Letters to the Editor
jebldmm
Published Letters: 933 Editor's Choice: 164
-
This is not a simple question
[Read the article: Should men have to support children they father but don't want?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If a pregnant woman decides she doesn't want a child she can either abort it or give it up for adoption, or, if he is willing, pass responsibility onto the father. Men don't have much choice in the matter after insemination occurs. On the other hand, men don't have nearly as much invested in child production. One ejaculation vs. months of pregnancy and permanent body changes. The differences in "investment" aren't based on social issues, they are strictly biological. We can't change that with legislation.
Society has an interest in ensuring that children are cared for. But why does the burden have to fall on men? Because, traditionally, they are the bread winners while women bear the responsibility of bearing and caring for children. But roles are changing, and women are taking a greater role in providing financial resources, while men are more often taking on the role of caregivers. If the roles were really equalized, and women had as many financial opportunities as men, and child care was not still considered the primary responsibility of women, then I would say that men should not be held financially liable for their offspring. However, as much as I would wish it so, this is not the way our society works.
In short - I think that men need to recognize that their control over their reproduction pretty much ends when they ejaculate, and behave accordingly. Someday science or social conditions may change that, but we are a long way from any such change.
-
Jon Stewart Said something very similar last night
[Read the article: And who says we don't have a plan for victory?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The only difference was that he was mocking Bush's lack of an exit strategy, while Rumsfeld seems to be serious.
-
It's the same rhetoric that has been losing
[Read the article: Is the glass half-full for pro-choice women?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am getting kind of sick of reading about how "pro-choice" people are going to come out of the woodwork because "X" has been taken away. We really need to reframe the debate if we want to win. Think of the slogans "It's not a choice, it's a child", "Choose Life", "Abortion stops a beating heart". Throw in a few imagines purporting to show dismembered foetuses, and a group of people claiming that a woman can walk into any abortion clinic in America a week before she is due and get an abortion because she changed her mind, and we are LOSING. "Pro-Choice. Pro-Child" is the only memorable slogan I can think of on our side, and it doesn't say anything. If we can't even explain to people why this is important, then why should we expect them to support us?
We need to educate people about abortion. For starters, stop looking like we're fighting for 3rd trimester abortions. Most people can figure out that the difference between a foetus in the 8th month and a baby is pretty subtle, and that killing a foetus that late in the game is only a hair's breath from killing a baby. But they think we support that. Heck - some of us DO support that. I've actually been in arguments on DailyKos with people who think a woman should be able to get an abortion for no medical reason when she is days from delivering. Could we define what we are FOR before fighting for it? I'm sure as heck not in favor of women being able to abort when they are 8 1/2 months pregnant. Every right comes with limits. My right to own a gun comes with a responsibility to use it wisely and not let children get their hands on it. If I don't act responsible and a child get's hurt, I can go to jail. I think that 6 months is plenty of time to decide if you want to have an abortion.
I think that if we really developed a position and made it clear, we would win more support for abortion-rights. But vague references to "choice" haven't worked in the last 30 years, and they aren't going to suddenly start working now.
-
I find this disturbing
[Read the article: Two more RU-486 deaths]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I did a bit of research on-line about this and found that the condition that killed these women has also kills pregnant women who didn't use RU-486, so the drug itself may not be the problem. Regardless, I hope that pro-choice people are willing to accept the possibility that either the drug is unsafe or the protocol for using it should be changed. The risk of death when using this drug may be low, but if there is a way of lowering it further I hope that we will not ignore or deny the issue becasue we are afraid of giving anti-choice people ammunition.
-
College IS affirmative action for girls
[Read the article: Dear college applicant, So sorry to hear you're a girl ...]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Men have job options fresh out of high school that are far better than those available to women. In order to make more money than a waitress, a woman needs college, unless she is willing (and able) to be a prostitute or an exotic dancer. I suspect that the reason that women outnumber men in colleges is at least partly influenced by the reality that more men choose to take the immediate rewards they have available to them rather than spend the time and money to get a college degree. I'm not trying to say that men have it easy - they work hard for their money. But they do have options that are simply not available to women. One option off the top of my head is the construction industry. A 20 year old man can make good money helping build houses. How many women do you see working at construction sites?