Catholic physician: No to Amendment 48

Dr. Thomas W. Moffatt, Lakewood

Published September 23, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Letters to the Editor

Comments

September 23, 2008

6:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Dr. Moffat is entitled to his position as a citizen and a Doctor. He is not however entitled to identify himself as a Catholic and then contradict the teachings of the Church. You are Catholic when you accept and live the teachings. You cannot be in communion and simultaneoulsy reject the Church.

Dr. Moffat does the community a grave disservice in self-identifying himself as Catholic in this letter.
September 23, 2008

6:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

LetsThink writes:

This doctor didn't confirm whether he is a Christian.
Nor did he discuss at all what God thinks about Abortion.
He gave only one side of the discussion -- pro abortion.

If Dr. Moffat is actually able to kill innocent babies, he is violating the Hypocratic oath. And he shows no remorse for what he is doing.

That frightens me.
September 23, 2008

6:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

ML writes:

Yankee, Lets(Not)Think...the good doctor is not discussing abortion; he is describing situations where he had to decide whether one person should die, or two. But I guess that distinction is beyond your IQ level.
September 23, 2008

6:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

I think Yank and LetsThink would prefer that an infected pregnancy continue. Right boys? Would that satisfy your religion if first the fetus and then the mom dies because the infection could not be treated without abortion?
September 23, 2008

7:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cornell writes:

Yankee,
It would seem that you read only the first sentence of the letter. Dr. Moffatt goes on to say that he doesn't agree with other people's beliefs being imposed on others, which is exactly what you try to do. Dr. Moffat is entitled to identify himself as a Catholic if he so chooses. I would be willing to bet that he is not the only Catholic who holds the same beliefs.
September 23, 2008

7:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Clarity time.

Abortion is an issue because it is used for birth control. A human being is conceived, the mother decides she does not want the birth, she has the human being in her womb killed. Abortion is not, and has not been, an issue of health. Prior to Roe, abortion for health reasons was legal under Colorado law.

As a secular question, the doctor is engaging in subterfuge by conflating a health issue with social policy. As a matter of doctrine, the doctor ignores, and thereby rejects, the most fundamental teaching of the Church while claiming to be Catholic.

If you think that abortion should be available on demand, then say so. Do not try to confuse the issue with the deception that this has anything to do with health. Do not try to wrap your position in the authority of the Church.

Just make your case.
September 23, 2008

8:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

JB writes:

Yankee/ LetsThink... Pay attention! The doctor was NOT stating that he was prochoice. He was simply asking voters to vote against a poorly written amendment that would make abortion illegal in ALL instances, including those medically necessary to save a woman's life.
In fact, I suspect the good Doctor is prolife. Even the Catholic Church says that an abortion is acceptable if the mother's life is in peril without one. If anything, the doctor is speakign out against an amendment that would actually VIOLATE Chuch cannon.

Pay attention! And don't be so quick to jusmp to the attack without fully reading and understanding a letter. Sheesh...
September 23, 2008

8:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

Where the prolife/prochristian will be confused by this letter is that the Dr. is concerned about the woman and the complications and dangers this law can impose on women.

The believe the woman to be a second class citizens to the fetus so they deceitfully ignore that part of his message and go immediately into pro-abortion rants.

They Dr. stated he is prolife, like many who vote prochoice, and in what is a Christian act is opposed to any law that would put a woman at risk of losing her life.

Prolife activists and fanatical Christians have always put women second and always will. Take what they say with that in mind and you won't be fooled by their prejudice.
September 23, 2008

8:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

If anything, the doctor is speakign out against an amendment that would actually VIOLATE Chuch cannon. JB

And there we have the problem - now the doctor is seen as the Bishop.

No JB, the doctor did not say anything about how the proposition violates Church canon. If you want to know if the proposition violates Church canon, then pay attention to the Bishop, not the physician who identifies himself as a Catholic.
September 23, 2008

8:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

and JB,

That is especially true when this particular self-identified Catholic doctor tells you that Catholics cannot voice their beliefs in the public square because it forces their opinions on others and violates the separation of Church and State.

No one, not even Catholics, are compelled to silence on their beliefs. That mush is a constitutional guarantee.
September 23, 2008

8:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

The doctor writes about the "personhood" amendment 48.

It would ban all abortions, including those to save a woman's life, which we have been told by our pluperfect pundit, are approved by both him and the Catholic church.

Amendment 48 is not a ban on "abortion as birth control." If it were, we could have an honest debate about that issue. It gives constitutional rights to all fertilized human eggs, including those destined to be an ectopic or molar pregnancy. Not all fertilized eggs do become people after all.

Despite providing his authority on Catholic doctrine (nothing I read in the letter contradicts what we've been led to believe), the Grand Wizard Yankee has yet to offer us his position on the amendment at question. How about an answer?
September 23, 2008

8:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

JB writes:

Yankee-
What? What the doctor is advocating against an amedment that would violate church cannon, by disallowing abortion if a woman's life was in danger. He was speaking as a doctor first... but that doesn't mean what he said doesn't match what the church teaches! The church teaches that an abortion is acceptable if a woman's life is in danger. So, when the doctor, in his letter, said:

"...I have been faced with situations in my years of practice in which I had to decide if one person or two would die. Two prime examples are ectopic - or tubal - pregnancies, and infected pregnancies. Must we now allow a woman to die if she is hemorrhaging from a ruptured fallopian tube?"

According to the Church, it would be immoral to let this woman die, yet this Amendment would require we allow her to die. Pay attention.
September 23, 2008

9:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

JB,

Last time.

When the Bishop tells you that Amendment 48 violates Church teaching, then you should pay attention.

