And this post sums up the problem right there. You immediately went after the loudest, most noticeable targets there. Bad men. In which rapists, abandoning jerks and anyone else who absolves himself of responsibility for having sex with women are a part of, with varying degrees of wickedness and harm.
Not only that, your outrage just shoved the entire child issue into the woman's hands. Whether or not she wants it.
All because you immediately went to the extreme position. Let me spells this out in big letters:
NOT ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS.
NOT ALL MEN FUCK AND RUN.
NOT ALL MEN ARE JERKS.
Yes, a fair bit are, and it's debatable whether or not it's society or just ingrained nature, but 100% of men will NOT run away from the responsibility of deciding what to do with an unwanted pregnancy.
Sometimes I wonder if "White Knights" aren't part of the issue. And why the hell, did you immediately go for the most negative and extreme position???
Each situation should be reviewed (man, talk about a clinical way of saying this) by what the situation is. Each rape, each accidental pregnancy caused by mishap (and I'm talking a bad condom, or other unintended event that ISN'T actively an act of harm) or other event causing pregnancy, should be evaluated by all the parties involved.
It takes two to have sex and make children. And on the apparently rare occasions that it's not an attack on the woman, why should the man involved not be involved, assuming that he's a decent and responsible human being? Why must we push this on the woman's/girl's shoulders? How much damage does that do, psychologically?
Just taking what you said to the logical conclusion. You said men should have a say as to whether a woman gets an abortion. I flat out disagree with your position; no one should be allowed to make decisions about someone else's health care excepting certain obvious cases like next of kin making decisions for comatose patients and so forth. The way you wrote your post implies that women should not be allowed to get an abortion without the father's consent. Do you really not believe that women sometimes get pregnant from rape and/or molestation? And that in some cases, the sperm donor would actually try to press his rights and force her to have the child? This is a world where at least one rapist ACTUALLY HAS sued for parental rights his his rape baby.
So, we have around 19 thousand abortions a year in the US. Only a very low percentage of women who have been surveyed claimed that the abortion they were having was because of rape or molestation. About half of a percent of women getting abortions reported that it was due to incest, while about one percent of women claimed it was due to rape. It's widely believed that rape and incest is greatly under-reported. But I'll be generous, and just use those numbers as is. As a matter of fact, I'll even toss out the half a percent of women who cited incest, and say that most of those were also rapes.
So, around 1% of abortions are due to rape or incest. That's nearly 200 women per year who've gotten pregnant from being raped, at a very conservative estimate. Your rules, as you wrote them, would mean that those women couldn't get an abortion unless the rapist consented.
But let's say that what you meant was that the man shouldn't be ignored. I still profoundly disagree with that stance, but let's put that aside for a moment. Let's say that the man wants her to get an abortion, but she wants to keep the kid. Are we going to force her to go down to the abortion clinic, in shackles if necessary? What about if she wants an abortion, but he doesn't? What are we going to do, put the fetus in protective custody? Put the woman under lock and key until she gives birth or miscarries? Do we charge her with murder or manslaughter if someone suspects that she tried to induce a miscarriage because she didn't want to be held against her will and have her body highjacked by an unwanted parasitic thing inside of her that will eventually grow to the size and weight of a bowling ball, that could have side effects potentially as severe as death for her?
Because here's the thing: someone's rights have to be squashed if there's a pregnancy, and one of the biological donors wants it aborted while the other does not. Everything else is equal here except that ONE of the parties has to have the parasitic thing growing inside their body for nearly a year. Since everything else is equal, doesn't it make the most sense to give the person who's body is going to be hijacked the decision? What possible reason could be come up with that would lead someone to answering "no" to that? I can think of NO REASON to say "no, the woman shouldn't make the decision" that isn't based on misogyny of some form - some people might think that women are too stupid or emotional to make the decision, or maybe they're a member of a patriarchal religion where the "wife must obey the husband" or some such. There just isn't a reason why the man should have the decision.
Or maybe you meant that both parties should get a say? How is that supposed to work? He says she should get an abortion and she doesn't want one - what do they do, flip a coin? Go to Abortion Court?
Let me tell you, I
wouldn't want the decision as to whether to have a twenty pound tumor removed from my abdomen left to my girlfriend; at the same time, I don't think that the decision as to whether she gets an abortion should she get pregnant is my decision. I'd prefer that she would discuss it with me, but there's nothing that says that she has to - it's HER body. She doesn't have to discuss it with me if she goes to get a tattoo. She doesn't have to discuss it with me if she decides to shave off her hair. She doesn't have to discuss it with me if she decides to have an abortion.