What Bible has to say about 'personhood'

Mayo McNeil, Denver

Published September 22, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Letters to the Editor

Comments

September 22, 2008

2:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

dianahsieh writes:

The biblical case against abortion is weak, to say the least. However, that's ultimately irrelevant: our laws should be based on secular principles of individual rights -- not scriptural dogma.

A free society cannot be founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The Bible does not uphold capitalism, nor support our individual rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. It demands only that we suffer and sacrifice in obedience to God's will.

Individual rights are based on the objective requirements of human life in society. A person must be free to act on his own rational, independent judgment -- without forcible interference from others -- to survive and flourish.

The only proper purpose of government is the protection of individual rights. For a government to do anything else -- including promote religion -- is tyranny. That's why a free society must, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, build "a wall of separation between Church and State."

Diana Hsieh
Founder, Coalition for Secular Government
http://www.seculargovernment.us
September 22, 2008

5:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

LetsThink writes:

We need to be very careful on the decision as to when it is ok to kill a living being.

Because we know that all humans are sinners. So left to ourselves, we will always choose to sin (defy God).

The key question is: what does God want? What behavior will bring glory to God? If God wants to bring life, then if we destroy the potential life, are we opposing His will?

Where we will spend eternity (that is....with God, or separated from God) is determined by the decisions that we make.

So we need to make decisons about potential life very carefully. And not with derision and defiance toward God.
September 22, 2008

6:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

haddock writes:

LetsThink:
"We need to be very careful on the decision as to when it is ok to kill a living being"

Is that just American life?
September 22, 2008

7:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

Once again, Let'sThink takes the selfish road of not doing harm so we can go to heaven. It is love rather than the threat of punishment that causes people to do good. It is the absence of that love that results in selfish living. We don't attain happiness by having it as a goal. We attain it by forgetting about ourselves and doing for others. The same with heaven, if there is one.

As for when life starts, I'm 79 and I am still waiting.
September 22, 2008

7:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

Fanatical Christians no little about love, the same is true with fanatical Muslims or any other fanatical religious group. The simply know hatred for others who either don't believe the way they do or not in the same context that they do. This is the reason the most inhumane acts perpetrated on mankind have been done in the name of religion.

Good letter; "and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." That part is generally left out when being quoted by the Christian extremist's portion of the pro-life movement.
September 22, 2008

7:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Michael writes:

Killing an unborn baby for reasons that it is inconvenient or unplanned for are the height of arrogance and selfishness. I don't need a Bible or a law to tell me that. That logic applies to any human life. I think we tap dance around this issue with religion, and God, and the US Constitution as window dressing when it is not that complex. Substitute any other human being for the reasons that most abortions are performed and the killing would be unthinkable and called what it is - premeditated murder. Splitting hairs with regard to actually when the fetus has a soul or is deemed a person? Please spare me that convoluted argument. In every other aspect of our law the benefit of the doubt is given to the victim on issues of legal status and standing. As for the soul, who can tell but is it not safe and smart to default to the moment of conception rather than the moment of birth as no one knows for sure? As a society we grant rights (and forcibly interfere diana!!) to those who break into our country illegally and to serial killers to appeal their convictions for 20 years, yet we allow the wholesale slaughter of unborn babies? I think a little forcible interference in this area is not wrong or to be feared.
September 22, 2008

7:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Individual rights are based on the objective requirements of human life in society. A person must be free to act on his own rational, independent judgment -- without forcible interference from others -- to survive and flourish.

Diana Hsieh
Founder, Coalition for Secular Government

I agree with Jefferson and the Founders that rights are not determined by the objective requirements of society are endowed by the Creator and it is the responsibility of the society to protect, not to determine, those rights.

Men have done great evil in the name of religion but they have done much more in the name of their own rational, independent judgement of what is best for society.

We ignore the lesson the Founder's passed down at great peril.
September 22, 2008

7:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

LetsThink - you are apparently overwhelmed with the superstitions you harbor concerning supernatural beings.

