Submitted by Tom Maguire, Dec 24, 2006 10:42

Der Mr. Doocey,

A "pregnant pause" in your thinking prior to responding to the editiorial might have helped with your wrestling reasoning .

I do not think the writer was encouraging the societal deficits you are concerned about. In fact, I think he is just as concerned as you are about them.

You will recall Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" . In the short story he encourged Britons, (tongue in cheek), to cook and eat their young so as to solve their overpopulation "problem". Here, our writer, in taking a somewhat "Swiftian" stance in his observations and solution, is not in my opinion encouraging teen pregnancy, etc.

My take on the editorial is that loss of population is bad for NYC. And reading between the editorialist's lines, perhaps he is saying that we need to initiate policies for dedicated fatherhood and strong "nuclear family" foundations, (less all the "It Takes A Village" socialist propaganda), that will help eliminate teen pregnancy and remove abortion/artifical contraception as a means to solve the "problem".

I share your concern for the sufferings of single teen mothers. I just think your response, (in all good charity in my take on this), was a bit reactionary in nature.... much like the controversy Swift created in England after publishing his short story.

Merry Christmas,

Tom Maguire, Rochester

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.