Alethia (Isaac McPheeters)


Comment history

Pitts’ smokescreen


I could give you the short answer, though I hate making claims without arguments (especially when they have such far-reaching implications). I could perhaps find time to respond with my reasons later on, but I believe that personhood begins at conception.

Can I presume that you are against late-term abortions but are not as uncomfortable with abortions in the first few weeks or so?

As for health of the mother, while I do not believe in a default position of preferring one life over the other, I am aware of cases such as ectopic pregnancies which make it very difficult to know the morally right decision.

November 23, 2011 at 8:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Pitts’ smokescreen

"Yes, the unborn is a person, and we should still allow abortions." Therefore, the writer of this anonymous comment believes there are cases where a mother can kill her child (who he agrees is a person).

November 23, 2011 at 8:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Pitts’ smokescreen

Jafs, who then decides if the unborn is a person? Does the mother decide if her "fetus is a baby"?

November 23, 2011 at 8:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Moral clarity?

Stu, you say I am "insistent that a fertilized egg is a human and demands the protection of state power over any right any woman may claim." Can you please point to a quote in my letter indicating that?

November 22, 2011 at 9:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Pitts’ smokescreen


Glad you agree. And did I say a zygote is a human being? I did not in this letter, and if I do, you can bet I will do you the courtesy, my good Jimo, of backing it up with an argument.

The reason I wrote is that I always found it odd that some believe in no abortions (except) in cases of incest or rape. Well, if the unborn is not a person, I don't see why we should not allow abortions in other cases as well. But if the unborn is a person, then would anyone on this forum say we should allow abortions (granted, again, the unborn is a person)? I know some people that will argue "Yes, the unborn is a person, and we should still allow abortions." But I don't see any of those people here.

November 19, 2011 at 3:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Pitts’ smokescreen


If, by any chance, my parents had decided to name their daughter "Isaac" contrary to the Western tradition, I'm afraid your ad hominem would fail. What does my being a man have anything to do with whether my argument is good or bad (unless, of course, you would allow me as a woman to tell you what you should or should not do with your body).

And if you think I am siding with rapists, perhaps one day you will hear my opinion on such people. I would welcome further discussion on this forum about what penalties are harsh enough for such abominable men. I fail to see how letting their children live makes the fiend's life easier.

November 19, 2011 at 2:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Pitts’ smokescreen


Can you quote to me where I claim that an embryo's personhood is an objective fact? I do not, nor did I make an argument that it is. What I do make, is an argument that personhood (for an adult, a child, or embryo) is objective fact. If an embryo is a person, it's an objective fact. If an embryo is not a person, it is an objective fact. Do you disagree?

Furthermore, I'd like to know what religious fairy tales have to do with my argument here? Did I mention any? Perhaps you would rather enjoy discussions with atheist pro-life advocates I've found.

November 19, 2011 at 2:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Equal rights

You misunderstood. My point was that Cal Thomas and Leonard Pitts fall on both sides of the gay marriage debate (though one could also say there are more than three). I contend that you need to listen to arguments from both sides even if one finds one or the other (or both) offensive. My letter was about profitable discussion and intellectual honesty, not an argument one way or the other on whether gay marriage is a good idea.

August 23, 2010 at 11:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Equal rights

The point of my letter was about good discourse. I didn't see a letter to the editor from a conservative arguing that the LJWorld should refuse to publish Leonard Pitts because his arguments in favor of gay marriage are offensive. If so, I could have just as easily written a similar letter defending him. Again, good discussion is not necessarily comfortable.

Lisa asks me to answer her questions on "What ramifications are those? Accepting people for who they are? Encouraging stability in long-term relationships? Strengthening families? Making sure that there are no second-class citizens in our nation?"

So here she wants me to write a letter to the editor discussing the moral ramifications for gay marriage, to what degree we "accept" certain sexual behavior, the dynamics of long-term relationships and homosexual unions, what strengthening families looks like, and also what qualifies a "second-class" citizen in our nation.

That would be a tall order to accomplish in 250 words or less.

August 20, 2010 at 6:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Both sides


Certainly in the past the discussion was much more often driven by emotion, but now I think the debate is becoming more intelligent on both sides.

I must say, however, that I believe one can take an approach based on morality and logic simultaneously.

Anyway, if you ever want to read a logical approach to the anti-abortion position, I recommend "Defending Life" by Dr. Francis Beckwith. He handles many arguments on tough subjects like rape and also the twinning arguments. I know of only one rebuttal to his book, and the author claimed she could not rebut his claims the unborn was a person and proceeded to argue why we should allow abortions of unborn persons.

August 17, 2010 at 11:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )