Comments by Oko

Written on Tom Humphrey: Political contests become battles of multimillionaires:

It still takes votes to win an election, and Democrats who sit out the elections are essentially endorsing and voting silently for candidates they may not agree with or want to continue in office.

Written on Ann C. Short: Hobby Lobby case enforces statute Congress enacted:

I suppose a woman's sincere belief which may be said to be religious that she should not have to endanger her life or sanity or her family's well being by not having access to the means for family planning doesn't count, although taking a hallucigen for religious reasons does count. This Supreme Court seems generally inclined to side with corporations as so-called persons rather than individual, real persons. In other words, corporations seem to be viewed as super persons, not just plain, old ordinary persons.

Written on Letter: Politicians betray the trust of women:

in response to udamflbrs:


I am so tired of subsidizing lucrative corporations which refuse to pay their fair shares, which refuse to pay living wages to the individuals who do the work of their enterprises, and which refuse to contribute to healthcare plans--all in order that the guys at the top can laugh all the way to their multi-billion-dollar bank accounts in the Caribbean.

It’s a free system ... you can trade your labor to an employer for dollars to buy your daily bread ... or not if you don’t like their offer. If not, I’m sure this country will continue to support your lazy able to work arse... we’re silly like that ... LMAO !!!

Ir is a rigged system--not a free system. Monopolies are on the rise, squeezing out competition. Competition is anathema to some corporations--they want the whole hog. Corporations in this country are not even necessarily American, but multinational and don't give a flip about American workers. Try looking up the names of corporations which manage not to pay one cent in taxes to pay for the public services they take advantage of but don't want to support with tax dollars. Capitalism does not have to be based exclusively on greed and the exploitation of the work force, but many corporations operate this way, in the mistaken belief that they can't be profitable if they pay living wages and provide decent vacation periods, and allow employees to contribute ideas and help make company decisions.
Talk about arses--they have the whole thing arse backwards and are too fearful to recognize that they could be making even more money if they were ethical.

Written on Letter: Politicians betray the trust of women:

If by any chance Hobby Lobby employees are not able to use contraceptives, I assume the company will offer them paid maternity leave and will establish day care centers for employees' children.

Written on Letter: Politicians betray the trust of women:

in response to geezer117:

This doesn't pass the smell test. An ectopic pregnancy is a life-threatening condition. No hospital in the country would refuse to deal with this condition. The idea that an abortion clinic is the only place this alleged woman could go is absurd. And an abortion clinic, which is not equipped to deal with such emergencies and in many places is not subject to the same standards as medical clinics, would be a poor choice to go for treatment of this condition.

Smells like Liberal baloney to me.

The trouble with liberals is that they believe in facts and seldom make up stories. The woman in question lived in Pennsylvania. The hospital in her town was Catholic. They suggested she go to Pittsburgh and was told that the procedure would be simple and not a big deal. She rode the bus to Pittsburgh and was then referred to Planned Parenthood where she was met by a group of people shouting at her about wanting to kill her baby. The anti-Planned Parenthood Clinic people obviously do not know much about these clinics or their quality and the services they offer women, which include preventive tests that are quite likely to save their lives. I suppose they, like Hobby Lobby, have forgotten that women without the availability of birth control used to have a baby a year. And they don't seem to understand that families need to be free to decide how many children they can comfortably support and raise. It seems to me that Hobby Lobby and their ilk believe in the old statement that women should be kept barefoot and pregnant.

Written on Letter: Politicians betray the trust of women:

Name calling seems to be a specialty of the far right. A real example of a woman who needed medical help with an ectopic pregnancy is that the only place she could go for help was a clinic where foul-mouthed people shouted at her as she was trying to deal with what was a tragedy for her family.

Written on Letter: Obama doesn't take any responsibility:

Ideally, one would have glasses with clear lenses, but some people have rose-colored glasses--others have dung-colored glasses.

Written on Letter: Use bribe to lure al-Qaida to table:

Although all this is facetious, what might actually change Al Quaida is useful employment and some prosperity for its members. People who feel successful and content aren't concerned about terrorizing other people. Terrorists, in general, are terribly angry and frustrated with their situation. Unfortunately, they act out how they feel. It would really be ideal to give people a reason for not feeling they have to resort to terrorism to get across how unhappy they are.