When a self-described Catholic who tells you that the Constitution forbids Catholics from speaking about their faith in the public square also tells you that Amendment 48 violates Church teaching (which just by the way in this case he did not tell you), then you should wait to hear what the Bishop has to say.

I am paying very careful attention. You should too.
September 23, 2008

9:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

ML writes:

Yankee, "Last time." Promise?
September 23, 2008

10:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

JB writes:

Yankee...
What part of what I'm saying don't you understand. The Dr. didn't have to say that it violated church doctrine. The FACT is, that this Amendment would violate church doctrine by not making accomodations for women whose lives were in danger. Plain and simple. Just because the letter writer didn't expressly say that, doesn't make it any less relevent to the discussion.

Secondly, I do not believe he said that Catholics can't express their beliefes. He was stating that ANYONE ought to be cautious about imposing their belifes because that becomes a slippery slope. As a Catholic, he wouldn't want someone forcing him to shave his armpits or banning him from eating pork because there was a Muslim majority in control -- and what's to stop something like that if one group gets to impose their views on everyone else. Imposing and expressing are very different and a critical difference to recognize in a discussion such as this.

Lastly, why is a Bishops word so much stronger? Why is that gospel? Bishops make mistakes as do all mortal men and women. Just as the Bishops protected priests who hurt children, or how the vatican had a policy of noninvolvement during the holocaust. Neither a Priest, Bishop nor the Pope are "Gods." They are still men prone to all of our failings and mistakes.
September 23, 2008

10:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

AngelontheSidelines writes:

Last time?

How many times CAN you get it wrong Yankee?

This self described Catholic is telling us why 48 is wrong, NOTHING regarding speaking about faith. The Bishop can talk too, and parrot Rome's agenda all he wants. That does not negate the Dr.'s credibility about not forcing his religious doctrine on non Catholics.

Got it? The hammering of GOP talking points over and over no matter how wrong is standard practice, maybe Coloradans know better.
September 23, 2008

11:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

peterpi writes:

Yankee and LetsThink, you guys have swallowed the hardline position of some Roman Catholic authorities hook, line, and sinker: Namely, their position that a Roman Catholic is only using sound judgement when their judgement aligns completely with the Church's thinking.
The doctor identified himself as a Roman Catholic. He did not say he speaks for the Church.
You may find this hard to believe, But in the good ol' USA, even faithful Roman Catholics are allowed to think for themselves. They can still use their free speech rights. They don't have to call up the Archbishop and ask "Mother Church, may I?" Self-important bishops can refuse giving communion to whichever candidate they please, they can thunder against ballot initiatives, but Roman Catholic voters are still free to vote for that person or ballot initiative if they so wish. It's the American way.
September 23, 2008

12:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

But in the good ol' USA, even faithful Roman Catholics are allowed to think for themselves. peterpi

Yes, that's true. As a matter of fact Roman Catholics are encouraged by the Church to think for themselves. Here's what they're not encouraged to do:

Reject the fundamental teachings and claim communion with the Church. It is not a question of agreeing with every edict that comes out of Rome. No one does. In fact, most of the edicts acknowledge that fact.

But the teaching on life is not one of many issues. It is the foundation of all the teachings. This has nothing to do with politics. The Bishop will not tell you for whom you should vote. However, he does have an obligation to tell the each member of the community and the community as a whole who is, and who is not, welcome at the communion rail. In fact, that is his primary job.

You ought to try to learn some of the fundamentals on how the Church operates before breaking into another lecture. That knowledge might help you avoid some of the stereotypes.

The Church is not exactly the debating club you imagine.
September 23, 2008

1:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

peterpi writes:

Wechasa,
Thank you. My old computer died in late August. It took a while for me to get a new one.
Yankee,
You're wrong, I think Roman Catholic bishops have tried to tell people how to vote. In 2004, I believe one or more bishops told their flock that if they voted for Kerry, they should consider themselves excommunicated. That's, at least, telling people (under severe sanction) how not to vote. Furthermore, if I am following the debates on several threads today on abortion correctly, I see nothing in Dr. Moffatt's letter than contradicts the Church's teaching.
Furthermore, apparently some Roman Catholic Church bishops in Colorado are opposed to Amendment 48. They're opposed for different reasons than Dr. Moffatt is, but nonetheless they're opposed. So are they also not Catholics anymore?
The Church may not be a debating club, but American politics is. Roman Catholics, like everyone else, are free to vote as they please. In the secular sphere, they are free to argue as they please. Nobody's arguing Roman Catholic dogma, they're arguing Amendment 48.
September 23, 2008

1:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

peterpi,

You are, as always, one question deep.
September 23, 2008

2:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

Dr Moffatt claims he is Catholic and pro-life.

Yankee claims he is Christian (and is evasive whether he is Catholic) and pro-life.

Dr Moffatt's letter cites a few real-world cases in medicine in which he would support abortion needed to save a woman's life.

Yankee claims he and the Catholic church agree with abortion needed to save a woman's life.

Dr. Moffatt opposes amendment 48 because it would outlaw these abortions. Besides stating his concerns about religiously motivated legislation, he makes no statement about what constitutes "true" Catholicism, elective abortion, or the role of the church in public policy.

Yanke (because he'd rather recite the same old litany about abortion as birth control?) takes no public stand on amendment 48 despite its inconsistency with every position he has previously taken. He prefers to run his sidehow, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Please tell us what your opinion of amendment 48 is, or save your rants for the threads which are actually about elective abortion or Catholic dogma. Amendment 48 goes much farther, banning ALL abortion, including in cases which you've voiced support for in the past. Besides that it lays the legal foundation for criminalization of routine medical care, where women depend on the private relationships they have with their doctors to make important life decisions.
September 23, 2008

3:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Yankee- I know very, very few people who agree with every single belief of their religion. You can't state that Dr. Moffatt isn't a Catholic because he disagrees in one area with the secular authorities of his faith.

