Two points: First, blessings upon Michelle Malkin for a sensible column, "Women who've had abortions suffer afterward"
(Feb. 29, Page B-7). It's important to reflect on the emotional and spiritual downsides to abortion. I understand that the burgeoning human component is stressing our environment. But other measures, such as curbing pollution through technology and thrift and ensuring women's rights, are surely better than eliminating our offspring.
I heartily regret that the constitutional right to privacy was enlarged to encompass abortion. Better to let the states work out reasonable, ethically informed rules free of absolutism.
Second, I take issue with a letter stating that many liberals claim a citizen does not have a constitutional right to own a firearm ("Read rest of the Second Amendment,"
Never miss a local story.
Feb. 29). This is not exactly true. According to the NRA apologists, the entire population is made up of either criminals or victims. Since they are unwilling to impede criminals' access to guns, their solution is to have everyone carry a gun. This approach seems self-defeating and not very conducive to safety. I would welcome stringent requirements for owning a gun, just as we have for driving a car. I anticipate that this moderate position will be reflexively attacked. But why?