"We need to be very careful on the decision as to when it is ok to kill a living being." - this is a typical tactic - completely mischaracterizing abortion as being "ok to kill a living being." It's not about "ok" or "not ok" - it's about who will decide what's best in the situation. Legally, the unborn can be seen as existing in another jurisdiction - you can think of it as the jurisdiction of whatever god(s) and/or godess(es) you fancy. The state does not get involved in other jurisdictions. Your god(s) and/or godess(es) can well handle transgressions in their jurisdictions w/o help from vain DAs and unelected, grandstanding judges. And if those god(s) and/or godess(es) are not able to handle transgressions, then I would suggest you need to dream up newer, more potent god(s) and/or godess(es) who can.

IT might help you to consider this scenario: Texas executes convicted murderers wholesale, most other states do not. Should Texans be running around trying to get Vermont to step up executions or in any way change how Vermont deals with its criminals? Obviously not. If Vermont wanted to "punish" convicted killers with a round-the-world criuse, that would be Vermont's decision and issue, and of no business to Texans, no matter how much they may not like it. So too with abortion. When the baby is born, it enters our jurisdiction with full protection. Before that, it's on the other side of the fence, and we have no say.

And remember - any state that can mandate carrying to term can just as well mandate abortion. Think Red China.
September 22, 2008

7:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Read it for yourself.

If you are looking for a genuinely dogmatic approach to religion, do not look to the believers - they have questions. Instead look to the secular left. They, and they alone, think that to understand the lesson you simply have to read the text. That certainly simplifies things anyway.

Many secularists are more dogmatic, less tolerant and more mean-spirited than any Pentecostal I have ever met.
September 22, 2008

7:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

And remember - any state that can mandate carrying to term can just as well mandate abortion. Think Red China. @Sheik

That is an excellent example of what I was getting at in my post at 7.38am.

Thanks.
September 22, 2008

8:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

"Killing the unborn"
"abortion as a means of birth control"
"abortion for the sake of convenience"

All demeaning terms used by the pro-life extremist to demean a womans right to control her own reproductive system.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that these folks truly care about the fetus. Scientific evidence about the fetus has been brought to the forefront in these forum on many occasions and have simply been ignored. The true purpose of the "right to life" is simply to force either their religious beliefs or the causes onto women.

The reason that Rowe as stood up to these relentless attacks and the deceitful extremist is because in the end to truly live in a free society people must have the basic right to control their own person. Take that right away and your in living a third world country where religion rules your life. Our knowledge of the horrors perpetrated on women in the middle east should be enough for us not to chose that route.
September 22, 2008

9:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

My question is, when do the innocent people killed in war reach personhood? Is there some point at which they are entitled to have their lives protected? That's not something the pro-birth people want to talk about. They are into birth, not life.
September 22, 2008

10:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Acemon writes:

To All:

LetsThink continues to make evasive comments and proclimations without logically defending himself or answering reasonable questions. I have tried repeatedly to engage that person in discussions but (like many others) have received nothing but double-talk in return. While we can't banish him/her from these forums, the time has come to use the Biblical method of shunning someone for their antisocial behavior.

We should all shun LetsThink.
September 22, 2008

10:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

...and most people do, to their credit. However, and I am guilty of this, he's like a mosquito bite. You know you shouldn't scratch it but sometimes you just have to.
September 22, 2008

11:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

peterpi writes:

The letter writer gave a classic Jewish definition of when a baby becomes a person -- after the first breath. Other religions teach the same. Still other religions may teach something else. So, Amendment 48 seeks to make official state policy favor one religious viewpoint over others.
I don't know what Orthodox Judaism teaches about abortion, but it's also beside the point. Right now religions and their adherents, including LetsThink the Arrogant and Condescending, can preach as they deem necessary on the subject and hope their adherents will follow. It's their, um, choice. I thought personal freedom and responsibility were hallmarks of conservative thought.
Amendment 48 is vague, overly broad, and under-handed. It's also an Attornies Full-Employment Act.
September 22, 2008

12:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

I'm down with the shunning.

Jewish law not only states that life begins at birth, but that abortion is REQUIRED if a woman's life is threatened.

Yanker, have you decided how you're voting on amendment 48? If not, isn't all your pontificating just empty posturing?
September 22, 2008

12:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Whereas people like Yankee simply make up the meaning to fit their predispositions such as craving control over other peoples medical decisions. Malachi

Well, no. I think abortions for health reasons are justified. The Catholic Church agrees. That's why Catholic hospitals provide abortions based on "medical decisions."