I wholeheartedly agree with him. I have stated over and over that while I believe abortion is wrong, it is more wrong for me to legislatively impose my beliefs on others- ESPECIALLY under the situations he describes. In ectopic pregnancies, the mother WILL die, and the egg can't survive where it's at.
September 23, 2008

3:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

You can't state that Dr. Moffatt isn't a Catholic because he disagrees in one area with the secular authorities of his faith. fiesty.

You're correct and I didn't. This is from my post at 12.31

(Catholics may not)

Reject the fundamental teachings and claim communion with the Church. It is not a question of agreeing with every edict that comes out of Rome. No one does. In fact, most of the edicts acknowledge that fact.

But the teaching on life is not one of many issues. It is the foundation of all the teachings.
----------------------------------------------

I have posted here many times that I think abortion for the purposes of health is justified. I do not know what the Bishop's position is on Am. 48. That's not the point.

The doctor said nothing about 48 except not to vote for it. He did not explain how or why it operates to ban all abortions. What he did do was spend his time establishing his bona fides as a Catholic doctor and then urged us to vote nay taking his word on it because after all, he's a Catholic doctor.

That is not a reasoned debate. It's not even responsible coming from any professional in the health industry.

That is propoganda and I called him on it.
September 23, 2008

3:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

dianahsieh writes:

Thank you, Dr. Moffatt! Amendment 48 would endanger the lives of pregnant women, just as the ban on abortion in Nicaragua has done.

For more on the Nicaraguan ban, see "Over Their Dead Bodies: Denial of Access to Emergency Obstetric Care and Therapeutic Abortion in Nicaragua" by Human Rights Watch:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/nicar...

For more on Amendment 48, see "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person" by Ari Armstrong and myself:

http://www.SecularGovernment.us/docs/...

Diana Hsieh
Founder, Coalition for Secular Government
http://www.seculargovernment.us
September 23, 2008

3:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

great letter.

yankee....did you ever figure out how to rationalize your counterproductive stance on abortion?
September 23, 2008

4:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

"The doctor said nothing about 48 except not to vote for it. He did not explain how or why it operates to ban all abortions."

Yankee, are you playing stupid, or does it come to you naturally? You know exactly what the amendment does, because it's been explained to you before. It's one sentence:

“Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution defining the term “person” to include any human being from the moment of fertilization as “person” is used in those provisions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law?”

You're a big fan of those unalienable rights, so tell me where in Colorado statute the deliberate killing of a "person" by a third party (doctor) to benefit another person (patient) under the right conditions exists. You know it doesn't, and any person who thinks about amendment 48 for more than a minute knows exactly how this would work.

You've had months to think about it, and are still playing dumb. Maybe you're not playing.
September 23, 2008

4:51 p.m.

LetsThink writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
September 23, 2008

5:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

LetsThink,

Are you as stupid as Yankee?

The doctor is talking about pregnancies that will kill the woman, and therefore cannot survive.

And yes, I am able to do that, and no knife is involved.

Queen Gorgo (Because only Spartan women give birth to real men!) MD FACOG
September 23, 2008

5:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Lisamaria writes:

Letsthink wants to know if the doctor is a Christian. In my 68 years as a Catholic I always thought of myself as a Christian. Any religion that is Christ centered and accepts Jesus Christ as savior is Christian. In the Catholic Church we always pray in Jesus' name. It is a shame that so much misinformation is out there concerning Catholics. It dates back to the reformation when sects began to split off from the faith forming the many protestant religions. Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists and many more, all are Christian. Corrupt Popes did a great deal of damage to the Catholic Church just as a corrupt clergy has done in recent years.

As to Dr. Moffat's letter, I believe it to contain the best of reasons to vote against Amendment 48. Do I want other faiths imposing their beliefs on me? Certainly not. Do I want to see childbirth and prenatal care set back a century or more? Absolutely not. Do I want the government and the courts in the delivery room making decisions about my daughters' or grand daughters' lives? Emphatically not.

I've had to modify my beliefs in favor of the common good and allow women and their doctors to decide what is best for them. I do not want to see any more back alley abortions, I lost a couple friends that way. Abortion is not painless either physically or emotionally. Yes, Yankee, I believe that women should have a choice. If the Church wants to condemn me for that, so be it. I must answer only to God, not to you or to the church. I'll vote NO on 48. Judge not, lest ye be judged.
September 23, 2008

5:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

Dr. Moffat has not said that he favors abortion and he has not actually said that he has performed any abortions.

However, one can certainly infer that he has performed abortions in the two instances he describes, "Two prime examples are ectopic - or tubal - pregnancies, and infected pregnancies".

The Catholic Church goes along with Dr. Moffat on these instances, although it denies it is approving of abortion by claiming that the surgery in these instances is not really an abortion. It reasons that the purpose of the surgeries is to save the life of the mother and that the death of the baby is an unfortunate but unintended result of the surgery.

There are posters on this thread who are either uninformed on the position of the Catholic Church or willfully misstating its position, and who have the audacity to brand Dr. Moffat as not being a Catholic. What they have achieved is to brand themselves as ignorant, arrogant and overly judgmental. The reason these posters slander Dr. Moffat is that they fear that his well-reasoned statement may help defeat Amendment 48. Hopefully, their fears will be realized.
September 23, 2008

5:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

One poster states: "a self-described Catholic who tells you that the Constitution forbids Catholics from speaking about their faith in the public square"

I assume he is referring to Dr. Moffat, although his poor writing skills may be open to another interpretation.