Written on None:

in response to bulletdriver:

hit the nail on the head? more like he hit himself on the head . check your facts. watch mutinty on the bounty if you want some insight on how a community organizer runs a country into the ground.

It does not ring true that the country is being run into the ground when it is experiencing recovery after a great recession, and is actually becoming somewhat more inclusive of more citizens, and has record highs on the stock market, and besides, is producing more oil than it buys. There is so much more which needs to change, and despite the best efforts of the opposition, changes for the better are taking place.

How one wishes the not so loyal opposition had substantive alternative proposals to make for improving the country, but they seem to have only one arrow in their quiver--criticism--without real solutions to problems. It is sad for them to have wasted so many years and so much tax payer money (like closing down the government) screaming like so many harpies.

Written on Letter: Civil Rights Act is a terrible statute:

Am not sure what a private business is. The point of a business is to be open to the public to sell something. If someone who has opened a business to the public is squeamish about people wanting to buy whatever its, then perhaps they should retire from being in business and become "private."

Written on Letter: Health care being denied:

There are some amazingly ignorant statements in these posts. Because the Expansion of Medicaid has not been carried out by the State Legislature and the Governor,people who are not able to buy health insurance in the usual way are dying in Tennessee because they cannot afford to get treatment for medical problems.
It is a fiction that people can get help for any problem. At least since 2008, there have been articles about the cost in lives to Tennessee of people not being able to afford medical insurance. To give one specific situation: Back on September, 2009, there was the account in the New York Times of a young Tennessee woman who had lupus so badly she could not work. She then lost the health insurance she did have and died for lack of medical care. It was in the news recently that a young mother in Florida, working 3 low-paying jobs, could not afford health insurance and the Governor of Florida refused the Medicaid Expansion for his state. She had heart disease, knew she had it, but could not afford medication or medical visits. She died of a heart attack, leaving three small children motherless. It isn't as though the Governor and the Legislature haven't had access to information about the number of people in Tennessee who die each year for lack of medical care.
Some of the people posting on this site are no doubt outraged that Veterans have also died from lack of medical care, but they piously blame people who simply do not have the money to buy insurance for not being insured. The cost to the state of expanding Medicaid is essentially zilch the first year and will never be much higher in the years to come. When lives are saved, and people are able to be healthier, the state benefits. It's economy benefits. The state actually saves money when everyone has health care. Besides denying health care to the most economically vulnerable Tennesseans' being cruel, it is short-sighted and economically stupid. Why not ask you legislator what he or she says to the family of a person who has died for lack of health care. What does a legislator say when he or she has pronounced a death sentence on a person without means? Or what does he or she say about the money wasted by not providing health care for all Tennesseans? (The legislature passed a law this year keeping secret the names and other information about people who carry out executions for the state. But they cannot pass legislation which keeps their names secret when they essentially execute Tennesseans by denying them health care.)

Written on Obama: Congress obstructs, so I act alone:

A lot of the comments have gotten off the subject which is what to do when a Congress refuses to discuss and debate and vote on proposed legislation, and instead wastes valuable time and taxpayer money by ignoring the crumbling infrastructure of the country, the rising temperatures which are threatening our food supply, the disappearance of the middle class (which ultimately, does not bode well for the upper .01 or 1 per cent, as well as the general population), and is behaving in a generally irresponsible and feckless manner. We need people in Congress who are actually interested in solving the country's problems, more than they are interested in genuflecting to the monied interests paying to have their plundering of the environment and the workforce less regulated, and to have tax laws which shield them from contributing to the upkeep of the infrastructure of the country, and for paying for things like the National Weather Service, the FAA, NIH, FEMA and all the protective services the federal government offers in the way of law enforcement. We need true public servants for the entire populace, not sycophants for the very few.

Written on Obama: Congress obstructs, so I act alone:

The point is that there have been two Presidential elections in which a particular person was elected by national vote. He was elected to lead because enough voters liked his plan for the country to put him in this leadership position. The Constitution does not include the filibuster rule which has been used routinely to keep legislation from coming to the floor for discussion and debate during the last term, and now, during this one. Congressional obstructionists do not seem to have the courage to even allow discussion of proposals they are ideologically against. This is malfeasance, I think, and I believe we need members of Congress who have enough courage to actually do what a Congress is supposed to do--discuss and debate, and then take a vote.