Each of has the right to make decisions impacting their own health. No one of us has the right to kill their young.

Clarity helps resolve the issue.
September 22, 2008

12:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

leftside writes:

"Killing the unborn"
"abortion as a means of birth control"
"abortion for the sake of convenience"

You seem to equate these. Why?

The first is a question of debatable semantics. "Unborn" versus "fetus." "Killing" verses "abort." It raises ire for everyone. Both sides have a right to their opinions. It’s simply an inflammatory set of words that does not move the discussion forward.

The second is a statement of fact: it’s what the woman says when she decides to terminate the pregnancy: “I don’t want this child because …” It’s her opinion, and it’s the only one that counts. If she doesn't want the child - for whatever reason - it's birth control. So, it’s fact.

The third is hyperbole. I’ve never heard of someone saying “I think I’ll terminate this pregnancy because it’s not convenient right now.” It indeed may be part of the reason included in the second statement, but rarely, if ever, stands by itself.

So to say that the "right" uses all three of these as demeaning terms is not totally accurate. The second one speaks for itself, and is a fact.

I believe there could be perfectly valid reasons for terminating a pregnancy, so I'm not in one of the "all or nothing" crowds.

But, I don't think equating all these statements is helpful to the discussion.
September 22, 2008

1:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

rg writes:

Having contended that conception creates a parasite, comes now the Bible contending likewise, thanks to Mayo McNeil, letter writer:

Exodus 21:22 “And if men strive together, and hurt a pregnant woman, so that her fruit [children] come out, and yet no harm follows; the one who hit her shall surely be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall impose upon him; and he shall pay a fine as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . .”

The argument runs something like this. If two men are fighting, and the struggle injures a pregnant woman (who perhaps intervenes in an attempt to stop the dispute), so that she miscarries, a monetary fine may be imposed to compensate for the death of the fetus. This infraction, however, was not viewed as a capital case. It is then contended that the implication must be that the fetus was not a human being with rights comparable to an adult person. Richard Grimes: Deicide.

Deicide Corner: “The freethinker has the same right to discredit the beliefs of Christians that the Orthodox Christians enjoy in destroying reverence, respect, and confidence in Mohammedanism, Mormonism, Christian Science, or Atheism.”-- Theodore Schroeder
September 22, 2008

2:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

Yankee: "Well, no. I think abortions for health reasons are justified. The Catholic Church agrees. That's why Catholic hospitals provide abortions based on "medical decisions.""

"Inasmuch as abortion is the willful taking of the life of the unborn, we are not permitted to do it even to save the life of the mother. Indeed, we are never permitted to commit any sin, for whatever praiseworthy motive. In addition, it is hard to imagine any case in which the death of an unborn child, considered in itself, would save the life of the mother.

What the aforementioned article should have said is this: There are instances in which it is legitimate for an expectant mother to undergo certain medical or surgical procedures that will save her life, even if these procedures inevitably involve the death of her unborn child. In these cases it is not a question of intentionally aborting the child. They involve, rather, accepting the loss of the child as an unavoidable consequence of caring for the mother´s health.

The clearest and surest example is the ectopic pregnancy. As everyone knows, should the fetus become lodged in the oviduct or fallopian tube, its continued growth will result in the death of both child and mother. A normal and proper procedure in this case is the removal of the fallopian tube, from which the death of the unborn child inevitably follows. In this case the death of the child is not sought, nor is the mother´s life saved by the child´s dying.

This is not an abortion. Quite simply, the mother´s life is saved by the surgical removal of the oviduct, not by the death of her child. If this reasoning is too subtle for some American minds to follow, well, the available evidence suggests that just about any coherent thinking these days is too subtle for some American minds to follow. "

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Cat...

"Inasmuch as abortion is the willful taking of the life of the unborn, we are not permitted to do it even to save the life of the mother. Indeed, we are never permitted to commit any sin, for whatever praiseworthy motive. In addition, it is hard to imagine any case in which the death of an unborn child, considered in itself, would save the life of the mother.

