
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: FRIDAY, June 25, 1993                   TAG: 9306250409
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-8   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

A MIXED MESSAGE ON RESPONSIBILITY

YOUR EDITORIAL on unwed fathers (June 11) correctly commends the state of Virginia and the Clinton administration for taking steps to improve child-support enforcement. But your position is ironic in view of your editorial stance favoring abortion on demand. Supporting abortion is inconsistent with a call for greater fatherly responsibility.

Under current law, a woman has absolute discretion to kill her unborn child. A father who does not want to support his child can thus urge the mother to have an abortion. This act, the ultimate in fatherly irresponsibility, is perfectly permissible. Should, however, the mother decline to have an abortion, the father can argue that since the child's birth resulted from her decision not to abort, the child should be solely her responsibility.

On the other hand, a father who wants to keep and support his child cannot stop the mother from having an abortion. It is bizarre to say to fathers: "Be responsible by supporting a child the mother decides not to kill, but you cannot exercise responsibility by saving the life of a child the mother has decided to kill."

A premise of pro-choicers is that women should have equality with men concerning their sex lives: Since men enjoy sex without worrying about an unwanted pregnancy, women should have the same privilege.

What women seek through abortion is the right to equal irresponsibility. Your call for increased child-support enforcement partially addresses the problem of male irresponsibility. Consistency requires that you also address the problem of female irresponsibility by opposing abortion on demand. SAMUEL W. CALHOUN LEXINGTON

by CNB