Reader questions ghost­ing by so­cial me­dia con­nec­tion

The Saline Courier - - OPINION -

“Congress shall make no law ... abridg­ing the free­dom of speech, or of the press ... . ” — From the First Amend­ment to Con­sti­tu­tion

DEAR HAR­RI­ETTE: I’ve re­ally con­nected and hit it off with a new friend I’ve been chat­ting with on so­cial me­dia. We have ex­changed num­bers and have been tex­ting ev­ery day. The con­ver­sa­tion flows smoothly. How­ever, I’ve been notic­ing a pull back. He started to take sev­eral hours to re­spond to my mes­sages and then sud­denly com­pletely stopped. I waited a cou­ple of days be­fore send­ing any more mes­sages. I then sent a mes­sage ask­ing if every­thing was go­ing well, and I re­ceived no re­sponse. My ini­tial feel­ing was hop­ing that noth­ing bad hap­pened to him, but my gut tells me that some­thing fishy is go­ing on. What are rea­sons you could pro­vide -- if any -- for a per­son to just cut off com­mu­ni­ca­tion so abruptly. -- Cut Off

DEAR CUT OFF: My guess is that this per­son has a spouse or sig­nif­i­cant other and ei­ther got caught or woke up to his re­al­ity. Your best choice is to leave well enough alone. If he ever does come back, chal­lenge him hard on his sud­den ab­sence. You de­serve an an­swer, but stop wait­ing for one. ••• DEAR HAR­RI­ETTE: I must re­spond to the re­cent col­umn re­gard­ing the writer who was con­cerned about the new laws re­strict­ing abor­tion in places like Alabama and Ge­or­gia.

Aside from in­cest and rape, should the con­trol over one’s body per­haps be­gin be­fore one gets preg­nant? Women write and speak on this sub­ject as though preg­nancy just hap­pens, when in fact there are nu­mer­ous birth con­trol op­tions out there -- not to men­tion ab­sti­nence.

Along those same lines, once a woman is preg­nant, it is no longer just her body that is af­fected by a de­ci­sion to abort. The writer pointed out, “time and time again, we have seen Chris­tian­ity used to pro­mote vi­o­lence and hate.” This is ab­so­lutely true, but I would protest that such vi­o­lence is based on the evil de­sires of mankind, and in no way rep­re­sents the doc­trines of Je­sus. In­deed, His heart must be bro­ken by such trav­es­ties com­mit­ted in His name.

That said, does the writer -- who claims to be Chris­tian -- not rec­og­nize the vi­o­lence in­volved in abor­tions? An un­born child is ei­ther torn limb from limb in the mother’s womb or burned to death in the mother’s womb -- the very place the child should be safest. Does this not also break Je­sus’ heart?

Lastly, how can it be il­le­gal in this coun­try to de­stroy the egg of an ea­gle since it is known that it will be­come a fullfledge­d ea­gle if al­lowed, but le­gal to de­stroy a child in the womb -- at 6 weeks ges­ta­tion, ob­vi­ously a hu­man be­ing in the mak­ing? -- An­other View

DEAR AN­OTHER VIEW: Thank you for voic­ing your opin­ion, which, I know, is shared by many. This is a chal­leng­ing topic, to be sure. There are no easy an­swers. While I ab­so­lutely do value hu­man life and be­lieve in us­ing birth con­trol as well as the prac­tice of ab­sti­nence, I un­der­stand that the world in which we live and the stres­sors upon women in the sex­ual and re­pro­duc­tive are­nas are sig­nif­i­cant.

I am not go­ing to en­ter into the re­li­gious ar­gu­ment. I will leave that for you and the thou­sands of oth­ers who share your view. I will never be­grudge some­one his or her re­li­gious principles. But I also be­lieve in the divi­sion of church and state, and I do not be­lieve the state should get in­volved in re­li­gious is­sues.

My per­spec­tive is about safety and fair­ness. It is about re­pro­duc­tive rights. To­day, men are sup­ported with­out ques­tion when they want Vi­a­gra and other such drugs to in­crease their viril­ity. Women are in­creas­ingly de­nied con­trol over their re­pro­duc­tive rights. There’s some­thing wrong with this pic­ture.

HAR­RI­ETTE COLE

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.