Advertisement

Archive for Saturday, April 13, 2013

Letter: First preamble

April 13, 2013

Advertisement

To the editor:

Holly Weatherford, American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and Western Missouri, is concerned that the Kansas Legislature, in passing HB2253, has declared that “the life of each human being begins at fertilization” and that “unborn children have interests in life, health and well-being that should be protected.” She asserts, “That preamble language is dangerous.” (Journal-World, April 10)

Dangerous? They have found nothing different than those who wrote the preamble to the Declaration of Independence: “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

This made me think back to the first preamble, before the Declaration of Independence, before HB2253. According to Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning, God created.” God did not stop creating with the shaping of the world. He continues creating, with each conception. That is probably the most dangerous preamble of all.

Verna Froese, Lawrence

Comments

grimpeur 1 year, 8 months ago

"That is probably the most dangerous preamble of all."

You don't know how right you are.

And I'll thank you to keep your book, and your imaginary friend, out of my Legislature.

Thomas Bryce 1 year, 8 months ago

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge". Albert Einstein. Albert was a Dangerous Man, Huh?

Thomas Bryce 1 year, 8 months ago

Albert Einstein did not invent the Bomb. His Theories and experiments led him to discovering the power of the sun. His Idea was about Producing energy for people to use for years to come. It Took The US Military Industrial complex Years to turn his work into A WEAPON. People with Ideas are NOT your enemy. What is done, by our Government, with those Ideas Should be a Major Concern to EVERYONE.

jonas_opines 1 year, 8 months ago

Oh, I don't know. For the types like IKU, people with ideas might very well be their enemies.

Linda and Bill Houghton 1 year, 8 months ago

Unfortunately we do not know what the first cause was and quite possibly never will. The human mind has created many gods through the years to answer questions that had no obvious answer at the time. Even now we have multiple religions and multiple gods. Which one is right--probably none. That is the imaginary friend that grimpeur is referring to.

UneasyRider 1 year, 8 months ago

It seems weekly that we have a sermon posted disguised as a letter to editor.

jafs 1 year, 8 months ago

When I think of persecution, I think of much worse things than having one's views commented on in a public forum like this. I think of Christians being forbidden to practice their religion, jailed, and killed.

If you feel that posts violate the tos, simply flag them and have them removed - personal attacks like the ones you mention do violate those.

But, this is a public forum, and if you don't want your views commented on and questioned, then you have a simply remedy - don't post them on here.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 8 months ago

"“the life of each human being begins at fertilization”"

That's pretty arbitrary. Aren't sperm and ovum also living, human cells?

mom_of_three 1 year, 8 months ago

And yet again, the rights of a zygot and a fetus are placed ahead of a woman - a breathing, thinking person who becomes merely an incubator? Why are her rights so summarily dismissed??

Linda and Bill Houghton 1 year, 8 months ago

Case 1: The incubator may not have wanted to be an incubator. There are such things as rape and contraception failure.

Case 2: It may be necessary to save the life of the incubator, who is a well established being and can possibly incubate again with more successful results. It is a lot less certain that the child saved at the expense of the incubator will live to be involved in reproduction. This is particularly true if the child is damaged at conception or during the pregnancy.

Armstrong 1 year, 8 months ago

Case 3: State the minority exceptions and avoid the elephant in the room.

voevoda 1 year, 8 months ago

Contraception failure is the leading reason for abortion, Armstrong--57.5%, according to an authoritative source.

"Among all women who are having sex and do not want to become pregnant -- women at risk of unintended pregnancy -- nine in 10 use some contraceptive method (although sometimes inconsistently or incorrectly). Even though contraceptive use is often imperfect, it reduces the likelihood of having an abortion by about 85%. Nonetheless, many women trying to prevent unplanned pregnancies have contraceptive failures that lead to abortion.

"Our study clearly shows that the large majority of women are motivated to prevent an unwanted pregnancy and avoid abortion in the first place. It is encouraging that more women having abortions are practicing contraception. Unfortunately, neither methods nor users are perfect and the rate of contraceptive failure remains high."

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/prabort2.html

Armstrong 1 year, 8 months ago

Failure rates for contraception are anywhere from 14% -1%. Given your figures about 500,000 women experience contraception failure each year. Just not buying into those figures.

voevoda 1 year, 8 months ago

Wrong, Armstrong. Contraception failure rates for "typical" use range from 28% for spermacides as used, to 18% for condoms, to 12% for a diaphram, to 9% for birth control pills. Only IUDs have a failure rate of under 1%. This is according to the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. You are entitled to your own opinion, Armstrong, but not your own facts.

http://www.arhp.org/Publications-and-Resources/Quick-Reference-Guide-for-Clinicians/choosing/failure-rates-table

notaubermime 1 year, 8 months ago

Because a woman's body has "ways to try to shut that whole thing down" in cases of "legitimate rape"?

Thomas Bryce 1 year, 8 months ago

This Law Relegates a woman to the Identity of an Apparatus that can be turned on or off Like a Machine. When you take way the rights of the mother and give ALL the rights to an embryo that is still developing into a human, How else can that be described? Suspending the civil rights of one group to Uphold the Civil rights of another group has been found Unconstitutional Many times before.Shall we try it again?

Fred Mertz 1 year, 8 months ago

Here is my thought on religion in government. If you believe that religion has a place in government are you willing to put all the names of the different religions into a bag and draw one to be the ruling religion?

If not then keep your religion out of government. Let it guide your individual life but don't use it to dictate to me and others on how to live my life.

The US Constitution is sufficient to protect our rights and the bible, Koran , etc is perfect to guide your personal life if you so choose.

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 8 months ago

Actually, if freedoms are equal to all people, those people also in government must be free to have religious views and exercise them. As long as the government does not alter the Bill of Rights, (the 1st Amendment) by trying to make law to promote or inhibit the free practice of a religion.

If we only allow atheists in office, have we not violated the 1st amendment, and supported a godless religion only? Everyone has a religion, even if it is a godless one.

Thomas Bryce 1 year, 8 months ago

How Many Atheists Are "IN Office"? Is there a List of people in office followed by their religious Preference? Are atheists a Majority ANYWHERE? I did not think so. Why are you so Threatened by "Them"? What business is it of yours Who they believe in? I f they can do their job with out forcing their beliefs on others, I am good with that. But , we know that they ARE Forcing Their beliefs on others by using their positions to influence Law. Freedom OF Religion also Means Freedom FROM Religion.

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 8 months ago

"But , we know that they ARE Forcing Their beliefs on others by using their positions to influence Law. Freedom OF Religion also Means Freedom FROM Religion. "

Since the government is prohibited from making law that inhibits the free practice of religion, you have your freedom. It is up to you whether you decide to agree with a religion that is shared with you or not. That is your freedom. It is not freedom to silence the people of faith, just because you don't want to hear about it. It is appropriate for an individual that wants or feels the need to share their faith with others, to share it, even with those in government. They have a right to freely pray or practice religion or faith of their choice and be guided by it in their beliefs, as long as they abide by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, while in government service. Personally, I favor and respect a President or Congress person that relies on God for help in times of decision while in office.

Thomas Bryce 1 year, 8 months ago

" Since the Government is Prohibited from Making Law that inhibits the free practice of religion, You have your Freedom." The current administration is Making Law based on Their Religious Beliefs and No one elses. My Freedom Is to follow their ideology as Law? This is a Prohibited act since it most likely is, and most likely will be found unconstitutional by The Courts.

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 8 months ago

Governments have decided to use some laws that come from the Bible, such as do not kill. It is not because they are forcing a religion on you, but because it is a sound practice of law. It protects life and or property from being taken or destroyed. That's a good idea, even if it was used by people before that believed in God. Another example of this is the common law. It was derived from the Bible originally, but has good use today, as it is the basis of many contracts.

jonas_opines 1 year, 8 months ago

Are you suggesting that the social creed frowning on taking another life or property didn't exist before the Bible?

Leslie Swearingen 1 year, 8 months ago

Just for the record, I am a Catholic Christian and am offended by those who belittle my faith. I am sure there are other ways of stating your point of view. I do not think that my faith should guide others. I have a profound respect for the faith of others, that is based on the PBS series of Joseph Campbell's series with Bill Moyers. That was so good and reached both the hearts and minds of so many.

Campbell was a mythologist who was best known for his work in comparative mythology and comparative religion. I will never forget the story he told about the Brahmin who thought he was hot stuff until someone talked to him and during the conversation pointed to a long line of ants. "See those ants," he said. "well at one time they were all Brahmins." Nuff said.

If you choose not to believe in something or someone, I am cool with that. How about you live your life your way, I live my life my way? Think that would work?

Thomas Bryce 1 year, 8 months ago

+1 also. Your Last paragraph is a wonderful philosophy. I agree. Unfortunately, there are those that cannot and will not be happy until EVERYONE subscribes(or submits) to THEIR ideology regardless of yours or anyone else's thoughts or opinions. These same people are writing their ideology into every bill they can in hopes of making their ideology Law. Let us hope The Courts and The Justice System will Decide in favor of Reason and not Extremist Ideology.

voevoda 1 year, 8 months ago

The Bible does not prohibit abortion. Certainly not Genesis 1.1, cannot be reasonably construed as a prohibition on abortion. While the Bible is inconsistent in whether it attributes life to the moment of birth or before birth, it never suggests that an independent human life occurs at the moment of conception. Consequently, Christian views about abortion vary greatly:

http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_abortion.htm

In Islamic tradition, an embryo gains a soul at the 40th day, and before that abortion is acceptable.

In Jewish tradition, the well-being of the woman is always favored over that of an unborn child.

So the Kansas Legislature has adopted a minority religious opinion and inscribed it in law.

voevoda 1 year, 8 months ago

You are wrong about the Bible applying the prohibition "You shall not commit murder" to destroying a fetus. That is because the Bible actually contains verses ( Exodus 21:22-24) that speak exactly to this issue. If a pregnant woman is injured in a brawl between two men, and she suffers no harm except the loss of the pregnancy, the penalty is not the same as for murder, but rather monetary compensation to the woman's husband, as though for the loss of property. That indicates that the fetus is not the same as a living human being, in the Biblical view.

Thomas Bryce 1 year, 8 months ago

Wow! I was wondering where the Christian Right got this idea that women and the children they bear are all Property of the Husband. There it Is. Thanks. Your point is well made.

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 8 months ago

Perhaps not; in your example, the woman has willingly entered into a fight between two men risking injury to herself and her unborn child. The fault and risk is partly hers. The judgment takes this into account. You should find more instances in the Bible to support your theory, before proclaiming the point that you are looking for (abortion is not killing or ending a life and what God might think of that). But you will also need to look for scriptures that may speak against your desired point to be sure.

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 8 months ago

It is payment for damages. However, the woman has entered of her own free will, a fight between two men, knowing the possibility of danger of damage to herself and her unborn child. The judgment has taken this into account. You will need to find more scriptures on both sides of the issue that you seek to understand. You seem to be looking for a single instance that will support your view that it is okay with God to end the life of a child. You will have to search for scriptures that support your point and those that may not support your theory, to fully understand God's judgment on the matter. I think you are going to have a hard time getting God to side with the taking of a life and being okay with it. It is generally considered a sin. God says to follow after the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus, and you will not fulfill the lust of the flesh.

JohnBrown 1 year, 8 months ago

A fetus becomes an individual when it can feed and breathe on its own.

Until then, it is dependent on someone else to do that breathing and eating.

Government has no right to interfere in this god-given relationship.

The anti-abortion people are simply American Taliban's who have no intrinsic respect for women and their ability to make choices.

While the Afghani Taliban believe in "Do as we say or we'll kill you", the American Taliban are a little less cold-hearted, 'cause they simply say "Do as we say or we'll put you in jail".

Other than that, what's the difference?

JohnBrown

ChuckFInster 1 year, 8 months ago

By that statement I'm guessing your all for banning live birth abortions. Good for you !

voevoda 1 year, 8 months ago

Late-term abortions, when the fetus might be viable, are performed exceedingly rarely. In most cases, they occur because the fetus is severely deformed and non-viable, or because the woman's life and health is endangered. In these cases, ChuckFinster, you can hardly demand that the woman continue with the pregnancy. Less often, late-term abortions occur because the woman could not obtain sufficient money to pay for an abortion, or was waiting to turn 18. Make abortion cheaper and more readily available would go far towards eliminating these reasons for late-term abortions.

ChuckFInster 1 year, 8 months ago

Make abortion cheaper and more readily available would go far towards eliminating these reasons for late-term abortions.

The sheer stupidity of that remark is just jaw dropping

voevoda 1 year, 8 months ago

Not if your objection is specifically to late-term abortions, as your comment, ChuckFinster, indicated. Maybe you intended to object to all abortions, ChuckFinster, but that isn't what you said. I took your comment at face value. You responded to mine by insulting me. Usually, when the reply is vituperative rather than substantive, it is an ungracious way of accepting defeat in a debate.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.