In nature, we find “survival of the fittest.” Don’t be surprised if you find that eaglet back on the ground again.
Did a vet inspect it for parasites? Is there enough food in the area? Are there already too many eagles in the area? Are both parents providing for the two babies? The eagles know this but we don’t.
I have seen and read about birds being pushed from the nest because of something being wrong in the environment or with the survival of the healthiest and the care is given to the healthiest baby.
I hope the rescuer did the correct thing. Only God knows because he is the balance in nature. Sometimes I think the expression “Don’t fool with Mother Nature” has meaning.
Sign Up and Save
Get six months of free digital access to The State
Don’t take us back to the practices before Roe v. Wade
During the past several weeks, two opinion columns regarding abortion, by nationally syndicated writers, have appeared in The State. First, Kathleen Parker on Feb. 2 (no name listed) and last week (March 4) George Will. These columns are not limited to the same 250-word maximum as are letters to the editor, so opposition to these opinions at the local level is at a distinct disadvantage. Both columns contain distortions of fact. Infanticide is illegal. Period! The Republican rantings on the topic of abortion are attempts to take advantage of extreme situations in order to paint those who believe that Roe should be treated as settled law as baby killers. Ironic that these same people revere the baby’s existence only while it is in the womb. Once birth has occurred, these lives become far less important. Good health care, education and wages are treated as “free stuff” that one has no right to expect unless wealthy.
No one that I know “supports” abortion; what they support is a woman’s reproductive health choice. There should, of course, be rational limitations to its use, but rational does not seem to be a part of the mindset of abortion opponents. What is left, then, are two choices: keep the procedure safe and legal or make it unsafe and illegal, while also making criminals of doctors who perform it. Do opponents really believe that by making the procedure illegal, all such procedures will cease? Have they really considered that the alternative will be backroom alleys, unscrupulous money-grubbing butchers or self-mutilation? That’s what happened before Roe became settled law in 1973. If one is old enough to remember those days, then surely a return to that time would not be desired. If one is not old enough to remember, then homework on the subject might be in order, including conversations with elders who DO remember.
Abortion distortions aren’t accidental
George Will is perpetuating a lie about abortion in his column in The State (March 4, 2019). Kathleen Parker, another syndicated columnist, did the same thing on Feb. 6 (”The language of abortion”). While the debate over legal abortion has been going on for more than 40 years, neither side is well served by introducing lies into forum. It is quite simply not true that “New York and Virginia Democrats” have expanded “’reproductive rights’” into infanticide, saying that infants who survive late-term abortions will be kept “comfortable” while they die of neglect.
While the New York legislature recently passed a law that would insure the legality of abortion in that state if the Supreme Court were to overturn their 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, the law states that abortion in the third trimester is permissible only when necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman. Virginia has not passed any law that would expand upon Roe, but their governor’s comment about the care of babies delivered with conditions that are incompatible with prolonged life has been taken out of context to suggest so. Infanticide is illegal everywhere.
These distortions are not accidental.
The State publishes a cross section of the letters we receive from South Carolinians in order to provide a forum for our community and also to allow our community to get a good look at itself, for good or bad. The letters represent the views of the letter writers, not necessarily of The State.