Letters to the editor: July 13, 2023
Gaslighting on abortion
A few months ago, I read Sharon Kourous’ interesting editorial on applying gaslighting to modern day issues.
Gaslighting can be defined as distorting reality to the point that leads individuals into questioning their own sanity or powers of reasoning.
Kourous seemingly forgot the meaning of gaslighting when promoting unregulated access to abortion. She uses misleading and emotional language to make those who are against abortion question their own sanity or powers of reasoning.
Like many who are in favor of abortion, Kourous appeals to absolutist and illogical “bodily autonomy” tropes. Most Americans would agree that there should be limits to bodily autonomy, especially when it harms human beings. The legal system would not accept such irrational appeals when a drunk man operates a motor vehicle or a depressed woman tries to harm herself. Subsequently, why should our laws allow abortions due to “bodily autonomy” claims if abortions always result in the harming of another human being?
She claims that anti-abortion proponents aim to “subvert medical science.” Nothing could be further from the truth and in fact those who support abortion access are not following the science themselves. A 2019 study conducted by a University of Chicago scholar found that thousands of biologists surveyed believed at a 95% rate that human life began at fertilization, when our genetic makeup is locked in and we can be scientifically identified as being of the human species. Decades of embryology textbooks indicate that these biologists are right. Those who are pro-abortion are neglecting these scientific facts and that neglect leads to the intentional ending of human lives to make other human lives more comfortable.
She further criticizes people who are anti-abortion who claim “to ‘love’ everyone while simultaneously undercutting women’s truths.” I would love to hear Kourous’ definitions of the word “love.” Love means to act in a way that promotes the authentic good for another human being. To encourage and support a pregnant mother to embrace her child’s life is indeed an act of love. To encourage and support an abortion, which pits a mother against her child and results in the deliberate killing of another human being, is the opposite of love.
Abortion, by its very nature, tears apart our society at the root. Abortion distorts what should be a loving, symbiotic relationship between a mother and her unborn child into a relationship of raw power that justifies the killing of our weakest human members.
Joe Boggs
Monroe
Candidates with most votes should win
In 1804, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution brought us the Electoral College which is able to give a candidate a win even if they lost the majority of the votes and vice versa.
In reference to Michigan’s House Bill 4156, Mr. Sype in a letter on June 18 explained that it will bypass the voter’s decision in Michigan if the outcome of our state’s presidential election does not match the popular vote.
Here are the facts – neither the Electoral College nor the proposed House Bill 4156 reflects true democracy. Every eligible person's vote should count. If Michigan has a population of 8.1 million registered voters, the candidate that receives the most votes should be the winner. In every other decision that is rendered by a group of people, the candidate or measure with the most votes always determines the outcome. It is done in a democratic manner.
In 2000, George W. Bush received 50,456,002 votes (47.87%) and Al Gore received 50,999,897 (48.38%). In 2016, Hillary Clinton won 2.1 percentage points more of the popular vote than elected President Donald Trump, which amounted to more than 3,000,000 votes. The Electoral College elected a person that most Americans did not vote for. In 2020, when the Electoral College didn’t deliver the same result as 2016, we have had to endure almost six years that included every expert saying the election was fair and even our own state representatives trying to send “different” Electoral College representatives to change the outcome – state Rep. Joe Bellino, from Monroe, was one of them!
It sounds like you oppose this method because if Michigan passes this, the “Popular Vote movement” would have more than 200 votes. My question: In a true democracy, where every vote counts, shouldn’t the candidate with the most votes represent the voice of the people and be the winner?
We need representatives that uphold the Constitution, even when it doesn’t serve their cause.
Mary K. Lambert
Monroe
This article originally appeared on The Monroe News: Letters to the editor: July 13, 2023
