fb pixel

Log In

Reset Password

Life-and-death issue

Doug Forsyth claims to be a libertarian yet his support of abortion betrays libertarianism.

The key principle of libertarianism is non-aggression. No matter the circumstances, no individual or government may use force, except to defend someone from aggression. Non-aggression is a non-optional obligation. Otherwise, there would be no moral difference between earning money and stealing it or consensual sex and rape.

A related principle is that of non-endangerment ' no one has a right to negligently or intentionally endanger someone and allow the harm to happen. Such an act would be aggression. If we endanger others, we incur a positive obligation to prevent the harm.

The unborn's presence is caused by biological forces independent of, and beyond the control of, the child; they are brought into play by the acts of the parents. The cause-and-effect relationship between sexual intercourse and pregnancy is well-known. The parents are the causative agents of both the child's existence and dependence.

Parental obligation arises because the parents voluntarily (even if unintentionally) put their child in a life-or-death situation. There's no conflict between the rights of mother and child. Parental obligation means the unborn have a right to be in the womb. ' Ray Hymer, Tiller

Creation scientists abound

Responding to Mr. Beutner's challenge (Feb. 6) to present just one creation scientist with credentials. Simple! A small sample of creation Ph.D.s would cover this entire editorial page!

— There are creation scientists in every field of study, for example: Dr. Kurt Wise, paleontology; Dr. Andrew Snelling, geophysics; Dr. Russell Humphreys, award-winning physicist; Dr. Dean Kenyon, biologist.

All are just the tip of the iceberg of creation scientists and researchers. Most importantly, what Mr. Beutner and evolutionists try to forget, are our founders of modern science, all of which named here were creation scientists and defenders of creation science: Isaac Newton (calculus, gravitation law, reflecting telescope, spectrum of light, wrote more about the Bible than science), Leonardo Da Vinci, Francis Bacon (scientific method), Gallileo Gallili (physics, astronomy), John Woodward (paleontology), Johann Kepler, Blaise Pascale, Robert Boyle, James Joule (thermodynamics), Jonathan Edwards, William Herschel, Georges Cuvier, Michael Faraday, Joseph Henry, Richard Owen, Gregor Mendel (founder of genetics), Louis Pasteur (bacteriology, biochemistry, immunization), Henri Fabre (electrodynamics, statistical thermodynamics), George Washington Carver, William Ramsay (isotopic chemistry, element transmutation), Wernher Von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration), Joseph Lister (antiseptic surgery), L. Merson Davies (geology, paleontology). Reference: answersingenesis.org. ' Jason Strock, Medford

A chickenhawk flock

Tough talk is cheap.

It's beyond time for Bush's supporters to save his presidency by volunteering to serve in the military in Iraq, especially you chickenhawk evangelicals.

War preachers like Dobson and Falwell celebrate war but refuse to urge their flock to enlist and fight. They claim the Islamo-fascist cause is the greatest threat we face but none put words into actions. Why, then, should anyone take them seriously?

It is time to examine your rhetoric and realize that, despite your pro-war ideals and delusional beliefs, you oppose continuing this war. In practical terms, you have decided that this war is not worth your life.

If you will not serve in Iraq, stop expecting someone else to do what you will not.

For the rest of you neocon yahoos, perhaps the true path to victory begins with the terms Cpl. Kristol and Pvt. Limbaugh.

Muster up or shut up. ' Marc Forrest, Ashland

Repeating our mistakes

I woke up a few days ago, turned on the TV news and thought I was back in Vietnam/1966. American troops are engaged in Operation Swarmer. In addition to taking the fight to the enemy, we are training and supporting Iraqi troops as we ask them to take over their share of the fight.

Forty years ago, we called this approach sweep and destroy and Vietnamization. We would sweep a geographic area, destroy what we could and then leave. We also worked to train the South Vietnamese troops to take over more of the load. It was a 40-year-ago version of the current When the Iraqis step up, we will stand down.

In 1973 we pulled out of Vietnam with 58,000 dead, hundreds of thousands wounded, declaring victory because Vietnamization had succeeded. Wrong ' in 1975 Vietnam fell to the enemy.

The Soviets attempted the same strategy in Afghanistan for a decade in the 1980s. It also failed.

Poor strategy in the '60s, '70s and 1980s is doomed to failure when attempted in 2006. ' Larry Slessler, Medford

It's our oil now

A past Since We Asked question about the length of the U.S. occupation of Iraq has turned out to be prophetic. It seems now that the occupation was always intended to be permanent.

I guess if we occupy Iraq then technically it isn't really foreign oil. Does drilling in the ANWR become just a diversion from the real objective, securing Middle East oil from China/Russia? ' George Tipton, Medford