Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Pro-life rebuttal

June 25, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

I have to respond to Anna Slemmer’s letter to the editor on June 20 ridiculing those who are pro-life. I am neither a “gray-haired old man” nor an “unmarried clergyman” (as you stereotyped those who oppose abortion), and yet I am pro-life. Why? Not because I want to keep women pregnant, in the kitchen and dependent, as you indicate in your letter. I am a woman, for heaven’s sake, one who is pretty darn independent at that. And it’s certainly not because I haven’t forgiven Eve for what happened in the garden, as your letter states. Where did that idea even come from?

But I’m pro-life because I believe in protecting babies, innocent little ones, who have no say on what happens to them in the womb. I believe that every unborn child should have a chance at life. It’s as simple as that. And if that is archaic, so be it. I will always advocate for those most helpless, especially the unborn.

Comments

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

"But I’m pro-life because I believe in protecting babies, innocent little ones, who have no say on what happens to them in the womb. I believe that every unborn child should have a chance at life. It’s as simple as that. And if that is archaic, so be it. I will always advocate for those most helpless, especially the unborn."

Innocent little ones? As opposed to the guilty gargantuans? Who have no say 'cuz they're in the womb? Since when were babies vocal advocates once born?

I do apologize for the sarcastic retorts, but those were pretty silly sentences. "I'm pro-life because I believe in the sanctity of life" would have been simpler and wiser. Just sayin'.

1

Pastor_Bedtime 2 years, 2 months ago

Diane, you're welcome to your opinion. Deeming it as policy for the nation is an entirely different matter. You can control yourself ~ but you're going to be frustrated when you learn your control doesn't extend over the nation. It's a sign of maturity to recognize when you simply have no control over some things, and as such the so-called "pro-life" movement really need to grow up.

8

Windemere 2 years, 2 months ago

Though Diane's opinion is simply stated, there's no denying that this is a complicated, difficult issue. Both sides often respond with poorly thought-out one-liners. For the pro-choicers, it's often "Don't like abortion? Don't have one." To an abolishionist, should a slaveholder have said "Don't like slavery? Don't own a slave." Aren't such emotionally-charged, childish one-liners unhelpful in discussing this issue? I direct this question to both sides.

1

Pastor_Bedtime 2 years, 2 months ago

Equating the war against choice to the war against slavery holds no consideration to the pesky little detail of a woman's sovereignity over her own privacy and reproductive capabilities.
I think it's quite helpful to boil the issue down to it's core: some folks agenda will not stop until they fully control women's private decisions. Abortion, contraception, family planning are all the government's business to them. A big-brother government fully intends to manage and oversee the wombs of the nation, while waving their flags like they've freed the slaves.

4

mom_of_three 2 years, 2 months ago

I agree that windmere's comparison of abortion to slavery in his context is a little incorrect. Women now have a right to their bodies, something that slave women never had. And slaveholders probably did tell abolitionists not to own slaves if they didn't like it.

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 2 months ago

Pastor, you are exactly half correct. Boiling it down to it's core, there is indeed a group of folks wanting to control women's reproductivity. But there is another group as well, one that when boiling down to their core, want to give to individuals the rights to make decisions that are downright abhorrent.
Let's discuss the medical field (or more generally, any professional field). What we have seen is that if you want to find a doctor who will do something, anything, that doctor can be found. Look at medical marijuana. It's a joke. When doctor's advertise in High Times magazine, when perfectly healthy 21 years olds can get a prescription through an assembly line practice, then it's become a joke. Recently, we've debated whether or not doctor's can/will lie to their patients. Of course some will. Why? Because they're human. How about that doctor who just lost her license. Another practitioner willing to follow a set agenda rather than practicing good medicine.
So, where does that leave us. We might all agree that a very, very late term pregnancy should not be terminated without some very good, compelling reason. Something like the health of the mother being in jeopardy. But might that include her mental health? Or might we find some medical practitioner who will provide that same medical marijuana assembly line quality and rubber stamp every single one of those very, very late term pregnancies with an ill conceived bogus diagnosis. There is no reason to believe we won't see such a thing. And if we boil it down to it's core, as you say, there is that other group defending what can only be called abhorrent. It's for reasons like this that the radicals on both sides need to be reigned in. Policy needs to be established that will anger both the radicals on the fringes, the extremists who will go to great lengths to say this is about rights and principles, when we all know that their rights and principles have gone and will continue to go too far. No, you may not cry fire in a crowded theater. No, you may not deny a woman her reproductive freedom. No you may not have a late term abortion because it bums you out and you found some quack doctor to rubber stamp that diagnosis.

