Letters
Seeking the elusive middle ground on abortion
In response to your Jan. 22 editorial "Making Abortion Rare": I'll never understand how the Monitor, a paper with the founding goal "to injure no man, but to bless all mankind," can find it morally acceptable to defend Roe v. Wade. In the most substantial sense, an individual person is infinitely more than flesh and bone. And life, evidenced in every person, at whatever stage and in whatever condition, should be defended as sacred. Abortion is the forced termination of life, plain and simple - something we should always resist whenever humanly possible. To argue otherwise is to nurture a hypocrisy that is poisoning the lives of each new generation and blurring the clear vision that we need to remain a free and moral people.
Scott Laningham
Leander, Texas
Regarding "Making abortion rare": The absurd dichotomy still prevails where some people presume that it is intellectually plausible to be both pro-choice and personally opposed to abortion. The roots of this dichotomy are akin to the contrast which exists between theory and practice, where we do not feel personally obligated to take a firm moral stance on a hot-button subject until it looks as if it may hit too close to home.
Miguel Guanipa
Whitinsville, Mass.
"The abortion wars" (Jan. 22) features pro-choice and pro-life opinions, but it does not address compromises or other solutions. Would the pro-life movement really prefer millions of unwanted and unloved children to be born into poverty every year? Most women who choose abortion do so because they have no alternatives, not because of a "whim." Both sides spend millions on legal efforts supporting or opposing Roe v. Wade and ignore the alternatives. The pro-choice and pro-life lobbies would be far better off spending money on education about contraception and abstinence.
Christian Colvin S
an Pablo, Calif.
Your Jan. 23 editorial "Lonely saber rattling" was right on target. One of President Bush's mantras since coming to power has been ridding Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction; however, it seems the CIA can't absolutely confirm that Mr. Hussein has these weapons. Mr. Bush's gut feeling is costing the US credibility with the rest of the world, as well as millions of taxpayer dollars for troop deployment in the Middle East. When will he come to his senses? The world is waiting.
Jim Dunn
Fairhope, Ala.
"Lonely saber rattling" is right on the money. The US military posturing is one big bluff, costing millions of taxpayers' dollars. For what? This remains an unanswered question to an undefined problem. But the military buildup can be turned in Bush's favor. What happens when he finally accepts the obvious - that there is no will for war globally? He will turn this around and say, "See, I truly listen to the will of the people. You don't want war, so I'll seek other solutions." Isn't that just the type of president the people will want in 2004? In other words, he'll set up a straw man, then beat him down for the sake of the ultimate goal: a second term.
William Visser
Chevy Chase, Md.
Regarding Martha White's Jan. 24 Opinion piece: "When capitalism collides with curriculum:" I'm a home-school mom now and I support the free market economy. But I consider what's happening in public schools more of a cloning of the mind and dumbing down of the children. Schools should focus more on academics and kick the advertising and political agendas out.
Cynthia Woods
Bonney Lake, Wash.
The Monitor welcomes your letters and opinion articles. All submissions are subject to editing. Letters must be signed and include your mailing address and telephone number.
Mail letters to 'Readers Write,' and opinion articles to Opinion Page, One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115, or fax to 617-450-2317, or e-mail to oped@csps.com.
