Letters to the Editor
jebldmm
Published Letters: 933 Editor's Choice: 164
-
Metaphor and stepped aside
[Read the article: Energy independence]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Every time I read or listen to Garrison's words, I am lulled into the realm of philosophical indulgence where I inevitably read or hear possibly more than what has been said or written. The catalyst of a social case made for turning down the heat becomes a social entreaty to tighten our belts for the benefit of our nation and to be proud of having the choice to do so. I have a sneaking suspicion that Garrison's grandparents were good friends of my grandparents, and played Canasta with them frequently where they spoke about the measures they took to get through the long Minnesotan / Canadian winters. I have a feeling that they compared notes on strategies that they had used to get through the depression and raise a flock of children that got good educations and were well clothed despite the hardships of not having TV, cellphones, and the Internet.
I think of what it takes to find what would be the most efficient way to organize one's day so that the bare minimum of time is spent outside in minus-30 degree weather. And that efficiency was a necessary thing to survive, let alone thrive. I know that when it's cold outside, you don't have a lot of energy and time to dawdle... or to build and maintain empires. As history indicates, the dynasties founded by northern peoples typically don't last anywhere near as long as those founded by those folks who established their demesnes in warmer climes.
For example: The Vikings were a realistic folk who decided that cold, wet, rocky hillsides were all good and fine when you were indoors being served mead, but you had to go out eventually, if only to get rid of all that mead. They may have wandered far and wide advancing the arts of shipbuilding, navigation, and skull cleaving, but by and large they left no significant global cultural footprint. They didn't have time to. It was too damn cold, and who wants to go warring when it's too cold outside and warming inside?
The warm-weather-blessed Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Assyrians, Aztecs, etc, on the other hand: Plenty of time to sit and think about which of your neighbor's wives or farm fields would best complement your own when you're not spending half the day gathering firewood or shivering or trying to hack the haunch off of a wild boar that has been sitting frozen outside for the past two months. There is plenty of time to devote thought to things on the outside of one's survival experience.
So Garrison is right: There is a certain nobility in being able to sacrifice for our own good because it is the right thing to do, and we can justifiably be proud of the clever ways we can run our lives more efficiently and with less waste not because we are forced to, but because we can. But dear Lord... all that time putting on sweaters and woolen socks could be put to good use thinking about warm countries and developing stratagems for getting what they have for our own needs. Hmmm. I think I'll go turn the heat down, put on a sweater, give Exxon a little less profit next quarter, and sleep with a clear conscience... and my head tucked under the blankets.
-
To Anon
[Read the article: If abortions are murder, should women who have them go to prison?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Think about what you are saying. You seem to be saying that a woman who has an abortion should be excused from punishment because she is too emotional to make a rational decision. If we apply this elsewhere, then anybody who commits a crime while under emotional duress should be excused. If a woman kills her husband because she is terrified he will find out she is having an affair or a man kills his children when he finds out they are not biologically his will be innocent of any crime. Our legal system says otherwise. According to our legal system, emotional state may be considered in mitigating punishment for a crime, but does not excuse the crime.
Why do you have such a hard time accepting that the logical outcome of declaring abortion murder is that women who seek out abortions will be punished? Perhaps their emotional condition will be considered a mitigating factor and they will receive a reduced sentence, but they will be punished for murdering a child. It's pretty simple: Either abortion is the murder of a child, in which case every party involved should be punished, or it is a medical procedure, in which case the state has no interest in preventing it, but can only regulate it to ensure it's safety. There is no middle ground. You can't simply say that abortion is murder but the principle party demanding this murder is innocent of all wrongs.
-
I think some people are losing sight of the issue
[Read the article: The baby and the petri dish]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Whether or not a petri dish of blastulas feel pain, or whether they could survive outside the building, or whether they are viable is not relevant to the anti-choice argument. The people who deny women the right to use Plan B or have an abortion don't care if the fertilized egg feels pain, is viable, or could survive outside the womb. They claim the fertilized egg is a "baby" and thus has rights equivalent to a newborn baby. Therefore, the question asked should not be an impossible dilemma. If they truly feel that the fertilized eggs are "babies", then they should do whatever they can to save the 5 babies over the 2 year old, regardless of whether the baby will suffer more than the blastulas. Pro-choice people think it's a silly question, because to us it is obvious that the blastula's are NOT "persons", and will not achieve personhood unless certain conditions are met. We would save the 2 year old, without doubt. This question points out a huge hole in their argument that personhood begins at conception, and therefore no woman should be allowed to have an abortion. If they really don't feel that those eggs are "babies", then the bottom falls out of their argument that those eggs have the same rights as babie.