Do you not see a bit of arrogance in the fact that you not only judged your sister based upon youthful writing but that you continued not to trust her based upon your violation her of privacy?

Then, you searched her husband's house without his permission looking for writings to which you had no right. Were you her primary heir? I suspect not. I suspect her husband and her children were her heirs. They also had every right to her writings, to discover them or not at their own leisure, to read them or save them or burn them.

Or perhaps you don't think people's own writings are actually property? You would be wrong. Why else are there literary executors to take charge of an author's work, both published or unpublished?

Ted Hughes burned one of Sylvia Plath's journals. While I find his motives questionable, he, at least was her legal heir.

And what do we call people who outright steal?

Your sister had every right to compose her journals as she chose -- even as a child. She had every right to expect that, upon her death, her heirs would use or dispose of her writing as they saw fit. Undoubtedly, she did not think ill enough of you, or she would have anticipated your behavior and hid her journals even more carefully.

What she may have written about her experiences, be it with her husband, her children, her parents or you was hers to own and not yours to censor! Her literary legacy was not left to you!

I have a brother from whom I am estranged. There is almost nothing I like about him and I have not only written about him but I have, in writing, warned my daughter -- my legal heir -- about tricks he may pull after my death. All in his own interests of course.

Truly, your letter has convinced me that people can rationalize any crime.

You seem to have made a bit of an error here. I found the statistic you cited (12.7%) on page two of your source. That 12.7% is for two years, not ten years. This is for first-time paroled offenders only.

Other sources have placed the rate at much higher for offenders who have offended (and been prosecuted) more than once.

Futhermore, the article states that there is substantial evidence that sex offenders commit many undetected offenses.

I don't think you can dispute the fact that -- unlike offenses for many other crimes -- sexual offenses against children do not seem to be especially related to the age of the offenders. Other offenses, like robbery and murder decrease substantially as the offender ages. There is a great deal of evidence that child sexual abusers, especially those pedophiles that offend against little boys, retain their sexual interest in children and their sexual offenses against them far longer than other criminal types.

If it were that easy to determine when rape is rape and when it is something else, then prosecutors would have an almost 100 percent conviction rate.

The fact is that often victims are not believed and sometimes people make it up.

I think SCOTUS ruled correctly when it based Roe v. Wade in part upon the right to privacy that is implicit in the Constitution.

What you propose about every pregnancy -- brought to term or not -- needing to be a matter of public record is a classic case of "hard cases make bad law."

1. It is impractical.

2. It interferes with the right of a woman to choose.

3. It is a violation of medical privacy.

Medical privacy is important for many reasons and not just those concerning abortion. If you will look at the release that a person must still fill out about the release of their medical information, you will see that there is a blanket exception for insurers and for employers. I absolutely object to employers/potential employers having such a access. With such access, it is too easy for employers to discriminate against job seekers or existing employees on the basis of disability without the appearance of doing so. (I always cross out this part, write my objection, initial it, and ask for a copy.)

What makes you think that employers would not discriminate against a woman for having an abortion in our present climate?

In cases where a pregnancy is to term resulting in a live birth and there is a need for material support, it is easy enough to determine paternity with a paternity test at that time.

Were I to become pregnant as a result of a rape, I would most likely have an abortion.

Were I to become pregnant and found that that pregnancy risked my life or substantially risked my health, I would have an abortion.

Were I to become pregnant when in such severe economic circumstances that I was risking the care and shelter of my present child/children, I would most likely have an abortion.

Were I to become pregnant by an abusing spouse or boyfriend whom I was trying to escape, I would consider an abortion because having that man's child would forever tie me to him and would put my safety and peace of mind forever at risk.

Women have abortions for many, many reasons. They do so often in privacy because people, like the ex-husband (LW) in the circumstances of this discussion, can, deliberately or not, use it against them. The reasons for abortion and the need for privacy are individual to each woman. It is not, and never should be the man's decision, until men have wombs (or a similiar scientific advancement makes it possible to completely replicate the womb environment.