Subscriber Login



Forgot Your Username?
Forgot Your Password?
Thousands murdered each day by abortion PDF Print E-mail

Letter to the Editor:

As the events of the bombing at the Boston Marathon unfolded and were reported in great detail in the national media, I?was — as were most of us — horrified that two young men could murder three innocent bystanders, including one young child, and seriously injure nearly 200 others.

There can be no doubt that law enforcement did a superb job in identifying and apprehending the two suspects.

I certainly don’t mean to minimize or politicize these tragic events, but on that same day a much more tragic event occurred that went unreported by any of the media. According to the Centers for Disease Control, an average of 2,260 innocent babies are murdered each day by reported abortion in the United States, and we call that a matter of choice.

I’m sorry, folks, but the only difference I?see here is in the number of dead bodies. It is deplorable that we have a president who gets all emotional over the death of three persons when there are political points to be made; but, not only ignores the death of 800,000 people annually, but advocates their being murdered in a most horrible way.

History has shown that any government that commits genocide against its own citizens will not have a good end. How sad it is that we, as a Christian country (yes, Mr. President, this is still a predominantly Christian country), criticize others for their human rights violations yet condone the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of unborn babies as business as usual in the United States of America.

Is it possible that our country is reaping what it sows? How long can we expect God to allow this to continue under the pretext of calling ourselves a godly nation?

David Whittingham

Phelps

and Austin, Texas

 

Editors note: One line was inadvertently omitted from the fourth paragraph (italic in copy above) when typesetting David Whittingham’s letter of May 1, so the letter is being reprinted in full. We apologize for the error.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:04 PM
 

Comments  

 
-25 #8 2013-05-17 13:57
Jeff,

It was meant to be an anecdote (as Denny figured).

I find it amusing that people can get you rattled up about nearly everything when it does not align perfectly with your particular viewpoint on any given subject.

Say, how much time do you generally spend sending responses on here and refreshing your internet to be able to place oodles of negative feedback? I also find that amusing as I am guessing you are the type that would do that sort of thing... Could be wrong though... Just a hunch.
Quote
 
 
+20 #7 2013-05-16 20:54
Tim
Your selected definition, while generally correct, neglects to mention the fact that
the selectivity of "traits" is done at the genetic level and selects those biological traits that enhance the reproduction of the individual. It has nothing to do with ideas or any particular ideology.

The scenario you presented in post #1 is entirely dependent upon the assumption that those who are "pro-choice" are less likely to reproduce. That's quite an assumption. Being pro-choice says nothing at all about the reproductive rate of those who hold that view.

Jeff Laadt
Quote
 
 
-25 #6 2013-05-15 19:15
By the way Jeff, his point was that the country is doomed to fail. I am simply pointing out that it isn't. Trying to make light on a dark subject.

Oh yeah, and in terms of "natrual selection"... The definition is:

The process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of ther kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations.

Sorry if my interpretation of this definition does not align with your liberal viewpoint. Oh great and enlightened Jeff, please forgive me, for I have sinned... oh wait, you don't believe in sin... It's okay then.

You can all calm down now... wowzers!
Quote
 
 
-29 #5 2013-05-15 19:04
Ohh Jeff, slay me with insults.

Why don't you take this a little bit more personally.
Quote
 
 
-27 #4 Frank Gabl 2013-05-15 11:28
David,

As a member of your team, please do not take this as anything other than support.

Every day on average, 3300 abortions take place nationwide which amounts to approximately 1.2 million annually according to the Guttmacher Institute. Of these 1.2 million, 16,500 occur in the “late-term” stage of 21 weeks to full-term birth.

The fact that California has not provided their numbers to the CDC since 1998, even though the state accounts for nearly 25% of all abortions per year, is the reason for the large discrepancy between the CDC and the Guttmacher numbers.

http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

http://www.nrlc.org/Factsheets/FS03_AbortionInTheUS.pdf

The “unaffiliation” of the Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood:

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/09/06/youve-been-guttmacherd-planned-parenthoods-baby/
Quote
 
 
+19 #3 2013-05-15 07:08
Tim
With all due respect, it is apparent that your understanding of both natural selection and being pro-choice is severely limited.

"Those who are predominately pro-choice will likely never have children" is truly an absurd statement, as is your entire logic. I suggest you bone up on some basic evolutionary biology

Jeff Laadt
Quote
 
 
+22 #2 Denny Erardi 2013-05-14 20:07
I'd love to see statistics regarding the demographics of pro choice advocates and pro life advocates. Doing a brief internet search, I can't find anything, and I doubt that your assertions Tim, are anything other than anecdotal or personally experienced. My personal experience is not the same as what you've elicited. The majority of my family and friends are pro choice and the overwhelming majority of them have children.
Quote
 
 
-26 #1 2013-05-14 16:35
David,

With all due respect, it comes down to something seen quite often in nature... Natural Selection.

Those who are predominatly pro-choice, will likely never have children.

Those who predominatly pro-life, will have children.

So let's play this out...

Because those pro-choice children will not be brought up, they won't get the belief system that the pro-choice side has. On the contrary, the pro-life group will continue to have children. Most of those children will also be pro-life as they get older.

As time goes on, the pro-choice people will simply make themselves... extinct.

And there you have natrual selection.
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