0

Windemere 2 years, 2 months ago

But don't you see that I can easily say you forgot the pesky little detail that reasonable people can disagree about when human life deserves protection? I am making the following up as a hypothetical, but let's say 70% of people think first trimester abortion is OK since the developing cells are deserving of protection. A lot fewer think it's OK at 5 months. Very few think it's OK in the last trimester. Probably a tiny percent think it's OK in the last trimester if the reason for the abortion has nothing to do with health of the mother or the fetus or rape or incest . The point is, doesn't the fetus deserve protection at some point, and if you agree with that, at what point? And it's interesting that you provide an example of what the letter writer was countering - that people who are against abortion want to control women's lives, etc. That's a straw man argument that dodges the core issues.Again, these are tough questions, but hurling insults and name-calling doesn't move the discussion forward.

0

Carmalee Winebrinner 2 years, 2 months ago

Are you saying that people who are against abortion DON'T want to control women's lives??

If my right to decide what to do with my own body is NOT the core issue, then what the heck is??

Your straw man argument is in itself a straw man argument.

When our country will give unquestioning support to a pregnant woman prior to birth, and unquestioning support to a mother and child after birth (if needed), THEN AND ONLY THEN will you even get me to listen to your argument of the fetus deserving protection. Until that time, you are not entitled to tell me what to do with my body.

0

jafs 2 years, 2 months ago

I think many opposed to abortion do want to control women's choices, but I also think that others are genuinely concerned that there's a moral issue involved in abortion, and that it's not simply "the woman's body", once there's a developing fetus in her womb.

It's not quite morally equivalent to cutting your fingernails, even for me.

0

imastinker 2 years, 2 months ago

I couldn't have said it better myself!

We as a society have agreed that while we have a great deal of personal freedom, that freedom is limited in certian ways, like building codes and laws against theft and rape and murder. I have freedom to walk about swinging my arms around wildly, but not the instant my arms come in contact with another person. You argument implies we have freedom to do anything with out bodies we want, but that's simply not the case. It's a dishonest argument, meant to draw an emotional response and distract from the real issue.

The real issue is simply about whether that is a human being in there, subject to the same constitutional protections that you and I have. You say no, I say yes. All the other arguments are peripheral nonsense and a complete waste of time.

0

Windemere 2 years, 2 months ago

Others have made this point, but I'll make it again: A person who voices the opinion that fetuses, at some point, deserve protection from abortion is not necessarily motivated by the desire to control womens' lives. His or her desire may well be to save a defenseless human life. People who hold that view should not be demonized in my opinion. Very few people who are pro-choice should be demonized (maybe only the very fringe ones who are motivated by, say, racism). I also don't understand the argument that "People shouldn't be against abortion unless they figure out a way to properly care for all the children who would otherwise be born to mothers who don't want them."Again, to many people who are against abortion, it's about preserving a defenseless human life. I don't think anyone would argue that live babies born to bad mothers with no resources can rightfully be murdered. To many people, abortion is murder. You can say they're wrong, but their motivation is to save human life.

0

jafs 2 years, 2 months ago

The point is that if they really care about life, they should care about children once they're born.

0

Windemere 2 years, 2 months ago

And if they say they do care, that they donate to charities, they support adoption, etc., then does that pass the test of caring? Or do they pass the test only if the child is provided a middle class lifestyle, college, etc? Would the child say "I just want to live, even if I don't have a perfect life"? Many people who were born with great challenges have gone on to do amazing things that helped all of humanity. Again, it all comes down to this: at what point do we decide that the growing human life has a right to protection. It's that simple. Not an easy issue, to be sure.

0

jafs 2 years, 2 months ago

It's not that simple - it's a very complicated issue.

