Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Joe Fuiten Responds to Sen. Stevens

I received an email last night from "Danille" on behalf of Joe Fuiten.

Our regular blog will continue tomorrow.

We have linked Fuiten's response to Senator Sevens with some reluctance.

Our reluctance is not based on our support for a specific candidate, as was implied in previous comments. Faith and Freedom did not endorse a candidate in the Rossi, Didier, Akers primary, however, we will fully support Dino Rossi in the general election and will do all we can do to help him get elected.

Our reluctance is based on Fuiten's propensity toward and history of taking private matters between people in the faith community and making them a public dispute. Something on which the press thrives. Referendum 71 is a recent example.

Faith and Freedom does not want to be used as a facilitator for this pattern of behavior.

Click here to read Fuiten's Response.

I'm spending the day on the Kitsap Peninsula today and will not be responding to email until this evening.

__________
Gary Randall
President
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

10 comments:

  1. I really appreciated Pastor Joe's comments.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for explaining your position. I think part of the problem here is that the term "pregnancy" has more than one definition. While traditionally and for prolife purposes it meant a fertilized egg, it has recently be changed in some circles to mean an implanted embryo. I don't think anybody could be against preventing fertilization or ovulation in a rape victim, but my understanding is that the most likely mechanism in emergency contraception is preventing implantation, which is something prolife folks have a problem with and would consider a potential abortion. Unfortunately, if you are operating under the newer definition of pregnancy, even this method is still considered prevention of pregnancy instead of termination of pregnancy by definition, even though the potential of a fertilized embryo being aborted is very real. So there is doublespeak going on, and we need to be clear what we are talking about. If you craft a bill that makes available medications that prevent ovulation and fertilization without interfering with implantation there wouldn't be any opposition from anybody in the prolife camp.
    Blessings,
    C. Y.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I thought Fuiten was a better theologian than he is. I'm disappointed. Stevens is a better politician than Fuiten is a theologian.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So what I would like to know is if this medical thing offered
    would abort a pregnancy if there was one or not.

    I personally would not like to see such a thing offered by law if it put a requirement upon people to suggest or make available such a thing that could cause an abortion.

    It seems to me that a rape victim should have the sense to ask if there is some type of contraceptive that would prevent a pregnancy and if she asks then I would hope that no information would be withheld from her,(giving such information is not the same as performing an abortion, or giving the treatment that could cause one) but making a requirement by law that would require medical personnel to offer anything that could cause an abortion, seems to me to be an infringment upon the conscience of many, interfereing with their walk with God whom they are responsible to. Therefore I would be against such a thing.

    Not only is it importan to consider one person in a situation (such as a rape), but also everyone else. What if a pregancy did occur and the medication caused an abortion? That is a life also.

    If this drug, procedure, or whatever it is, can by no means cause the loss of an impregnated embryo, then it seems to me that this should not be considered an abortion matter.

    So what I want to know is, could this drug, procedure, or whatever it is cause an abortion or not?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think Fruiten talks too much about controversial differences between folks...splitting hairs. He should consider that where there is no wood the fire goes out. Surely there are more productive things to discuss that would bring people together.

    ReplyDelete
  6. After reading more of Joe Fuiten's letter it seems clear to me that an abortion could happen as a result of this treatment for some patients.

    Therefore I am against any law that would require medical personell to make this available and to adminster it to rape victims.

    The judges who determined the outcome of Roe v. Wade seemed to me to think they didn't have to decide when life begins in order to determine that a mother may abort her baby and end it's life.

    As Rod Parsley has said (in effect) "If you don't know for sure when life begins, you certainly wouldn't want to go ahead with such a thing would you?"

    It seems to me that if we are not sure that such a treatment could not cause an abortion, we shouldn't require medical personnel by law to administer it.

    Doesn't the Food and Drug administration decide to not allow some drugs to be sold because of possible ill effects? Doing so does not mean they are wrong. Every drug and it's possible effects needs to be looked into and weighed against both the good and the bad.

    ReplyDelete
  7. C.Y.

    I believe you are confused. The standard medical definition of pregnancy is an implanted fertilized egg or zygote. The idea that a fertilized egg, before successful implantation, constitutes a pregnancy is a political fiction invented by the so-called "pro-life" movement to obscure the fact that they also seek to prevent access to common types of birth control.

    ReplyDelete
  8. At last a voice of reason with the
    compassion of Christ for a victim.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I wonder if this is connected to the drug known as "ella" which I heard is marketed as a contraceptive and will abort a days old embryo.

    I don't know if a days old embryo in the womb of a woman means she is pregnant, but it seems to me that a days old embryo left
    to live might result in a new born baby.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I wonder if there is a drug that would prevent a woman from getting pregnant hours after a rape that would in no way cause
    the death of an embryo.

    Let's ask ourselves if Jesus would administer a drug out of compassion to a rape victim, or order a medical person to do so, if he knew that the drug could kill an embryo if it was in the womb.

    We should know that Jesus would most likely know whether or not there is an embryo in the womb, but this question helps us think about what we should do.

    Would Jesus order a medical person to indiscriminately administer a drug to a patient who was a recent victim of rape that could kill an embryo if it was in the womb of the woman because the drug might prevent a child birth, (either by preventing fertilization, or by ending the life of a fertilized embryo) by law?

    If Jesus told a medical person to administer the drug to a rape victim and the result was that the rape victim did not have to bring a baby to birth, but it also resulted in the death of an embryo which otherwise might have been born, then wouldn't the medical person who administered the drug be without guilt in so doing as long as it was done in the manner Jesus commanded? But ....What if Jesus would not do such a thing?

    What if it was someone other than Jesus who required the medical person to do so without discrimination? (indiscrimanately)



    Sometimes discrimination is a good thing.

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.