Here is the best analogy I have read yet!!

I've been trying to show that although women should be equal, swinging the pendulum so far in the other direction while gaining that equality is not the answer either. My biggest issue is whether or not a man should be legally responsible for a baby that he clearly states he does not want. If the woman has a right to choose whether or not she has the baby, the man should have a right to the same choice.

Now don't get me wrong, I believe that there needs to be a time limit on this decision. I don't support being irresponsible, but I also think their is an element of inequality when a woman can make such a huge, life changing decision without any thought to the potential father.

Here is a great analogy that will support what I am trying to say:


Imagine that you and I play hockey, and despite your best precautions, you injure me. Due to my religious beliefs I refuse to undergo the simple surgery which would cure me, and I become paralysed. It would be nice of you to subsidize this choice, but I do not think you would have a duty to pay the exponentially greater costs incurred by my decision. Respecting my freedom of choice does not generate a duty to pay for the costs of its exercise by those with whom we interact (Brake).

With that being said, Brake makes another great point:

Whether or not there are, as some philosophers have argued, sui generis duties in sex, if one sexual partner causes harm to the other, surely he incurs certain duties towards his partner. For example, sex can transmit disease. If A negligently transmits a disease to B, A arguably has a duty to cover the cost of treatment and to compensate B for harm. These duties might extend to sharing the cost of a pregnancy test or abortion, or costs incurred in pregnancy. The costs which it seems fair to assign here are those of treating or compensating for the harm.

I completely agree with this. If he had a hand in causing the pregnancy, he should have a hand in the costs incurred with the pregnancy. If he had deceived the woman into believing that he wanted a baby, or that it was medically impossible for him to get her pregnant, he should have full responsibility for at least the next eighteen years. However, if he used protection, and told her right from the beginning that he doesn't want a baby, if she makes the decision to keep the baby, he should only be responsible for the resulting pregnancy and no more.

Please keep in mind, I am not talking about anything other than a relationship in which the man has made it clear his intentions and wants in which the woman makes a decision solely on what she wants. That will be the theme throughout this entire blog sight.