I am confused about the point of this article ?
Is the author pro-choice or pro-life?

I am of the opinion that, regardless of the circumstances of the conception, if a woman really does not want to go through with a pregnancy, then no-one, including the father, can force her to do so.

Yes, the father should have a say, and maybe he could change her mind, but ultimately, it is her who has to physically carry and birth the baby.

Neither politicians or religions should be involved in this very personal decision that some pregnant women feel they have to make.

Abortion should be a decision ONLY between the parents and their medical practitioners.
It is no one else's business...

Suseonline, I think that the author is strongly anti-abortion. I'm not personally convinced that anti-abortion is any more pro-life than pro-choice, a lot of the most fervent anti-abortion advocates are more inclined to support wars that others may find questionable and often are more likely to be in favour of capital punishment than most (I don't know the authors position on either of those points BTW).

Not sure if you were referring to my comments when you say "Yes, the father should have a say, and maybe he could change her mind, but ultimately, it is her who has to physically carry and birth the baby."

To make it clear I don't think that the father should be able to force or prohibit an abortion, rather in all other aspects the father should have the same degree of choice as the mother - mostly around the preference of many to demand that the father pay and pay and pay for the upkeep of a child which they have no say in the decisions on other than the initial act. At any point where a mother is able to absolve herself of future responsibility for the child (or foetus) the father should have the same options.

R0bert

RObert <"...in all other aspects the father should have the same degree of choice as the mother - mostly around the preference of many to demand that the father pay and pay and pay for the upkeep of a child which they have no say in the decisions on other than the initial act. "

I actually agree with you here in some circumstances RObert.
I believe that if a father has no interest at all in his child, and never sees the child, then that child is better off not having anything to do with him, including any money that needs to be dragged out of him for the child's upkeep.

I also believe that all those men who are upset that they have impregnated a woman and then upset at being asked to contribute to their child's upkeep, could at least have worn condoms during the initial act if they were really against fatherhood!

Ranting and raving about women 'tricking them' into fatherhood by saying they are using contraceptives should not be an issue. If men REALLY don't want to deal with fatherhood, then they should always wear a condom.

If the condoms break 'accidentally' then both participants knew the risks and should pay equally for either an abortion or for the upkeep of a child.
In a perfect world of course...

It is ironic that the political bias of many of the respondents here is making it difficult for them to catch the point of this article.

The point? That the media is biased against conservatives in discussions of sexual politics. Prime example: the intensity of media responses to gaffes about rape hinged on the political viewpoint of the offender. If you are conservative and pro-life you will be hounded mercilessly (e.g. Akin). If you are "pro-choice" you will be excused readily (Whoopi Goldberg).

If you are a Democrat President accused of rape and other forms of sexual misconduct there will outrage that you can be accused of such a thing and you will be canonised by the liberal media.