"Mark D. Fulwiler" wrote:
>
> Does anyone else here think is unfair and unjust
> that a woman can always get out of the
> responsibility for a child (before birth by
> aborting it and after birth by putting it up for
> adoption), while a man can literally be held
> responsible for hundreds of thousands in expenses
> just because he was careless enough not to use a
> rubber, or because a woman's birth control method
> did not work or because he was lied to? ("Yes
> honey, I'm on the pill.") Fair is fair. If women
> legally don't have to support their kids, men
> shouldn't have to either.
>
> I'm gay, but if I were a heterosexual man the
> prospect of having sex with any woman would
> greatly concern me for these reasons.
Its a curiously constitutional 'separate but equal' situation, where the
man is considered to be exercising his reproductive rights when he
decides whether or not to drop his drawers, while the woman exercises
them during pregnancy as well as when she decides to drop her drawers.
Personally, if the man was lied to, then the woman should either be
forced to either abort, OR accept the father's dissolution of rights and
support. That is a perfectly fair reproductive choice to make. Of
course, I'm sure this is gonna piss off at least a few of the women on
the list. I personally think that the lack of application of consent
here is a major legal hole.
-- TANSTAAFLMike Lorrey
"In the end more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free." --- Edward Gibbon (1737-1794)
"A person who wants a society that is both safe and free, wants what never has been, and what never will be." --- Thomas Jefferson
"It's a Republic, if you can keep it..." --- Benjamin Franklin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:48 MDT