Editor Sue Dixon’s Sunday byline commentary, “Why Must Men Hurt Women?” (TGI—4/2/00) was so deliciously presumptuous that it compels me to respond. It is not unthinkable for someone to turn around Dixon’s headline and ask, even on the editorial page
Editor Sue Dixon’s Sunday byline commentary, “Why Must Men Hurt Women?”
(TGI—4/2/00) was so deliciously presumptuous that it compels me to
respond.
It is not unthinkable for someone to turn around Dixon’s headline
and ask, even on the editorial page of the gynecocracy-run Garden Island paper,
the following: Why Must Women Hurt Men?
The question “Why must women hurt
men?” is a forbidden one and never asked within polite, liberal, democrat
circles.
Since 1973, when Justice Harry Blackmun got the Roe vs. Wade
ruling through the Supreme Court, it is estimated that about 18 million male
babies have been destroyed by women in the USA through pre-birth and
partial-birth abortions.
This legal but immoral butchery is truly
offensive. The unborn and partially-born aborted babies were totally innocent
victims. These destroyed babies lived within the complete domination of women
by virtue of biological circumstances.
Might should never make right.
Abortion is an act of female domestic violence. The woman’s body is the
domicile or home of the about-to-be-born child that is destroyed.
Women who
seek the desirable end to domestic violence should begin their concern at a
more personal and basic starting point: The womb.
Violence begets violence,
and the trashing of the sanctity of human life begins with the brutality
visited upon aborted babies. These little innocent victims had life needlessly
snuffed out of them, and their mangled bodies were wrapped in plastic bags and
tossed in dumpsters.
Civilized society should not allow women to treat
their unborn babies as used tissue paper.
Editor Dixon is being
hypocritical when writing eloquently about male domestic violence and not
including, in her concern, the female domestic violence of
abortion.
Douglas E. Rapozo
Kapa’a
