Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Jeanette Rishell Lies Again

By Greg L | 30 October 2007 | Jeanette Rishell, 50th HOD District | 105 Comments

The inanity continues with Jeanette Rishell’s false negative mail pieces today with a slap at Jackson Miller for voting for HB2797 in the House Privileges and Elections Committee in the last session of the General Assembly.  Claiming that “Miller’s extremism isn’t what we want in the 50th District”, the piece tells voters to oppose Jackson’s candidacy.  The  problem is that when you actually look at the text of the bill, extremism would probably be better ascribed to those who would have voted “no” on this bill.

Here’s the full text of that “extreme” bill:

Whereas, the Constitution of Virginia provides in Article 1, §1, that all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety; now, therefore,

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. § 1. That life begins at the moment of fertilization and the right to enjoyment of life guaranteed by Article 1, § 1 of the Constitution of Virginia is vested in each born and preborn human being from the moment of fertilization.

Does that sound “extreme” to you?  Although not everyone is going to agree with this, it’s not unreasonable at all to legally establish that life begins at fertilization rather than at some arbitrary period afterwards.  If there’s going to be a line drawn here, and there has been a de-facto line drawn under federal law for decades now, it has to make sense.  Regardless of your opinion on the abortion issue, this demarcation of the beginning of life should be subject to rational discussion, and this is a demarcation that I would imagine most voters would consider reasonable.
But to Jeanette Rishell, this is extremism.

JACKSON MILLER voted to criminalize abortion and jail women who exercise their rights and the doctors who care for them.  Miller also voted to deny emergency contraception to victims of rape.

Predictably, the above characterization of this bill is false. Although you can potentially surmise that if Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court, and the state code was then modified as a result to criminalize abortion, a vote to “criminalize abortion and jail women” could be taken, but this wasn’t that vote.  Rishell’s description of this vote is a lie.  Nothing in this bill said anything about denying emergency contraception to victims of rape, and alleging that this vote regarded a measure to do so is a lie as well.

If Jeanette Rishell really wants to have a debate on abortion and the proper role of the Virginia legislature in that issue, fine, let’s have that debate.  Obviously she’s incapable of engaging in that debate however, as she’s instead resorted to lies about what HB2797 was.  If she can’t discuss this issue, and the moral and ethical ramifications of murdering an innocent child because it’s presence is inconvenient to the mother, I’d suggest that the “extremist” label probably applies to her far more accurately than it would to Jackson Miller, whose clearly stated and rational position on this issue is well known.

Yet another deliberate lie by Jeanette Rishell, which is designed to camouflage her policy positions that are terribly out of touch with the voters in the 50th District.  How surprising.

The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.


  1. veteran said on 30 Oct 2007 at 11:31 am:
    Flag comment

    Sounds extreme to me. Life begins when one can live on their own without being biologically dependent on another. You begin your life at birth. Before that, one is biologically dependent upon the mother and therefore, a physical part of the mother.

  2. No Way, Jose said on 30 Oct 2007 at 11:43 am:
    Flag comment

    According to your logic a mother would have the right to ‘eliminate’ their ‘physically dependent’ child up until they child can feed themselves. And, according to your logic, it would seem like you would have no aversion to partial-birth abortions.

  3. JM said on 30 Oct 2007 at 11:47 am:
    Flag comment

    What about people who are on respirators, feeding tubes, or other devices that allow their existience to continue? According to veteran’s logic, those lives ended when they were hooked up to the machines.

  4. Patty said on 30 Oct 2007 at 11:57 am:
    Flag comment


    Please go back to biology class and get an education. By the way I have a 10 year old that is dependent on me (according to law children under 18 are dependent on their parents or guardians). Does that mean she is a part of my body? Even newborns are totally dependent on parents for food and care. Your logic is incredibly devoid of all intelligence.


    At the debates Rishell likened reproductive rights as going to war. I’m with Jackson Miller. I didn’t know that we (state) are to wage war on unborn babies. Evidently, Rishell is waging war on unborn babies. She makes me sick to my stomach!

  5. veteran said on 30 Oct 2007 at 12:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    I said “biologically” dependent not “physically” dependent. Everybody calm down. Once born, all are protected by law. Before birth, one is protected by the mother.

  6. Dolph said on 30 Oct 2007 at 12:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    If scientists and theologans cannot agree on when life begins, it seems unlikely that the delegates have been given some sort of special insight.

    The government cannot do its own job. Why would I allow the government to make personal decisions for me. I am capable of making my own morally appropriate decisions without government help.

  7. mnd said on 30 Oct 2007 at 12:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    Why is the left so anti-science when it come to abortion?

  8. PWConservative said on 30 Oct 2007 at 1:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    52 percent of all babies that are born are male.
    how can a male baby be biologically part of the mother?
    who ever heard of women with male organs?

  9. Anonymous said on 30 Oct 2007 at 1:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    Left-wing Bill “Forgery-man” Day mailed the same piece against Scott Lingamfelter. This was Democrat party hit piece that once again shows democrats to be the party that will not protect human life. They want to run your life, but also decide if you, well, actually have one to manipulate…

    They’re the most negative campaigners in history…ugly to the core…

  10. Clean it up in '07 said on 30 Oct 2007 at 1:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    Did you see the roll call vote on this? I’m shocked at 8 of the R’s that voted no on this. This is one of those Good guy/Bad guy roll calls that I like to have as a gauge on where everyone is philosophically. Some people who I THOUGHT were solid conservatives were on the wrong side of this one.

    I’m proud that Jackson Miller took this stand. If we could just define this in the State Contitution it certainly would end alot of silly debate and needless legislation every General Assembly session.

    Thank you Moon Fruit for giving us another reason to mobilize our support for Miller.

  11. Leila said on 30 Oct 2007 at 1:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    Wow PWConservative, your question resembles the views of medieval theologians who used to think a tiny male body resided in the sperm. There is a point in embryological development where the organs are undifferentiated with the potential to become either male, female, or both (yes both).

    Thus defining gender by organs is not that scientific. In addition, what do you do with hermaphrodites? Defining by chromosomes is more certain, but even chromosome definition has potential problems since not everyone on the planet is XX (female) or XY (male). While both father and mother contribute equal amounts of genetic information, the embryo or fetus (male or female) is receiving more in terms of material development and nurturance through the mother in utero. Also since the father is contributing either X to make a female or Y to create a male, a male obviously has genetic information for females.

    As terminology, “part of the mother” may sound awkward. But in the first trimester, where the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed, there can be no question of a total lack of independent viability. Miscarriages or early spontaneous abortions occur all the time, often without a woman even knowing she was pregnant.

  12. Patty said on 30 Oct 2007 at 1:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    Our laws are based on morality. We can not have laws without a moral basis to them. Otherwise we have anarchy.

    For those of you who like to read the Bible, check out Judges. It paints a picture of anarchy. Judges 21:25, In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes. They forgot that God is their King.

  13. No Way, Jose said on 30 Oct 2007 at 1:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    Leila said on 30 Oct 2007 at 1:38 pm:

    Thus defining gender by organs is not that scientific. In addition, what do you do with hermaphrodites?
    hmmm…name them Leila?

  14. Turn PW Blue said on 30 Oct 2007 at 2:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    Actually, Greg, this is a pretty extreme measure and not the innocuous bill you make it out to be. By defining when life begins in such a manner, this bill would make abortions subject to manslaughter or homicide charges under current Virginia law. Such a measure would invariably lead to court proceedings intended to challenge Roe v. Wade. Such “beginning of life” laws are expressly designed to create backdoor opportunities to ban abortion under existing code without needing to pass a law that explicitly bans abortion. Given that this law would make exceptions for rape, incest, and health of the mother irrelevant, it is, indeed, extremist in its nature.

  15. veteran said on 30 Oct 2007 at 2:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    It is morally wrong for a government to dictate what I do to my person. To control one’s own body, including abortion, suicide, tatoos, haircuts, piercings, enhancements, preventative masectomies, makeup, muscle building, face lifts, etc. is the natural right of every individual.

    It is correct for a religion which offers a set of moral values to expect its adherents to follow those sets of values.

    The control of your body is between you and your religion, not you and your government.

  16. Leila said on 30 Oct 2007 at 2:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    Patty, many laws are based in morality, sure. Though many others are based in other issues, such as practicality. On abortion, both sides are advocating moral philosophies. Just because you, presumably, don’t agree with the right of a woman to determine whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term doesn’t mean that the arguments supporting her rights aren’t moral arguments. Certainly the ones involving her life and health are. I would also argue the ones involving her liberty, bodily autonomy, and ability to care for herself and others are as well.

    If you have some doubts about whether we should be autonomous in our bodies, consider this. If you had the proper bone marrow to save someone else’s life, you could not be compelled to submit to its extraction. You might be encouraged, you might be presented with all kinds of arguments, but ultimately it would be entirely up to you. And that deals with saving the life of someone fully viable and separate. You would definitely not be bound, under law, to undergo an operation that might threaten your life or health to save someone else.

    I doubt very much that the United States is in any danger of anarchy at the moment. But if it occurs, it will not resemble anything in ancient society just as our society of laws does not resemble an ancient kingdom.

  17. Turn PW Blue said on 30 Oct 2007 at 2:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    Correction: this law would *not* make exceptions…

  18. Leila said on 30 Oct 2007 at 2:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    No Way Jose, do you feel better now? Anyway, why aren’t you in school? You appear to be around 13.

  19. Enquiring Minds Want to Know said on 30 Oct 2007 at 2:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    Does the father have anything to say about the abortion?

  20. The Dude said on 30 Oct 2007 at 2:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    Yes, that is extreme. Life most certainly DOES NOT begin at conception. (Really? A blob of a couple of cells = personhood???).

    I really don’t care if you want to subscribe to these whacko beliefs. Go on, knock yourself out. But as I explained once before, unless you’re willing to foot the bill for lost wages, medical expenses, emotional distress, and adopt a child if my wife were to get pregnant (we’re happily childfree), you need to sit down and STFU and get your nose out of my business.

    Seriously. I’m real sorry you subscribe to this warped view of morality that says sex is only for procreation. But just because you want to live your life by a repressed moral code, quit messing things up for the rest of us.

  21. The Dude said on 30 Oct 2007 at 2:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    Patty, morality changes over time. At one time it was moral to keep slaves. At one time, morality meant oppressing women so that they had no right to vote or inherit property.

    The morality of rational people–people who make decisions based upon good science rather than moldy dogma–has changed to understand that it’s worse to bring an unwanted child into the world than it is to destroy a fetus–an object with no self-awareness, no sophisticated neural network, no consciousness.

  22. Leila said on 30 Oct 2007 at 2:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    Enquiring Minds, if you are asking about the law, then No. He has no say under current law. Just as he has no right to force someone to have an abortion of his (half) genetic material, he has no right to force her to carry to term. Morally, I think that is right since the woman’s role in gestation is a process of 9 months. Her health and everything about her life is involved. More women die from complications of pregnancy than abortion. It is a decision that ultimately must be made by the person who is taking the risk. But that’s ultimately. I think a father obviously has the right to try to make an argument, just as a person who needs my bone marrow has the right.

  23. Dolph said on 30 Oct 2007 at 2:21 pm:
    Flag comment


    Parents also cannot force a minor daughter to have an abortion if she choses not to.

  24. Leila said on 30 Oct 2007 at 2:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    Right Dolph, or force her not to have one. Although the judicial alternative consent rules vary from state to state in terms of ease.

  25. veteran said on 30 Oct 2007 at 2:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    One excellent way to reduce abortions is to promote contraception for young people, and free contraception to those that do not understand the consequences of sex or to those that are poor to can’t afford it.

  26. veteran said on 30 Oct 2007 at 2:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    to those that are poor and can’t afford it. Sorry!!

  27. veteran said on 30 Oct 2007 at 2:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    And Greg, what are your views regarding anchor babies, aka, legal citizens of the United States?

  28. Turn PW Blue said on 30 Oct 2007 at 2:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    The Dude…insteresting that you bring up how morality changes especially in light of the way scripture keeps getting tossed about here.

    It is interesting to note that the Bible makes no direct mention of abortion (though the practice existed at the time). Judaic law actually didn’t recognize “personhood” until the child is one month old. Even taking the prohibition “Thou shalt not kill” is problematic as the original Hebrew word we translate as “kill” actually is more nuanced and refers to illegal killing (murder) as judged by the community. It is not, as we tend to interpret it, a blanket prohibition against the taking of any life (which might explain why so many “pro-life” zealots are mysteriously silent on the death penalty). Exodus 21:22-23 is the closet we come to something about abortion in the Bible (where penalties are outlined for the recompense for striking a pregnant woman in the belly–if she miscarries but is otherwise not harmed, the offender may be fined what the husband demands and the court allows. However, if the woman is injured, then the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth sense of justice prevails–with no mention given to the punishment for causing the fetus to abort) while Numbers 5 deals with God causing abortions in unfaithful women brought to the temple by their suspecting husbands. In Leviticus 21:1-7, the values given to people assigns the lowest value to children and gives no value at all to children under the age of one month.

    So, encoding this in law is not as simple and straightforward as some would lead us to believe. This is a complex issue and the statement that “Jeanette Rishell lies again” is yet again hyperbole on Greg’s part. This bill is, plain and simple, a back door effort to make abortion illegal.

  29. Enquiring Minds Want to Know said on 30 Oct 2007 at 2:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    Dolph said on 30 Oct 2007 at 2:21 pm:

    Parents also cannot force a minor daughter to have an abortion if she choses not to.
    But, that same parent can be hauled into court if the same child does not attend school…that’s bass ackwards.

  30. Bridget said on 30 Oct 2007 at 2:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    When the heck was it ever moral to keep slaves? Legal, yes. Convenient, yes. Profitable, yes.

    Moral, never.

  31. Batson D. Belfrey said on 30 Oct 2007 at 2:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Once born, all are protected by law. Before birth, one is protected by the mother.”

    So, in a case where somone beats a pregnant woman to the point where the child dies, then the perp is not guilty of murder?

    I guess Scott Peterson was only guilty of one murder?

  32. veteran said on 30 Oct 2007 at 2:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    you are correct and right on point.

