The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Border Voters

7.16.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 6 of 6)

Then, for Mr. Arand and others who insist that any interruption of a conception is "killing a human life," consider: the egg comes down the Fallopian Tube and doesn't place/set itself within the membranes/walls of the uterus for 3-4 days.

An embryo or fetus is not an "unborn child" for quite a while -- a protoplasm-of-potential, and a viable being. I read in one of those national publications that the Central Nervous System doesn't exist until the 6th to 8th week, a time when most feel abortions are certainly permissible. A 'beating heart' does not mean "life" (which is why many adults sign Living Wills). A three-day-old human embryo is a collection of just 150 cells, that's all...It's called a blastocyst. For the sake of comparison, there are more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly.

The Freedom to Choose might mean that hardship -- the prolonged suffering of unwanted children, and extreme emotional stress (of both mother/child) can be eliminated.

That said, isn't it interesting how the "Pro-Life" people aren't necessarily for ALL life - - most are for the death penalty (as am I) -- but, it's ironic, 'ay?
-- frost

Frost, you confuse "right" with "consequence." I have a right to "keep and bear arms" and to that end have a right to defend myself with deadly force where required. That right, being I'm "pro gun" in some people's minds does not give me the right to kill for convenience sake or on a whim. That is the essence of abortion on demand. It is 98% killing for mere convenience sake. Pregnancy is not a disease, a pest or even a serious health risk under normal circumstances. You don't catch a "pregnancy" from touching a door knob, someone spraying you with their germs in a cough or washing your underwear with someone of the opposite sex. The "choice" to get pregnant was made in advance by the one that you say has a right to do with their body as they see fit. Under that reasoning, prostitution is certainly legal, taking a dump in public is legal and walking around naked too. The list is endless with that line of reasoning. I have a right to do many things in my best interest but I'm not free of the harmful consequences just because.

The consequence here is "death" not the freedom to make a viable choice. That choice was already made when said party engaged in sexual intercourse that has the consistent habit of producing pregnancy short of making a "choice" to prevent said pregnancy in the first place. Some might even call this being responsible.

The Pro Abortion side of this argument defends partial birth abortion on the same grounds that you do. Please tell me the difference between pulling an unborn child partially out of the womb to kill it and doing so 9 months after said child escapes the womb alive? What legal principle can you point to that says one is bad and the other dandy? From a very pragmatic view point, if it is fine and dandy that unborn children be killed at the moment of escape from the womb then what would you have to say to someone that killed your children because it was their "right" to not be inconvenienced by them? How do to you square your view with the father of said soon to be murdered unborn child that does not share the mother's view of her right of convenience to her life?

If the convenience of the mother is all that matters in our legal frame work, there is no legal restraint on killing all the minor children of said mother if she sees it as an inconvenience to her life. Children have no more viability outside the womb then inside the womb without constant care by someone for years. It is not nor ever been about the health of the mother. It is all about sanctioning irresponsible behavior, sweeping it under the rug and gaining political power from that. You ask "What is there about the word "choice" that the extreme right fails to grasp?" I would ask you what is it about murder of innocent life for mere convenience or avoidance of responsibility you don't grasp?

No more or less.
-- Thom Bateman
Newport News, Virginia

VAST RIGHT-WING HYPOCRISY
Re: Martin Owens' letter (under "Gamble Free or Die") in Reader Mail's Fun in the Sun:

Mr. Owens makes a very good point about the anti-gambling legislation on the federal books. How exactly does one justify that you're average Voter can be trusted to cast his or her vote for the correct candidate but can't be trusted to gamble within their means? Actually, the whole question of 'trust' strikes right at the heart of the nanny-state mentality, and this returns me to some of the points I was making in my remarks on Barr's 'flip-flops'.

The Republican Party, and the conservative movement, are not free of their nanny-state initiatives. This is why the conservative movement cannot create and maintain a governing majority. We can probably all agree that things like single-payer healthcare and the banning of trans-fats and public smoking are nanny-state. Yet why can't we also agree that making drugs, gambling, and prostitution illegal are also part of the nanny-state? If we can trust the voter to choose the correct leader, why can we not also trust the voter to abstain from these products and services? How about the legal equating of a civil union between homosexuals with a union between heterosexuals? Or for that matter, the whole state issued marriage license, which is the heart of that argument.

Do we begin to see the hypocrisy of the arguments offered from many on the right? We don't like the nanny-state. Really, we don't... well, unless it's advocating those positions with which we agree. This position is not only inconsistent but it also opens the right up to a great lever of ridicule and makes people who would normally be quick to vote for and support the conservative movement shy away. After all, either we trust the people, or we do not.
-- Charles Campbell
Austin, Texas

HEY, KID, LOOKIN' FOR SOME ACTION?
Re: Eli Lehrer's The Risks of Gambling Regulation:

"Other than the horseracing sites -- which serve an almost exclusively American clientele -- there are no American gambling sites to sanction."

This is not even close to true, there are literally dozens of U S based Internet gambling sites that are ignored.

A few examples:

1. World Winner -- available directly or via AOL -- offers CARD, Board, puzzle and other games for free and by wager (cash). Marketed right next to and includes children's games.

OWNED BY Liberty Media the same group that owns NewsCorp (Fox News and the Atlanta Braves baseball team).

2. SpadeClub.com -- a subscription tournament poker site 9one of perhaps two dozen based in the U.S.).

There are many others, these are but a few. The common thread, the Federal Trade Commission already regulates "skill" games and sweepstakes. No one in the DoJ, FSRB or Treasury seems to recognize this as a way out of the pending E.U. case and the already lost Antigua Gaming case.

Include poker in the skill games (a card game) while allowing foreign markets access to horse racing and skill games and let that be that.

Our WTO obligations are met since there is a notation (Except Sporting) meaning sports teams.

Oops, sorry, government cannot do anything sensible and the easy way, if so they would actually solve problems and be left with nothing to do.
-- Dave "oldbookguy" Lester
Weston, West Virginia

THANK YOU, LARRY
Re: Lawrence Henry's A Sprint to a Transplant:

Larry Henry may never know of those he has helped with his informative articles told in layman's terms but with astonishing accuracy. As for his becoming a bore, he need never apologize for his interest in his own welfare and his determination to continue in the role of good husband, dedicated father, superb journalist and fine citizen.

It just makes sense to know as much about a disease as you can possibly unearth, because the average length of an office visit is never going to inform you.

I spent seventeen years of my older son's life fighting for information on Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis, beginning in 1957 when people thought it was an old folks' disease. He went undiagnosed for almost seven years because of the difficulty in identifying a collagen disease. Robbed of his childhood, but a success in life and father of a wonderfully healthy son he hesitated to bring into this world because of the hereditary factor of RA

A little over a year ago my husband had a dissecting aorta. I made it my business to see every CT scan of the aorta so I would know what we were dealing with if an 82-year-old man was to recover. He did. If I bored old folks with my descriptions of the severe backache radiating into the abdomen which precedes the dissection, so be it. I hope I may have saved a life with my description of my husband's symptoms that got me dialing 911 for immediate treatment, rather than rubbing BenGay on his back!

So, Larry, continue to take us along on your journey. You go with our prayers and best wishes. You give people with other medical challenges hope as you explore all avenues to a successful transplant.
-- Diane Smith

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Trade, John McCain, Business, Satire, Sports, Abortion, Environment, Books, Movies, Law, Israel, NATO, Socialism, Immigration