- Man shot by police ID'd; witness shares his side of story (2/17/17)31
- MSHP: McLendon shot in side; autopsy refutes witness account (2/19/17)23
- Apparent punch at girls basketball game propels lawmaker into action (2/21/17)4
- Cape officer shoots man inside a home (2/16/17)7
- Business notebook: Owners ready to roll out the Barrel 131 (2/20/17)5
- Former Cape cop indicted on possessing child porn (2/17/17)
- Man dies after being shot by officer; said to have come at cop with knife (2/16/17)29
- Missouri bill would limit transgender school bathroom access (2/22/17)43
- Annual father-daughter dance provides some fun bonding time (2/19/17)1
- Cape businessman known for starting NARS dies at 49 (2/23/17)3
Value of life outweighs health issues
To the editor:
I couldn't believe my eyes when I read former U.S. senator Thomas F. Eagleton's op-ed piece in Sunday's edition. There wasn't much with which I agreed, but then I read: "When the right to life of the fertilized egg is invoked in this debate, a counter right must also be recognized, and that is the right to health of persons who suffer from such diseases as mentioned above." That is the essence of this debate, and Eagleton's honesty was a refreshing alternative to his coalition's propaganda.
While the right to health is a "counter right," it is not an equal right. While I hope for cures to the serious diseases afflicting Missourians, those cures must come from ethical research. No just and moral society can subjugate the right to life to lesser causes, even if the research is for a noble cause. Life is always more valuable than health.
Eagleton's vision and that of the proposed amendment is that some Missourians are entitled to health, even if that right deprives cloned human embryos of life. That morality is chilling and has no place in the Missouri Constitution.
RODNEY ALBERT, Hallsville, Mo.