JG-TC.com > Opinion > LETTER: Act's intent is to put Roe v. Wade into law

TODAY'S HEADLINES

SPECIAL SECTION

ONLINE POLL

ONLINE EXTRAS

Shop Smart, Shop Local

SITE TOOLS

OTHER LINKS

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Lee Enterprises

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 9:46 PM CST
LETTER: Act's intent is to put Roe v. Wade into law

PEGGY BRAYFIELD, Charleston

A letter on the opinions page on Friday, Feb. 6, contains major disinformation regarding a bill on reproductive rights, known as the ’Freedom of Choice Act.’ introduced into Congress last April (not passed as of now).

The intent of this bill is, simply, to pass into legislative law the provisions of the Supreme Court “Roe v Wade” decision. Under Roe v Wade, the decision to have an abortion is treated as a private matter between a woman and her physician.

During the first trimester of pregnancy, the state may not impose any restrictions; during the second trimester, states may intervene only in ways to protect the life and health of the mother. During the third trimester, states may, if they choose, prohibit abortions or limit them in any way, providing exception is made for the life and health of the mother.

Recently an e-mail being circulated among abortion opponents has resulted in the kind of factual errors seen in the letter mentioned above. That letter labels the FOCA “President Obama’s FOCA bill” and states that this bill is intended to “legalize partial birth abortions and . . . to force us . . . to be taxed for them.”

On Jan. 14, an article appeared on the Anti-abortion website, Lifenews.com with the headline,”‘Catholic Bishop’s Rep Corrects Incorrect Novena E-mail on FOCA Abortion Bill.” This article states that the e-mail “is misleading in any number of ways,” including that Obama would make the bill law on his first day in office, and that women “would be forced to undergo abortions.” It states that “We need to be careful that we don’t make charges we can’t back up.”

Indeed.

It is always better to go directly to the sources, in this case, to read the actual language of the Freedom of Choice Act and of the Roe V Wade decision, both posted on the Internet, rather than relying on someone’s “nutshell summary.” Granted, those who label themselves “Right to Lifers” are sure to oppose the FOCA, as they oppose the Roe v Wade ruling. But at least they will know that nothing in either is specifically about “partial birth abortions,” or involves taxation. And of course, the president does not make such laws simply by writing up and signing a executive order. They must first be passed by Congress before the president gets them.

PEGGY BRAYFIELD

Charleston

Add your comments

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Not already registered?
Then click Here.

Comment policy:

JG-TC.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. Comments posted on Saturday may not be reviewed until Sunday afternoon.

In order to keep the page a set width, long lines (mostly long links) will be chopped. Try putting spaces in your links or consider using tinyurl.com to make a smaller link that you can include.

We will never edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.

No comment may contain:

* Potentially libelous statements; such as accusing somebody of a crime, defamation of character, or statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment or inciting violence.
* Commercial product promotions.

If you have any questions, please contact our moderator.

elbert wrote on Feb 12, 2009 8:24 AM:

" PEGGY BRAYFIELD

Thank you for your letter that may help correct some misimpressions.

Thomas Sowell a conservative commentator states that among the many wise things said by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was that you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

Yet an incredible number of people make up whatever facts are needed to support whatever they choose to believe. That is unfortunate.

I shall hope, probably without much chance of success, that those who comment will remain respectful of one another even if they disagree with your position. "

father bob wrote on Feb 12, 2009 9:59 AM:

" thanks peggy "

Full of flame wrote on Feb 13, 2009 11:25 AM:

" So murder is treated as a private matter now? Who in the heck in their right mind would pass a bill that allows a "private murder!" "

Lurker61920 wrote on Feb 14, 2009 8:05 AM:

" The doctor should be charged too....then not as many doctor's would be willing to just kill babies just because it's an inconvenience to the mother. They don't care though, all their care about if the money they will get.

Like I put on another post, since the child would be such a harship and an inconvenience that the mother can't handle, let's kill her then at 39 weeks. How would the mother feel if the doctor said, "Nah, I'm not performing this abortion. The baby is perfectly fine. I'll think I'll kill you instead!" If doctors said and felt that way, then people wouldn't be going to get them.

I would also encourage all women to check with their OB/GYNs to determine if they support and perform abortions. I have done this and found one that neither supports nor performs it. I couldn't see myself going to a baby killer.

And to Shumphreys, you're wrong about the gestational age for a fetus to survive being 24. When my daughter was in NICU, they have had a 14 week gestation survive and thousands before 24 weeks WITHOUT medical issues!

If I would have had an abortion when my doctor suggested it because of down syndrome, my child would not be here today. And guess what! The test was wrong and she doesn't have down syndrome. How many mothers have aborted perfectly healthy babies? "

Rohn Gordon wrote on Feb 14, 2009 10:20 AM:

" Well informing letter for both sides. "

Locke wrote on Feb 14, 2009 12:55 PM:

" Murder is an illegal killing. Abortion is not illegal. Therefore, abortion is not murder. Any questions? "

NeoCon Academician wrote on Feb 14, 2009 1:53 PM:

" Keep abortion legal so liberals can keep decimating their own kind..... "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 15, 2009 8:27 AM:

" Lurker you are wrong. You can check premature birth statistics on the web. The earliest posible survival was 21 weeks but that date was disputed because of difficulty determining time of the womans last period or time of fertilization. AND the majority of premature infants suffer from some form of health or developmental delays. That is also a fact. Perhaps you need to investigate what health and developmental delays means before you put both feet in your mouth. "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 15, 2009 8:28 AM:

" NeoCon perhaps you should have read Crow Womans stats on Christian fundamentalists having abortions. It seems as though the practice is spread among all levels of society. "

CrowWoman wrote on Feb 15, 2009 12:39 PM:

" Statistics definitely indicate that it isn't only the liberals who are having abortions. According to a Guttmacher Institute study, 18% of all abortions were performed on women who identify themselves as "born again/evangelical.

Another study by the Center for Reason found that Christians have just as many abortions as their non-Christian counterparts. The study concludes that in the year 2000, Christians were responsible for 570,000 abortions. Catholics were found to be the worst offenders, with abortion rates higher than the national average.

San Francisco, Calif. (PRWEB) March 12, 2006 -- With over one million abortions being performed in the US each year, this issue has dominated the political landscape. In recent years the rhetoric has escalated, with the pro-life movement becoming a flagship for Christian morality and ethics. The prevailing Christian doctrine--that abortion is murder--has polarized the issue, firmly placing the vast majority of Christians on the pro-life side of the debate.

Incendiary comments by some of the more outspoken Christian figureheads have sought to portray abortion as an "evil" perpetrated by the non-Christian left. In response to this, The Center For Reason, a private research group, undertook a study to test the premise: "Christians have fewer abortions than non-Christians". The results disproved the premise.

The study, available as a downloadable report, reveals that Christians have just as many abortions as non-Christians. Data analyzed for all fifty states show that the rate of abortion is the same in the most-Christian segments of the population as it is in the least-Christian. "

INVICTA wrote on Feb 15, 2009 3:16 PM:

" Welcome to shumphreys's world. Start with viability as the test to kill the unborn, then expand to include health and developmental delays after viability. Perhaps money should be spent to develop genetic testing to determine I.Q. before birth to spare a woman from having a sub normal offspring and guarantee good breeding stock for society. Babies can all ready be identified and eliminated if they are of the wrong sex. Maybe we should also empty the nursing homes of the "useless eaters" that no longer contribute to society using the shumphrey scale of who should live and die. They also have developmental problems. I suppose if we get rid of all the imperfect, unattractive, ugly people we will have to include Republicans too for a truly perfect shumphrey's world. And of course we will be sure and avoid the use of the word "kill". "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 15, 2009 7:40 PM:

" (LockeTard- "Murder is an illegal killing. Abortion is not illegal. Therefore, abortion is not murder. Any questions?")

