LATEST LETTERS

Abortion

Friday, April 27 at 12:58 PM

Frank Galmish of Denver writes:

The laws in Colorado, America and the world are strange. Even stranger are those that make and interpret the law. And we know that there have been glaring mistakes by even the supreme court. At one time with the Dread Scott case, a human being was determined to be just property and slave holders loved the decision but it angered many others. Of course it was wrong. And in this century abortion was deemed ok. A baby growing in a woman’s womb was long protected in our country. I won’t term these woman mothers because the term really doesn’t fit. Then the great supreme court said that if a woman viewed the growing baby as a burden you could kill it but if you deemed it a great gift from the Almighty, why you could let it grow and keep it.
Now after decades (approximately 48 million deaths by abortion in the US, again the great supreme court says that one way of killing innocent babies is barbaric and won’t allow this to be done anymore. Yet it allowed it for years. And in the last few years our legislative body here in our great state has tried to pass legislation to change the stature of limitations on child sexual abuse to mainly target the Catholic Archdiocese to get two deceased priests that they claim had abused children sexually decades ago. It was poor law and didn’t fly. But no problem as we now have a judge, Judge Robert Hyatt, who just allows the statures to be changed against the Archdiocese. After all it is only Catholics and we can change the statures of limitations on them.
If you can’t get what you want by the front door, why our courts are good at going through the back door-especially if it is people we really don’t care about. It makes one wonder if old Charlie Dicken’s Mr. Bumble was right when he said: “Sir, if the law says that, then the law is a ass!” And anyway who really trusts lawyers who through their glib tongues can twist things around to have juries believe just about anything. Too bad we don’t have the like of old Charlie here today. He would never run out of material with the law and the people that are involved with it.

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

Abortion and child sexual abuse by Catholic priests all in one letter.

The writer appears to be anti-abortion, to protect the unborn, and pro statue of limitations , to protect priests

He even wants to shield deceased priests.

My crystal ball tells me this is an RC with a poor opinion of women.

Posted by Sharon B. on April 27, 2007 03:07 PM

Were Dickens to name you it would be Chester McFrickenboore.

Posted by Charles B on April 27, 2007 04:27 PM

As a matter of information, as best as I can find out Judge Hyatt ruled that since the lawsuit is not against the abuser "but rather for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent supervision, negligent retention, fraud, fraud-intentional nondisclosure, and conspiracy" by the archdiocese, and since the plaintiffs claim they only recently became aware of these actions by the archdiocese, and since in such cases limitations does not start to run until the plaintiffs become aware of the conduct, therefore limitations does not apply.

If in fact church officials were guilty of such conduct, and if in fact the officials concealed such conduct, it does make sense that the church officials should not be their concealment be able to deprive the plaintiffs of their day in court.

Posted by Truth on April 27, 2007 04:55 PM

Well, one reason there is so much fuss about the possibility of suit against the Roman Archdiocese might be the question of what would happen to the current leader's $69 million + building project - his entry in the Win a Red Hat Sweepstakes that occupies the major place in a Roman Prelate's mind when he gets up near the top in the hierarchy.

Posted by Old Grouch on April 27, 2007 06:05 PM

And if you consider it a burden to give YOUR body and YOUR body parts over to a child who needs them to live, well, you can kill that child. Why is that not barbaric?
Oh, because YOUR body is YOUR property and YOU may give or withhold it as you choose, because YOU are a human being.

But a woman? Only if she's celibate. If she has sex without birth control or her birth control fails, or if she's raped, well, too bad, the punishment for that is nine months of service as an incubating machine, with no more choice nor consent in the matter, regardless of what happens to her as a consequence.

Maybe we should pass a law requiring men to donate their body parts to anyone they carelessly injure in a car accident. After all, they could choose to be moral and abstain from driving, and if they don't, doesn't the other person's right to life override their right to choose what happens to their most intimate body parts?

Posted by Katja on May 1, 2007 12:01 PM