On Election Day, women should think about rape


To the editor:

However the presidential election ends Tuesday, America will survive. We will get up Wednesday, go to work or school and get on with our lives. Some will have a harder time than others, but life will go on.

Legitimate rape. Conception from rape is a gift from God. Under no circumstances should abortion be allowed.

This is what should be on every woman's mind, and those of the men in their lives.

Let's assume a woman proceeds with a pregnancy after a vicious, violent rape. Let's assume that child bears amazing physical likeness to the rapist. Can you imagine a woman nurturing and loving someone who constantly is a reminder of her violation? Can you imagine any husband or father will want to love that child? What about when the child asks about his or her father? What can you say? "Oh, honey, I don't know who he is. He's just a monster who attacked me. You might even have a whole slew of siblings out there." Let's not even think about any congenital problems that may arise.

There are more and more people out there who absolutely, positively refuse to accept abortions for any reason. The problem is that these people are becoming more vocal. Just look back to the past few weeks. Now, the scary part: Many of these people have supported, in a very big way, Mitt Romney. His own running mate is among those who believe that women's rights are nonexistent. And just four years ago, we saw how much power a vice president can have over his boss. How much will Mitt Romney have to pay back to these people?

The belief is that women who conceive after rape have the duty, responsibility and God's direction to bring that child to term. So, what's the alternative? Give up the infant for adoption or to go into the foster care system? Then that child becomes exactly what these men want to avoid: a parasite.

Another scary thought is that the probability of having to replace Supreme Court justices within the next four years could have catastrophic effects on every woman in this country.

Please, please think very carefully. Are women really willing to go back to a time before Roe v. Wade? Are we really willing to let fundamentalist, narrow-mined men dictate our very future?

GLORIA GORLIN

LAS VEGAS

The Great Divider

To the editor:

I'm sure all of you battleground state people were sick of the ads, campaigners at your door and politicians saying anything for your vote about six months ago.

On the other hand, there's probably some sense of satisfaction that your vote will count for so much in the election.

Could I make a final plea before you vote?

President Obama took office promising to unite us. He said there would be no more red states and blue states. Yet four years later, red and blue are barely even speaking to each other.

We point the finger of blame in different directions, but the fact of the matter is that the way President Obama chose to govern has divided us, not united us. As Abraham Lincoln famously said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

We cannot afford four more years of division with a faltering economy and ballooning debt. Barack Obama has so divided us and so motivated the opposition that he can no longer get anything done. That is the basic fact of this election.

Mitt Romney showed in Massachusetts that he can work with people across the aisle to solve problems. He has experience in the business, charitable and government worlds. He is a problem solver. He is an amazingly hard worker.

Let's forget red and blue and vote for competence on this one. We can return to the regularly scheduled bickering once the economy has recovered.

CORY ATKIN

BOISE, IDAHO

Left to die

To the editor:

The tragedy in Libya just will not be swept under the carpet. Four Americans were killed by Islamic extremists in an attack that was as inevitable as it was deadly.

The attack was the result of a negligent assessment of security needs and the significance of 9/11; ignoring previous attacks; the lawless environment in the country, and a pre-determined political ideology that blindly promotes the concept that al-Qaida is as dead as Osama bin Laden.

As more evidence surfaces, it's clear that the administration was never going to protect or defend this consulate, no matter what the danger. In effect, once the attack was identified and the plight of the ambassador and his fellow Americans was clear, the administration denied military assistance three times in eight hours, even as enemy targets were identified thanks to a drone overhead.

If one of the murdered Navy SEALs had not disobeyed orders to "stand down," more Americans would have died.

Ask yourself this question: If your son or daughter had been at the consulate and facing death, would you be satisfied if all the life-and-death decisions were based on the political impact on the president's re-election?

As Americans were dying, the administration was preparing to shove the "It's the video" theory down our throats. Anything to shift focus from Islamic extremism to the First Amendment.

The tragedy is that four Americans are dead. The video is a non-factor and the administration's willingness to sacrifice anyone to save face is glaringly apparent. How many people were they willing to sacrifice?

This election will determine how expendable our young people and our nation will be in the face of Islamic extremism.

JEFF DWYER

LAS VEGAS

Did nothing

To the editor:

The White House has not released any pictures of President Obama in the situation room viewing the real-time videos of the Benghazi attack, as it did for the bin Laden operation.

Could the reason be that President Obama would not be seen as a hero this time?

HENRY SCHMID

LAS VEGAS

 

Rules for posting comments

Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Stephens Media LLC or this newspaper. This is a public forum. Read our guidelines for posting. If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon next to the comment.