Letters: The other side
Without looking back, I believe I’ve shared in the past in The Madera Tribune, a Persian saying: “In this case, it’s like sliced bread. No matter how thin you slice it, there will always be two sides.”
The letter by Charles Wieland recently makes some good points; justices using ancient, bad judges writings is not smart. The letter supports one side of the issue, and that’s okay, because it’s free speech and the other side of the issue does not have to be shared. It’s on others to share the opposite. I’m actually happy with this. Best example of sharing recently in the Tribune is “R.I.P. James,” by David Minier. More persons should share like this.
The writer focuses on the law, and not the reason the law became what it is. In Roe v. Wade, the life of the baby was not the issue; it was the right of the mother to decide. Maybe after 40 years it’s okay in the light of better science to take a more moral, human look at that growing mass of cells. Isn’t this what the states want? Or do we ignore science for the sake of a law?
Let’s set the stage for a serious trial. There is a defense side and a prosecutorial side. The defense is in the witness box, defending. R. v W. The defendant has just testified that the law has been decided, and you can not go back and judge the decision just because it’s wrong. It’s “clearly well-settled law NOW.”
I want to believe that our laws are based on moral principles. Some things that were accepted in a past time were, and still are, morally wrong. Slavery is the prime example and was, is, and always will be morally wrong. It’s now time for abortion to be scrutinized. This is what the states want to do. Does this seem unreasonable? Some have become so rigid; can they not see past their side of the bread?
Here comes the kicker.
The prosecutor asks the defendant, in the box — having given his oath — a clear and simple question: “At how many months should the fetus, a developing human being, start to be protected from abortion?” The defendant, hesitating, the prosecutor slowly repeats the question: “At how many months should the fetus, a developing human being, start to be protected from abortion?” I can’t guess how the defendant will answer; two months? Four months? Never? The prosecutor then asks, “Do you think this is a question of law or a moral question?” Sorry to think the defendant might say law.
I believe good, fair, equitable law should always have a moral foundation. The word should here is passive and must be change to SHALL. The law SHALL always have a moral foundation. To do less brings us to where we are. Am I wrong?
Oh, and please don’t think that God isn’t watching. He’s the judge seated on the bench, watching the defense and the prosecutor present their cases.
Blessings to all.
— Jon Barsotti,