Election time
Don Coldsmith
Originally published 04:01 p.m., October 29, 2007
Updated 04:01 p.m., October 29, 2007
We have an election coming up next year. “The first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.” That sounds pretty confusing and often it is. This year maybe even more so. There are a great many “conservative” religious folks who will be working hard to vote the “Christian” thing regarding abortion, stem cells, even birth control, by electing people who think as they do. I have a hard time agreeing with some of this. I have good friends who take exactly opposite views. It hasn’t been long since a woman was little more than a husband’s property. My mother and my wife’s mother had only voted once before we were born. Women had no rights to vote yet.
Our Declaration of Independence quickly takes on a series of amendments, but the important one here is based on religion. “Congress shall make no law respective to the establishment of a religion. . . ” It goes into more detail, but basically, that’s it. Until that time, they had been under the religion of the King of England, split, away from the strict Roman Catholic Christianity. There were a number of groups, splitting off at the time, accounting for the many forms of Christianity today. I have no quarrel with that. I was raised in a Methodist minister’s home, where my dad took the attitude that whatever makes someone feel closer to God without hurting anyone else should be admissible. He delighted in studying other religions academically and encouraged me to do so. The key phrase is “without hurting someone else.”
But, the new nation felt a need to break free from the religion of the British monarchy, as well as the King’s politics. The strongest and most organized of these groups were reacting to the freedom from the King’s religion. “Protestants,” they were called. Somewhere along the line they overlooked the problem.
The guarantee of freedom prohibits emphasis of ANY religion. The key phrase is “worship as we please.” NO ONE shall have the power to tell anyone whom they might worship, when, how and with what.
The strongest of the then-existing groups at that time were basically descending from British Protestants. There was an attempt, as I recall, to make this our national religion. Fortunately, our wise forefathers recognized the problems of a national religion and modified to “worship as we please.”
If the “as we please” is to have any meaning, it must admit any and all faiths. Not just spinoffs from Roman Christianity are to be given consideration, but Judaism, Islam, the whole works.
Someone often starts with: “God told me to tell you this.”
My answer: “That’s great! When He tells ME, I’ll be ready.”
Back to women and the fact that they’ll be an important factor in the election. What they do with their own bodies is no one else’s business. But the facts are:
1. A fertilized egg is not a human being. Only two or three out of four will ever produce a baby, even with the best of care. Many things can go wrong, and do.
2. It must have proved the ability to survive outside the womb.
3. A “stem cell” or any other such entity can never approach becoming human and is not intended to. Can we learn more about human life and how to preserve our species? Of course. By research on these structures and human-related chemicals, none of which are even close to existing as a potential human being.
Most of all, however, I resent the implication that a woman’s body is not hers, somehow, and that other people can make the rules on its use. This reduces her to exactly the same animal status as a brood mare or a cow. In my humble opinion, her offspring becomes a human being only at the point where it COULD exist without the mother. Some never reach that point. When does the “soul” come on board, and how? I don’t know.
During my medical practice, I delivered more than 3,000 babies. I did not do abortions when it became legal. I would refer to some of my colleagues who did. But it is the woman’s choice. Basically, my belief is that a woman’s body belongs to her. Any decision is not mine to make, not the government’s , nobody else’s but hers. It’s between the woman, HER people and her God. I’m going to resent any effort to deny her this and reduce her to the status of an animal as an anti-abortion law would do.
See you down the road.
Author and columnist Don Coldsmith lives in Emporia.
shoehorn (anonymous) says...
You say "when does the "soul" come on board, and how? I don't know." How then, can you say with any surety that a fertilized egg is not a human being? That egg has a unique DNA. It isn't just some growth inside the womans body. As far as the argument about viability, I might suggest you stick your head in a bucket of water to see if you are "viable" outside the environment you currently need to survive. I think stem cell research will indeed deliver benefits to mankind that we can only imagine right now. Did I mention that currently ADULT stem cells are already being used in something like 72 different therapies? Embryonic? A big fat 0. The latest news is that researchers were able to manipulate fat cells into nerve cells.(adult stem cells, that is.) This offers the possibility of repairing damaged nerves in paralyzed individuals, as well as other debilitating conditions. You might want to tell Michael J. Fox. . The key phrase is “without hurting someone else.” I agree, Maybe you will see it down the road.
October 29, 2007 at 5:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Shoehorn, this article contradicted itself so much I didn't know where to begin. Ya beat me to it :)
October 30, 2007 at 12:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
LOL!
So shoehorn, you are against the right to choose but you are for stem cell research?
I got this from your statement: I think stem cell research will indeed deliver benefits to mankind that we can only imagine right now.
And you mentioned the big zero when referring to embyonic.....except you neglected to mention that a lot of the reason is due to lack of federal funding.
Regardless.......let me ask you (and everyone else) a question:
If your child were dying (from some horrific condition/disease) would you not try ANYTHING and EVERYTHING necessary to save that child?
I would. Be it a stem cell or having another child altogether so s/he could give my older child the help he needs.
It's not difficult, though, in my opinion. If it doesn't concern you, don't stick your nose in it. Just damn all evil people to hell.
Melissa
October 30, 2007 at 12:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
I agree with Kstrebuchet and Coldsmith that a woman has the right to make decisions regarding her own body. This is fundamental to any discussion of civil rights. Without the right to determine what happens to ones physical self, all rights are questionable.
October 30, 2007 at 8:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well, I agree with that point. If a terrorist abducted my family, or child, and was threatening to sever their head, and I had captured some people who knew where they were being held, I agree, I would do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING necessary to get the needed information from them. That includes having dogs bark at them, playing loud music, underwear on their head, etc.... in addition to 5-star meals and accomodations. But that's another subject.
I guess what people are trying to argue for is the rights of the unborn child. Wasn't really talking about dogs or chickens. Just humans. I know lots of people don't differentiate, but some do. Does Mr. Coldsmith's opinion apply to partial-birth or late-term abortions? There are premature babies born that survive to be healthy people that are delivered at a earlier point than some of these. Some people claim under "regression hypnosis" to have memories of being in the womb. Don't know if I believe that or not, but there are people who claim that. Also, just as a question, what about someone who is a surrogate mother for someone else's eggs?
MelissaE, Do you know for a fact whether or not this concerns the people discussing it? I wasn't aware that you knew that much about me or anyone else posting here, whether or not we had a personal reason for involvement. Also, I reread this all twice, and still can't find a single reference, even vaguely, to anyone "damning all evil people to hell".
October 30, 2007 at 10:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
A woman does indeed have the right of choice regarding her own body. If not, as Coldsmith states, she is just another brood mare or cow. I'll be damned if any right to lifer has a right to put any woman in that category.
Shoehorn, tre, is right about the chicken DNA. Your theory says chickens have souls. How about fleas? How about dogs? If so, we'd better not let them ride in the back of our pickups.
October 30, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
As for stem cell research, embryonic stem cell research is legal in the US. The President did not ban private and state research funding. In fact, large US pharmaceutical corporations are now conducting such research. (These industries are heavy Republican Party donors.)
In addition, federal funding is ongoing for the 60 or so existing stem cell lines, in which the life and death decision has already been made. These embryos have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely. So I don't believe that alot of the reason for the non-success of embryonic stem cell research is due to lack of federal funding.
October 30, 2007 at 10:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
I need some clarification.
1. Are those favoring abortion/choice saying that the right to an abortion is a fundamental civil right?
2. Are those favoring abortion/choice saying that as long as the unborn is not "viable" it is the mother's property?
3. Are those favoring abortion/choice saying that since most moral choices or moral arguments stem from religious belief, that those making any moral arguments against abortion are disqualified from speaking about the issue?
October 30, 2007 at 10:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
netloafer, in answer to your questions, yes, I believe the right to an abortion is a fundamental civil right because it is a determination about one's own body. It is not a matter of the fetus being "property"; it is a matter concerning the woman's body. I do not believe that morality is a result of religion but a matter of self-interest. (Why are pigs forbidden in the Bible? Because pigs tear up the ground so badly they would be an environmental disaster in Israel, now or 4,000 years ago.) That last is a huge philosophical discussion which I think belongs elsewhere. Too, for those who believe their morality derives from their god, the question cannot be discussed since it is a matter of faith. More to the point of your question, though, of course anyone may speak their opinion - and their opinions may derive from anything to which they wish to subscribe them.
October 30, 2007 at 11:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
CAFEmporia
I take it then, that viability has nothing to do with whether or not a mother can have an abortion. It's just a fundamental civil right.
I'm still not quite sure about your answer to the question of morality. You seem to be trying to have it both ways. You say that someone can derive opinions from wherever they like, but the question cannot be argued or discussed by someone who holds a pro-life position on the basis of faith. What is it that invalidates faith or people of faith? Is it their faith or is it their opinion?
Incidentally, pigs were not forbidden in the Bible. There were/are Old Testament probhibitions against eating pigs. The New Testament holds no such prohibition. Also, there is no environmental argument made on the matter in either the Old or New Testaments..
Kstrebuchet
I'm not sure what your question has to do with this, Are you saying that there really isn't any distinction between humanity and animals in the created order?
October 30, 2007 at 11:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
MelissaE, after reading back thru my post, I apologize if I sounded a little harsh when asking if you knew if people here had personal reasons for involvement. I did not mean it to sound so abrasive. But nobody has called anyone evil or damned anyone. (Yet anyway, and hopefully it will stay that way :)
Actually, Kstr, that was me that brought in the terrorist abduction to make a point.
Personally, I don't know if animals have souls. I'm not an animal hater, I do love my pets, but I do draw a distinction between animals and humans. I'm not a vegetarian, nor do I believe in giving pets, apes, or fleas the right to vote. Although apparently alot of them run for public office LOL.
But that's just my opinion.
October 30, 2007 at 1:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Krstebuchet
I didn't say that women don't have the "legal" right to make a choice. I've said that I disagree with that choice.
I wasn't the one who brought in the point about a terrorist abducting my family. I do agree for the most part with the person who made it. Where I disagree is whether or not I'd be willing to do "anything." That term is too all encompassing for me. It would allow me too much freedom to do whatever I pleased in my own self interest or the interest of my family. Just because I had the freedom in theory to do something or even the will it wouldn't automatically justify the "anything."
As to the matter or the soul or spirit, no one person can know for sure in terms of science. It's not the type of thing that science can measure. That in itself should warrant caution, I would think. I do believe that man was made in the image of God and thus has a soul and spirit and entitled to the dignity and protection of society.
As to the matter of animals and souls, I also don't know. As I've observed our pets over time I see that they seem to take joy in some things, they respond to love and affection, and seem to love being around people. They love to play and they seem to understand that they are dependent upon us for their welfare. At the same time, I've never seen any of my pets ever write a song or a poem. I've never had one ask me to discuss the works of Augustine or Thomas Aquinas over a glass of wine.
I'm not saying that to be flippant. What I am saying is that there are some fundamental differences between humanity and the rest of created order.
I do know this. There is a heaven and there appears to be a place for God's creatures there. It's a place where the lion will lay down with the lamb and the wolf will lie down with the kid.
October 30, 2007 at 1:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
netloafer, you are right, saying "ANYTHING and EVERYTHING" to save them would be going too far. There are limits to what I would do in situations, and "anything and everything" is way too broad. Thanks for pointing that out.
October 30, 2007 at 2:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
open_eyes
I was pretty sure that you weren't making a literal statement.
I do firmly agree with the thread of your arguments here.
October 30, 2007 at 2:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
netloafer: I must have been unclear in what I said earlier. Let's forget the morality question, itself, in this discussion. It belongs in a different discussion altogether.
Anybody has the right to discuss abortion. Regardless of where they get their opinion or how they think it was formed, they have that right. This is also true whether or not that person already holds a firm opinion. I did not mean in any way to say that any person does not have the right to be heard or to have a valid opinion on this or any other topic.
If there is any confusion on this, do please let me know. It is my hope to encourage conversation rather than stifle it.
As for viability, I do have personal opinions on the question and think that we should draw lines someplace but, in terms of this discussion, I prefer to say only that women have the right to choose. Questions of when, where, and so forth can be discussed elsewhere. Dr Coldsmith did not bring up conditional questions in his essay and I am merely concurring with what he said as regards choice.
You are right that in the Old Testament, pork as food was forbidden. It would be assumed (or I would assume) that raising pigs would be implicitly forbidden as well. There is, as you note, nothing in the New Testament regarding pigs, either on the plate or the hoof except something about their ears and silk purses plus a herd of them taking on insanity and rushing into water to drown, as I remember. Or was that ducks? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Sorry... That last paragraph sounds like I'm being snide or something, but I'm not. I was just trying to make an example of how morality has its roots in the practical and for some reason that rule about pork came to mind. Now, we're discussing pigs.
CAF
October 30, 2007 at 3:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
You don't like abortions? Don't have one. Teach your family the same principles. Tend to your own knitting so to say.
I agree with Coldsmith on that topic, and many posters here. I don't think the Government nor anyone else should determine what a woman does to her body. I do not like abortions, I hope no-one in my family ever has had one, or plans to go that route. I dislike people meddling in other's people's personal affairs thru legislation.
October 30, 2007 at 5:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
True, only God can judge us - but that does not mean that we cannot and should not have laws and guidelines. Things like murder, robbery - certainly - subjects like this, room for debate. Should drugs be legalized? After all, it is what a person does to their own body. Personally, I think not, but there are plenty of people who believe they should. (At least the government unamimously voted down San Francisco's proposal to provide "safe houses" for addicts to take drugs).
As for your last question - no, I don't think a law should be passed to get me fixed (thought about saying something else here but decided not to :). But what if our population reaches, say, 25 billion? Would the government have a right to do, say, like China does, and limit reproduction? Also, we currently have states that legally sterilize the mentally retarded. Was this what you were referring to?
October 30, 2007 at 5:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Kstrebuchet
I'm saying that the choice itself is bad. I understand that they have the legal authority to make that choice. However, I don't come from the position that assumes that because something is considered legal that it is also morally acceptable. What I support is other options beyond abortion - i.e. - adoption, social services for those facing difficult financial choices, and so forth.
Please don't twist or contort my positions, particularly when I haven't voiced them. I support women as full partner's in this society.
I have never made any personal judgements about women in these matters. I am not making any statements on their eternal destinies. I am making a statement that I believe abortion is morally wrong.
If I were to adopt a position that I would not say anything at all about things I would share in the responsibility for the things I believe are wrong. For example, If I saw a storm coming toward the city and failed to sound the alarm I would bear a heavy responsibility for the casualties and deaths. Those living in the city would be well entitled to ask me why I'd failed to warn them that the storm was coming.
I don't think that laws like that should be passed. This country went through a period when forced sterilization laws were considered by our Supreme Court. It was justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who said he supported the laws because "three generations of imbeciles were enough." In Nazi Germany the Nurenburg Laws were passed in the thirties. People were forcibly sterilized, euthanized, etc, using that some horrendous logic.
I'm not aware of any forced pregnancy laws in this country. In fact, I'd say we're moving in the opposite direction. About three years ago I took a class at E.S.U. In one of the class discussions Paul Erlich was mentioned as a hero of reproductive rights. I told the class that I'd read his work from the sixities and two of its lynchpins were forced euthanasia and sterilization, all for the benefit of society. I was considered the village idiot for speaking out against those ideas.
I suspect that's the track we're on in this country. The rolling stock is being hammered out and we'll probably get to that place. I also suspect that when that day comes that people will accuse folks who object of being nothing more than religious moralists medelling in things they shouldn't.
October 30, 2007 at 5:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I guess several of the ways the author presented his arguments is what I find disturbing. The slippery slope that abortion seems to be going down, what started out as first-trimester has now progressed to late-term and even partial-birth abortions. At the same time, medical science has progressed to the point where premature babies are surviving at earlier and earlier births all the time. And the 2 have overlapped. So at what point is "viability"? If medical science progresses to the point where, say, a 2-week old fetus can be extracted and raised to a normal human being, is that the point that "viability" begins?
As for surviving outside one's environment, who does? As shoehorn mentioned, none of us would survive in the ocean or outer space - "out of our environment".
Only 2 or 3 out of 4 survive - by that token, maybe politicians will someday have the power to eliminate teenagers that don't follow their ideology - after all, only 2 or 3 out of 4 humans born survive to reach voting age :)
October 30, 2007 at 5:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
I thought that all states and stopped sterilizing people based upon mental capacity. Where is that still happening?
Criminal laws are obviously necessary, but should we enact laws that restrict liberty when it does not impose upon another. Yes, certainly I understand the anti-abortion stance regarding "another", but that is not a point of agreement. Without doubt, anti-abortion laws would impose upon the rights and liberties of all women, though.
In instances of wide ranging disagreement such as this, isn't the best governmental policy to stand back, keep things from getting violent, attempt to pass compromises into law?
October 30, 2007 at 5:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
CAFEmporia
What I said was that I think you were trying to have it both ways. You said that folks had the right to voice their opinions, but you also said, "That last is a huge philosophical discussion which I think belongs elsewhere. Too, for those who believe their morality derives from their god, the question cannot be discussed since it is a matter of faith."
I wasn't the one who brought up the subject of pigs. You began by using it as an example of how morality comes from self-interest or practical considerations, not religious belief.
I believe that's an incorrect conclusion. While morailty may sometimes have practical dimensions to it, most of it comes from phlosophy, long held tradition, and religion.
A good many of us still hold to the view that some things are wrong and some are right and that practical considerations (i.e. - social acceptability, popularity, wealth). have less to do with the conclusions we draw than moral considerations.
October 30, 2007 at 5:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Why that is, respectfully, is because the 2 are different things in my opinion. Nor do I consider birth control the taking of a life. Taking something away that has already happened and preventing it are 2 separate things IMO.
You consider a fetus property, others do not. Those that do not, are trying to stand up for the rights of the unborn, which you consider irrelevant. That is your opinion and right.
As for sterilization, I'm not sure that any still do. I did find that NC still had it on the books as late as 2003, but could not find as to whether it was being practiced.
October 30, 2007 at 6:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Kstrebuchet
I understand that women make the choice. I am saying that I don't like the choice that they make. The law is on their side and it's not likely to change any time soon.
I'ved already stated that I believe there are other choices available - adoption, use of social services, and support from community institutions (churches, etc).
My views aren't anti-woman, any more than my views against men cheating on their wives is anti-man.
October 30, 2007 at 6:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
netloafer: I apologize to you for anything I said that may have caused you any sour feelings. That most certainly was not my intention.
You are right that I brought up the pig - as an example of how "morality", in this case prohibitions from God in the Old Testament - are practical rules. I think that is where morality developed in the first place, mainly as matters which improved ones chances of survival, either as an individual or as a group. I do understand that you see this differently, and I have no intention of saying you are wrong. But I do feel that a general discussion of morality would be misplaced in this place.
When I said that with those who believe that morality is a gift from God, it "could not" be discussed, I admittedly used bad wording. All I meant was, it is a matter of faith for you, not a matter to be discussed with any purpose of believing it differently. I did not mean to insult or disrespect your views at all.
OK?
CAF
October 30, 2007 at 7:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
So here's my question to all those who are "pro-life" or "anti-abortion":
How do you feel about the death penalty?
M
October 30, 2007 at 8:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
CAFEmporia
Everything is fine. I always enjoy the opportunity to have conversations about things that matter.
I didn't take what you said as being disrespectuful, nor was my response intended to be disrespectful.
You're right. I think the subject of morality, in a general sense, would be best discussed elsewhere. I'd love the opportunity to have a conversation about it at any appropriate time.
October 30, 2007 at 9:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
netloafer, my question was directed toward you, too.
:)
M
October 30, 2007 at 9:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Kstr - you're right, I misread and mixed up the post(s) and mistakenly attributed that to you, sorry.
October 30, 2007 at 10:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
M
I responsed to your question in the forum "Cheever Testifies He Intentionally Killed Sheriff Matt Samuels."
I felt that was a better place to respond, in keeping with the subject of that forum.
October 31, 2007 at 9:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
orig_patriot (anonymous) says...
Ten Commandments...
"Thou shall not kill..." Back to "viability" as a basis of argument. Would not "viability", if allowed its natural course be realized, if otherwise void of a direct unnatural man-made intervention process developed for the sole-purpose of "killing" any possibility that such "egg" or "fetus" will be otherwise able to continue its natural course toward such "viability"be considered a stage of life? And any unnatural man-made, purpose driven intervention that serves to discontinue the natural stages of life, be considered murder? With all the debate surrounding the Ten Commandments, I find them to be actually meaningful and powerful characteristics of a civilized society and definitely characteristics of "life rules" that I would want my children to emulate. So, does one have a personal choice in regards to the ending of life, I suspect deep down, we all share the same "gut filling" that that probably exceeds our authority in regards to the sustainmentof a civilized society and also for the purpose of "upping the value" that most put on human existance these days. Murder rates and reasons for murder these days seems to be slipping back to the dark-ages and before when sustainment of life is reduced to the survival of the fittest, or rather, those that do not share in our belief in the basic "life rules" and that the violation thereof is indeed a crime against society.
October 31, 2007 at 12:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Flips (anonymous) says...
Well said--------orgin-patroit!!!!!!!
MelissaE's comments remind me sooooooo much of myself about 40 years ago or so-------------sometimes I think oh---my gosh that was totally me------at one time in my life!
Before I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord & Savior!
I was not raised in a Christian home-or ever attended a Bible preaching Salvation preaching church & didn't want anyone praying for me---after all----who did they think they were any way?????? And I didn't want to hear about their beliefs--- :)
When I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord & Savior-----my whole thinking changed &-my life style changed- & my way I looked at everything changed----- I have a total different outlook on EVERYTHING now----as my beliefs are totally different now!
And I pray for everyone now----not because I'm any better in any way-- shape or form------but because of the Grace of God-------I'm a different person with a total different belief system & know now what I can expect in eternity. And what a different life I have now for my self & my family also has!
I have talked with Dr Coldsmith at different times about our difference in beliefs over the past 30 or so years & I still pray someday down the road-- he will see--(in my own personal opinion) --having a preacher father & teaching Sunday school classes don't have anything to do with your own personal relationship with Jesus Christ!
It doesn't matter the church--------etc/etc-----it depends on our own personal beliefs! And Dr. Coldsmith & I don't agree on our beliefs in any way shape or form/ But still respect each other!
And we have that right to have different beliefs & different opinions!!!! And one day we will both know the truth-----& know which one of was truly correct--- but I'm personally not taking any chances!
These are only my own personal opinions--& beliefs---& truly not to be mistaken for fact! :)
October 31, 2007 at 1:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
situveux1 (anonymous) says...
Why is Coldsmith so obsessed with abortion? It seems like every other column is about abortion.
I'm begining to think he had an abortion.
October 31, 2007 at 7:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
situveux1: It was not unusual at the time Dr Coldsmith was a kid, particularly during the 30's, for women to have abortions because they simply could not afford another child in the home. I know (knew) of several who resorted to that tactic. I suspect that he was aware of it just as my parents were in their childhood. Now, as he grows very old, these events play heavily upon his mind. He is a liberal mainstream Christian, as a doctor he dealt with women's health problems and needs, and in his childhood both factors may well have crossed each other within his knowledge.
Just a guess, but possibly the right one.
October 31, 2007 at 8:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
Hey Flips, consider me the one going to Hell, then. You can quote the Bible all you want, but I disagree. And until you walk a mile in my shoes or anyone else's, you should stop judging people just because you accept "Jesus Christ as my Lord & Savior! " Well, big fat yay for you. I am unimpressed.
You are no more right for your beliefs than I am. So get over yourself.
I prefer to not judge anyone for their own choices because, well, I've never walked in his/her shoes.
Take that back to your Bible. Remember that on Sunday.
M
October 31, 2007 at 9:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
Whoa, cowboys and cowgirls.
The conversation here is about abortion, mainly, and it stems from the comments made in his op/ed piece by Dr Coldsmith.
I took the comments made by both Flips and orig_patriot which were overtly about their religious beliefs to be their way of saying what they think about abortion. They spoke about themselves, not about anyone else. They get to do that.
M, I know you are a bit sensitive on this and I think I take your comments to be an elaboration upon your thoughts on abortion, too. I've no doubt I am right. And you get to do that, too.
But, please, this is a difficult topic. Let us do our best to not take it to the personal level.
CAF
October 31, 2007 at 10:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
TruthRising (anonymous) says...
Don's article was poorly written and his reason was lacking in substance. I would have thought him to be less shallow but attacks against the truth are prone to shallowness. "Conservative" Christians seem to make him feel very guilty about something in his life so he takes the offensive. It is not that Don does not know the Bible, which he doesn't, but more that he must eliminate the authority of it to make himself right. Truth crushed to the ground always rises again, Don. It is funny he said that a fetus cannot be defined as alive until it can survive without its mother. I guess that means children are non-human for many years and can be killed by an unhappy mother. Silly reasoning, huh? But if he just means they must be able to survive outside of mother to be human, then he obviously means right after the birth. But what about premature births that are saved by doctors? As medicine improves, younger and younger premature babies survive. This would mean each survival moves back the time we can call them "alive." Each new record of a younger and younger premature baby would move the timeline of "life" back? No! God created life and Don has no right to determine it. He will be judged as an accomplice to anyone who makes a decision to murder a child because of his writing. Dehumanization has always preceded genocide.
November 1, 2007 at 1:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
TruthRising
That same logic about viability is being used to promote infanticide, and it isn't being promoted by someone on the lunatic fringe. Dr. Peter Singer, an ethicist from Princeton University has been arguing since the nineties that as a society we need to legalize the practice of infanticide. His reasoning is that children unable to sustain and maintain their own lives are not viable, hence not human. It's a simple extension of the argrument that Dr. Coldsmith uses.
Singer says the practice needs to be considered and legalized in cases of deformity (Downs Symdrome, Spina-Bifada, etc).
The reason I point out Dr. Singer is that he commands great respect in this country's elite circles, if not the world.
This is the direction we're headed in. And, it won't stop with Dr. Singer. Some other respected scientist, genetecist, ethicists, or theologian will find a way to open the next door once we step through Dr. Singer's
I do not doubt that there are agonizing decisions women face when considering abortion and raising a developmentally or physicially disabled child is often overwhelming. But we must find a better way than the course we're now on.
November 1, 2007 at 5:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Kstrebuchet
1. The legal right to choice hasn't been taken away. Roe v. Wade is still the applicable law.As Chief Justice Roberts put it - "Roe v. Wade is settled law." It's not going to change any time in the next generation. We'll be electing a new president and that person will in all likelihood be pro-choice.
2. The overwhelming majority of pro-lifers are trying to introduce better alternatives (adoption, familial support, institutional support, etc)
3. Bill Clinton promised us that he wanted to make abortion "safe, legal, and rare." It is safe, it is legal, but it is far from rare. In fact, there are more legal abortions performed in this country every year than there are colonscopies. That's an astounding statistic.
4. The Guttmacher Insitute has catalogued the reasons why women have abortions. Here in America the findings were that 26% wanted to postpone child bearing, 22% said that having the child would interrupt professional or educational goals. 14% cited relationship problems with their partner or husband, 12% said they were too young or that their parents wanted them to get the abortion, 3% cited the risk to fetal health, and 3% cited risk to maternal health.
5. I understand that there agonizing decisions for women in the cases of rape, incest, possible fetal abnormality, etc. I believe that most pro-lifers are willing to talk reasonably and rationally about those. But I cannot find myself saying that terminating a life is acceptable because it would get in the way of professional goals or because of relationship problems.
6. You asked for citations. My wife and I will soon be the primary care givers for her developmentally disabled brother. I've known him for twenty-two years now. There are times when working with him is difficult, painful. But we would never consider doing away with him because he is difficult. Through all the difficulty he has given us far more joy than difficulty. We love him. Also, my daughter had a child when she was very young. When she got pregnant our hearts were broken. We saw the very real potential of my daughter's bright future being cut short. What about the college education she'd dreamed of? What about the promising career? That was twenty years ago. With the help of family, church, the community my daughter got her degree and has pursued a good professional career since. Our grand daughter is a sophomore in college.
7. One of the things that really troubles me is that the next logical extension beyond abortion on demand is Peter Singer's euthanasis and infanticide. That's where the logic is driving us and that's where it will eventually take us.
There are better ways and I believe we need to pursue them with as much vigor as we all too often pursue abortion.
November 1, 2007 at 8:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
TruthRising (anonymous) says...
A women had tuberculosis, and the father had syphilis.
Together they had four children. Their first child was born blind...The second child was stillborn...The third child was deaf & dumb...and their fourth was born with tuberculosis. She got pregnant again. Would you have an abortion in this situation? If not, good! The fifth child was Beethoven. For us to determine the quality of a child's future or whether or not a woman's burden is worth it is not for us, but for God.
November 1, 2007 at 4:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )