|
Only have a minute? Listen instead
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Abortion opposed
On Sept. 13 you published an editorial from the Los Angeles Times that suggests it is perfectly OK to kill babies, and that Mexico is “making progress … in restoring rights — and it’s maddening to see the destruction of those rights continue in the U.S.”
The editorial follows the wrong thinking of so many so-called thought stimulators in the U.S. that the Supreme Court “undid protections for abortion last year when it overturned Roe vs. Wade.” I don’t know how often the facts need to say loudly, not so!
It never should have been a national plan to control abortion, or birth, for that matter. The issue should have been left up to the states and has been returned to the states where it belongs.
In the broad scope of the issue, who speaks for the unborn baby at any stage of its life? All of the concern is for the mother, society, and an entire legion of those who really should not have a say.
It is not difficult to determine who has the most democratic approach to the issue of abortion vs. birth. Certainly not a federal government seeking to control the entire nation. Those who want such autocratic rulings would perhaps be better served to move to Mexico where the little guy is known to have very little say in his or her life, and certainly not an unborn baby.
Duane A. Rasmussen
Laguna Vista
Media needed to form ideas
Just reflecting on my latest intake of the daily news. I’m left feeling anxious and empty-headed. I scroll through the channels and every news source is reporting the same headlines, often with the same verbiage, and without airing of opposing views.
There are two sides to every story; I’d desperately like hearing them. But when every source presents just one side, it feels like I’m being kept from doing my own thinking. By design. I would like to be able to make informed, reasoned judgments about the day’s events, but that judgment is being made for me by someone else.
Let’s take this issue: the impeachment inquiry. You know, I know, and everyone else with a TV knows there’s no evidence to justify this by the Republicans. But for once I’d like to witness their buffoonery and ineptitude by seeing (or reading about) them making their case, if only for my own sick amusement.
One side is right, the other is wrong. Let us view the other side, if for no other reason but to prove them unworthy of our vote. Is that so wrong?
During the Cold War, our government contracted with the media to produce false or distorted news to stay ahead of the Russians, a kind of info war. Did our government abandon that? So come on, newsfolk, let us see both sides so we can do our own thinking, rather than do the thinking for us.
Jamey Honaker
Primera
Paxton ruling spurs comment
The failed impeachment of Attorney General Ken Paxton is a good example of selective justice. If we believe that government agencies can police themselves to run a clean working environment, we are fooling ourselves.
What did Paxton have on most of the senators to vote his way? This is not beyond the possibility of the reason that the vote favored him and avoided an impeachment. Considering the amount of evidence against him I did not expect it, but was not surprised when it did happen.
Welcome to politics 101.
Rafael Madrigal
Pharr
LETTERS — We welcome your letters and commentary. Submissions must include the writer’s full name, address and daytime telephone number for verification. Letters of 200 words or fewer will be given preference. Submissions may be edited for length, grammar and clarity. Letters may be mailed to P.O Box 3267, McAllen, Texas78502-3267, or emailed to [email protected].
