The question devolves into this dichotomy: It takes TWO to make the baby, a man and a woman; but only ONE, the woman, ultimately decides whether to keep it or not.
My opinion has always been on the side of the woman's right to choose, simply because the birthing process occurs wholly within their own body and I am a strong advocate of an individual's right to decide what to do with their own body. :yes:
The problem comes with the long-term effects of this choice on BOTH parties after the birth; with the male now facing the legal burdens imposed by society to accept equal responsibility for the woman's choice.
This means either marriage and/or long-term child support. THIS is the part I do not agree with. :no:
I support a woman's right to choose. I also support a man's right to not only refuse to accept any responsibility for this unilateral choice, but also to be protected from any legal obligation to support it thereafter.
I agree that there are inequalities in reproductive rights. But the inequalities are more complicated than many believe.
The usual positions that surround men's reproductive rights inequalities are predicated on women's Constitutional right to select "a legal option" to continue or terminate a pregnancy.
A primary underlying conflict is that while a lot of pro-choice women adamantly are for the right to choose, mainly because of so many potential complication variables, they personally won't get an abortion unless medically necessary. So in this respect the right to choose is fundamentally "legal options" vs "moral choice". This is evident by the fact that most conceptions are brought to full term. Even if the reason for giving birth is for moral reasons. Giving birth still a choice.
Another important aspect is that this issue isn't a two party situation. There are several players potentially involved.
1) bio mom
2) bio dad
3) prenatal stage of a human life (with no legal/Constitutional rights)
4) born child (with legal/Constitutional rights)
5) the State
6) the Taxpayers
(NOTE: The bio dad can't prevent a woman from having an abortion - nor can he force a woman to abort. These legal restraints on men fall under the category of a reproductive rights inequality. And where I note a reproductive inequality existing - it is not me claiming that I am in opposition to or support theses inequalities. I'm merely noting issues that Men's Rights Group have identified as inequalities.)
If the bio mom chooses not to terminate a pregnancy and maintain posesssion of the child, and is willing to not force the bio dad to pay support, the State is still Constitutionally bound to protect the taxpayers. If a situation arises where the bio mom applies for assistance from the State, despite any objections the woman might have, the State will meet its statutory obligations and involve the bio dad. (This issue is under the category of a reproductive rights inequality)
If a woman chooses to not terminate a pregnancy and asks the bio dad for support, the State is Constitutionally bound to protect the taxpayers and it will force the bio dad to pay support. (This issue is under the category of a reproductive rights inequality)
If a bio mom chooses to not terminate the pregnancy and encounters serious medical issues that would force her to abort, and she is eligible for Medicaid, the taxpayers will be forced to allow government payment for the abortion. (The reproductive inequality rights issue with men in this specific circumstance might be the inability to have any control over a woman's choosing to terminate or not terminate since men can't legally influence women to choose either way)
There's probably a number of inequality issues that I haven't included in this post, but I'll end my post by saying I am adamantly aware of reproductive inequalities between men and women, but unless the State and taxpayers are willing to recuse bio dads of any responsibilities to the welfare of unwanted born children, then I don't see any change in men being forced to pay child support...and be willing to assume the bio dad's financial role,
