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

•••

I came of age in the late 1970s, era of budding feminism, Gloria Steinem and the emergence of "Ms." rather than "Mrs." Here we are decades later and the use of "girl" in common conversation when referring to an adult woman is still pervasive. Oddly, women seem the most common offenders. There are circumstances when it works. Think, "girls' night out." But would you ever say, "I was talking to this boy at work" when referring to an adult man? It is dismissive and demeaning.

It's simple. If you're inclined to use "girl" in a sentence, try substituting "boy." When appropriate, use girl/boy/child, gal/guy/person, woman/man/person.

If you want a seat at the table, perhaps stop opting for the booster chair.

Bridget Clark, Minneapolis

I must respond to Patti Davis' commentary on her father's struggle with the legality of abortion ("How my father, Ronald Reagan, grappled with abortion," Opinion Exchange, May 24). First of all, Reagan should have understood that if he struggled with the decision of abortion, then every woman who considered abortion struggled with the decision as well. No woman takes it lightly, and no doctor takes it lightly. The problem with having men in power is evident here. This man in power thought he had to make a law that put power over a woman's body without consulting the two women closest to him, his daughter and his wife.

Davis said her father was never at peace with the issue. He didn't need to be. A pregnant woman is the one who must be at peace with her decision.

Paula Evensen, St. Louis Park

Recent headlines say that Roe v. Wade may be overturned. They also say that DNA revealed the identity of the woman who left her two newborns to die on the edge of the Mississippi ("Mother charged years after baby found dead by river," May 10). At the time of their deaths, both adoption and safe, legal abortion were available to this person. She chose neither.

There exist people who are so psychologically damaged as to be incapable of providing the nurturing love necessary to raise a child. Government agencies and benevolent societies can provide food, housing, education, etc., but neither can provide the nurturing love a child needs. Considering the situation from the view of the fetus, one might ask what it would prefer: 1) termination before its neurological abilities and sense of self have developed, 2) being allowed to develop to birth and abandoned somewhere, or 3) even worse, taken to the privacy of a house to be starved, neglected and even subjected to unspeakable tortures. We have all read of these incidents and know they are real, tragic and not rare enough.

One can write punitive laws but nothing so far can prevent such abuse. The toxic parent has to have already committed the abuse before agencies can intervene and rescue these children. If Roe is overturned, we need to be prepared to see an increase of child abuse. Supporting our mental health as a country may eventually have an impact, but it will take several generations to change the culture.

P.S. I composed this letter before hearing of the death of Eli Hart.

Joan Buchanan, Roseville

•••

We are deeply disturbed by the recent death of 6-year-old Eli Hart at the hands of his mother ("Allegations tangled boy's custody case," front page, June 2). According to news sources the child's safety was compromised by actions or inactions of Dakota County child protection services. Unfortunately, Dakota County authorities have refused to offer any explanation of how this occurred, what directives county social workers were following, and what steps are being taken to address this situation. The rationale for saying nothing is privacy concerns. Surely a public accounting of agency operations need not involve details of this child's personal history or situation.

The county website has this statement: "Dakota County Social Services investigates reports of child physical abuse, child sexual abuse and child neglect that are believed to be committed by a parent, relative or other household member."

There is no comment by any official, not even county Social Services Director Evan Henspeter, regarding the failure to protect this child. This is unacceptable. As residents of Dakota County, we expect county leadership to openly address this situation before another tragedy occurs.

Bruce Snyder, St. Paul

Let's be mature about guns.

Psychologist and Jesuit priest Anthony DeMello defined maturity: "Maturity is when you no longer blame anyone. You don't blame others; you don't blame yourself. You see what's wrong, and you set about remedying it."

Mental illness has been blamed for the gun violence in the United States. Granted, likely every single mass shooting in the U.S. is attributable to mental illness. Now what? John Hopkins estimates that 26% of Americans ages 18 and older suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year! Even if we miraculously identified and offered services to all mentally ill persons that pose a danger, there is no way with present methods to "cure" the most afflicted. Often the mentally ill will not even accept that they need help. If we look at this with maturity, we are led to the inescapable conclusion that we cannot treat our way out of gun violence.

Mental illness rates in the U.S. only slightly top Europe's, but gun violence is a uniquely American problem in the Western world. The sole difference is Americans' ownership of weapons of war. Gun violence is directly causing additional harm to mental health, especially of our children — those who see their friends gunned down and the rest who fear such a day as they practice active shooter drills.

It is time to accept that the 18-year experiment of legalizing semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines was a failure. The mature remedy: Outlaw future sales and buy the rest back for the good for our country and our collective mental health.

Robert Speeter, Minneapolis

•••

Nigel Biggar, British ethicist, has written that a free society cannot exist on rights alone, but rights always incur duties on those who assume them. This seems obvious enough. For example, I can only drive freely if I assume that others will do their duty by obeying traffic laws. If others do not do their duty, my freedom is curtailed or eliminated, and my life is at risk.

In the ongoing madness of gun violence in the U.S., it is evident that our failure is not in the area of rights but duties. Yes, the gun manufacturers have the right to make guns, and merchants have the right to sell them. But having the right to make lethal weapons also entails an equivalent duty to protect those who might be destroyed by them. That means that makers and merchants have the duty to make sure that weapons of war, like those used in recent mass shootings, are not sold to just anybody for their 18th birthday along with 375 rounds of ammunition. And if they do sell to just anybody, they should be held accountable, in the same way that a bartender is held accountable when a patron is served until drunk and then goes out and kills someone in a drunken driving episode.

Gunmakers and merchants should be the first in line to insist on regulations, and if they are not, then they should be held accountable for every person who dies because of their failure to do their duty. Take your choice: Do your duty or pay the consequences.

Glenn Monson, Rochester