The poster has simply become hysterical to the extent that he can't seem to tell the truth from a falsehood. Dr. Moffat, of course, said nothing at all like the above quote claims.

It appears that some posters are so frightened that Dr. Moffat's post will influence the voters to do what they clearly should do and defeat Amendment 48 that they almost lose their sanity.
September 23, 2008

6:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Yes, Yankee, I believe that women should have a choice. If the Church wants to condemn me for that, so be it. Lisamaria

As you must know, the Church does not condemn anyone. She understands that God's thoughts are not our thoughts.

What your position clearly does mean however is that you are not in Communion with the Church. That is the choice you have made - no one else. You should be honest about your choice.

Being Catholic all these years, that much you certainly do understand.
September 23, 2008

8:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

Yankee, who takes delight in judging others whether he has the facts on his side or not, claims that Lisamarie was being dishonest.

Of course, she was not. It was Yankee who was being dishonest. No surprise there.
September 23, 2008

8:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Well no, Grouch. The truth is no where near your puffed-up, long-winded declamations.

Amendment 48 does not outlaw anything. It is a defintion, not a criminal law. Therefore, it lays a common-sense foundation for our legislature and courts to base our laws off of. It allows the people to update our laws with a modern medical defintion that recognizes every human being as a person. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that a woman and mother is still a person.

The application of the definition is worked out in the democratic process. The goal is to get out of the outdated science of the past 35 years, and recognize in law what science now tells us.

Ammendment 48 is not nearly as complicated as you let on. Perhaps you just find the prospect of the democratic process frightening?
September 23, 2008

9:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Hi back Wechasa. This amendment could impact the lives of everyone. In an alternative universe I would love to see it pass and live long enough to see it repealed. The amount of damage I can imagine is endless. This would make a wonderful science fiction/sociology movie.

I just finished reading The Children of Man and what a great book that was. This amendment would make that book and the book The Handmaids Tale look like a fun times to live.

Religious people who vote for this have an agenda of control of women, nothing else. And that goes for the Catholic Church, which is a boil that needs occasional lancing. The Reformation was one such occasion, and the publicity after the priest sex with little boys scandle was another.

How grand of the hoary old men of the CC letting a woman with an ectopic pregnancy get it removed. How f*ing big of them.

If this passes, here are some of the things that WILL happen.

Poor girls of color will be forced to continue pregnancies even if they are drug addicts or alcoholics. Then they will be put in jail for child abuse. They are now if they deliver, but not if they abort.

Jails will fill with women being watched during their pregnancies because they will not obey their doctors orders, whatever they may be. These women will be turned in by their mothers-in-law or just nasty neighbors.

Every late term miscarriage will be investigated as a possible murder.

If I am wrong, someone, besides Yank and LetsThink please show me in the amendment where care is taken to avoid these situations.

If you have any horror stories to add to my movie, please let me know.

In fact, just post hi to me. I have been ignored too much lately. Sniff, sob, boo hoo.
September 23, 2008

11:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

OG,

What the Grand Yanker posted is a parotting of fever-dream divine visionary Kristi Burton's talking points. Check out the "No on 48" editorial and click on the link to her video statement. I wonder if JJ's eyes roll back in his head like Kristi's when he conjures up "the moment of conception" in his mind. Unlike her, he doesn't have the balls to actually state his support for the amendment.
September 23, 2008

11:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

peterpi writes:

Yankee, any good lawyer-lobbyist will tell you that for many bills in the legislature, the "definitions" are key. Amazing things can be done through how a bill defines terms. Yes Amendment 48 simply defines "person", and in so doing, creates law. It doesn't have to spell anything else out.
If I pay someone to kill a person for me, I am guilty of murder if the killing is carried out. If Amendment 48 passes, every woman who has an abortion could be found guilty of murder.
The refusal of the pro-lifers who rant that "abortion is murder" to carry their argument to its logical conclusion when it comes to the woman who has the procedure always mystifies me. Ultimately, they chicken out. They're all too willing to throw the doctor in jail for murder, then they stop. So I'll do their "logic" for them.
If Amendment 48 passes and a fertilized egg-blastocyst-embryo-fetus is a legal person and abortion is murder, then the doctor is a gun for hire, and the woman is a murderer.
That logic is inescapable. So, Yankee and LetsThink, how much time should women who seek and obtain abortions spend in jail?
Vote No on Amendment 48.
September 24, 2008

1:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

redsoxfan1 writes:

LetsThink writes:

This doctor didn't confirm whether he is a Christian.

Did you not read the VERY FIRST sentance? I quote,"As a Catholic and retired pro-life obstetrician, I am very concerned about Amendment 48. Let you think before you type.
September 24, 2008

5:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Yes Amendment 48 simply defines "person", and in so doing, creates law. It doesn't have to spell anything else out. peterpi

I suppose the man who can persuade himself that the Bishop would "excommunicate" those voting for Kerry but would not "excommunicate" Kerry can convince himself of just about anything.

Yes, peterpi laws do have to spell things out. That is the point of making law. Am. 48 is a definition that creates no law, it bans nothing.

Now, based on the definition will the Colorado legislature suddenly feel compelled to outlaw abortions required for health?Only in the fears of the blood-stained fever swamps of the Culture of Death that is the American abortion industry.

Will the new definition cause the community to consider that the human in the womb has a right not to be killed by an elective abortion? That is the hope.

If Am. 48 does pass the abortion industry has a battery of attorney standing by to challenge a favorable result. So even if the law makers are suddenly overcome by a desire to pass draconian measures, the abortionists will still be able to carry on snuffing out millions of innocent lives and collection hundreds of millions of dollars for their work unhindered by any public authority.

