The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 6 of 14)

/p>

Mr. Herring believes if a person, or at least a minor, let's assume he is not sexist and the minor can be male or female, is "hell bent" on breaking an existing law, enforcing the law becomes optional: the minor "is going to do it either way." Mr. Herring is clearly implying determination and safety trump Virginian law. This raises the question, when is a minor most likely to be safe while taking determined action?

A minor is most likely to be safer in an adult supervised environment than in an unsupervised one. (Evidence of this is abundant and can easily be produced.) In extending logically extending Mr. Herring's argument, the following extrapolation can be made: since a determined minor will take action and safety is paramount, then a minor is better served by taking action under adult supervision, where safety is more readily assured. If said minors want to partake in the use of substances prohibited to them, such as drugs and alcohol, and they are determined to do so, stopping them is not an option. This being established, logic dictates, the minors are safer if they use drugs and alcohol in an adult supervised atmosphere rather than an unsupervised one; therefore, laws such as prohibiting the endangerment of the health and morals of a minor are to be disregarded and not enforced, or certainly optionally enforced.

p>Other laws that prohibit behaviors that minors are "hell bent" to break will also have to be waived as long as the minors break the laws safely. While this argument seems illogical and certainly fatuous, even deserving applause by the Queen of Hearts, it is not. The argument follows the natural entailments of an asinine statement of policy. A minor's safety is an important issue but it is not the ultimate, penultimate or central issue. The central issue is the law. Is Mr. Herring willing to enforce the laws of Virginia and are its citizenry to be held responsible for their actions? Mr. Herring draws his pay because these very citizens employ him to enforce the law. If an employee is determined not to fulfill his duties, it is logical to dismiss said employee. To keep his job, the prosecutor is offering vapid statements that he hopes will distract all who are concerned with the moral and legal issues of allowing a 16-year-old girl, who is a ward of our federal government, to undergo an abortion procedure with the foreknowledge of an agency affiliated with the Catholic Diocese and a Catholic bishop's tacit approval; he is offering a confused argument to the people he serves so they will not notice his office's inaction. Thanks to Mr. Thunder, few will be willing to chase that red herring. br> -- Ira M. Kessel br> Rochester, New York /p>

Perhaps it's just me, but I find the vocabulary of the abortion debate incredibly one-sided. "Pro life vs. "pro choice?" Spare me. The only "choice" the pro choice side promotes is the termination of a pregnancy, even by a minor without parental permission or notification.

p>"Anti-abortion" and "pro-abortion" is a far more accurate description of the opposing viewpoints -- which is why the choice crowd scrupulously avoids the direct comparison. br> -- Arnold Ahlert br> Boca Raton, Florida /p> p> Why are we getting involved in providing services of any kind to a Guatemalan child? If her parents abandoned her here we need to send her back to Guatemala. Guatemalan social services can then locate her relatives and they can provide for her needs. Taxpayers should not be paying for abortions and they certainly should not be paying for abortions for non-citizens.

topics:
Health Care, John McCain, Barack Obama, Mainstream Media, Abortion, Environment, Constitution, Law, Military, European Union, Africa, Energy