  33. Leila said on 30 Oct 2007 at 3:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    Homicide is generally a matter of state law. Many states have laws covering the fetus as a potential victim of a crime, some do not. Some make distinctions of viability or period of gestation, others do not. Some make knowledge by the perpetrator significant. Ie. is it murder if the perpetrator doesn’t know his or her victim is pregnant.

    There is a federal law covering fetal victims of crime, but most murders aren’t federal cases.

  34. Dolph said on 30 Oct 2007 at 3:06 pm:
    Flag comment


    It depends on what you read. Many pre-civil war writings used the bible as moral justification of slavery. While we find that repugnant in today’s society, many folks of that bygone era did not. Times have changed.

  35. The Dude said on 30 Oct 2007 at 3:07 pm:
    Flag comment


    How about the Code of Hammurabi (slaves used to compensate victims of serious crimes)? Roman civilization, where a captured enemy was enslaved, and that was seen as far more humane than executing them? Or the US South, where some rationalized slavery as a life that while it might have sucked, sucked less than living free in Africa? All these societies saw slavery as a moral right. (Also both Leviticus and Exodus mention occasions where slavery is acceptable.)

  36. My baby was a person said on 30 Oct 2007 at 3:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    Veteran, ask any woman who has had a miscarriage if the baby that she lost was a life or not. Having lost a child to miscarriage myself, I find your careless words and flippant attitude about this subject to be especially callous. The baby I miscarried was a life, one that I mourn to this day.

  37. Peter Danlyn said on 30 Oct 2007 at 3:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    An abortion is a medical procedure. A doctor is best able to determine what procedure is in the best interest of his patient. A patient should then be able to make an informed decision as to what is the best and most appropriate action, bases on circumstance and beliefs.

    The circumstance may include life-threatening danger to the women. The belief system could be based on any theology, or none at all. We have no state religion, and therefore, no state definition of morals.

    This is not a political matter.

    This is not a moral matter, except to the persons involved.

    It is a medical one.

  38. Peter Danlyn said on 30 Oct 2007 at 3:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    “the right to enjoyment of life” guaranteed by Article 1, § 1 of the Constitution of Virginia is vested in each born and preborn human being…”

    Hmm.. Makes no mention of U.S. Citizenship. If our government is to protect the unborn from denial of this “God given right”, then how can we deny the same protection to an alien? Seems morally wrong to make distinctions between God’s children based on nothing more than the geographical location of their birth. If the pursuit of happiness brings them to our country, we should be morally opposed to a mere government standing in their way.

    I guess Mark Twain was right. You can’t be a Christian and a Patriot.

  39. Greg L said on 30 Oct 2007 at 3:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    Peter, by that reasoning you could classify execution by lethal injection as a “medical procedure”. That argument is completely specious.

  40. Enquiring Minds Want to Know said on 30 Oct 2007 at 3:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    I say keep abortion legal by all means…helps keep the liberal population to a minimum. That’s one reason crime has gone down.

  41. Peter Danlyn said on 30 Oct 2007 at 3:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    You’re right Greg, it is a medical procedure. The proof is in the fact that they sterilize the injection site before inserting the needle.

    The difference is that the state has taken away the patients right to make a decision about what is in his or her best interest. The procedure is designed with a particular outcome in mind. Most of the time that outcome is justified.

    Sometimes it’s not.

    Where’s the morality in that?

    Nice attempted dodge, though.

  42. veteran said on 30 Oct 2007 at 3:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    My Baby:
    Your grief is justified because you had no choice. I’m not flippant, just pragmatic.

  43. Leila said on 30 Oct 2007 at 3:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    Enquiring, you must be living in a fantasy land if you think politically conservative women don’t have abortions in the United States. I know it will shock you, but on occasion even women who have taken public stands against abortion have them or encourage their daughters to. Real life is different from your fantasy.

    • Republicans have fewer abortions than their proportion of the population, Democrats have more than their proportion of the population. Democrats account for 30% more abortions than Republicans (49% vs. 35%).

    Independents account for the difference of 16 percent.

    This is from a WSJ opinion article pointing out in semi-ridicule that liberals are losing potential voters through abortion. I guess that may be true. However considering the vast numbers in the electorate who did bother to get born, but don’t bother to vote, a simpler way of enlarging the democratic electorate is obvious and involves less labor.


  44. Leila said on 30 Oct 2007 at 4:00 pm:
    Flag comment

    PS: Meant to cap Democratic.

  45. Dead Guy said on 30 Oct 2007 at 4:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    Conservatives believe that life begins at conception. Liberals believe that life begins at full-term birth. There are extreme outlyers that believe in anything from “every sperm is sacred” to “eugenics.” The liberal belief of life at birth is obviously wrong as evidenced by the near-universal revulsion at partial-birth abortions. Just as obviously wrong is the conservative view of life at conception as evidenced by the near-universal non-revulsion at the morning after pill.

    The line is somewhere in between. Trying to put the demarkation at either end of the spectrum invites trouble. How, exactly, is anyone supposed to know that they are pregnant at the very moment of conception?

    Is a woman that doesn’t know she is pregnant and goes for a jog, causing a miscarriage guilty of negligent homicide or manslaughter? She has to be charged with some level of crime because she caused the death of a person.

    Can a pregnant woman ride in the HOV-2 lanes? She does, afterall, have another person in the car. How is the cop supposed to know if she is or is not pregnant? Can any woman stopped in the HOV lane just claim pregnancy and get out of the ticket?

    Can a female alcoholic be charged with child endangerment? It wouldn’t be reasonable to allow a mother to sky-dive with her newborn baby strapped to her, so in light of this new law, isn’t it just as unreasonable to allow her to do it while pregnant?

    This is a bad law that wasn’t carefully thought through. That makes it extreme. While she would never have a chance of getting my vote, in fairness, Jeanette Rishell gets this point.

  46. Leila said on 30 Oct 2007 at 4:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    Dead Guy, Interesting points, although your first sentence is a wild generalization. There are plenty of liberals, anyway, who would draw a line earlier than birth for life and the state right to be involved in a woman’s right to choose, providing that the woman’s life or health was not in danger.

    That is also the trimester framework for Roe v. Wade, which has language about viability.

  47. Anonymous said on 30 Oct 2007 at 4:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    veteran said 30 Oct 2007 at 11:31 am:

    Where in the hell did you come up with that? You’re saying you have no life (dead) until born? Man, that a good one!@

  48. Anonymous said on 30 Oct 2007 at 4:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    veteran said 30 Oct 2007 at 11:31 am:

    Sounds like veteran is “brain dead.”

  49. veteran said on 30 Oct 2007 at 4:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    I vote for Dead Guy, Leila, Turn PW blue and Peter Danlyn as the most coherent posters on this thread. The rest of us are emotional non-contributors.

  50. Dolph said on 30 Oct 2007 at 4:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    Think how many more anchor babies there would be if we stuck to those guidelines as outlined by Dead Guy.

  51. Anonymous said on 30 Oct 2007 at 4:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    Leila said 30 Oct 2007 at 1:38 pm:

    Thank you professor Leila. Everything we wanted to know but were afraid to ask. We can all sleep well tonight.

