I am thankful to Cal Beverly and The Citizen for printing my letters to the editor, especially since I tend to focus on a limited and controversial number of subjects, especially abortion.
I don’t read or engage in the comments section mainly because I know it would be a time-sucking black hole for me, but also because the tenor of debate is, shall we say, not so polite.
But a friend did send me the critical comment of one reader and I’d like to respond a bit.
One of her complaints is that I simply write too much. I might agree with her there! I don’t have a set schedule and just write when something strikes me, but lately it’s been a lot. Apologies to all for wearing out my literary welcome.
Her more significant complaint is that we need abortion because mean old conservatives, and conservatives only, don’t fund enough social programs to support the children who would be born if abortion didn’t exist. And she says there aren’t enough parents willing to adopt such “unwanted” children.
If it’s just a matter of money withheld by conservatives, why didn’t the Democrats do even more during their 2 years of complete control of the legislative and executive branches in 2009-2011?
One answer is that they really don’t want to end the need for abortion because it’s seen as a key necessity for women’s independence and freedom. If it’s necessary to kill children for your political and societal agenda, you just might want to rethink that agenda.
But let’s say for argument’s sake I and other pro-lifers agreed to back a bill offering $2 billion to support women who don’t want to keep their children: would my critic and other progressives be willing to back such an initiative?
Probably not.
As for there not being enough parents willing to adopt, that’s complete poppycock. We’re adoptive parents and so know a little about the topic. There are literally millions of couples who are waiting and willing to adopt, but can’t because both domestic and foreign adoptions are too expensive and difficult. But there are also not enough babies in the adoption pool. So that is not a valid argument.
The real reason abortion continues in this country is really down to propaganda. The left has convinced many people that: the unborn aren’t human persons, that this is mainly an issue of women’s rights, and that no one has the right to tell a woman what she can do with “her” body (ignoring that there are actually two bodies involved).
There are no real arguments here. Just assertions, slogans, and emotional pandering. I just watched a horrifying documentary called One Child Nation about the one-child policy in China.
The Communist Party also used incessant propaganda to brainwash their population that one child was patriotic, good for the family, good for women, good for the economy, etc. And the people largely accepted this line and allowed the killing of some 350 million babies over 40 years. It’s amazing — and terrifying — how powerful propaganda can be.
I know abortion is complicated and that women who chose it are in difficult circumstances.
My point is simply that we owe them and the babies better. We should not force or encourage a woman to abort her child in order to solve a problem. A caring society instead extends its collective hand to women in need and finds a truly life-affirming solution to the problem.
Is it possible for all of us to agree on doing that? If so, I’ll gladly shut up and depart these pages.
Trey Hoffman
Peachtree City, Ga.
Trudge on Trey. Data shows that an increasing number are recognizing the moral stain on our land of the murder of our children. Some are listening, reconsidering and awakening. May it continue!
“My point is simply that we owe them and the babies better. We should not force or encourage a woman to abort her child in order to solve a problem.”
I agree, we should not force or encourage a woman to abort her child in order to solve a problem.
Nor should we force or encourage her to bring the baby full term because some couple is unable to conceive a child.
Present the facts and let the pregnant lady make her decision. The decision is hers to make, not ours.
It’s not like this paper receives so many letters that the editor has to decide who to leave in or leave out; I know this from experience. Mr. Hoffman is one of our neighbors to takes the time to lay out his opinions and have them posted with his name attached.
Oh, to be a dung flinging primate who chooses to throw barbs or complain about seeing too many letters from Trey while not taking the time to actually write their own cojent argument and sign their name to it.
Or maybe the replies here are simply light hearted jokes meant to poke fun, hard to tell and if that is the case then my allusion to monkey toilet antics is withdrawn!
Are you one of the dung flinging primates complaining about the opinions of others in regards to Trey’s weekly abortion diatribes?
I don’t think there is anyone in Fayette County that doesn’t know Hoffman’s stance on abortion. He puts his material out there in a forum that allows rebuttals. If you don’t like the way people respond to Hoffman, then you need to persuade your neighbor to publish his words where no one can respond. Fact is, Hoffman wants to see the responses or he wouldn’t send them to “The Citizen”. He likes to fling his dung in hopes of getting a response – which he does. He’s getting what he wants – shouldn’t you be happy for him?
Mr. Hoffman, I speak for all the loyal readers of The Citizen and agree with you:
“A caring society extends its collective hand to women in need and finds a truly life-affirming solution to the problem.”
Now kindly “shut up and depart these pages.”
I wish all problems could be solved so easily.
I second the motion