Letter: 3,000 innocents die every day

How did you react to the Newtown, Conn., elementary school murders?

Did you experience a deep pain, as I did? Perhaps in our culture we value life and especially the lives of first-grade children — or do we? Incidents like this are rare, thank goodness. But in this nation of people sensitive to the welfare of our children, every day over 3,000 innocent unborn or partially born are sentenced to death under the banner of “women’s rights.”

Since 1973, when the Supreme Court voted to legalize abortion in Roe v. Wade, millions of our babies have been sacrificed at the “altar” of secularism. Those of us in this nation who follow the tenets of the Judeo-Christian faiths have great sorrow for these innocents who die each day. We cannot find in the Holy Bible where women are given the authority from God to kill their children. Nor can we find in the Holy Bible where men can be a party to this dark act.

Our national leaders cannot seem to come together to solve the financial crisis that threatens the security of our nation. So here we are, as citizens of the United States of America on this day in the year 2012, with our political leaders spending this nation into oblivion, and it is legal to murder our unborn. This puts us on a path to moral and financial disaster.

The question is this: Can this nation return to its God-based culture established by our forefathers in our founding documents, or will history record this is the point in time when the United States of America perished, as did ancient Rome and Greece because of its evil behavior? Who will step forward to lead this nation back to its founding principles? Will the majority of our citizens support this courageous leader?

Perhaps the 20 children who were slaughtered in their school in Newtown, Conn., will bring about a reversal in our nation’s soul. Is this when Americans came to realize that they were near the precipice, turned way from the “evil one” and returned this nation to its greatness in the eyes of the world and our heavenly father.

God bless American and God take care of our innocents.

E.E. deBessonet

retired teacher, coach, principal

Baker

Comments

1) Comment by prbeav - 03/01/2013

Dear triple, I cannot go on without reporting that my use of the word "appreciation" is something I learned from another person as willing to do the work to share heartfelt thoughts as you are. To my statement that "tolerance" is an attitude most people reject--because each demands respect--this kind man said, "Beyond respect is appreciation." Thank you for exploring this man's word, now mine too, in old thoughts.>>>>If I wanted to express the quote you shared yet employ "appreciation", my first thought is "right to life, liberty, and appreciation." I oppose editing the thoughts from people in the past or present but support the practice of examining personal opinion as to the good and bad in them. By such work, I write about the 1692 Salem "witch" executions.>>>>In an earlier post, I wrote ""Creating a viable person requires both life and appreciation: viable biology and social support." To clarify, I refer to an individual who would join or oppose We the People of the United States as defined in the preamble to the US Constitution. The "social support" part of this is best fulfilled by natural parents who are themselves psychologically mature--a rare advantage to the child. The "viable biology" part of this starts, as chem says, with the ovum, and extends until the child can survive (find food, shelter, and wholesome understanding) on its own. I agree with H.A. Overstreet (1949) that many chronological adults never achieve understanding. When we regard the question of abortion in the larger context of creating a person, we can focus on the responsibilities of the woman who is pregnant.>>>>To become involved in a woman's decision whether to remain pregnant, we must start by interviewing her about why she is considering the dreadful abortion. That is where I draw Phil Beaver's line: I will not question a woman about the regrettable circumstances that bring about her deliberation. I support the Supreme Court's decision that her's is a private decision.>>>>Thank you for rich dialogue.

2) Comment by Triple - 02/01/2013

Mr Beaver, one more attempt to define our differences, which is basically timing. We agree abortion is bad and women have a right to determine their destiny in regards to pregnancy. We also agree an American, at some point in time, is constitutionally protected. I would suggest we fall into simple categories as related to protection during development, for various reasons - at conception, at cord cutting (assuming you), some would suggest at viability (my position). I do appreciate your attempts to edit our founding documents, your latest effort needs some work - unalienable right to appreciation, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Doesn't seem very courageous, but you are predictable. If I was King, women would have to decide about pregnancy at ten weeks and with a life decision, the kingdom would not abandon them or their children, we would appreciate! Their would also be a lot more golf courses!

