Ken Trainor claims that reason rather than emotion should be the dominant factor in determining one's position on an issue. But his April 20 column ("We all have blood on our own hands") is far more emotional than reasonable in discussing the abortion debate. Gregory Black brings politics and religion into the debate and Ken Trainor lauds his 1,100-word viewpoint as genuine dialogue (May 4 column).
Let's turn the clock back to Jan. 19, when Ken writes the column that started this "dialogue." ("Can Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Find Common Ground?") I write a response absent mention of any religion or political affiliation. I stick to the facts, backed up with references for any reader to check out and to use reason, rather than emotion, to determine their position on abortion.
It takes the Journal 10 weeks to run my letter (April 6, "In quest for common ground, Trainor tramples on truth"), and that's only after four follow-up phone calls and six emails to three different top editorial people (including Ken), questioning why my letter hadn't run yet, and only after I am directed?#34;and I agree?#34;to edit my response from 1,000 to 500 words.
Is this really about having a true dialogue about abortion? Or is this about Wednesday journal and Ken Trainor once again advancing their political agenda?