Letters: Blakeslee preserve has issues; 'fully viable humans' should be priority
Send letters to the editor (up to 300 words) to the Pocono Record at letters@poconorecord.com.
Natural area needs attention
During a recent visit to one of our region’s most outstanding nature preserves, the Austin T. Blakeslee Natural Area along Tobyhanna Creek in Monroe County, I was saddened to find that this scenic natural area has deteriorated since my last visit to the site a few years earlier, showing signs of overuse, neglect, and abuse. Trees dying, bridges washed out, trail markers missing, exotic species encroaching on native plant communities. The bathroom facilities in the parking lots and picnic areas are filthy, and their smell pervades the entire site. One can only imagine how this is affecting the high quality trout waters of Tobyhanna Creek, a popular fishing spot.
Why is it that so many municipalities in the Poconos are awash in funds to finance wasteful and environmentally irresponsible road and construction projects, but when it comes to maintaining their parks, preserves, and natural areas, these same municipalities are suddenly “broke”?
If local communities are unable or unwilling to maintain these resources which are our region’s greatest assets, then these facilities should be handed over to organizations with the incentive to care for them properly.
— Juliet Perrin, Albrightsville
Who has rights?
When asked to choose between the life and liberty of a fully mature human female v. a smear of her spawned recombinant protoplasm, clearly, the potential being should have to take a back seat to the fully realized human. However, that is not always the case.
When President Ronald Reagan was somewhat losing his grip on things, it was Nancy Reagan who pressed forward with a new emphasis on what was then considered promising stem cell research, in the hopes of addressing Alzheimer’s disease. Many years later, in 2001, spurred by conservative religious pressures, President Bush banned federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, citing that embryo use diminishes the value of human (embryonic) life. So, beginning in 2001, federally, the “rights” of embryos were prioritized over the treatment of millions of elderly people with Alzheimer’s conditions. The entire continuing matter is a problematic moral morass that has led to a lack of uniformity in laws regarding stem cell research, with wide variations of regulations in all 50 states.
The recent Alabama IVF argument comes to mind. Does a human embryo have rights? Do its rights supersede those of your grandma Sally- who just might need that stem cell treatment?
Do stem cells have rights? Before you laugh, talk to the (many) people who believe that corporations are people with rights. Could this too lead to a forthcoming discussion of AI “rights”?
For me, let us concentrate on the living humans before us who need our care and kindness. Treat the fully viable humans who may be suffering from physical or mental handicap, drug addiction, poverty, age-related conditions, or disease. Protoplasmic life should form a queue behind the independent humans; like your grandpa, or your daughter. Just ask breathing, independent people what they think. Then poll the cells.
— John Pace, Honesdale
This article originally appeared on Pocono Record: Letters: Blakeslee preserve has issues; embryos vs. humans
