DarwinCatholic has some good commentary on a news article I’ve been meaning to mention.
…in the man’s case, US law recognizes a traditional understanding of what sex is (an act that can naturally be assumed to be fertile) while in the woman’s case sex is merely considered an act which may bring on a transitional condition in which a woman has conceived yet has not yet decided whether or not she wants to actually be pregnant.
Clearly, being pregnant (and caring for a child) is a far, far greater burden for a woman than for a man, so one can see how (thinking with its heart rather than its head) our country got itself into this position. But it’s still a pretty untenable position to be in.
Obviously, it would be wrong to deny child support and parentage to children in order to be "fair" to the men who fathered them. So in that respect, the lawsuit mentioned in the article is reprehensible. On the other hand, it highlights the illogical position we find ourselves in.
(And it points out that biology isn’t "fair" in the same sense that laws can strive to be "fair." Must we apply "fairness" to situations that are inherently biologically "unfair"? That’s a question that’s more general than just this one….)
Unfortunately, if a court decided that, to be fair, laws must either allow fathers to opt out or cut back on abortion-on-demand, I have a feeling that many groups would choose to lobby for abortion over child support.
bearing blog 