A reply
This stems from http://www.livejournal.com/community/feminist/2345844.html - a satirical essay mocking Samual Alito's decision on parental notification.
I am nothing if not pro-choice. If you don't believe me, read my last entry.
And I don't believe that notification should be the law, primarily because of abusive situations in which notification could put the woman at great risk.
But! But but but!
I have always believed that every child comes from two parents, and that both parents have an obligation to be part of that child's life, and to take part in making the decisions that affect that child. This is why absentee fathers are such scumbags - they seem to think that because the woman bears the child, she gets all the responsibilities that go along with raising it. And of course that's bullshit: he played an equal part in creating that child. That child is nothing more than an unfertilized egg without his contribution. Both the man and the woman created that life, and the responsibilities need to be shared.
I also believe that the father has not only the responsibility, but the RIGHT to be a part of his child's life. Of course, there are plenty of ways to lose that right, and all the time the courts are denying men access to their children if they're ruled unfit to raise those children. But even in divorce cases, the mother's/father's flaws are measured against the importance of a person's right to raise his/her own children. It's fundamental to being human. You have the responsibility to raise that child, and you also have the right to do so.
With me so far? I ALSO believe that those rights precede the birth. They have to, don't they? If you're talking about rights, the right to one's offspring, then the same standards that apply after the birth should apply before the birth. And just because the fetus matures in her body (not his) doesn't give him any less rights, just as it doesn't give him any less responsibility.
Some may argue that because the fetus is IN her body, that it IS her body. Nonsense. If it was her body and hers alone, she wouldn't need a man to get pregnant! Even if we're not talking about a fetus being alive, we are talking about something that didn't exist before, that owes its existence to two different people, and is genetically composed of 23 chromosomes from the woman, and 23 from the man. 50-50, down the middle. Two parents, two sets of rights, two sets of responsibilities.
Now as I said earlier, I don't believe this should be legislated. And I believe this for the same reason I don't believe abortion should be illegal: It's a complicated moral issue, creating potential scenarios that the law is entirely unequipped to handle. But ethically? Let's say a man and a woman are in a happy, mutually satisfying relationship. One broken condom later, she's pregnant. She may not want to have a child, and that's fine. But she does not have the right to terminate that pregnancy without telling her partner - because that pregnancy is not HERS, it is THEIRS. That blob of flesh in her womb is half hers, and it is half his. And for her to make any decisions about the future of that blob of flesh without her partner is irresponsible, and it is unethical.
I am nothing if not pro-choice. If you don't believe me, read my last entry.
And I don't believe that notification should be the law, primarily because of abusive situations in which notification could put the woman at great risk.
But! But but but!
I have always believed that every child comes from two parents, and that both parents have an obligation to be part of that child's life, and to take part in making the decisions that affect that child. This is why absentee fathers are such scumbags - they seem to think that because the woman bears the child, she gets all the responsibilities that go along with raising it. And of course that's bullshit: he played an equal part in creating that child. That child is nothing more than an unfertilized egg without his contribution. Both the man and the woman created that life, and the responsibilities need to be shared.
I also believe that the father has not only the responsibility, but the RIGHT to be a part of his child's life. Of course, there are plenty of ways to lose that right, and all the time the courts are denying men access to their children if they're ruled unfit to raise those children. But even in divorce cases, the mother's/father's flaws are measured against the importance of a person's right to raise his/her own children. It's fundamental to being human. You have the responsibility to raise that child, and you also have the right to do so.
With me so far? I ALSO believe that those rights precede the birth. They have to, don't they? If you're talking about rights, the right to one's offspring, then the same standards that apply after the birth should apply before the birth. And just because the fetus matures in her body (not his) doesn't give him any less rights, just as it doesn't give him any less responsibility.
Some may argue that because the fetus is IN her body, that it IS her body. Nonsense. If it was her body and hers alone, she wouldn't need a man to get pregnant! Even if we're not talking about a fetus being alive, we are talking about something that didn't exist before, that owes its existence to two different people, and is genetically composed of 23 chromosomes from the woman, and 23 from the man. 50-50, down the middle. Two parents, two sets of rights, two sets of responsibilities.
Now as I said earlier, I don't believe this should be legislated. And I believe this for the same reason I don't believe abortion should be illegal: It's a complicated moral issue, creating potential scenarios that the law is entirely unequipped to handle. But ethically? Let's say a man and a woman are in a happy, mutually satisfying relationship. One broken condom later, she's pregnant. She may not want to have a child, and that's fine. But she does not have the right to terminate that pregnancy without telling her partner - because that pregnancy is not HERS, it is THEIRS. That blob of flesh in her womb is half hers, and it is half his. And for her to make any decisions about the future of that blob of flesh without her partner is irresponsible, and it is unethical.