Letters to the Editor: Jan. 25, 2017

Abor­tions some­times needed

In re­sponse to Pat Beven­our’s Let­ter to the Ed­it­or, “Pro­tect un­born ba­bies,” pub­lished on Jan. 18:

Greet­ings Pat Beven­our. A wo­man’s right to choose isn’t syn­onym­ous with a “child’s” right to be born, be­cause nobody has such a right that isn’t gran­ted to them by an out­side en­tity or en­tit­ies.  

I could go in­to what are rights, where do we de­rive them, and should they be based on ra­tion­al mor­al­ity; but that seems like too long a top­ic for an­oth­er time, and one that I highly en­cour­age you to re­search and dwell upon on your own.  I would re­com­mend a book called Ra­tion­al Mor­al­ity by Robert John­son. 

I think your view, along with many of those on the re­li­gious right who in­voke Je­sus’ name, wish to make the is­sue of abor­tion so very black and white with little wiggle room. Pro­tect­ing the un­born is first and fore­most to you? OK. How about in the case where go­ing through with the birth threatens the moth­er’s life?  Still pro­ceed? (*Note: If you say no, then I ask why? Are you pri­or­it­iz­ing one life over the oth­er, and why would you think this is ac­cept­able?) And what about the case of rape? A wo­man was forced in­to this situ­ation, has no in­terest or de­sire to have any chil­dren, let alone one re­ceived by someone who vi­ol­ated her, but she should be forced to carry to term? How about in the case where the fetus is severely de­formed and wouldn’t have a very happy or peace­ful ex­ist­ence?  How about all of the un­wanted chil­dren who are born and then neg­lected and/or ab­used? 

I un­der­stand the “per­son­al re­spons­ib­il­ity” ar­gu­ment. But I don’t put a lot of trust in some people to be per­son­ally re­spons­ible, es­pe­cially when it comes to chil­dren. This is a sad fact of our real­ity. I’ve wit­nessed it firsthand work­ing in the so­cial ser­vices field. Do you sup­port tax­a­tion for things like meal pro­grams, child­care, res­id­en­tial fa­cil­it­ies, pub­lic schools, wel­fare as­sist­ance etc.? All of these things help fam­il­ies (and in this case, chil­dren). I would like to think and hope that you do sup­port them. 

I don’t want to drone on and ap­pear gung-ho about abor­tions. I just want to re­lay why I think they are some­times ne­ces­sary, and of­ten a dif­fi­cult de­cision for wo­men to make. 

Per­haps in­stead of pray­ing, or in ad­di­tion to do­ing so, you should look in­to some stat­ist­ics re­gard­ing abor­tions: abort73.com/abor­tion_­facts/us_­abor­tion_s­tat­ist­ics

To reach some com­mon ground here, I’d like to close with some good news.  Abor­tion rates have stead­ily de­creased over the years for a few reas­ons, and ap­pear to still be on the de­cline.

Mi­chael Al­ex­an­der


Nom­in­ee is a ter­rible choice

Don­ald Trump has nom­in­ated fast-food CEO An­drew Puzder to lead the Labor De­part­ment. This pick threatens to leave work­ing people more vul­ner­able to ab­us­ive em­ploy­ers. Mr. Puzder op­poses rais­ing the min­im­um wage and says work­ers don’t need over­time and should in­stead be happy with a “sense of ac­com­plish­ment.” This state­ment is a slap in the face of every work­er who has sac­ri­ficed fam­ily time for the be­ne­fit of the em­ploy­er. The over­time pay is the jus­ti­fic­a­tion for this stay­ing later and ac­com­plish­ing the job.

Fur­ther­more, An­drew Puzder has used his po­s­i­tion and au­thor­ity as a fast-food CEO to en­rich him­self at the ex­pense of work­ing people by vi­ol­at­ing labor laws that are cur­rently in place. An in­vest­ig­a­tion found that more than half of the Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s res­taur­ants re­viewed wer­en’t pay­ing work­ers what they were owed. Mr. Puzder made more money in one day than one of his full-time min­im­um wage work­ers makes in a year. That alone is rep­re­hens­ible, let alone Puzder re­fus­ing to pay his man­agers the over­time they right­fully earned. An­drew Puzder stated that he would rather re­place hu­man work­ers with ma­chines. Ma­chines nev­er take a va­ca­tion, nev­er com­plain about work­ing con­di­tions or over­time pay.

All of these reas­ons make Puzder un­fit to run an agency tasked with pro­tect­ing people at work.

John Hawthorne


May­or should be ar­res­ted

Now that the elec­tion is over and the U.S.-trash­ing Dems in D.C. are out along with their polit­ic­ally cor­rect garbage, our es­teemed may­or says he will still have Philly as a sanc­tu­ary for il­leg­als. Doesn’t he care what our new pres­id­ent has to say?

Every single may­or who thumbs their nose at U.S. law needs to be ar­res­ted. Yes, ar­res­ted. Ar­rest each one of the may­ors who defy the law as an ac­cess­ory after the fact. Know­ing that an of­fense against the United States has been com­mit­ted, any­one who re­lieves, com­forts or as­sists the of­fend­er in or­der to hinder or pre­vent his ap­pre­hen­sion, tri­al or pun­ish­ment, is an ac­cess­ory after the fact.

Let’s see if their own per­son­al de­sire for free­dom takes a back­seat to their lib­er­al crap.

Heza­ki­ah Lev­in­son


You can reach at .

comments powered by Disqus