Subscriber Login



Forgot Your Username?
Forgot Your Password?
More hysterical rhetoric on issues of abortion, life PDF Print E-mail

Letter to the Editor:

In a recent letter, “We condone mass murder each day in United States,” David Whittingham accuses President Obama with complicity in the mass murder of innocent babies.

Sadly, this type of hysterical rhetoric — which denies even the possibility of reasonable argument — has become commonplace. They say abortion, any abortion, for any reason, is nothing short of genocide.

It does not help that Whittingham misrepresents the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) by implying that the center characterizes a medical procedure as murder. The CDC does nothing of the sort in simply citing the 2009 statistics for legal induced abortions. That widely respected organization says nothing at all about murder. If Mr. Whittingham is looking for real murderers he might look in the direction of Eric Rudolph or Scott Roeder.

Whittingham does not seem to understand that there are genuine differences of opinion when it comes to the essential question of what constitutes a human person. It is this question that is the center of the debate. At what point in the development of an embryo and fetus does a collection of mere cells become a baby, a person? Simply arguing that life begins at conception does little to address that question — all forms of biological life involving sexual reproduction begin in this manner. An honest approach would be to admit that there are many possible answers, or none at all.

The kinds of accusations thrown out by Mr. Whittingham are particularly hurtful to the many, perhaps most, supporters of choice who see abortion as a very troubling decision both personally and for society in general. Few, indeed, take such choices lightly and words like murder and genocide should have no place in the discussion.

Finally, I must say there is an element of hypocrisy in this single-minded obsession with prenatal life. Humans, certainly including Christians, have been killing each other with abandon for thousands of years. We tolerate the worst kinds of inequality affecting the lives of real live postnatal persons. We shrug our shoulders at the proven unfairness of death-penalty systems, or even the use of torture.

To say that one is pro life in the narrow context of reproduction ignores the real-life concerns of the already living. Life, it seems, is a negotiable commodity and quite unevenly respected.

Jeff Laadt

Eagle River

Tuesday, May 07, 2013 4:15 PM
 

Comments  

 
-26 #49 Frank Gabl 2013-05-17 12:27
Denny,

Make no mistake, I would challenge a few things in your response. But because of a couple of subtle insertions on your part, I have nowhere to go without appearing cruel, which was never my intention.

With that said, however, why the heck did you ever voluntarily jump into the fray knowing full well it would probably end up this way? You even predicted this outcome in your initial post (#26) but still proceeded without caution.

But the one thing I can’t let stand is what you just stated: “As I said to Carl in a different post, I'm not particularly bothered by you or he calling me a murderer or a condoner of murder or pro-abortion or any other term that helps you or he pigeonhole me.”

Cont. below:
Quote
 
 
-23 #48 Frank Gabl 2013-05-17 12:24
Continued:

So what brought you to include me in that? I never specifically put your name on any of the kind which is exactly what your statement clearly accuses. Yet at the same time, I do not buy into political correctness in any form since it is nothing more than a manipulative tactic concocted by the Left for the express purpose of shutting down the opposition. And when push comes to shove, I refuse to allow that underhanded narrative to guide how I voice my true convictions.

Therefore, I stand behind the litany of words I’ve ever used in the abortion debate. After all, just because abortion is legal doesn’t mean I have to comply with sanitizing what more and more people are determining to be the obvious.

PS. One last thing in order to be perfectly clear; my use of the words “noncommittal” and “divulge,” in a prior post, were meant entirely in a general sense.
Quote
 
 
+21 #47 Denny Erardi 2013-05-16 15:25
No Frank - it isn't hypocritcal. I've acknowledged that this is an opinion page, and as such, the natural conclusion is that people are pushing an agenda. I've also made it clear that I support the right to express one's opinion regardless of whether or not I agree with it. And, I'm patently not noncommital, but I disagree with you and I'm not willing to go more "public" than I have. I've made my position categorically clear.

As I said to Carl in a different post, I'm not particularly bothered by you or he calling me a murderer or a condoner of murder or pro-abortion or any other term that helps you or he pigeonhole me.

I'm comfortable with who I am and how I got here, and have no need to personalize my disagreement with either one of you. I enjoy debate when it's heated and passionate so long as some boundaries of civility are observed.

I'm also educable, but not interested in being taught by people who call me names, and I don't mean you.
Quote
 
 
-27 #46 Frank Gabl 2013-05-16 12:09
Denny,

Be as noncommittal as you like, however, the simple fact that you oppose late-term abortions, except to save the literal life of the mother, unequivocally proves, that you know that there’s more there, there, than you’re willing to divulge.

