I am not sure I will have a chance to write a real blog post today, so I thought I would share this back and forth between me and Darren from this thread. For those familiar with the feminist blogosphere, I think these issues have been treated far more thoroughly and intelligently than I could hope to do here. (Grrr...I cannot seem to find Lauren's brilliant post at Feministe.)
But here's the back and forth so far (edited slightly for clarity):
DARREN mentions a thread on his blog here on the man's right to choose and then goes on to say: Happy Feminist, I'm concerned about equality before *the law*. Right now you get what you *his* loss. Again, not a penalty, but a choice. Neither wants the child? Vacuum it out --superiority before the law. Justice tilts the scales in favor of the women. Like Anonymous/Dan said [on Darren's thread], if the woman wants to have a child and the man doesn't, he should be able to dissociate himself physically, emotionally, and financially from the child. For the woman that's not a *penalty*, that's a *choice* that she accepts. Both have had a choice in this situation. If the man wants the child and the woman doesn't, Anonymous Dan posits that the woman can abort the child but must pay financial restitution to the man for t out.