This article was posted today on CNN.com. In no way do I mean this posting to be a political commentary; rather, it's intended to highlight a certain line of thought which is now receiving the attention it seeks. I must say that when one considers the ideals of chivalrous knights of yore--bravery, honesty, valor, sacrifice--this article is reminiscent of none. A few of the "nobler" quotations are in italics, and my comments follow each one:
"If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood." In other words, the degree of responsibility I accept is limited by how accountable another person is for her actions.
"I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly." That's right, because right now men really have no options.
"Roe says a woman can choose to have intimacy and still have control over subsequent consequences," he said. "No one has ever asked a federal court if that means men should have some similar say." What we're striving for is a dissociation between actions and consequences. We must be free to do what we please without dealing with the results.
"The public is still dealing with the pre-Roe ethic when it comes to men, that if a man fathers a child, he should accept responsibility." Precisely.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Here's an interesting quote, as well: The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter. "None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child."
Rights of the child? How ironic, Ms. Gandy.
Post a Comment