Renew America's Steve Kellmer has written about Matt Dubay and his suit claiming that he should be able to "opt out" on being a father that is incredibly rich in thought and valid points. Please take a few minutes to read Kellmer's entire discussion, which includes
How can he have responsibilities towards a fertilized egg that doesn't even exist until hours after he has withdrawn from the woman, withdrawn from the bedroom, gotten dressed and gone home to wash his car? Conception happens hours, sometimes days, after having sex.
The pro-choice movement has been telling us (and continues to tell us) that there is no child at conception. If the "father" has never even been near the "mother" since they had sex hours or even days before fertilization, then how can he be held responsible?
We know that I believe that men become fathers and women become mothers at fertilization, whether in vitro or in vivo. Pointing out the inconsistencies of the pro-abortion side worked when we taught about partial birth and late term abortion. Mr. Dubay just gave us another, very strong illustration about the lack of logic in holding that parenthood or personhood develops over time.
1 comment:
What lack of logic are you referring to? Your own arguments, and those of the writer you quote, are not clear from this post.
Is he suggesting that men are not fathers because conception occurs after ejaculation? Or is he suggesting that pro-choice advocates make that argument? He's wrong in either case - it's obvious that being a father is not predicated upon the fact you cite, but equally true that no one has claimed otherwise (and it's hard to see what relation that would have to the pro-choice position anyway).
And are you endorsing that claim or rejecting it? Again, it's not true, but, to my knowledge, you and your source are the only ones who have suggested it might be.
If there is an actual example of a pro-choice argument on this topic that you think illustrates a lack of logic, you would do well to cite that example and discuss it in detail. Citing someone else's completely garbled version of an argument that no one makes does not prove your case.
Post a Comment