3) Comment by prbeav - 02/01/2013

I find this dialogue typical of most Americans. Most are in agreement that abortion is not a good practice; in other words, abortion is bad. On the other hand, given the responsibility to force a woman who does not want to remain pregnant to remain pregnant, most Americans defer to the woman. Thank you, triple for helping make this point.>>>>Above the right to life, a child has a right to appreciation, and no one can compete with the child's mother's awareness of the child's appreciation or privation.>>>>If the mother decides to deliver a baby for adoption it is wonderful for responsible people to step forward and provide that child the appreciation he/she deserves.>>>>I agree fully that my posts are tiresome and predictable. Furthermore, they take much effort, often research.

4) Comment by Triple - 02/01/2013

Mr. Beaver, if you choose to ignore life and would rather focus on privacy, this conversation is basically over. My testimony was to demonstrate first hand that children can surprise us all, not to bring myself glory. I apologize if my post was not constructed to convey this message. If you would have been so kind as to focus on the child with a right to life we could have continued, but you obviously want to avoid discussing the child's life in favor of a women's privacy. As you stated , SCOTUS has ruled, however third trimester procedures are still within state jurisdiction. The only power I have is in the voting booth, no more, but opinions, as of yet, are not stifled. My question of you was your personal opinion on when a human has a right to life, you chose to offer an ambiguous response. As DMJ stated, life is full of disappointments. As the country moves towards dystopia, predictable that abortion laws will become more liberal, but we do what we can. I have grown weary of your didactic postings, which was also predictable, but thx for engaging.

5) Comment by prbeav - 02/01/2013

Triple, it is regrettable that the discussion has shifted to your rewards and benefits, and it is impossible for anyone to address changing hypotheses. Perhaps you will be kind enough to focus on the issue of the pregnant woman's privacy.>>>>Hence, it is you who is there to intervene in the pregnant woman's decision to abort her late term pregnancy. You present your experience and propose to adopt the child immediately. The woman hears your qualifications and proposal and elects to abort. Now's the time for you to force her to deliver. If you asked my opinion, I would urge you to yield to her. However, I would neither force you to yield nor force her to deliver. I reject force, whether to or from anyone. I support the Supreme Court's ruling to defend her privacy and would expect enforcement.

6) Comment by Triple - 02/01/2013

Mr. Beaver, what hypothetical games have I played? In no instance have I suggested a woman should ignore her life during pregnancy to allow for a birth. Bad things happen to good people everyday, but to deny life because society is unjust or parents are unqualified reeks of barbarism. What I will tell you is that my two adopted children have done more for me then I for them. The irony is many years ago my paradigm suggested how noble I was, but the reality is those children brought me humility, taught me patience, made me better, so I say again those two children benefited me more than I benefited them. Being an optimist, let me play your fetid game: the child in your fable has exceptional intelligence, even with abusive foster parents, finds a way to excel, works tirelessly to learn and after years of effort discovers the cure for cancer, ultimately saving the lives of millions. Born into abject poverty, who would've guessed the potential of this innocent child to change the world and as an adult he was thankful to be conceived in a society that cherished life. As a seasoned adult you know life is unpredictable, you know not one of us is guaranteed another breath, but life is an unalienable right and "woe accrues" to those who choose death of the innocent. When do we as humans have an unalienable right to life? At least have the stones to answer.

7) Comment by prbeav - 02/01/2013

Triple, we all can play hypothetical games: So, someone steps in and tells the doctors they cannot perform a late term abortion a woman and her doctors planned, and the consequences begin. First, the woman dies, as the doctors predicted. Second, the newborn is turned over to family members who abuse the child, just as the woman understood and predicted. The child makes it to its teens and begins to murder people and get away with it. Then one day he/she takes arms and terrorizes a shopping mall killing almost a hundred people.>>>>Woe accrues to those who think they know better than the pregnant woman to whom nature assigned the responsibility as to whether to remain pregnant or not.

8) Comment by Triple - 02/01/2013

Mr. Beaver, biological deficiencies can lead to natural miss carriage, however, no social inadequacies lead to natural abortion. What is natural about artificial dilation of the cervix, insertion of suction catheter, dismemberment of body parts until the skull remains, forceps inserted to crush the skull and the remains vacuumed? All of this happens to a living human, often post viability, with total disregard for life. Pontificate all you want about the woman's right to privacy, while disregarding the child, but please tell me, in your opinion when should "we the people" protect the most innocent of our citizens? Google Dr. Kermit Gosnell from Philly, and tell me how this purveyor of abortion squares with your "natural" comment. Your window dressing and tip-toeing, while ignoring the child, is sophistry, nothing more.