Let not your heart be troubled peterpi. It is unlikely that the passage of Am 48 will prevent any abortion from occuring any time soon.
September 24, 2008

6:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

The obvious purpose of Amendment 48 is to ban abortions. Yankee says to vote for it even if you don't favor banning abortions because just maybe it won't ban abortions after all. Hmmm.
September 24, 2008

7:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

LetsThink- did you actually READ the letter? He specifically mentions ectopic pregnancies- there will be NO baby, and the mother WILL die. Are you trying to say that abortion in that case is still wrong??
September 24, 2008

8:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

Wechasa,

I remember that whole string you referenced at 8:29. I believe that there were a couple going on at the same time. What a heated debate that was!
September 24, 2008

10:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

feisty,

You will get NO SENSIBLE answer to any question concerning a matter of scientific, or medical, nature from any of those who make up the most vocal of the ANTI claque. None of them even knows what you are talking about in the first place, much less has ability to deal with the matter reasonably. Grouch

Now where have I seen this before? I remember

• September 8, 2008
9:04 p.m.

Wechasa writes:

What "science" makes the assertions Yankee attributes to it?
When did real science abandon the use of "zygote", "embryo", "fetus" and other technical definitions for the wholesale assumption that "life inthe womb is a distinct, individual human being from the moment of conception"?
Where is the evidence for this new approach by "science" to the matter?
If there be any such REAL evidence, why doesn't Yankee give us the sources?
Or, is this just another case of Yankee's own hallucinatory delusions?

And my response:
September 8, 2008
9:25 p.m.

Yankee writes:
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]

See Grouch - we've already been down this road. Memory failing is it?

At some point Grouch it will dawn on you just how easy it is to expose your frauds.
September 24, 2008

10:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

The question is not what the scientists say is a human being (acknowledging that the scientists are not of one mind about this). After all, the scientists all say that the innocent people killed in war are human beings. The question is, assuming that a zygote is a human being, how far does the right to kill another human being extend? Most people recognize the right to kill another innocent human being in time of war for the selfish motive of protecting our own way of life. Should an individual have the same right with respect to a zygote, whether it is a human being or not?
September 24, 2008

10:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

So Yankmaster, are you advocating YES on 48? Made up your mind yet?
September 24, 2008

10:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

yankee...can you tell us why you support a position that doesn't actually decrease abortions?

or are you still running from that one as if it's a house on fire?
September 24, 2008

11:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

grandpaw- so do you believe abortion is acceptable for ectopic pregnancies?

also, I disagree with your post. You can't jump past the question of whether an embryo is a human being; that is the crux of the matter.
September 24, 2008

11:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

btw, for those who believe abortion is being used as birth control, according to the latests news, abortion rates have continued to fall the past 30 years: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080924...
September 24, 2008

11:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

The author was only talking about abortions in the case where the mother's life is in danger. Every pro-life person I know would agree in that case. I have NEVER met anyone who is against abortions in every single circumstance.

TRUTH: Every abortion ends with a dead baby. The mother makes the CHOICE whether or not the circumstances warrant a dead baby. In the cases the doctor mentions - it does.
September 24, 2008

12:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

cassidy22 writes:

Cowboy says "The author was only talking about abortions in the case where the mother's life is in danger. Every pro-life person I know would agree in that case. I have NEVER met anyone who is against abortions in every single circumstance."

If this is the case Cowboy, then why support a proposition that will pave the way to ban ALL abortions? Which is what prop 48 will do (as well as ban several forms of birth control, that will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies).
September 24, 2008

2:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

cassidy

This is the full text of Amendment 48:

As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of article 2 of the state constitution. The term “person” or “persons” shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization.

As you can see it doesn't ban all abortions. It doesn't ban any forms of birth control. In fact it doesn't ban, or allow anything. Amendment 48 is not a law, it is a definition.

To ban all abortions in Colorado the State law makers would have to pass the legislation. Do you just assume that would happen? Why?
September 24, 2008

3:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Wechasa - I think you completely missed the point I was making. I was addressing the idiots claiming that ALL abortion is murder, that ANY abortion is killing a "baby", that it is NEVER acceptable, etc, by pointing out that there *are* situations where it is NEEDED to save the life of the mother when there is 0% of the embryo becoming a baby- ectopic pregnancy being the prime example. Yet notice how the radical pro-lifers never answer that one??
September 24, 2008

3:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Grouch,

Here is a good definition of a person.

American Heritage Dictionary
per·son n.
A living human.
An individual of specified character
The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
The living body of a human:
---------------------------------------------
And here's a compilation of scientific findings I showed you

The development of a human being begins with fertilization

The development of a human begins with fertilization

Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being.

Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
-------------------------------------------

You look at all this and employing rigorous knowledge of science and logic conclude

Nor are those words even close to being the same thing as a definition of "person".

OK. Since personhood does not begin at fertilization, then I will ask of you what you asked of me

If there be any such REAL evidence, why doesn't Yankee give us the sources?

If not at fertilization, then where are your scientific sources providing evidence of when personhood begins?
September 24, 2008

3:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

fiesty,

I don't know if I'm considered one of the idiots but I am radically pro-life. You asked me that question, I responded in the next post at 3.40. You ignored the answer only to repeat it now. If you don't like my answer than say so. There isn't much point in just repeating the question.

Maybe you shouldn't be so hard on the idiots who disagree with you on abortion.
September 24, 2008

3:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

you're considered one of the idiots, yankee....simply because your position on abortion won't actually decrease their occurence.

pretty simple equation.
September 24, 2008

4:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

cassidy22 writes:

Yankee - why pass this proposal then? Why do we need to document the "definition" of human life?

