The most hard-line pro-lifers would argue that the woman didn't create the fetus. I'll settle for pointing out that it took two to tango there, unless you've figured out a way to reproduce asexually. If you're now arguing that the woman's right to terminate stems from a responsibility to preserve one's self instead of some kind of ownership over the fetus, I'll accept that as better ground to stand on and add the caveat that the woman would then need to establish that a pregnancy was going to put her life in danger (ectopic pregnancy as one example) before she would, by your standard, have the right to terminate.Easy. The Iron Lung didn't create the man, and is also an inatimate object. The iron lung is in no danger of death from the human within it. In the case of conception the woman has literally created another being within her body which can kill her. It should be the woman's choice what to do with it. The only role the government should have is ensuring that its done safely.
He can't legally do so. When he goes deadbeat he is in violation of the law and risks various legal and financial repercussions for doing so. As a side note, child support collection agents don't give a FUCK if you can afford that check. They'll take whatever they can and leave you with pocket change. Can't eat or pay your own bills? Too bad, fucker. As for the condom issue, she could have very well told her partner "Wear a rubber or you get none." Takes two to tango. Pulling out is exceptional and has a miserable success rate, if you're relying on withdrawal you're fucking dumb. Vasectomies are usually irreversible and if you don't have banked sperm you just fucked yourself out of having your own kids. I find it funny how you talk about his responsibility for the pregnancy and his complete lack of a right to opine on whether said pregnancy goes to term or not in the same sentence. Rights and responsibilities are inexorably linked.Oh yeah, they can definitely choose to go on the lam and not pay child-support. In the case of him deciding whether she should abort it or not he doesn't have to give birth to it, so his say in the decision should be effectively null. And what of his responsibility in causing the pregnancy? Why didn't he wear a condom, or pull out? Why didn't he have a vasectomy?
Might have to sign a check? Unless he's capable of proving that the kids aren't even his (and he has to do it within a certain amount of time after being named as the father) that's a 100 percent guarantee that he'll have his arm twisted. I find the notion of single motherhood being something men caused to be hilarious given my own history, but when you look at things like the majority of divorces (no-fault divorces I might add) being initiated by women, women are considered to be default caretakers by courts, single motherhood being propped up as a sign of strong women who don't need no man by Murphy Brown and beyond... It takes two to tango. You're not some kind of slave to the domineering patriarchy. Women make their own choices every day about "I want to have unprotected sex with this guy" or "I want kids and I don't care if he wants them or not" and "I can just get child support from your ass anyway, lol".And even then the man carries very little risk from a woman's pregnancy. She can die from childbirth. He might have to sign a check if things don't go his way in court. The positions aren't equal whatsoever. This is why I err on the side of the woman. Even as a genetic contributor his life is altered considerably less so by the prospect of pregnancy. The epidemic of single mothers in this country is proof-positive of that.