9) Comment by prbeav - 02/01/2013

"Creating a viable person requires both life and appreciation: viable biology and social support." Nature aborts when biological viability is absent and assigned the woman the responsibility to abort when the conception will be denied social support. Let no person interfere with her decision.

10) Comment by Whatnow - 02/01/2013

prbreav, "Creating a viable person requires both life and appreciation" So, since someone doesn't appreciate life, your conclusion is death? And the decision to abort is not a natural occurrence. The woman has to hire someone to do the killing.

11) Comment by prbeav - 02/01/2013

Abortion is regrettable but natural. Creating a viable person requires both life and appreciation: viable biology and social support. When the biology is not viable, a regrettable natural abortion occurs. When social support is not viable, the woman has nature's difficult decision: regrettable, elected abortion. Woe accrues to anyone who wants enough information to question her decision--anyone who would deny privacy in the decision.

12) Comment by Triple - 02/01/2013

Chem, my argument focused on a right to life as fundamental to our American creed, no reference to religion. My premise is a human, an American, with guaranteed rights exists before clearing the birth canal. Eggs or sperm do not have a heart beat or suck a thumb, but a 12 week fetus does. Although not intellectually honest, I have little issue with abortion in the first 6 weeks after conception, however, post viability is another issue. I cannot understand why obviously intelligent, educated citizens do not consider a fully formed fetus, with human biological functions, an individual worthy of protection because of geography. Again life is the trump card, in all the responses, not one mention of the discrete individual being terminated. For instance, how can you accept that the life of a viable fetus at 30 weeks can be legally terminated, in favor of privacy rights? You have rights, I have rights and women have rights, why doesn't the post viable fetus have just one right, the right to life? BTW, Dr Nathanson didn't say as a catholic he believes life starts at conception, but rather as a scientist.

13) Comment by chem - 02/01/2013

The "silent scream" has been roundly criticized by many in the medical and scientific community for being a fraud and very misleading. And of course, it wasn't until Dr. Nathanson converted to Catholicism via Opus Dei that he suddenly had his "change of heart."

14) Comment by chem - 01/01/2013

I find it quite amusing that people who are against abortion have nothing to say about all of the miscarriages that occur. I guess if a woman has a miscarriage, she should be charged with murder, or at least an accessory to murder. What about the billions of eggs that are discarded from a women's bodies each month? Those are living cells -- eggs. Is that murder? What about all of the sperm that is lost down the drain, so to speak? Those are also live cells. Is that murder. Abortion is legal and safe. A woman has the right to choose what happens with her own body. Those against abortion would rather it revert to back- alley operations where woman die because of botched procedures. Yea, that's real Christian of you. Rather than trying to cram your religious beliefs down other people's throats, try leaving people alone to make their own decisions. And for many Christians, Catholics in particular, one cannot even use a condom. How ridiculous.

15) Comment by prbeav - 01/01/2013

It's a matter of understanding nature. The objective truth is that the sex act by heterosexual couples risks conception, and irresponsible sex acts risk responsibility. I have no desire to interject myself, except to support educating children to understand.>>>>It is wrong to think that advocating privacy regarding a woman's decision whether to remain pregnant or not equates to advocacy for abortion. The privacy question goes back to her use of her body.>>>>IMO sex for anything but expression of dedication to the partner and, for heterosexual partners, commitment to love any conception that may result debases the sex act--reduces the quality/value of expression between the partners. But my opinion (MO) has no value for my neighbor. For example, a couple may think sex with multiple parties enhances their mutual ability to make love. I would argue otherwise--if and only if they asked MO. In another case, a couple may be indoctrinated to think intercourse is a procreation responsibility, and I would argue otherwise--if and only if they asked MO.>>>>Back to the subject, elective abortion is wrong. Behavior that forces an abortion decision is worse. I regret the behaviors that led to the decision, but take no interest in private affairs.>>>>Just as I take no responsibility for a woman's use of her body, I want no responsibility in her decision as to whether to remain pregnant or not.

