Capital Region

Letters to the Editor Monday, June 13

PHOTOGRAPHER:

Start with tolerance for pro-life views

John Figliozzi wrote in The Gazette Opinion section on May 22 (“If any issue merits compromise, it’s abortion”) that “to enforce absolutist positions that lack broad consensus using blunt force methods and instruments only perpetuates conflict” and asks for compromise on the topic of abortion.
Is what Gov. Andrew Cuomo said in 2014 that, “Pro-life people have no place in this state,” your proposed voice of compromise?
That sounds like an absolutist position to me.
Is the fire that occurred at CompassCare in Amherst on June 7 the voice of compromise?
That seems like a blunt-force instrument to me.
Pro-life people have been faithfully and peacefully serving women and children in this state for decades. Pro-life people seek to stop the violence inside abortion facilities where approximately half the people, the unborn children, do not come out alive.
If abortion proponents cannot prevent those pro-abortion vigilante groups from allegedly committing violence, then your calls for compromise ring hollow.
James Ault
Colonie

Grateful for those who honored fallen

Thanks to all who attended, participated or helped coordinate our annual Memorial Day events at Vale Cemetery, Veterans Park and Rotterdam Memorial Day Service.
Let us not forget why we get together each year to honor our fallen comrades so we can enjoy our freedom.
Thank you, Daily Gazette photographer Erica Miller for her article and photos. Hope to see you all next year. God bless the USA.
George Sykala
Schenectady

 

Rules for commenting:

The Gazette will not tolerate name-calling; profanity, threats; accusations of racism, mental illness or intoxication; spreading of false or misleading information; libel or other inappropriate language in any form, and readers may not make any such comments about or directly to specific individuals.
Readers who violate the policy will be warned and then banned.

Categories: Letters to the Editor, Opinion

19 Comments
Chuck D June 13, 2022
| |

Mr. Ault, certainly you are in the running for the most duplicitous, hypocritical letter I’ve read here in a while.
Suffice to say, this country has been witness to “blunt force” in the form of a Republican jammed Supreme Court packed with servants to “conservative”, fake Christian, shadowy organizations who will now attempt to force their fake Christian minority beliefs on a democratic country.
Nothing could be more “blunt force” than that, Mr. Ault. And nowhere can I find a reference to your alleged Cuomo quote. And no one wants abortions, Mr. Ault. What we don’t want is your Puritanical righteousness crammed on us removing the right of a woman to decide for herself her own health. You are not the arbiters of morality any more than your god is anyone else’s god.
So please spare us the sermons on tolerance and try a little humility, as Jesus Christ and every other religious leader taught.

FRED BARNEY June 13, 2022
| |

   As for a compromise about abortion I suggest that they be paid for out of private funds.  This of course would would put planed parenthood out of the abortion bsiness. I also suggest tht abortions obtained with out a husbands approval result in allow a husband to obtain an automatic divorce.  Those two suggestions arre consitent with my body my choice.

ANTHONY J SANTO June 13, 2022
| |

From the headline article in today’s DG: “Legal experts have said a Justice Department prosecution of Trump over the riot could set an uneasy precedent in which an administration of one party could more routinely go after the former president of another.”
If we do not prosecute Trump for his efforts to remain illegally in office, from attempting to cajole Georgia Secretary of State Brad Rathensperger into “finding votes” to inciting an attack on the Capitol to interfere with the governmental process of officially counting and certifying the victory of his opponent, this will set a precedent that may forever change our assumption of a peaceful transfer of power following a presidential, or any other, election.
Which would do more harm to our democratic institutions? We have a legal system designed to make it difficult to indict and convict a former president. An ex-president innocent of the charges against him should find it easy to stop a contrived prosecution. However, if we can not prosecute a former president for crimes he committed while in office, he is above the law and there will be little left but violence to constrain an out-of-control chiel executive.
Consider this as you read why Trump wants to run for president again in 2024:
Rolling Stone reports:

Donald Trump in recent months has been telling confidants that he may launch his 2024 presidential campaign early — and that he’s considering launching it in Florida to stick it to Gov. Ron DeSantis. Trump has kicked around staging a large, flashy launch rally (with fireworks, of course) that would announce his White House bid before the 2022 midterm elections, according to three sources familiar with the matter.
People who’ve spoken to Trump say that one reason he’s eying the Sunshine State is to assert his dominance over an ascendant DeSantis, who — if they both run in 2024 — would likely be the former president’s most formidable competitor in a primary fight for the GOP nomination. One of the sources said Trump’s motivation is to show the governor “who the boss is” in the modern-day GOP.