Subscriber Login

Forgot Your Username?
Forgot Your Password?
We have no right to destroy a life PDF Print E-mail


Dear Editor:

This letter is in response to Jeff Laadt’s letter last week.

I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Whittingham! Genesis 1:27 says, “God created man in His own image.” I do not consider this hysterical rhetoric on life and abortion, seeing as this comes from the Bible, the word of God.

It also says in Psalm 139, starting in verse 15 and continuing, “My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret.” This is evidence that life begins at conception! There shouldn’t be any question of this and it is not a “single-minded obsession of Christians,” as Mr. Laadt mistakenly points out.

Life is not a negotiable

commodity. Seeing that we are created in His image, we have no right to destroy it, whether by abortion, murder or suicide. And I know what I’m talking about, Mr. Laadt, as a year ago, my brother committed suicide.


Unfortunately, when we, as Christians, fall, we’re labeled hypocrites. If we speak out against an issue such as abortion, we are labeled a hate group.

The Scriptures go on to say in Matthew 7:14, “Because strait is the gate and narrow is the way which leadeth unto eternal life and few there be that find it.” Call me narrow-minded, Mr. Laadt, but I stand on the word of God and believe it with all my heart!


Carol Olson



Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:06 PM
Last Updated on Tuesday, May 14, 2013 4:13 PM


-19 #37 2013-05-21 12:26

When are you going to be up this way again? Would love to sit down and discuss this topic and many others over a few beers. We need to find some way of contact without using this forum as the method though.
-29 #36 Frank Gabl 2013-05-21 11:20

As of this morning you have not replied, so I might as well take the initiative of disappointing Tony and John myself.

Just so you know, I never intended for this to be a gotcha moment. But because of your inability to defend your careless accusation, or even the willingness to fake it, in effect, this will be the end result.

For some reason, I’ve always had one heck of a memory when it came to important stuff like this. And although I realize some will think the following is an excessive exercise to prove a point, to me, a person’s opinion is only as valid as the reputation of character that goes along with it.

Cont. below:
-27 #35 Frank Gabl 2013-05-21 11:18

To recap:

You said: “I (you) have never made any statement to the effect that "all living things are equal" I don't even know what that might mean. You have reached that conclusion because it confirms your own ideological bias.”

And: “In addition, I have never expressed any "sentiments on the aborting of human beings compared to (the sport killing of) other animals." You're just making this up, because it suits your purposes.”

So at this point you already had no defense based on past statements that I remember you making.

Therefore, even without your answers to my questions posed yesterday, you believe the following:

1. The belief that humans (man) are the most important species on Earth is a radical position contrived by those who believe in God. Or in other words, you believe at the very least, that all living things are equal.

Cont. below:
-24 #34 Frank Gabl 2013-05-21 11:15

Indisputable proof confirming this conclusion:

*Under your letter from February 7, 2012 in post #21, you unambiguously stated:

“Humankind ("man") is a part of nature, one of the millions of species inhabiting the planet. It is no more logical to say that "man is the object" than to say that man is here to "serve" the earth.”

“What is radical is the anthropocentric Dominionism espoused by people like Rick Santorum and True Believers like you. -Jeff Laadt”

Anthropocentric Dominionism:

Cont. below
-25 #33 Frank Gabl 2013-05-21 11:12

In addition, you:

2. Support abortion as it applies to women’s rights and as a method to control population.

Indisputable proof:

*In the second to the last paragraph in your letter referenced above you affirmed the general philosophy of Agenda 21, by stating:

“If you take these lessons seriously, you may begin to understand that development, not growth and consumption, is a better philosophy of sustaining economic survival for both present and future generations. Such are the lessons inherent in Agenda 21 and similar protocols. And as imperfect and threatening as they may seem to some, they call for a long-term reordering of global and national economic priorities which will better serve the world both today and into the future.”

Cont. below:
-24 #32 Frank Gabl 2013-05-21 11:10

*Under the same letter in post #10, you said: “Constraining population growth is certainly a part of establishing a steady-state economy. It is, however, merely an obvious strategy to achieve the long range goal of ecological balance.”

*Then in post #14, you said, “I'd like to remind Uno and Frank that the point of my letter was to advocate for greater ecological awareness. Issues like global warming, environmental degradation and, yes, human population growth are rightfully part of that concern.”

Cont. below:
-27 #31 Frank Gabl 2013-05-21 11:08

Under my letter of response the following week:

*In post #1, you said: “I am not entirely sure what his (Herman Daly) views are on population control, "oppressive or otherwise", other than the obvious fact that an expanding human population poses long-term problems. Chapter 5 of Agenda 21 itself offers only vague language on this issue, limiting itself to education and advocacy of women's rights issues.”

Agenda 21 Chapter: 5.50. Governments should take active steps to implement,

Cont. below:
-24 #30 Frank Gabl 2013-05-21 11:07

as a matter of urgency, in accordance with legal systems, measures to ensure that women and men have the same right to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children, to have access to the information, education and means, as appropriate, to enable them to exercise this right. (abortion)

*In post #3, you said: “My concern was with the concept of "sustainable development" which teaches that an economy cannot grow and survive beyond the constraints of the natural world, that there are limits to growth (including human population levels) and that rational choices must be made to sustain life (human and otherwise) now and into the future.

Cont, below:
-23 #29 Frank Gabl 2013-05-21 11:05

3. Sport killing and Abortion

*It is still inconceivable to me that you would show quick outrage for sport killing in post #1, when you stated: “I would also like to take it a bit further and express my own distaste for the idea of killing animals simply for "sport.” - Jeff Laadt

*Yet, in all of my posts over the past year on late-term abortion you never once demonstrated any similar distaste even though in post #22 under your latest letter, you stated: “I presented the idea that at some point between fertilization and birth the embryo/fetus evolves to the point of human personhood.”

Cont. below:
-26 #28 Frank Gabl 2013-05-21 11:01

Jeff, considering all of the preceding, this is why I believe your “worldview – is warped.”

To which, in post #19, you responded: “What, exactly, is so warped about a worldview that respects both human and non-human life forms. Jeff Laadt”

Really? You can’t be serious.

Finally, the end.

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