Letters to the Editor
ReganaD
Published Letters: 137 Editor's Choice: 4
-
Why not in our communities?
[Read the article: Always a bride]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Because those guys vote Republican, that's why.
-
To "Anonymous"
[Read the article: Always a bride]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Polygamy is illegal. Everywhere. For everyone.
-
Men's input into the abortion decision
[Read the article: A man's right to choose, take three]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well. There sure is a lot of vitriol on this subject. I do understand the men's feelings of powerlessness and rage on the subject. Once the pregnancy happens, they no longer have any control at all. I hope that the men who feel this way understand that before Roe v. Wade, and I very much fear, again soon, all women will have to feel this way again.
As far as men having input on the abortion decision, I just don't see how it could work, at least, to force an abortion on a person who doesn't want it. Can't she just not notify her partner until the pregnancy is too far advanced for an abortion? Or would the man's decision, to be enforceable, require weekly pregnancy tests, that the woman is forced to undergo?
How would the against-her-will abortion work? If her husband or partner decreed that the pregnancy should not go forward, would she be taken into police custody, restrained, and have the procedure performed against her will?
Or if the decision is that she must bear the child for the man, will then all her lifestyle decisions be scrutinized? Is she barred from sexual activity until the pregnancy is over? Should her food and alcohol intake be monitored? Should her activities be restricted to ensure she does not engage in any behavior that might be of risk to the child? Again, police custody!
The problem is, in a conflict of have the baby/don't have the baby, only one of the persons involved can have his or her way. To give someone such intimate dominion over another's body is not possible, and should not even be contemplated, which is why the choice has been heretofore the woman's.
While I believe the child support/child custody laws in this country are abominable, family destroying, and harmful to children, I don't believe giving one party dominion over another's body is the answer. Unwilling fathers, barring outright trickery (such as the woman in CA who used semen from a blow job to impregnate herself) should still be responsible to some degree for the support of their child, but only at a standardized level, say between 50% and 100% of what a state is willing to pay a foster parent, and no more. Ridiculous awards should not be authorized. This would help bring the level of vitriol down considerably.
I realize that absent parents are "forced" to pay child support. Forced taking of income, while often unfair and ina poorly designed system, still does not approach the invasiveness of requiring either a termination or the continuation of a pregnancy.
If I were the persons advocating such a course, I would be very careful. Because that is a slippery slope, and I don't want to live in a world where the assertion of one party's rights so overcome the other's, that she and her body are not her own. Once this is okay, what is next? Men would not be immune. Perhaps if a woman decided she wanted to be pregnant, her partner could be forced to donate sperm, at police headquarters, pursuant to a court order, because her decision was the one that counted this time.
I think, let's just think about the practicality and logistics, and reform what can be reformed.
-
Lying...Hey! Maybe not!
[Read the article: My secret is about to be revealed]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, since the letter writer and her husband are apparently some kind of uber-Christians or something, why doesn't she say that she confessed this to GOD, and HE spoke to her and forgave her sins and told her that her virginity was restored to her, and her body, just like her soul, is brand new? Then she doesn't have to lie to her husband: GOD told her she was a virgin again! Does her husband actually want to contradict GOD? Of course not!
-
Quit pickin' on WY
[Read the article: This just in: Bush listens]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've seen the statistic over and over again, how much more money Wyoming received PER CAPITA than California. It seems that no one, especially journalists, have ever heard of the concept of economies of scale.
$61 per capita is roughly $30 million for Wyoming. That's right. 30 million. $14 per capita for California is roughly 480 million.
The linked article goes on to be even more disgusted that Wyoming hasn't spent more of its own money on homeland security...money that earlier in the article, the same journalists were saying was unnecessary, because who would attack a few cows?
There is some base level of money that is needed, just to make sure that emergency responders can talk to each other. Is that amount 30 million? Probably not, but it is still higher per capita at a population of half a million than a population of 34 million. If CA had gotten every penny of Wyoming's allocated money, that would not have increased their expenditure even a full dollar per capita.
-
Poco's braindead comments
[Read the article: Bush nominee broke law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]are about the same as I hear all the time from my boyfriend's redneck red state family. Other people probably did something bad, sometime, therefore, we absolutely can't have any discussion about this bad thing this person did.
Wrong. Because wrong is wrong, and evidence of current wrong act means that they can and must be debated.
Since there really is no excuse for this judge's conduct, Poco used the usual repugnant tactics: minimize the seriousness of the conduct, accuse the persons revealing the conduct of a political agenda in revealing it, and point a finger at someone else (hypothetical judges with ethical issues, appointed by Democrats).
These tactics are what make me yawn. Because facts are facts, dude.