• 

Letters to the Editor: Aug. 14, 2015

Only online subscribers may access this article.

One-day subscriptions available for just $3. Click here for one-day access.

For all other subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please .

Comments

Mudstump

Bernie Meyer - I doubt very much that Senators Wyden and Merkley would make a sudden about face and ignore the Constitutionally protected right of a woman to control her own body and to make legal decisions in consultation with her doctor and family. No law can force a woman to terminate a pregnancy. If it is against your conscience to terminate then I suggest that you and your loved ones are free to carry a fetus to term. Otherwise, it is wrong of you to want big government intruding in the most private decisions women make about their lives, bodies and families. You might want to consider using your time to make sure that sex-ed is based on medical fact, comprehensive and accurate for every young person in the state. I think that is one thing we could all work on together for a more positive outcome.

Don Dix

In my opinion, it is excessively self-assertive for any member of the male gender to even enter this conversation. If one cannot experience child-birth, why would they think they were qualified to even speak on the subject? The females should have the floor on this one!

Mudstump

Don Dix - Thank you for your comment. It is often a panel full of men that seem to want to determine what women do with their bodies. I think we can be trusted to know what is best for ourselves and our families without government interference. It is insulting that we should be treated like to are too stupid to handle our own healthcare.

Don Dix

Mudstump -- Based on mental and physical toughness, it has always been my feeling that if men were the gender that gave birth, there wouldn't be many babies! Very few males of my acquaintance would relish the prospect of physical, mental, and emotional changes that accompany pregnancy -- and then do it again? It would effectively be 'No Means NO", on a whole new level!

Horse with no name

Great comment Mudstump! Those that are obsessed with controlling a woman's body are no where to be found when it comes to providing health care and education for children after they're born. First ones to vote against any taxes or bond measures that affect so many children and families. Many schools in this county are in need of repair but trying to get money for that is a battle every time against the "I don't want to pay any taxes crowd". Teachers and parents always volunteering and donating labor and money to keep day to day school functions going. That's not right, we all have a stake in every child. We're all in this together, whether we like each other or not. Taking care of children is the smartest thing we can do for their future and our own. Pushing religious beliefs between a woman or man and their doctor is going too far. Settle down and get over trying to force everyone into your worldview. Get over your bent view of sex and make sure children get a healthy sex education to help avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

BlueWolf57

I am in agreement only if we stop the bombing and killing of civilians men, women and children and even of a women who may be carrying a child in any war we have with any so called enemy of the United Sates of America.

You see We value the life of and adult killing machine less than an unborn child. I have dealt with PTSD form friends who have gone to war and now will struggle with tying to justify life and death. On the one had say that life is a choice and so is killing one. Some are justifiable and some are not. you see we have so many GAMES of war that our children and yes even s adults play that just playing them devalues LIFE.

Mudstump

BlueWolf57 - Unfortunately, we live on a planet full of conflict. As they say, "War is Hell." That's not to say that all war can be avoided, however war should be a choice of last resort. It is interesting that if you look at the record it is Republicans who have repeatedly voted to give veterans the shaft...the so-called pro-life/family values crowd.

Some of the extremists on the Christian right say, "All life is sacred," yet they support the death penalty and war. So, all life isn't really sacred to them it seems. Only a cluster of cells is sacred. The extremist views leave me with the only conclusion that I can come to...which is they are "pro-forced birth" and "anti-women's rights." They have a patriarchal view of society and they believe that a woman should be submissive, have children and play a supporting role to her husband. They don't believe in freedom for women. They seem to despise women who have sexual freedom, careers, and financial independence. The most scary part of their belief is that they have an agenda to prosecute women and their doctors who have or preform abortions. In 2014, sixteen states enacted 27 anti-choice measures....that's just one year. I read that in the first three months of 2011 (after the 2010 election) 49 states introduced 916 measures to restrict reproductive issues...and, they claim there is no war on women. lol

Lulu

Except for one comment, the responses here are refreshingly sane.
Look up the John Lennon song whose title begins, "Woman is the..." Read the lyrics. They're true.

Mudstump

Lulu - While I am happy to see society moving forward regarding gay and civil rights I think women's rights are moving backward. We still don't have an Equal Rights Amendment, we make less money, reproductive freedom and even birth control are under attack,....etc. We have come a long way baby, but the reality is that there are on average three women are killed each day in America at the hand of their abusers. Why is the "pro-life" crowd not outraged?

Lulu

Maybe they're asking, "What did she do to provoke him?"
It is estimated how, within the next decade, women will control over two-thirds of this nation's wealth. Politicians--like Rubio--should watch what they stupidly want to overturn and,instead, butt-out.
Tragically, many women simply don't realize how having nobody is preferable to being with someone happy only when enraged or pushing others around.

Mudstump

Horse - the extremists have been pushing abstinence only education. It has been shown that abstinence only sex-ed has done little to delay sexual activity or teen pregnancy. Researchers at the University of Washington found that teens who receive comprehensive sex-ed are 60% less likely to become pregnant or get someone pregnant. Education and access to birth control are two of the most effective ways we can reduce the need for abortion. Yet, Christian fundamentalists are working to get abstinence only sex-ed enacted in states across the country and the results have been a dismal failure.

gogetajob

don dix, Not all women think the same about this, so which WOMAN would you ask? Every woman I know and respect, are pro life, as am I.

Spongebob

The idea that opposition to abortion amounts to a "war on women" would be laughable, if it wasn't taken so seriously. I oppose abortion because I oppose the destruction of innocent human life. If getting an abortion was tantamount to getting a tatoo, or having a wart removed, I could buy into the argument for letting a woman make choices about her own body. But destroying a human fetus is not on the same level.

I would never make light of the difficult circumstances surrounding an unwanted pregnancy. But I will never be able to justify destroying a human fetus as the most appropriate solution.

Lulu

It's always easy to say "never" when you're not affected.

Spongebob

Men are affected by the decisions women make with their unborn babies, too, Lulu.

Mudstump

gogetajob - "don dix, Not all women think the same about this, so which WOMAN would you ask? Every woman I know and respect, are pro life, as am I."

There is a solution already in place for those that are against abortion. Don't have one.

Lulu

They've usually moved on by that time.

Spongebob

Lulu, your prejudice is showing.

Don Dix

gogetajob -- You are correct that not all women think the same about abortion (neither do all men). You wrote ... "Every woman I know and respect, are pro life" ... really? ... must be a rather small sample! And asking a WOMAN (singular)? Why should ONE opinion be the standard of anything pertinent?

Experience has no peer in this issue, and all men have exactly zilch! Even the most compassionate men cannot fathom the true reality of pregnancy, birth ,or abortion, so why the pretense?

One would be foolish to call a senator or representative to repair your car, your plumbing, your illness ... total lack of experience! In this case, the emperor (men) truly has no clothes, so deferring to a bunch of empty suits will always result in an uneducated decision. In my opinion, to reach the proper solution, one should defer to the experts [women - plural].

Spongebob

Don, your frame of referrence is too narrow. This isn't about "a bunch of empty suits" making an "uneducated decision." It's about whether or not you can justify destroying an unborn life. A moral and compassionate people will try to protect the most vulnerable among us, whether it's the elderly, the disabled, the sick and weak, or innocent children. Every decent man has the right - and the duty - to defend and nurture those lives.

Of course only a woman can experience pregnancy and childbirth, but that does not disqualify men from standing up to protect her and the life within her. There is a greater moral imperative, here, that should not disenfranchise all men simply because they cannot experience pregnancy.

Lulu

Sponge, what world do you live in? I guess the land of wise patriarchs (oh, gag me) and conditional tenses.
May you never face the dilemma of an unplanned pregnancy. But others do. Regardless of your moral high ground (that perhaps contains just a touch of the punitive), abortion is legal. It's the law. Complain until you're blue in the face; wring your hands; carry signs with indignant messages. But you're not turning back the clock.

Spongebob

You make an aweful lot of unsupportable assumptions, Lulu. ("...a touch of the punitive...) Really? In what way? And, for the record, I have "faced the dilemma of an unplanned pregnancy." Fortunately for my son, we didn't destroy him when it would have been convenient to do so.

Nowhere in my post did I advocate any of the things you spewed in your indignity. I simply responded to Don's assertion that men should have no voice in the conversation. If you want to reframe my remarks into something I didn't intend, go ahead and keep fuming. I do believe I am on the moral high ground, Lulu, but I'm not a bomb thrower. I am simply asserting the responsibility of men to do the right thing. I'm sorry if that offends you.

Mudstump

Sponge says, "And, for the record, I have "faced the dilemma of an unplanned pregnancy." Fortunately for my son, we didn't destroy him when it would have been convenient to do so."

How very fortunate for you that you could exercise YOUR choice. Women have the same right as you....they can carry a fetus to term or terminate. Their choice doesn't violate your conscience one iota.

Spongebob

The destruction of innocent human life should violate the conscience of all of us, Mudstump, regardless of who makes the choice.

Lulu

Talk is cheap. While you write how diligently we protect the innocent, the old, the disabled, the weak, check out how much money employees make working in day care, nursing homes, group homes, etc. Minimum wage. Elderly people are stolen from or embezzled by their own relatives or by the shifty "help" hired to provide daily care. We certainly sound high-minded, but, as so often is the case, reality doesn't match our words.
And by punitive, there is a component to people which condemns a woman for being in the position to need an abortion in the first place. You made your bed; now lie in it.

Spongebob

"And by punitive, there is a component to people which condemns a woman for being in the position to need an abortion in the first place. You made your bed; now lie in it."

I made no such condemnation, Lulu. Nor did I write that we are diligently protecting the vulnerable. You have a habit of reading way more into these posts than is warranted.

Again, I am simply advocating that men do the right thing. When people fail in their responsibilites to protect the vulnerable, it is a shame to all of us. Maybe you could get off your own high horse long enough to reconsider shooting the messenger.

Mudstump

Spongebob - "The destruction of innocent human life should violate the conscience of all of us, Mudstump, regardless of who makes the choice."

You and the mother of your child have the freedom to choice to carry a fetus to term. Why are you not content with that right? What gives you the right to determine the conscience of others or the degree to which their conscience is effected by the termination of a pregnancy? Women and their families have many private reasons for wanting to terminate or to carry a fetus to term. Who are you to ask the government to dictate what decisions a woman makes regarding herself and her family? I don't want big government in my exam room every time I have an appointment with my doctor. Do you?

Trafik

If a woman has an unwanted toddler, should she be able to make the choice to terminate it? It is small, defenseless, utterly dependent and, for all practical purposes, remarkably similar to a fetus. Oh, but there is that one pesky distinction: since it was birthed in the traditional way and presumably someone "wants" it or "planned" for it (as opposed to the "unwanted" or "unplanned" type), it is worthy of legal protections.

Lulu

But what if the messenger is identical to the message?
This is not the United States of Sponge. Have your opinion, great--just don't try to force people disagreeing with you to jump on your bandwagon. Which would be a Sponge dictatorship.
Your moral high ground is a lot taller than my horse.
I really liked, "Nor did I write that we are diligently protecting the vulnerable."

Lulu

Yes, Trafik, I do understand the "slippery slope" argument.
Better to terminate at a size smaller than the head of a pin than to be a dead starved three-year-old on an autopsy slab, pocked by cigarette burns, with nearly every bone broken.

Spongebob

"Who are you to ask the government to dictate what decisions a woman makes regarding herself and her family?"

I'm not asking the government to do any such thing, Mudstump. Who are you to make such an assumption?

"What gives you the right to determine the conscience of others or the degree to which their conscience is effected by the termination of a pregnancy?"

Again, I am not asserting the right to "determine the conscience of others" in this or any other matter. Why do you make this false assumption? I am stating what I believe to be a moral principle that impacts the human condition. If you disagree with me, that's fine, but don't ascribe to me demands that I'm not making. It demonstrates gaps in your ability to reason.

BlueWolf57

Life is a choice that can be made by a man and a women or forced by man;rape. This a crude way to say conception. The right to end a life can also be made by a man or a women. This should simply and crudely be called an EXICUTION.

Lulu

Excicution?

Mudstump

Spongebob - "Again, I am not asserting the right to "determine the conscience of others" in this or any other matter. Why do you make this false assumption? I am stating what I believe to be a moral principle that impacts the human condition. If you disagree with me, that's fine, but don't ascribe to me demands that I'm not making. It demonstrates gaps in your ability to reason."

Well, at this point I'm not sure what you are saying. You make statements and then don't want to defend your position. Discussing this with you sometimes feels like I'm trying to nail jello to the wall. It just can't be done. Each woman and each and every abortion has a story behind it. Often the need to terminate a pregnancy is complicated, excruciatingly difficult and well-thought out by the woman. In consultation with her family and physician she comes to her own unique decision based on what is best for her circumstances. In the end, I trust women, their partners and their doctors to make the best choice possible. In a perfect world a woman would never need an abortion, but that isn't the world we live in. IMO, it is wrong to intrude or insert the government into this most private element of a woman's life. Can we respectfully agree to disagree on this one while I am in between one of my "gaps" in reason? :)

Trafik

Mudstump: "In a perfect world a woman would never need an abortion, but that isn't the world we live in."

I wholly agree with that statement.

But, Mudstump, there is one member of your sample woman's family with whom she's not consulting: the one whose life is being terminated. Perhaps this one would come to an altogether different conclusion than this woman, the rest of her family and her physician, regardless of how well-thought-out their reasoning might be.

The fundamental difference between your position and mine (and probably Spongebob's) is straightforward: you believe a fetus is simply part of a woman's body and I believe that same fetus is a separate human being, worthy of legal and moral protections. The argument in this thread will never be resolved to the satisfaction of either of us until we reach consensus on this most basic point. I doubt that will happen any time soon.

That said, I recognize the legality of abortion but it speaks volumes about the sad state of our society. Collectively, we have failed miserably at providing basic care for women experiencing crisis pregnancies, including any kind of commitment to the long-term care of the children such pregnancies produce. Many conservatives who oppose abortion are silent or absent when the discussion turns to providing this care or, worse, oppose such a commitment as an endorsement of growing the "welfare state."

Long after all of us posting here are gone, history may judge us harshly for embracing abortion as a "necessary evil," the simplest solution to a hugely complicated problem few wanted to address. As accepted as abortion is among those who lean left, I can't see how a society terminating its young will be favorably termed "progressive" a thousand years from now.

Horse with no name

It always comes back to a religious person assuming their religion trumps our government and laws. Anything not aligned with their religious world view is the work of Satan and therefore fare game for attacks. The religious view, when the sperm meets the egg, that is magically a fully developed human being. That is their reason to take control of your body. It goes back to their religion stating the woman should be a servant to the man. How dare you assume control of your own body, the man said that God told him it's not suppose to be that way... yep I hate to break it to ya but civilization is moving forward and we refuse to be taken back to the good ol' days, where it was do as your told or suffer the consequences of a whippin' or worse. The modern equivalent is a cowardly sniper shooting a doctor or another coward bombing a clinic. No thank you.

Spongebob

Mudstump: "You make statements and then don't want to defend your position." This is an example of one of your "gaps". I am more than willing to defend any position I've made on this topic.

Nowhere, on this thread, have I advocated for "the government to dictate what decisions a woman makes", as you infer. Nor have I asserted any "right to determine the conscience of others", as you bemoan. As I have said before, I am simply stating what I believe to be a moral principle that impacts the human condition.

If you want to "agree to disagree" with my opinion, I can accept that. But don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say, and then accuse me of not defending a position I never took.

Trafik

Less religion run amok than an expression of my profound respect for human life. I also firmly oppose the death penalty, but that's another conversation.

While I disagree with Mudstump, I respect him/her (I suspect it's her) because her position is well-thought-out and fluently articulated. Embittered rants are far easier to reject outright, Horse. We can all disagree with one another and still be somewhat respectful, right?

But then, my opinion and $1.99 will get you a cup of coffee at Denny's.

Mudstump

Traffic - "While I disagree with Mudstump, I respect him/her (I suspect it's her) because her position is well-thought-out and fluently articulated. Embittered rants are far easier to reject outright, Horse. We can all disagree with one another and still be somewhat respectful, right?"

Yes, we can respectfully disagree. Roe v. Wade currently reflects a fair compromise for all beliefs imo. If after careful consideration you feel an abortion is the right choice then you can legally get one if your state legislature hasn't made it nearly impossible or required state mandated rape via vaginal ultrasound or closed all but one or two clinics. If you believe that abortion is not a choice you would make then you are free to carry a fetus to term. The problem starts when a minority of radical religious folks want to impose their beliefs upon the rest of us. Women are smart enough to make their own informed decisions. We don't need big government dictating what we do with our bodies. I don't wish to be a slave to my own biology.

kona

Interesting comment, Mudstump.

You said, "We don't need big government dictating what we do with our bodies."

I would guess by that comment that you don't consider a baby's body as a human until birth? Or, that each woman is free to decide when a baby becomes a human/person.

