Letters: Debating when life begins, nonpartisan election thoughts and government headed in wrong direction | July 4

Debating when human life begins

Funny how people, especially professors, try reasoning around objective facts and common sense. Erwin Chemerinsky (Tri-City Herald, June 14) notes the absence of “a consensus as to when human life begins.” Yet, ancient people assumed a child was in the oven once a woman detected pregnancy. Eventually, science identified the moment of conception—and what primitives took for granted: human sperm and egg combine to form another independent human with inalienable rights, naturally.

Chemerinsky then discusses a woman’s constitutional right to kill another human, affirmed in Roe vs. Wade. But at least two problems arise. First, the Supreme Court often looks at the constitutional authors’ intentions. Yet Roe vs. Wade likely didn’t give proper weight to the authors’ natural law beliefs, the primacy of which the authors likely enshrined in the Ninth Amendment. Secondly, colonial laws based abortion’s legality on pregnancy’s first indications (baby’s kicking). Modern science has pushed that back to conception.

Also, our Supreme Court is not infallible. Recall its 1986 decision to uphold segregation and the 1944 decision that upheld Japanese American interment. These and other tragedies (Native American genocide, anti-Asian laws, the Holocaust) should teach us that questioning a person’s humanity starts us on a bad path.

.......

Does nonpartisan help or hinder?

Are local elections for school board and city council being ruined by partisan politics? Are nonpartisan elections facilitating integrity or impeding it?

A nonpartisan election is one where no political affiliation is shown on the ballot. Does it mean that once elected, officials will be independent, neutral, unbiased, fair, objective and equitable? Does that mean that cooperation between elected officials belonging to different parties is more likely? Or is nonpartisan a means to hide a person’s beliefs?

Studies have shown declaration of ideology facilitates greater collaboration rather than creates more conflict. Would voters prefer candidates to hide their values and beliefs? The absence of party labels makes it difficult to find the candidate’s values and the voter pamphlet statements and candidates’ handouts sound the same.

In this election, issues are extreme. Does a candidate believe kindergarteners should be taught they can choose their own sex? Should 12-year olds choose to get vaccinated at school or get sex hormones? Should students be taught it is not their effort but the color of their skin that defines success? Should the Constitution be taught? Should voters have a clear choice on the values of those they are electing to make these decisions?

.......

We’re not headed in right direction

I see my government enacting laws and regulations that do not benefit the people but harm them. I see wasteful spending of money we do not have on projects and programs that do not improve the quality of life for Americans. I see chaos and crisis at our southern border. Protect illegals at the expense of American citizens who are the victims. Taxpayer dollars, my money being given to illegal aliens that might be better deployed to help our veterans, poor and downtrodden. I watch as actions are taken to destroy our freedom of religion, speech, right to bear arms. I wonder if our elected representatives are up to the task of governing and leading our nation. How could a person supposedly get over 80 million votes to become president but struggles with every sentence he tries to speak.

This story was originally published July 4, 2021 at 5:43 PM.