LETTERS  PCR #189      (November 3--9, 2003)

 Phil Answers His Critic, and...
 ...Will Responds
 Matt D. on Dave T's nitpick

Letters to the EditorWe welcome your feedback.
PHIL DENIES ACCUSATIONS

Will,
How on earth could you think that I truly think as you have proposed? (Re: "Will's Perspective on Phil's Ravings", Letters # 188. --N) It must be that you either know nothing of satire or you didn't read my other Letters to the Editor. If neither of these are true than let me clarify: I was mocking the mindset of the people behind abortion, legalized suicide and mercy killing. I am glad to see that this mockery upset you. It was supposed to. It tells me you are not dead to the atrocities happening right here in our country to the lives we share this earth with. I will also let you in on the fact that I am very active in the movements to save these victims from the foolish ideas of people who garnish personal freedom over the right to life, even their own. We who defend this ideal have a great, God-given responsibility to uphold the truth which our constitution says is "self-evident". If people are offended or uncomfortable when these truths are addressed it is because they are actually reacting to their own shame to either their acceptance of these crimes or their ignorance of them.

So Will, I hope this closes the book on my stance on the pro-life movement. Now, what about you? Are you ashamed ?

Phil [Frank]


AND WILL'S RESPONSE...

Greetings Mr. Frank:
In reference to your first question ("How on earth could you think that I truly think as you have proposed?), let me respond on two levels:

First, since I do not personally know you (yet), I do not know where your sincerity lie versus your interpretation of "satire" or "parody". Nolan went to great lengths defending you when the two of us discussed your initial letter on this subject two weeks ago. Much of the rationalization for his argument was rooted in his knowing you. I did and do not have such insights into your personality in order to make a sound judgment differentiating the serious side of you from the satirical side of you.

Second. Maybe it's because of the seriousness of the subject matter itself, but your letter does not read as satire. Nolan's header to your letter stating "Phil Says Legalize All Killing, Period" neither helped your cause nor reinforced any satirical value you may have been trying to foster.

Statements such as "Why the mere thought of a baby hanging out of its mothers womb brings ripples of anger to my blood-thirsty mind", or "to starve the life out of someone makes me want to sink my claws into them", and "to stick a pair of scissors into its (re: partial birth abortion) brain till it stops quivering, oh boy, what a joy to end that medical problem" do not even come close to reading as satire to me.

The thought of terminating an innocent life when it is totally unwarranted should enrage anyone, on that you have my full unwavering support. But adding sentiments such as those underlined above have me wondering if this is satire or thoughts you sincerely entertain, and that is the danger I sense that only you can and should answer yourself.

Some people who entertained such thoughts finally acted on them with tragic results. Paul Hill came to mind in my letter - - no Christian should remain silent in condemning his actions - - Paul Hill demonstrated premeditation and malice of forethought that brought about his murdering two human beings. From both a secular and Biblical perspective you know that his actions were wrong and they were certainly not what Jesus would have ever done.

Sadly, subjects of this type are extremely complex from emotional, physical and spiritual fronts and when personally confronted with them, may not be as easy to resolve and rationalize as you may think. My mother had to have an abortion performed on her after I was born because her pregnancy (at age 45)went awry and if brought to term she probably would've died. She was heartbroken to lose the baby that she wanted so badly to have. Was that doctor a murderer? Of course only God knows that for sure, but do you honestly think that when he was faced with such a life and death decision for my mother he took glee in terminating that poor unborn child? I don't think so Phil, and that's why I find simplistically stated comments like the ones mentioned in your letter disturbing. I bear no shame in that - - I loved my mother dearly and I know that in her heart and soul she was no murderer, and that same doctor delivered me as well as thousands of babies, and I do not believe that in his heart and soul he was a murderer either.

If you already haven't Phil, I pray to God Almighty that you are never placed in such an emotionally destructive situation where you may have to make such difficult decisions for someone you love very dearly whether it's terminating a life threatening pregnancy or ending heroic life support measures for someone terminally ill (which I did for my mother's wishes in 1985).

I believe most highly in the sanctity of life, but I also believe in the quality of life, and I again bear no shame in that.

A terminally-ill patient should have the right to choose going off of life support and the Government has no business interceding in that. Knowing how Government tends to expand on so many things, decisions such as Governor Bush's could begin to intrude into that territory of the life and death equation. Although I support the tenets of the Hippocratic Oath of the medical profession, once all available medical avenues have run out, is the world of man and science justified to, in a sense, act as God and keep someone from joining their Beloved Father? This is not truly answered with a simple yes or a no if you consider all of the moral ramifications on behalf of the afflicted, their families and their medical providers.

Governor Bush (and those who know me know I am not a big supporter of this man) did the right thing, in my opinion, to intercede on Terri Schiavo's behalf because above all else, he is charged with protecting the lives of the citizens of this state. Undoubtedly there are constitutional questions to this decision, but I respect that he err on the premise of trying to save a life (I can not respect him, however, if his true intent was to garner votes in anticipation of his brother's reelection bid, again, only Jeb and God know this for sure).

If there was foul play, as the Schindlers have alleged, then an investigation should be conducted post haste and justice be served. If there was no foul play involved such allegations only seem to be meant as a vehicle to harm Michael Schiavo. Only Michael Schiavo knows the truth on this matter and under this Nation's laws he is presumed innocent until proven guilty, be it of murder at the worst, or willfull negligence on his wife's behalf. Allegations of attempted murder should be addressed without delay. And quite frankly if the burden of evidence proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that with premeditation and malice of forethought he attempted to murder his wife, I share your sentiments of wanting to "sink my claws" in him, but am restrained as a Christian and law-abiding citizen from acting on that impulse.

Either way Phil, regardless of this sad episode's outcome, you and I can be comforted with the knowledge that God will ultimately do the judging, and His judgment will be the right one

I'm glad the I got to see your response. It showed me a sincere and more accurate reflection of you then your initial letter did. Let's see more of that, because in all sincerity your letter did not, and still does not read like a satire or a parody to me or others I have shown it to. I now believe that you are sincerely committed to protecting and defending the God-given responsibility that we all must take seriously, even to the possible point of our death, in order to preserve God's gift of life. But I truly believe, based on my reaction, as well as others I have shown your letter to, that channeling your passion to persuade those to being enlightened to your viewpoint on this subject is best served by not reducing it to a level of "satire."

You shouldn't be as worried by those who are offended by the disturbing subject matter in your first letter as you should be by those who aren't.

Don't give up your fight Phil, but state your opinions in a manner of more clarity so that those of us who don't know you might be pricked of our hearts to rally behind your cause rather than run from you as I initially did.

Thanks again for your response and opening up this forum and God Bless and be with you.

Will [Moriaty]


MATT D., RE: JOHN LENNON DEATH YEARS...
Nolan,
It's obvious that Dave T. has a heckuvalotta time on his hands. (Re: "Dave's Perspective on Life and Death and The Beatles", Letters #188.--N) I hope he finds a job real soon.

As for [John] Lennon being 28 years old "dead", to Dave's point, you don't grow older when you're dead, so the reference "years old" is misused. What Dave should have said is "28 years dead". Why confuse the issue?

Dave is correct, however, in pointing out my grammatical error. What I should have said was Lennon "would be" such-and-such years old.

Matt [Drinnenberg]



To send an email to Letters to the Editor write to: Crazedfanboy1@aol.com.  Any emails sent to this address will be assumed intended for publication unless you specifically instruct me not to. I can and do respond privately, if that is your preference. Frequently, it's both ways.---Nolan

Back to top

Closing this browser window will return you to the homepage