16) Comment by DMJ - 01/01/2013

Look....if we start debating about whether or not abortion is moral, we're missing the point. Women will seek abortions if they don't want to carry the pregnancy to term. The question is... if we outlaw abortion (never gonna happen), are we so stupid to think that all of a sudden, women will stop seeking abortions? Of course not. In a civilized society, abortion must always be legal, so that it can be safely performed by professional doctors who are licensed and regulated. Abortion was made a fundamental right for all women for a reason. And I got news for all you pro-lifers....as soon as the Supreme Court swings back to the left, all those state-level restrictions on abortion will be overturned, as they are a violation of a woman's right to privacy and the right to do with her body what she chooses. My advice... get used to disappointment.

17) Comment by Whatnow - 01/01/2013

Don't want kids? Use a condom. How much intelligence or self-control does that take?

18) Comment by Whatnow - 01/01/2013

MBW, and how many of those kids are born just to get a bigger check?

19) Comment by madbiker - 01/01/2013

There are those who think that abortion is no one's business. They may be right, if the only person that is involved is the mother of the unborn. Who is to stop her from committing suicide, or causing the untimely death of the baby. But the mother hardly ever does. She enlists the help of others. That makes it someone esle's business. And when those she enlists the help of others, it must surely be regulated by the govrnment, or there will the the certain instance when someone is not qualified that will cause harm to the mother during the procedure. And once it is regulatged by the government, that means taxes are inovoved to administer the regulations. Hardly no one's business now. And if taxes, which, unlike some people think are limitless, are limited, are spend to administer the regulations, what other programs suffer? A government can only do more with less for so long. Eventually, the people will get a lot less for less. So where do we, the tax payers draw the line? Care for the elderly? Education? You see, it becomes more than nobody's busniess. It has been said that suicide is the ultimate act of selfishness. If that is the case, it has been reduced to second place.

20) Comment by Triple - 01/01/2013

" It is without merit or reason that a blob of cells that are of no particular shape and are a long way from becoming a viable primate cannot be removed from the woman's body". Gestation at 12 weeks, we find heart beat, brain waves, hands and feet, thumb sucking, basically a discernible human being, very much alive, hardly a blob of cells. At 27 weeks viability outside the womb. Post viability abortion, enshrined as a constitutional right, is simply barbaric. "As a scientist I know, not believe, know that human life begins at conception"-Dr. Bernard Nathanson. Possibly another review of the Silent Scream would be a good start to the new year, simply for perspective in our search for truth. "In all affairs it's a healthy thing to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted"- Bertrand Russell

21) Comment by chem - 01/01/2013

The following quote sums up dealing with the delusions of religion. "There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths.  Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting.  But he dare not face his thought!  Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not rational, he becomes furious when they are disputed." - Bertrand Russell

22) Comment by MBW - 31/12/2012

And how many of those parents who "chose life" for their kids are now being called "moochers" and "lazy" because they are struggling to support them and must rely on government assistance.

23) Comment by MBW - 31/12/2012

And how many children each day are abused, neglected, or brought up in poverty because they've been brought into the world by parents who either didn't want to have them or weren't ready to?

24) Comment by chem - 31/12/2012

If a woman wants to have an abortion, that is her business and hers alone.  Once again, religion poisons everything.  It is without merit or reason that a blob of cells that are of no particular shape and are a long way from becoming a viable primate cannot be removed from the woman's body.  It is like a cancer to the woman and if she wants it gone, that is her right.  •••• As someone else said, where is the outrage when a U.S. missile kills dozens of "innocents" in a few milliseconds.  Where was the outrage when the U.S. dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan, killing thousands of "innocents" in a few seconds.  The hypocrisy in this argument about abortion from the religious-types is astounding.  Religion is a dying breed and will, in the not too distant future, be relegated to a few minor cults of no importance.  The world will be better off when there is no longer the evil that is religion.