  52. Dolph said on 30 Oct 2007 at 4:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Veteran, HHHRRUMMPPHHFFF! Dolph is offended!

  53. veteran said on 30 Oct 2007 at 4:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    OK, I vote for you also.

  54. Bridget said on 30 Oct 2007 at 4:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    Dolph and Dude,

    You are referencing rationalizations, interpratations and justifications: What was “seen” as more “humane” than killing? Enslaving. As apposed to setting them free … that might have been a tad more “humane” but certainly not as lucrative. Humanitarian gestures sounds good but the bottom line was the bottom line … free labor.

    Go back as far as you wish or stay as current as the modern day slave trade around the globe … my take on it is that slavery was, is and never will be moral regardles of what folds did and do to make it seem palatable and plausable.

    People then as now have an acute ability to make excuses for just about anything that will benefit them.

  55. Anonymous said on 30 Oct 2007 at 4:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    The Dude on 30 Oct 2007 at 2:07 pm:

    Cut it off Dude! Problem solved!

  56. Bridget said on 30 Oct 2007 at 4:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    folds = folks

  57. Batson D. Belfrey said on 30 Oct 2007 at 4:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    “you are correct and right on point”

    No, this is not a true statement. It is the law of the commonwealth, and in many other states, that if one kills a pregnant woman, and as a result her child dies, the perp is guilty of two murders. Scott Peterson was convicted of double murder, and rightly so.

    You pro-abortionists make me sick. The way you dismiss life is an affront to humanity. By your rationale, every NICU is full of “half-people” because without the intervention of medical science, these babies wouldn’t survive. Go ahead and make this argument and then stop to think of how many more babies would be born without the artificial intervention of abortionists.

  58. Leila said on 30 Oct 2007 at 4:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    Batson, I assume you were directing those comments to the person who actually said you were on point?

    But I am curious. How do you come down then on a fetus being a victim if it is not apparent the woman is pregnant. If a woman is 3 weeks pregnant, maybe even doesn’t know it herself, and is murdered and the pregnancy discovered in the autopsy, should the accused murderer be charged with one or two deaths?

    The only people I could conceivably see called “pro-abortionists” are committed eugenicists. It is about as useful a term as calling people who oppose abortion rights as pro-maternal death, even though we know that more maternal death results when abortion is illegal. It’s obvious that most people in the abortion-rights movement would like to unwanted pregnancies decline as far as possible to make abortion not an issue.

  59. Peter Danlyn said on 30 Oct 2007 at 4:56 pm:
    Flag comment


    I’m glad to see you boil this issue down to what it really is: personal revulsion at the decisions and action of someone with different standards than you.

    There’s very little that a free society can or should do to limit someone else’s rights to adjust their behavior to your moral code.

    That goes for both sides.

    A government that would force compliance with an unwritten and changeable moral code would be an affront to humanity.

    Let’s let government concern itself with societal problems, and let individuals choose how to live their lives.

  60. Dolph said on 30 Oct 2007 at 5:06 pm:
    Flag comment


    I am certainly not justifying slavery. I said that pre-civil war and civil war vintage people used the bible for moral justification of slavery. Obviously many people thought slavery was moral or there would not have been millions enslaved.

    I am stating a fact regarding the beliefs of others, I am not agreeing with it.

  61. Batson D. Belfrey said on 30 Oct 2007 at 5:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    Liberal-secularists are destroying our socitey. Your moral-relativism tears at the individual fibers of society, destroying the fabric one thread at a time. One only need look at Europe to see what our country will look like, should people like Leila and Peter have their way. Erroding parents rights to raise their children and instill traditional values in them. They use the schools to teach “values” that are biased by socialism. You say you want to reduce unwanted pregnancies, but keep abortion legal. Your answer: Howl at every conservative who wants abstinence taught in schools, and provide 8th graders access to birth control (WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT).

    To say I find liberals “revolting” would be a gross understatement.

  62. Bridget said on 30 Oct 2007 at 5:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    “(which might explain why so many “pro-life” zealots are mysteriously silent on the death penalty)”

    It might have something to do with death being considered the ultimate penelty or punishment for taking life and for betraying society. Goes right back to that eye for an eye deal. Not to mention ensuring the murderer never gets the chance to repeat the act., given that they have proven their capacity.

    What explains why so many “pro-choice” zealots go ape over sanctity-of-life issues when a convicted murderer ends up on death row?

    The hypocrisy seems clear when one camp condones killing the innocent and letting the guilty killers live.

  63. Batson D. Belfrey said on 30 Oct 2007 at 5:38 pm:
    Flag comment


    Amen, Sister.

  64. Anonymous said on 30 Oct 2007 at 5:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg, it appears the only potential liar here is you. The fact that Rishell’s opinion differs from yours does not make it a lie. If we were dealing with facts here, then you could assess whether or not anyone has lied, but Rishell got all her facts correct–Miller did support this bill. Whether or not it’s extreme is a matter of opinion. Your reasoning skills are immature.

  65. Leila said on 30 Oct 2007 at 5:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    There are people who are consistent on both issues and on war too. I am not a pacifist, but I respect someone like Colman McCarthy who is a pacifist, opposes abortion rights, and opposes the death penalty. He is following the Catholic Church on the death penalty I would note.

    Besides on the DP, the fact that more than 100 people have been exonerated through DNA and other evidence in recent years who were on Death Row should give pause to any capital punishment supporter, especially here in Virginia, #2 in US executions. It makes it almost certain that people have been executed who were not guilty of the crime charged. As the saying goes, “death is different.” Life without the possibility of parole at least allows for the possible admission of an error. That is not even to mention class, racial, gender, and other biases that affect trials and sentencing. If it were truly an eye for an eye, then anyone taking a life would get death. Even when the DP began to be only applied to murder (and that is relatively recent in its history) it hasn’t been applied in any kind of consistent way in the 38 DP states.

  66. Greg L said on 30 Oct 2007 at 5:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anon, as I’ve said before, HB2797 did not criminalize women, and it did not deny emergency contraceptives to anyone. I’ve provided the text of the bill, and you’re just too blind apparently to actually read what it was.

    Sometimes this selective perception by the left gets awfully tedious.

  67. Clean it up in '07 said on 30 Oct 2007 at 6:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’m with you on this one Patty. I knew I’d be back on your side in one of these threads before this election was over.

  68. Dolph said on 30 Oct 2007 at 6:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    Many people who oppose legal abortion also consider the morning after pill an abortifacient. It stands to reason that if any ‘life begins at fertizilation’ legislation is passed, Roe v Wade is overturned, then any agent that interrupted that fertilization would be outlawed.

    To imply that this backdoor approach is not part of the plan is disingenuous. I seem to recall some attempted legislation to remove the morning after pill from student medical services at JMU a few years back. Hmmmmm…I wonder who might have authored that attempted bill?

  69. Dolph said on 30 Oct 2007 at 6:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    Here is my ’selective perception’ although I hardly consider myself ‘left.’

