DEAR EDITOR:
Bertram Palmon, in two letters, shows himself skilled in three
areas: 1) irresponsible/childish name-calling/mudslinging; 2)
inability to comprehend simple declarative sentences and 3) a rigid
mindlock unable to recognize reality.
DEAR EDITOR:
Bertram Palmon, in two letters, shows himself skilled in three areas: 1) irresponsible/childish name-calling/mudslinging; 2) inability to comprehend simple declarative sentences and 3) a rigid mindlock unable to recognize reality.
His first hysteric July 22 more name-calling and a trip into his mindlock fantasy of anti-abortion blather when, attacking columnist Dennis Taylor, he writes: “… a pregnant woman, maybe your wife or daughter, can choose to kill your child or grandchild …” Explain, Bertram, this new birthing procedure – how a woman can “kill” not only a child but a grandchild – and at the same time?
Consider your deliberate abuse of words to personalize and humanize what’s developing within a female: It a “child” – a new “life” – a “baby” – a “person.” What’s within the pregnant female, Bertram, says Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, is not a “child” – a young person esp. between infancy and youth; a son or daughter of human parents; is not “new life” – the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body; the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual; the period from birth to death; is not a “baby” – an extremely young child; an infantile person; and is not a “person” – an individual human being; a human being as distinguished from an animal or thing. How do these terms you misuse so freely/erroneously legitimize your mindlock, Bertram – that “life” begins at conception?
Despite your anti-abortion rhetoric attempting to create emotional sympathy for that which exists and develops within the womb, it’s neither separate nor independent of the female. It’s still an “… organism living in or on another organism (the host).” That, Bertram, is a “parasite.” What makes you deny this reality?
You reveal arrogance when you write: ” … the new person within her is not hers to murder.” Who or what ordained you the privilege or right to make such judgment proclamation gain validity and truth?
You make a false association: “(Dennis Taylor) … was “once a zygote and fetus …” No, Bertram, Dennis Taylor as known today was never a zygote – “a cell formed by the union of two gametes.” Broadly: The developing individual produced from such a cell nor a fetus – “an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining a structural plan of its kind; a developing human from us three months after conception to birth.”
Note the wording, Bertram. While what eventually became Dennis Taylor was an “organism,” these medical characterizations existed. When Dennis Taylor’s “life” began following removal from the host, they no longer applied. Is this also difficult for your to understand?
Who made you into this bundle of illogic and inconsistency?
Plainly put, your premises are semantically wrong/morally weak. Is this who you really are, Bertram?
James Brescoll, Gilroy.
Submitted Thursday, July 29.
