Letters To The Editor, Continued, June 15
Restaurant Smoking Ban Is Still Unconstitutional
Editor, Times-Dispatch: The debate about the smoking ban in restaurants has overlooked an important aspect. It's not an issue of public health, nor is it an issue of the sole excuse of the state -- to provide for the general welfare of the citizens. It is simply a power grab by Gov. Tim Kaine and his minions as they try to keep in lockstep with the federal trend toward government control of businesses.
Before the ban on smoking in restaurants passed, we witnessed a growth of non-smoking restaurants in the Richmond area. These entrepreneurs saw an opportunity to capitalize on the demand for non-smoking restaurants and invested capital in an attempt to profit from this demand. No sooner had they completed their endeavors than Virginia decided to force this business model on all of their competitors. This essentially put a stranglehold on any chance that the free market could address the issue.
This makes sense seeing as the Democrats no longer try to hide the fact that they think Americans are too stupid to run their own lives. I suggest that all restaurant owners sue the state of Virginia. The smoking ban is blatantly unconstitutional and it interferes with business.
Kevin Dill.
Richmond.
Does All Criticism Feed Violent Attacks?
Editor, Times-Dispatch: "Myth of the Lone Shooter" by Ellen Goodman is the usual blame-someone-else-for-a-sick-person's-action. Goodman does the same thing she accuses others of doing. She "verbally targets" and attacks. Does she, too, incite violence?
I also wish she were as concerned about her own rhetoric and that of others like her. Did her views, or MSNBC News, or the the president's view that U.S. soldiers are killing innocent civilians cause the death of the young recruiter?
Goodman also left out Bill O'Reilly's statement condemning the murder as totally unacceptable in any way.
Bruce Evans.
Glen Allen.
Let Us Use Death As a Chance to Unite
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Dr. George Tiller was a women's health care champion who was brutally murdered while serving as an usher at his Kansas church. Throughout his career, Tiller was threatened and harassed by the anti-choice movement. His clinic was burned down, he was shot in both arms in the 1990s, and he was recently targeted by Kansas Attorney General Phil Kline, an anti-choice extremist, in a criminal investigation (he was acquitted a few months ago).
Stop and think: He was a women's health care provider. Period. Why don't we use this as a chance to stop debating who is right and who is wrong? Who is right when a father, husband, and grandfather is brutally murdered?
Why not use this as way to start a conversation on prevention and education? I am asking the people of Virginia (educators, legislators, parents, teenagers, and church leaders) to come together and start a candid discussion where we might come to a consensus on reducing the rates of unintended pregnancy and provide education and health care options to those who need it most.
It is our responsibility to provide our children with comprehensive, medically accurate sex education. Let's face it: If they want to, they will. Why not arm them with the knowledge to make good decisions?
Let us come together, leave our personal ideologies at home, and start making commonsense decisions that will ultimately reduce unintended pregnancies and the rates of sexually transmitted infections.
Abida Torres.
Henrico.
Reader Reactions
@Studebaker:
“As a group, members of “Pro-Life” clubs play a game of pretend activism; but do not save lives (with, perhaps, a few individual exceptions—very few).“
What?? Where do you get that from? I have seen people driving into abortion mills with the intent to abort, talking to the protesters outside, then driving away. This is not something I made up as a generalization. It is true. I have been involved in praying and counseling outside abortion mills in several states with several different groups of people. If you don’t believe me, as I know you probably won’t, I have a challenge for you: go watch an abortion mill that has counselors outside it. Watch how many people change their mind about having an abortion. Then try and tell me that prolifers don’t save lives.
studebaker - Thank you for your response. Any program that finds an alternative to abortion is fine by me. As for your assertion that pro-lifers aren’t pro-life, that’s certainly a position that you and I will simply have to disagree on.
“I appreciate your concern for the 400,000 frozen embryos. Where did that number come from?” Posted by ( Randy )
***
RAND Law & Health Initiative: How Many Frozen Human Embryos Are Available for Research?
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9038/index1.html
“…as of April 11, 2002, a total of 396,526 embryos have been placed in storage in the United States.”
***
I do not know how one could compel a woman to bear a child against her will. Here is a truly Pro-Life ministry. The larger “Pro-Life” community should follow their example:
‘“Embryo adoption” gives new life to some couples’ hopes for a child’
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008413273_embryo20m.html
‘Cedar Park Assembly of God Church in Bothell is starting a new “embryo adoption” service, where couples who have gone through in vitro fertilization donate any leftover embryos to infertile couples. While that practice is, in itself, not particularly controversial, the question of what’s to be done with some 400,000 frozen embryos in storage nationwide touches on some of the most controversial issues of the day, from abortion to embryonic stem-cell research.’ ***
I stand by my assertion that the “Pro-Life” movement is not Pro-Life.
Studebaker - I have some questions regarding your post.
I appreciate your concern for the 400,000 frozen embryos. Where did that number come from?
Are you bothered at all that since Roe v. Wade that we’ve aborted millions of human fetuses?
How many women died from commonplace back alley abortions before Roe V. Wade?
Should an abortion be given to a woman because she is pregnant with a girl and wanted a boy? What if pre-natal genetic testing, assuming it’s a product of genetics, can determine if a human fetus will be either hetero or homosexual? Should a woman be given an abortion because she doesn’t want a homosexual or heterosexual baby?