If they say...doesn't mean a thing to me - I judge people by their actions. People who care about others show that in a variety of ways, including their personal actions and the social policies they support or oppose.

Somebody who claims to be "pro life", but once children are born, leaves them on their own both personally and by their political actions, clearly doesn't care about human life.

Especially if they also support the death penalty and are pro-war, as so many on the right seem to be.

0

jafs 2 years, 2 months ago

And, many people born with great challenges become drug addicts and criminals, and die tragically young.

If you look at the statistics, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of those born in lower socio-economic circles never get much past those, especially these days, when social mobility is lower than it ever has been in this country.

0

greatldy 2 years, 2 months ago

"Diane, you're welcome to your opinion. Deeming it as policy for the nation is an entirely different matter."

This really is an important point. We are going to have different beliefs, but our laws apply to all. In this country all beliefs are allowed.

Perhaps instead of slavery as an analogy it should be prohibition. In this case too we have regulation, that's never going to make the extremes happy.

But another difference between your beliefs and national policy is what it accomplishes. As much as you might think simply making something illegal actually stops it, then what really happens is that you just create criminals. Pro-lifer's need to acknowledge the historical results of abortion regulation, etc. which actually has decreased abortions. Just as prohibition was not obtainable on a national level, so is the pro-life objectives.

Our mess in Washington today is that we are only represented by the extremes; nothing else will satisfy either side but 100% victory. Nobody will listen, nobody will think, nobody will respect the other. We are a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

1

streetman 2 years, 2 months ago

Nicely stated, Diane. The US abortion holocaust is as much a stain on humanity as any of the other holocausts in human history.

0

jayhawklawrence 2 years, 2 months ago

Here is an interesting story that I find especially important regarding this issue. It is about the history of the politization of abortion and birth control.

http://www.npr.org/2011/11/09/142097521/how-birth-control-and-abortion-became-politicized

Excerp from the author's interview:

"I really do think that it is the great tragedy of American politics that this issue divides us so profoundly. It's a very painful issue to talk to just about anybody with, and I think there's a surprising lack of basic human charity when people talk about this issue, no matter what their position. I feel that so much of the kind of murderous rhetoric of American politics and what we decry as the 'decline of civility' or 'hyperpartisanship' are really troubling as a citizen to watch. And I do think that even when we're not talking about abortion, we are talking about abortion."

Diane does a good job expressing her point of view and it is a viewpoint that I used to agree with. However, I believe there has been too much political exploitation regarding this issue and it is damaging our country. People who are not qualified for office are being elected and the overall result is not good.

I also believe that the issue is much more complex and simply making it illegal for a woman to decide what she can do with her body does not address this issue in a satisfactory or even a moral way. The idea that there are millions of women murdering babies is a charge that is not fair.

4

rtwngr 2 years, 2 months ago

"..for a woman to decide what to do with her body..."

Herein lies the rub. When does her body end and the child begin. Those of us who are pro-life believe that at the moment of conception a whole new body begins. A separate DNA, nervous system, heartbeat, etc. Just because the mother is a means for life support does not mean that she has the right to end that life arbitrarily. Take the example of a new born infant. The infant is still totally dependent upon the mother. If the child is separated from the mother and left to its own devices it will die. Our society does not allow that. Just because you cannot see it and hold it does not make it less a human.

1

jafs 2 years, 2 months ago

You may believe that, but it's far from obviously true.

The two systems are linked inextricably in ways that are different from the connection after birth.

0

Patricia Davis 2 years, 2 months ago

And where in the debate is the mother's right to live her life according to her choice? I don't believe most people think abortion is a wonderful form of birth control. It is not. Life is complicated. There are often times that complex and difficult decisions have to be made. I believe these heart wrenching decision must be made by the woman and her doctor. Certainly not someone else's religious beliefs. Certainly not the government.

jayhawklawrence is right that this issue has been made to whip up people in a frenzy and cause them not to look at the whole picture of what is needed in leadership in our country and in our state.

It is cruel that the party that is so rabid about making abortion impossible is also the same party that does not support a caring social safety net. That is the party that believes in the sanctity of life but that intense caring ends at birth.

