News, sports, politics, blogs and forums for Hutchinson, Minnnesota • (320) 587-5000

Garage SalesMotorbuysReal EstatemyMarketplaceCouponsmyPrepsPlus

Advertising

Advertising

LETTER: Anti-abortion letter distorted the facts


» Read similar stories filed under:

From John Muske
Hutchinson
From time to time there are those letters that deserve to be responded to. Tuesday’s letter from Mr. Gruenhagen (“Pro-abortion crowd has a friend in Obama,” Feb. 3 Leader) is one of those.

To begin with, I hold some views which could by some be viewed as both liberal and conservative. Such has been the case with what a liberal is. My edition of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines the word liberal in this way. Having views that favor the freedom of individuals to express themselves of their own choosing. Given that definition, I am a liberal.

1. I do not support the killing of the unborn, it’s just that I don’t feel qualified to decide for others to make the decision to carry a fertilized egg to term. This has nothing to do with why Social Security is going broke.

2. I do not believe sexual perversions are being taught to school children here, but if I find out that’s true, I will ask the local school to desist. I do not believe that sexually transmitted diseases have grown exponentially over the past 35 years; however, I suppose it’s possible given the resistance of some to teach our children how to protect themselves. I did recently read that one group of teenagers had an increase in unwanted pregnancies over the past five years, that being those who only practiced abstinence and not other ways of pregnancy avoidance. But of course, common sense should tell you why that would be true.

3. It is an absolute truth that organisms evolve. I believe God created the heavens and the earth. Why is it so hard to believe that he also created the process of evolution?

4. Life would be much easier if it were true that the only reason children misbehave is because they are tempted to do evil. Why is it so hard for some to understand that the human body is not always perfect in its development and that includes the functions of the brain? Spanking in all circumstances is evidence that not all brains work properly.

Advertisement. Article continues below.

5. Strict whole language teaching is being much less practiced in our educational system. People should know that teaching methods continuously evolve. This could be more evidence of the evolution of organisms, teachers seeking to improve their methods.

6. I have spent considerable time on the Web site of the National Education Association and can find no mention of abortion pro or con. I even read their code of ethics, their entire section on issues and actions, and their legislative action section.

One last thing, President Obama has clearly stated that he is opposed to most abortions and has specifically stated he is opposed to most late-term procedures, the exception being “when medically necessary to save the life of the mother.” But, I suppose having sensible exceptions is just too much for some people. They just have to decide for everyone else how they should live every aspect of their lives!




Obama can say he is not for...

Back to page top

Obama can say he is not for "many abortions", but the fact is he has also pledged to sign FOCA if it comes across his desk. This act would remove any and all restrictions on abortion. States would no longer have the ability to decide for themselves. This would mean any young girl finding herself pregnant could receive an abortion and not know the Dr.'s name, what is going on with her body REALLY, what the ramifications of the abortion could be to her emotional or physical health. This same girl, if under age, could not get her ears pierced. How does this make any sense? All females deserve to be fully informed when having ANY medical procedure. FOCA gives the multi- million dollar abortion industry the freedom to perform an invasive medical procedures on women with out any of the same rules a Dr. would have to follow if removing a mole. As a man, potentially a FATHER,Mr. Muske, you absolutely should have a voice as to what is allowed to be done to YOUR child. Sadly your letter proves men have allowed the abortion industry to give them permission to opt out of their responsibilities to the children they conceive. Another insult to women. Once a woman is pregnant and not happy about it, there are no GREAT choices. It is better for women to begin making their choices before they put themselves in a position to get pregnant. Instead of "love" being free, women are now left alone to deal with their unwanted child. This is why the #1 reason given by women as to why they choose to kill their Little Ones (fetuses) is "I DID NOT HAVE A CHOICE!!".


Submitted by arcy on February 5, 2009 - 1:13pm.

Talk about a "throw away"...

Back to page top

Talk about a "throw away" society...if something is just too inconvenient, what the heck, get rid of it! I am deeply disturbed how anyone who claims to be sane can support a procedure that destroys/murders a human, assuming there is no immediate danger to the mother.

Thank the liberal agenda to push single motherhood as a positive way for women to rear a child, but only when it's convenient to her...especially preaching to women to just get artificially inseminated and skip the man relationship.

Also, whatever happened to honor and taking responsibility...like say an unwed couple get pregnant, the man steps up and asks her hand in marriage to do the right thing for the child? Is that just too old school nowadays? Don't forget the public education agenda of pushing the liberal agenda on the young minds as well, that agenda does not support honor or responsibility...just look to government for a handout or permission to do...an abortion on demand!


Submitted by freetime on February 5, 2009 - 3:20pm.

Honor and...

Back to page top

Honor and responsibility...hey, I remember those things! It is sad that we live in a society where they don't exist. Why are we in the mortgage and economic mess today? The adsence of honor and nobody wants to take responsibility. Look at the bailouts, layoffs, business closings. Whether it is politics, finance, education, news reporting, child bearing, law enactment, law enforcement, sports, raising children or anything else you can name there is no such thing as honor and responsibility. What we consider honor and responsibility today would have been lying and cheating a couple decades ago. How did this start? Well, a old plumber told me once that crap flows downhill. It always starts at the top. When the leaders of this nation won't take responsiblity (for example: Bill and Monica - and NO, I am not saying he started this trend) and lie their way out of situations you can bet the youth of the nation will do the same, and they are the future leaders. And when the leaders do it first, who can tell the kids they are wrong when they do it?


Submitted by just1opinion on February 5, 2009 - 4:22pm.

How did I have this gut...

Back to page top

How did I have this gut feeling that you would reference some sort of Liberal being involved in a precarious situation. It wasn't right to cheat on his wife, or lie about it, but quite frankly, it was an issue that is really no one's business to begin with. Why don't you reference something more significant than the equivalent of two teens in the backseat of a car?

How about letting AIDS run rampant and letting our urban centers decay, or starting a war that's led us into this financial mess?

It's easy to take a shot at someone who you disagree with, but it gives you some credibility to pick at your heroes every once in a while.


Submitted by jb2007 on February 5, 2009 - 5:01pm.

I think you might be...

Back to page top

I think you might be generalizing a wee bit too far. I don't think the decision to abort a fetus is quite as easy as "what the heck, get rid of it" for most people put in a situation like that.

Not quite sure that's the "liberal agenda" to push single motherhood, Liberals just seem to be the boogeyman to anyone who's pro-life. I sort of detest that you say they preach to women to do this and that, when the reality of the matter is, that most liberals don't really encourage abortion, but don't feel that it is their place to command someone to bear a child.

As a male libertarian, I feel the same way. Sure, children are wonderful blessings, I wouldn't want my potential child to be aborted, but it's not my place to go around playing the age old game of "Holier than thou" when I know not the circumstances of the person I'm pointing my finger at.


Submitted by jb2007 on February 5, 2009 - 4:10pm.

'Holier that thou'???? Don't...

Back to page top

'Holier that thou'???? Don't serve on a jury because you obviously don't feel qualified to issue a guilty verdict when a wrong is committed. You may not know all the circumstances then either. Abortion may be legal but that doesn't make it right. Holier than thou is better defined in the case of abortion as the person who decides who has a right to live and who should die. Holier than thou is the two people who thought they were responsible enough to have sex but not responsible enough to live with the consequences of their decision so their 'choice' is playing god and terminating an innocent life.


Submitted by just1opinion on February 5, 2009 - 4:32pm.

You see the difference there...

Back to page top

You see the difference there is, on a jury, you are presented with facts, evidence, and the circumstances surrounding an act.

I'm afraid that abortion is legal, and the facts and evidence that people use against it is usually religious belief, a harbor for few facts and scientific evidence.

I guess I'm confused at your notion of thinking that forcing someone you don't know, who might have been raped, a victim of incest, etc. to bear a child. Especially when that child has no shot at a decent life because of mental issues, deformation, etc.

As for being old-fashioned, abortions are no more common today than they were in the early 19th century.


Submitted by jb2007 on February 5, 2009 - 4:57pm.

I consider myself a...

Back to page top

I consider myself a Libertarian and speaking of "facts" and "evidence", and the "circumstances surrounding an act", may I ask, just for some thought...the unborn fetus, it is a "fact" that the mother or father or doctor can't ask the fetus if it wants to live, obviously because they don't have a voice...there is clear "evidence" that the mother and doctor make the decision and follow through with ending the fetus' life without it's consent, which is the "act" of abortion. I don't feel it's too much of a stretch to consider that murder.

Also, as long as we are on this topic, what about euthanasia? The "fact" is that some elderly or disabled adults just can't deal with life anymore and if they had a legal option for assisted suicide, they would do it, peacefully in a hospital or clinic...where abortions take place! There is clear "evidence" that some elderly or terminally ill adults are of sound mind, but may have some horrible condition where their lives are intolerable and would like to end it on their terms, peacefully in a hospital or clinic...where abortions take place!

I am Libertarian and DO support people making their own life decisions, BUT, unborn fetus' have no say, BUT the elderly and other adults with severe disabilities or terminal illnesses are not legally able to peacefully end their lives in a hospital or clinic...where abortions take place!

WHY? I prefer to use logic in my reasoning, not religion, not because the government says some "acts" are acceptable and others are not. Why can't sound minded adults in dire health decide to end their lives peacefully, but an unborn baby gets no say?

An unwanted baby can be given up for adoption to be given a shot at life, case closed! The adults in dire health conditions are forced to rot away in a nursing home, clinic, or hospital until their bodies give out. I am just looking for some logic and consistency with respect to "accepted" behavior and policies in our society.


Submitted by freetime on February 5, 2009 - 7:29pm.

First of all, I think you...

Back to page top

First of all, I think you kind of screwed up every point you were trying to make by putting quotation marks around words like fact and evidence. I'm to assume you put them there for emphasis, but the grammar doesn't really pan out. Scratch that, your grammar is poor all around. It would help me to answer your "questions" if you phrased them as a question and it wouldn't kill you to conquer basic sentence structure. Hell, it may even give you some more credibility too!

As to your first paragraph:
"Whether or not abortion should be legal turns on the answer to the question of whether and at what point a fetus is a person. This is a question that cannot be answered logically or empirically. The concept of personhood is neither logical nor empirical: It is essentially a religious, or quasi-religious idea, based on one's fundamental (and therefore unverifiable) assumptions about the nature of the world." - Paul Campos

I have no idea what you're getting at with euthanasia, besides illustrating that it's a choice made....by someone capable of thought and reason.....WHERE ABORTIONS TAKE PLACE! I'm in complete favor of euthanasia, don't get me wrong, but its relevance in the abortion issue is lost on me.

Hit those English books!


Submitted by jb2007 on February 5, 2009 - 7:59pm.

My "point" is...I love dots...

Back to page top

My "point" is...I love dots and "quotation marks"...is this a correct sentence? That darn liberal public edu-mi-kation failed me I guess?

In my opinion, that quote is useless.

A fertilized embryo, fetus, person, same thing to me. It's a life. Or is it only a "person" if by your definition, you can have a conversation with it?

If nobody can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a fetus is not a "person", than why would a logical "person" decide to end that life for convenience, when there remains a possibility that it could be in "fact" a "person"?

Based on that logical argument, a logical extension can be made to ask also why an adult or known "person" can't decide to choose euthanasia over letting cancer or other horrible affliction ravage them until their body gives out, peacefully in a clinic or a hospital...the same place where the undefinable fetus or "person" who has no say, gets aborted?

As long as you are the grammar expert...Who invented the question mark? Why is the ! symbol put at the end of a sentence, when the writer using it for "emphasis", is forced, due to anal made up grammar rules, would prefer to have the reader know an "emphasized" sentence at the beginning??? I don't follow all of mans made up rules...I think outside the box and like to get my points across to provoke honest debate...I don't care about credibility, what other people think of me or my opinions, I just put my thoughts out there and see what comes of it. I am a "person", what more credibility do I need?

If "English" is made to be the main language in America and all immigrants here are made to assimilate and learn it fluently, before becoming a citizen, than I will take a remedial "Grammar" class. I couldn't stand my "grammar" class in high school, talk about boring and anal retentive!?!?! The guys name was Mr. Sirr! He talked like Ferris Buellers History teacher!

Long live ranting and public discourse...woohoo, another fragmented, incomplete, "in-credible" sentence by the "Sentence Slayer!" I should change my handle on this blog? Maybe I should have a "ghost writer"???


Submitted by freetime on February 5, 2009 - 10:00pm.

Facts: 1.The number one...

Back to page top

Facts:
1.The number one reason given by women for why they had an abortion,"I had NO CHOICE."
2. Abortion is the #1 single killer of women in America. (about half the babies killed are FEMALE)
3. Abortion kills HUMANS.
4. Rape RARELY (less than a fraction of 1%) of the time results in pregnancy. This "REASON" is propaganda on the part of the pro-death crowd. It is an excuse,not based in reality.
5. Abortion does not "fix" the troubles these women are experiencing, it COMPOUNDS it. Abortion is a band aid on the much bigger problems these women live with.
6. Planned Parenthood is a multi-million dollar, for PROFIT company that receives millions of dollars from the government. It isn't about "helping women" it is ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.
7. Anyone who says "I am not for abortion but I would never interfere with a woman's choice..." is in BIG DENIAL! You support what you don't fight against.


Submitted by arcy on February 6, 2009 - 7:40am.

Wow... you sure don't give...

Back to page top

Wow... you sure don't give women much credit. They know their choices but maybe don't feel there is a good one out there for an unplanned pregnancy. Adoption: you gamble the child really will get a better home than you can supply. You can worry about what the child will grow to be and where its and what is happening in its life. (just because you gave it up does not stop the parental worrying). Keep the baby: now you worry if there will be money to support the baby, either the mom works or the government helps. (Conservatives love to get "dead beats" off welfare and child support is iffy at best) Abortion: the baby will not exist but the mom will know the state of its being and she can grieve, make better choices in the future. I forgot one other: you marry the father and then work on a marriage and support the child together. Divorce rate is 50% but maybe getting married before you are ready and adding a child will make your marriage work.... It is not that there are no choices....it is just that EACH one is very hard and that decision is for the mother to make....and live with. PS about half the babies are boys also.....


Submitted by charlie_horse113 on February 6, 2009 - 8:20am.

Could it be that the issue...

Back to page top

Could it be that the issue is best addressed in trying to "not" have the pregnancy in the first place? That abstinence, while a righteous goal, should perhaps have a back up plan called "contraception?" After all, we are all sinners who fail at something at some point and need the Lord's forgiveness.

One other thought. Could it be that the reaction of some in society to ostracize women bearing children out of wedlock (does the Scarlet Letter still live?) perhaps contribute to some women seeking a quiet, under-the-radar abortion as their only option to avoid the societal scorn sure to come their way later? And will that change if abortion is outlawed?

Does our society do a good enough job of supporting the women who do choose the path of keeping the child and trying to raise it alone without putting them on the pedestal for stoning? And what role do men, some of whom seem to feel no obligation in the issue after the short-term thrill of the sex act, play in leaving women with the thought they don't have a support system? Any thoughts?

"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone." John 8:7


Submitted by Terry Davis on February 6, 2009 - 11:09am.

I'm sorry, Terry, but even...

Back to page top

I'm sorry, Terry, but even though I have respected your opinions in the past, I am in disagreement about your current argument. The notion that we should keep abortion rights going because nothing will change if abortion is outlawed does not justify that we should not have a law that protects the innocent child.

We are talking about the killing of human life that is allowed by our government. Is this not just as bad as when children were sacrificed to the god of Molech in the Old Testament?

"Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD."
Leviticus 18:21


Submitted by arnijodi on February 6, 2009 - 12:07pm.

Wow, arnijodi, I think you...

Back to page top

Wow, arnijodi, I think you missed my point entirely. What you say in your first paragraph is not anywhere near what I said. I never said keep doing abortions because nothing would change if outlawed. My point is prevention pregnancies would help and societal attitudes toward women pregnant out of wedlock play a role in perpetuating the problem.

When I ask what will change by outlawing abortion, I'm asking, will societal attitudes toward women bearing child out of wedlock change? History shows that women in such cases were often the object of scorn. Why else did "good" families ship daughters off for several months at "boarding school — wink, wink" to hide the fact they were pregnant and giving birth. If those attitudes don't change, girls/women not able to bear that shame and societal scorn alone will find ways to end that pregnancy and there will be people willing to help as there were before Roe v. Wade. History will repeat itself. We all play a role in changing that by showing Christ's love for all, even women in those situations.

(Terry Davis is a Hutchinson Leader staff writer. E-mail him at davis@hutchinsonleader.com.)


Submitted by Terry Davis on February 6, 2009 - 1:07pm.

Terry, thank you for...

Back to page top

Terry, thank you for clarifying your point. But maybe that's the problem with society... we have no shame, we have no guilt anymore.
Think of an America without common sense laws. People would be allowed to drive their vehicles at any speed and there would be more deaths. People would be allowed to murder, rape, and steal.

God instituted laws to govern the land so that we would not have to suffer the consequences of sin. Abortion is a sin, just like stealing is a sin, and to God each sin is just as bad as the other. So I agree with you when you quote the verse about "casting the first stone".

But, each sin has a different consequence. And I'm almost certain that you would agree with me that the taking of an innocent baby's life causes devastating consequences both to the child, the mother and as well as the father.

I truly believe that if Roe v. Wade were overturned that America would come out with their arms wide open to those who need help with adoption or with raising their child, and I also believe that the abortion rate would drop considerably.

Without a law that says abortion is wrong, we are in fact saying to society that it is okay to kill a child.


Submitted by arnijodi on February 6, 2009 - 4:34pm.

Good points in deed Mr....

Back to page top

Good points in deed Mr. Davis. I agree the solution to abortion is prevention, but the fact remains pregnancy happens sometimes regardless of planning for it not to happen and the fact that abortion is an option is shocking to me when it is done for convenience.

The societal pressure and stigmas on single mothers is profound and contribute to making the abortion choice I suppose. My concern is why society does not take adoption more seriously and support that option as a way to give the baby a chance at life. I think our society is changing, look at our new president. For once in history Americans can be proud to have the first black president, his policy stance notwithstanding. I don't agree with his policies, but it is historic change. I feel if convenient abortion was banned, then adoption would be in the spotlight, perhaps then more people would step up and support adoption efforts and bring some moral consistency to our society. I use the fact that euthanasia is illegal as an example of ending life by choice, it may not fit with religious ideology, but abortion does not either.

Sex is an act that takes 2 people, to sum it up, it all comes back to honor and responsibility. Hopefully that makes a return in our society, but as people have stated it starts with our leaders and role models, because they have the spotlight, the camera time and kids see them and emulate them. Being a parent is hugely important and no father should walk away from that responsibility, they should be honorable to the mother and child and try to make it work. Divorce rate may be 50%, but at least give it a shot for the child's sake.

I grew up with my parents divorced and my mother worked her tail off, my "dad" was absent and people have to realize how that affects a kid. I grew up determined to never abandon a child if I ever had any. I am happily married with 2 children and could not imagine not being part of their lives...how can a father walk away?

Be honorable and be responsible. If that were to catch on again in society, America would be so much better for it!


Submitted by freetime on February 6, 2009 - 12:12pm.

To arnijodi: If you really...

Back to page top

To arnijodi: If you really believe that people would come out with open arms and support unplanned pregnancies if Roe V Wade were overturned, why is that not happening now??? By that logic, if I understand you correctly, everyone would help these moms with financial, emotional and physical support for the kids that they give birth to. That is the biggest load of hooey I have ever heard. No one wants their taxes raised and now you are saying that financial support would flow to these moms and babies? Why not do that now and I bet that abortions would stop if everyone who had an unplanned, unwanted baby got all the support you say would pour in for them. I would love ALL abortions to stop unless the mother's life was in danger but it is NOT for me to choose the path these mothers find themselves in. Let's give all that support you say is there and end it. But sadly, as many people that want babies, usually healthy white babies, don't number even close to the abortions that have been had. So who is in line to adopt that many kids? And if the mom keeps them, who says how many they can have and still receive food stamps, WIC or any other government money for the support of those kids? We all judge when we see a young mom with 2, 3, or 4 kids at the grocery store and she swipes her food stamp card and/or uses her WIC vouchers. This issue is sooooo much bigger than just the bible says don't kill these babies. And don't get me wrong, EVERYONE would love a solution whereby NO ONE got pregnant unless they wanted to have kids. But until we learn that birth control doesn't cause kids to have sex and that birth control is not infallible, accidents will happen and will need to be dealt with.


Submitted by charlie_horse113 on February 6, 2009 - 5:04pm.

Charlie_horse113... what...

Back to page top

Charlie_horse113... what you're basically saying is that we have no answer except to continue the killing of our children. That's pretty sad.


Submitted by arnijodi on February 7, 2009 - 1:06am.

Not at all. I have many...

Back to page top

Not at all. I have many good ideas but you and all those who invoke God and the bible all the time as solutions hate these ideas. I am saying make birth control available to anyone who is having sex. All minors who are starting to experiment with sex should have safe and appropriate birth control available. They should be taught that is best to wait....give all the health issues, disease, later problems especially for girls,etc. Tell them the moral issues but if all that fails, like it or not, birth control is necessary. Make it available for little or no cost. Get over the abstinence only as a viable sex ed program. No pregnancy-no abortion. It is way cheaper to hand out good birth control options than it is to fund welfare programs. People have been having premarital sex and sex as teenagers from the dawn of time and if the hormones take over, you can hope you raised them well but you can't count on that any more than you can count on a condom not to break. And it seems you missed my point that no one likes abortion but if you don't find a way to stop unwanted pregnancies, people will find ways to deal with it and no one will ever agree on what the best solution is for all parties involved. Bottom line: NO PREGNANCY-NO ABORTIONS.


Submitted by charlie_horse113 on February 7, 2009 - 7:44am.

I do see where you're coming...

Back to page top

I do see where you're coming from when you say that NO PREGNANCY-NO ABORTIONS is the solution, but taking it from my view point- when you die, who will you answer to for your actions. I will be answering to God my Creator. That is why I use the Bible as my reference point. But again, I do appreciate your comments.


Submitted by arnijodi on February 7, 2009 - 5:38pm.

I think charlie_horse113...

Back to page top

I think charlie_horse113 summed it up very well.

No pregnancy = no abortions, no adoptions, no welfare. This is a great debate and I have learned a whole lot. A simple, logical, cause and effect opinion that is common sense!

I have no more comments on the subject, I could not have said it better or agree more, amazing!


Submitted by freetime on February 7, 2009 - 10:58am.

It was good you could learn...

Back to page top

It was good you could learn something....I think I learned something also, if all else fails use sarcasm to make your points.


Submitted by charlie_horse113 on February 7, 2009 - 11:49am.

I think that was a...

Back to page top

I think that was a compliment?

In any case, I admit I don't take myself too seriously and may go overboard on my comments, but it is all in fun. I truly enjoy good debate. I have fun when I get a response that is way off point...like when I get critiqued on my grammar style, or lack there of? I love America and free, open debate!

Over and out...


Submitted by freetime on February 7, 2009 - 12:36pm.

Advertising

Advertising

Recent comments

Advertising

Advertising

Who's new

  • lorallangemeier
  • Brenda H.
  • lk246
  • blootick57
  • tslindell

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 475 guests online.

Today's Poll


» Read similar stories filed under:


Advertising