Ok, I don't know if you've experienced writing a letter to the editor or doing a post on Facebook or some other social media site, where you researched extensively, checked your facts, edited over and over again to be sure you got your point across as succinctly as you could but still have someone who didn't get it.
It's like the saying, "I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you."
That happened to me with the reply from Richard Cannon to my letter about the atrocious way the Democrats treated Judge, now Justice, Brett Kavanagh ("A fictional view of the Supreme Court," Oct. 17).
I also gave my opinion as to why it's so important to have a sympathetic court for their agendas by mentioning Roe vs. Wade. Mr. Cannon then ran with it stating his support of the decision and that's the first thing I'd like to address.
He wrote, "It seems reasonable to let those affected by the outcome of this individual choice to make the decision. (to abort the unborn child) I agree totally, but Mr. Cannon left out two important individuals in that "individual" decision. The father, who has no legal rights in the matter, and the one who is most affected by it, the unborn child, who has no voice at all. I would hazard to guess, that given the "choice', the child would rather live than die. I know, I know, women chant, "it's my body and I can do whatever I want with it."
But the scientific answer to that is the unborn child is not a part of her body like her heart, or lungs, or stomach or brain. It's a separate body with it's own heart, lungs, stomach and brain she is hosting until it's born. The scientific analysis is this. The child may not be the sex of the mother. The child may have a different blood type and no one, to my knowledge who ever lived, had two separate blood types running through their body.
But what about DNA? The child gets it's DNA from its mother and father and it is related, but distinctly its own. So much so it is used to identify criminals. And except for the extremely rare condition called Chimerism, no one has two sets of DNA.
So my question to Mr. Cannon is this: is the child a part of a woman's body and her sole, "individual" decision to end it's life or a separate human being who deserves to live? Think about it
But the second thing I would like to address, and the point of my letter, is the lengthily column misinterpreting what I said was the real danger to our Constitution and society. I wasn't talking about the Supreme Court as he seemed to surmise. I was talking about the politics of personal destruction the Democrats use against anyone they oppose.
Character assassination seems to be the path they take more and more often. The poison arrow in their political quiver. The vitriolic hatred and lying shown by them in the hearings was enough to turn my stomach and was the thing that made me fear for our republic. Something Mr. Cannon didn't address at all. I wonder why? But that, sir, was what my letter was all about.
So I come back to the beginning. I can explain it to you Mr. Cannon, but I can't comprehend it for you.