Biblical interpretation flawed

Mary Lou Fenton, Castle Rock

Published October 8, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Letters to the Editor

Comments

October 8, 2008

12:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

becca00 writes:

Who cares what the Bible says? It has nothing to do with U.S. Law.

Your Bible belongs in your church, and your church is not my government.
October 8, 2008

7:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

yaakovwatkins writes:

There has to be a legal decision about when a fertilized egg becomes a legal human being. Currently, the law says that it is somewhere around birth. The constitution is silent on the issue.

Each voter has the right to make a decision on what the law should be using any input he or she wants. You have no right to tell someone what they may or may not consider in making their choice.
October 8, 2008

7:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

hogarm writes:

The Christian's bible is a 20 to 30 century old collection of myths, fables, parables, and some downright nasty stories. Why it should have any relationship to 21st century Colorado Constitutional law is a mystery to me.
October 8, 2008

8:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

AngelontheSidelines writes:

Personhood is already defined by law, a name and DOB is on a document called A Birth Certificate, this establishes every American as their own person and as such hold every right inherent to their being and those specifically protected in our constitution.

Amendment 48 is a can of worms. Using this angle is the most effective way to outlaw abortion, yet the language in this particular attempt is far too wrong to put in the state constitution.
October 8, 2008

9:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Danchan writes:

Not to muddy up the debate on what the bible, easter bunny, tooth fairy, and thor say about Amendment 48, but please think of the state economy when you cast your vote.

The amendment is so badly written and stupid that it will immediately be brought into the courts for a long expensive legal battle before it is dismissed. That money will be payed by the tax payers at a time when we have a lot better things to do with our money.
October 8, 2008

9:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

davis_x_machina writes:

I'm amused by posters like the one above who seem to believe there was no such thing as abortion until Roe v. Wade was decided, and apparently that if that decision were reversed there would be none in the future.It's much more likely that any precedent for our criminal laws derived from the old English common law than from any personal journal of some big invisible sky boohoo.I'll put my reading of American history up against anyone's and what I've seen convinces me that most of the founding fathers were deists and students of the enlightenment at least as versed in the classical Greek philosophers and their enlightenment successors, Locke, Hume, Paine, Voltaire, Rousseau as in a book translated and transcribed numerous times in its descent from semitic nomadic herders.
October 8, 2008

9:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Acemon writes:

As I have asked over and over, will those who oppose abortion support the use of contraceptives and sex education in order to prevent pregnancies?

It's a simple question. Why won't any pro-life Christian answer?
October 8, 2008

10:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

fairness writes:

Jimminy,

That is totally your right. You can believe anything that you want. The problem though is when someone wants to enforce THEIR beliefs on YOU. That is what this amendment is all about. If you believe abortion is killing, then you don't have to get one. However, you do not have the right to enforce that belief on someone else.

And the old straw man that if you believe in choice that you are FOR abortion is hogwash! I am for choice but would never tell anyone to get an abortion.
October 8, 2008

10:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

Chuckie seems to be unaware of the fact that, in the civil realm, what is murder is what the law says it is. In the moral realm, what is murder depends on what the moral beliefs of a person are.
October 8, 2008

11:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

cjc1951 writes:

The bible also speaks of the sin of 'spilling one's seed' as being a sin against life. So you right wingers who get overly 'excited' watching Governor Gidget need to be 'especially' careful when you are watching her alone
October 8, 2008

11:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

IronmanCarmichael writes:

NotChuckieB writes: "...the founding fathers used moral laws from the Bible to structure our crimmial laws. Laws like "Murder", stealing and the rest that you will be punished for in our Judicial system"

And to think the ancient Greeks managed to set up a structure of crimmial laws long before the Bible was even written--back before God was even invented, in fact. But perhaps there were fewer crimmials in those days.

Interesting, though, that working on the Sabbath, dissing your parents, worshiping graven images, coveting, and even adultery are not crimmial offenses in our Judicial system.
October 8, 2008

11:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

fairness writes:

NotChuckieB:

There you go again projecting your beliefs on me and others. Being pro-choice is NOT the same as be pro-abortion. That is just how you justify judging me and others. Remember what the bible says about judging people?

You know nothing about me other than what I write here. So you cannot say anything about what I believe. You can project all you want, but it doesn't change the facts. But the facts aren't something that you generally subscribe to anyway.

