Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Editors reserve the right to edit letters for spelling, grammar, punctuation, excessive length and unsuitable content.


The one who will bear the child is the one who should choose

To The Daily Sun,

Regarding the recent heated abortion debate in The Sun, I do not believe guys get a vote on this. It is a woman's choice. After all, it is the woman who will bear the child with all the assorted risks. Also, if dad decides all he wants to be is a sperm donor, the woman will ordinarily be raising the child.

Of course, if a man and a woman are in a relationship, most would agree that the couple should discuss such a decision. That is just a good idea in a loving relationship. But, legally speaking, the choice is still the woman's.

I don't care if you have ovaries or testicles. A woman's right to choose was established as a constitutional right nationwide in 1973. Most attempts by anti-choice advocates to circumvent this right have failed in the courts.

The question of "when human life begins" is a philosophical/religious one. Of course, it is wrong to kill a baby after birth but before, there exists a range of opinions on this issue, including among deeply religious people.

I am not "pro-abortion." I do not know if could make that choice if I were female. As a man, I never wanted to be the reason a woman made that choice. Some writers to The Sun who oppose abortion seem to think that women make that choice easily.

I know several women who made that choice and it was the hardest decision they ever had to make. In spite of what Mr. Mitchell writes, very late-term abortions are rare and are virtually always performed for a medical reason. Usually, women have made that choice early in their pregnancies.

I always use the term "anti-choice" to refer to those who refer to themselves as "pro-life" because I do not usually see a lot that is "pro-life" about most of them. I don't know where Mr. Mitchell stands on other issues because his letters are always about abortion, but I have noticed that most anti-choice advocates, with the exception of some Catholics I know, believe in the rights of a fetus only until it is born.
The majority of the "pro-lifers" I have met or read are usually pro-war, pro-gun, anti-welfare, and anti-affordable health care. They seem to oppose anything that might help a woman want to keep her child.

And guys, if you want to do something about abortion, don't be the reason for one.

E. Scott Cracraft

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 380

The problem with college is the cost, not who pays for it

To The Daily Sun,

I can't think of any idea more misguided than suggesting we make a product "free" simply because its cost has become outrageously expensive. Wouldn't superior logic dictate the focus be to eliminate the causes that make the cost prohibitive? If being "expensive" qualified for "free" all the major, important things in life would be free, including cars and homes.

By the way when did the people who work in the "expensive" professions ever volunteer to work for free? They never have. In fact, those who work in education have demanded wage and benefit increases steeper and faster than almost any profession in America. Should I call them cold-hearted SOBs? To suggest something will be "free" is nothing more than a magician's illusion by the "political class" first for their benefit.

If "free" entitlements from government created fairness wouldn't you think we would have experienced a tiny whiff of it? Equality is now more elusive than ever no matter the spread of "free" or the increase in entitlements. All "free" means is someone other then the recipient will be stuck paying the bill. Every attempt by government in the last 100 years to distort market values, subsidize services or price-fix has turned into a disaster no matter how many billions in "free," subsidy, funny money is sucked from middle class wrapped in a cloak of fairness.

A college degree has become outrageously expensive because the people who work in higher education don't have one reason to deliver a college education to your son or daughter more productively or efficiently. In fact every incentive they have has been to drive costs so high "free sounds like a solution." That is exactly what has happened. The public is now beyond outrage. They think "free" is a possible "fix" rather than demand education — and people who work in education, like Scott Cracraft — fix what anyone else would call an abysmal failure in private enterprise.

This is exactly what socialism looks like. Scott Cracraft now demands a taxpayer "whitewash job" to mask over his failure and that of his peers to produce a better product at a reasonable cost that Main Street America can afford. That is insulting to my intelligence, and it should be to yours. This is not a debate about free college. It is a life-and-death debate about capitalism that has created the most prosperous nation on earth surrendering to socialism and the incredible history of failure that has attended that form of government since time began.

This is where education under the iron grip of labor unions and Scott Cracraft ends. Today, only 53 percent of students graduate from four-year colleges within six years. Only 30 percent graduate from two-year colleges within three years, nationally. In order to keep enrollments high (and Scott employed) the number of students requiring remedial classes hits records, while college drop-out rates are horrendous and the number of people employed in jobs not requiring a degree but who have one are at record percentages.

Now we should go even further down the academic barrel to offer a new, free entitlement to every D-plus and C-minus student that should be going to vocational schools to learn a trade as shortages of plumbers, carpenters, welders, machinists and electricians are forecast.

But Democrats have so stigmatized real work, especially blue-collar work, the bottom 20-percent of every class will now think they have a right and entitlement to a liberal arts degree in European fine arts history that leads to a fine arts job serving Big Macs at MacDonald's. That is where "free" college for everyone ends my friends.

It seems Democrats think we need more folks working at Starbucks and Barns & Noble with free degrees paid for out of taxpayers' wages for their lifetimes.

Tony Boutin

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 292