Andyman - as a male and a divorced father let me advise you on this – at no time was it my “body” involved in the pregnancy on any scale comparable to the mother.

As a divorced father I made sure that despite the vengeful attitudes of the Ex (since abated) and the wrongful bias of the Family court I made sure my daughters knew I loved them – and as they are now adult, express their understanding of that by us being integral parts of each others lives.

Now abortion – yes the woman’s body – and that woman’s choice – not yours or any other persons (male or female).

Brazuca – I thought your original post about Jews was pretty pointless – now your rant about subjective opinion versus objective truth proves it.
The vast majority of circumstances which influence our daily lives are subjective opinions – they form the body of knowledge called the “Arts” and some of the sciences. Objective Truth exists only in the absolute and provable facts of some science –

Law is formulated on subjective opinion.
Financial Accounting Returns are subjective opinion.
Theology is a subjective opinion.
The right to abortion is a subjective opinion – the demand to deny people that right is another subjective opinion.

My personal set of subjective opinions are based on a set of fundamental moral values, which I will not bore you with, other than to say – I believe a person has “sovereign right” of choice over how their body will be used and that “sovereign right” is something which neither the state or any other person has authority to interfere with.

Sovereign rights? Divine right of kings? Sounds pretty much the same kind of nonsense.

Unless we are prepared to accept a common bunch of inalienable rights (such as the right to be born?) and adopt a culture that promotes these rights, then you can shove your sovereignty in as many peoples faces as you like, but, someone is always going to have a bigger sovereignty than yours...

mscobina:

They can choose not to ejaculate? Male physiology being as it is, there is significant sperm in many men's pre-ejeculata. I would rather suggest, don't have sex or get a vasectomy (which is rather permanent). It's about the only 100% safe way to avoid a call in nine months sentencing a man without trial to hundreds of thousands of dollars in child support.

As for women's choice, let me see... hmmm... the pill, the pill-injection, IUD, abortion, adoption... Does this seem an imbalance of choice to you?

Why don't we have a male pill after 40 years of the female pill?


Col Rouge:

I am a man duped into pregnancy by my ex-wife. She chose to have the baby, and I love him dearly, but I am sentenced to 18 years of additional child support but no rights to see him (Those I fought long and hard for through the Court). Where is my choice for the next 18 years? Why do men not have choices?

Why should no one else have a choice in whether a woman gives birth to a child? Why?

I really cannot understand the sudden turnaround from "We are not baby incubators" to "I choose to have a baby and hit the father for thousands of dollars in support payments."

If a "baby incubator" is all some women consider it to be, then why such an enormous protection of a woman's "right to choose" abortion or not and the insistence of the man's "total lack of choice" in the outcome?

Double standards abound. If women have unassailable rights to abortion, then men should (but don't) have unassailable rights to whether they financially fund a child who is born "against their wishes". They should also (but don't) have unassailable rights to have a relationship with the child.

Or is fairness not a consideration in these matters? Even if unfairness leads in some cases to male suicide, depression and poverty?

I consider men to be important too, evidently an unpopular stance even amongst men.

If males are not allowed ejaculation, then females should not be allowed ovulation (but of course that would be blamed on the male)

mscobina,
there are two perspectives your post could come from.

Pro-Lifer who has prased a fundamental issue more restrictively than necessary. If that is the case maybe it could be phrased
"A person has a choice. The choice to engage in sexual intercourse or not. The consequences which follow are not something which they should have a choice over."

Pro-Choicer who thinks that women are somehow less responsible for their actions and need more opportunity to choose than men. Eg "men have to get it right first time, women are not capable of acting as responsibly as men and need additional leeway". If so what a pathetic sexist attitude. Women are capable of making rational decisions about their lives, to suggest otherwise indicates a very out of date view of the world and women.

It was a very simple point.

If you don't support women's right to choice - don't put her in a position where she may have to exercise it.

Oh, and Timkins - You have already wasted more of my valuable time than you deserve to.

I think the best way to deal with people like you is to simply walk away.

Something tells me that i'm not the first woman to do so, and I very much doubt that i'll be the last...