6

whats_going_on 2 years, 2 months ago

"It is cruel that the party that is so rabid about making abortion impossible is also the same party that does not support a caring social safety net. That is the party that believes in the sanctity of life but that intense caring ends at birth."

agreed. Or those who oppose birth control as well. Make no sense to me.

5

rtwngr 2 years, 2 months ago

None of us get to go through life without having to make choices that serve the greater good. This is not a Burger King life where we always get it our way. That is the problem with our society. This is what has been taught for the last 40 to 50 years. If you want something then you should have it. No. It isn't always about us. Sometimes we are obligated to the greater good of others. That would even include carrying a pregnancy to term for the sake of not killing a fellow human regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy. I know that sounds so radical to a lot of you but what greater gift is there than allowing a human to live when you hold that decision of life and death? We pretend that a child in the womb isn't a human when we know differently. We pretend that organizations like Planned Parenthood are serving the greater good when they make, literally, a killing off of abortion. No pun intended. We hear that only 5% of their services are abortion but the dirty little secret is the percentage of their revenues generated by abortion. We have become a society where we don't want to be looked at as the monsters we really are.

0

jafs 2 years, 2 months ago

Fascinating.

The argument about limiting freedom and being obligated to act for the common good is usually made by liberals, and strongly resisted by conservatives.

Taxes and social programs, anybody?

0

whats_going_on 2 years, 2 months ago

I don't agree with you, but I'm not going to tell you you're wrong either. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, as long as they don't shove them down the throats of others.

Just making a point that not every "Larryville Lefty" is out to get you.

Have a fantabulous week :)

2

lunacydetector 2 years, 2 months ago

Abortion isn't reproductive freedom. The woman has already reproduced. It's getting rid of her reproduction after the fact is all that matters to a pro-abortionist - in the name of freedom, but of course.

1

Windemere 2 years, 2 months ago

So is abortion OK in your view as a means of birth control when the fetus would be viable outside the womb? I just want to understand the logical extension of your position.

0

Windemere 2 years, 2 months ago

So, put another way, one minute before an apparently healthy, full term baby is born, it's OK in your mind to kill it. The instant it is born, it's not OK. Can't wrap my mind around that. Sure are a range of opinions on this topic.

0

Windemere 2 years, 2 months ago

Many laws have existed in this country that were abhorrent and immoral. Are you saying that the test of whether or not you support something is dependent on whether it is legal? Denying black people the right to vote, denying black people equal access to education, denying people the right to engage in whatever type of consensual sex they want -- just a few examples of the efffect of laws. Aren't there moral imperatives that supercede the law? Another question: I assume you are a man; if your wife were 9 months pregnant and was attacked by someone and the baby died, would you want the perpetrator charged with the baby's murder? Or was the attack just an assault on your wife?

0

Windemere 2 years, 2 months ago

I suppose I am confused, then, by your preceding statements: "The woman has a right to control her body, which is absolute. That the fetus would be viable is only a probability. Modern medicine is amazing, but there are no guarantees. I would not violate the rights of the alive in favor of those who are not yet fully alive, even if the chances of viability are high." I had the impression you were not troubled by the thought of aborting a healthy, full-term fetus. I guess I'll leave it at that.

0

Ragingbear 2 years, 2 months ago

How about you advocate for the women that want birth control so that abortion does not become an issue. Hypocrite.

2

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 2 months ago

I too am all for protecting babies.

Unborn human embryos and fetuses are not babies.

No one knows when a human fetus becomes a baby, but it is likely some time in the early third trimester.

This is why our current laws restricting late term abortions are correct, and is also why abortion should be accessible at earlier times.

3

tbaker 2 years, 2 months ago

Well said Diane. I agree.

I have no quarrel with people who argue that women have "reproductive rights." They most certainly do, as do men. Intercourse is a choice for men and women the vast majority of the time. Both the man and the woman have the right to exercise their reproductive rights and decline. If a man and a woman chose to engage in intercourse, they then take on the responsibility for the child that may result. Once they have created a human life, this life has the same rights their lives do. Arguing said "reproductive rights" extend to taking the life of another human being because they do not want the responsibility of a child at that point in their life violates the inalienable human rights of the unborn child.