Written on Obama: Congress obstructs, so I act alone:

It should be pointed out to those who insist on demeaning the President, that it is the entire nation which elects a President, and people elect a President because they like what he stands for and they want him to lead. Senators are elected only in their own states, and Representatives are elected only in their own districts. The will of the American people has been to have President Obama carry out his ideas for job creation, health care, bettering the lot of minorities, and on and on. Apparently the regionally elected people in Congress seem to think the entire country elected them, and it did not--It elected the President. They are supposed to legislate to carry out the vision the entire country said it wanted implemented.

Written on Obama: Congress obstructs, so I act alone:

If I remember correctly, the President won the last election by an overwhelming majority which seems to indicate that the public likes his agenda. Congress uses arcane rules to try to thwart the carrying out of this agenda, thus thwarting the majority of Americans. Dereliction of duty describes this Congress in general. Those who have obstructed the efforts of the President should be turned out of office since they do not seem to know how to legislate effectively.

Written on David Hunter: Powerful depend on working class's labor:

Funny that most comments do not seem to really come to grips with the fact that workers may be dependent on having jobs which are dispensed by the rich, but then the rich are helplessly dependent on workers. Some rich people recognize how much they rely for their wealth on the hard work of others, but then others seem to think they are rich because they are somehow superior beings to those who work for them. There is a concept in psychology of infantile grandiosity and one is tempted to apply this to the rich who want to deny their own dependence on the people they hire.

Written on Letter: Comments removed from Facebook page:

Am not quite clear on what is meant by wanting a liberal majority or claiming censorship. I was just reporting the actual behavior of the Congressman--it seems very odd to call something a town meeting and have it be a monologue instead of a dialogue. He has developed not wanting to hear the views of constituents who do not agree with him into an art. Most Congress people at least give a semblance of listening to opinions which differ from theirs' but not our current Congressman.

Written on Letter: Comments removed from Facebook page:

This letter dovetails with the observation I have made that Congressman Fleischman has created a bubble for himself and does not want to hear any views which are opposed to his or the views of his backers. He sometimes makes robo-calls which purport to be a phone town meeting, but the actual thoughts of constituents who take the call and disagree with him are carefully blocked by questions which ask how the person answering feels about certain issues. If one gives the right answer, then one can go on to push the next button. Give the wrong answer and that is that. When he calls a so-called town meeting with real people in a room, he gives a one-way statement of how he sees things. There is no two-way communicating. The group he represents is a small minority of the total number of people in District 3. One pictures him like a small boy who sticks his fingers in his ears because he does not want to hear whatever is being said. His votes on the floor of the House are anti-votes with regard to middle class people. There is no sign in his voting record that he cares a whit about his constituency, except those who are able to contribute large sums to his coffers.
We in the Third District need a true Representative--an adult--who can listen to opposing views without acting threatened. We need a knowledgeable adult who knows the issues, cares about people, and can work with those whose views are different. The Democratic Party is offering such a candidate in the person of Dr. Mary Headrick, who can actually give informative talks about issues which concern the majority of residents of the 3rd District. She is a candidate who listens to people and wants to hear their views, and will work for everyone in the District, not just the chosen few.

Written on Letter: Expanding Medicaid is a practical move:

in response to holsworth1#1435792:


First, they told us we could keep our doctor — that turned out not to be true. Next, they told us we could keep our policy — that’s not true. Then they told us our premiums would not go up — nothing could be further from the truth. Now they are telling us we’ll get free money to expand Medicaid.

Ladies and gentlemen, nothing is free. The money the federal government is spending with wild abandon is not federal dollars — those are your dollars, your hard-earned tax dollars. There is no difference between federal money and your money.” This is from a speech Governor Bentley in Alabama gave this year, and I ask, are you willing to trust the Federal Government? I am not.

