I think most of you are missing his argument.
It is not about what is morally right or wrong.
It is simply about the woman having 100% choice over the matter.
A woman can decide to abort, or keep the child. The man has no choice over the matter, last i checked. So if one of you guys goes out and gets a girl pregnant, she can abort it, and you just have to live with it. She could instead decide to keep it, and you just have to live with it.
If both parties are involved in making the fetus, why dont both parties have say in the decisions made for the fetus?
I think that was his point. I could be wrong though.
Are you saying it wasnt also the woman's choice? If he didnt rape her, they both made a choice to have sex. Yet the woman makes all the choices now, the man has no say in anything at all now.
That is the bottom line.
I think the Ntional Center for Men put it well:
"More than three decades ago Roe vs. Wade gave women control of their reproductive lives but nothing in the law changed for men. Women can now have sexual intimacy without sacrificing reproductive choice. Women now have the freedom and security to enjoy lovemaking without the fear of forced procreation. Women now have control of their lives after an unplanned conception. But men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice as the price of intimacy."
He does have a choice either have protected sex or don't have sex at all, and even with a condom he should keep in mind that they are not 100% effective.
This can and has been debated on so many levels, there is no reason to continue with this discussion.
What if it were the other way around, though?
What if the man had the legal right to FORCE the woman to abort, or FORCE her to keep the child? (think pre 1970s america, or pick at random one of many third world countries)
That is exactly the case for men, men just cant carry the child. Should one half of the equation receive all of the rights, while the other half get zero? Is that what everyone is saying? So much for equal rights of the sexes, then. How can anyone say they are for equality then ask for special treatment?
As for the "NO LAWS" part, well, before Roe v Wade, there were no laws for a woman's reproductive rights, either. Didnt make it right, or less about the law.
Forced child support is geared 100% against the male of the equation, this it seems we agree on. No one yet has refuted the fact that men have ZERO rights when it comes to a pregnancy. I think the OP's question was : Why is this so?
You agree with me that the man AND the woman choose to have sex, why does the woman make EVERY choice after that point?