The only way to prop up the pro-choice argument is to establish the idea that human life doesn't begin until the child actually exits the womb into the world. You can’t violate the rights of another human being if you can define the life growing in the woman is not a human life. This fails the common sense test. Few things in science are better defined than the beginning of human life. Pro-choice is nothing more than pro-convenience. It’s a way to dodge personal responsibility cloaked in a sanctimonious subterfuge of women’s rights and relativism.

Of course this is none of this is the Federal Government’s business. The whole matter should be left to the states. Roe v. Wade violates the 10th amendment.

0

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 2 months ago

"Few things in science are better defined than the beginning of human life."

Please lay out the definition of when human life begins.

0

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 2 months ago

I would also add to make sure it is the scientific definition of human life.

I am interested to know.

0

jayhawklawrence 2 years, 2 months ago

"Few things in science are better defined than the beginning of human life."

This of course is only an opinion, not a fact, and is based on one person's religious bias. Science has challenged conventional thinking throughout history and it has been highly beneficial to do so. If we relied solely on religious leaders to govern our lives I am afraid we would not have advanced very far as a civilization.

I have come to believe that the choice in this issue belongs to the mother and it should not belong to any government or powerful religious group.

If a person truly wants to reduce the number of abortions they should choose a different strategy than to try to legislate away a woman's right to choose. Perhaps only then will we start to unify around solutions that unite our country instead of divide it.

2

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 2 months ago

Exactly how so? How is the "pro-abortion" position dishonest?

0

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 2 months ago

You will have to do better than that, tange.

I do like your new icon.

0

jayhawklawrence 2 years, 2 months ago

For one thing, there is no pro-abortion movement.

Who is being dishonest?

1

Armored_One 2 years, 2 months ago

By God, you WILL carry that fetus to full term. What you do after that, we don't care, but we will be damned if our tax money will be spent on abortions...

Can you be a bigger laugh?

How about tax money being spent to pay for neonatal care in the hopsital, especially when the person using it is on Medicare?

How about food stamps?

Foster care?

More tax money goes into those three spots than could ever go into abortion. Abortion is a one time thing. Food stamps are not a one time thing. But go ahead. Delude yourselves a bit further as to whether your tax money doesn't go towards the fetus...

The rest of us need more laughs.

1

tomatogrower 2 years, 2 months ago

I have no problem with people who are against abortion trying to convince women not to get one, as long as it's done in a factual, truthful way. I do have a problem with those who oppose abortion, but who are against helping the children afterwards. Want to prove to me that you care? Ask your legislators to provide good schools. Quit stereotyping all people on welfare as bums. Encourage government support of daycare, so mothers can work and not be on welfare. Adopt plenty of kids. Quit whining about paying taxes, so that we can take care of children.

And lastly, and most importantly, quit trying to promote abstinence only sex ed classes. People used to get married soon after their sexual maturity. With good nutrition that maturity is coming younger and younger. But we ask them to extend their childhood and not get married until an older and older age. Our society has created this dilemma. At least let them have the knowledge to keep from getting pregnant, because I don't think you are going to keep them from having sex.

1

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 2 months ago

Calling those who support the availability of abortion "pro-abortion" amounts to dishonest name-calling.

It is the equivalent of calling pro-life people "anti-choice".

No one is pro-abortion any more than anyone is pro-bowel resection or pro-cancer surgery.

Abortion is not good thing. Nor are other invasive medical procedures. Abortion is no nonetheless a necessary medical procedure in many cases.

To demagogue and harangue on such a sensitive and personal subject as abortion is truly ungodly behavior.

1

tbaker 2 years, 2 months ago

In cases where the life of the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy, the mother's life trumps the unborn child's life. She was here first. Simple as that.

I'm wondering if it is OK to even call a pregnant woman a "mother?" Maybe she is just a pregnant woman. If she decides to give birth, then you can call her a Mother, otherwise I suppose she is just a person "suffering" from a human fetus (medical) condition in need of said "medical procedure."