I believe most people in the 80-90% category who oppose late-terms, would agree that simply applying the nondescript term “abort” throughout a procedure that changes dramatically depending on the factor of time, serves only to cloud reality at the expense of the innocent in particular, and a culture’s perspective on the sanctity of life, in general.

Cont. below:
Quote
 
 
-24 #45 Frank Gabl 2013-05-16 12:08
Continued:

With that said, one can easily rationalize that the diminishing of this culture’s sanctity for life is the root cause of the increasing and heinous acts perpetrated against humanity in America, such as Newtown.

Furthermore, is it not slightly hypocritical of you to claim that those who use words other than the mundane “abortion” or “abort” are pushing an “agenda,” when in fact; your use of the word “agenda” in this context is actually a negative connotation purposely applied to those simply doing what they feel is morally obvious?
Quote
 
 
+23 #44 Denny Erardi 2013-05-14 20:11
Frank,

I find the word abortion to be perfectly defining and without provocation. I wouldn't call it murder any more than I would call it a minor procedure.

It is what it is, and attempting to augment the term serves primarily to advance an agenda - either pro life or pro choice -- just how I see it. When I discuss the topic, I make known my beliefs surrounding it. As such, I don't need to stir the pot on either side by additional labels.
Quote
 
 
-29 #43 Frank Gabl 2013-05-14 13:09
Denny,

I agree with you, that someone certainly could take my words to mean what you put forth.

However, (and I’m not trying to minimize what I said), I was "trying" to articulate shame and embarrassment when it comes to the particular examples presented of the late-term abortion industry, not abortion in general.

To that point:

Since you are pro-choice with the exception of late-term abortion for any reason other than the literal life of the mother; how can you not consider what was presented as anything less than murder? Doesn’t your assignment of the general term “abortion” or “abort” minimize the taking of a human life which “innocently” enables the Gosnell’s, as well as, all the late-term abortionists of the world?

PS. When the Left stops inciting and starts inviting (I liked that by the way!), I’ll follow suit.
Quote
 
 
-27 #42 Frank Gabl 2013-05-14 01:27
Jeff,

I really don’t appreciate you butting in to run interference for Tony.

Nevertheless, there’s no other way to interpret, “if you speak the truth it doesn't take many words,” considering my history of long posts and his use of the key word “if.”

This is his dilemma to work out on his own. After all, I was minding my own business when he came out of the woods, like usual, to go on the attack.

Unlike everyone else, multiple posts (which I have no control over due to this format) is what it usually takes for me to make my position clear.

Come to think of it, maybe I should start ragging on those who avoid most of my questions (I’m clearing my throat) because my thoroughness leaves them no room to operate.
Quote
 
 
-26 #41 Frank Gabl 2013-05-14 01:20
Jeff,

So here’s a super short response which not only answers your question, “If such is the case, and we agree on the essentials, why all the defensive bombast?” but also illustrates the fact that you just don’t get it.

What part of 1.2 million developing lives exterminated per year do you not understand would foment passion? Especially, in light of the fact that the Left is still up in arms over the “20” lost at Sandy Hook.

As to the use of the word murder: Maybe you didn’t understand that I asked you to put forth a word that you believe acceptably describes the taking of those lives in the manner videotaped undercover, other than my choice of “murder.” This is the same question posed to Denny in post 34.

Keep in mind that the Left employs the word “torture” to describe enhanced interrogations.

PS. How did you leap from late-term abortions being “morally questionable” in post 22, to unequivocally “abhorrent” in 38?
Quote
 
 
+23 #40 Denny Erardi 2013-05-13 22:50
This comment "It’s also noteworthy, that the silence on the part of your comrades speaks volumes to what they know to be true." certainly implied to me that silence on this issue speaks to that individual's concurrence with you that abortion is wrong, or is barbaric, or whatever other inflammatory terms you've used. And the use of the word "comrade" is also intentionally provocative. It's entirely your right to post that and to use that language and inference. Much of the language you use seems intended to provoke, rather than to discuss. It seems much more likely to incite rather than to invite.

To answer your question, I would use the word abortion or the verb to abort.
Quote
 

Add comment

Comments exceeding 1,000 characters will not be accepted. Please refrain from using texting language and spell out all words. All comments are reviewed and must be approved before they are posted.


Security code
Refresh