I posted this on the Single Parents forum, but I also wanted to post here. Please take a monent to read this article:
This is a column from Sunday's Boston Globe- Parade section...
It is a column called Ask Marilyn (Marilyn vos Savant)
"Women have fought hard to gain the right to make their own reproductive choices. but say that a woman has a baby against her partner's wishes. do we also have the right to force men to share the financial burden of raising children they never wanted?
Women have that legal right, but I believe they should not exercise it-except in cases of dire need. On my opinion, if a woman wants to have children, she should either find a man who wants them just as much or support them herself. Otherwise, she is using the man for her own purposes, both sexually and financially.
One could argue that the man knew his actions could result in a pregnancy, so he should be held jointly responsible. But that was in the days before contraception and abortion. If the man wants the woman to have an abortion and she declines, I believe she should relieve him of his legal obligation. (note:this is not an argument for abortion; thats a different subject)
What about the children? They need mothers who wouldn't dream of having them without planning their support beforehand, even if that support is entirely the mother's own."
If you are as outraged as I am by this sentiment, please take a moment to e-mail the author and tell her how you feel.
Her e-mail: marilyn@parade.com
This is a column from Sunday's Boston Globe- Parade section...
It is a column called Ask Marilyn (Marilyn vos Savant)
"Women have fought hard to gain the right to make their own reproductive choices. but say that a woman has a baby against her partner's wishes. do we also have the right to force men to share the financial burden of raising children they never wanted?
Women have that legal right, but I believe they should not exercise it-except in cases of dire need. On my opinion, if a woman wants to have children, she should either find a man who wants them just as much or support them herself. Otherwise, she is using the man for her own purposes, both sexually and financially.
One could argue that the man knew his actions could result in a pregnancy, so he should be held jointly responsible. But that was in the days before contraception and abortion. If the man wants the woman to have an abortion and she declines, I believe she should relieve him of his legal obligation. (note:this is not an argument for abortion; thats a different subject)
What about the children? They need mothers who wouldn't dream of having them without planning their support beforehand, even if that support is entirely the mother's own."
If you are as outraged as I am by this sentiment, please take a moment to e-mail the author and tell her how you feel.
Her e-mail: marilyn@parade.com