0

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

Oxymoron: "It is cruel that the party that is so rabid about making abortion impossible is also the same party that does not support a caring social safety net. That is the party that believes in the sanctity of life but that intense caring ends at birth."

There have been some very thoughtful and rational comments, including oxy's up to the above conclusion. Impressive for this topic on this board, I'm sincerely appreciative.

That being said, give me an ever-loving break w/ that pile of horse puckey, Oxy. And before I go on, understand that I'm pro-choice.
The "party" you refer to are Americans first and foremost, free to form their own opinions and value systems. Secondly, it's NOT an issue that's 'party' specific, no matter how much the politicians pretend to make it so. Third, attempting to counter anti-abortion vs. personal responsibility, as if believing in the sanctity of life is somehow contradictory if you don't want to play wet nurse for those that abuse our system after THEIR "fact" is, 1) little more than a regurgitated talking point, and 2) inexplicably naive.

I believe in freedom of choice, over all else, because I'm a man. I do not believe I have any say whatsoever in the choices a woman makes regarding her body. But the epic failure from the Liberal POV on this issue is that everyone should be free to do what they want because everyone else can just pick up the pieces if someone else falls short, has bad luck , or are just plain, lazy, stupid, or manipulative.

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe in a collective humanity, a Utopia, but it never includes carte blanche. We're neighbors, friends, strangers, collaborators; as Humans we've proven countless capacity to love each other and thrive in times of need. But rationality and honesty are not bedrocks of political discourse. Remember that in the future when issues like this rise up.

0

Richard Heckler 2 years, 2 months ago

Pro-Life/Pro Family/Pro Choice describes a ton of people. I've never met a pro abortion person in my life....

There are a lot of ways to prevent abortions which is to say it's important to keep all options available.

Thank you Planned Parenthood for being Pro Life/Pro Family/Pro Choice not to mention providing sensitive guidance and practical thinking.

Abortion Prevention Methods

* Abstinence
* Birth Control Implant (Implanon and Nexplanon)
* Birth Control Patch (Ortho Evra)
* Birth Control Pills
* Birth Control Shot (Depo-Provera)
* Birth Control Sponge (Today Sponge)
* Birth Control Vaginal Ring (NuvaRing)
* Breastfeeding as Birth Control
* Cervical Cap (FemCap)
* Condom
* Diaphragm
* Female Condom
* Fertility Awareness-Based Methods (FAMs)
* IUD
* Morning-After Pill (Emergency Contraception)
* Outercourse
* Spermicide
* Sterilization for Women
* Vasectomy
* Withdrawal (Pull Out Method)

Thank You Planned Parenthood

0

Linda Endicott 2 years, 2 months ago

I don't think you or a lot of other people on these forums understand something very important in the abortion debate...it doesn't matter if it's legal or illegal...it will still exist and still be done...

Just as it existed and was done decades and decades before it was made legal to do so...if abortion were made illegal again tomorrow, it would still exist, and would still be done...desperate people will do desperate things, especially if they're teenagers...

I am pro-choice...you are obviously not...but neither of our opinions matter to a person who is going through an unwanted pregnancy and feels desperate...they will do what they think they need to do, regardless of the legalities of it..

.I wish that abortions were infrequent, only used in cases of medical necessity (and I DO consider rape or incest or the age of the girl/woman medical necessities)...I wish that no one ever got an abortion just to make their lives more convenient...

But realistically, I know that kind of world doesn't exist, never has, and never will...so I don't see much point in making abortion illegal again, as it wouldn't stop people in the least from continuing to do it...just as other laws don't stop people from drinking and driving, or killing others, or abusing children, or robbing stores, etc., etc....

If you could guarantee that all the babies resulting from those unwanted pregnancies would be adopted, would be well cared for, have wonderful, marvelous lives, there might be fewer people who would choose abortion...but you can't promise such a thing, no one can...

And so there are always going to be desperate girls/women who believe that a child would be better off not existing at all rather than go through a life where they can't or won't be able to provide properly for everything those babies will need...

And it doesn't matter at all what either of us thinks about it...

0

jafs 2 years, 2 months ago

So would you eliminate laws about murder, drunk driving, etc. because they're not 100% effective?

