Well the decision in Roe states to birth or beget...meaning after the fact of pregnancy, the state has no right to intrude on a choice of parenthood. Also the only reason state cannot prove reason to intrude is because of the controversy of the' compelling point','personhood'...this 'gray' area is what affords the right to choice for women so my question is why does woman get a choice after conception yet man is obligated from conception...the question in Roe is not birth or not, it is fundamental privacy in choice where the gov. has no prevailing interest..as in an interest in potential life. This is why women cannot take drugs or have 3rd tri abortion, because the state's interest in the potential life overrides the woman's right except during this 'questionable' period as state cannot prove an embryo qualifies as a person. I do not agree people should not support thier child but I also do not agree that the liability of support for a joint creation should be one person's decision...the woman. Also a woman can choose adoption, if a man chooses adoption...1st he can only do so if the woman has another'daddy' in place ready to adopt and that still does not assure bio dad will have no financial obligation. my question is about equality in the law and moral judgement...why is it acceptable for a woman to terminate life already in the process of development simply because not wanting to be a parent but if a man does not want parenthood or financial obligation..it is seen as a morally deviant decision. We have women choosing abortion, is it so surprizing to have men not wanting to be a parent? or to be subject to crimminal punishment for an accident child, a woman is not subject to punishment for terminating an accident child...why should a man not have the option to sign away any obligation....is that so different than a woman choosing an abortion....at least the child has life w/ the dad's choice, what does the child get w/ mom's choice? Making it a one sided choice only fuels the path of women having unwanted children for the check. If woman makes the choice of birth alone, why is it not soley her financial responsibility? I think the laws need to support protection and responsibility not reward such by assuring a paycheck.
People may say it is old fashioned but one can't deny history...when it was considered 'shameful' to get pregnant as a teen or unwed woman we did not have as many one sided pregnancies and that is largely due to the way society judged it...now we make excuses for teenagers getting pregnant and seeking abortions w/out parent knowledge...so is that not like society giving the big o.k.? Everyone preaches this 'we should accept all morality' or 'at least the liberals' but how has this worked out better in any area...more drop outs,gangs,school violence,teen pregs,abortions,latch key kids, kids whose parents have no clue what they are doing,etc....I do not see it leading anywhere good.
Also when you say it's not about not supportting a child two have chose to bring into the world, thats where your wrong...just because mom chose birth doesn't mean dad agreed and they are both equally guilty in causing conception so why does woman get the right to the ultimate choice...life or death, yet man gets zero choice, only lifelong financial liability.....and I've yet to hear of the child that money made all the difference in the outcome of life...