25) Comment by prbeav - 31/12/2012

While the woman is pregnant, the conception is a natural extension of her body. People including the impregnator are excluded from the woman and her body. After delivery, the newborn is totally dependent upon the mother. On that basis, perhaps a "person" could be defined as a child that can survive on its own. At the other extreme is the ovum, which is essential for life. Definition of any part of a woman as worthy of defense against the woman seems arbitrary, to me.>>>>I think the supreme court has it right: a woman deserves privacy in her responsibility as to whether to remain pregnant or not. Anyone who would deny her that right should bear responsibility for any action they take to force her decision one way or another.

26) Comment by prbeav - 31/12/2012

There has always been competition against the nation as founded by the Protestant male majority: the law versus popular opinion. For example, by popular opinion, the Declaration of Independence, with its focus on equality, freedom, and Our Creator, trumps the preamble to the US Constitution, the goals that guide the law and instituions specified in the articles of the Constitution.>>>>Thus, the quotations cited by Chem and many more uncelebrated statements are trumped in George Mason’s 1776 narrowness: “[R]eligion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and . . . it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other,” (from Article XVI of the Virginia Bill of Rights).>>>> Mason’s statement would force Creationism as religion itself and Christianity as the practice of religion; that contradiction or social force has guided US “freedom of religion.”>>>>We the People of the United States, defined in the preamble, must reform such that non-theist citizens are not oppressed by American slogans in order for the nation to fulfill its widely boasted freedom of religion.>>>>Fulfilling the preamble seems unattainable, but the rewards would be celebrated, but regrettably, probably too late for us.

27) Comment by prbeav - 31/12/2012

Like most life issues, abortion is a question of personal responsibility and appreciation for other parties (love). Most couples are aware that impregnation can result in natural abortion, ranging from early failures such as the blastocyst not attaching to the fallopian tube to miscarriage; beyond those possibilities nature assures the woman can elect termination. Most couples take conception very seriously; who would dare intervene?>>>>At the bottom of responsibility are the man who thinks women are required to satisfy their sexual urges and take responsibility for the consequences and the woman who treats abortion as a form of contraception. The people involved in a conception should be held totally responsible and anyone who would usurp that responsibility should be held responsible for their intrusion. Let those who would force their will on others provide the enforcement and pay the penalty if they break the law. IMO.

28) Comment by Whatnow - 31/12/2012

DMJ, we find your reasoning unreasonable, also.

29) Comment by DMJ - 31/12/2012

If you equate abortion with murder, there's really no reasoning with you. It's akin to likening gay sex with bestiality, rape or incest. You can't reason with someone who isn't reasonable.

30) Comment by Triple - 31/12/2012

Women have constitutionally protected rights but unless "we the people" can agree on day one of constitutional protection, abortion will continue to terminate the innocent. Some might argue day one is at the cord cutting, others would suggest at conception, neither can defend the position against a reasonable challenge. Abortion supporters must deny the existence of an American within the womb, with an unalienable right to life, till the last moment in favor of privacy rights for others. For secular pro-lifers, the right to life is the trump card and the most innocent deserve protection, so to be sure, they argue life begins at conception. Abortions deny the voiceless a right to life, justified by protecting the rights of women, often based on geography. Certainly with modern medical science and our knowledge of fetal development, we can define and agree on day one of a human life worthy of constitutional protection and disregard the individuals location within the womb.

31) Comment by ScotB - 30/12/2012

Whatever you think of the Bible part, the fact remains that thousands are killed every day and their little bodies thrown into medical waste containers. America apparently thinks this is no big deal, since there is not enough outrage to encourage a change in the law. Should we mourn the deaths of five year olds more than 5 month olds (from the day of conception, I'm speaking here). The answer is different for a lot of people, it seems. We think the guy who shoots 16 kids is a monster and the doctor who chops up thousands is a great guy! Happy New Year!

32) Comment by chem - 30/12/2012

"Can this nation return to its God-based culture established by our forefathers in our founding documents..." What a bunch of baloney. How's this: "This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it." - John Adams "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." - Thomas Jefferson "I have found Christian dogma unintelligible." - Benjamin Franklin "The United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." - Treaty of Tripoli (George Washington, President) ••• It is amazing how the religious think this country was founded on "biblical" or "Christian" dogma.