If I understand your position, you believe that abortion should be legal because you find pro-life people contemptible. Is that correct?
Considering the number of orphanages, pregnancy centers and adoption services provided and established by not only the Catholic church, but, others, I really think “lip service” with regards to the actions of the pro life community is pretty disingenuous.
“How about we act on the recommendations of those who are against abortion without hearing from the people who believe that the term “choice” is an appropriate substitute for abortion?” —Posted by ( Randy )
For the most the “Pro-Life” culture is a social club that pays lip service to bogus political/religious philosophies. As a group, members of “Pro-Life” clubs play a game of pretend activism; but do not save lives (with, perhaps, a few individual exceptions—very few).
If the “Pro-Life” culture really wanted to save lives there would not be 400,000 human beings (in embryo form) trapped in frozen limbo here in the U.S. The embryos are left over from couples who used fertility clinics to assist in conception. While the scientific community has actively sought to acquire the human embryos for research purposes, there has been no equivalent action to save these lives from the “Pro-Life” community. Why is there no significant movement within the “Pro-Life” community to adopt these human embryos into the wombs of “Pro-Life” women? Well—my guess is that they are not really interested in saving lives!
So far, the “Pro-Life” movement has fallen short of being “Pro-Life” for the 400,000 frozen children. BTW, there is still time to save the children’s lives!
And…as I’ve pointed out before:
Abortion was very common before Roe v Wade, many women died along with the unborn from back-alley or self induced abortions. In spite of the fact of back-alley abortions being commonplace, there was no “Pro-Life” movement other than lip service from the Catholic Church. Conservative Protestant Evangelicals did not become “Pro-Life” until the 1980s—seven years after Roe v Wade.
You’ve got your terms (anti-choice) and I’ve got mine (pro abortion). You think your term is accurate and I think mine is. During times of war, we used to assign nicknames to our enemies to dehumanize them to make it easier to kill them - Krauts, Huns, Zips, Japs, Gooks etc. I guess when you, likewise, sanitize abortion, you end up with quaint little terms like “choice”. You’re not budging on your terms and I’m not budging on mine.
Here’s the funny thing - if I conceded rape, incest and deformity to you as acceptable, you still wouldn’t concede any restrictions on abortion - that argument has always been a straw man on the part of the pro abortion crowd. You mentioned a 14 year old daughter - you, of course mean the daughter who visits an abortion provider who does not believe that parents should be notified - although the parents end up having to deal with the psychological fall out? You mean the 14 year old daughter who visits an abortion provider who promises not to report a statutory rape because her 20 year old boyfriend got her pregnant? Yeah, that’s who I want my daughter dealing with, someone full of all kinds of advice without the personal and financial responsibility once the daughter paid her $400.00 and the human fetus is dead….not.
I know you and Mrs. Torres want religious ideology taken out of the calculus - heck, if I needed to manipulate the basis of right and wrong, that would be the first thing I’d try to eliminate so I could work off of my own personal sense of right and wrong. From a marketing standpoint, the notion of taking the sanctity of life based on religion out of the equation is a masterful political stroke. It’s also a masterful stroke to ask everyone to not bother watching an actual abortion procedure before moving forward - ewww! ick! It’s both inflammatory and real life.
Let’s hear all sides, except those with religious objections? Why don’t we have a discussion that eliminates everyone who believes the term “choice” is an appropriate substitute for the term abortion - don’t like that do you? How about we act on the recommendations of those who are against abortion without hearing from the people who believe that the term “choice” is an appropriate substitute for abortion?
No, everyone needs to be heard from, the basis of their beliefs notwithstanding. If you want a discussion, if you want all the cards on the table, you don’t insist that certain perspectives simply keep their mouths shut - whether it is your ideology or mine.
Randy-
Please stop.You know that no one is PRO-Abortion. And I guarantee if the anti-choice movement would step out of the box and remove the film from over their eyes they would be able to look at the world as it is today and not as they would “like” it to be.
Randy, in a perfect world there would be no need for abortions however, we do not live in a perfect world and sometimes it is a necessary option.
Do you have a mother? A sister? A daughter perhaps? If let’s just say IF they were brutally raped OR the fetus they were carrying was deformed. OR your 14 year old daughter did not know that she could get pregnant without penetration because you told her abstinence was the most effective form of birth control. What would happen then?
So, I have to agree with Ms. Torres in that personal, religious ideologies should not be brought to the discussion when looking for a solution about the reduction of unintended pregnancies.It is about education and prevention.
Abida has hit it right on the head, let’s leave our ideologies at home, regardless of whether you’re “anti-choice” or pro “killing unborn babies”.
Let’s keep having dialogues, discussion groups, think tanks, blue ribbon panels and let’s talk, talk and talk some more - because as long as we’re talking, we’re not doing anything else and abortion continues unabated. Sounds like a wonderful plan if you’re pro-abortion.
Ms. Torres, when you call for everyone to leave their ideologies at the door, does that mean you or everyone else? There hasn’t been much compromise on the pro-abortion community’s part - I mean, now we’re at the point where the counselors at some clinics will help cover up instances of statutory rape and fight against parental notification. Doesn’t sound like there’s too much room for movement and compromise there.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement