy. That is why emergency contraception is referred to (incorrectly, by my opinion) as causing an abortion.…

Last week Colorado for Equal Rights announced that

“for the first time in US history, the issue of personhood will be decided in the public forum by a constitutional amendment”

and that the

“Colorado Secretary of State’s Office found that enough valid signatures were submitted to put the Every Human is a Person amendment on the November 2008 ballot. The Secretary of State’s Office’s random sampling indicated that there were 103,377 valid signatures, surpassing the 76,047 valid signatures that were required.”

The exact wording of the proposed state amendment is:

Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:

SECTION 1. Article II of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:

Section 31. Person defined.

As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms “person” or “persons” shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization.

That’s simple…