What the aforementioned article should have said is this: There are instances in which it is legitimate for an expectant mother to undergo certain medical or surgical procedures that will save her life, even if these procedures inevitably involve the death of her unborn child. In these cases it is not a question of intentionally aborting the child. They involve, rather, accepting the loss of the child as an unavoidable consequence of caring for the mother´s health."

http://www.catholic.net/index.php?opt...
September 22, 2008

2:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

NotChuckieB is right. There are true Christians and there are pseudo Christians. Of course, the former are the ones that agree with NotChuckieB. And why are they the true Christians? Because Pope Not says.

It's an old trick that comes out of the propaganda handbook.
September 22, 2008

2:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Of course we can kill our young with Biblical approval. We can take an unruly child to the town and all stone it.

Remember, It Takes A Village To Stone A Child. Directions are available at thebricktestament.com
September 22, 2008

2:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

oma writes:

notchuckieb: Pseudo" Christians are what you are always trying to lump together with true Christians. Just because aperson claims to be one doesn't necessarily make it so. You seem to have a difficult time understanding that.
i think we all understand this and that is the problem. i think some rephrasing is in order. there are zillions of supposed christians out but they often don't act "christian". in fact, i got screwed over by one the other day, but that is another story. how about child abusing priests? are they pseudo or true? what religion are we supposed to genuflect to, catholicism, baptists, or the legion of others from snake handlers to pentecostals? which one is it? yes, the self-righteousness morality is the problem.
September 22, 2008

3 p.m.

Suggest removal

LetsThink writes:

All the radical lefties came out of the woordwork, and attacked.

But they didn't justify why we should kill babies.
Why is it morally right to kill????

Let's focus on that. We await your defense.
September 22, 2008

3:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

Evidence:

Despite months of questioning as to whether the state should grant legal rights from the moment of fertilization, Yankee has been unable to say if he will vote yes or no.

Conclusion:

Every time he posts on a letter with the topic of "personhood", it is merely grandstanding on a matter he cannot even reach a conclusion about.
September 22, 2008

3:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

LetsThink, we can stone an unruly fetus, but it is hard to get rocks into the uterus.

Goddess I am sick of pontificating men.
September 22, 2008

3:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

LetsThink,

That will be a long wait. Faced with the reality of one million abortions performed annually in the most prosperous nation in the world, the run and hide behind rare medical conditions.

Once the issue is clearly defined, once you have cut away the obfuscations that fact is that in Colorado, the community determined through legislation that abortion was justified in cases of rape, incest and health.

They are not willing to accept that condition. They must have abortion on demand and so the killing continues.

There is no moral or intellectual basis for killing human beings in the womb any more than there is a moral or intellectual basis for killing the human being in the crib.

Millions of lives will be sacrificed on the altar of secularism by fanatics who believe that the authority of the state must be supreme and that they are themselves answerable only to the dictates of their own conscience. They stand in their own light.
September 22, 2008

3:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Hedz writes:

Psalm 139:13-18 says

For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;[b]
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.
My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.

How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God!
How great is the sum of them!
If I should count them, they would be more in number than the sand;

When I awake, I am still with You.
September 22, 2008

3:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Malachi,

I do not think a woman should be forced to carry the child conceived in rape to full term because I can see no moral way to force that compliance. The mother/child relationship is unique and judgements must be made that in extreme cases that sometimes violate the underlying principle. That is no an unusual understanding of the law - it is commonplace.

Sarah Palin's view, and not mine, will prevail in those communites that agree. Communities that agree with me will allow abortion in the case of rape. This is called governance by the consent of the governed and while it doesn't lead to perfect justice, it is the best we've come up with so far.

But you argue the most exteme cases to justify the common. Then you accuse me of cyncism. I am not contradicting anything. I know that abortion is an issue because it is used for birth control and it is on that ground is must be addressed.

All this business about health and the evil Sarah getting her way is a cynical attempt on your part to hide from the real problem.
September 22, 2008

3:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

as usual, this issue comes down to superstitions vs. factual info.

superstitions always lose.

the fact of the matter is that the anti-choice, american taliban position (just as dangerous as the middle eastern taliban) will not decrease abortions.

i'll repeat that.

you folks on the pro-supernatural side of this debate WILL NOT DECREASE ABORTIONS.

how do you justify your position considering that the pro-choice position will do what you fail to?
September 22, 2008

3:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

If your wife wants to post here, have at it. The Goddess is Isis, who resurrected her dead husband Osiris. Now that is a woman of strength.