1

Linda Endicott 2 years, 2 months ago

No, that wasn't the point I was trying to make...sure, certain things should be illegal (though I don't think abortion should be one of them)...but the laws don't seem to have nearly as much of a deterrent effect as some people think they do...

Illegal or not, there are just some things that are going to happen anyway...and if getting abortion made illegal again is what the pro-life people want, and they really think that will change anything, they're mistaken...

0

jayhawklawrence 2 years, 2 months ago

We are not helping the youth of our country by allowing politicians to politicize this issue for their personal agenda which is what has happened.

There are many other pathways to dealing with a whole range of issues related to abortion which we need to get to work on and the only thing I am hearing is that Republicans want to cut taxes on the rich and cut social programs because they are "sinful" according to Anthony Brown of Eudora.

This is the guy who said God called him to Topeka to cut spending.

This kind of thinking is not helpful at all.

0

Kirk Larson 2 years, 2 months ago

The only people who are pro-abortion are those who are opposed to comprehensive sex education and availability of contraception. They are doing the most to see that unplanned and unwanted pregnancies occur.

0

jaywalker 2 years, 2 months ago

"They are doing the most to see that unplanned and unwanted pregnancies occur."

Where rational discussion hits the ditch.

1

Kirk Larson 2 years, 2 months ago

Educate people and make contraception easily available and unwanted pregnancies will decrease dramatically. Keep them ignorant and without contraception and see how fast they rise.

0

Dignitas 2 years, 2 months ago

Have you ever watch an abortion being done? Have you ever seen an aborted child? If you have watched one you've seen the child trying to flee from the vacuum that is after him or her... that vacuum tears the feet, arms, legs off her body then crushes the torso into the vacuum then the head is consumed. The assistant to the abortionist is then responsible to put the body parts back together to make sure they have gotten all the little girl or boy out of the womb. Or there is the injection where she or he is burned. Then there's the cases of those aborted and are still alive and the little girl or boy is put in a pan or something to finish dying. Or there is ... I could go on and on. To me this sound like someone else's body not the female choosing the abortion.

1

Dignitas 2 years, 2 months ago

Also... not having sex is what keeps you from getting pregnant. Contraceptives are considered by the the UN World Health Organization as a class one carcinogen. With everyone wanting to be all green or organic why you want to poison your body? On the other hand everyone one knows contraceptives are cheap and easy to get so the newest line of crap that government, churches etc should pay for it is just another way of giving up your life in a ever growing form of governmental control over everything in your life.

1

Linda Endicott 2 years, 2 months ago

So you want people to stop having sex?

Good luck on that one...

0

jayhawklawrence 2 years, 2 months ago

If it was my decision, it would be very difficult for me to end a life. I believe I would want to welcome that young child into the world and I believe I would invest my entire life into that child. At the same time, I am a man and there is no way I can understand this aspect of a woman's life experience. It is God's gift to women. What I see in the world is the politization of this event and how it has been used by our political system to advance an agenda which hurts the most vulnerable in our society.

The fact remains that love requires freedom and the greatest love is that which comes from our creator. God gives us freedom for that very reason.

You cannot have love without freedom.

We are very blessed to live in a nation such as ours and for many, we believe that it is a blessing. For Christians, there is not a more difficult issue than the issue of abortion. I have come to believe that we cannot allow ourselves to be used by politicians to advance an agenda that hurts the poor and vulnerable in our society and that is what is happening today.

I also believe that too much of our energy has been invested in the politics and very little in the actual working together to reduce the number of abortions and the qualify of life or these children and their Mothers.

I find it abhorrent that the Republican Party's only answer is to cut taxes on the rich and to cut social programs for the poor and vulnerable.

0

jayhawklawrence 2 years, 2 months ago

I believe that using the government to legislate away a woman's reproductive rights will only end in failure and if Christians want to reduce the number of abortions they must confront and be ready to invest more in dealing with a full range of problems in our society.

For example, our education system needs to improve dramatically.

Children are not getting what they need in our educational system and this is a problem that we can fix.

Investing in better teachers and working together to improve the qualify of education is probably the most important thing we can do as a society to help our young people.

