Moral outrage lacking on sale of fetal tissue
During the next year leading right up to the November 2016 elections, we are going to be treated to every two-bit political idea from here to Anchorage. We will hear how this country is being torn apart and that this great nation cannot survive this season.
At least when Lincoln and Douglas debated, there was a real argument over the heart and soul of this nation. Douglas wanted the people of the states to decide if slavery was to be in their state and Lincoln wanted to federally ban it. Ultimately, this moral wrong was righted, though much blood was spilled to accomplish it.
So here is my question for today, Congressman Paul Tonko. Would you have us believe that somehow the “moral outrage” of 500 GE jobs leaving America over the house basically closing the Export-Import Bank somehow trumps the vote on the house voting to federally defund Planned Parenthood along party lines (Dems opposed)?
Maybe it’s the media placement of his thoughts this week that does. Either way, Paul, are you telling me that the spilling of the blood of millions of fetuses and the hint that their body parts might be getting sold for medical research or worse — that that doesn’t rise to an even greater moral outrage over the pettiness of the GE job issue (nevermind the thousands of jobs that they have already sent out with no EX-IM Bank issue)?
What about this moral wrong? I say let Planned Parenthood try to make it as a business without government welfare. Let them raise their own money and charge whatever they want to do business. But please don’t insult us — you and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and the like — and tell me that the possibility that these fetuses have been sold for parts is not enough to warrant a serious investigation and a serious vote to defund it.
I hope and pray that you have a “come-to-Jesus moment,” because your moral compass is broken, sir. I am praying for you all.
The writer is the associate pastor Bethel Full Gospel Church.
Writer was loose with facts on gun control
Re Aug. 30 letter, “Reasonable control of guns won’t take rights” by Michael Winn: The curiosity of this letter is Mr. Winn asks for what he does not offer. He states a desire for only factual responses to his arguments, yet his arguments are not fact based.
His first claim that the National Rifle Association is promoting the private ownership of tanks and nuclear weapons is positively ludicrous, not to mention monetarily prohibitive to most people. More than one U.S. Supreme Court decision, the most recent being DC vs. Heller 2008, has ruled that the Second Amendment covers arms in common use at the time; no worries there on the tanks and nuclear weapons.
The trouble with the Safe Act is that it is based on fabricated definitions. The act does not outlaw “assault weapons” or “high capacity magazines.” It outlaws certain semi-automatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines. The anti-gun crowd’s, including the mainstream news media’s, repetition of their falsified definitions does not make them true.
Various versions of the statement, “A lie told often enough becomes the truth,” have been used by the likes of Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Goebbels. We’ve learned from history and are not accepting this tactic.
His second argument regarding how often a standard-sized magazine is used in self-defense is baseless. The legal gun owners of this state are not under the burden to prove a “need-based capacity” for their magazines. It’s our choice as the words “show me” or “prove” are not in the Second Amendment or applicable to any of the constitutional rights. Also, Judge Skretny ruled a seven-round limit to be arbitrary and capricious, which makes one wonder what magical line a 10-round limit crosses to remedy this issue.
His final argument is an emotional red herring. If Mr. Winn had done some fact checking, he’d know that New York’s Environmental Conservation law has for many years limited a semi-automatic rifle to six cartridges while deer hunting. More importantly, he would know that the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting.
The conclusion of this letter is rampant with unsubstantiated speculation on the intention of the anti-Safe Act advocates. We are “in it” because we understand the importance of the Constitution and the vision of its authors. We are “in it” because we want to maintain the integrity of the entire Constitution.
Mr. Winn, if you choose to write on this issue again, please do what you ask of others and write a fact-based argument with information from legitimate non-biased sources. Examples of legitimate sources are the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Department of Justice studies, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
Parroting a sound bite from an interview you ran across in the Feb. 27, 2013, Mother Jones magazine is not indicative of a reasonable effort on factual research.
Buy a call-blocker to stop unwanted calls
Regarding the Sept. 13 letter by Rick Splawnik, “Can anyone help stop unwanted phone calls?” the answer is yes.
Buy a call-blocking device. There are several on the market ranging from $99 on down. These devices are similar to Caller ID boxes, but they can be programmed to block incoming numbers that you don’t wish to receive. You can also block an entire area code such as 855, which is an 800 service number used by nuisance callers.
I currently have about 20 numbers entered into my call blocker. Now my phone only rings for legitimate callers. Nuisance calls come in, but my phone doesn’t ring. Ah, peace and quiet.
The Gazette welcomes letters to the editor from readers.
There is no specific word limit, but shorter letters will get preference for publication and timeliness. Letters of about 200-300 words are suggested. Longer letters will be published online only.
Please include your name, community, phone number and an email address for verification. Writers are limited to one letter every 30 days.