Yeah, what about Fetal Homicide? "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 15, 2009 7:51 PM:

" Invicta you are a seriously disturbed, sick puppy. Try addressing issues in a responsible fashion. If all you can do is attack personalities it proves that you haven't a moral leg to stand on. The issue is about compassion and aleviating suffering in those that are in need, concepts that are beyond your comprehension. "

medic57 wrote on Feb 15, 2009 9:30 PM:

" Interesting reading

The Roe vs. Wade case took three years of trials to reach the United States Supreme Court. In the meantime, McCorvey had not aborted, but had given birth to the baby in question. In the case, she claimed that her pregnancy was the result of rape. She now claims that to have been untrue.[2]

In the 1980s, McCorvey revealed herself to be the "Jane Roe" of the famous case, and that she had been the "pawn" of two young and ambitious lawyers (Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee) who were looking for a plaintiff with whom they could challenge the Texas state law prohibiting abortion.[3] In her 1994 autobiography, I Am Roe (her first book), she wrote of her sexuality. For many years she had lived quietly in Dallas, Texas, with her long-time partner, Connie Gonzales. "We're not like other lesbians, going to bars," she said in a New York Times interview. "We're lesbians by ourselves. We're homers."

Conversion
At a signing of I Am Roe, in 1994, McCorvey was befriended by pro-life activist Flip Benham.[citation needed] Within a year, McCorvey converted to Christianity. She was baptized on August 8, 1995, by Benham in a Dallas backyard swimming pool, which event was filmed for national television. Two days later she announced that she had become an advocate of the pro-life movement (specifically, "Operation Rescue"), campaigning to make abortion illegal.

Ahh yes, it all comes together now, 2 lesbians wanting to have a child, then decide they don't, now they want an abortion just because they don't want the baby anymore. Now you can see what sin really leads to. "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 16, 2009 7:39 AM:

" Indeed you can Medic, only the sin is that of the pro-lifers that laid a guilt trip on the gal and thoroughly messed up her head with their Christian mumbo jumbo. Be careful of the conclusions you draw, they may just be the wrong ones! "

INVICTA wrote on Feb 16, 2009 8:55 AM:

" shumphreys wrote...If all you can do is attack personalities it proves that you haven't a moral leg to stand on. The issue is about compassion and alleviating suffering in those that are in need, concepts that are beyond your comprehension.

Thank you. I don't stand upon the morals that kill babies. I don't have the kind of compassion that crushes and chemically burns to death a million beings a year. I am also not delusional enough to accept that the killing is mostly the result of rape and incest. I comprehend that you rationalize killing for convenience and call it compassion. As far as attacking your personality, your own words speak to that issue. So again, Thank you for pointing out the difference between us. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 16, 2009 11:00 AM:

" (Susan whines - "Indeed you can Medic, only the sin is that of the pro-lifers that laid a guilt trip on the gal and thoroughly messed up her head with their Christian mumbo jumbo.")

Hey uh.....Susan?

The only thing that can make anyone feel guilty, is their own conscience.

Each and every one of us can only pay heed to any guilt, IF and ONLY IF, we believe there is some aspect of truth to it.

And the fact that abortion goes against the natural, innate instinct of the mother is at the very core of all the emotional distress that any woman feels.

I personally feel pity on most women who have had an abortion. I don't think they are in a stable state of mind at the time. I believe that in most cases there are TWO victims from abortion; the baby and the mother.

I also think the long term distress, neurosis, and over-all emotional Sturm and Drang, are seldom ever resolved, and never ever worth the decision. And I don't say that from a stance of righteous indignation or castigation. I state that from a position of compassion and mercy. "

medic57 wrote on Feb 16, 2009 12:44 PM:

" Susan

If it is ok to abort a child because of mental and/or physical problems detected before they are born, what about the children that develope these problems only a few weeks after childbirth? "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 16, 2009 3:28 PM:

" Invicta I don't rationalize killing. I accept, I don't hide from, the reality of abortion and the full ramifications of ALL the issues, financial, educational, medical, rape and incest, health issues of mother and fetus, accidents, and that humans will be humans, teens play russian roulette. Abortions will never be stopped, BUT the numbers can be brought down with responsible action, education, FREE birth control, health insurance and when a woman finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy it is not mine nor the right of anyone else to judge, condemn, chastise, lay a guilt trip, restrict the options, BUT to offer the help the person needs to handle whatever decision they choose to make. It is about facing reality and alleviating suffering. "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 16, 2009 3:30 PM:

" Don't be an idiot Medic after the child is born it's life isn't tied to the life of the woman that bore the child. AND I have never promoted eliminating undesirables, that is your perverted thinking, not mine. "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 16, 2009 3:34 PM:

" BDD traumatic events are always with the person whether it is the distress of having to choose an abortion, the distress caused by an accident, the distress caused by having to go to war. BUT how the person deals with that stress depends on the support and help they get or the condemnation, guilt trip, judgment they get whether it is an abortion, a drunk driver, a soldier, a........... "

Lurker61920 wrote on Feb 16, 2009 4:08 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Feb 15, 2009 8:27 AM:

" Lurker you are wrong. You can check premature birth statistics on the web. The earliest posible survival was 21 weeks but that date was disputed because of difficulty determining time of the womans last period or time of fertilization. AND the majority of premature infants suffer from some form of health or developmental delays. That is also a fact. Perhaps you need to investigate what health and developmental delays means before you put both feet in your mouth. "

Okay Shumphreys, you're right....maybe it was 14 weeks early (26 weeks) that had ever survived at the NICU I am referring to, and it was only 12 0z. And I know what health and developmental delays mean to a child, I have a child with CP and epilepsy so don't even try preaching me about that.

To your comment about "FREE birth control", then I want free antibiotics. If people get free birth control because they can't keep their legs closed, then I want free antibiotic when I have an infection. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 16, 2009 4:18 PM:

" Allow me to point out the incredibly obvious to you Susan. (because it's not obvious to you)

Why is abortion a "traumatic event" in the first place, Susan?

Isn't it just a blob of inconsequential tissue that gets scraped out of the woman's belly and thrown into the trash, according to you, Susan?

So why the "trauma"?

Why the "stress"?

Isn't it just like pulling a tooth, Susan?

Do you need counseling when you get a tooth pulled, Susan? "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 16, 2009 4:39 PM:

" Lurker I think that you and everyone else should get FREE health care or at least get access to health care with affordable insurance coverage. It is all about preventive medicine, saves the public and individuals a whole lot of money and grief. I am definitely for FREE birth control for many reasons. First and foremost this world is OVER POPULATED. We have far greater numbers of people than this world can handle, you can see it in the crime statistics, the wars, the health and disease issues, poverty, starvation,.... Second FREE birth control would go a long long way towards stopping unwanted pregnancies. "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 16, 2009 4:41 PM:

" BDD abortion is a traumatic event for some because they really really want to have babies. For others it is traumatic because of the guilt trip and hate spewed by folks like you. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 16, 2009 8:17 PM:

" Well Susan,

again I say, each and every one of us can only pay heed to any guilt, IF and ONLY IF, we believe there is some aspect of truth to it.

Guilt only has the power that truth gives it.

Now I want you to go on a long dissertation about "Truth" Susan.

I could use the sleep. "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 17, 2009 7:03 AM:

" BDD you know very little about people. People have a great ability to self-deceive and gullibility to be deceived. Guilt is easily implanted in people who have never learned to THINK critically, responsibly or for themselves. "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 17, 2009 8:47 AM:

" I should also be more explicit BDD since you have trouble comprehending subtlties. Rape victims have frequently been made to feel guilty by police officers and folks like you, "They wore clothing that was to provokative and were asking for it." "They led the guy on, got him all worked up." Abusive men usually make their victim (often their wife or girlfriend) feel guilty, "you made me hit you", "if you had just kept your mouth shut none of this would have happened". When rape victims and victims of dosmetic abuse come into a courtroom, the defense attorneys put the victim on trial, again making the victim feel guilty for provoking the attack or the abuse. Your comment BDD is exactly the comment an abusive person makes. "

exbricklayer wrote on Feb 17, 2009 10:58 AM:

" ScumDogRepublicrat wrote "The only thing that can make anyone feel guilty, is their own conscience." You sir obviously weren't raised by a catholic mother. "

dstew66 wrote on Feb 18, 2009 12:53 AM:

" Locke wrote on Feb 14, 2009 12:55 PM:

" Murder is an illegal killing. Abortion is not illegal. Therefore, abortion is not murder. Any questions? "

Nice argument.

By that same logic the extermination of over 6 million Jews, Romanies; Soviet civilians, Soviet prisoners of war; ethnic Poles; the disabled; homosexual men; and political and religious opponents of the Third Reich was "not illegal" in Nazi Germany.

Genocide was not illegal in Nazi Germany, therefore, over 6 million people were not murdered since their killing was sanctioned by the government.

Nice Argument. "

father bob wrote on Feb 18, 2009 12:08 PM:

" these idiots who scream about a woman's rights are the same slimeballs who blame gays and lesbians for the "ruining the sanctity of their marriages".....(pay no attention to the alcoholism, infedelity or abuse.....THEY bring)

how humorous... "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 18, 2009 2:55 PM:

" Dstew66 for the Germans and Nazis it wasn't.It was all legal. Fortunately other, wiser heads prevailed and won the day. You may not like Lockes definition but you can't argue with it. "

sapient wrote on Feb 18, 2009 4:18 PM:

" Locke, I'll guess that Hitler used that same rationale. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 18, 2009 6:46 PM:

" (shumphreys - "You may not like Lockes definition but you can't argue with it.")

Are you blind Susan?

Neither Locke nor you could ever answer my Fetal Homicide question which pointed out the fact that people have been convicted of "murdering" the unborn.

Once again, Susan, you're either slow or dishonest. In this case I think it's a little of both. "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 18, 2009 7:52 PM:

" BDD you were given an answer to your question you just refused to accept it AND you were unable to discredit it. It doesn't do any good to pretend otherwise. "

dstew66 wrote on Feb 18, 2009 9:18 PM:

" shumphreys -You may not like Lockes definition but you can't argue with it.

Please go back and reread what I wrote. You obviously did not understand it the first time through. I said it was a nice argument. And you know what else, I agree with it 100%. Locke wrote murder is an illegal killing. I agree with that. Abortion is not murder in the United States. Abortion is legal killing, just like genocide was legal killing in Nazi Germany. However, just because some legislature or court says that something is legal, that does not make it right.

Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Abortion may seem right in the eyes of man, but the end result is always the death of a living human child.

Of course, that way that seemeth right unto a man is described in another Proverb as the way of a fool.

Pro 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.

I have a question for you also. Do you believe that we should live by and follow this commandment?

Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

(Please note that I asked the question so that it could be answered with a simple YES or NO). It is not an essay question. "

1 cav wrote on Feb 18, 2009 10:02 PM:

" Just maybe, the Bible made Susan feel guilty and that is why she despises the Word of God ? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 19, 2009 11:34 AM:

" (shumphreys - "BDD you were given an answer to your question you just refused to accept it AND you were unable to discredit it. It doesn't do any good to pretend otherwise.")

The only direct answer was murder defined by the inclusion of "malice aforethought".

However- Specifically in criminal law, malice aforethought (or malice prepense) is the element of mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") which must accompany the actus reus of death, in order to secure a conviction for murder under the common law. In other words, knowledge that through an action or omission, the result will be some one's death.

So then; back to my original question:

24 State Fetal Homicide Laws define a fetus as a person and a separate homicide victim. This gives the fetus legal rights distinct from the woman who was attacked.

If a fetus has the right not to be "murdered" in the womb by a third party, why doesn't it have the right not to be "murdered" by its own mother? "

father bob wrote on Feb 19, 2009 12:14 PM:

" 1 cav wrote on Feb 18, 2009 10:02 PM:
" Just maybe, the Bible made Susan feel guilty and that is why she despises the Word of God ? """"

the bible can make anyone despise your so called "word of god". "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 19, 2009 1:25 PM:

" Making abortion illegal does not make it right Dstew66. Pro. 3:13 "Happy are those who find wisdom, and those who get understanding." Understand this, it is not ours to judge others, remember that saying? Wise words from a wise man. "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 19, 2009 1:27 PM:

" 1Cav you know I accept the Bible for what it is, a good book, full of great wisdom for those willing to plumb its depths, nothing more nor less. BUT it is not the only GOOD book, try reading the Upanishads or the Tao teh Ching or the Buddhist Sutras. They would all help you become a better person. "

dstew66 wrote on Feb 19, 2009 2:45 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Feb 19, 2009 1:27 PM:
" 1Cav you know I accept the Bible for what it is, a good book, full of great wisdom for those willing to plumb its depths, nothing more nor less.

shumphreys wrote on Feb 19, 2009 1:25 PM:
" Making abortion illegal does not make it right Dstew66. Pro. 3:13 "Happy are those who find wisdom, and those who get understanding." Understand this, it is not ours to judge others, remember that saying? Wise words from a wise man. "

If the Bible is nothing more than a good book, why do you keep quoting from it as though that is the way it should be? You pick and choose which scriptures promote your agenda, and ignore the rest. You would make an excellent New Covenant preacher. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 19, 2009 4:29 PM:

" (Susan - "Understand this, it is not ours to judge others, remember that saying?")

Christ never forbid judgement of others actions, Susan. He only required that we do it with a compassionate heart, free of hypocrisy and self-righteousness. "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 19, 2009 5:02 PM:

" Of course I do Dstew66, isn't that the way it is done? At least that is the way the "good" Christians on these threads do it. If it is a good practice for them it is good for me. I at least respecty the Bible for what it is, you I am not sure that you respect anything. "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 19, 2009 5:08 PM:

" Oh really BDD, then where does that pesky little line come from, "judge not that ye be not judged"? Hm. I thought I read that somewhere in the Bible now where was it. Then there is that other pesky little line, "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone." Hm. Now what does that mean? Then there is the position of the skeptic philosophers, "judge nothing" also a similar concept is found in the teachings of Buddha and Lao Tzu. Wise words in my opinion. But then even if he just means to judge "do it with a compassionate heart, free of hypicrisy and self-rightousness" perhaps you should listen to what he says your words and actions are anything but what he calls for. "

dstew66 wrote on Feb 19, 2009 5:23 PM:

" Susan, what would be the definition of someone who says:

Understand this, it is not ours to judge others,

and then 4 posts later turn around and pass judgment on another?

Is that not the textbook definition of a hypocrite?

hypocrite-

1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. A PERSON WHOSE ACTIONS BELIE STATED BELIEFS. "

Harry Potter wrote on Feb 19, 2009 6:44 PM:

" 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. A PERSON WHOSE ACTIONS BELIE STATED BELIEFS. "

Wow, another wedgie for CybildogConStanley. lol! "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 19, 2009 7:48 PM:

" (shumphreys - "Oh really BDD, then where does that pesky little line come from, "judge not that ye be not judged"? Hm. I thought I read that somewhere in the Bible now where was it.")

Watch and learn Susan:

First of all, the correct interpretation of this verse in its CONTEXT is to judge only when you have set the matter straight in your own life. Or to put a fine point on it, don't be a hypocrite.

Matthew 7:1 "judge not that we be not judged"

This is NOT a prohibition against recognizing the faults of others, which would be hardly compatible with Matthew 7:5

("You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye")

Rather ("judge not that we be not judged") is a prohibition against passing judgment in a spirit of arrogance, forgetful of one's own faults. Which is EXACTLY what you are doing Susan.

Secondly:

"let he who has not sinned cast the first stone."

Jesus was not arguing with the judgment. Nor was Jesus arguing the law nor the woman's guilt. Jesus was arguing with our right to execute the woman. Once all the men had dropped their stones Jesus confronted the woman and asked her if any of the men were still there to condemn her. When she answered "No man, Lord", Jesus told her that neither did He - He forgave her of her sin. He did not excuse the sin of adultery/prostitution, he forgave her of it. All that is sinful before forgiveness is still sinful after forgiveness. Not only was Jesus not afraid to call a sin a sin, He was not afraid to call a sinner a sinner. He even reminded her of the sin of adultery/prostitution by telling her "Go and sin no more."

But there is more:

You see Susan, it was a "convenient" coincidence that the Pharisees knew just where to find an adulteress when they needed a situation to try to trip Jesus up at that exact time. The most likely explanation is that these very Pharisees had employed the "services" of this very prostitute. Jesus was calling their bluff.

He was asking who among them was free of this particular sin.

And it get's better. This passage also says that Jesus began writing in the dirt with his finger; numerous scholars through the ages have speculated that Jesus was most likely writing the names of those Pharisees who themselves had sinned with the woman. And that would explain why they all began to drop the stones and drift away- beginning with the elders.

As always Susan you completely miss the "context" of the particular passages. "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 19, 2009 7:50 PM:

" Sorry Dstew66 I am not passing judgment, I am pointing out reality. Just the facts sir, nothing but the facts. Now if I was to judge, I would say that folks like you and BDD were irredemable, but I am not one to judge. "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 19, 2009 7:53 PM:

" Now as to the term hypocrite. That is defined as putting on a false appearance, I make no false presentations. I am straight forward, honest and virtuous, moral and true. What you hear is what you get. No hypocrisy there. "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 19, 2009 8:00 PM:

" On a more serious note, sometimes teachers have to pull out all the stops in order to get their message across. I will use first person, second person, royal we, I will tease, slam, use your own argument and tactics against you, whatever it takes to expose the hate and fear and bring it out into the open. If you want to play games, I will play your games. If you want to argue scripture I will counter your argument with conflicting scripture. If you feel a need to prove that there is a God I can prove that there isn't. Reinhold Niebuhr said, "Religion is a good thing for good people and a bad thing for bad people. And the Bible has loon been used in the wrong hands..." "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 19, 2009 8:08 PM:

" (Harry - "1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. A PERSON WHOSE ACTIONS BELIE STATED BELIEFS.")

As for my own self-righteousness:

I profess nothing of holiness or of grace, or of superior moral virtues. I am a former Liberal and a recovering Atheist. In my youth I was an arrogant Liberal and a staunch Atheist, and just like those similar individuals in here; I was under the delusion that I was the most brilliant person in the room.

But alas; God blessed me with a life that was a difficult yet compassionate teacher. Like Socrates I rediscovered the paradox of the Oracle; He discovered, that his supposedly superior "wisdom" consisted precisely in the realization that he was not wise. In the years since, I have come to realize that I am truly worm and no man. I'm not wise. I'm a sinner through and through. I'm a hypocrite to the end. But then, so is all of humanity.

All that is- EXCEPT Susan Humphreys. "

voltaire wrote on Feb 19, 2009 8:10 PM:

" Wow all this fighting and the FOCA bill doesn't even exist. LOL!

http://tinyurl.com/cuw3eh "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 19, 2009 8:15 PM:

" (Susan - "I am straight forward, honest and virtuous, moral and true.")

And in her honest, virtuous, moral truth; Susan thinks that Christ was just a man who was not Divine in any way, that Christians are unintelligent and ignorant, and that unborn babies should be murdered anytime for any reason.

With Susan; what you hear is what you get- Hatred towards Christians and hatred towards the unborn.

Period. "

Harry Potter wrote on Feb 19, 2009 8:15 PM:

" Hey Susan, did you know that you're dealing with a Bible scholar? hee hee "

dstew66 wrote on Feb 19, 2009 8:20 PM:

" shumphreys wrote:
Sorry Dstew66 I am not passing judgment . . .

shumphreys wrote:
I am not sure that you respect anything.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck . . . "

dstew66 wrote on Feb 19, 2009 8:20 PM:

" shumphreys wrote:
Now if I was to judge, I would say that folks like you and BDD were irredemable [sic.]

And if you were to say that about me, I would say Thank You Very Much for the compliment. "

dstew66 wrote on Feb 19, 2009 8:25 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Feb 19, 2009 7:53 PM:

I make no false presentations. I am straight forward, honest and virtuous, moral and true.

Let's not forget humble and meek. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 19, 2009 8:42 PM:

" Oh I'm no Bible Scholar Harry.

In the course of my education I was, however, privileged to encounter several Jesuit "teachers".

Very wise men. And very humble. "

CrowWoman wrote on Feb 19, 2009 10:25 PM:

" Get over that Worm theology, BlueDog!

Christianity is about redemption and restoration--not being a worm. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 19, 2009 10:51 PM:

" It's not "worm theology" CrowWoman.

I hold no belief that my profession of self-corruption will save me. At my very core I am innately a selfish, arrogant, and insufferable b*stard. Knowing that fact doesn't save me in and of itself.
God shows me no special mercy because I say that. In fact He should show me less mercy because I engage in the very nature that I know to be wrong.

However, denying these facts will most certainly, keep me from moving towards God. "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 20, 2009 8:15 AM:

" Sorry BDD I only think that SOME Christians are unintelligent, superstitious fools. "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 20, 2009 8:20 AM:

" Dstew66 I believe in alleviating suffering where possible. That means I support education and FREE birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies. It means I support a womans right to choose, because forcing a woman to carry a baby to term brings on more suffering for the woman and for an unwanted child. AND when accidents happen I don't tell a woman she is evil, sinful, that she needs to beg for Gods forgiveness, that what she did was wrong, I help her get whatever medical care she needs and offer support to help her through the crises. What do you believe Dstew66? "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 20, 2009 9:25 AM:

" (shumphreys - "Sorry BDD I only think that SOME Christians are unintelligent, superstitious fools.")

Can't the same be said about a percentage of people from all beliefs and backgrounds, Susan?

Why single out Christians with that judgement? "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 20, 2009 3:20 PM:

" You know why BDD we have been through this before. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 20, 2009 5:20 PM:

" Refresh my memory Susan. "

shumphreys wrote on Feb 21, 2009 5:08 PM:

" Go back and read posts from previous letters or better still use your head and THINK. "

BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 22, 2009 2:05 PM:

" I've got a better idea Susan, since you claimed to have printed off all of our previous debates; why don't you use YOUR HEAD and post some evidence to back up your dishonest assertions.

You know.....use your head to THINK and POST. "

injustice85 wrote on Feb 25, 2009 7:44 PM:

" BlueDogDemocrat wrote on Feb 20, 2009 9:25 AM:

" (shumphreys - "Sorry BDD I only think that SOME Christians are unintelligent, superstitious fools.")

Can't the same be said about a percentage of people from all beliefs and backgrounds, Susan?

Why single out Christians with that judgement? "

she said SOME dude, thats more credit than I'd give them, they think they know everything...well at least the church going christians or whatever "