I sent a letter to the editor for the Denton Wretched Chronicle about a story in last Saturday's paper. Mike Trimble called me to let me know that they would publish it. I always enjoy seeing one of my letters make the paper. Still, as of today (Thursday), my letter still has not appeared. It will probably show up tomorrow.
I have questions, though:
1. Why can't a newspaper reporter write a news story that is pure objective, unemotional fact? Why do they want to subjectively editorialize about the information they are trying to convey?
2. Why does our government seem to want to protect the rights of the criminals and terrorists, yet kill innocent unborn children with nary a thought about it?
3. Why doesn't our government pursue the deaths of terrorists, rapists, and murderers as zealously as it seems to pursue the deaths of innocent unborn children?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
You are an Idiot! The questions you ask are not related to each other. The right wing wasn’t complaining when the Government killed children during George W.’s unnecessary invasion of Iraq. Being pro-choice is not the Government, but the will of the people. Also along those same line of thoughts, how come all of you anti-abortion people don’t line up to take all of the children from these unwanted pregnancies? If you are so interested in them, then step up to the plate and do the right thing by offering to pay for them and then adopt them after they are born. Don’t leave them with parents that don’t want them. Just asking!!!!!
Hi Kevin (cool name BTW),
Re: your question "Why doesn't our government pursue the deaths of terrorists, rapists, and murderers as zealously as it seems to pursue the deaths of innocent unborn children"?
I'm sort of playing Devil's Advocate here...
Don't you find that a pro-life stance is incompatible with the belief that murderers and rapists should be put to death by our government?
I'm all for harsh punishment of rapists and murderers, but I feel like killing them lets them off the hook. I think that letting them rot in jail is probably more befitting their crimes ~ their life is taken away from them without letting them take the easy way out.
I'm just sayin'.
I've always had a hard time reconciling pro-life and support of the death penalty.
P.S. It's okay to kill terrorists. ;)
Okay, I'm not an idiot. I would just like to point out that name calling is a thing that liberals tend to resort to when they embrace a logically untenable point.
There is nothing more innocent than a brand new child or about to be born child. The child has not had the opportunity to make good choices or bad choices for its life. The death of that unborn child by abortion can be blamed on no one but the person given the responsibility of protecting that innocent life. You say the child is the unwanted result of a sexual tryst or a sexual assault. No one really wants it so terminate it. Of all of the people involved in the conception of the child, who is most innocent and blameless? Right, it is the child. But who pays with his or her life? Right again, the child.
It is indeed very sad when innocents are hurt or killed in the course of a war. However, the parent may not have the ability or power to protect the child when the evil doers of their own country choose to hide behind civilians and children or to build militatry installations among children. Moral of that: if you have children that you want to protect, don't pick a fight with a superior nation.
As for murderers and rapists (both of which are subject to the death penalty in certain jurisdictions under certain circumstances), that is the absolute worst comparison to the innocent unborn child. The criminal has chosen his path. He has chosen the commit his evil deeds, and the rules prescribing his punishment are in place when he violates the law. The child has violated no law. The child has had no choice. He or she was just unlucky enough to be unwelcomed and unwanted.
I understand that people make mistakes and bad choices. I understand that a person may make the personal choice to kill their child. As long as it's legal, the only consequence is reconciling with your own conscience. The government should not be subsidizing this practice. If you want one, pay for it yourself.
And you throw up the war and President Bush as some kind of justification to support taxpayer supported abortion? How does one wrong in an entirely different theater and set of circumstances justify another, perhaps even greater wrong?
Quote from you: Why can't a newspaper reporter write a news story that is pure objective, unemotional fact? Why do they want to subjectively editorialize about the information they are trying to convey?
end of quote
capitalism my friend, aren't they trying to get more readers
Post a Comment