Letters to the editor: Dependence on fossil fuels; the science of abortion
Fossil fuels are the main culprit
Re: Dr. Brad Allen’s July 18 guest column, “Dems’ policies are the problem”:
Reading the guest column from Dr. Brad Allen was a profound disappointment. Today, London and Scotland posted the highest temperatures ever recorded. Reports are that hundreds have died in the heat wave. France and other European countries are fighting raging fires, and here at home there are widespread heat warnings over Texas and other parts of our country.
In California, we’re being told that our three-year drought may in fact be the new norm. The culprit in all of this and more is the rising temperature of our Earth, and among the largest contributors worldwide is the burning of fossil fuels.
Yet Dr. Allen chooses to mock President Biden (and, in fact, all Democrats) for attempting to lessen our dependence on the fossil-fuel industry. His reasoning? It’s contributing to higher gas prices.
He neglects to mention the worldwide shortage of goods caused in part by the pandemic (a contributor to inflation), or Russia’s war against Ukraine that has taken gas products off the market. Instead, he blames all Dems, and in the process ignores the greatest threat to mankind, short of an all-out nuclear war, we’ve ever faced.
Someone get the good doctor a fiddle. He can play while the world burns.
Greg Elliot, Oak Park
Ignoring science about abortion
Re: Robert Ginn’s June 27 letter, “Issues with conception argument”:
How can you state that “life is not merely a mix of cells working together” and then contradict yourself by admitting bacteria and fungi are life? I’ll add that even a single-cell amoeba is considered life. Merely stating an opinion that human life is different and requires agency, doesn’t make it so.
You acknowledge some life is just a bunch of cells, so why do you get to rationalize and define human life differently, and then you and so many others never see the hypocrisy that you are also trying to define life for others? The difference is that we see it as trying to save lives that don’t yet have a voice.
I presented many scientific facts for why life begins in the womb, and you ignored each one. Wouldn't you consider a beating heart life, and that amazingly it is detectable at only around 22 days after conception. I never mention God, religion, or a soul, that was all you and a way to justify your point.
Are you not aware that unborn babies are conscious in the womb? Have you seen the images of unborn babies consciously moving away from the device that will abort them by sucking them out of the womb? Does the location of the baby in or out of the womb when it is being born define human life? Isn’t the baby already alive before it is delivered out of the womb?
The unborn are a life and to ignore this is rationalizing your own point of view, by ignoring science and facts.
Mike Lawrence, Moorpark
This article originally appeared on Ventura County Star: Letters: Dependence on fossil fuels; the science of abortion
