Read other letters about this article

• Sunday, March 12, 2006 10:06 PM

  Cross Veto

  The fundamental principle of Roe v Wade was that a woman could not be forced to carry an unwanted child. Period. But laws around birth and parentage that have focused on the responsibility of the father toward the child have not changed.

  So we have a simple matrix:

  Father wants child - Mother Wants child - Keep

  Father wants child - Mother Does not want child - Abort*

  Father Does not want child - Mother Does not want child - Abort

  Father Does not want child - Mother wants child - Keep & pay

  The question posed here is: can a woman force a man to have an unwanted child? I am not meaning to be provacative here, but arguments of who is responsible for birth control are meaningless to me - mainly because any form of birth control coupled with sex runs a risk of pregnancy. Both sides risk the consequences when they have sex and both should be willing to accept responsibilites.

  I agree that #2 in the matrix above may be unfair to a prospective father , but the woman has the veto. But #4, the subject of the article is much more grey. If a man cannot force a woman to abort, then why should he be responsible for the full maintenance of the child? He certainly has some responsibility that he should accept - from the risk of having had sex with the woman. But full in this case? Grey, very grey area.

  It almost makes you wish that both parties had to put up deposits before you were allowed to have sex - to cover the case where these disputes happen. At least it would make people think - with their heads and not their gonads so much.

  The tragedy is that the victim is the kid - aborted or half unwanted. And bitterness and resentment all around. The subject deserves debate and is certainly not a distraction.

  —Ironclad Read Ironclad's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel