Point-by-point counter to letter
This is a response to Jennifer Booker, “Three points regarding abortion” (Your Views, Dec. 23).
1. Bodily autonomy: “Even after death, you have the right over what happens to your body. … Even after death, your organs cannot be donated without your previous well-documented consent. How is it possible for law to override this right for living people?”
That’s because, collectively, we haven’t yet shown the moral courage to define personhood. Pro-lifers would simply respond that your logic doesn’t apply as that thing that’s in the womb is a person.
2. “Religious freedom is guaranteed by the First Amendment, yet most arguments make wild assumptions about the origin of a person’s soul … often disguised as the start of life, but there is no agreement among religions or science when that occurs.”
And that’s precisely why abortion should not be legal. Think about going hunting with a buddy who goes downfield, returning some time later, but before the first hunter sees his buddy, he sees and hears rustling in the brush, thinks it’s a deer, takes a shot and kills his friend.
He then goes to court and makes the argument that since he thought it was a deer, and didn’t know it was his friend, he ought to be held blameless.
With regard to resolving the moral question as to when life begins, the onus for its resolution rests with the ones who wish to have the freedom to kill whatever that thing is that’s in the womb.
3. “Practicing medicine without a license is illegal in every state. Lawmakers, attorneys general, and the Supreme Court are all making life-altering and often life-threatening medical decisions for people, even though they are not medical providers and without consent of the people involved. How is this legal?”
Are you really suggesting that there should be no one regulating medical decisions except doctors?? (So, then it follows that the 15 Republican and 4 Democrat physicians in the current 118th Congress should be the ones to regulate such decisions?)
It would be very interesting for you to further lay out who is and isn’t qualified to make environmental or food and drug or consumer product regulatory decisions. I think you would very quickly find yourself in an impossible morass of additional rules and regulations as to who is and isn’t eligible.
Peter J. Braun
Hilo
Time to fix flawed immigration system
There was an interesting article in Friday’s Tribune-Herald about population growth in the United States in the present decade.
If the trend continues to 2030, the U.S. growth for this decade will be less than 4%, which is the lowest growth rate in the nation’s history. It will be around one-half of the growth rate of the previous low, which was in the 1930s during the Great Depression.
Against this backdrop, the ongoing histrionics about the threat to our country from immigration seems even more ludicrous. My daughter is a doctor at renowned research hospital on the mainland. Her colleagues are like a mini United Nations, with representatives from Latin America, Asia and mainly India. Are these immigrants a threat to our democracy?
The country’s immigration system is deeply flawed — this is not debatable. Virtually all Democrats and Republicans agree on this.
Updating and revamping these antiquated laws is a matter of urgent concern. But the answer is definitely not slamming the door shut, particularly in light of our very slow growth rate.
It is well past time for all to come together to deal realistically to find solutions rather than using immigration as a wedge issue in the never-ending culture wars.
Phil Barnes
Hilo