Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[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.