Netlets for Monday, July 9
In the July 3 article “Abortions up in ‘06, especially among teens,” Sarah Stoesz, president of Planned Parenthood’s Minnesota chapter, states, “The allegation that promoting birth control promotes abortion is ludicrous.” I disagree.
Published: July 09, 2007
Blue Cross Blue Shield
Print this storyPrint this story
E-mail this storyE-mail this story
Save to del.icio.usSave to del.icio.us
Share on newsvineShare on newsvine
Share on DiggShare on Digg
More from letters
Drugs Online - Buy Drugs Online at reasanoble prices.DrugOnline.cc provides confortable and easy way to order drugs online including drugs free shipping.
In the July 3 article “Abortions up in ‘06, especially among teens,” Sarah Stoesz, president of Planned Parenthood’s Minnesota chapter, states, “The allegation that promoting birth control promotes abortion is ludicrous.” I disagree.
When promoting birth control, especially to teens, you are essentially giving them license to have sex without the responsibilities inherent from the sexual union. This is the safe sex mentality.
When a couple uses birth control, they are doing so to avoid a pregnancy. However, birth control is not 100 percent effective. So when their sexual union does result in a child, the couple does not see the child as a gift from God but rather as an intrusion into their life. Because this child is seen as an intrusion into their life, they are more likely to abort the child.
So while promotion of birth control does not literally promote abortion, it does increase the abortion rate.
To all, I recommend studying John Paul II’s theology of the body and how our sexuality is a gift from God and should be treated as such. God bless.
NICK NELSON, ST. PAUL
Too much attention to ‘rights’ of Guantanamo fanatics
In his July 3 column (”Restore habeas rights at Guantanamo”), Peter H. Hendrixson argues that unlawful combatants captured on foreign battlefields are entitled to the due process rights accorded to American citizens. In doing so, Hendrixson ignores the admonition that “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”
We are at war with an enemy whose tactics include beheading, torture, suicide bombing and wholesale slaughter of civilians. That these vicious fanatics are treated with less deference to their “rights” than a criminal defendant in an American courtroom apparently offends Hendrixson’s delicate sensitivities.
A number of released Guantanamo detainees have returned to the battlefield and been recaptured. Following Hendrixson’s logic, the Fifth Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy would mandate their immediate release.
PETER D. ABARBANEL, APPLE VALLEY
For his pal, he’ll replace a jury’s verdict
President Bush stated that Scooter Libby’s sentence was excessive. Apparently none of the 152 people who were executed while Bush was governor of Texas had an excessive sentence, including Terry Washington whose mental status was kept from a jury (functionally a 7 year old), yet Bush wrote in his autobiography that it was not his job to “replace the verdict of a jury unless there were new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware, or evidence that the trial was somehow unfair.” It seems these rules do not apply to political cronies.
DAVID DAHL, MAPLE GROVE
Fuel inefficiency is no longer acceptable
Charles Krauthammer’s July 3 column on fuel efficiency trade-offs is a joke. Efficient cars may perform worse in crash tests, but inattentive, unsafe drivers ultimately cause accidents, not efficient vehicles. He also cites that efficient cars cost more. Our country has millions of cars on its roads, so I’m not convinced that we cannot afford cars. His criticism of ethanol may have merit, but the United States has 50 years of foreign policy based around oil interests, and if anything ethanol mandates and subsidies are at least an alternative in several areas.
Krauthammer’s ultimate criticism is in the mandates. I argue the current fuel economy mandates have not impacted U.S. automakers. Their shortcoming is in their inability to adapt to the automobile market. He argues the true cost of efficiency is hidden. I feel we already know the cost of inefficiency, and it is time for an alternative.
TIMOTHY WINN, ROSEVILLE
No amnesty for lawbreakers
Call me out of step with my own party (or them with me), but I disagree with changing policies purely for political gain. And congressional Democrats are pushing for immigration reform merely to pick up the Hispanic vote.
Illegal aliens — no matter where they’re from — are here illegally. These people should be deported, then allowed to wait in line like everyone else, not given amnesty (or whatever we choose to call it). To say that deportation will break up families is not true. Those who are American by marriage or birth could stay, or they could leave with their families, then come back as families in a legal fashion. It’s their choice.
If we’re worried about who will fill the jobs they leave, offer them to those who enter this country legally. But let’s not stoop to letting law-breakers push ahead of law-abiders.