    Cavalier Daily 4/25/03

    JAMES Madison University’s Board of Visitors voted last Friday to ban the controversial “morning after” birth control pill from the JMU Student Health Center. The pill has been proven to be 60 to 90 percent effective in preventing pregnancies if taken less than 72 hours after intercourse. The Board’s move was incited by a letter from Del. Robert Marshall, R-Manassas, who is anti-abortion, that claimed that this pill was a form of abortion. Because the pill is legal in the Commonwealth of Virginia and JMU is a state-sponsored university, and because the Board should not have jurisdiction over a woman’s personal life, the pill should be allowed back into the JMU Student Health Center


  70. Bridget said on 30 Oct 2007 at 7:04 pm:
    Flag comment


    I do not imagine for a moment your justifying or condoning slavery!

    And I am clear on the use of the bible for justification. What is also clear to me is that many people thought slavery was justifiable and that is what enslaved millions.

    It was a lack of morals that brought about the enslavement of peolple. Pointing to the sky and invoking the permit of the Almighty is one heck of a con job. I am also clear on the use of the Koran as justification for the enslavement of humans. The book titled “Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters” by Robert Davis is a good read on the slave trade off the Barbary Coast and Mediterranean.

    Heck, we have the state sponsored slavery of millions today in the U.S.A.- in the form of taxation.

    I guess it boils down to one mans morals are another mans immorality. The ethical vs the unethical. Good vs bad. Right vs wrong. Fair and unfair. The delicate balance between justice and mercy. The old do unto other as you would have them do unto you lesson.

    As for abortion, I stand in line with those who would wish far better for our women. Everyone has the right to choose to become a parent or not. It is, as I know you know, a huge undertaking that nobody should enter into lightly. I just wish that choice was made before a pregnancy occured.

  71. Dolph said on 30 Oct 2007 at 7:20 pm:
    Flag comment


    Thanks for your response. I wanted to make sure everyone knew I wasn’t attempting to justify slavery. As a daughter of the south, I feel I have to be more careful than the average bear when addressing such issues.

    I agree with your last paragraph. I think that pretty much says it all. However, I will never impose my values on someone else.

  72. Anonymous said on 30 Oct 2007 at 7:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    It is an extreme position. It is part of a radical agenda to out law not just all abortions, but a lot birth control as well. I know the theocrats on this site want government to rule based on Biblical principles, but we’ve spent a lot of time in the history of Western citilization getting government focused on the mundane rather than the eternal. Now, I don’t for a minute think Jackson Miller has this as his agenda, his only agenda is advacing Jackson Miller, but he is willing to use the theocrats to help him move along, and he’ll feel aobliged to pay them off. He is the most dangerous of politicans, along with Corey Stewarts, unprincipled and ambititous demagauges who will stop at nothing to get what they want.

  73. Bridget said on 30 Oct 2007 at 8:34 pm:
    Flag comment


    I think it goes without saying that there are those who are consistant on both issues - as well as zealots in both camps - like the self appointed avengers who try to blow up abortion clinics.

    The issues surrounding crimes and punishments are, and I suppose always will be, ugly, sordid and fraught with complications and imperfections. Our laws are complex and varied to the point of taking into consideration degrees of death - and wisely not tossing out death to all who kill. Involuntary manslaughter comes to mind.

    By all means should proof of guilt be brought to that beyond a shadow of a doubt point. Society is never served when the innocent suffer and the guilty go free.

    I can’t imagine a more cruel fate than to be innocent yet condemned to die.

    Albeit, that IS the fate of 100% of murder victims - not a one deserved the penalty of death - but someone sealed their fate by played judge, jury and executioner.

    Much the same can be said of every one of the aborted . Not a one deserved to die. And as long as the execution takes place in utero … all is right with the world.

  74. Turn PW Blue said on 30 Oct 2007 at 9:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    Your comment at 5:48 takes the cake. You are technically correct that this bill, on its face, does nothing to outlaw abortion or emergency contraceptives. However, by codifying the beginning of life to be the moment of conception, anything that ends that life after that would be subject to prosecution under existing homicide laws. You can’t expect us to believe you are so naive as to miss the nuance of this critical point. Laws like this have become the newest tool in the anti-abortion arsenal as a backdoor method to ban not only abortion but any contraceptive that works by stopping a zygote from developing any further (”morning after” pills, IUDs, etc.). There is no other reason to pass such a law .

    This is not a policy position the majority of Americans (including Virginians) support. Being a position outside the mainstream, it could indeed be construed as an extremist position.

  75. Turn PW Blue said on 30 Oct 2007 at 9:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    And let’s not forget the HB2797 was not the brain child of some naive legislator who thought it would something neat to try. HB2797 is the brain child of Bob Marshall whose legislative history is rife with proposed bills that take every tack possible to limit abortion. Marshall has said that legislation like this is expressly intended to make abortion and many forms of contraception illegal. Deny that this has been part of Marshall’s agenda since he was elected Delegate and we’ve found a new candidate for the liar headline.

  76. Delegate Bob Marshall said on 30 Oct 2007 at 9:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    When it comes to sex, some Democrat politicians can’t think straight (nor can some of your blog writers).

    For instance, slick flyers mailed across Virginia by the Democrat Party attempt to affect House and Senate races by claiming that HB 2797, introduced this year, would put women and doctors in jail for abortion and over-the-counter Morning After (Sex) Pills. False! Women were never prosecuted or jailed for abortion under Virginia law before Roe vs. Wade.

    Fair-minded citizens will reject this unethical attempt to sway voters because my bill simply states: “That life begins at the moment of fertilization and the right to enjoyment of life guaranteed by Article 1, § 1 of the Constitution of Virginia is vested in each born and preborn human being from the moment of fertilization.” (see http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?071+sum+HB2797 )

    Virginia’s mandatory Family Life Curriculum requires third graders be taught that: “…babies begin with a sperm and an egg, with the male providing the sperm and the female providing the egg.” Will Democrats send out mailers denouncing adherents of this scientific fact?

    Ironically, three of the “pro-choice” Democrat leaders responsible for these inaccurate and inflammatory mailings, Sen. Dick Saslaw (aspiring Majority Leader), Delegate Brian Moran (Governor hopeful) and Sen. Mary Margaret Whipple all voted AGAINST my HB1665, which would have made it a crime for anyone who “forces or coerces a pregnant female to have an abortion against her will.” (see http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?071+sum+HB1665)

    They opposed making forced/coerced abortion illegal. They call themselves, “pro-choice!” And they want voters to believe their ads?

    Senator Dick Saslaw, Senator Mary Margaret Whipple, and Delegate Brian Moran should have first talked to Virginia third graders to learn the facts of life before they sought to convince adult voters about things that are clearly untrue.

    Delegate Bob Marshall (R-13, parts of Prince William and Loudoun)

  77. Leila said on 30 Oct 2007 at 10:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    Bridget, you appear to feel that an innocent person on death row, living years in anticipation of execution, and then executed, is equivalent to abortion carried out on a fetus in utero, most of the time before the 8th week of pregnancy, and 88 percent within the 12th week.

    I can’t agree.

  78. Legal2 said on 30 Oct 2007 at 10:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    First of all, there are serious health risks with the morning after pill, so it should not be handed out routinely and especially not at taxpayers’ expense. Lefties always want the government out of our lives (choices), but DO want the government (us) to pay for it.

