Friday, June 19, 2009

Letter to Az Republic opinion page yesterday: Today blog returns

My letter to the Arizona Republic follows which I wrote yesterday morning. Today I was able to access my blog. I am going to reprint it in my public blog here with some revision because I think it is very important to the public to keep up with what the newspapers have done with the abortion issue since 1973. I am sure all the Christians gradually quit reading newspapers having themselves labeled zealots and fanatics all too often for not suddenly going along with abortion. Before this lack of respect was not the case. I don't belong to a formal religion now, but I respect the good that is done in all churches. And that is what newspapers used to do. You will note that the word zealot appears at the top in referenace to the murder of a recruiter above the My Turn article, which page I photographed. This is very typical of how respect for Christians plunged after Roe vs Wade because they did not suddenly start believing in abortion. Here is my letter.

AZ Republic:
I have been unable to access my published blog g4life on AZ Central since I wrote a letter in response to the My Turn article by Sherri Finkbine's daughter objecting to the waiting period proposal in the bill introduced by Arizona legislaters. I am having my sister send me a copy of any comments, since my blog just shows a blank space when I access it through my e-mail and password. I can still compose a blog, but that is all. Since I have been writing protesting letters to the Arizona Republic about the pro choice bias that exists in this paper, I don't think I could be blamed for thinking you might have disappeared my blog as you would any other deeply offensive protesting letter, since you surely get some.
Anyway, while the cause of the disappearing blog is up in the air, I think it is a good time to remind you that this newspaper, as far as I am concerned, has a long dark history, ever since Roe vs Wade, of printing the columns of the most extremist of abortion advocates while disappearing anything but token responses from pro life protesters. I am sure this bias turned off a lot of people as the editorial page reflects the personality, opinions, and and biases of the newspaper staff.
In the changeover to a new owner, Garnett, I see that Ken Western was retained and I believe he had the job for years of picking columns to print, of which I protested many. Not one of my letters was ever printed! Pro choice editors of the editorial page, including Paul Katz, Kevan Anne Willey, etc, did not respect pro life opinions from that point on, thus contributing to this policy of protesting on the editorial page the slightest limitation proposed for abortion, as demonstrated by this My Turn article.
I think it is unconscionable for a newspaper editorial page to continue to have this attitude when over a million abortions a year are performed in this country and have been for years. And this is probably a conservative number. When that many unborn children are killed each year I think it would behoove any people with a conscience and access to the public to concede that this could be a big loss just like it does when the unborn are lost to any other cause besides abortion, or anyone else is killed by something or other. But since this issue has stayed tied to politics for many years it looks like the newspaper people would rather commit hari kari over abortion than rethink and change their policies.
I think the American public hates the subject of legalized abortion, and whether they believe in it or not, they do not like to read abortion propaganda, and the newspaper probably turned off a great many people with what they printed when abortion became legal. They have consistently defended abortion and I would say even promoted it. Some of the pro choice columnists seemed to be saying, here, women, have you considered abortion? The newspaper editorial page I felt became extremely ugly and dark with all these columns defending and championing abortion.
I believe that some political thinkers hate the rising population numbers and think that anything that might curb them is acceptable. But since you have neglected to publish hardly anything that could be a criticism of the effects of abortion, the debate has now become so one sided, the pro choice newspapers seem to have lost all objectivity. The newspaper has always stood for protecting the innocent victims (unless of course the victim is a fetus) all this since Roe vs Wade.
I know constant columns promoting aborton rights turned me off so badly I quit reading the newspaper for 2 years, so I could stop getting upset at what was in it and feeling driven to protests that would not be printed. I just got overwhelmed with keeping up with the newspaper's unquestioning support of abortion rights. And if I, a confirmed newspaper lover, could get so turned off, think how many others were, too. I would say the big changeover that occurred in most big newspapers to promoting abortion is helping to kill the newspaper. Biggest cause. Embrace killing as a solution, and sooner or later you may become a victim. I think one of the main reasons the newspaper is dying is from its imprudent embrace of abortion, which includes the New York Times and many other big newspapers. To say nothing of publishers. I think my chances of being published anywhere have been nil since I became an abortion protester. Pro life has become a bad word to too many people who consider themselves intellectual.
The Internet is still objective. This is where I have been able to blog my opinions and they don't disappear. I have had only one letter published by the Republic on pro life since 1973, and in my file there are many many letters on many topics relating to abortion that define me as a thinker on this subject who has not been respected in this state because the state's biggest newspaper does not respect pro life thinkers.
I have lived in the Westward Ho for ten years. I lived on the westside and read the paper when Sherri Finkbine became pregnant and her case was in the news for weeks in 1962. Now you give her daughter My Turn to champion abortion. I would expect her to have been affected by her mother's thinking, but a newspaper has to be more objective than that. The shameful part of the legalized abortion results is that no pro life thinkers are respected anymore which include a lot of 'church' people. You have not just gone to war with me but with all the Christian faction. Do that and that is another nail in the coffin of the newspaper. It was not like this before 1973!
You have to find a way to serve all the people or you are not going to be deemed necessary to those whose opinions you do not respect. The newspapers forgot the meaning of the word objectivity with the passing of this law abruptly overnight, by a Supreme Court which went where no other Supreme Court had gone before and as a result got more letters of protest than for any other ruling in history, ignored. How could the Supreme Court concede they could be wrong. Like the Pope, perhaps they thought themselves infallible and encouraged all to think the same. Nobody imagined at the time that abortion could suddenly become legal. This was not foreseen.
But when the newspapers got tired of the conflict and shut it down, they took it upon themselves to affect the outcome of such abortion limitation bills as talked about here. One reason that they surrendered objectivity was because they got tired of the subject. Well, the debate still rages in the hearts and minds of the people, and if the newspaper does not register what is in the hearts and the minds of the people it could be said to be extraneous. It is not doing its job.
The newspaper writers have become too predictable, and that is fatal for writers. The newspapers decided they did not need to think any more about a very knotty issue, and think deeply and ponder much. So what they put out became unexciting, predictable, and shallow and dark and disturbing as well. You might call that the definition of propaganda.

That is my opinion. I will keep trying to access my blog. I thought I needed to go into more depth about why this My Turn offended me, because it was only presenting one side, and we know the newspapers won't present the other.

Excuse the length of this letter, but I can't possibly cover everything you have left out about this issue for years by only publishing one side and in essence labeling the other side too ignorant, fanatical-zealots, who aren't smart enough to reason well and understand that a solution of death to the unwanted fetus is the only answer. Who is short sighted and impatient here? Death is always a short sighted solution. You don't have to think about a death blow. In fact thinking might cause guilt, so the less deep thought the better if you are going to champion abortion.

No comments:


Blog Archive