So, I have just read a letter by a Louis H. Pumphrey [July 5] pertaining to the recent article "Abortion 101" [May 31]. Was Louis attempting to shed new light on the ol' abortion debate? Because all I picked up from the letter is the same old tired ranting of a Bible-thumping, conservative fool. What is "medicinal" about abortion? inquires Louis. Oh, nothing more than the woman's health -- something a doctor is there for. Methinks the well-being of a pregnant adult is far more important than a zygote without a developed brain.
What is even more laughable is that Louis claims that, if abortion is illegal and those 250 women die in back-alley abortions, the law is not to blame: It's the women and the abortionists. Ah, but if abortion remains legal and is legitimately practiced, those 250-plus dead women would be very much alive. Must we save fetuses, even if it kills the mothers? Hey, come to think of it, the woman and the fetus would die. That's double the death, thanks to a foolish law. Pro-life half-wits should get their priorities straight and decide who they need to save while they're kissing Jesus's ass.
And to continue the absurdity of the letter, Louis offers the simple advice to physicians . . . "refer [pregnant women] to a mental health professional." Yes, that's all well and good, but it's too little, too late. It doesn't solve the fact that unwanted pregnancies will always occur. So, what we should do is send all these women to psychiatrists and hope everything will be OK once Junior is born? What that does is force a child to live a terrible, unwanted life. What if the mother cannot adequately raise the child? What if she hates the child? And what's worse is the idea of adoption. I'm sure all these potential abortions would be put up for adoption and forgotten about, and the numbers would add up very quickly. Just think of the millions of children who'd live a loveless life, waiting for someone to take them in. I hope people like Louis have lots of foster kids in their homes, or else it's quite hypocritical of Louis to scold abortion.
Rick Vodicka
North Royalton
The Maibachs' love goes unrewarded
I just had to write to express my compassion for the Maibachs ["The Long Goodbye," July 5]. I am a parent of a five-year-old, and all I can think of is the anguish the biological father is about to put that poor child through. Mr. Carr is a sperm donor, nothing more. If he had any kind of love for that child or any kind of understanding of what it is to be a parent, he would leave the poor child alone. His behavior demonstrates selfishness and immaturity. He needs to get his own life together, rather than mess up some innocent child's. This is such a heartbreaking story, and unfortunately, the courts usually do what is legal, rather than what is right. It is obvious that the only right thing to do is leave Lindsey with the only parents she has ever known. Carr is only doing this to make himself feel better, with no regard for the little girl's or her adoptive parents' feelings. It is one thing to make a child. It takes a couple of minutes. It is another thing entirely to raise a child. That takes years of patience and love and giving of yourself in ways that a nonparent could never begin to understand. This is a case of someone trying to win a game at any cost, just to prove something. All it proves is that he is a self-centered, inconsiderate person who is incapable of seeing a situation from someone else's perspective. If he can't do that, how is he going to parent this little girl?
Mr. Carr is 26 years old. He has plenty of time to have other children -- if he can find a woman who wants to stay with him and raise a child. Perhaps there is a reason why these women chose not to. The Maibachs might not get another chance. They have devoted three years of their lives to raising this child. They are the rightful parents.
Julie Trainer
Stow
Food never lies -- especially French food
I'm writing in response to Elaine Cicora's shrimp-tail question in her review of Heck's Café ["The Legend Lives On," July 5]. Elaine asked for someone to give her "a good reason why kitchens shouldn't finish peeling their shrimp before throwing them into a saucy dish." The main reason is that we chefs think it looks nice. Second, that's the way the French do shrimp -- and the French know food, and food never lies. Scene's food critic surely should know that it actually takes more labor to completely remove the shell.
Also, a foodie as clever as Elaine should recognize that Heck's well-publicized labor shortage last summer was a farce designed to create free press. Worked like a charm for the restaurant -- a dirty trick on Clevelanders that shouldn't be so easily forgiven.
Mark Kalix
North Olmsted
