A reader writes:
One question: Was the man wearing a condom?
It is just difficult for me to feel sorry for him when he is compelling his girlfriend to both shoulder the burden of birth control (which is a burden - the hormones wreak havoc on the body) and abortion. If he wanted rights then he should have taken some responsibility for preventing the pregnancy.
The article suggests he wasn't; the closest reference was this: "she was on birth control, she says, though its effectiveness may have been diluted by antibiotics she was taking." Another writes:
The Bruell-Hedrick case strikes me as very simple - at least ethically, if not legally. The person with a claim to support from Bruell isn't Hedrick; it's their unborn child. Hedrick collects the money as the child's guardian/executor, but ethically speaking that money belongs to the child, not her. Since this child wasn't a party to the agreement between Bruell and Hedrick, it doesn't seem right that it can be deprived of the support of its father.
I remember thinking Bruell's way when I was younger.
I sent an angry letter once to Ann Landers about how a guy outta be excused from paying child support if he wanted the mom to get an abortion and she wouldn't. Like many young men, the world revolved around me and my needs, and I always knew what was right after a moment's thought. That justice was always aligned with my convenience was a happy coincidence and nothing more. When I grew the hell up, I came to understand that this sort of thinking marked me as a douchebag with entitlement issues, and that a child's claim to support from his father trumps the father's claim to hassle-free intercourse.
A year ago the Dish posted on a breakthrough study showing the effectiveness of a male pill. Discovery News recently asked where the hell it is already.