A pregnant woman may choose whether to have an abortion and if she bears the child she may leave the child at a “newborn drop-off site” and walk away from any responsibility forever.
A man has no legal right to object to or require an abortion of a child he has fathered and even if he never knew the mother got pregnant he can be hunted down in perpetuity and forced to pay child support.
Thus women are assigned 100% authority and 0% responsibility while for the man the reverse is true.
Reproductive Rights is one of those public issues where the inequality between the sexes is rarely discussed.
Reproductive rights does not exist as a legal concept for men, and men are regularly told that they have responsibilities and not rights. A man has no reproductive rights that a woman is bound to respect, whether in nor out of marriage, to keep the baby or not. The only right that men have is to keep their pants zipped up, as the course of their lives and their hope for posterity is entirely dependent on the womans choice.
I remember hearing a feminazi screeching about how vital reproductive rights were for all human beings, insofar as their ability to determine the course of their lives is concerned. It got me to wondering how it is that no comparable reproductive right exists for men other than the right to keep your trousers zipped up. A mans income can involuntarily be confiscated to care for children that he does not want, affecting the course of his life. Under the law, he is utterly responsible to support any children with his DNA, and often even for those without it. In many states, women are allowed to ABANDON newborn children that they do not want at hospitals or firehouses, no questions asked. Men dont even have any reproductive rights in marriage, because his wife retains her reproductive rights if she chooses to exercise them.
I dont think either sex should have these reproductive rights, and should deal with the concequences of a pregnancy, wanted or not. But if as the feminazi says, these rights are vital to human beings, than I wish to suggest the following remedies. An unmarried man, upon being promptly notified of an unwanted pregnacy by his mate, should have the option of a paternal veto (abortion) absolving him of financial and legal responsibility for the child. A married man who discovers that his wife has had an abortion against his wishes should recieve presumptive grounds for a divorce or annullment of the marriage, with the same holding true for one who concieves against his wishes.
Than again maybe the feminazi thinks that men shouldnt qualify for reproductive rights since she probably thinks men arent human anyway.
My point is that men have no reproductive right that is INDEPENDENT of a womans choice, wheras women have options that can be and are exercised independently of a mans wishes. Note that this feminine reproductive veto extends to nullification of the mans wishes whether the man wants the child or not, whether in or out of marriage. While I am acutely aware that this is in large part due to the uniqueness of the reproductive process, this nevertheless leaves the man without any independent ability to influence the woman legally.
I am not even necessarily saying that this is a bad thing, but I do find it curious that we often behave as though the only party affected by the birth of a child is the woman, and to prevent a negative influence on the course of her life we must preserve her right to kill her unborn child. If unmarried, she can choose to keep the child and can enlist the support of the state to forcibly take money from the sperm donor against his will. And if he wants the child, then he must yield to her choice to abort.
The common response to the man is that you should have been more careful in your choice of partner, or you should have kept your trousers zipped up. Legally he is told that he has no option other than the one that the woman chooses to give him.
Again, I think that BOTH parties should allow a normal pregnancy to take its course, and come to a mutually agreed upon resolution. But if we insist upon a regime where a reproductive right is allowed for only half of the human race, than I think that men should have some LEGAL option to influence the womans choice in either direction, rather than act as though this isnt a significant life altering event for them as well. The one option that I would absolutely forbid, of course is a forced abortion. Consider paternal veto for unmarried men or presumptive divorce grounds for a married man whose wife chooses against his wishes.
Having said all this, I do think it unlikely to happen. Men are legally held to the strictest of standard of responsibility where conception is concerned.