  79. Dolph said on 30 Oct 2007 at 10:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    Who ever mentioned the government paying for the morning after pill?
    That really is not the issue here. Let’s not try to diffuse the issue. This medication should be available to those who want it in emergency situations. It certainly should be available at student health services in Virginia considering fees for health services are part of college costs.

  80. Legal2 said on 30 Oct 2007 at 10:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    Who do you think funds the state colleges? Who do you think funds planned parenthood? Why do you think there is so much opposition when elected officials want to curb spending on “family planning services?” It’s all about money.

  81. Dolph said on 30 Oct 2007 at 11:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    That is a real stretch. Who do you think pays college tuition, room and board and services? Don’t act like going to college is a free deal here.

    I have followed these issues too many years to believe it is all about money. It is about cramming one’s ideology down another’s throat. If it were about money, it would be the dumbest way to save money I have ever heard of. Let’s reduce family planning services so we can pay for children people cannot afford to have? I am not that gullible.

  82. Bridget said on 30 Oct 2007 at 11:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    No Leila,

    The comparison was made of the murder victim. 100% of murder victims and 100% of aborted humans are innocent. Both groups get their lives snuffed out prematurely.

    As for the innocent person on death row, I thought I made it clear that I could not imagine anything more cruel than to be innocent yet condemned to die.

    Each of these three groups are victims, you can grade their value as you wish.

    Anyway, now that our new Chinese overlords are in town, we can finally look forward to an end to all human rights violations.

    Lead paint, poisoned pet food and espionage all around.

  83. Leila said on 30 Oct 2007 at 11:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    Bridget, I understood and agree with your analogy to a murder victim, as in the murder victim whom the state represents in a murder trial.

    My comment was in reference to your final line:

    “And as long as the execution takes place in utero … all is right with the world.”

    Don’t know about any Chinese overlords in town. Must be just in PWC.

  84. Fairness In Media said on 31 Oct 2007 at 2:27 am:
    Flag comment

    The decision for any human being to make a determination so serious about something that will impact that person for the rest of their lives, is never an easy one. This is not a black and white subject where you can neatly place it inside of a convenient drawer somewhere .

    What astonishes me, is how self righteous some people can be. God isn’t judging as much as some of these people do. A woman has complete rule of her own body and no government should intervene; yet don’t ever take the right away from some of these same people to put controls on their guns. The same guns that are able to kill physicians at these clinics. Somewhere there is hypocrisy.

  85. The Dude said on 31 Oct 2007 at 7:19 am:
    Flag comment

    Delegate Bob Marshall aptly demonstrates that those without a clue about science need to STFU and quit pushing their loopy agendas. No, life doesn’t begin at conception. Well, maybe it does; it depends on what you mean by “life.” An epidermis cell on, say, my finger has “life.” It is alive. It contains a genetic code and can reproduce copies of itself. Likewise, a fertilized egg is “alive” in that it too has a genetic blueprint, and carries on cellular processes. But a fertilized egg, or even a fetus, while technically “alive” is no more alive than a liver cell, or your pancreas. What makes a person is having a functioning neural network providing consciousness and self-awareness. Without that, you’re just a blob of cells.

    So your idiot bill is pointless. It doesn’t define its terms, and is meant only to ultimately eliminate the RIGHT of a woman to terminate a pregnancy.

    As for your assertion about science books, let me just say this. A house begins by digging a foundation. Is a foundation a house? No. But you’re still an idiot, and I’d rather lick lepers’ leg clean than sully myself by voting for a vapid politician such as yourself.

  86. veteran said on 31 Oct 2007 at 8:18 am:
    Flag comment

    Name calling from either side cheapens the argument. This issue is reason opposing emotion. Both are legitimate positions to their champions and need not be slandered.

  87. Dolph said on 31 Oct 2007 at 9:10 am:
    Flag comment

    Yes Greg, HB 2797 is an EXTREME bill. It has the potential to outlaw many forms of contraception in Virginia. The key word here is fertilization which medically is not synonymous with conception.

    In layman’s terms, fertilization is the union of sperm and egg. Conception is the implantation of said union into the lining of the uterus. Many forms of contraception inhibit implantation.

    The ‘harmless little ole bill’ is anything but! Read it again and think about it not only in terms of abortion but also in terms of most modern contraception like the pill, IUD, and the like.

    1. § 1. That life begins at the moment of fertilization and the right to enjoyment of life guaranteed by Article 1, § 1 of the Constitution of Virginia is vested in each born and preborn human being from the moment of fertilization.

    I am including a link to California Right to Life which explains the grand scheme much better than I can.


    Rest assured that any bill sponsored by The Right Reverend Bobby Marshall which deals with reproduction has some weasel words in it. I would not vote for any candidate who supports this form of extremism or who voted for the bill last year. Our lawmakers need to make absolutely certain they totally understand the bills which they are voting on.

    I am beginning to wonder which candidate for the 50th HD seat is really the extremist.

  88. Bridget said on 31 Oct 2007 at 9:19 am:
    Flag comment

    Holy front page headline! God isn’t judging as much as some of these people do? … that is about as self righteous a statement as I’ve ever heard. I do hope Fairness in Media can get God back on the phone … we have some big questions that need answering.

    Dude, no woman on earth has ever given birth to a liver or pancreas.

  89. Turn PW Blue said on 31 Oct 2007 at 10:40 am:
    Flag comment

    Delegate Bob:

    So, what purpose does HB2797 serve then? Why go to the effort to codify that life begins at fertilization? Why waste time in a short legislative session on a bill that really is just a simple little statement?

    The fact that no woman was prosecuted for abortion under Virginia law prior to Roe v. Wade is misleading. As you are well aware, the pre-Roe v. Wade laws in Virginia punished the doctors and practitioners who performed the banned procedure. However, pre-Roe v. Wade, we didn’t have any law on the books that defined life as beginning with fertilization. The little “wrinkle” in the law would then make abortion murder (under the legal definition). It would make any contraceptive that stops a pregnancy after fertilization a deadly weapon. Do you deny that this is how you innocuous HB2797 could be interpreted by the courts?

    I notice that no where in your comment above do you address the actual substance of some of the comments (except with the oblique reference that some of the blog commenters don’t think straight).

    You are correct that HB2797 does not in and of itself put women or doctors in jail. But, indirectly HB2797, by defining the beginning of a human person as fertilization, would move the destruction of a zygote into the realm of murder under current Virginia law.

    You can try to confuse this issue by talking about pre-Roe v. Wade convictions (irrelevant) and third-grade science curriculum (also not germane unless of course your grasp of biology stopped at third grade). How about addressing the elephant in the room…

    If HB2797 were passed and made law in the Commonwealth, would the state now have a tool at its discretion to prosecute those who end a life (as defined by HB2797) under existing Virginia law regarding homicide?

  90. WSGFN said on 31 Oct 2007 at 10:40 am:
    Flag comment

    EVERYONE is missing the point. If they want to say that life begins at the time of fertilization…then the moment I get a positive pregancy test back, I want a birth certificate and ss# so that I can claim “it” as a dependent. If I miscarry, then I want a death certificate and 255.00 from SS for burial services.

    I bet that would shut the government up IN A HEART BEAT!