Any new program has glitches. Reasonable people take that into account and do not react with suspicion or try to make other people panic about the program. One of the tactics of ultra conservative is to try to make people afraid in some way. Goebbels said that the way to control people is to frighten them. (He was the German propaganda chief in the 1930's and 1940's.)

Written on Letter: Amendment would violate principle:

in response to why36knot#656113:

54,000,000 aborted babies since the passing of Roe will never feel stress, fear or poor nutrition. Does that make you feel better?

Read my lips--I do not like abortion, but I don't think that I have the right to try to force women to go through a pregnancy which may have occurred against their will or threatens their health or is problematic in some other way. I am a mere mortal, not a divine being. I am not sure how the figure of 54,000,000 abortions was come up with--that means an average of 25,000 per year per state, and that is a little hard to credit, especially in states which have a population of five or six million. I actually respect women and think they are capable of making difficult and painful decisions for themselves. They do not need the state to try to govern their personal decisions.

Written on Letter: Amendment would violate principle:

in response to udamflbrs:

DlfnRdr writes:

Now come on Oko, surely you know that the sanctimonious twits, ably led by whyknot, believe that .... [being forced to carry and deliver an unwanted baby is just and suitable punishment] ....for that woman having the audacity to engage in sexual behavior. They aren't interested in making that punishment any easier to bear.

Oko writes:

If punishment is their aim, then they are inflicting punishment on the unborn child as well, by not helping the mother to have as stress-free a pregnancy as possible. A baby in the womb is affected by whatever affects the mother--stress, fear, poor nutrition. It seems a little warped to me to want to punish the mother rather than help her--and thus, at the same time, punish the child.

I had to read your post several times to actually believe you wrote that.

The legislature is attempting to punish a woman that wants an abortion by preventing her from having one. In doing so they cause her stress that in turn harms the baby ... the baby she plans to terminate .... Really?

Yes, really. Hostility toward a pregnant person creates a poor environment for the child in the making as well as the woman, and does not bode well for bringing a healthy and happy baby into the world. The way to create a more nurturing environment for the baby, is to create such an environment for the prospective mother.

Also, this Amendment is clearly intended to be an end-run around the opposition it ran into in the State Legislature. The amendment is intended essentially to pass a law, its proponents could not pass legislatively.

Written on Letter: Amendment would violate principle:

in response to banners:

What gets me about the anti-abortionists is that they support the death penalty. If you're against abortion, don't have one. You have no right to make that choice for all other women in the country.
If abortion is banned, you all know what will happen. The rich will find some doctor to do it, while the poor will get out the knitting needles.
Oko, no woman wants to carry to term a child and then give it away, let it wander wherever, forever 'out there'.
Abortion is perfectly legal in the U.S. I don't know how women are letting male representatives tell them what they can do with their own bodies -- even if they were raped, the pregnancy is not viable or the mother could die without the procedure. Florida tried to pass a law that would have given prison time and a $10,000 fine to any doctor that performed an abortion after 23 weeks. That meant a woman having a miscarriage would lie bleeding to death because no doctor could touch her. These are the kind of provisions states are coming up with to impinge on the rights of women.

I am against the death penalty, and I am against sending people off to their deaths in war, but with regard to the subject at hand, of the two evils, giving a child a chance at life by enduring a pregnancy and taking its life, which is the lesser? The woman loses the child in either case. I wouldn't presume to tell her what to do, and I would not judge her if she got an abortion, but I would want her to at least have the option of a supportive environment during pregnancy in case she is strong enough to make the sacrifice of giving the child up for adoption. On the other hand, she might decide that she does not want to do that after all and is willing to raise the baby. The important thing is she would have a choice, and the child would be able to spend time in this world. These days, people hardly ever seem to think in terms of self-sacrifice. Seems to me since the 90's there has been an emphasis on Me First. But self-sacrifice can be a virtue and make one stronger. I am sure it can seem like there is no choice when there is a pregnancy which the woman did not want, but there really is the option of considering the best interest of the small life beginning inside her. Society needs not to be punitive towards such a woman, but to offer to help her through this experience, and, at the same time, accept her choice if she does not want to continue the pregnancy. The sad thing is that some women will think that abortion is their only option. The stridence and even violence of the most vocal anti-abortionists makes it hard, I am sure, for a person who suddenly finds herself pregnant when she did not want to be and because of their negativity she may feel that she has only one option. The most vocal and militant anti-abortionists seem to have a very simplistic view and to literally be ignorant of all that is involved in a pregnancy which may have been forced on a woman or was an unhappy surprise. It might be enlightening to them if they tried to understand their actual motives in being so vocal.

