From the OP on throughout this thread I have consistently supported a woman’s right to choose; either to abort or to accept the full responsibility of having a baby for herself. It simply seems strange to hear arguments claiming that while BOTH are responsible for conception, only ONE gets to decide if both must commit to lifelong responsibility or not.
If the woman controls access, prevention, and “opt-out” outcome why then must the male be bound by those choices but not relieved of the duty to take care of an unexpected and unwanted child if she chooses the “opt-in” outcome?
A partial answer is that even if I want a child I must respect the woman’s choice to make me use contraception, and her use of contraception, and if she gets pregnant to abort it. That is because it is her body and she may choose not to have it affected by the growth of an unwanted child, nor be forced to assume the responsibilities inherent subsequent to childbirth. I cannot compel her to accept these things.
But this does not answer the essential question; if I do NOT want a child and she still gets pregnant why should she be allowed to compel me to?
It is disingenuous to claim it is not her, but “public policy” which actually compels me; because her decision determines whether or not I will be subject to the compulsion of such “public policy.” Currently women are assured that no matter what the man thinks; if she chooses to have an unwanted child then the male will be compelled to support it.
It is also disingenuous to claim that current “public policy” is “set in stone” and cannot change. It is one thing to argue that a majority could not currently accept any public policy change which might increase the tax burden imposed by public welfare. It is another to state categorically that society would never accept any such public policy change.
Arguments claiming that the male could keep his pants on, wear a “sock,” or recognize he is taking a risk are not determining because sex neither constitutes agreement that conception will occur nor that a baby must be born. Why? The woman’s rights are based upon her greater risks; therefore she has the absolute power to decide what happens, if anything, with her body. As a result, even though both share the possibility of conception only she can limit access by requiring levels of contraception; opt to abort; or even abandon the male to hide the pregnancy in order to give the child up for adoption. So only she currently has the power to opt-out.
This is inequitable; even the nay-sayers in this thread acknowledge that.
In response they use every fallacious argument in the book, from appeals to emotion (there is a child!), through appeals to consequences ("public policy"), to affirming the consequent (if male has sex then he agrees to have a baby; a baby occurs, he agreed to have a baby). None of this addresses the essential inequity of the female “opt-out,” they simply assert “too bad, so sad, deal with it.”
I'm still waiting for a logically sound argument which addresses validly why a man should not have the same right to opt-out as the woman does.