I have to keep it short and sweet today...Maya has homework that she forgot about last night, so I have to wake her up soon to do it. I have a deadline at work. And, most importantly, my friend Rosemary is coming into town from Pennsylvania! HOORRRAY! So I'll be hanging with her and her family this afternoon and tonight, before she departs for Lake Tahoe. Sigh. Nice weekend ahead.
So, in the political turn that this blog has taken in the last two days or so, I'll bring this up. Then maybe no politics for awhile, OK? OK. There's a law suit that has beenn filed by the National Center for Men, which they are calling (it's trademarked, actually) Roe vs. Wade...for men. The argument goes like this: If women can choose whether to have a child or not, the father should have the equal right to choose whether to support the child, if she decides to have it against his wishes. I'm sure that sounds fair, and it WOULD be fair...but fair doesn't always work. After all, it's not fair to the baby if a woman decides to get an abortion, right? But it has been decided that the woman's right to privacy, to decide what happens to her own body, takes precidence over the rights of the unborn child. Not fair, but the best we can do. Biology isn't fair, and it won't let a fetus jump out and find a woman who WANTS a child, and it won't jump out and into a man, or anything like that. So, we do the best with what we have. Similarly, it is in the best interest of society that children have financial support from two parents. That way, society isn't made to bear that burdon as often. So, even though it is unfair to the man who didn't want a child to begin with, if he gets a woman pregnant, and she has the child, he has to pay support for that child.
Fair? No. But that's the way it is, and in my opinion, the way it has to be, whether we like it or not.