Article here. It so pains me to quote myself as follows (LOL, yeah, right, you guys believe *that*...):
'For a woman, having children without including their father in the equation post-conception has several routes. Artificial insemination is one, but the less expensive routes can still be pursued: have sex with a man/men "casually" and tell them they needn't use condoms because she's using birth control and STDs aren't a concern based on her last visit to the doctor. A less astute man may believe her and become a father without ever knowing it. For financing, she can file for "public assistance", or pursue a child support order, assuming she is ready to tell the father that he is one.
Men have no such options. If a woman with a child is married to the father, there's always no-fault divorce and the high likelihood she'll get custody (with child support) and possibly alimony, either indefinitely or at least for some time. Wilful paternity fraud is possible, especially in places where men have no right to a paternity test or if actual paternity becomes irrelevant after some time period. Several options for her, but not for him.
So unsurprisingly, ectogenesis appeals to men seeking a safer path to parenthood. But before concluding this, consider a few things.
An artificial uterus is a device, not a right. As long as women can still do to men what has been described above and men's recourse is either limited or non-existent, men's rights in this area remain unchanged. Ectogenesis does not provide men the right to a "paper abortion", a legal right to renounce parental rights (such as they are) and obligations (a lot of those) within a given time after a man is named the father by the mother or the state, as does women's option to abort. Not much changes for men, rights-wise, with ectogenesis.'
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.