Reader opines on deer culling, Planned Par­ent­hood

Springfield Sun - - NEWS -

To the Edi­tor:

In re­sponse to the first page news ar­ti­cle, “Re­cy­cling ef­forts crit­i­cized in schools” makes the sug­ges­tion that “trash­cans should be paired” wher­ever there are re­cep­ta­cles now. This may be a moot sug­ges­tion as nu­mer­ous town­ships — in­clud­ing, I be­lieve, Up­per Dublin — are con­sid­er­ing go­ing back to sin­glestream col­lec­tion process where newer meth­ods of sep­a­ra­tion are pos­si­ble without the du­pli­cate costs for equip­ment and per­son­nel. Un­til that time, pair­ing con­tain­ers may be use­ful.

Also, Chris Posey’s let­ter on our deer pop­u­la­tion and the ef­fects of the var­i­ous means to cull the herds calls for a few com­ments. I have lived in the town­ship for half a cen­tury. At no time has the deer in­fes­ta­tion been worse. I of­ten see on my crowded block in Fort Wash­ing­ton vil­lage deer on the street let alone in back yards. Al­though the let­ter cites an ex­cel­lent base of sta­tis­tics to sup­port the let­ter writer’s view there are coun­ter­vail­ing opin­ions and rea­sons. The ar­gu­ment for cre­at­ing a vacuum and the quick re­pop­u­la­tion is the strong­est. The idea of lead poi­son­ing from “shells ... par­ti­cles, dust and residues” is weak in­deed. The let­ter writer states that “non-lethal meth­ods” to re­duce the pop­u­la­tion are avail­able. UD has ex­plored those “meth­ods” and has not found them ef­fec­tive. To say “killing in­no­cent deer is a sin” is a the­o­log­i­cal/eth­i­cal ar­gu­ment and not a help­ful one. It does go to the heart of a com­ment below. An­i­mal hunt­ing may be de­plorable un­der cer­tain con­di­tions but the idea of an­i­mal mur­der has only re­cently en­tered the de­bate over the proper use of an­i­mals in our mod­ern day cul­ture. In­sti­gated by the po­lit­i­cal left­ists in our midst, they de­mand an­i­mal “rights” but then con­sider, as we will see, abor­tion and the tak­ing of hu­man life not only eth­i­cal — but nec­es­sary. Shades of WWII Ger­many.

Sarah Fa­gan in a let­ter to AG calls our at­ten­tion to House Bill 300 and the fund­ing of Planned Par­ent­hood (PP). Her ar­gu­ment is that the de­fund­ing of this pri­vate busi­ness “threat­ens the rights of Penn­syl­va­nian women.” Le­gal and right are two re­lated but not iden­ti­cal con­cepts. The ar­gu­ment that killing deer but not po­ten­tial or ac­tual hu­man life is a sin eludes me and a vast host of women and men. The ar­gu­ment that PP pro­vides “es­sen­tial ser­vices” is merely a cover for the nonessen­tial act of de­mand abor­tion. I can­not find hos­pi­tals or in­sur­ance com­pa­nies pro­vid­ing this nec­es­sary and es­sen­tial ser­vice. Fur­ther­more, it is fact that PP is ask­ing tax­pay­ers to pay for this unessen­tial ser­vice in­clud­ing per­sons who find do­ing so re­pul­sive to their eth­i­cal per­sua­sion. Killing deer and killing hu­man life are not iden­ti­cal in thought, word, or deed.

Roland Lindh Fort Wash­ing­ton

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.