I'm sorry, the prop doens't ban abortions, but it'll sure make it a heck of a lot easier to do so in the future, so I won't support it. there's NO NEED FOR IT. I'm not going to wait for the ban abortion proposal to hit before I start doing what I can to protect my rights. This is just one stepping stone in the WRONG direction, and I won't support it.
September 24, 2008

5:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

Amendment 48 changes the definition of person in Sections 3, 6 and 25 of Article II of the Colorado constitution to include unborn babies from the moment of fertilization.

Section 3: Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Section 25: Due process of law. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.

Section 6: Equality of justice. Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character; and right and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay.

Each of these protects a person, which would include unborn babies from the moment of fertilization, from being murdered. Amendment 48 contains no exceptions.

Colorado Statute 18-3-102 states, "A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if…[a]fter deliberation and with the intent to cause the death of a person other than himself, he causes the death of that person or of another person…"

So, Amendment 48 would prohibit all abortions, including those to save the life of the mother, and thus makes murderers out of the mother whose life is at risk and out of the doctors and others who assisted in the abortion.

It also makes murderers out of those women who use a form of birth control which does its work after fertilization, and perhaps out of the doctor and/or pharmacist who assisted the women.
September 24, 2008

5:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Yankee - why pass this proposal then? Why do we need to document the "definition" of human life? Cassidy

This is the reason given by the proponents:

it lays a common-sense foundation for our legislature and courts to base our laws off of. It allows the people to update our laws with a modern medical defintion that recognizes every human being as a person. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that a woman and mother is still a person.
Amendment 48 would direct our courts and elected officials to respect all human life when they make new laws or modify the ones we currently have.

"...but it'll sure make it a heck of a lot easier to do so in the future"

How? If the State law makers want to legislate to prohibit abortion for health reasons, they could do that now.

"...start doing what I can to protect my rights."

What right are you concerned about losing? Your right to be able to kill the human being in the womb at any point for any reason.

I understand you intend to vote against and that is entirely up to you. All I ask for is clarity of terms based on a full understanding of the circumstances.
September 24, 2008

5:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

EZBakeOven writes:

Tell it like it is, Dr. Moffat! Thank you for writing this letter as Amendment 48 is a terrible idea. Vote NO!
September 24, 2008

5:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Grouch,

Here was the question:

"If not at fertilization, then where are your scientific sources providing evidence of when personhood begins?"

And the answer

"Personhood" is - as I have already indicated - a LEGAL STATUS."

I see. This after these gems from you -

Yankee doesn't explain what "outdated science" to which he refers, nor does he give evidence of any particular knowledge of, or expertise in, science,

You will get NO SENSIBLE answer to any question concerning a matter of scientific, or medical, nature from any of those who make up the most vocal of the ANTI claque. None of them even knows what you are talking about in the first place, much less has ability to deal with the matter reasonably.

Read Yankee's reply, in which he speaks of the "science of the past 35 years", which seems to be his length, width, and depth of his knowledge and understanding of the scientific designations of "zygote, embryo, and fetus" that have been in use for CENTURIES. And that is several levels above and beyond anything ever expressed by LT and NCB, for what it's worth.

I realize you are abysmally ignorant in the area of science;

Indeed, why does anyone think he, or she, can LEARN something about a scientific/medical subject from the likes of Yankee; or any of the others here who are themselves completely ignorant of basic SCIENCE?
----------------------------------------

And now after all the bombastic ridicule and mocking me on science you find yourself asked the exact same question and the best you can do is - Science, who needs science?

In your arrogance in never even occured to you that you might be asked about it yourself and when you are, science suddenly becomes moot.

OK, so you're not Mr. Science. Now it is

"In our Nation, for humans, it customarily acrues at viable birth,"

Really, now that is interesting. What customs or laws established that and what do you mean by "viable birth."

And you better come up with something better than the human in the womb cannot be a person under the law because corporations are.
September 24, 2008

7:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

There are people who claim that they favor abortion in the case of the mother's health. Then, these same people contradict themselves by saying they favor Amendment 48, which would make all abortions illegal. These are the Trojan horse people. It's just an innocent little pony, they say; they hide what is inside of the pony, which is their goal, the prohibition of all abortions.

They are entitled to advocate that prohibition of all abortions. But not by the deceit they are using. Not by making claims that Amendment 48 is "only" about definitions and won't change the law on abortion, when they know full well it will.

It is murder to kill a person. Amendment 48 says a person includes the unborn. Ergo, it is murder under that amendment to abort or kill, depending on who is talking, the unborn.
September 24, 2008

7:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

yankee you can dance all day long, but the fact remains that your dogmatic, fairy tale spawned position on this issue WON'T DECREASE ABORTIONS....leaving us with little choice but to believe that it is not science or humanity that is behind your motivations...but rather the blind adherence to your supernatural beliefs.

kind of sad when you think about it.

i would hate to be thus hindered.
September 24, 2008

8:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Grouch,

Now that we have established that you have no scientific basis for your opinion we learn that you also have no legal or customary basis for thinking that personhood dawns at viable birth - meaning of course, those who manage to be born without dying in the process.

I assume then it is your considered opinion that dead people are not coustomarily considered by the customs and laws in our Nation as persons - former persons? Perhaps but, certainly not persons. That's riveting stuff but not particularly useful when thinking about abortion.

I will decline reading up on estates texts for the meaning of of "person" since I provided you with a perfectly good definition from the dictionary. Of course dictionary definition are much to pedestrian for a man of your education. Obviously.