You can go on having your beliefs all you want. I won't try to change them - it isn't my place. But don't go putting words in my mouth, or telling me what I think. You don't even have a clue.
October 8, 2008

12:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Acemon writes:

I write this with respect to those I disagree with:

There are plenty of prominent Christian groups, such as Focus on the Family, who are strongly against any sort of contraception (despite what Jimminy says) or sex education. Many of those groups also believe the Bible should be taught in schools, as well as mandatory prayer. As NCB says, "contraceptives are acceptable for married people," which would indicate unmarried people should not have sex. By contrast, the Catholic church is against any sort of contraception for any reason.

NCB asked "Why are the pro-abortion crowd so against abstenence education?" Fair question, but I believe that question ties in with your statement "we still have an epidemic of pregnancies, teen abortions and STD'S." If you consider the abstainence program began during the Reagan administration (several decades ago), and many schools teach that or face a loss of federal funds, then perhaps abstainence education is not working.

Like NCB, I don't think children (i.e. under the age of 18) should have any sort of medical procedure, including abortion, without their parents' permission. I also agree that abortion is murder and I'd like to see a lot fewer of them.

As far as what kids are taught in school, parents have the option of their kids not being taught about biology and how babies are conceived. A lot of children are abused by their parents, taught racist beliefs and even encouraged to commit violence to others. Parents should have the ultimate say in what their children learn, but for those who didn't know the facts themselves, their decisions might be wrong.
October 8, 2008

12:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

I love the idea that the anti-chuck gives his approval for married couples to use birth control. What a guy!
October 8, 2008

12:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

fairness writes:

NotChuckieB:

There you go projecting again. Why would I have a guilty conscious? I am a male - so I've never had an abortion. I have never talked anyone into an abortion. Therefore, how can I be in denial??

And, no, I am not young. I am a grandfather. And yes, I know right from wrong. However, I don't subscribe to YOUR version of right and wrong.

Again, you have a right to believe anything you want. You do NOT have a right to make ME follow YOUR beliefs. If you want to live in a country where religious beliefs are the basis for the law, then move to Iran. I would prefer to live in a country which was set up in this country to keep religion out of the government.
October 8, 2008

12:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

I appreciate Acemon's civil comments. When he says:

"I also agree that abortion is murder and I'd like to see a lot fewer of them."

I assume that he means under his view of moral law since it is clear that at present abortion is not murder under the criminal law. I am unclear as to whether he means that he thinks everyone is bound by his view of the moral law or if he is just stating what his opinion of the moral law is.

While I certainly disagree, he certainly is entitled to lump all abortions together and not consider separately those involving rape, incest or the health of the mother.
October 8, 2008

1:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

fairness writes:

NotChuckieB:

I support killing kids? How about putting your money where your mouth is? How many of those "babies" that are saved are you going to take into your home and raise? You are so worried about them being born, are you willing to support them when they are?

You need to take a lesson from Acemon. I may not agree with everything he/she believes, but they are at least civil in discussing this very personal issue. I also believe we ought to have less abortions. One way to do that is to provide contraception. But people like you don't want to discuss it. It is your way or the highway mentality. If you haven't figured it out by now, that doesn't work very well outside the military.

Abstinence Only programs do not work. Keeping teenagers ignorant does not work. If you want less abortions then help prevent more pregnancies. It is as simple as that. Puffing out your chest and declaring that anyone who disagrees with you is a baby killer doesn't help your cause. I would LOVE to see fewer abortions. I just don't believe in the same method as you.

Outlawing abortion will not prevent them from happening. Just like prohibition didn't stop drinking. You cannot legislate morality.
October 8, 2008

2:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Acemon writes:

Grandpaw,

I think my comments speak for themselves. At no time did I advocate a law against abortions. I merely said I would like to see less of them. I am not trying to impose my personal beliefs (which you entitled my "moral laws") upon anyone else. Nobody should be bound by my opinions.

I also did not lump all abortions together, such as for rape or incest. My sister many years ago became pregnant. Because of complications with her diabetes, she faced dying before the child would be born. As a result she chose an abortion in order to preserve her life. I support her personal choice.

