Search Terms: contraceptive, insurance
Document 80 of 424.
Copyright 2000 Denver Publishing Company
DENVER ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS
6, 2000, Sunday
Editorial; Ed. Final; Pg. 8B
It is unreasonable to say there is no God
Several readers have written recently questioning God's existence, or more humorously in one instance, stating emphatically that the writer knows for a "fact" that God doesn't exist. The irony the authors seem to have missed is that only God can consider every possibility and thereby state with certainty what can or cannot be. One would have to be God to know for sure that there isn't one.
Yes, that's circular reasoning, and that's my point. It is unreasonable to conclude there is no God. A better, but still uninformed, conclusion is to decide that we can't know if there is a God. But consider this: As we look at computers, cars, rockets and buildings, there is an intelligent design because there is an intelligent designer. I think the most reasonable conclusion, as we look at how our interdependent our environment is or how complex our bodies are, is to recognize the fingerprint of the Intelligent Designer. In other words, Mother Nature is God the Father.
Remember caregivers now instead of later
Regarding the July 30 editorial cartoon headlined "Blessed are the Caregivers, They Shall be Remembered in Heaven": Yes, caregivers will be remembered in heaven, after their loved ones are gone, and after the caregivers are gone as well. I'm sure there are many of us, however, who would apreciate being remembered now, while we're doing all we can to help our loved ones.
I'm the sole caregiver for my nearly 88-year-old monther, a woman whose strength, independence and faith I've always admired. Being here for her, and watching her slowly slip away, is no easy task. I've lost count of the number of times I've cried myself to sleep.
Remembered in heaven? While that is a lovely thought, it would be nice to be remembered now when help is needed the most, rather than after I'm dead and no longer have to worry.
Columnist is not concerned with women's health, but with their frolicking
In her July 30 column, "Women still awaiting equality when it comes to 'health,' " Ellen Goodman argues that
should be covered as part of "basic" health
plans. She points to the unequal ways in which women's vs. men's health is treated by
companies. To illustrate this, she points to the Pill and Viagra, respectively.
On the surface she seems to have a point: Why should drugs relating to sexuality be funded for men but not women? Closer examination of the drugs in question is telling, however: Viagra, it is claimed, helps men to (let us put this delicately) function fully. The Pill does just the opposite: It takes an otherwise healthy woman (fertile) and makes her unhealthy (infertile).
It is in examining the so-called need for contraception that Goodman's agenda shines forth. She is not concerned with health, but with frolicking. This is, after all, what the sexual devolution (sorry, revolution) was all about: making it possible for women to act in a sexually irresponsible way - just like men. The Pill made this historic degradation possible. And quicker than you can say, "Bobo Materialism," contraception has become a bona fide need for families who place things over and above persons.
One would like to believe that
companies have decided not to cover the Pill out of a sense of social responsibility: Seeing the increase in divorce, adultery, out-of-wedlock births, abortions, etc., since the introduction of the Pill, they've decided to not subsidize the irresponsible and selfish behavior that contraception encourages. Alas, that is unlikely. Goodman's assessment of the motives of the
industry is probably accurate here: profit and sexism.
In any case, should the ever-beneficent, always-infallible courts deign to favor the cause of frolicking and festivity, I shall present my brief insisting that my "need" for Guinness stout must be subsidized by my
carrier. Fair's fair, Ellen.
Metro area's air may be suffering the effects of our economic success
The July 30 editorial "Getting serious about ozone" focused on the "5 percent dirtiest vehicles that create so much of the problem." It blamed the recent ozone violation on these vehicles.
But it did not consider these other issues. Anyone who has lived in the metro area for the last several years and drives its streets and highways can attest to these basic observations:
1) There has been a huge increase in the number of vehicles due to our booming economy and influx of new residents;
2) A high percentage of these vehicles are of the popular large, low- mileage types, which are not held to the more stringent emissions standards of cars;
3) Traffic jams now often start at lunch hour and continue into the evening, causing more vehicles to sit and idle for longer periods of time, adding pollutants to the environment;
4) The thriving economy has added more diesel engines in the form of delivery / shipping trucks;
5) This is more diesel-powered construction equipment for all the building that is taking place from new roads to businesses to subdivisions.
6) With most new residences there a newly added gasoline-powered lawnmowers, weed eaters, etc. These devices have no emission controls. How many of these are running on a typical weekend?
My intent is to point out that the problem is a result of many factors, including the side-effects of one of the strongest economies in the country. We may be breathing the products of our own success.
An article a few years ago predicted that we may be reversing our gains in cleaning up air pollution due to growth. Perhaps that time is upon us.
There should be no new programs or tax cuts until we pay down the debt
Regarding Mike Rosen's most recent call for a rich-guy tax cut (July 28 column, "Republicans go after tax cuts"), a few thoughts:
The new economy that has produced the tax surplus has been good to those of us who actually work for a living. We are truly grateful to finally experience a reduction in the rate at which we fall behind. But many of us feel that appropriating nearly all of this new wealth for themselves should be reward enough for the rich, and that a tax cut on top of it all would be, well, in bad taste.
Rosen likes to showcase the conservative mantra for fiscal responsibility, but our nation is still many trillions of dollars in debt. We must make a heroic effort to pay down this debt, just as any one of us would do with our own household budget during a time of unexpected plenty. We've got to pay off those credit cards while we have the chance.
There should be no more new left-wing programs until we pay off the huge sums borrowed for the Great Society and other '60s silliness. And there should be no more right-wing rich-guy tax cuts until we pay off the equally huge pile of credit card receipts that bear the signatures of George Bush and Rosen's hero, Ronald Reagan.
Passion is admirable, but his logic is lacking
In his July 31 letter, Father Mike O'Brien challenges "pro- abortionists" to answer three simple (but loaded) questions. While I don't fit the category of a pro-abortionist, I would like to take a shot at his challenge.
1. Does abortion stop a beating heart? Sometimes.
2. Does abortion destroy a totally unique and independent human life? Rarely.
3. When is it acceptable for us to knowingly and intentionally take an innocent and helpless human life? While it's uncommon, we can't say never. For example, most folks agree it was acceptable for her family and doctors to remove Karen Ann Quinlan, who had languished for years in a coma, from life support, knowing that she would soon die.
I admire O'Brien's passion, but his logic is lacking. I counterchallenge those who follow with padre's thinking to answer with sound rational thought (and not bumper sticker philosophy) what bearing these questions and answers have on the abortion controversy.
May God jolt our apathy
What does it take to capture our attention any more? Buried in a short column on page 37A of the Aug. 2 News was a headline I nearly missed: " More than 20 million may die from famine in Horn of Africa." Apparently, this human catastrophe bears less significance to readers than a contest in Cincinnati to rename the adorable polar bears Ulaq and Berit who were born at the Denver Zoo. That story made page 24A.
In Somalia, 220 of every 1,000 children die before the age of 5. I cannot even begin to wrap my mind around a hellish reality like that: more than one in five kids, 20 million human beings, one tortured face at a time.
What can be done? May God have mercy on us and jolt us from our apparent apathy and near-sightedness.
August 8, 2000
Document 80 of 424.
Search Terms: contraceptive, insurance
To narrow your search, please enter a word or phrase:
Copyright © 2001, LEXIS-NEXIS®, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.