I give you credit for this - you will puff up with more vapid prose (richly sprinkled with idiotic insults) trying to conceal the fact that you have no clue what you're talking about better than anyone else posting on this page.
September 24, 2008

9:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

I've been saying it for more than a year and a half, and it has never been more true: James Jones (Yankee) is a liar!

"As you can see it doesn't ban all abortions. It doesn't ban any forms of birth control. In fact it doesn't ban, or allow anything. Amendment 48 is not a law, it is a definition.

To ban all abortions in Colorado the State law makers would have to pass the legislation."

Grandpaw has clearly shown how changing the definition of person in the Colorado constitution would affect thousands of laws that apply to "persons." There are laws regarding deaths, child abuse, inheritance, etc. which were not written with fertilized eggs in mind, but would now apply to them were amendment 48 passed. The unpredictable consequences of this amendment are far-reaching, and introduce the government, courts and lawyers, into untold areas of important family life.

Though JJ likes to play stupid when I use analogies, let's try one out, and see how he can distort my words. For analogy's sake, let's suppose the following: Motorized skateboards are not considered motor vehicles under Colorado law, so they can be ridden places that motor vehicles can't go. Suppose an amendment to the Constitution passed, declaring that motorized skateboards were now considered motor vehicles. Would the legislature now have to pass a law forbidding them from sidewalks? Of course not, existing laws prohibiting that would now apply when previously they didn't. Claiming that amendment 48 doesn't outlaw abortion is beyond dishonest, it's insulting. Parotting this malarkey means Jimmy thinks you're stupid.

Yankee more dishonest than the Colorado for Equal Rights group supporting the measure. At least Kristi Burton has the honesty to admit that her intent is to ban abortion and challenge Roe v. Wade.
September 24, 2008

9:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

And as for your beef with Grouch, the US Constitution grants many rights based upon time and place of birth, none at conception.

I think the reason you're so obnoxious about this, is you realise how flawed your position is.

You constantly harp back to the Declaration of Independance, and remind us that the right to life is endowed by God, and you take that to mean from the moment of conception. Never mind that Judaism states that life begins at birth, you believe that your religious view is the correct one.

We have been advised many times that without acknowledging that our rights are God-given, not legislatively endowed, the end result is anarchy. What the community gives (right to life) the community can take away. Yet your position on abortion is just that.

You want Roe overturned so each state can decide abortion for itself. So if California or New York decides abortion is OK with no limits, that's fine with you. I forget which self-evident truth it was that allows legislation to go against God. You can't have it both ways.

It's this fundamental confusion that makes you so dishonest and surly.
September 25, 2008

8:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Yankee- the "idiots" I refer to (as specifically stated) are those radical pro-lifers who claim that ALL abortion is murder and wrong, and refuse to make allowances for health issues, such as the afore-mentioned ectopic pregnancies. Since, as you stated in your 3:40 post that you DO agree with abortion for "health issues", than I was not addressing you. Rather, look at LetsThink's (a misnomer if I've ever seen one!) first posting.

Now, personally I am pro-life, but legally I am pro-choice. Here are some questions for the radicals out there:

1. There is no clear consensus at what point, and if, during a pregnancy that the fetus achieves the status of "person" or "baby". There is no clear consensus that the unborn are persons, or have rights. Most ethical people would agree that they do, but even they differ if (and when!) abortion should still be allowed. Given all these different beliefs, why do the radical pro-lifers believe they have the *right* to legislatively impose *their beliefs* on those who don't agree?

2. There is a HUGE slippery slope involved when you begin to argue that "saving life" should trump a person's right to determine what happens to their own body. If we allow this as a precedent, what's next? Involuntary blood donations? Involuntary immunizations? Involuntary human testing?

3. Then there is the issue of rights superceding other rights, and rights having limitations. For example, your right to freedom of speech doesn't extend to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater as the result threatens the right of others to live. In this case, why would the "right" (which legally doesn't exist) for a "person" (whose status is in question) trumph, at detriment, to another legally recognized person's legal right to self-determination?

I believe abortion, with a few exceptions, is wrong (as it is unjustified murder especially given the alternatives!)- however, to illegalize it would be a GREATER wrong. It's hard to view this logically as it is an emotional issue; trust me, I know, since I can't have any more children! But pro-lifers need to start looking beyond how they FEEL to the ramifications of what they are advocating for (in the case of legislation). But I doubt they will, because they are so convinced about the rightness of their position.
September 25, 2008

8:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

TO RETURN TO THE SUBJECT OF THE DOCTOR'S LETTER:

BEAR IN MIND THAT UNDER AMENDMENT 48 ALL ABORTIONS WILL BE PROHIBITED, INCLUDING THOSE TO SAVE THE MOTHER'S LIFE. AS WELL, WOMEN WHO USE A BIRTH CONTROL METHOD WHICH DOES ITS WORK AFTER FERTILIZATION WILL BE CLASSIFIED AS MURDERERS.

Why? Because Amendment 48 defines what the word "person" means in the murder statute reading that killing a person is murder.
September 25, 2008

10:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

There is no clear consensus at what point, and if, during a pregnancy that the fetus achieves the status of "person" or "baby".

There is scientific knowledge learned from genetics that the zygote is an idividual, distinct human being.

The embryo now exists as a genetic unity. (see other work at 10.24 yesterday)

So why do we have the semantic conversations about whether this unique human being is a "person"? Becaue we want to kill it. If it is a person then it has rights and under our system of government cannot be deprived of those rights (e.g.killed) without due process of the law. That's what this is about. Are all abortions under every ciccumstances justified or is there some case that the fetus has the right to live?
-------------------------------------------
There is a HUGE slippery slope involved when you begin to argue that "saving life" should trump a person's right to determine what happens to their own body. If we allow this as a precedent, what's next?

