|
I have to say that i'm liking the crompsin angle here.
I don't think that a man should be able to compel a woman to have a child. Pregnancy is often a very complicated thing, and there are always risks. At what point do potential risks to the woman's life take precedence over a man's desire to have a child with an unwilling partner? Does the man get to tell the woman what she can and can't ingest during the pregnancy? There are ways to encourage a miscarriage. It just doesn't seem like a very reasonable position to take when exposed to the harsh light of speculation. It's an understandable perspective if you take away the whole historical context of male dominance, but with context firmly in place it seems kind of gross.
It would make much more sense to me if the father could opt out as some sort of analog to abortion. Even that would be a can of worms.
Life ain't fair. Biology doesn't favor male choice when it comes to the growth of a fetus, them's the breaks. You might as well be advocating for some sort of legal remedy for the size differences between men and women.
|