Written on Letter: Amendment would violate principle:

in response to jejjen:

Oko writes: "If people are tired of what they call the murder of unborn babies, ..."

What do you call what happens to the unborn, Oko, when an abortion is performed to purposefully end its life? Has a human being been killed or not?

What I said was that if people are tired of the murder of unborn babies, then they should show support for the pregnant woman (to help her see the birth through to term) I did not object to the word murder, and in fact, used it. Some people call it murder, some calling terminating a pregnancy. The effect is the same. it is the end of life for the unborn being which has begun in a womb because a man and a woman had sexual relations either voluntarily or involuntarily. I would call rape, murder, actually, because it kills a woman's soul. Or the soul of a man, for that matter, in the case he is raped.

Written on Letter: Amendment would violate principle:

in response to DlfnRdr:

Now come on Oko, surely you know that the sanctimonious twits, ably led by whyknot, believe that being forced to carry and deliver an unwanted baby is just and suitable punishment for that woman having the audacity to engage in sexual behavior.
They aren't interested in making that punishment any easier to bear.


Written on Letter: Expanding Medicaid is a practical move:

in response to fergx5#1429381:

Far too often (less fortunate)means "can't afford neccessities and still pay for cable, internet,cell phone,alcohol,tobacco and lottery tickets"

What is the source of information for this statement?

Written on Letter: Amendment would violate principle:

If people are tired of what they call the murder of unborn babies, then they should offer those who find themselves in the predicament of a problematic pregnancy a positive alternative--such as care and support during the pregnancy, until the birth and then possible adoption. The attitude which ignores the woman who carries the unborn child in her very own body
is callous, ignorant, and does nothing to solve the problem. Love and support are more of a motivator than hatred and a punitive attitude.

Written on Letter: Expanding Medicaid is a practical move:

People are fortunate when they do not have to rely on help from the government. Unfortunately, millions of Americans who are paid less than a living wage do need help in the form of Medicaid. It might help people who have their doubts about the states' signing up for the Expansion of Medicare to read the analysis of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities which is online. This analysis points out the savings which states will gain, and are gaining, in a number of ways, including savings in uncompensated care--because people previously without insurance are now covered. Better care also means fewer medical costs as people are able to stay more well. One antidote to fear in most every case is to be sure one has the facts before giving in to worry or panic.

Written on Letters to the Editor: June 15, 2014:

It is amazing that a couple of posts do not seem to understand that the children in the 74 schools since Sandy Hook also have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The people who seem hellbent on inflicting guns on our society apparently think that they cannot survive without guns and that their devotion to guns trumps the rights of all the children, all the young people, and adults who have been killed by people with an abnormal devotion to guns. We have a great sickness in our society--this is truly a gun-crazy country, crazier in this sense than any other country in the world.

Written on Report: Campfield rated most conservative state senator, Johnson top liberal in House:

in response to chbradshaw:

Gloria Johnson is a real piece of work.

Her tenure in Nashville has been without accomplishment.

The only thing she seems to be able to do is pull together 10-12 n'er-do-wells and parade around about some issue that more serious people need to handle.

Her two primary accomplishments seem to be getting her picture in the paper on occasion and providing work for substitute teachers during her protracted time away from the special needs students she is supposed to be teaching.

Speaking of a piece of work--that applies to this comment. Insulting any legislator is a poor excuse as a convincing argument. It is possible to learn the specific bills sponsored or co-sponsored by Gloria Johnson. Deal in facts.
Slurs are a sign of a weak argument.

Written on Letter: Republicans vilify Obama out of spite:

Area legislators voted NOT to increase funds for food inspection.

