So, there’s a part of me that understands why people want abortions. But, as I’ve mentioned before, I think that there are more fundamental issues to this debate. When abortion becomes more about rights and less about responsibility, we unnaturally pit the rights of the mother against the rights of the baby. Does this seem natural–whether or not you believe in a Creator?
The BBC News reports:
Men’s rights activists in the US are to argue in
court that fathers do not have an obligation to pay money towards
raising a child they did not want.
The National Center for Men is fighting the case on a
behalf of a man who says his ex-girlfriend had his child after telling
him she could not get pregnant.
Activists say men should have the same rights as women in dealing with the consequences of unintended pregnancy.
I must say, that if pregnancy is just about rights, then this man’s case really isn’t that frivolous. In fact, given the premises of the abortion laws, it makes a lot of sense. At the same time, this story rubs us wrongly because a father is a father, regardless of rights. So this case reveals that with regard to a mother and her child, it is about rights; but with regard to a father and his child, it is about responsibility.
Again, when did family standing ever have anything to do with rights? It seems to me that family is about love, fidelity, responsibility, and blood. Talk about rights is our attempt within the framework of Western liberalism to grapple with the dysfunctions we see in family life, but I wonder if it imposes something quite foreign to a natural understanding of family–like using hot sauce to heat up ice cream.