Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Richard Greelis ("If not Oppenheimer's deadly weapon, then what?" Opinion Exchange, Sept. 3) claims that if we had not used atomic weapons on Japan, we would have used massive firebombing of cities, which would have been as destructive. Perhaps, but he writes as if we did not have a choice. Japan was severely weakened and there was already discussion within its leadership about surrender prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs. In either case, advocating for the use of mass attacks on civilian populations is terrorism. Terrorism is the use of violence against civilian populations in the pursuit of political aims. We rightly condemn it when it is used against us, as in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. We ought to condemn it when it is used by us, whatever the specific means of killing.

Patrick Cabello Hansel, Minneapolis

The Sept. 3 front page carried a story about the far-right-wing-extremist plan for a second Trump administration ("Conservatives plan 'wrecking ball' for government"). The ideas of the Heritage Foundation and Paul Dans are not really a plan for governing so much as a plan to destroy the administrative state and cut taxes for the far-right billionaires who back it.

The federal executive departments — Justice, Food and Drug, Education, Agriculture, Environmental Protection and the others — are where the legislation passed by the House and Senate actually take shape. The idea that we don't need them is a fantasy. Without them, we would not be assured that our food is safe, that our medicines work as they should, that that the Justice Department is independent and federal courts uphold the rule of law, that soil and water are protected, and that the climate is stabilized.

With a new term, Donald Trump would be able to fill positions in these departments with people who would in fact oppose their legal missions and responsibilities, as he did in his first administration. All the good that has happened during the Biden administration to reverse the loss of qualified people during the Trump years would be again overturned by Trump appointments.

The people behind the "Project 2025" are ideologues, zealots, and fantasists. They seem to live in a world that has never really existed, or ended in the 19th century when wealthy white men were in charge. They are very happy in that world.

I need and trust the services and protections of the laws Congress has passed, and the expertise and dedication of the federal departments that administer the laws. It is the only way to be certain that our government is working, and is working for us.

Laura Haule, Minneapolis

In response to Donald Smith's request to "just shut up" ("An expansion of the Star Tribune's recent thread on abortion," Opinion Exchange, Sept. 3):

Mr. Smith, you've brought your personal experience to the table for discussion, and I thank you for that, but I'm afraid you've missed the point.

By keeping embryos frozen in a petri dish, the life of the embryos is on pause until their parents decide to either grant them a continuation of said life or to destroy them. As such, the thought experiment fails, because even if one chose to save the embryos from the fire, it would not guarantee them life. What is required to keep either the baby or the embryos alive differs. Fire or no fire, the embryos in the petri dish are already on the verge of death because of an altogether different yet still hostile environment, frozen in time at the behest of scientists and unwitting parents. This is an often overlooked consequence of in vitro fertilization. The thought experiment fails because you would be taking the embryos out of the fire and into the frying pan.

The point I believe the Rev. David Hottinger was trying to make ("A response to 'A friendly letter to pro-life believers,' " Aug. 24) is this: A much-quoted statistic out of the University of Chicago reports that 96% of biologists surveyed say that life begins at fertilization. Further, a completely new set of DNA comes into being, determining things like black hair and baby blue eyes. If you find this research inadequate, ask your son's in vitro specialist when they have succeeded in creating a new human life.

As for whether one of the embryos has Down syndrome? I think the collective Down syndrome community deserves an apology from you for your devaluing of their existence. Who are you to judge that their existence would not be ideal, that because they require extra care they should be denied life?

And as a woman of child-bearing age I say this: I do not have the right to end the life of a zygote or an embryo (aka my child) no matter what men in robes say, nor do I want such a "right." But zygotes and embryos do have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness regardless of whether that is recognized by their mothers, in-vitro specialists or writers from Bloomington.

Julie Walling, Maple Grove

Thank you to Donald Smith for his commentary. I too am a pro-life person who believes in a woman's right to choose. I believe if you are pro-life, you would not want to cut spending for medical assistance and food assistance to the same life you claim to want to protect. The women who will be forced to carry pregnancies to term are the poor who are most in need of our help. Just as it was before Roe, women with means will get safe abortions and the poor will be in back alleys risking their lives.

The laws surrounding abortion are being put in place by predominantly wealthy men. They will never be forced to carry a baby to term with no means of properly feeding or supporting that baby. They will never have to agonize as they carry a child that has no chance of survival once it is born. They will never have to miscarry (abort) a child that was dearly wanted and then have to worry about whether this could lead to them dying or being unable to bear any more children because they were forced to wait for medical care.

In this country 11 million children are living in poverty. Yet there are members of Congress who want to cut food and medical assistance. Children are slaughtered in schools and yet there are no changes to the gun laws. If we were truly a pro-life nation, we would be addressing these problems. Instead we are focused on forcing women to give birth under laws that can make pregnancy a death sentence. We have the highest infant and maternal mortality rates out of any other high-income country despite spending the most on health care.

It seems to me that if we can pass the laws forcing childbirth, we should be passing laws that help these women to get medical and nutritional support for the babies they are being forced to carry. Otherwise, we are simply a nation that is pro-birth.

Carol Keymer, Plymouth

There were 12,175 abortions reportedly completed in Minnesota in 2022. If half of those unborn children were female, that means those 6,086 women will never have the opportunity to know what "reproductive rights" are. They weren't even given the chance to live.