  91. Bridget said on 31 Oct 2007 at 11:22 am:
    Flag comment


    The government has already taken on the unborn as dependents - The USDA WIC (Women, Infants and Children) subsidy targets pregnant women.

    Back in the day, I had my own private WIC program - my husband. Now we both get to play “daddy” every time we file our taxes.

  92. Turn PW Blue said on 31 Oct 2007 at 1:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    Actually, Bridget, when WIC extends additional benefits to pregnant women, they are extending the benefits to the women, not their fetus. The idea is that healthy, well-fed women produce healthy babies. It has nothing to do with thinking the unborn are dependents.

    Dolph’s link above to the posting on the California Right to Life site really stresses that the language chosen for HB2797 was not done without thought and reason. The words were very carefully chosen (just as Delegate Bob’s words in his comments on this blog post were carefully chosen–note he addresses none of the concerns raised by many of the opponents of this measure and sweeps them up in a broad statement that a lot of this blog’s posters just don’t think straight).

    Roe v. Wade hinged on the interpretation that the 14th Amendment’s recognition of “persons” does not apply to blastocysts, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses–they are not yet “persons” under the law. Measures like HB2797 seek to change the definition of “personhood” in a clear attempt to strike at the heart of the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade.

    Greg’s comment in the original blog post that “[r]egardless of your opinion on the abortion issue, this demarcation of the beginning of life should be subject to rational discussion, and this is a demarcation that I would imagine most voters would consider reasonable” just isn’t true. The reason there is so much debate over this issue is centered precisely on where the demarcation should be. And contrary to Greg’s assertion and Mr. Marshall’s carefully chosen words, HB2797 is not a simple, reasonable statement.

  93. Patty said on 31 Oct 2007 at 10:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    Turn PW Blue,

    That is not what the Bible says. That is the worst butchering of the Biblical text I’ve ever seen in my life. Exegesis is not your gift. What is sad is that you have twisted the truth so that people who don’t read the Bible will think what you have said is true. Matthew 12:36 Jesus says “But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it on the day of judgement.” Twisting truth comes from the father of lies-from Satan himself.

    The Bible cleary teaches that life begins at conception. You dishonor Jesus because Jesus was Jesus while in Mary’s womb. Even John the Baptist while in his mother’s womb leapt for joy when Mary came into the house because Jesus was in her womb. Read the book of Luke, if you know how to read.

    How dare you celebrate Christmas, you who think it is okay to destroy a baby. Every baby has a right to life. Who made you god over them. You say Chuck Colgan is pro life and then you get on this thread and say it is okay for someone to abort their baby. You have totally convinced me that Chuck Colgan truly is pro-abortion.

    By the way the term fetus in Latin means - little one. So that term betrays your cause. The cause of death to babies.

    Also, morality comes from the Lord and not from your own self centered desires.

  94. Patty said on 31 Oct 2007 at 11:09 pm:
    Flag comment


    I’m sure you learned in school that slavery was abolished by Christians who, based on what God said in his Word, rose up against slavery. Read Philemon in the Bible. It is in the New Testament just before Hebrews.

    To My baby was a person,

    Yes, indeed your baby is a person. Your child is with Jesus. I hope you can take comfort in that. I lost my son and I take comfort in knowing he is with Jesus. I also know that spending eternity with my son will be a lot more time than I could have spent with him here. I know you are hurting and words sometimes don’t comfort. Also, people will say things that will hurt you even though their intentions are to comfort you. I pray that God will comfort you as only He can. I know because He comforts me. Please accept my sympathy for your loss. I will pray for you. If you would like to talk with me I’m sure Greg could get us together. There is a support group for parents who have lost babies through miscarraige.

  95. Fairness In Media said on 1 Nov 2007 at 3:58 am:
    Flag comment

    Patty is a prime example of a person wanting to play god with everyone who does not agree with her misguided beliefs. You should first start by not reading scripture from the bible as if it were a horoscope column.

  96. Turn PW Blue said on 1 Nov 2007 at 7:28 am:
    Flag comment

    I presented those Biblical texts precisely because people like you claim the Bible speaks with one voice on this issue when it really doesn’t. Personally, I am torn over the issue of abortion but have come down on the pro-choice side if the issue because I believe it is an intensely personal matter that should be between a woman and her God, not between a woman and her delegate in the Virginia assembly. I believe that abortion is a sin. I’m not Catholic, so I don’t make a distinction on the severity of one sin versus another.

    As for my skills in exegesis, I was given thw verses I quoted in the handiur from a panel discussion on abortion that I attended at a religious school outside Phileadelphia several years ago. The panel had a rabbi, a Catholic priest, a Lutheran minister, and an Episcople priest. The point of the panel was precisely that the religious response to abortion is some times as confused as the worldly response. Most fascinating was the rabbi who was very clear about Judaic law on the subject.

    Also fascinating was the discussion on the pregnancy of Mary, a single Divine event unlike any other in the world (unless you’re saying Jesus was just another man, Patty). Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary– not your typical conception and thus not germane. There was no meeting of egg and sperm, so under HB2797 would our Lord have been considered a person?

    I assume, Patty, that you have a degree in theology upon which you are basing your critique. If not, you have just as much or as little authority to provide the “correct” interpretation of scripture as I do.

    I also do not speak for Chuck Colgan. Reproductive rights are a place where my views differ from his, but as I base my voting decisions on more than one issue, I am still a Colgan supporter. I’m not quite sure how you made the logical leap from my views to somehow ascribing a position to Colgan.
    On a final note, while fetus does translate as “little one,” it was the term used to describe the being formed in the earth and mysteriously placed in the woman’s womb–a common belief in how babies were made in times before the modern era. So I don’t think the literal interpretaion of a word used when people thought the Earth was flat really means much of anything in this discussion.

  97. Patty said on 1 Nov 2007 at 9:20 am:
    Flag comment

    Turn PW Blue,

    Your logic is empty. You’ve twisted the Biblical text. I’m sure you know how to read. Why don’t you just sit down and read the text? It is that simple.

  98. Patty said on 1 Nov 2007 at 9:24 am:
    Flag comment

    To Fairness in Media,

    It is not my “misguided beliefs” that I’m writing about. It is what the Bible clearly teaches. If you have a problem with the Bible, don’t waste your time trying to argue with me. Argue with God, because the Bible is His Word not mine.

  99. Dolph said on 1 Nov 2007 at 10:26 am:
    Flag comment

    No Patty, I went to school in Georgia and Virginia. I was probably taught that the great Satan, Abraham Lincoln ended slavery, given where I went to school. Just kidding.

    Slavery is no more germane to this conversation than the antics of the Westboro Baptist Church members are.

  100. Turn PW Blue said on 1 Nov 2007 at 12:18 pm:
    Flag comment


    Please enlighten me as to where I twisted and turned. Simply stating something does not make it true (regardless of how many times you say it). Do you not believe that Exodus 21:22-23 outlines the penalties and compensation a man can receive if his wife is struck and miscarries? Do you not believe that Leviticus 21:1-7 puts value (in schekels) on different “classes of people” (and puts no value on children under 1 month old)? Do you not believe that Numbers 5:27 talks of the Lord punishing the adulterous wife saying “her womb shall discharge, her uterus drop…:? Do you not believe that the original Hebrew of the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” as a much more precise meaning? I didn’t for one moment say I was comfortable with these ideas. There, you have done the twisting.

    Please, enlighten me as to what I twisted. The only point I’m trying to make is that the Bible (which I hold dear and read daily) can be (and is) read and interpreted in many ways. The Bible is only clear on one thing–we are all sinners redeemed through the ultimate sacrifice of God’s son. Everything else? Not so cut and dry.

  101. Patty said on 1 Nov 2007 at 2:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    Turn PW Blue,

    You proved my point about how you do not have the gift of exegesis. Your comment “The Bible can be read and interpreted in many ways” betrays your commentary. You can take anything out of context and twist it to your own desire and that doesn’t make it right. You take your own biases and then interpret what the Bible says based on your own self centered desires and beliefs. That is what is called twisting the truth and that is what Satan is a master of.

    In the context of personal injury, Exodus 21:22-23 states: “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. “But if there is any further injury then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,”

    I think the above is pretty clear. How you can justify abortion based on this text is beyond belief.

    In the context of the requirements and regulations for the priests, Leviticus 21:1-7 states: Then the LORD said to Moses, “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: ‘No one shall defile himself for a dead person among his people, except for his relatives who are nearest to him, his mother and his father and his son and his daughter and his brother, also for his virgin sister, who is near to him because she has had no husband; for her he may defile himself. ‘He shall not defile himself as a relative by marriage among his people, and so profane himself. ‘They shall not make any baldness on their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards, nor make any cuts in their flesh. ‘They shall be holy to their God and not profane the name of their God, for they present the offerings by fire to the LORD, the food of their God; so they shall be holy. ‘They shall not take a woman who is profaned by harlotry, nor shall they take a woman divorced from her husband; for he is holy to his God.’

    This passage talks about how a priest is not to defile himself for a dead person and the priest is not to defile himself through marraige of a woman who is a harlot or divorced. The rest of the chapter continues with regulations for priests. How you can justify abortion through this passage is utter nonsense.

    In the context of a husband bringing his wife to the priest when the husband suspects the wife of adultery. Numbers 5:27-28 states: ‘When he has made her drink the water, then it shall come about, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that the water which brings a curse will go into her and cause bitterness, and her abdomen will swell and her thigh will waste away, and the woman will become a curse among her people. ‘But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will then be free and conceive children.’

    This passage speaks of God’s judgement on the woman. It speaks of sterilization as an act from God. God will keep her from conceiving. This passage does NOT legitimize the practice of abortion.

    I will remind you of a warning from Jesus found in Matthew 12:36 it states: “But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgement.”

  102. Turn PW Blue said on 1 Nov 2007 at 4:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    I have a correction on the Leviticus text…it should have been Leviticus 27:1-7, not 21. I misread my own handwriting.

    But this is my last word on this topic. I do not come from an evangelical background that believes that every word written was place on the page by God. My Bible isn’t a red-letter edition. We will never see eye-to-eye, Patty, as you do not believe it is possible for two people to read the same passage of scripture and come away with different ideas as to meaning. Clearly, it is blasphemy in your eyes to read the Bible in any way other than what you believe or have been taught. In the face of such dogmatic determination, I will endeavor to focus my attention to more important matters.

  103. Patty said on 1 Nov 2007 at 10:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    Turn PW Blue,

    Well, I’m glad you finally found the correct reference. In the context of making vows as in offering your service to the Lord, Leviticus 27:1-8 states: “Again the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When a man makes a difficult vow, he shall be valued according to your valuation of persons belong to the LORD. ‘If your valuation is of the male from twenty years even to sixty years old, then your valuation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. ‘Or if it is a female, then your valuation shall be thirty shekels. ‘If it be from five years even to twenty years old then your valuation for the male shall be twenty shekels and for the female ten shekels. ‘But if they are from a month even up to five years old, then your valuation shall be five shekels of silver for the male, and for the female your valuation shall be three shekels of silver. ‘If they are from sixty years old and upward, if it is a male, then your valuation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels. ‘But if he is poorer than your valuation, then he shall be placed before the priest and the priest shall value him.”

    The difficult vow is the key phrase. Making a vow to the LORD is to offer service to the LORD. A good example is Hannah dedicated Samuel to the LORD. If the vow was difficult, the person was to make an offering in lieu of service. The valuation was given not based on a person’s worth but the means by which they could pay instead of giving their time to service. Take note that the poor person was to be presented to the priest. The rest of the chapter deals with clean animals offered to the LORD and unclean animals which were redeemed. It also talks about consecrating one’s house to the LORD and so on.

    This chapter has nothing to do with the worth of a human being. Let’s see how valuable we are to God. In Genesis 9:6 after Noah came out of the ark, it states “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man. God made us in his image. Also in Romans 8:31-32 it states, “What shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Jesus Christ, God’s Son, God the Son took on humanity so that He could die and pay the penalty for our sins so that we could have eternal life and dwell with God.
    Ephesians 2:4-6 “But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus. Looks like he values human beings very highly to me.

    Unfortunately, you use eisegesis when you interpret the Bible. Eisegesis - It is an interpretation of Scripture that expresses the intepreter’s OWN (emphasis mine) ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text - from The Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. In other words you are taking your own predetermined beliefs and biases and making the Bible fit what you believe. For example, a speed limit sign would read SPEED LIMIT 25. I could impose a predetermined belief that even though it says 25 I can really go 30 or 35. Say I do 35 and Office D. is at the corner waiting to give me a ticket - I got the ticket because the sign says SPEED LIMIT 25. A good Biblical example of eisegesis is King Saul. Saul was commanded by God to “destroy Amalek and all that he has.” Saul didn’t do that but insisted that he did obey God (I Samuel 15:20). Samuel rebuked Saul and God rejected Saul as king over Israel. Read the entire chapter. So, when you use eisegesis you will not agree with anyone who interprets the Bible based on exegesis. In fact, you will not agree with anyone who uses eisgesis because they will have a different belief system than you.

    Exegesis - critical explanation or interpretation of a text, esp. of the Bible - from The Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. Interpretation is based on the context and the type of literature. When using exegesis a person reads out of Scripture what the writer clearly intends to express or say. This is the type of interpretation we use as human beings to communicate with each other everyday, through speaking and writing. If I’m your boss and write you and e-mail requesting a certain financial report by 3:00 pm, then you know you will have to give me that financial report by 3:00 pm. It is that simple. In fact you used exegesis to read and interpret my postings to that you could respond to me. Why can’t you do that with the Bible?

    I feel sorry for you. You are missing out on what God says. He has a lot for you if you will put down your biases.

  104. Fairness In Media said on 2 Nov 2007 at 1:48 am:
    Flag comment

    A person who believes that the Bible is written by God will find the style of writing different with each translation. Since mankind has taken the ancient writings the meanings have been adjusted over time to mean somthing else and it surely isn’t God writing these words…it is man!

  105. Patty said on 2 Nov 2007 at 10:09 am:
    Flag comment

    Coming from someone who hasn’t picked up the Bible to read it, I am not going to respond to your ridiculous comment, Fairness In Media.

Comments are closed.

Views: 3363