It's not a matter of what's legal
This is in response to Sunday Fence Post letters by Valerie Ivanoff and Susan Schafer.
Both make the argument that one cannot compare the Vick dog-fighting crimes to abortion on the basis that dog-fighting is illegal, and abortion is legal. One even resorted to the authority of the Supreme Court: that inerrant body of wisdom. But it is not merely a case of legality here.
Was it not the vaunted and divine Supreme Court that decided in the case of Sandford vs. Dred Scott that Negroes and mulattos (those of mixed black/white parentage -- such as Barack Obama) could not be considered citizens and were thus subject to the due-process laws regarding property? Was it not also legal only 50 or so years ago to publicly act prejudicially against blacks through segregation?
The comparison of Vick and abortion regards the brutal death of the living -- morality, not legality. Yet, the two women who argued against the Vick/abortion comparison on the wrong context would also argue that they are competent enough to determine which of their children should live and which should die. Thank you for yet another example that bolsters the pro-life position.
David Caldarola
Hoffman Estates