More Fallout from the "Revolution"
Anyone who still thought the sexual revolution was costless should read this piece from Cathy Young.
It's about men who have sex with women out of wedlock, and are then resentful when the women choose not to have abortions, thereby requiring them to pay child support for a baby they didn't plan on making. Women, they argue, can choose to abort the child or to have it -- a choice they don't get to make. If she chooses the latter, they insist, they should be able to terminate their financial obligation.
Nice. Sounds like chivalry truly is dead.
First, as Young points out, where does that leave the children? Minus not only a father, but without whatever money he would have contributed to the child's upbringing.
Where does that leave the mother? Coerced toward having the abortion, if she doesn't believe that she could manage without assistance from the father.
Where does that leave society? In many cases, supporting children whose fathers were happy enough to make them, significantly less happy to deal with the consequences.
It is unfair, as Young points out, that men can have to give up significant portions of their income for 21 years because they can't control the abortion "choice." But in the same sense, biology is inherently "unfair," too. Because those men won't be the ones either to risk the psychological and physical trauma that can result from an abortion (even one that's freely chosen) or else end up primarily responsible for a child.
Women can't offload the responsibility of carrying and birthing (or aborting) a child to men (nor, precious as it is, would most want to). Men can't offload the responsibility for providing financially for the children they make.
Maybe it's just something to keep in mind before one gets carried away in the heat of the moment.
It's about men who have sex with women out of wedlock, and are then resentful when the women choose not to have abortions, thereby requiring them to pay child support for a baby they didn't plan on making. Women, they argue, can choose to abort the child or to have it -- a choice they don't get to make. If she chooses the latter, they insist, they should be able to terminate their financial obligation.
Nice. Sounds like chivalry truly is dead.
First, as Young points out, where does that leave the children? Minus not only a father, but without whatever money he would have contributed to the child's upbringing.
Where does that leave the mother? Coerced toward having the abortion, if she doesn't believe that she could manage without assistance from the father.
Where does that leave society? In many cases, supporting children whose fathers were happy enough to make them, significantly less happy to deal with the consequences.
It is unfair, as Young points out, that men can have to give up significant portions of their income for 21 years because they can't control the abortion "choice." But in the same sense, biology is inherently "unfair," too. Because those men won't be the ones either to risk the psychological and physical trauma that can result from an abortion (even one that's freely chosen) or else end up primarily responsible for a child.
Women can't offload the responsibility of carrying and birthing (or aborting) a child to men (nor, precious as it is, would most want to). Men can't offload the responsibility for providing financially for the children they make.
Maybe it's just something to keep in mind before one gets carried away in the heat of the moment.
posted by LadybugUSA at 11:08 AM
2 Comments:
just another fine example of liberalism run amok.
I'm old school. I say men don't offload responsibility-- that's something boys do.
Post a Comment
<< Home