33) Comment by wadep66 - 30/12/2012

I certainly hope Mr. deBessonet wasn't an English teacher. It never ceases to amaze me that so many Christians think they are the only people capable of doing the right thing and us non-Christians (who don't use the Bible as a reference for every decision we make on right and wrong) are to blame for society's evils. It's easy to see why he thinks this since Christians have never been responsible for any pain, death, persecution, discrimination, hatred or vengeance. Get off the cross, Mr. deBessonet. Some of your peers are wanting to move it to a government building.

34) Comment by prbeav - 30/12/2012

nimby, thanks for your prompt; chem, thanks for your clarification.>>>>My thoughts always go to the motives of the male: gratification of his genitals or fulfillment of his life, so I had a different perspective. According to H.A. Overstreet (1949), from a genetic viewpoint, the human is an animal and will satisfy its sex urges anyway it can. However, with understanding (beginning with good education), the human can learn to make choices--even control its sexual urges. Most mature adults would choose to remain true to their own life throughout life, and society is failing to teach this basic, noble goal. >>>>Society has fostered the animal instincts of humans, with focus on sex, and the victims of sex marketing are legion. Regrettably, the golfing tiger family comes to mind.>>>>With this understanding, society could reform to focus on love, as in appreciation for the other party. Influencing relationships, there are each motivation, inspiration, passion and more.>>>>To keep this from getting too long, each human would be informed about appreciation as personal awareness progresses. Thus, pre-K children might be taught that contact with another child is expected. Beginning in kindergarten and continuing through middle school, progressions in expression of appreciation could be taught, along with emphasis on the genitals as empowerment for the ultimate expression of love. For example, experts might recommend mutually agreeable simple touches are OK, progressing to handshakes, hugs, and perhaps cheek kisses between best friends and should be made aware that older people touching their genitals for the older person's titillation is improper and should be reported. >>>>Beginning with puberty, the human should be aware of his/her own sex drive and comfortable with the idea of using it according to their personal choice, which means not using it until they understand what their mature choice will be. Thus, the underlying caution shifts from not letting someone else use your genitals for their gratification to not allowing your own titillation threaten your opportunity to make life choices. The most carnal of these considerations is conception before ability to be responsible for the baby.>>>>To cut this short, the psychologically mature adult knows that the progression of expressions of appreciation end with making love with the one you committed your life to and with whom you are committed to rear any consequences of making love. If that person is of the same sex, becoming with child obviously does not involve becoming pregnant together, but is none the less and expression of appreciation for the one you committed your life to.>>>>Forgive me for being so incomplete.

35) Comment by ABayouBoy - 30/12/2012

@chem, "there is certainly more than one way to get pregnant". Especially when there is no protection, promiscuity, multiple sex partners, etc.....

36) Comment by DMJ - 30/12/2012

Madbiker, would it be ok, you ask? You're missing the point. It's no one else's business! That's the point. Got it?

37) Comment by DMJ - 30/12/2012

Weird, creepy and historically inaccurate letter. Barely worth commenting on. Abortion is legal and always will be. Oh...and once the Supreme Court tips in the right (left) direction, women's rights advocates who have been biding their time will challenge all the state-level restrictions put in place over the past few years... and they'll win. The decision to have a baby is a very serious and personal one. It should NEVER be made by government, particularly, a theocracy, which Mr. deBessonet clearly pines for. Sorry, pal, but not in my country. Get used to disappointment, sir.

38) Comment by Whatnow - 30/12/2012

Chem... uh, okay.

39) Comment by chem - 30/12/2012

There is the normal sex act between a male and female. Then there are in vivo and in vitro fertilization techniques. These are three distinct ways for a female to become pregnant.

40) Comment by palefire - 29/12/2012

Notice Rome didn't fall until after it became a Christian Empire.

41) Comment by madbiker - 29/12/2012

OK pro choice people. Suppose there were a test to see if an unborn child would be GLBT. Wou'ld it be OK for the mother to get an abortion because she didn't want to deal with a GLBT child?

42) Comment by nimby? - 29/12/2012

chem , please continue .

43) Comment by chem - 29/12/2012

there is certainly more than one way to get pregnant.

