Agree to disagree on abortion
Abortion-choice advocates say that a woman’s fundamental right to personal bodily autonomy is the main issue at stake after the SCOTUS decision in Dobbs. Pro-life advocates say that the question of the status of the unborn and their fundamental right to life is the main issue. Who is right? Who decides? These two positions represent different worldviews, and different fundamental assumptions about reality. How do we live together with such diametrically opposed ways of seeing the world?
As a Christian, I am utterly convinced of the pro-life position. It makes sense to me biblically, philosophically, and scientifically. But I am aware that many people cannot bring themselves to agree. In fact, some will be angry with my views because I claim that they are based not on my private opinion, but on the revealed will of the lord of heaven and earth, as expressed in holy writ. For me, the status of the unborn cannot just be answered by science (though I think science can be brought in to help).
So the only way we can live together is to emphasize those things we still have in common, agree to disagree (even passionately) and to tolerate each other’s beliefs and efforts to persuade.
Kristopher Pierce, Turlock
It’s about freedom
As a post-abortive woman who had to heal from the lies told to me by the abortion industry, I believe an abortion can be the worst choice a woman can ever make. However, as a member of the American Solidarity Party, I am more than anti-abortion. I believe it is this nation’s obligation to provide people real choices.
No person should ever be told they cannot achieve that award, get that education, find a good job, have stable housing, break free of substance abuse or domestic violence because they have children or are pregnant. No person should ever be forced to make a choice at the end of a fist or because someone in power tells them they cannot reach their full potential because they are pregnant.
Leslie Shaw Klinger, Modesto
Trump’s race to the bottom
Most of us who follow politics would agree that former president Trump valued being a “winner” above all else. Listening to the forceful, factual presentations by the select committee, I have been struck by the sense that there is one contest that The Donald has clearly won.
His enablers, like McCarthy and McConnell, have always brushed aside his womanizing, his narcissism, his casual approach to the responsibilities that all presidents have faced. They applauded his dismissal of presidential tradition and delighted in his politically incorrect approach. They encouraged the vulgar, crass language he used They found joy in the fact that his behavior was far from the presidential norm. What the committee has shown, through painstaking, granular appearances by his Republican assistants, associates and enablers, is how far this incompetent, insecure man would go in order to subvert the constitution he was sworn to protect. What other president in history would have attempted to lead an armed mob to the Capitol in order to block the orderly transition of power and steal an election which he had lost by millions of votes?
By any measure, Donald Trump was the worst president in the history of our country. He won the race to the bottom.
Paul Neumann, Modesto
Another defector surfaces
We all have heard the expression “the rats are leaving the sinking ship.” Well it looks like more and more rats are leaving the ship of #45 orange face. His name is omitted, as to not pollute the pages of this newspaper.
Alan Seliger, Turlock
Stifling voices in Turlock
I was one of the organizers for Tuesday’s protest in Turlock. While The Bee covered the council’s actions, it scratched the surface of how undemocratic Mayor Bublak and the city attorney acted.
Despite having over a dozen young people wishing to address our council, we were limited to only two speakers at the beginning of public comment. This decision was upheld by the city attorney, who claimed our topic to be outside of the city’s subject matter jurisdiction.
The mayor’s willingness to silence speakers is a major concern in its own right. Councilmember Nicole Larson stated she had never seen the council limit the number of speakers allowed.
It was clear from Mayor Bublak’s patronizing attitude that she disagreed with our views. After rolling her eyes at our speaker, she cut off over 10 speakers from addressing the council on issues related to reproductive rights. This restriction of speakers due to political disagreement is a scary low for the City Council, and I’m left concerned at how much further the council will go to silence its own citizens.
Micah Littlepage, Turlock