Where or when life begins is beyond my scope. At which point a lump of cells becomes a baby, or when it can survive outside of the womb, is also beyond my scope. When I wash my hands I'm rubbing off a certain amount of cells, which leads to their death, but I don't consider the cells to be a man.

Abortion is a woman's choice, and I support them having the choice, but I'd perfer abortions not be used as a method of birth control.

Please stop spitting hairs.
October 8, 2008

4:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

Acemon writes:

As I have asked over and over, will those who oppose abortion support the use of contraceptives and sex education in order to prevent pregnancies?

It's a simple question. Why won't any pro-life Christian answer?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I'm here. I'm a mainstream Protestant, conservative, Christian. I have no issue with abortion in the cases of rape or incest but oppose it as a means of birth control. There are better methods. I support sex education in the schools. I do not support advocating the gay lifestyle as part of that education.

I do not support prayer in the classroom, nor making any religious class mandatory -- the teachers would do a very poor job of it, I'm sure. If people want to send their children to Christian schools, I believe they should be able to do so -- and receive vouchers to pay for it.

Anything I need to clarify for you?
October 8, 2008

5:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

rg writes:

It is the Book of the Demon and the demon can sound good by quoting it with Jesus Christ being the same rat out of a different hole: First rat is Jehovah.
October 8, 2008

5:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

LockeRobster writes:

"Who cares what the Bible says? It has nothing to do with U.S. Law.

Your Bible belongs in your church, and your church is not my government."

The Bible has EVERYTHING to do with U.S. law. I don't see how any rational person can read the history of how this nation came to be and conclude otherwise. It's just not possible.

"I'm amused by posters like the one above who seem to believe there was no such thing as abortion until Roe v. Wade was decided, and apparently that if that decision were reversed there would be none in the future."

There are laws against murder, too, but we still see them happen daily across the country. What is your point?

"The problem though is when someone wants to enforce THEIR beliefs on YOU."

We force our beliefs on each other all the time. Beliefs lead to the laws that we live under, such as those against stealing and murder. If enough people didn't think that stealing was really wrong, it would cease to be a law.

"You cannot legislate morality."

We do it all the time. Welfare programs would not otherwise exist if the government did not believe we are somehow morally obligated to collectively provide for the less-fortunate through our compulsory taxes. Just one example among many.
October 8, 2008

7:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

Oh,..... who to believe......

The founding fathers of the United States.... or some nutcases exposing their anti-religious stupidity on a board......

"It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue." - John Adams

""Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams

"I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers. -- Thomas Jefferson

"The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments." - Benjamin Rush

"By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself. "The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." [Matthew 1:18]" - Benjamin Rush

"The most perfect maxims and examples for regulating your social conduct and domestic economy, as well as the best rules of morality and religion, are to be found in the Bible. . . . The moral principles and precepts found in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. These principles and precepts have truth, immutable truth, for their foundation. . . . All the evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible. . . . For instruction then in social, religious and civil duties resort to the scriptures for the best precepts. " - Noah Webster

George Washington's first act as President.... "After George Washington was sworn in as President, he lead the entire House, Senate, and cabinet to St. Paul's Episcopal church for a two-hour service, lead by the Chaplains of the House and Senate."
October 8, 2008

7:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Reason writes:

Some questions for the pro-abortion claque. Why is it acceptable that a fetus can be terminated legally, yet when a murderer kills a pregnant woman they are charged with double homicide? Why is it that the choice of an abortion is a woman's sole prerogative without the input of the father, yet if she chooses not to have one, she can go to the courts and sue for child support...and most likely get it? Why is it that in a country with ample access to birth control, people still opt to not use it, despite the fact that until recently ABC sex ed was commonly taught? Is it possible that legalized abortion does not, in fact, reduce the number of abortions that are/would be performed, and actually increases the number of unwanted pregnancies by providing a backup plan rationale for people who choose to have unprotected sex(if anyone has a study on this, I would love to see, I couldn't find anything one way or the other on NCBI)?

