Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
Do we really want to go there? A procedure to force an unwilling woman to endure a pregancy to full term and delivery at the insistance of a man who can afford financially, to qualify to do that?
|
Much better to protect the children of both wealthy and poor fathers. But it'd be an improvement nonetheless. Yes, I would really want to go there, but by no means would I want to stop there.
As to the OP:
A system in which women can disregard the rights of the z/e/f - 'I can abort anytime I want to' - but in which men can't, is a terrible system.
A system 'fair' to both women - 'I can abort the responsibilities' - and men - 'You can always abort your responsibilities, it's on you' - is an even worse system.
Consistency here is not necessarily better. Consistency could mean more state-condoned murder. Consistency would only be an improvement if it meant the criminalization of z/e/f abandoment for
both sexes.
Otherwise, it's a foolish consistency.
(Needless to say, I don't like Roe.)