All deities are equally silly. Bet the real one gets a laugh out of us.
September 22, 2008

4:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

oma writes:

hey notchuckieb: thanks for posting back. unfortunately, i was raised in a household that used the exact same platitudes as you are professing. it was bs then and it is bs now. not all atheists are bad people. in fact, i know many who do incredibly charitable things. and i agree w/ you, not all who profess christianity are necessarily christian. but, you my friend, have one narrow view where everybody who doesn't believe like you is wrong. this is typical of evangelical-type christianity, everything is black and white, when reality is mostly grey.
September 22, 2008

4:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

Michael writes: "Killing an unborn baby for reasons that it is inconvenient or unplanned for are the height of arrogance and selfishness. I don't need a Bible or a law to tell me that."

Michael. You are officially "the man" for today!

The second you mention "religion" in this space everyone polarizes into their respective camps.

Regardless of where you stand on "religion" - EVERY abortion ends with a dead baby. ((Even the botched ones that end up with a dying baby stashed somewhere to die.))

http://www.jillstanek.com/
September 22, 2008

4:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

cowboy, maybe you could tell us how a position that doesn't actually decrease abortions is the right way to go on this issue.
September 22, 2008

5:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

LetsThink writes:

In all the writings....did they (abortionists) ever justify why it is ok to kill a viable potential human life??

Or did they just dodge the question again?
September 22, 2008

5:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

LetsThink writes:

Fresh
Please be careful when you shake your fist in defiance against God.

You are determining where you are going to spend eternity.

And we don't want you to go there.
September 22, 2008

6:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Fresh, the Goddess gave me a mind that is not capable of believing in her. Wow, what a conundrum.
September 22, 2008

6:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

Hedz: "for I am fearfully and wonderfully made".

I am glad for you, Hedz. He could have done a much better job on me. I mean he did really great on IQ, good looks and personality, but I'm really disappointed because I was sure He would make me rich too.

However, maybe it's not so bad. My daughter's dog gets pretty fearful of me when I kick her really hard. And my granddaughters do think I am wonderful. And they are never wrong.
September 22, 2008

6:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

NotCharlie: 'Hows that for proof of lies and propaganda from the non-believers?"

Wonderful job, not charlie. All you have to do is to say it, and, lo and behold, because of your special gifts it becomes fact. I wish I could do that. Beats the heck out of having to support your opinion with some real rather than illusory facts.
September 22, 2008

6:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

trinidad writes:

leftside said
"Killing the unborn"
"abortion as a means of birth control"
"abortion for the sake of convenience"

All demeaning terms used by the pro-life extremist to demean a womans right to control her own reproductive system.
Why can't a woman control her own reproductive system by taking birth control thus preventing herself from getting pregnant in the first place.
To the person who wrote this article.
Passage Exodus 21:22:
22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
This passage says that if a man hurts a woman with child(a pregnant woman) then that man shall be punished. The man who ended the life of the baby will "pay as the judges determine." So the life(baby/fetus) in the mothers womb is valuable.
Here's also what the Bible has to say on the subject.
Passage Luke 1:41-44:
41And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

42And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

43And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

44For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

Passage Jeremiah 1:5:
5 “I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb.
Before you were born I set you apart
and appointed you as my prophet to the nations.”
September 22, 2008

6:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

Yankee: "There is no moral or intellectual basis for killing human beings in the womb any more than there is a moral or intellectual basis for killing the human being in the crib."

Wow, for a minute there, I thought Yankee was going to "war" instead of "the crib". But then I realized that war is off-limits for Yankee. He just doesn't want to have to deal with killing innocent people for his benefit rather than someone else's.
September 22, 2008

6:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

Let'sThink: "Fresh, Please be careful when you shake your fist in defiance against God. You are determining where you are going to spend eternity. And we don't want you to go there."

You have to remember that LT's God is very, very sensitive, and a little narcissistic.

