Letters to the Editor, April 4
Leonard Pitts supports legalized abortion because he thinks “a woman should have the ultimate say over her own body.” Such shallow thinking is common. And dead wrong for two reasons.
First, whenever someone acts with an evil motive, the act becomes evil. For example, motive is what distinguishes the moral difference between borrowing and stealing. Because elective abortion’s purpose is to kill an innocent unborn baby, this barbarically evil motive, regardless of anybody’s “bodily rights”, means abortion is barbarically evil. You cannot justify evil — intentionally killing the innocent — by appealing to your rights.
Second, parents have an obligation to use their bodies to care for their children. Should Tiffany Klapheke claim “bodily rights” regarding her baby daughter’s 2012 four-day starvation death? Doesn’t Ms. Klapheke have, in Leonard Pitts’ words, “ultimate say over [refusing to use] her own body” to care for her daughter Tamryn, thereby killing her by starvation? The thought is barbaric.
Ms. Klapheke’s obligation to care for Tamryn supersedes her bodily rights. And because the child’s location cannot diminish parental obligation, parental obligation applies before birth.
In summary, bodily rights fail to legitimize abortion because parental obligation trumps bodily rights and because rights can’t justify murder.
Despite the fact that public opinion on climate science has undergone a considerable shift over the last year, the leading candidates for the Republican presidential nomination remain entrenched in their commitment to reject science and Americans and represent fossil-fuel corporations.
According to a March Gallup poll, 60 percent of Americans acknowledge most scientists concur with the opinion that global warming is happening. Meanwhile, the same poll reveals that 57 percent of Americans also concur with the scientific consensus that humans are causing the warming. Paradoxically, however, non-scientific public respondents, who claim they understand the science very well, are the least likely to accept the scientific consensus. As Mark Twain reportedly stated: “It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”
Presumably, the frightening leading contenders for the Republican nomination won’t support simple and rational steps to protect our planet for future generations — their grandchildren as well as ours — even when these steps promote economic growth. They would rather see the planet destroyed just so long as fossil fuel corporations can continue to control our destiny and make obscene profits.
They deserve no support from sane voters.
Beautiful but lethal
Ever see a wolf or coyote kill a calf? Hamstring or grab by the neck, then they focus on tearing out the intestines while the animal is still alive.
This is true of deer, elk or cows. They have also been known to eat a calf while the cow is giving birth.
I have no sympathy for the wolf. Their place in history is over. To reintroduce this animal was wrong. It is beautiful, but lethal.
Judy Van Blarcom
Don't believe it
I have no sympathy for the Malheur occupiers, but if you believe the government's claim that they did $4 million worth of damage in six weeks, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.