| OCR Text |
Show The DaiJy Utah Chronicle - Page Four February 8,1991 Friday. Editorial Government finally reveals Agent Orange truth When President Bush signed into law a measure Wednesday which extended permanent disability benefits to veterans exposed to Agent Orange during the Vietnam conflict, 25 years of controversy were put to rest. Agent Orange was an herbicide sprayed over large areas of jungle during the war to kill foliage and clear areas where enemy troops were hiding. Unfortunately, many of our own troops also became exposed to it. For years debate had raged over what health problems the chemical caused to American GIs. Although conclusive evidence linking Agent Orange to many health problems was never clearly established, veterans who came into contact with the chemical have had a high rate of two types of cancer lymphoma and soft tissue sarcoma). The medical community has generally accepted these high rates of cancer among vets to be caused by Agent Orange. (non-Hodgki- ns' When signing the new legislation, President Bush said, "A grateful nation salutes our veterans. From Midway to Normandy, from Inchon to Khe Sanh, to last week's battle at Khafji, American Marines, soldiers, airmen, sailors, Coast Guardsmen have given their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to keep freedom safe." It seems ironic that a nation who honors its veterans so much in speech could be so slow in For years, residents of southern Utah communities that were exposed to radioactive fallout from open air nuclear tests in the 1950s and 1960s petitioned the government for help. Despite incredibly high rates of cancer in the effected areas, it took over thirty years for the government to recognize the problem and take action to compensate the victims. Once again, Washington seems to have thought it easier to sweep the past under the rug rather than honoring its veterans with actions. For years there has been significant medical evidence which established the link between Agent accepting responsibility for its actions. The federal government should learn from the past and recognize the need to quickly and veterans government ignored petitions for assistance. It seems that many in Washington made by government agencies. It is a dishonor to the entire country when leaders attempt to shirk their obligations in order to prevent a little Orange and cancer. Until now though, the efficiently accept responsibility for mistakes has from are more concerned with keeping America's history free from blemish than with accepting responsibility for past governmental wrongs. Utahns should be familiar with this pattern. embarrassment. Shirking responsibility only makes an even bigger problem to be dealt with at a later time. Tantrums and futility in the abortion issue I've been terrified all day of Bill writing this. think I have good reason to be nervous, because today I'm going to abandon what security I had left in my Chronicle writing and jump I . into the abortion fracas. Before you toss the page away, let me assure you that I realize the issue has already been beaten bloody on these pages and all over the nation. I'm not going to champion one side of the issue or another, although like anyone else, I do feel poignant emotions when I listen to the debate. It's the debate itself want to I address. What bothers me is that it hasn't been a debate at all; it's been a brawl. The issue is Letters much more than a 'Mormon issue' Pro-lif- e Editor: This letter is regarding Jennifer Gully's article ("State's dedication to pro-lif- e bill superficial," Feb. 6). I am a pro-lif- e supporter myself and welcome viewpoints that are contrary to my own since being able to voice our opinions is part of what makes this country so great. My objection with this article is regarding the remark that the recent abortion bill passed the state legislature "...was wholeheartedly endorsed by the Mormon Church." While it is certainly true that the views of the Mormon Church are very much in line with this bill, the Church never exerted any pressure on the legislators or the public to support this bill, as Ms. Gully implies. In addition, other religious groups, namely the Catholic Church whose local leader appeared on the news voicing his support for the bill and his surprise that so many people, including the national media, have made this into a Mormon issue when, in fact, it isn't. I find it hard to understand why the beliefs of the majority in Utah are so often criticized and why our state leaders are criticized as well for voting as their consciences dictate. Isn't this the way the democratic process works all across the country? r of the ACLU has stated that legislators should not let their moral values influence their decision. How are they Ms. Parrish-Pixle- our government? Isn't Ms. Parrish-Pixle- r expressing her values by the actions she is taking? It is sad that because the majority of the population in this state shares the beliefs of the Mormon Church that the church must be subjected to such a disproportionate amount of criticism. Hopefully, one day, people will view us as individuals with individual beliefs and concerns and realized that the Church does not control our lives as a dictator would. I hope that people will realize that it is our choice to follow the guidance we receive supposed to make a decision then? from our religious leaders just as it is with any other religious people throughout the world. represent our values and beliefs in Kimball A. Ball Senior accounting Aren't we supposed to elect officials whom we feel will Chemical weapons less messy than others Editor: am very confused about this