44) Comment by phil - 29/12/2012

"The question is this: Can this nation return to its God-based culture established by our forefathers in our founding documents, or will history record this is the point in time when the United States of America perished, as did ancient Rome and Greece because of its evil behavior? Who will step forward to lead this nation back to its founding principles? Will the majority of our citizens support this courageous leader?" Answers to these in my opinion. First answer is yes we can. Second answer - I do not know who will lead and I am not holding my breath for our existing leaders to do much. Therefore my answer is we all have to be leaders of our little corner of the world - in our family, in our schools in our communities etc. Don't wait for a leader, be a leader at least as much as you can. Answer 3 - I do not know the answer but I think the silent majority who usually claim to be religious and moral hard-working people can all stand up and be heard. They will be the leader to follow.

45) Comment by Mygulfbleedsforu - 29/12/2012

"there is only one way to get pregnant , and only one method that works 100 percent" *** Are you poking fun at the Good Book?

46) Comment by prbeav - 29/12/2012

Thank you, Bighug, for the associations and good news.

47) Comment by Bighug - 29/12/2012

You jogged my memory, prbeav! Dr. Prados was my advisor around 1959. Just last week I attended a party and happened to talk to a couple who know him personally. Yes, he is still alive.

48) Comment by prbeav - 29/12/2012

twinkie1cat made a lot of sense.>>>>Also, regardless of how it comes out, I recall with gratitude the best teachers in my life, from first grade to university. Thank you Ms House, Ms Buckley, Dr. Keenan, Dr. Prados, and many whose faces I can see but names I do not recall.>>>>I wish I could recall the ones who instilled interest in Ralph Waldo Emerson's "Self Reliance," Thomas Paine's writings, Benjamin Franklin's autobiography, and biographies of American patriots.

49) Comment by Whatnow - 29/12/2012

twinkie1cat, not everything us related to teacher's fear of losing their gravy.

50) Comment by prbeav - 29/12/2012

Sorry: "oppressed" should be "suppressed."

51) Comment by prbeav - 29/12/2012

“The question is this: Can this nation return to its God-based culture established by our forefathers in our founding documents, or will history record this is the point in time when the United States of America perished, as did ancient Rome and Greece because of its evil behavior? Who will step forward to lead this nation back to its founding principles? Will the majority of our citizens support this courageous leader?”>>>>It seems to me the people who are commenting in support of good behavior by the people have the better argument than the few who urge dependency on God—worse yet the Christian Bible.>>>>The record speaks for itself: this nation is where it is unconstitutionally yet popularly “under God.” For the 223 years of the nation’s operation, the majority has strived to make it a Christian nation, even though the US Constitution would establish a secular republic with many principal officers elected by the majority. More importantly, the majority has oppressed the purpose stated by the writers of the US Constitution. Seven goals are stated in the preamble to the US Constitution. Perhaps the nation is at a crossroads wherein the majority can become interested in the seven goals and consequently join “We the People of the United States,” as defined in the preamble.>>>> To paraphrase the preamble: The citizens who want integrity, justice, peacefulness, defense, prosperity, liberty and continuity govern this nation. [Note that the paraphrase does not hold up under God and when liberty is still the nation’s focus, as noted each July 4th.] I chose “integrity” to replace the concept of unity, which in 1787 referred to the then Confederation of States. Practicing the preamble with integrity, my neighbor’s religion is as free to him/her and appreciable to me as mine. Each of the seven goals needs personal consideration and public debate in personal integrity.

52) Comment by nimby? - 29/12/2012

there is only one way to get pregnant , and only one method that works 100 percent ...

53) Comment by twinkie1cat - 29/12/2012

The killing of the 20 innocents in Connecticut is in no way the same as abortion. They were wanted and loved human beings. To equate the two acts is nothing but more political manipulation by unrepentant conservatives, something that Louisiana has way to many of. Meanwhile, why not honor the other innocents in Connecticut by declaring a one year moratorium on teacher abuse. Suspend the anti-tenure law, unfreeze the school budgets, stop the RSD from taking over the schools, don't allow any more charters, give the RSD schools back to the school boards, and refuse to waste money fighting for the unconstitutional voucher law. Oh, and give all teachers a 10% raise and the opportunity to earn another education degree free of charge. Do this in honor of the six teachers, paraprofessionals and staff who died trying to save those innocent children and the others at Sandy Hook whose quick thinking held the number of deaths to 26 when it could easily have been several hundred. The Sandy Hook massacre was a demonstration of a fact of life: Teachers will be teachers. They will protect their children with their lives. They do this because they are teachers and that is what teachers do. I hope Mr. deBessonet agrees.

