Chimp rights case an opportunity to learn
I read your recent editorial on why the New York Court of Appeals was right not to consider the issue of granting chimpanzees minimal living condition rights. And I disagree with it for the following reasons.
Our species has advanced over history because we are able to learn about the world and ourselves, and to adopt that knowledge for our benefit and that of our world.
When an issue like this appears, no one who is not an expert in chimp zoology can knowledgeably provide data that could address the issues presented in your editorial (whether chimps possess enough self awareness, intelligence and feeling to warrant special treatment).
So I am very surprised that your editorial and the Court of Appeals justices were so flippant in deciding that the case was not “worthy” — even to review the testimony of experts on this matter.
The argument that the courts are too busy with other matters doesn’t ring true to me. If they are, I would think that is a problem for the governor and the judiciary branch to resolve. Being too busy to review the facts is a failure of our ability to learn and advance — not something to be applauded. Being too busy to hear cases that affect our society and its development is a problem.
Let me be clear: I don’t know the answer to this issue, but did anyone involved bother to read any of the data of experts in this area before making their decision and writing that editorial? Perhaps another editor and another Court of Appeals in the future will continue to take the time to move us a little further in our knowledge about ourselves and the world we share.
By the way, if cost is your concern, our society spent an awful lot of money on the Mars and Pluto missions in pursuit of knowledge, and our Supreme Court did not feel that spending the time or money to offer an opinion on the rights of corporations (nonliving entities) in the Citizens United case was a waste of time/money.
Why then does our Court of Appeals in New York and your editor feel this issue involving living creatures is?
Michael E. Isaac
We must take action to save the unborn
The mainstream media has been doing its best to suppress the eight videos about Planned Parenthood that have been released to the public in the past few weeks. These videos have shown the “Mengele horrors” of what’s going on with the abortion mills, the selling of baby parts and intact aborted babies, too.
For those not familiar with Josef Mengele, he was a German SS officer and physician in the Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II. He was notorious for performing deadly human experiments on prisoners.
When Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower’s troops reached the German concentration camps, he told his men to take pictures of everything because the world would not believe that this could happen.
Here we are 70 years later and the world still does not believe what it sees in pictures. The mainstream media has been doing its best to bury all exposures of the videos.
Planned Parenthood has taken The Center for Medical Progress to court to stop the showings. The major networks and news media have shut down the exposure to minimal and no coverage. What is so sacred to the progressives that abortion is a must in their “mastheads?”
The Gazette’s nationally syndicated columnist, Ruben Navarette Jr., a veteran “pro-choice” voice, wrote an unsettling column Aug. 10 for The Daily Beast. It is worth reading and sharing for its honest revulsion at the whole, ugly, systemwide barbarism of Planned Parenthood’s fetal trafficking. And his column’s best lines come in quoting his pro-life wife:
“Those are babies that are being killed. Millions of them. And you need to use your voice to protect them. That’s what a man does. He protects children — his own children, and other children. That’s what it means to be a man.”
Can we please keep the furor going? We are the only voice of the unborn. There is a horror going on in the abortion clinics. We have no excuse.
We know the truth, and when we know truth and don’t act, we are complicit in what’s going on.
Gerard F. Havasy
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.