Persian Gulf War. Even if I set aside all of my bewilderment about why we are there, whether it be for oil or I to protect the KuwaitiAmerican way of am still confused by one small DemocraticPatri-Jingoisti- life, I c issue. On Feb. 4, the Chronicle opinionated that chemical weapons should never be sold to anyone because they were "an element of unthinkable barbarism." Now don't y get me wrong, I am in favor of this point of view and whole-heartedl- applaud both Sen. Garn and the Chronicle for supporting it. What I can't seem to get anybody to do, though, is to explain why chemical weapons are any different from other weapons. All I know is that the E resident says chemicals are "bad, ad, bad," and that the country echoes "Yes, sir, Mr. too clean! You don't have your best buddy's bloody limbs and entrails splattering you face and body like you do with"conventional" and nuclear weapons. I guess the old cliche "no guts no glory" applies to President, bad, bad, bad." What I want to know is "why, why, why?" Well, there's no discerning between the results. Death is death no matter how you slice or dice it. The difference, then, must be in the way you die. Let me ponder this. A conventional mortar shell lands and blows your legs off and you then lie in your own pool of blood and pain for a few hours before you go into a coma and die. On the other hand, chemicals sneak up on you and before you can say "hey, who farted?" you drop to the ground and convulse until you finally die from lung warhead? Tactically, yes: the nuclear warhead causes a million times more destruction. But for the soldier or the civilian, there is no difference. Either one will end his life. now wait a second. I think I understand it. Chemicals are finally Senior electrical engineering failure. Hey, war, too. Honestly, weapons can't see why other are any better than I chemical weapons. All weapons are made to kill; few are ever made to do it humanely. Is there a difference between six megaton U.S. nuclear warheads and an Iraqi chemical Jim Ngo understandably wired with potent emotion. After all, the discussion centers literally on life and death. One side focuses on the threatened life and liberty of women, the other on the deaths of unborn children. The debate calls into question, however much some would like to avoid it, issues of philosophy, religion, gender relations and more. Both sides, charged with the inherent have emotion, frequently approached the argument with the grace of a lead pipe blow to the skull. I've seen some make an attempt to forward their cause with arguments, free of all that excessively level-heade- d value-loade- d vocabulary. But not very often. The pro-lif- e camp has used extreme tactics, resorting to throwing red paint on people entering abortion centers, and even razing clinics with explosives. The pro-lif- e advocates are very quick to latch onto Dunford Chronicle Asst. News Editor of bent coat hangers. frequently fail to Pro-choice- rs recognize that people pro-lif- e really believe what they are doing is right, that feel human life is being destroyed, that they aren't trying to subjugate women or destroy freedom. With their staunch attitude, pro-life- pro-choice- rs often make the rs opposition feel like they want to be morally superior and unfairly impose their will on others. I'm infuriated by arguments that call pro-choice- rs "baby-killers- ," as well as by arguments for that lambaste introducing legislation because it "would rs pro-life- anti-abortio- n completely return women to a subservient position, and be wholeheartedly endorsed by the Mormon Church." Yes, the debate is a burning one for those concerned, but how long can we let the flames singe friendship, civility and the legal system? At this rate, will the issue ever, ever be solved; is any compromise possible? Not until more people are willing to discuss it with cooler heads. Is this possible? I think so. It seems to me, and certainly I'm not the first one to notice this, that at the very core of the debate is the question of the 'humanness' of a fetus. If a fetus is just that, and not a words like "slaughter" and "sin." They display graphic posters and human being, then arguments make perfect sense. Having an abortion would be a protests to tug at heart strings. her own body, and the state bring their children along to frequently fail to recognize that people really believe what they are doing is right, that feel that Pro-life- rs pro-choi- pro-choice- ce rs liberty and safety are being threatened, that they aren't trying to murder innocent children. With their staunch attitude, pro-life- rs often make the opposition feel like they want to be morally superior and unfairly impose their will on others. On the other hand, the side is anything but pro-choi- innocent. Advocates of legal abortion have obstructed the entrances to buildings during protests. They are quick to grab or phrases like "women-killing- " "chained by the uterus." They display scary posters with images pro-choi- ce matter of a woman's control over would indeed be out of place in legislating it. However, if a fetus is an unborn child, then it's not a woman's body at all it's another body and there would be no more right of choice involved than there is right of choice to commit murder. I would suggest that the debate be decided by continuing the investigation aimed at deciding whether or not a woman carries within her a 'fetus' or a person.' Even if that proves impossible, 'not-yet-bo- rn any compromise solution that will end the decades of court costs, divided families and danger to women will have to arrive through more levelheaded, calculated discussion. |