54) Comment by twinkie1cat - 29/12/2012

Let us not go back to Leveticus unless we are going to apply ALL of that book written for the priests who took care of the Holy of Holies.. Why not strip the difficulties of adopting American children from the system so that people won't have to go to other countries to seek a child. The mother should have 1 month to decide to give up her child who would go to foster care for that period. Post the intent in the Advocate so the father will have notice and give him that same month. Then the baby goes to a family who wants it, permanently, no questions, no mind change for either parent. If a qualified relative wants the child, they get first choice. Such a system would reduce abortions and make more children available while they were still prime candidates and reduce the opportunity of dictatorial countries to manipulate Americans who want children.

55) Comment by twinkie1cat - 29/12/2012

How did I know from the first sentence that this was a letter from an anti-abortionist? Could it be because the author was talking about "saving" potential babies whose spirits, if they have them yet, could not even be condemned to hell by Westboro Baptist Church of Hate, instead of memorializing the 20 innocents killled by providing a good life with educational and employment opportunities and loving families for kids that are already here? Maybe Mr. deBessonet, you have done your part, having been a teacher, but why are there so many children in abusive homes and foster care? Anti-abortionists need to earn their credentials by ensuring the well being of kids already here by standing up for quality PUBLIC schools, quality medical care and decent housing for all children and adopting those who are born despite their parents' inability to care for them, especially those who are older, minorities, sibling groups and disabled. Then you will do everything you can stop our evil dictator of a governor from locking the elderly and terminally ill in prisons for the unwanted, euphemistically called "nursing homes" to die alone because they need hospice care and throwing the mentally ill into the streets. If your anti-abortion activities end at birth you are just that, opposed to a woman's right to control her own body and no better than a Taliban assaulting girls for going to school. You are NOT pro life

56) Comment by jdk944 - 29/12/2012

Well said debessonet. And of course you have the typical commenters here posting who are humanistic, arrogant and focused on their superior intellect as knowing what's best. Sad!!! @serenade - a clue for you, those children who were murdered at Sandy Hook and those children who are being murdered from abortion were/are all INNOCENT!!! That's the relationship!!! And to the others, talk about "cherry picking" when it comes to referencing The Bible for scripture - yea we got it - you are so blind you cannnot see!!

57) Comment by gary - 29/12/2012

Preppy6917 - you jogged the ole brain - Leviticus 20:1-27 is a guide to whom we should terminate for certain bad things - reads like a dime store novel.

58) Comment by Preppy6917 - 29/12/2012

Mr./Ms. deBessonet is absolutely right. I mean, according to the good book (Leviticus 20:9) we aren't supposed to execute children until they become unruly...so I'm guessing the "terrible twos" is when that should start. Am I right?

59) Comment by [e-mail] - 29/12/2012

I don't hold at all with abortion, it makes me physically sick to think of killing children, but some here disagree and hold life cheap, as long as it's not theirs. Think of the poor people who were hoping to adopt Russian babies; a few less abortions could help them out a lot.

60) Comment by chem - 29/12/2012

God must be calling those cells home. Not sure what a lump of cells will do in heaven. This is a nonsensical letter. More stupid drivel from the religious crowd.

61) Comment by Bighug - 29/12/2012

I agree with the comments by gary, tradewinns, and serenade. If the letter writer would take the time to read his Holy Bible, he would discover that his god is the biggest offender when it comes to killing babies.

62) Comment by gary - 29/12/2012

serenade and tradewinns both are correct. E.E. deBessonet is cherry picking parts of a fictional novel.

63) Comment by tradewinns - 28/12/2012

serenade, these abortion foes are not playing with a full deck. i fully agree with the letter writers right to not participate in abortion if they don't want to have one. i believe noone should tell someone else how they must live their lives as long as their actions are legal. while the abortion foes may never give up their cursade, they also will never win.

64) Comment by serenade - 28/12/2012

I don't care how you feel about a woman having access to abortion, you can't equate what happened in CT with abortion. Two entirely different things, and I'm tired of people trying to make them the same.