Street Fight Part 2

Here is an update on my fight with a local op-ed writer. It has been long. It has not been pretty. I know when two people fight no one wins. Of course this is not about me or her winning. From my point of view it is about trying to turn this ginormous runaway culture of death train back on the right track.

In her second-to-last article she said I had obscenely misrepresented her position on abortion. Allowing that I could have done that my follow up letter said that if indeed she was against abortion under any circumstances I would apologize in every media outlet I have access to. She began her last article talking about a bumper sticker she saw, “We Vote Pro-Life”. She says, “There is a lot to be read into that statement. I assume it meant the occupants apply the standard litmus test of a candidate’s stance on abortion to determine worthiness of a vote. Kind of ironic when you consider most elected officials opposing abortion still uphold what is transpiring in the slaughterhouse formally known as Iraq and continue to refuse medical benefits to our nation’s children.” This sets abortion at best third on her list maybe fourth because she also strongly believes that the Palestinians are correct in trying to get rid of Israel. Then she said something promising “For the record, I made my opposition to abortion perfectly clear.” This she did not do but maybe she thought she had so I held out hope that I was wrong. Then she follows that statement with, “While I’m in favor of birth control, including “morning after” emergency contraception.”
After that statement my heart sank. Then she says, “However, rather than imposing an all-out ban on abortion so the erstwhile “pro-lifers” can go buy stock in coat hangers, I suggested attacking the causes for why women seek abortions.” This is the new twist on the personally opposed but… rhetoric. It is like she is saying that we stop working on a cancer cure until we get everyone to stop smoking. No, when one has a cancer you first cut it out then apply treatment to stop the growth then and only then do you confront life style. She believes women seek abortions (70% she tells us) is for financial reasons. Poverty is now a crime punishable by death. Margaret Sanger would be proud. She then goes on in the article in favor of discarding left over embryos from in-vitro fertilization to be used in embryonic stem cell research.

My latest letter to the editor follows:

Since my last letter to the editor I have longed to make a public apology for misrepresenting Tammy O’s view on abortion. This began because she came out against partial birth abortion but said any other type was OK. Now she is saying that she opposes surgical abortion but favors chemical abortion which she calls “emergency contraception” aka the "morning after" pill. This pill was supposed to be "different" from Mifepristone (RU-486), which induces a miscarriage at any time after conception. The company that produces the chemical agent delivered through this pill, Women's Capital Corp. (WCC) claimed that their "Plan B" pill used "progestin", a hormone used in contraceptive pills, to interfere with ovulation or prevent fertilization. However, the weight of medical evidence clearly disputed the claim. This chemical mix is an abortifacient, in that it makes the implantation of human life in the womb impossible. In effect, the "Plan B" Pill is no different than abortion-inducing medications like RU-486 used to cause medical abortions, it evicts human life.

“It is not as if any of these attempts to distinguish between chemicals which allegedly prevent fertilization and those that actually kill the child does not really matter in this barbarism disguised as science. A chemical weapon is a chemical weapon. This new "pill" essentially denies nascent human life any room at the Inn, the first home of his or her mothers' womb. This "Plan B" chemical weapon thus renders that human life homeless, interrupting "Plan A", which is life and safety that is supposed to take place in the warmth and nurturing environment of the womb.”

Then she supports selective abortion (what other kind is there?) inherent with America’s unregulated in-vitro fertilization industry. With embryonic stem cell research (ESR) you believe the ends justify the means in that many should die so one can live. Not one clinical test using ESR has been successful yet stem cells from adults and umbilical cords have worked. So why are you continuing to pursue a scientific dead end? (Pun intended). But the issue is no longer about science; it’s about when life begins and when life ends and who gets to decide.

Tammy, I have not been as kind as I should have but you still favor death, so it is with a heavy heart that I see your views on the genocide of children have not changed and I can not apologize for my earlier statements only for my sarcasm.

FYI: my bumper sticker says, ‘Adoption – the loving choice’.

Your friend,
Alan B. Capasso, MI