by eric » Fri Jan 09, 2015 4:09 pm
Well, they're raising children with financial support from the fathers. Often times without affording men the opportunity to be in the child's life, or without the father wanting to have the child. You are absolutely asserting that women aren't responsible by implying that a man has to be involved in a child's life. You're saying a woman can't do it on her own. And you're also saying that she can't say "ok, the guy that I had sex with doesn't want this child, maybe I should not have it because I can't afford it". Its her body. If she wants to have a child, she should be able to do that. But if a man doesn't want the child, it should be his choice to not be involved. She can then make the choice. It's giving women responsiblity and freedom of choice, and treating them like adults. Mutual consent for sex. Mutual consent for taking care of a child in the year 2014 when people can choose to or not to have a child. If this was like the Dark Ages, than yeah you'd have an argument.
And what I'm proposing is not forcing people into doing things they don't want to do. Yes it unties men who already don't want children from being shitty fathers. So what? It doesn't matter for the people who do want to be fathers.
I'm not being patronizing or "teaching women responsibility". I'm assuming they are adults and can take care of themselves and make decisions. Yeah there would be more abortions. So what? Seems to solve the problem.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."