Personally, as repugnant as I find convenience abortions, I recognize that legalized abortion is most likely here to stay and amendment 48 is a poorly thought out end-around this issue. I'm all for returning to an ABC standard of sex ed, although I have serious doubts as to its effectiveness when contraceptive methods are easily available to anyone who lives near a gas station or supermarket. The number of abortions we perform in our "developed" country is a little absurd to me, given that a condom+BC pills reduces the chances of pregnancy to near nil, but I guess that in a free society we have to allow people the choice to be irresponsible.
October 8, 2008

9:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

Reason forgot to ask: why is it okay to destroy a fetus in time of war for the clearly selfish purpose of protecting, not just our lives, but our way of life, and not from an immediate danger but rather from a potential future danger that may or may come about,

but it is not okay for a teenage girl to abort in order to salvage her way of life, that being in immediate and certain danger?

People are not willing to be so pro-life when it is their own way of life we're talking about. Why is that? Does it possibly have something to do with the exact same kind of selfishness of which they accuse an aborting mother?

Don't expect Reason to summon the courage to address this issue. He's much more comfortable judging other people than judging himself.
October 8, 2008

9:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

For the first few months, the fetus belongs to the woman. It can not belong to itself, because there is no actual "self" there and it can not belong to any other person. therefore, it is hers. Slowly, ownership passes to the fetus. The woman decides if she wants it, and if you kill it you are in trouble.

Think of the fetus as a wholly owned subsidiary of the woman.
October 8, 2008

10:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

LockeRobster writes:

"Reason forgot to ask: why is it okay to destroy a fetus in time of war for the clearly selfish purpose of protecting, not just our lives, but our way of life, and not from an immediate danger but rather from a potential future danger that may or may come about,

but it is not okay for a teenage girl to abort in order to salvage her way of life, that being in immediate and certain danger?"

Neither of these actions is acceptable.

So why do you stand by one as abhorrable and yet accept the other?
October 9, 2008

9:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

Grandpaw must be getting senile. He forgot to answer the questions that Reason posted. Or perhaps it was just a recognition that it is impossible to answer them without undermining Grandpaw's warped excuses for support the killing of innocent children.

"Reason forgot to ask: why is it okay to destroy a fetus in time of war for the clearly selfish purpose of protecting, not just our lives, but our way of life, and not from an immediate danger but rather from a potential future danger that may or may come about,"

Fetus' are attacking the US? Grandpaw thinks that babies bombed Pearl Harbor? Maybe he thinks that it was newborns that blew up the World Trade Center with "diaper-bomblettes". Of course, what Grandpaw forgets is that the United States intentionally kills children in war. Unlike in abortion. Grandpaw and his gang may encourage and defend the INTENTIONAL killing of innocent children, but the United States does not support intentional attacks of innocent children in wartime, and any deaths of children in wartime are ACCIDENTAL. In fact, the US prosecutes anyone who intentionally targets children in wartime, as the prosecution of Lt Calley in VietNam proves.

Of course, Grandpaw is just demonstrating desperation. When confronted with the reality of his actions (his glee at supporting the killing of innocent children), he tries to divert attention away from his position. He wants people to look away from the outcome of his beliefs, and get them to focus on other things.... war, anything..... anything to avoid people from recognizing the reality. The reality that killing innocent children is one of the sleaziest, subhuman acts that anyone could do.
October 9, 2008

9:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

me2 writes: For the first few months, the fetus belongs to the woman. It can not belong to itself, because there is no actual "self" there and it can not belong to any other person. therefore, it is hers. Slowly, ownership passes to the fetus. The woman decides if she wants it, and if you kill it you are in trouble."

So you support a ban on abortion in the third trimester? And you also support a ban on partial birth abortion?

Of course, you're unable to explain the biological event that occurs transforms the baby into a "separate" person and at what point that event occurs.
October 9, 2008

11:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

Wechasa.... are you trying to be funny again? You sure know how to post some funny jokes!

The funniest lines of derangement were at the end of your querulous post...... where you forgot to mention the US government includes religious references on its money and US Supreme Court building, how the Congress opens each day with a prayer, how government hires and maintains religious leaders on its payroll to serve as chaplains, and how government officials take oaths on religious texts, such as the Bible, etc.

Now what was that nescient joke you made about religion being "out" of government?

LOL!!! You sure are a funny little man! Funny jokes you made there! You're always good for a laugh!!

Home › Opinion › Letters to the Editor

Biblical interpretation flawed

Mary Lou Fenton, Castle Rock

Published October 8, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Letters to the Editor

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs