Jav on "Men's Rights??"

(Jav, I'm going to continue, in a new post, my reply to your comments. So rather than relegate your comments to "understatus", they get their own post.)

For continuity's sake: Here is Jav's reply to my post, "Men's Rights"??:


Without knowing the details of the case, I can't say for certain what the intent might be.

I have advocated something very similar for years. Let me finish. I always felt that the best way to attack abortion what to expose it on the issue of fairness.

A woman and man meet, have a drink, have sex. She gets pregnant. At that moment she has fundamental rights that the man does not. She's a potential mother and he a potential father. Thanks to Roe v. Wade, however, she has all other rights. She can abort and relieve herself of the "burden" of raising the child. If he wants the same thing, it works out well for him. However, if he wants the child he has no claim to it. Turn it around. She wants to keep the child but he does not. She has the power under the law to force his support.

Don't get me wrong, he should support the child. He's hardly a man if he doesn't. I'm arguing from a legal position, however, that abortion law does exactly what women's groups wanted: it gives HER the choice and power. If this power were to be equalized, say by giving the father the power to abort perhaps in the form of a right or writ, what would be the effect?

I suggest that suddenly women's groups would find themselves in a pickle. If they oppose it, then they are conceding that women should have special rights. If they agree to it, then they are relinquishing something that women often count on: support.

I think this could have a devastating effect on pro-abortion rights.