You probably saw the story here and here.  A young woman, Tanya Meyers, is (or by now, was) ten weeks pregnant.  Her ex-boyfriend, the father, John Stachokus, wants her to bring the pregnancy to term and have the baby so he can raise it; she wants to have an abortion.  At first, Luzerne County (PA) Common Pleas Court Judge Thomas F. Burke Jr. issued an injunction forbidding Meyers from terminating the pregnancy.  Much screaming ensued.  Now Judge Michael Conahan has dissolved the temporary injunction and has also dismissed the father's lawsuit.  Case closed.

This story pushes a hot-button in me.  On the one hand, it can be argued to be barbaric to force a women to carry a baby she doesn't want.  I don't happen to be of the persuasion that says a fetus should have the same rights as a living, breathing human being, so I am sympathetic to Ms. Meyers' assertion that no one has the right to force her to bring the pregnancy to term.

But hold on, something's fishy here: The law is taking an inconsistent position, stacked against men.  If Mr. Stachokus had wanted to avoid all responsibility for the baby, but could be established to be the father, Ms. Meyers could have chosen to keep the baby and hit him up for 18 years of child support.  Her choice, his money.  But if, as in this case, the father is willing to support the baby all on his own, it's still her choice to terminate the pregnancy and end the life of the baby.

This is not just.  Both partners begin the pregnancy, but the woman is given all power to choose how it continues (or doesn't), and the man's role is relegated to standing by and forking over dollars if she demands them.

Justice demands a balanced contract.  Some possibilities would be:

- If there is a pregnancy, the woman will choose whether to have the baby, and will assume all financial responsibility should she choose to keep it.

- If there is a pregnancy, both parties agree that it will come to term, and that they will share financial responsibility for raising the baby.

- If there is a pregnancy, the father agrees to raise the child and the mother agrees not to abort it.

It would be ideal if, every time two fertile people have sex, they first agree what will happen if a pregnancy results.  Of course, in the heat of the moment, such a dream may be laughable, but, since children are very real and very important (not to mention very expensive), that's no excuse to shirk the issue altogether.  If there is going to be some legally enforceable implicit contract in the absence of an explicit one, it must not put one partner's "rights" completely ahead of the other.

Debate on this issue has been muted almost to the point of non-existence by "women's rights" groups, who have for years used every trick in the book to silence dissent.  It is high time for the rest of the nation to refuse to be intimidated any longer, and to demand justice.