Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Men's Roe vs. Wade

For a long time I have found it to be a dichotomy in American Jurist Prudence that a woman can decide that she is not in an appropriate economic position to have a child and therefore kill it, legally. At the same time a man has no such choice. There are a number of ways to remove that dichotomy and, frankly, I don't have a great deal of sympathy for guys who screw around and get stuck with the tab. But this article has a quote that I just cannot pass on.
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."
The bold is my own emphasis. We now have the President of NOW saying that court cases surrounding child support and abortion are decided on the "rights of the child"! Isn't this the same group that claims that it should be considered unconstitutional to outlaw partial birth abortion, a procedure in which nobody even claims that we are dealing with an inviable glob of cells and which nobody has stepped forward with a supportable claim that it is ever reasonably needed in saving the life of the mother? Talk about dichotomies!


Post a Comment

<< Home