Under the Brownback administration, funding for education is being reduced.

0

jayhawklawrence 2 years, 2 months ago

Christians need to understand that the front groups that the Koch Brothers are funding operate in a in similar manner as cults. They develop a foundation of arguments to support a narrow agenda and it is very effective. The goal is to promote their Libertarian agenda which benefits the very rich at the expense of the poor and vulnerable in our country.

I believe our country was founded based on Christian ideals, not on competitive capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system which allows us to maximize efficiencies in an economy but has been successful largely because of the business ethics that come from our Christian heritage. This is a very simplistic explanation but suffice it to say, there is no better place to do business than the United States of America and the entire world is trying to follow our example.

Today, we are seeing a phenomenon where our political leaders will do almost anything to trick the system for the benefit of their constituents. We must as citizens draw the line in the sand and tell them no.

1

Satirical 2 years, 2 months ago

If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. If you don’t like slavery, don’t own one.

Slaves were considered sub-human and the U.S. Constitution counted them as 3/5 a human. This made it easier to deny slaves the fundamental and inalienable rights given by our creator – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. After all, these rights are for humans, not sub-humans.

The same thing is happening today with the unborn humans. Some people will refer to unborn humans in medical terms such as embryos, etc. to make morally easier to see them as something sub-human and therefore not entitled to the same rights as other humans.

The problem with the logic of “if you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. If you don’t like slavery don’t own one,” is that fundamental rights must be protected. Slaves have a fundament and inalienable right to liberty, and unborn humans have a fundamental and inalienable right to life.

When will liberals whose mantra is acceptance and protecting those who are most vulnerable in our society realize that those values should apply to all humans—slaves and unborn humans.

1

Satirical 2 years, 2 months ago

Can mothers choose to abandon their children? Or are they forced to use their body to perform labor to support their children? Are they forced to use their body to care for their children? Of course no one wants the government to tell you what to do with your own body, but the government does it all the time. You have rights and responsibilities when you have a child. They won’t change if abortion (with few exceptions) is made illegal, and the fundamental right to life is upheld.

The bottom line is you cannot do whatever you want to your own body if it affects someone else. This is why driving while drunk is illegal. Abortion affects the life of an unborn child. So while some people could argue that outlawing drinking and driving is telling a woman what to do with her own body, as a society we understand that the right of other drivers trump that of the woman. Likewise, it is perfectly logical that society can tell a woman what to do with her body when it affects the rights of unborn children.

0

Windemere 2 years, 2 months ago

Agreed. Again, the issue is When is the growing life derserving of protection from abortion? Is the morning-after pill morally wrong? Should a woman who was raped by forced to carry a baby to full term, regardless of how how viable the fetus/embryo is? If abortion/ending a pregnancy is morally wrong at any stage of gestation, people who want to make this the law of the land need to confront all the hard issues (even if some amount to very rare situations).

0

Satirical 2 years, 2 months ago

I agree there should be exceptions, and details of the exceptiops should be thoughtfully considered. However the exceptions should not hijack the general rule, that the fundamental right to life should be protected by the State.

1

jayhawklawrence 2 years, 2 months ago

Your arguments sound logical, however, the ability to create life has been given to the Mother.

This is the greatest power on Earth and it has to remain with the Mother.

If we want to reduce the number of abortions, we have to have the courage to look at all the problems related to the abortion issue in our society and then, I believe, the right wing politicians run for the hills.

For them, the bottom line is profit for their constituents.

0

jayhawklawrence 2 years, 2 months ago

I believe that Diane, the writer of this letter, and I have much in common.

I would like to see an end to abortion.

We just have a different perspective as to how this can be accomplished.

In the same way, we need to realize that in our two party system, there has to remain room for compromise. If that would become the goal, then we have to be more open to alternative points of view. If Kansas could become that kind of state, then Kansas would indeed become a state worthy of admiration.

Brownback has promoted himself as a spiritual person, but in practice, in my view, he has not fulfilled the promise of a person who has that ability.

Brownback has come across as a person who follows the direction of his handlers. Jesus was much different.

I would hope he would understand this.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.