Ann Berfield alleges Sens. Durbin and Obama do not have minors' interests at heart because they voted against the Interstate Abortion Bill making it illegal to assist a minor in obtaining an abortion in a state where it is legal when it is illegal to do so in their own state (“Sens. Durbin, Obama not protecting minors,” YourViews, Aug. 10).
In fact, they voted against the bill because they were concerned for the well-being of minors.
Their concern was not all families are the ideal American family and parents do not always have their children's best interests in mind.
In one case, an Idaho man impregnated his 13-year-old daughter and then killed her when he found out she intended to have an abortion.
Now, I don't intend to argue this particular law. I just wanted to point out not all arguments have to be good guys vs. bad guys, black and white. There are cases with gray area where both sides can genuinely have the public's interests in mind and the argument is how best to promote our nation's well-being.
Looking back, it seems a little silly and partisan to suggest our senators don't have minors' interests at heart. Why wouldn't they?
When arguing, especially in an emotionally charged area like politics, give the other side the benefit of the doubt. Assume the best of their position and then show it's wrong. Otherwise, it all too often just turns into partisan banter back and forth.
I could have replied to this with: Due to declining poll numbers, Republicans have once again started a values campaign - flag burning, gay marriage, abortion, etc. - to conceal other dire issues where they've failed horribly. This bill is just a selfish attempt to boost public opinion; they do not have the slightest concern for minors' safety.
What good would that have done?