Contraception not form of 'health care'
It is ludicrous to promote contraception as a form of health care for women, as Debra Marcus does in her recent guest commentary; but the sale of contraception is a lucrative business and Ms. Marcus dutifully spouts the Planned Parenthood company line.
The purpose of medicine is to restore sick bodies to health. A woman who is fertile is in a natural (healthy) state of being. Contraception destroys the natural harmony of the body and places women at risk.
Well-known side effects of the pill (a steroid) include stroke, embolism, abnormal bleeding, moodiness, decreased sexual desire (isn't that a kick in the pants?) and cancer. While the pill decreases the risk of ovarian cancer, it significantly increases the risk of breast, cervical and liver cancer.
Other contraceptives have similar effects. How many men would subject themselves to the same health risks as women if the pill were made available to them? The answer is none.
In initial pill trials, three women died while one man experienced testicular atrophy. Experimentation on men was immediately dropped. Yet Planned Parenthood hands deadly contraceptive drugs to teenage girls and calls it "health care."
Ms. Marcus also fails to mention that "reproductive health care" as defined by PP always includes abortion. In fact, while the number of PP facilities in the U.S. has been decreasing steadily, the number of abortions performed by PP continues to rise. The deliberate killing of infants in the womb hardly qualifies as health care. In 2001, PP killed 109 preborn babies for every one adoption referral.
Americans need true health care reform both in terms of cost and practice. Natural methods of birth regulation are healthy, free and effective and leave no trail of dead women and babies.
Jean Naples
Oneonta
How will trees in park be 'removed'?
A number of recent articles in The Daily Star refer to the revised memorial pathway in Neahwa Park. They all state that a revised (smaller) number of trees will "be removed" as opposed to the large number of trees to have been cut down in the original plan.
I struggle with politically correct language and its deliberately vague meanings. (I am guilty of it myself sometimes.) So, will the trees in the revised plan be removed (to lift, push or take away; get rid of, take out, cause to go away; describe a figurative distance) or are they to be cut down (no definition necessary)? If they are being removed, which definition applies? What is their fate or their future?
I've been accused of being too analytical, but I always try to understand what is meant as well as what is said. When words are used that are vague or could mean more than one thing, I wonder: What does the speaker really intend? So it is with PC language.
Regarding the trees in Neahwa that are in the path of the new memorial pathway plan: What does "remove" mean? Are they to be cut down or relocated? If relocated, where are they going? How about some clear language? Life is complicated enough.
Rosemary Markert
Oneonta
Print this story
E-mail this story
