.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Saturday, July 06, 2013

 

Sexual politics in a Modern Liberal Women world


There is a discussion at Althouse about men’s responsibility for children when they have sexual relations with women.  I’m of the old school and believe that men and women should take sexual relations very seriously rather than sport.  At one time it was assumed that men conspired to have sex with women.  Since visiting web sites that cater to women, I have been disabused of that notion and am told in no uncertain terms that women want to have sex at least as much as men.  Indeed, the single woman who does not have a number of notches on her bedpost is an outcast. 
But that makes me a fossil, especially when viewed from the perspective of Modern Liberal Women (MLW).  Heck, I’m so old that when I was a lad the Constitution not only had nothing to say about abortion; it even lacked penumbras and emanations. 
There are two views that MLW share: (1) abortion is an absolute right and (2) what women do with their bodies is their business.  From this two things should logically follow:
·         Women who have a child are the only ones responsible for that child being born.  They have total autonomy of the issue of abortion and can terminate the pregnancy at any time.   We have to give credit to the Romans who allowed the father to kill his children up to a certain age.  The only thing that’s changed is the gender of the person with the right to kill.
·         Since the man (sperm donor) has no rights regarding the birth of a child, he should logically have no responsibility.
If he accepts responsibility, that may be an indication of an emotional attachment either to the woman or to the offspring, or both.  Acceding to an emotional attachment is not illogical since it brings pleasure to the individuals involved. 
 
However, if there is no emotional attachment on the part of the sperm donor  to either the woman or the child, it is the law, not logic that forces the man to pay for the upkeep of the child.  Althouse makes emotional arguments to shame the man into child support, fallback to pre-Roe times when aborting a child was more difficult than having your teeth cleaned.  She states that “The child is real and needs support.”  Well, that’s true if the child lives which is a decision that’s entirely a decision on the part of the woman.  If the woman decides that she wants the child to live, why is it the responsibility of the sperm donor to provide the “support?”
Ann Althouse demands not just autonomy for the woman; she demands that the sperm donor pay for her decisions.  That may be illogical, but she is not known for logic.  There are several indications of this: first, she teaches law and the law and logic do not necessarily intersect.  Second, she voted for Obama the first time and actually considered doing it a second time.  Third she is a woman and her kind has skin in this game.

Labels: , , , , ,


Comments: Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?