Comments on: Owning and Killing

By: Lucky Mom of 7

Lucky Mom of 7 — Thu, 07 May 2009 22:48:43 +0000

I just read the Sun article. I think it should be considered that the “ownership” of the abortion mentality is not a mirror of patriarchal ownership, but an evolved form of it. Men in our society think they own women and get to use them as sex objects. If a woman considers her unborn child objectified in the same way, we should look for the most fundamental origin of the evil. It precedes conception.

Lucky

By: steve p

steve p — Thu, 07 May 2009 19:22:58 +0000

Terri,

You are absolutely correct in your observations about the complexity of this issue. When the editor called me he referred to my letter as “the abortion letter.” I responded: “It not really that simple is it?” That is why in this very brief piece I mention the men and parents who often put great pressure on the pregnant woman to abort, instead of offering compassionate support.

I did appreciate that the letters editor was willing to publish the letter, though he was shown the door before he was able to do it.

By: Terri Kimmel

Terri Kimmel — Thu, 07 May 2009 17:41:10 +0000

I agree with this notion of ownership. However, I’d like to encourage those who read this column to consider that too often women only feel the loss of their physical autonomy, or the loss of their financial resources, or the threat to their primary relationships… It is common that women in unplanned pregnancies (a situation precipitated by our contraception, sex-saturated culture)don’t progress intellectually enough to feel “ownership”. This ownership mentality is more a cultural phenomenon. Women in crisis need help and they’re desperate to relieve the pressures they’ve been put under.

I understand this is a letter to a newspaper editor, so it has to be brief and to the point. I can appreciate that. However, the motivation and supposed justification that fuel abortion are much, much more complex.

Thank you for writing, Mr. Pohl. God bless you and yours.

By: Warren Jewell

Warren Jewell — Thu, 07 May 2009 16:20:50 +0000

If the very most intimate human relationship, mother to unborn child, is supposedly marked by 'ownership' and 'self-possession' of the powerful one over the powerless other, and beyond morality and social import, then, all relationships are at risk. Key is ‘supposedly’, such ownership and self-possession having no footing in history, and the opposite having demonstrated its historical significance, even unto the glory of “we hold these hold these truths to be self-evident . . . that they (WE!) are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life. . .” We hardly need go on, no other right can be held inalienable to one whose life was not held to be unalienable right and as inferred sacrosanct purpose unto heaven. All other relationships are less intimate, less personal, by measure; and, for example, the ‘owning’ ‘father’ can obliterate his family on whim. And, if the humbly low 'Mom' can own and destroy the very one who is her very own, the state with its scope, grasp and power can own and destroy just about anyone and everyone. And, statist tyrants have so demonstrated, especially in the 20th century.

By: steve p

steve p — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:04:08 +0000

PraieHawk,

I did send it to The Baltimore Sun as a letter to the editor and got a call from the letters editor advising me it would be published later that wee. But a funny thing happened on the way to the presses. You can read that story at my blog.

http://pohlaxed.blogspot.com/2009/05/pohlaxed-editor-at-baltimore-sun.html

By: PrairieHawk

PrairieHawk — Thu, 07 May 2009 14:48:11 +0000

I hope you send this article to the editorial page of the Baltimore Sun.