Just a brief comment on a the recent editorial from the Los Angeles Times (“Extremism knows no borders: White supremacy rears its ugly head — again — in New Zealand mosque shooting, March 16).
The editorial concludes: “Few impulses are more primitive than wanting to kill other people just because they are different. And yes, Muslim extremists perpetrate horrific crimes. Christian extremists perpetrate horrific crimes. So do extremist Hindus and Buddhists. The commonality among them all: extremism.”
I’d like to refine that generalization: “The commonality among them all: They are men.”
I think we need to carefully review and begin correcting how we see and bring up boys. One way we can do this is to empower more women — mothers — so that we can begin teaching their (our) boys how to feel, love and experience empathy. Boys brought up by loving single mothers often seem to me to have much more heart than those with angry or detached fathers. And it seems to me that we won’t have enough loving, kind fathers until we have stronger mothers.
Women in the Middle East especially seem to me to be relatively powerless. Until this dynamic changes radically, I suspect the world will continue to witness horrific mass murders. Maybe this issue could become focused into a worldwide, central goal, maybe under the auspices of the U.N.?
NAN BOURNE
Woodstock
Democrats have long charged that Republicans are obsessed with overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. Whether that is true or not, the ruling is more likely to be threatened by Democratic action than Republican opposition.
Recent legislation in New York, Virginia and Vermont — sponsored and supported by Democrats — that allows or would allow late second- and third-term abortions may pose the greatest threat to the statute and force the Supreme Court to become involved.
Many people do not realize the basis of the Roe v. Wade decision involved the protection of privacy between a woman and her physician. The court did not comment or rule on the thorny issues of when life begins or the rights of an unborn child. The risky move by states to legally permit abortion up to the time of birth is the greatest threat to the original decision, as courts may then be forced to take up the issues of when life begins and, consequently, when and if an unborn child has rights.
Perhaps Democrats need to revisit Walt Kelly’s classic Pogo cartoon caption that read: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
ROBERT A. FOX
Quechee
As a concerned citizen, I wish to respond to Paul Manganiello’s recent Opinion column (“When Does Human Life Begin?” Feb. 26). In this column, he declares, “it is not science’s place to determine when an organism develops to the point that it deserves the respect of being called ‘a human being.’ ” The column concludes that any declaration that a human embryo is a person is confined to religious belief and, therefore, unconstitutional as regards the law.
Contrary to this position, I believe it is widely accepted within the scientific community that human life begins at conception (i.e., fertilization). Although the question of personhood, that is, whether the human soul is present at conception, is philosophical and not itself scientific, it nonetheless depends on an assessment of scientific data.
In recent decades, medical science has made significant strides in understanding human life in its initial stages. What is now more evident, I believe, is that the embryonic human body develops progressively according to a well-defined program with its proper finality; at no point during that development is there found any other moment, besides conception, that would qualify as the transitional point at which the soul is infused. The human embryo has, therefore, from the very beginning, the dignity proper to a person and, consequently, must be a person.
From the first moment of existence, the unborn are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled against these unalienable rights for the unborn, and abortion was legalized. The present legislation in Vermont seeks to distort this already existing and unjust law. Being a devout Catholic, I stand with many others who support the right to life of the unborn and the end of legalized abortion. Our beliefs, while certainly grounded upon faith, are firmly supported by the scientific community, and should not be considered unconstitutional.
PAUL SANSONE
Hanover
The Valley News headline on March 18, 2019 that read “De Blasio lets his wife do the talking” was pretty pathetic.
It’s Women’s History Month. It’s 2019. Men don’t let women do the talking these days. Women do the talking for themselves, thank you very much.
LINDA L. CROWE
East Thetford