Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger
I wouldn't presume to speak for TBQH but as Johnny B alluded to there is something not right about mutual consent not being a consideration at all for childbirth. The woman gets to decide if the child goes to term or is aborted, while the man lacks any rights to have any say regardless of the woman's choice and can then be reduced to a monetary aid provider. Something about that is not right. It has little to do with the Oliver segment but is an interesting subject that needs to be explored more because equal rights for parents is an absolute necessity.
|
The law is designed the way it is to theoretically serve the best interests of the child. Compelling a woman to have surgery she does not want or need is a massive step backwards for society. I'll agree it's maybe not a perfect law, but any alternative has to consider the interests of the child as its primary focus, not the interests of the ding dongs who forgot to wrap it up. If we lived in a society where contraception or education surrounding contraception was not readily available, I might be open to different suggestions. Similarly if you could prove that one or both parties in the arrangement lacked the cognitive abilities to understand contraception, then I think there should be alternative solutions. In either case the end solution still wouldn't be to legally compel a woman to terminate the pregnancy, it would be along the lines of providing increased support or social assistance for the parents if the mother elected to carry the child to term.