| sc94597 said: Because how qualified a parent is depends on much more than natural sex and/or gender. If the roles were reversed and women were not afforded a right because of "nature" or the perception thereof would you be defending your claim? Should women, for example, not be hired in computer science or engineering because they are naturally predisposed not to be interested in their fields on average, and might not perform up to task? Individualism is key here. Sex and/or gender does not determine competency on the individual level. |
Computer science is not a part of our genetic make up. Assuming women are naturally predisposed not to be interested in beta sciences is pretty sexist as well ;) How much of that predisposition is nature or nurture or simply different priorities in life is still up for debate. However nurturing children has been a primary role for the mother's side passed on through genetics. I'm talking early motherhood here, newborns bonded to the mother long before birth, still getting to know the father after birth. If both are competent then assigning an infant to the father as a male right is pretty stupid. So yeah, women have that right because of nature.
Now at what point that right should stop, I don't know. Before the kids have a legal right to decide, but definitely not in the first months after birth.