It don't mean a dam how good you may have been in your life, how much love you have spread, you get mad at the Man and you lose. And why on earth would anyone get upset at God: look around at the world He created. Isn't everyone happy? Don't look at the dead people in the streets of Sudan; instead look up at the clouds and praise the Lord. Oops, I'm sorry. I forgot that we're supposed to give Him the credit for the good and give ourselves credit for the bad. What a deal He has!!!

Somehow I'm reminded of that saying, "If Mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy".
September 22, 2008

6:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

Cowboy63: "EVERY abortion ends with a dead baby. "

And "EVERY war ends with many, many dead babies, and dead adults".

But that isn't a horse that Cowboy is willing to ride. After all, the wars we have been in are supposed to be for his benefit, not for the benefit of some young girl who has been brutally raped, or some mother in Sudan who has already seen some of her children starve to a painful death.
September 22, 2008

7:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Reason writes:

"But that isn't a horse that Cowboy is willing to ride. After all, the wars we have been in are supposed to be for his benefit, not for the benefit of some young girl who has been brutally raped, or some mother in Sudan who has already seen some of her children starve to a painful death."

It's really, REALLY, hard to stay on topic, isn't it?
September 22, 2008

7:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

NCB, you and LetsThink show no tolerance for people who don't believe what you do. You do this against the wishes of Jesus Christ and in the name of God. Neither of you have a clue of what the bible says, what it intends nor do you respect it's scriptures. As such you use it as a tool of hatred like other fanatical cults. That's all time I have for you.

P_Denver, I used those statements to show the deceit used by conservatives in these discussion.

Unborn is semantics - fetus is scientific.

...use as birth control - once again semantics. Abortions are performed when birth control or lack of it fails.

...for the sake of convenience - semantics meant to demean the woman who could be making a responsible decision.

Sorry you don't agree but I'll stick by that.
September 22, 2008

7:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

But then I realized that war is off-limits for Yankee. grandpaw

I walked you through Just War principles in an earlier post. You didn't get it then and there is no use tryingfor the replay.

As convluted as it is, you will go on believing that the fact that innocent people are killed in war somehow justifies abortion. You could not believe that if you were prepared to think seriously about it. You believe that because you don't want to face the reality that a million innocent lives are lost and probably nearly that many are ruined because of abortions conducted for birth control.
September 22, 2008

8:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

I find that people who believe as you, when confronted with a thoughtful rebuttal, just go back to the beginning of your logic circle and reiterate the redundancy. Malachi

Let's just take a quick look at what you regard as thoughtful.

Intially you posted:

Whereas people like Yankee simply make up the meaning to fit their predispositions such as craving control over other peoples medical decisions.

Raise your hand if you want Yankee controlling your reproductive organs.

You did not know that I think abortion should be legal for health reasons. In fact, I had not posted anything on the topic but you attributed the position to me because you are a religious bigot.

When I explained my actual position you come back with:

Let me ask you. Do you believe as Sarah Palin does that the state should force raped women to bear the child of their rapist?

So now I have to explain to you not only my position on abortion but the fundamentals of democratic governance which again upset your stereotypical thinking. So now we are back to the original platitudes.

There is no proof for my position. If you knew what a proof is, you wouldn't ask. I have defined my terms and supported my position. You have done neither. That's because you have not thought seriously about the topic. But this much you should consider -

You support a bloody policy of death that kills one million innocent human beings every year. All the sanctimony in the world will not wash your hands clean.
September 22, 2008

8:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

Yankee-

Malaci_Constant is the former Charles_B.

I'm surprised you didnt notice.
September 22, 2008

8:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

WestminsterJ writes:

Me2: Goddess I am sick of pontificating men.

Then stop pontificating them.
September 22, 2008

8:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

GetReal,

Knock me over with a feather. He's not as vulgar as he used to be so I didn't pick it up.

Thanks - I won't waste the energy again.
September 22, 2008

8:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

Yankee-

I realized it on this thread a few days ago-
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...

I made a comment@ 5:10pm and his responses a little further down tipped me off.

