Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
An abortion film that will upset you, no matter which side you're on. Plus: What would Jesus do ... if his kid were gay?
The letters thread is now closed.
  • liberal and pro life?

    Huh, apparently not all those who oppose abortion are facist, pinch faced execution supporting white men....

    Catholics who oppose abortion, racism, war, the death penalty, and euthanasia:

    http://www.seamless-garment.org/index.shtml

    Interesting article on the rise of pro life liberals:

    http://media.www.thegeorgetownindependent.com/media/storage/paper136/news/2005/02/01/News/The-Rise.Of.ProLife.Liberals.Why.The.Abortion.Debate.Is.About.To.Change-848717.shtml

    Feminists for life:

    http://www.feministsforlife.org/international/index.htm

  • My experience

    Six years ago, I had an abortion when I was 6 weeks pregnant. I saw the embryo on the ultrasound. (It is a requirement in the state I live in.) After the procedure, I saw some of the used instruments. I can honestly say that neither the ultrasound nor the tissue left behind looked anything like a baby. I don't deny that what I aborted had the potential to become an independent life but the fact is, it was not when I had the procedure and it was my choice. And to those who may ask, I honestly do not regret my decision.

  • Pro-Abortion Fallacy

    O'Hehir states that "the pro-lifers might have a valid moral point to make, if there was any seriousness or consistency or concern about poverty and human welfare in their position."

    This is logic? If I see you beating your child in a supermarket and make you stop, that means I must now raise your child for you? I think not. When a person prevents a wrong from being committed, that does not make him responsible for the intended victim.

    It is funny how pro-choice people are uncomfortable assigning wrong to an individual having an abortion, but they have no problem diffusing responsibility for the child born to every person in the whole world. By the cold, hard logic of the indescribably brilliant Noam Chomsky, it follows that if an abortion occurs no one is at fault, but the birth of every child is a scandal upon the human race.

    It is pro-choicers who have a myopic view of personal responsibility. If you have sex, you have to accept the consequences, not me. I don't understand why adoption is such an unthinkable option. Yes it is hard, but taking responsibility for your own actions usually is hard.

    And don't accuse me of not caring about children. I will pay the taxes necessary to support them if needed. I deliver medical care to children for a living, as a matter of fact. This whole "pinched-faced loner white guy" description is nothing but a stereotype, and it is not true.

  • You are correct rosmar

    Recognizably primate is more scientifically accurate, I had debated using just that term, however as my point was the emotional aspects of how we interpret things, I felt recognizably human was the appropriate term. There may be little or no differnce between a six week gestated chimp and a six week gestated human, but knowing that what we are looking at derived of humans forces us to see the humanity in its form.

    The bottom line is, we are discussing a seperate genetically human creature, and the effort to minimize this fact is likely the core of conflict between moderate prolife and prochoice persons.

    It is one thing to aknowledge the necessity of abortion access in a free society, it is quite another to seek to delude ourselves as to what this access truly means. Abortion is the ending of a human life, perhaps one not yet developed to our standards, but a human life none the less. Seeking to declare it less than human, because it is less developed can lead to the sort of logic that pushes the state of humanity further than anyone here is comfortable with.

    All anyone should ask with regard to abortion is respect for the gravity of the act, on both sides of the issue.

  • Heartfelt films about how Christians deal with their gay kids?

    I really don't care about "how they deal with" finding out that their kids are gay or how hard it may be for them. As far as I can tell such films merely pander to the idea that religion -- or specifically Chrisitianity -- makes it particularly hard to come to accept a gay kid.

    Bullshit. Bigotry, not religion makes it hard to accept a gay kid.

    Why are there no heartfelt films about how hard it is for Christians to deal with their kids who are murderers, or who covet, or who take the name of the lord in vain?

  • Church and the death Penalty

    Speaking of Pro-life.

    It will be very interesting to see how the Surpreme court ruling comes in on the upcoming death peanalty case invovling lethal injection.

    How will the recentlty apppointed conservative pro-ife Catholic judges, who oppose reproductive rights, rule vs. the centrists and liberal judges who support reproductive rights?

    The ture measure of who is really pro-life wil be shown in is ruling.

  • What sanctity of life?

    From my reading of the Bible, "sanctity of life" does not exist, it is a myth. There's nothing I've been able to find that explicitly makes a human life sacred in the eyes of God. Admittedly, there are Biblical passages that can be stretched to wrap around a "sanctity of life" argument but the resulting thin veil shreds into tatters when it's laid against Biblical accounts of massacres (both Isrealites and non-Isrealites) at the direction of God or God's agents. So I've been unable to find an "sanctity of life" anywhere in the Bible. When I've asked pastors or family wing-nuts to point out what I'm missing, they're uncharacteristically stumped.

    I think this is an important issue. If there's no Biblical basis for the "sanctity of life" in the eyes of God, then abortion foes base their objections on sinking sand.

    As further proof to myself that "sanctity of life" for people of the Book is an empty claim, I only need see where their priorities lie. The communities that rail against abortion have no equally fervent opposition to the bombing of civilians ordered by their political champions. For them, the hands of a surgeon are capable of interfering with the Will of God but the finger of a foot soldier or the airborne bombardier is not; the former being vilified and the latter romanticized within the same "sanctity of life" community.