Letters to the Editor
Renegade Iconoclast
Published Letters: 616 Editor's Choice: 11
-
Can't have it both ways Kitchengirl
[Read the article: It's my abortion, too!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Except that the rights to support and parentage (in some capacity) belong to the *child*. You can't unilaterally terminate rights that belong to someone else.
If the man doesn't want the responsibility, all of the sudden it's a "child," with "rights."
If the woman wants to abort it, it's a foetus. The man has no rights.
I was talking about first trimester options for both parents. It's ridiculous to call the first trimester bundle o' cells a "child." It's a potential child, yes, but the right to privacy and the supreme court say it's not, yet, a child, and most reasonable people agree.
-
All about how you frame the argument
[Read the article: It's my abortion, too!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am a man. And, I ALWAYS have the option of using a condom, getting a vasectomy, or saying "no" to sex. This is my protection from becoming a father against my will. If you have unprotected sex, then you are giving your consent to possibly becoming a father. Anything else is stupid, irresponsible, or ignorant.
First, it's not just about unprotected sex. Contraception fails. Even vasectomies can fail.
The option of having no sex is the very same argument used in the early twentieth century against women. "Well, if she didn't spread her legs, she wouldn't be pregnant."
You could say she's giving her consent to be a mother, just by having sex, and therefore shouldn't be allowed to abort. I happen to disagree, and so do most other people.
-
Sorry Jon. Sorry Stephen.
[Read the article: Stewart rambles, Colbert rallies! ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But you are scabs. The moment you cross the picket line is the moment you become a scab.
Now every right winger with a fucking keyboard will be able to call you hypocrites, and I can't defend you. And I'm not sure I wanna.
-
Still say scab
[Read the article: Stewart rambles, Colbert rallies! ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Keep in mind that the writer's strike is about getting a fair contract for the writers. The "contract" part is key. When two parties have a contract they are both bound to honor it.
They're still members of the WGA, and it's obvious that they wrote material.
Maybe they were obligated to come back as producers but I don't buy it. Their lawyers could probably make a good case that the WGA contract entitled them to strike.
In any case, Jon Stewart is comedy central, and he can do whatever the hell he wants, and the network has to like it. There's no chance in hell they would cancel TDS, or even TCR, their highest rated shows.
It's only recently that striking is "permitted," or "prohibited," by contract. Used to be, the whole point is that it wasn't permitted, and if the company didn't like it they could eat their hat. We've gotten to the point where now I expect f'n corporate sponsorship of the strike. Ad placement by Starbucks or something.
-
Hey anon...
[Read the article: Kerry to endorse Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Nuclear power emits no carbon. We have a stockpile of fuel (tho they're weapons right now). We could lower worldwide carbon emissions by a huge amount if we switched, and it's a switch we can make in a short amount of time.
Modern technology prevents meltdown. To be sure, we do need a containment policy/plan for the waste, but if we put our minds to it, we can do that.
I really don't get why us lefties are so by and large opposed to the one technology that could save the planet (well, the humans, anyway).
-
Laurel, is your last name Hardy?
[Read the article: It's my abortion, too!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's hard to believe this is even being discussed in 2008 -- that men should be allowed to father all the children they can, but retain "the right" to walk away scot-free when their female partner won't agree to abort the pregnancy. The logical reading of this is that men have an all-encompassing right to have condom-free sex, with all the partners they can, because the right to sexual freedom trumps every personal responsibility.
You could so easily say the same of women. Women don't just have abortions because pregnancy is uncomfortable, or it endangers their health. In fact, the vast majority are because either she feels unready to be a mother, or can't afford the kid. Admit it. Yet point out that this is a failure of personal responsibility on the part of women and watch the fire rain down upon you.
When you have to frame the argument as being about poor unfortunate women versus Casanova, callous, uncaring men to make your point, it's because you know that you can't make your argument without resorting to charicatures and distortions. You can't admit that men would not want to be a father for the very same reasons women don't want to be a mother. When the mother has an abortion for financial or emotional reasons, it's somehow noble, I guess, but when the man wants the same rights, he's a cad.
-
Cognitive dissonance to the max
[Read the article: It's my abortion, too!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When men (or women for that matter) walk away from an actual baby they're irresponsible deadbeats.
If a woman is pregnant, and during the first trimester, he says, "I don't want a child," and walks away, he is NOT (according to your logic) walking away from a baby. He is walking away from a bundle of cells, and a woman.
If she continues to nurture that bundle of cells until it becomes a baby, why is that not her decision, her prerogative, and her responsibility?
If she doesn't like the idea of raising the potential baby that will result if she keeps on nurturing that bundle of cells, she can abort it. Or, she can give it up for adoption. Or she can tough it out.
You want to have it both ways. I don't expect you to see your hypocrisy. Those in power never do.