ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Friday, December 27, 1996 TAG: 9612270035
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-10 EDITION: METRO
TYPE: LETTERS
I ALWAYS had the opinion that a truly generous man gave Mill Mountain to the city of Roanoke to be for the use of people, wildflowers, birds and animals that exist on the mountain - not only to those animals kept in a cage.
What will we be giving up to allow bulldozers to destroy what the giver intended should be there? Does progress destroy another valuable piece of property? (Remember the rape of Sugar Loaf Mountain.)
I would hope that like-minded people in Roanoke, who would like the mountain to remain as it was intended, will speak out before it is too late.
K. M. OSBORNE
ROANOKE
Virginia needs parental notification
JULIE NURSE refers to the Pennsylvania parental-notification law (Nov. 27 letter to the editor, ``Many must travel far for abortions'') as "the real culprit" and asks: "What will happen if Virginia passes a parental-notification measure?''
As the parent of a 14-year-old daughter, I support enacting that law in Virginia. A girl this age cannot purchase cigarettes or alcoholic beverages. Society has ruled that she doesn't have the maturity or reasoning skills to decide whether to consume these items. Society has also enacted statutory rape laws, recognizing that she isn't mature enough to responsibly decide whether to have sex.
However, she can decide on one of the great moral questions of our time - abortion. A decision such as this should, at a minimum, involve a parent or parents. If they aren't involved, who counsels the child? Maybe a Planned Parenthood staffer who just met the girl could provide the wisdom and insight she needs to make an informed decision? I think not.
The only background information the counselor has is what the scared and confused girl tells her. Does the counselor know why the child cannot confide in her parents? Without hearing both sides, a counselor relies on the word of a child who may have lied to her parents. Is it any great leap of logic to think she might lie to a stranger?
Planned Parenthood says it encourages a child to contact her parents. But if she refuses, the parents aren't notified. It's interesting to note that if there are complications, Planned Parenthood has no qualms about holding the parents financially responsible - certainly the least desirable form of parental notification.
A parental-notification law providing safeguards against abuse of the child is a minimum step to ensure that a decision of this magnitude isn't made in haste. If a child fears her parents' reaction, she could notify them in the presence of a social worker or judge.
If the goal is to have an informed and thoughtful choice, then Planned Parenthood can agree to a parental-notification measure. If this isn't the case, then maybe we should ask what its agenda really is.
JESS GEARHART
PEARISBURG
Immigrants have contributed
AS AN Asian immigrant who became a U.S. citizen earlier this year, I was deeply offended by Ben Rossell's Dec. 6 letter ("Third World refugees aren't welcome here"). Mr. Rossell has clearly overlooked the contributions of Third World immigrants here in the Roanoke Valley and throughout the nation.
Like many of my fellow immigrants, I am a hard-working and taxpaying individual. I have always made an effort through volunteer work and my job (previously as a counselor for adolescents, and now as an advocate for substance-abuse prevention and education) to make a contribution to the community.
Mr. Rossell also seems to have forgotten a piece of American history. The European immigrants were fleeing economic and political conditions similar to those that Third World immigrants are trying to escape today. Moreover, not all of them came from the upper echelons of society. In fact, many of them were from the working class - some of them were even criminals.
Mr. Rossell's negative and narrow-minded views only promote racial and cultural division. Speaking from experience, I am happy to report that his opinions are in the minority here.
GIA E. KOEHLER
ROANOKE
Citizens of Salem have spoken
THE DEAL to sell Oakey Field in Salem to Paul and Gary Duncan, a father-and-son partnership, for a "no-haggle" used-car lot has been thwarted for a second time (Dec. 12 news article, ``Salem planning won't subdivide Oakey Field'').
The citizens of Salem turned out en masse on Oct. 28 and Dec. 11 to oppose the rezoning and subdivision of the property - the necessary prerequisites for building the proposed car lot. Why do the Duncans want to pursue the purchase of this land when their used-car business is clearly opposed by so many citizens of the community?
I suggest the Duncans take the hint and gracefully withdraw from the deal. Withdrawing from the purchase would grant the citizens the security of knowing that this land will be preserved as a recreation field for future generations. Such a generous gesture would go far in creating good will - a most valuable commodity in good business.
CYNTHIA MUNLEY
SALEM
LENGTH: Medium: 99 linesby CNB