I don't know if he got kicked off or what but I haven't seen any Charles_B signed posts in about a week- the same time Malachi Constant showed up. Hmm....
September 22, 2008

9:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

Yankee, my dog lies down. You just lie. You say:

"As convluted as it is, you will go on believing that the fact that innocent people are killed in war somehow justifies abortion."

Of course, nowhere, absolutely nowhere, did I say that. How do you sleep at night slandering an old man like me? Have you no shame?

What I have said is that those who oppose all abortions do not do so because they think all life is precious, because if they thought all life is precious they would have to be opposed to killing innocent people in war. Capisce? See if you can manage to get that through your brain. After all, you can go to hell for lying as well as for killing innocent people. Can't you?

Presumably, correct me if I misinterpret you, you think abortion is OK in certain instances because in those instances you think that there is more harm in allowing the innocent unborn to be born than in killing the poor, innocent, vulnerable, defenseless unborn. Right? And you further think that it is you rather than other people who is entitled to make the judgment as to when it is OK to kill an innocent unborn, right? You really think a lot of yourself, don't you, Yankee? Have you always been that egotistical or is it of recent origin?
September 22, 2008

9:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

LetsThink writes:

All these words.....and we still haven't heard a justification for murdering unborn babies.

Because there is no justification. We all know that killing an innocent baby is evil, because God puts morality in our heart. But some stilll will defy Him. Unbelievable.
September 22, 2008

9:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

I don't understand why conservatives get such a kick trying to uncover somebodies ID.

What difference does it make Malachi is Charles_B.?

Someone accused grandpaw of being truth. Who cares?

I mean it might be fun the first time but after that it just becomes a way to change the subject. .........oh, okay, now I understand.
September 22, 2008

9:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

GetReal,

He was banned. I was there and saw it happen.

At the end he must have been using someone else's computer to get in and malign the RMN management. They removed the post entirely. He must have changed his e-mail address to get back in - desperate times call for desperate measures.

It's obvious he's trying to behave, which is commendable, but I imagine he will only remain civil as long as the RMN has their foot on his neck - figuratively speaking of course. I enjoy thinking of him straining at the keyboard trying to keep his word - Oh! to be a fly on the wall.

Too bad you missed the moment - it elevated my spirit to see an habitual and defiant offender get his just due.
September 22, 2008

9:38 p.m.

Yankee writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
September 22, 2008

9:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Sweetpickle writes:

We have the Holy Trinity out today Letsthink, Yankee and notchukie.
But they don't seem to be saving many people.

Sometimes they make me think of Job.
September 22, 2008

9:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

Yankee 9:22-

Was it this thread with hints @ 8:59am, 9:28am, and 2:47pm?
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...

What did he say?
September 22, 2008

10:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

no, letsthink...what we don't have justification for....as always....is the minority, counterproductive, dogmatic anti-choice position on abortion.

i have yet to hear ANYONE rationalize a position that won't actually decrease abortions.

maybe you, yankee and getreal can tell us why the country should adopt a position that won't reduce abortions.

bueller?

bueller?
September 22, 2008

11:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

jay - "maybe you, yankee and getreal can tell us why the country should adopt a position that won't reduce abortions."

Murders, rapes and robberies keep happening in this country as well. Should we just give up on trying to do something about those too since we can't "reduce the numbers"?
September 23, 2008

5:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

GetReal,

The one I saw was in the letters. I don't recall the topic but the letter was written by a conservative and Charles B. was criticizing the staff for printing the letter. Again, I don't recall what he posted posted, it was the usual Charles B. vulgarity - hoping they would lose their jobs and that sort of thing. I do remember that he was trying to hide obscene words using characters - "$" and "@" and so on - typical stuff really.

He got a few of the "This letter was removed by the staff" notes when he appeared under a different name and gave the editors name and e-mail addresing urging everyone to contact the editor and complain. Someone posted that Charles B. must not have been banned since that post was allowed. (I e-mailed a Well Done! to the editor).

When I returned the Charles B. post giving the editor's name was nuked. There was not the "This letter..." comment but instead the entire post was nuked. It vanished leaving no trace. This was a thing of beauty confirming that civility is still a virtue.

And note the irony: Charles B makes a habit of trying to bully conservative voices into silence with personal attacks - insults, mocking and slurs. But in attempting to bully the site staff into silencing a conservative voice, Charles B was silenced instead.

