This Sunday's AJC offered a couple of items rooted in human rights that could hardly be more diametrically opposed despite the common thread of "women's choice" as regards their bodies, fetuses and children. First up was a letter to the editor from someone incensed at the heartbeat bill and the sex of those debating abortion--dominated by men. A contrasting article, much in the style of an op-ed piece, lamented the plight of a woman trying to cut bureaucratic red tape to secure a passport for her daughter. This legal process requires the signature of the father of her daughter even though the child was born out of wedlock.
As if such things still exist. Fathers? Really. And that is the crux of the matter.
Without belaboring how a zygote brings an additional brain to the party and somehow enhances post-coital judgment found seriously lacking mere days, or even hours earlier, it seems that a woman's choice is sacrosanct. What the passport kerfuffle highlights is the enormous gulf between choice and responsibility. The mother seeking a passport is the poster child for the "have my cake and eat it too" of the abortionista's agenda. This mother had a choice and made a choice. Make no mistake, it was her choice and her choice alone aligned with pro-abortion dogma. Yet she has, unfailingly, received child support from her Why-Ask-Y genetic donor. Now, because of bureaucratic inconvenience, she wishes to be unshackled from any conditions related to Mister Y. But without turning off the child support cashflow. Of course.
Fine. It IS a woman's choice. Outside of rape, it is her choice to bed Mister Y. Her choice to use or eschew pre-coital birth control. Her choice upon impregnation to abort--or not. With the great freedom of these great choices comes great responsibility. Or so it should. Perhaps before engaging in a heartbeat debate the State should address current inequities that penalize men. The State should ensure that choices, and those who make them, bear the responsibility for those choices. Then it will be easier to get that passport.
As if such things still exist. Fathers? Really. And that is the crux of the matter.
Without belaboring how a zygote brings an additional brain to the party and somehow enhances post-coital judgment found seriously lacking mere days, or even hours earlier, it seems that a woman's choice is sacrosanct. What the passport kerfuffle highlights is the enormous gulf between choice and responsibility. The mother seeking a passport is the poster child for the "have my cake and eat it too" of the abortionista's agenda. This mother had a choice and made a choice. Make no mistake, it was her choice and her choice alone aligned with pro-abortion dogma. Yet she has, unfailingly, received child support from her Why-Ask-Y genetic donor. Now, because of bureaucratic inconvenience, she wishes to be unshackled from any conditions related to Mister Y. But without turning off the child support cashflow. Of course.
Fine. It IS a woman's choice. Outside of rape, it is her choice to bed Mister Y. Her choice to use or eschew pre-coital birth control. Her choice upon impregnation to abort--or not. With the great freedom of these great choices comes great responsibility. Or so it should. Perhaps before engaging in a heartbeat debate the State should address current inequities that penalize men. The State should ensure that choices, and those who make them, bear the responsibility for those choices. Then it will be easier to get that passport.
Posts