What's next is whatever the lawmakers legislate. In my opinion that future legislation will be more just if every human being is treated with dignity and respect. The spectre of human testing and so on that you raise is much more likely to occur if the rights of all human beings are not respected.
------------------------------------------------------
Then there is the issue of rights superceding other rights, and rights having limitations

Yes, our rights do have limits and those limits are encoded into the law. I am asking that the community weigh the rights of those human beings in the womb not be ignored. Where exactly that takes us I do not know. I do however put my confidence in democratic process.
-----------------------------------------------------
"I believe abortion, with a few exceptions, is wrong (as it is unjustified murder especially given the alternatives!)- however, to illegalize it would be a GREATER wrong."

Agreed. There is no interest on anyone's part, including the Catholic Church, to make abortion illegal. Abortions are performed in Catholic hospitals. The unaddressed question is, when should the rights of the human being in the womb be considered. In the current situation, the answer is - never. Since the abort about one million lives annually in the US, the greater wrong in my opinion is to ignore the rights of that life in the womb.

I am not a mother but I am a father and that's pretty close - at least emotion-wise. I appreciate and respect the unique mother/child relationship which is primarily the reason I think abortion in the case of rape or incest has to be allowed. But let's be honest, those cases are extremely rare.

If we were to operate under Colorado law prior to Roe which allowed abortion for rape, health and incest, the abortion rate would be a tiny fraction of the one million. Now that would all but cripple the multi-million dollar abortion industry. Good.
September 25, 2008

12:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

Yankeee: "As you can see it doesn't ban all abortions. It doesn't ban any forms of birth control. In fact it doesn't ban, or allow anything. Amendment 48 is not a law, it is a definition."

Just a definition. My lord, what a word means is all important. If it means only the born, that is one thing. If it means both the born and the unborn, that is quite another. What about the law that says it is murder to kill a person? Does person include the unborn? Amendment 48 says it does.

Is Yankee being naive or willful? I don't know.
September 25, 2008

12:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Let me help you out with one of the many things you don't know.

Amendment 48 not only includes the unborn it is specifically designed for the unborn.

You can also know that Amendment 48 does not ban abortions -if you are interested in the truth.

Truth - get it?
September 25, 2008

2:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Grouch,

Since you said all those insulting things about me, I will be to you in return.

That clump of cells that comes into existance at the moment of fertilization is a unique, distinct, living human being. It has not yet developed fingers and toes but we know, from science, that it is a "genetic unity."

Your argument is a tautology - We cannot deprive "persons" of their rights without due process. We will define that human being in the womb as not a "person." Therefore, since it is not a "person" we can deprive it of its rights.

There is no moral or intellectual basis for that position. Every argument you bring forward that says you can kill that human being in the womb can be applied exactly to that human being in the crib. It is the same human being in either case - unique in all creation.

There is probably something you hold sacred. You were once a living human being in the womb and to kill you then would be as great an outrage to whatever you hold sacred as it would be to kill you today.

If you hold nothing sacred, then abortion on demand is a crime against humanity for exactly the same reason.
September 25, 2008

2:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Make that

...I will be niced to you in return.

Have a great weekend.
September 25, 2008

3:32 p.m.

Queen_Gorgo writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
September 25, 2008

5:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

I see the term "mental (self-pleasuring)" is verboten. It's for the children...;-)

"Amendment 48 not only includes the unborn it is specifically designed for the unborn.

You can also know that Amendment 48 does not ban abortions -if you are interested in the truth."

Only a proffesional liar like Yanke could pull off this kind of gymnastics, and lie while technically telling the truth. It's the same skill that keeps his head from exploding from cognitive dissonance

Amendment 48 would apply the homicide laws to "the unborn." The state's homicide laws do not have exceptions for rape, incest, health or severe fetal abnormalities. If you want to hang your hat on arguing that 48 doesn't ban abortion, the women who seek them for whatever reason, and find them illegal because of this amendment will not appreciate any difference.
September 25, 2008

6:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

Yankee: "You can also know that Amendment 48 does not ban abortions -if you are interested in the truth. Truth - get it?"

I really like the detailed analysis of Amendment 48 by Yankee. He makes it so obvious that he doesn't know what he is talking about. For facts, he substitutes "get it?" Poor guy, I hope he gets a scholarship so he can get educated.
September 25, 2008

7:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

Grouch, I'm not trying to convince Yankee of anything. I just to help people know when he doesn't know what he is talking about.
September 26, 2008

7:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Wechasa - thanks for the compliment and ditto. Per your "we don't always agree", it's a perfect example of how two folks can disagree on a subject, respectfully and rationally, while also respecting the opponent. It's wonderful and lately so rare on the RMN blogs! So many can't do that on these blogs- anyone who disagrees with them is "wrong", the "enemy", and they tend to personally insult their opponent as part of their argument.
September 26, 2008

11:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Wechasa - that's exactly the problem I have with the radical pro-lifers.
1. They violently reject the beliefs of others as "wrong", and their beliefs as unquestionably "right". If you don't agree with them, YOU are *obviously* in the wrong, and are a "moral degenerate", "baby killer", etc. They refuse to recognize the validity of any moral code that does not conform to their own.
2. What's worse is that they feel they are so unarguably right, that their beliefs should be made law (via such legislation as this)! In other words, they are "justified" to superimpose their beliefs and moral code over everyone else's.

Home › Opinion › Letters to the Editor

Catholic physician: No to Amendment 48

Dr. Thomas W. Moffatt, Lakewood

Published September 23, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Letters to the Editor

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs