Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, September 16, 1994 TAG: 9409170004
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-12 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
It's meaningless to state that there's no such thing as a safe abortion, unless we compare medical abortion with the risks of continuing a pregnancy to term. The medical facts are:
One-quarter of all pregnancies naturally terminate themselves in abortion. The risks of infection, continued bleeding or other complications are largely controlled by medical treatment.
Medically terminated pregnancy, like every medical intervention, does have a mortality rate. This runs about one in every 300,000, even when we include procedures done where the woman is extremely ill and might well die if allowed to continue the pregnancy.
The death rate in the United States for women whose pregnancy goes to term runs about seven times the rate for a medically terminated pregnancy. In some Third World countries, that ratio is far worse.
Prior to Roe vs. Wade, at least one out of every six maternal deaths in the United States was a result of illegal abortion! Roe vs. Wade brought medical practice in the United States up to standards enjoyed by women in England and other European countries. The effect has been to save literally thousands of women's lives.
No one has the right to disregard or distort this reality in attempting to force others to comply with their own personal moral beliefs. In addition to many other consequences, you must bear responsibility for the fact that seven times more young women who are persuaded to continue an unwanted pregnancy will be dead than if they had had an early medical abortion.
BERNARD S. GOFFEN, M.D.
ROANOKE
U.S. owes Japan an expression of regret
I'M GRATEFUL that you published the Commentary articles by Stewart Udall (Aug. 15, ``It's time to admit America's nuclear error'') and Greg Mitchell (Aug. 22, ``A war anniversary that's hard to celebrate''), both dealing with the United States' atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki some 49 years ago. This was more mature coverage of this subject than any I'd come across in other newspapers, or on television and radio, where the focus was mostly or only on Japan's failure to apologize for its aggressions.
A few days later, as the Roanoke Times & World-News reported, Japanese Prime Minister Murayama made statements at a ceremony for Japan's war dead in which he publicly and ``humbly'' expressed grief and remorse for the ``agony and sorrow of those people on whom Japan had inflicted tragic sacrifices ... in Asia and other countries.''
To my knowledge, the United States has made no statements of regret or acknowledgement of our responsibility for the deaths and suffering we caused hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians, mostly women and children, in those two atomic bombings - military acts that violated the laws of ``acceptable warfare'' as established by the Geneva Convention.
Whether or not these bombings ``saved lives'' by bringing the war to an earlier ending, is there any reason why, in all these years, as a supposedly civilized nation we have not expressed sorrow for the terrible price we exacted from the people living in those cities? Compassion and humility, esteemed qualities in every religion and culture throughout the ages, are marks of a great person, people or nation.
As the 50th anniversary of Hiroshima/Nagasaki approaches next August, the United States will have an opportunity to re-establish moral leadership, and show the world that we are indeed a nation under God that respects the basic humanity and interconnectedness of all people, in a world grown small.
ALLYN MOSS
BLACKSBURG
Credit due firm for helping employee
THE AUG. 18 article (``A whole new life'') about Mike McClanahan's one-year anniversary after receiving a kidney and pancreas was very uplifting. A few years ago, these accomplishments would have been impossible.
Mike's battle with diabetes and kidney disease has been long and painful, and it is great to see that life is better for him now. It has been said, ``There is no pain worse than watching your children suffer.'' Certainly Mike's parents can say this is true.
One of the most impressive points in the article was how Ewald-Clark, his employer, has supported Mike. There have been recent articles in the news about other companies terminating employees by strictly following the federal minimum standards. Ewald-Clark followed its own guidelines, not government minimums. The support Ewald-Clark has given Mike makes me want to shop at its business. If it treats its employees this well, customers can be assured of good service.
CAROL T. WEEKS
BLUE RIDGE
Many will lose hope if parole abolished
FOR MANY months, parole and prison issues have been of interest to the public. It keeps being said: ``Abolish parole.''
Well, what about people in prison who have strived to keep exemplary institutional records, and have done everything required of them to make parole? Some people have worked at this for years.
The public hears only the statistics on parolees who commit new offenses. What about the parolees who go on to lead honest, productive lives? That's something you don't hear about.
Politicians say inmates get 300 ``good time'' days for every 365 days served, which really means a person can serve half the sentence time given. What's not being said is that some sentences for violent or nonviolent crimes are unrealistic. They vary tremendously: one person may get 15 years and another get 60 years for the same crime.
Also, you keep hearing about repeat offenders. What about first-time offenders? Are they going to be given a chance to prove they can live honest, productive lives? What will happen to them if parole is abolished?
PENNY MARTIN
WYTHEVILLE
Fostering turmoil in Guatemala|
IT IS good to see Bettye Gorman's concern for Guatemala's poor (Aug. 30 letter to the editor, ``Central America's `Patrick Henry'''). I'm sure she's motivated by a desire to help the people there. However, her analysis of the situation is seriously flawed.
I have visited Guatemala and lived there among the Mayan people. My analysis is much the same as that of most world organizations which have chronicled the atrocities of the military and ruling elite in that land. To frame the conflict in terms of communism is preposterous and simplistic. The central problem is lack of access to land and fair wages for the poor.
The U.S. government's historical role in Guatemala is unflattering, to say the least. We've supported various dictators and multinational companies that have bought up the good land, thus displacing the poor. In supplying weapons to dictators and ``freedom fighters,'' we've often deepened the violations of human rights.
Unless we want more turmoil in Latin America, our government needs to promote true harmony and justice for all the peoples of those lands. Economic coercion and weaponry are not the answer.
THOMAS H. MAGRI
RADFORD
Only North justifies North's behavior
IN ``THE Prince,'' Machiavelli advised rulers to appear always to be honest, merciful and truthful - even when the contrary was true. Believing that interests of the state supersede all else, such a leader finds that even immoral acts are justified.
It may, in fact, be true that Oliver North believed that he was serving the state, engaged in the noble enterprise of his president/commander in chief. But - and this is most important - laws were written to limit that kind of personal decision-making. Why, indeed, did Oliver North believe that his guns-for-hostages approach represented wisdom superior to that of the law of the land? If we allow it to be said that when a given individual perceives his actions to be justified in his own eyes he may then proceed to act without penalty, then all murderers who have killed because their victims were arguably ``evil'' must be set free!
RONALD E. GRAVATT
BUENA VISTA
by CNB