Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[Sasquatch]

Before any abortion issue is settled, we need to standardize a few things: the rights of the father in regards to the unborn child; and the definition of "life".

As it stands now, the father has absolutely no rights over an unborn child, but still every obligation. If the mother wants the child but not the father, the father is forced by law to submit a portion of every paycheck, whether in percentage or fixed amount, to the mother for care of the child. Whether the father wants the child or not is completely irrelevant under law -- the father's paternal rights are completely ignored in favor of maternal rights, yet he still carries the burden of financial support. The mother is always more likely to be awarded majority custody -- and, thus, child support from the father -- because courts in the United States are extremely biased in favor of child custody (yet, we don't hear feminists complaining about "traditional gender roles" when it comes to custody bias). If the mother does not want the child, she may legally abort it -- this is done without required permission, or even notification, of the father. The father has no right to refuse, but must allow the death of his own child -- this has been challenged multiple times in court, and the mother's case has always prevailed. In many cases, the father is forced to pay for a portion of the abortion procedure.

If a man and a woman are sexually irresponsible and a pregnancy results, the man may be forced to pay for it for the next eighteen years, whereas the woman may choose to either carry the child to term and raise it (with money from the father, enforced by law), give it up for adoption, or kill it in the womb. The mother is the sole decision-maker in this process, with the father's rights to his own child being completely ignored. In the United States, co-owners of a pet have more rights than fathers of unborn children.

We have also never set a definition for life, or defined when life begins. The (extremely shameful) result is that right now in the United States, most courts have used the mother's whim as the sole factor in whether or not an unborn child is considered alive. If the mother does not want the child, it is considered absolutely nothing, just another part of her body. There are even people who are shitty enough to consider an unborn human child to be nothing more than a parasite. There are "doctors" whose careers revolve around the killing and removing of unwanted children from the womb, like they are tumors. But if the mother wants the child, it's considered a life -- this is why people who kill unborn children (against the mother's will) are convicted of murder, or at least manslaughter. (Remember the case of Scott Peterson, who killed his pregnant wife Laci around Christmas in the early 2000s? He was tried for, and convicted of, not one murder, but two -- that of his wife and his unborn child.)

So what defines life? The will of its mother? The ability to survive without assistance? The benefit to society or economy? There are myriad people with much less in the way of qualifications than unborn children, yet it is illegal to kill them -- why should unborn children receive less legal protection?

[Alpha]

If a man and a woman are sexually irresponsible and a pregnancy results, the man may be forced to pay for it for the next eighteen years, whereas the woman may choose to either carry the child to term and raise it (with money from the father, enforced by law), give it up for adoption, or kill it in the womb. The mother is the sole decision-maker in this process, with the father's rights to his own child being completely ignored. In the United States, co-owners of a pet have more rights than fathers of unborn children.

This is an important issue, and largely I agree with you. But I have a question because I find it surprising how fervently you seem to hold this opinion.

I'm going to begin by assuming that you are pro-life. That is, you would prefer if abortions were either illegal in most or all cases, or that you opt to strive for a world where abortion is not necessary.

So my question is, given your pro-life views, why would support 'male abortion' when such a right would be likely to result in quantitatively more abortions? I don't have figures, but it stands to reason that if more potential mothers are unable to financially support children by themselves, more children will be aborted.

If your response is that male reproductive rights trump the rights of an unborn child, then I'd suggest that you've essentially arrived at the feminist position, but for males.

However it's probably important now to see your response before commenting further.

[Sasquatch]

So my question is, given your pro-life views, why would support 'male abortion' when such a right would be likely to result in quantitatively more abortions?

Pushing morality aside, yes, I would support it, if abortion remained legal. If the law regards an unborn child as absolutely nothing, it should not be a benefit to one person but a legally binding burden on another; one person should not be able to use another person to force a third person to give them money. It would be like buying a car and then forcing somebody else to chip in for gas.

I don't have figures, but it stands to reason that if more potential mothers are unable to financially support children by themselves, more children will be aborted.

I honestly don't know, and it would be interesting to see figures on that, if any were to exist. I would imagine that, for those not in the financial situation to be able to afford a child, the few hundred dollars in child support wouldn't make much of a difference. Besides, in the cases of child negligence or malnourishment we do see in countries like the United States, it's not an issue of a parent not being able to afford food or care, it's an issue of a parent with higher financial priorities (booze, drugs, etc.).

If your response is that male reproductive rights trump the rights of an unborn child, then I'd suggest that you've essentially arrived at the feminist position, but for males.

That was exactly my point -- why is it that female rights trump the rights of an unborn child, but male rights don't? The male cannot choose whether or not to kill the child, only whether or not he will financially support it. He still won't have as many rights in regards to the child, at least while it's in the womb, but he would at least have some, which is more than he has now.