Friday, January 13, 2006

Judges & Cases

On my drive in this morning, I heard some of the testimony in the Senate about the supreme court justice nomination. The NARAL lady was talking. And we all know what she said.

I was intrigued that she referred to a time before Roe in which, along with the permission of doctors, one had to get permission of the baby's father.

We were all supposed to be outraged, of course, that the law ever worked this way. But I thought that it was at least consistent, at the time with other laws. I can't say I think reproductive law is consistent now.

Now I'm no lawyer, but as I understand it, as a man, you have no say over whether any pregnancy you create comes to term or not. Women get to choose whether a baby is born or not. But as I understand "paternity suit", women can hold men financially liable for children they sire, whether or not the men wanted a child. In the past, men were accountable, and had influence. Now, men have no influence, but are still accountable. This seems unfair.

If the reasoning is, "Hey, if you don't want kids, don't take the risk of screwing," the same line could be used to argue that abortion should be illegal and that both men and women should accept the risk of unwanted pregancy. If women expect financial equality and have absolute legal control over reproduction, then it seems fair that they should bear absolute legal and financial responsibility for reproduction as well. If you control an outcome, you are responsible for the outcome. Seems fair to me.

Not very PC of me to think or write it, I know. But I've not had much to say in political or social commentary for a while.