Written on Letters to the Editor: June 15, 2014:

in response to Fall_guy:

Apparently you have never heard of the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment, who inspired many of the Founding Fathers. Legal rights are given by the state. People are born with natural rights; even those who believe in no god. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." Western philosopher John Locke said there were three natural rights, one of which is the right to live once created. So it follows for some that the right to defend oneself from violence from others is a natural right.
There was nothing theological about the letter. It apparently went way over your head.

This does not answer the question of the right to live with which the Creator endowed school children, people in movie theatres, malls,universities....

Written on Letter: Republicans vilify Obama out of spite:

It is kind of interesting that area members of Congress just voted to increase spending in 2015 for USDA food safety inspection, when it is known that food safety is becoming an issue, and they also voted to cut a like amount from the Farm Service department of USDA for conservation programs, while at the same time passing a bill to grant permanent depreciation breaks to some businesses, which will add $73 billion to federal deficits over the next 11 years. They also voted to lower some capital gains taxes in some situations, which will add $1.5 billion to federal deficits during the same period. I think it is a myth that Republicans are fiscally responsible-- Cutting taxes sounds good, but its consequences can be dire, like less safe food and wasteful use of resources rather than conservation. All this is going to be more expensive than doing the right thing in the first place. Wasting resources and creating public health hazards is not exactly sound governance. A good many states are learning that wholesale thoughtless cutting of taxes can lead to not being able to pay their bills. If the Republicans thought carefully about the real consequences of any cuts they want to make, they would be more credible.
Right now, they seem lacking in much thought power and they don't seem very credible as leaders, especially if they preach fiscal responsibility and vote for irresponsibility instead.

Written on Letters to the Editor: June 15, 2014:

The usual statement of the inalienable rights Americans have includes life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that is all. But apparently, the NRA seems to believe that people who worship guns have a divine right to carry those guns under any circumstances and that children and others do not have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, if some gun-wielding person decides to take these rights away. In other words, some seem to believe that the right to carry a lethal weapon trumps inalienable rights .

Written on Letters to the Editor: June 15, 2014:

Didn't know that carrying a gun was a God-given right. Kind of think human beings came up with the idea of going armed. Not sure we would have guns, actually, if gun powder had not been invented.

Written on Letter: Attacks on Obama about his race:

It is historic that Congress during the Obama Administration has fought against every effort to pass legislation that will help ordinary people: the most recent being the refusal to have a vote on allowing people with student loan debt to refinance it, as they can do, if they should happen to have a mortgage. It is really difficult to understand the mindset of Republicans in Congress, except to assume that they have given up representing the general public which voted for them and have chosen to represent only the big donors to their campaigns. Proverbs (I believe) was right in saying that The love of money is the root of all evil.This is the shaky foundation of the corrupt system this country has developed in its national legislative body, and I expect to a certain extent, in state legislative bodies. The Supreme Court seems also to abandoned any sense of justice or right in always supporting the whims of corporations and large donors.

Written on Letter: Attacks on Obama about his race:

Did I mention the institutionalizing of torture? and the fact that there are countries today which seek to try him as a war criminal? The current President has stopped the torturing, but sadly, has followed Bush's lead in some other ways, which has been a great disappointment for those who hoped for a strictly law-abiding President, who would stop spying on ordinary U.S. citizens, for example, and would recognize the need for whistle blowers, and honest citizen opposition in the form of protest demonstrations, etc.

Written on Letter: Attacks on Obama about his race:

Gee, have you not seen the cartoons? and the hateful posters people have waved on various occasions--not to mention the racial slurs--in postings in this newspaper and elsewhere.
Then there are the ugly remarks made about Mrs. Obama, presumably, not only because she is black, but because she is assertive enough to put the health of the children of this country against the commercial interests which are portrayed in the movie, "Fed Up" which shows why making healthy food available to school children has been such a struggle. Listen to any right-wing talk show, watch Fox network,if you want to see what the writer is referring to. In case you may not have noticed, George W. Bush, pretty much alienated the rest of the world when under false pretense he invaded a country which had not attacked us--leaving hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead in its wake, and more thousands as refugees, all for the sake of getting at Iraq's oil. Remember Haliburton, Blackwater, millions in cash which simply disappeared on delivery in Iraq? He apparently had zero empathy for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, and as I recall he did not even go to meet the dead coming home from Afghanistan and Iraq until late in the day. Perhaps there are some things to celebrate about his Presidency, but they don't come readily to mind. It was a time when the administration promoted fear at every turn. It was a dreadful, dreadful period in our history.
He was not an ordinary President, that is certain, however.

Written on Letters: June 8, 2014:

in response to jejjen:

Maybe you've already answered this question, but I'm curious how you yourself view abortion as an act that takes the life of an unborn human being. Are you one of those who believes abortion wrongfully takes the life of an unborn, but that it should still be legal to do so simply on the basis of choice? I appreciate your indulgence in answering my questions. This will very likely be my last attempt to determine what your own view of abortion is in terms of whether you yourself believe it is an act that is wrong, but one that should nevertheless be legal, or whether this even matters to you. If you don't have a specific view on this, I'll just conclude that it doesn't matter to you.

My empathy is with both the unborn and with the woman carrying what begins as a a collection of cells. If you think about it, having something growing in your body which was forced on you, which might take your life from you, or which threatens your sanity, you might want the legal freedom to choose not to let the pregnancy go forward. On the other hand, I weep for the innocent bundle of cells, which is in effect causing great misery to the people outside the womb. What a terrible prospect for all concerned. People who are pregnant are very vulnerable--they used to call it being a delicate condition--and to try to make them criminals when they are struggling with a life-changing physical reality and having realistic doubts and fears,is outrageous and even reprehensible. All of us should be free to make our own personal, health decisions, from a woman struggling with a problematic pregnancy, to someone who doesn't want to have an heroic operation to prolong his or her life. Don't know if you read Art Buchwald, but he chose not to go on dialysis to prolong his life when he had kidney failure, and the state did not step in and tell him that was a criminal decision. All I can hope for is that every woman who thinks abortion is a choice will consider that she might be able to endure the nine months of a pregnancy, and that every every such woman will have a supportive matrix to help her through what is for her a very difficult time. As to decisions regarding the medical condition of the foetus, I think any decision is best made with the physician who knows what her condition is and what will probably happen.

Written on Letters: June 8, 2014:

In the case of bank robbery, everyone can agree that it is wrong and against the law, but in the other case, not everyone can agree that that it should be against the law. They may agree that it is wrong, however. Actually, with regard to bank robbing, if there were a greater effort by society not to create conditions in which people become desperate enough to rob banks, bank robberies could possibly be mostly eliminated. Without rape and incest, for example, the perceived need for an abortion would be lessened.

Written on Letters: June 8, 2014:

in response to jejjen:

If I follow what you wrote, you're for a right to life for everyone including the unborn, but that that right should not be subject to any law that would involve levying a criminal sanction against any individual who took the life of another. If so, then that means if someone murdered someone else for any reason whatsoever, you feel it should be sufficient just to try and persuade them not to do that again. I'm hoping I got that wrong, but to my thinking the only way you can allow freedom of choice to unjustly violate the right to life of an unborn would be to allow freedom of choice to do the same with everyone else. Is that a fair representation of the way you think the unjust taking of the life of another should in all instances, be handled?

Don't think there is anything such as a just taking of a human life. I don't like abortion,but,on the other hand, I don't think people who have no experience with childbirth, or being raped, or sexually abused or anyone else should have the legal right to dictate the course a person who has experienced these things should take. One can only try to educate and gently persuade people in moral matters. It is clear that there have to be laws against murder, as such, but then we are talking about the action of one fully formed person against another. It is more complicated with a pregnancy.
There are not two fully formed persons.
It is tragic and infinitely sad if someone carrying a child comes to the conclusion that the pregnancy has to be terminated, but that is her right, as wrong as one may think it is. I do think the Florence Crittenton model of giving expectant mother's support through the pregnancy is the way to go rather than trying to make a pregnant person a criminal. Legislating against abortion will not end it, but real help and support will provide a real alternative to someone who thinks there is no hope and no alternative.

Written on Letters: June 8, 2014:

in response to jejjen:

Our founders declared that we are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Since the rights you refer to fall into the category of liberty (free choice), is it your position that our founders believed freedom of choice is an absolute right in every area of conduct and that there should be no legal restraints put on free choice whatsoever? If not, then on what grounds do you claim there should be a right of choice to willfully take the life of a growing unborn human being? It is not enough just to say such a right exists. After all, our founders did place the right to life before a right of liberty.

I do not agree with abortion, but I do not think I have the right to dictate to others about painful and personal decisions they have a right to make without the government being involved.
I think people have to come to the conclusion themselves as individuals that abortion is a poor solution and to have a sense that there could be other solutions if one is just willing to wait the full nine months. It is hard to dictate to people that they must care about another human being. They have to learn to care and to be inspired to care.

I am for the right to life--for adults, also, not just the unborn, even though those adults may have committed heinous crimes. I do not believe any human has the right to take the life of any other human.I do not understand people who want to send young people to war to be killed, nor do I understand how the bloodthirsty action of a state execution is defensible.

I actually believe the taking of life is God's privilege, not man's privilege.
I also believe that persuasion is far more powerful than trying to use force against people. The right to life proponents might try considering how they would like to be treated if they had gotten into a pickle and saw only one way out. Offers of support and carry through on the support would probably persuade a good many people from deciding to abort a pregnancy and thus take the life of the unborn.

Written on Letters: June 8, 2014:

in response to RJ63:

My my my....this amendment sure does have the ghouls who are always so hungry for the slaughter of innocent little babies up in arms.

I wonder why?

When people start slinging insults and calling other people names, then it is clear the name-callers have little of real substance to offer to the discussion. As as been said elsewhere families need to deal with their individual tragedies, without the interference of the government.

Written on Letters: June 8, 2014:

The American Lung Association has an ad showing an infant sleeping with a voice speaking about the quality of air available for the tiny human being to breathe. It then mentions that one of every ten children has asthma because of the air they have to breathe. The prevalence of asthma in children has been steadily rising. It hardly makes sense for a society to deliberately poison the air its young and everyone else breathes. The EPA is asking now for power to regulate the carbon poured into the air we breathe, as it has power over other pollutants.Does it seem sane to subject the young to ill health, not to mention medical bills, because of lobbyists for companies which seem to have little if any conscience or concern for the well being of the public?

Written on Letters: June 8, 2014:

Given there are natural cycles in climate change (Mother Nature) how can there be opposition to the idea that humans do have an effect on atmospheric conditions when catalytic converters installed in automobiles cleared the deadly smog which enveloped the Los Angeles freeways for years, and when the federal government set out to bring about better agricultural practices to remedy the dust storms in the so-called Dust Bowl of the Mid-West? As a practical matter, it does not seem very smart of humans to consider themselves as somehow set apart from nature and having no effect on it. People have very definitely contributed to "natural" disasters in this country and elsewhere.

Written on Letters: June 8, 2014:

With regard to the proposed Amendment 1 to the Tennessee State Constitution, it is a big deal to think of changing our state constitution, especially when the change limits the rights of a particular class of citizen.

Written on Letters: June 8, 2014:

So, if it is just Mother Nature, the question is still what do we do? Do we not make plans for cities which will be covered by seawater as the ocean encroaches on them? Do we not figure out what to do when sources of fossil fuel are completely exhausted? Do we just say to grandchildren, great-grandchildren, We are sorry, but we can't face reality, and you are on your own?

Written on Man attacks outside Ga. courthouse, wounds deputy:

Apparent mental problems and weaponry don't seem to mix real well.

Written on Letter: Amendment 1 would give people power:

My understanding is that those in the legislature have not been able to get legislation passed which would restrict the right of women to make their own personal and private medical choice--so there is no an attempt to get the public to pass an amendment which has the same purpose as the failed legislation.

Written on Bergdahl uproar halts plan for return celebration:

Does anyone remember that prisoner exchanges are normal after a war? Go back and read about the ending of the Civil War in this country, for example.

Written on Letter: Anti-ACA campaign causes real damage:

Not only, does it not seem to to matter to them that their fellow citizens are not receiving health care, it also does not matter to them that one to three Tennesseans die every single day for lack of health care, all because they want to score political points. The statistic about these deaths from spite and negligence comes from the Centers for Disease Control. What they are not doing is criminal, literally, and certainly against God's law, which they presumably give lip service to.