(Re: “Why would anyone need a gun or an abortion?” Danish Plan, Feb. 7.) I’d like to see Paul Danish strap on a pregnancy suit for nine months, be induced to vomit every day at least three times for at least three months, then I, as a clinical hypnotherapist, rabbi and mother of three, am happy to hypnotize him through a sensory experience of labor and birth and abortion, and only then see how he compares going to a store to buy a gun with such.
Ruby Rain/via Internet
I think that Danish has formulated a good comparison between gun-control issues and abortion “control” issues. However, I believe that there is one fundamental difference between exercising the right enshrined in the Second Amendment versus exercising the “right” to have an abortion that has been upheld by more recent Supreme Court rulings. It is this:
Individuals being allowed to bear arms can result in both incidents of self-defense and self-preservation (which is undoubtedly the intent of the Second Amendment) against an equally (or more powerfully) armed aggressor, as well as unfortunate incidents of the slaying of innocent lives that pose no aggression. As such, it is a mixed bag.
Which, of course, is the essence of a democratic society — a mixed, imperfect combination of good and bad.
Exercising the right to have an abortion always involves the killing of a defenseless person who never has any say in the matter. The reasons that one might have an abortion are either personal reasons having to do with one’s desires for one’s own life or because one thinks that the difficulty of the unborn child’s experience in life will be worse than its “experience” of being terminated before being born (however one might conceive of that). Whatever these reasons are, the carrying out of an abortion always, without exception, involves the killing of a defenseless person by another person who has total control over the defenseless person’s existence.
As such, protecting the “right” to have an abortion is the protection of a fundamentally undemocratic ideal, an ideal which is, in fact, the seed for the formation of totalitarian societies.
People who would like to live in a society without guns should consider moving to Canada. You will need to adjust to friendly folks who get along with each other.
Tom Mueller/via Internet
Don’t mix up your flags
You have an article in this week’s edition titled “Outcry prompts Longmont school to remove pro-gun link from website,” by Jefferson Dodge (News, Feb. 7). I cry foul. I am a liberal Democrat, and your portrayal of a revolutionary war flag over a Confederate flag without making the distinction is appalling. The two are quite different and do not involve each other. The “Don’t tread on me” and snake are from the Revolutionary War. The red and blue with white stars diagonal flag is from the Confederacy. You report that the flag you have printed on page 14 of this week’s edition was carried by “colonial Marines”? Really?
Jack Doty/via Internet
Editor’s note: As the caption below it states, the combination Confederate/ Gadsden flag was a piece of art available from a website linked to the Altona Middle School’s home page. And as the story states, the original Gadsden flag was carried by colonial Marines prior to the Revolutionary War.
Another satisfied customer
(Re: “The new era of conspiracy thinking,” commentary, Feb. 7.) Excellent article! Thank you, Boulder Weekly. I read Boulder Weekly every week and so appreciate the paper.
Patricia Kay Youngson/via Internet
The least among you
Editor’s note: The following is an open letter to former Colorado Department of Corrections head Ari Zavaras.
I was thinking that all religions believe in the Golden Rule, but Jesus took the rule to the next level when he said, “What you do to the least among you, you do to me.” The prisoners under your care were among the least among us, and you did great harm to them. Before you die, I urge you to do all you can to undo the damage you did. I’m not Jesus, but whatever you chose to do, you do to me.