Mudstump

kona - "I would guess by that comment that you don't consider a baby's body as a human until birth? Or, that each woman is free to decide when a baby becomes a human/person."

A developing cluster of cells is not a person.

kona

You must have an opinion when specifically does this "cluster of cells" become a person. At what time does that happen? Is it morally acceptable to abuse that "cluster of cells"? Is it morally acceptable to use drugs/alcohol that might abuse that "cluster of cells"? Does each woman have the latitude to decide on this abuse?

I will be very interested in your response.

You said, "A developing cluster of cells is not a person."

tagup

I read today that the University of Pittsburg created a functioning brain (of a rat)from some embryonic cells. They seemed to discover that the "brain" had developed the ability of short term memory. So if this was done with human tissue....would you call it a person?

Mudstump

kona - "Is it morally acceptable to abuse that "cluster of cells"?"

Is bombing, arson, intimidation and harassment, throwing acid, and murder of doctors and staff morally acceptable to you? If you sit silently by as this violence continues then you have no right to claim the moral high-ground here. As I have said, I trust women in consultation with her family and doctor to make these tough decisions in lieu of a "period" police state.

Trafik

Technically, I am a "developing cluster of cells" and I nevertheless consider myself a person.

The issue at this point is that some of us have a problem with the wholly arbitrary idea that a human only becomes a person at the moment his or her head leaves the body of his or her mother. I would be able to accept this definition more readily had it been firmly established by dogged scientific research instead of by lawyers motivated by political expedience. I have great difficulty imagining a fetus at, say, six months as merely a "developing cluster of cells."

While some might wish to debate my own personhood, I'll have the last laugh when I'm old, dying and demanding all manner of heroic measures. (And no, tagup, your theoretical "functioning brain" wouldn't be a person although it might qualify to run for the county commission.)

kona

You said, "Is bombing, arson, intimidation and harassment, throwing acid, and murder of doctors and staff morally acceptable to you?"

It ("bombing, arson, intimidation and harassment, throwing acid, and murder of doctors and staff morally acceptable to you?") is not acceptable. But that has nothing to do with the question(s) asked of you. Are you able to answer the questions asked?

The use of abortions as a birth control option seems to be morally unacceptable to me. I do agree that it is a good sociological control of the population, but that is a totally different subject that bypasses the morality issue.

kona

trafik, your comment is interesting. Could we also include, "your theoretical "functioning brain" wouldn't be a person although it might qualify to run for the President of the United States"?

tagup

Kona- I don't think President would be an option...I think I read somewhere that you need to have a birth certificate.

Mudstump

Trafik & kona - It is a fact that the vast majority of abortions occur in the first three months of pregnancy, long before the fetus is viable outside the uterus. As someone who found motherhood the ultimate joy of my life I personally would not abort a fetus after viability is reached. It is the rare exception (approx. 1.4%) that pregnancies are terminated after viability sometimes due to fetal abnormalities that could endanger the life of the mother or cause great suffering for the child who would soon die after birth regardless. These are tragic circumstances and they involve the most heart wrenching decisions that a woman and her family can make. So, it is my opinion, that the government should stay out of it altogether.

kona - it is insulting to say that abortion is commonly used as a form of birth control. Sounds like a talking point more than a rational compassionate discussion of a serious topic.

kona

Mudstump, you will just have to remain insulted since you are not aware of reality. Abortions are routinely used instead of accepted birth control methods. It is obvious that these women and their partners are not as responsible as you would like to believe.

In 2011, women who had not aborted in the past accounted for 53.7% of all abortions; women with one or two prior abortions accounted for 37.1%, and women with three or more prior abortions accounted for 9.3% (CDC).

kona

Mudstump

You said, " It is a fact that the vast majority of abortions occur in the first three months of pregnancy, long before the fetus is viable outside the uterus."

According to the CDC, 26 percent of abortions take place after the nine weeks you refer. Are you suggesting that these are morally deficient, or do you support those also?

Mudstump

kona - "According to the CDC, 26 percent of abortions take place after the nine weeks you refer. Are you suggesting that these are morally deficient, or do you support those also?"

Your numbers are wrong. I won't go down this rabbit hole with you because you have your mind made up and that's fine. You are free to have as many children as you want. No one is stopping you. Other women are free to choose to terminate a pregnancy according to their own beliefs. You don't get to force your beliefs on others and others are not forcing abortion on you. Have a great day.

Web Design and Web Development by Buildable