DEAR EDITOR:
At times, The Dispatch will print a letter so blatant in its
advocacy
– and often so wrong in its
”
facts
”
– it’s obvious any response would fall on an unhearing mind.
DEAR EDITOR:
At times, The Dispatch will print a letter so blatant in its advocacy – and often so wrong in its “facts” – it’s obvious any response would fall on an unhearing mind. When such a letter is followed, nine days later, with another writer’s support and one of those pontifical “truths” – an answer must be given.
David Kaeini (letters – June 16) righteously and morally refers twice to the drug RU-486 as a “baby killing pill.” David, my Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines “baby” as “an extremely young child” or “an infantile person.” How can a pill you say “… causes the termination of a pregnancy …” be a “baby killer?”
The word you should have used, in place of “baby,” to describe the “victim” of RU-486, is described as: “An organism living in or on another organism …” That word, David, is “parasite.”
Then comes Steve Sepka (letters – June 25) bemoaning more RU-486-caused “deaths” – but of what, Mr. Sepka? His pontifical truth – “Since life begins at conception …”
Says who?
The female does not carry independent life within her body – she carries and nurtures an organism dependent on its host, the woman, for continuation until, when removed from this host, it breathes on its own.
Then, and only then, does its life begin. It will have to depend on others for its continued survival and growth until it can survive on its own – but that’s a different story, isn’t it?
James Brescoll, Gilroy
Submitted Thursday, July 1
