Father? Go Figure...

The normally solid Ann Althouse blows it big time. In criticizing here, I will give a shout out to Barack Obama, who called men to task for shirking fatherly duties.

Now I enjoy reading Ann, but knee jerk, shrill psycho feminism is unbecoming. Saying a father is critically important to raising children is like saying having two kidneys is better then just one.

But since modern feminism is deeply committed to an anti-male viewpoint and any expression of the need for a two parent household MUST imply women are worthless, Barack must be stopped.

Now I am hardly a Barack supported, but his statements here are dead on. The fact is single parent households are, statistically, more troubled environments and are a larger problem in the black community. The larger problem of what has become an anti-male society needs to be addressed, but the first step is to get men and women to be more responsible about child bearing.

This is NOT to demean the often Herculean efforts of single parent households - raising kids is tough for two parents let alone one. But I am perfectly capable of issuing a compliment without an implicit put down.

UPDATE: Ann claims she is not endorsing the feminist view. Hmmmm. I am not the only one who read it this way. She seems especially miffed at this, but she should re-read her main comment paragraph. I don't think we are "gnawing on a bone."

The State v. Free Will

Ross Douthat has an intriguing post about - I think - when exactly does an act become immoral enough to warrant state intervention. I think Ross hits the nail on the head when he points out that the disagreement is one of when, not if.

I think everyone agrees that the immoral act of murder should be addressed by state action. "Envy," defined as a sin or vice, should not. Ross says, "we have a disagreement about (surprise!) the nature of abortion - whether, like other acts of violence, it's the sort of crime that the civil as well as the moral law should sanction, or whether it's a sin along the lines of gossip, say, or sloth, which the civil authorities can't and shouldn't regulate."

Not quite. I think you have a legitimate conflict between the rights of the unborn child and the rights of the mother to control her body. Assisted suicide is another area where there is this conflict between the will of the individual and the law.

I guess, I would ask Ross, "is this this disagreement so clear cut in your mind to warrant state action?" It might be to him, but I am torn on this issue prior to the viability of the baby. So, in my mind, God gave us free will to make these decisions and face Him on judgment day. Same with assisted suicide. It is not so clear in my mind to warrant taking away the choice if the individual to end his or her life.