You have to love that.
September 23, 2008

5:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Cowboy,

A hint - they don't use reason in jayland. For instance, in jayland it is an undeniable truth that Al Qaeda has become stronger than they were pre-9/11 following their defeats in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Play with him if you find it amusing but serious discourse is not offered in jayland.
September 23, 2008

6:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

"Presumably, correct me if I misinterpret you, you think abortion is OK in certain instances because in those instances you think that there is more harm in allowing the innocent unborn to be born than in killing the poor, innocent, vulnerable, defenseless unborn. Right? And you further think that it is you rather than other people who is entitled to make the judgment as to when it is OK to kill an innocent unborn, right? grandpaw"

Am I surprised, Yankee, that you are afraid to address my question? Am I surprised that you are afraid to give your rational for your conclusions? Of course not. It is your modus operandi; stay away from issues which make you nervous.

Another question you are too afraid to answer: What do you think happens to the souls of aborted babies? The reason you are too afraid to answer is that it could create a dilemma for you. And you are too cowardly to deal with that.

You simply have got to get over being afraid to address the tough questions, Yankee. Perhaps if you got someone to hold your hand while you answer, you could show a little more courage?
September 23, 2008

7:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

grandpaw,

So are you calling me a chicken?

GetReal,

You're right.
September 23, 2008

8:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Nancyu writes:

Fresh wrote:

"you want to know why your " right to lifers" will never win this argument ?

it is because you will never be able ( GET IT , NEVER BE ABLE TO) take someone elses right to choose away from them when it is regarding their own body!

not everyone is a nut case and believe a fetus is an "unborn baby"
not everyone is manipulated by mythical beliefs
Not everyone that have abortions are morally bankrupt!

the person hood amendment will fail ( as it should ) and you idiots will keep allowing yourselves to be brainwashed by stupid arse theories by your biblical rulers while they make 25% off the top from your moronic families gulibility.

you all fail to realize that your " position" is not a solution, it is just an attempt to control someone else.

to all of you, a living breathing viable person trumps that of a fetus, always has , always will. get used to it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

You are wrong Fresh. You are the one who will have to "get used to it." "It" meaning: An unborn child IS a person. Entitled to the same rights and protections that the rest of us are.
September 23, 2008

9:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

rg writes:

I wrote a song: We will meet again, I know where I know when, based on someone's belief, somewhere in the world, we will all end in hell. Catholic, Muslim, Christians from the cult ... .

Therefore, even if you condemn the abortion, you are condemned by belief somewhere in the world. Richard Grimes: Deicide. http://www.geocities.com/r22037/think...

Deicide Corner: “I'm an atheist. . . . how unfortunate it is to assign responsibility to the higher up for justice amongst people.”-- Ani DiFranco
September 23, 2008

11:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

i have yet to hear ANYONE rationalize a position that won't actually decrease abortions.

and yankee...please don't pout...al qaeda is back to 9/10 strength levels...on the republican watch.

any questions about that?
September 23, 2008

2:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Shaupeen writes:

I wonder if the angry religious-right-to-lifers would still be so blatantly against abortion if it was known that the fetus would grow up to be gay.
September 23, 2008

3:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

freedomfighter1 writes:

And don't forget that God and Jesus gave us choices and free will, and we would answer for our actions when we get to heaven. So how do you christians explain voting away the right, a right and ability that God gave them.

Stop listening to the organization of religion and start reading and interpreting your bibles yourselves.
September 23, 2008

5:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Nancyu writes:

""Shaupeen writes:

I wonder if the angry religious-right-to-lifers would still be so blatantly against abortion if it was known that the fetus would grow up to be gay.""

Wonder no more.
Yes. I would still be against abortion.
September 23, 2008

5:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

9:02-

We're done with any future fun if you keep up the sn charade, but if you can give me just a little crafty wording and acknowledge the truthfulness of my initial assertion, I will from here on out address you as requested earlier. I understand the predicament.

You hip?

Home › Opinion › Letters to the Editor

What Bible has to say about 'personhood'

Mayo McNeil, Denver

Published September 22, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Letters to the Editor

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs