Is there a legit legal argument here?

[Faun]

So look at that, you admit you do have choices. And yet you keep arguing past the close.

Again, I am not arguing for me but for the concept.

If women have a right men don't have, my sense of balance (fuck you OCD) demands men have a right women don't have.

It's only fair.

^^^ still running from the inequality that only woman get pregnant.

That isn't inequality, unless of course you are one of those people that sees pregnancy as only a burden.

It is reality, however legal abortion and the ability to detect pregnancy during said period negates the impact if both parties are given a choice in the matter.

LOLOL

It has nothing to do with burdens and everything to do with biological inequalities.

And here’s yet another failure in your bizarre deadbeat position... the choice women have doesn’t result in a child being raised without a mother. What you’re suggesting is men be given a legal option for the child to be raised without a father.

Yet again, conservatism rears its ugly head and produces deadbeat dads who seek to shirk personal responsibility.

Or given the information that she will be raising the child herself, she chooses to abort.

This actually isn't a conservative position at all, at least not a social conservative one. Most social conservatives would go the opposite way, ban abortion and make everyone equally responsible.

This is absolutely a conservative position from what I see since as I’ve stated, I’ve seen no one but conservatives argue for this.

And the reason they do is tied to you pointing out conservatives are anti-choice. That’s true, conservatives don’t want women to have a choice to terminate their own pregnancy. But they do anyway which causes conservatives frustration, leading to an argument where they want the legal right to hold a proverbial gun to womens’ heads to end abortions.

That’s what this is all about. So yes, this deadbeat position is absolutely a conservative position. You unwittingly admitted so yourself.

 

[martybegan]

Again, I am not arguing for me but for the concept.

If women have a right men don't have, my sense of balance (fuck you OCD) demands men have a right women don't have.

It's only fair.

^^^ still running from the inequality that only woman get pregnant.

That isn't inequality, unless of course you are one of those people that sees pregnancy as only a burden.

It is reality, however legal abortion and the ability to detect pregnancy during said period negates the impact if both parties are given a choice in the matter.

LOLOL

It has nothing to do with burdens and everything to do with biological inequalities.

And here’s yet another failure in your bizarre deadbeat position... the choice women have doesn’t result in a child being raised without a mother. What you’re suggesting is men be given a legal option for the child to be raised without a father.

Yet again, conservatism rears its ugly head and produces deadbeat dads who seek to shirk personal responsibility.

Or given the information that she will be raising the child herself, she chooses to abort.

This actually isn't a conservative position at all, at least not a social conservative one. Most social conservatives would go the opposite way, ban abortion and make everyone equally responsible.

This is absolutely a conservative position from what I see since as I’ve stated, I’ve seen no one but conservatives argue for this.

And the reason they do is tied to you pointing out conservatives are anti-choice. That’s true, conservatives don’t want women to have a choice to terminate their own pregnancy. But they do anyway which causes conservatives frustration, leading to an argument where they want the legal right to hold a proverbial gun to womens’ heads to end abortions.

That’s what this is all about. So yes, this deadbeat position is absolutely a conservative position. You unwittingly admitted so yourself.

It's probably more a libertarian viewpoint (big L).

If the woman doesn't have a choice, then the man doesn't either, if you want to be "fair". that makes them both "equal"

Actually the deadbeat position seems to be a progressive one, more so at the non-leadership positions. Oh, courts make attempts at forcing men to pay up, but in the end progressives are OK with big daddy government taking over, because it increases government power, and government dependency.

 

[Faun]

Again, you made your choice when you went around spewing sperm like a fire hose.

Both parties made a choice. Do you have a point that bears on the matter of choice after conception?

There’s only one choice post conception. And that choice is terminating the pregnancy. And that choice is available to the person who’s pregnant.

Actually there are others such as adoption. But regardless that is the point I think that the OP raises. That currently only women have an effective means of absorbing themselves of the responsibilities of an un wanted pregnancy. In a nation that prides itself on equal opportunity it only stands to reason that both parties are given that choice.

”That currently only women have...”

You’ll never gain ground on this argument because currently, only women can get pregnant.

You keep repeating the obvious. Do you have an actual point?I Or is that the ultimate depth of your insight on the issue?

Because that is the only point. Only women can get pregnant so only women get the choice to terminate their parental obligations post conception.

Men have choices too. They can choose whether or not to get s woman pregnant. And given men know women have an additional choice they don’t have, a responsible man will take additional precautions before getting a woman pregnant. But g’head, keep arguing for irresponsibility and deadbeat dads.

 

[Faun]

^^^ still running from the inequality that only woman get pregnant.

That isn't inequality, unless of course you are one of those people that sees pregnancy as only a burden.

It is reality, however legal abortion and the ability to detect pregnancy during said period negates the impact if both parties are given a choice in the matter.

LOLOL

It has nothing to do with burdens and everything to do with biological inequalities.

And here’s yet another failure in your bizarre deadbeat position... the choice women have doesn’t result in a child being raised without a mother. What you’re suggesting is men be given a legal option for the child to be raised without a father.

Yet again, conservatism rears its ugly head and produces deadbeat dads who seek to shirk personal responsibility.

Or given the information that she will be raising the child herself, she chooses to abort.

This actually isn't a conservative position at all, at least not a social conservative one. Most social conservatives would go the opposite way, ban abortion and make everyone equally responsible.

This is absolutely a conservative position from what I see since as I’ve stated, I’ve seen no one but conservatives argue for this.

And the reason they do is tied to you pointing out conservatives are anti-choice. That’s true, conservatives don’t want women to have a choice to terminate their own pregnancy. But they do anyway which causes conservatives frustration, leading to an argument where they want the legal right to hold a proverbial gun to womens’ heads to end abortions.

That’s what this is all about. So yes, this deadbeat position is absolutely a conservative position. You unwittingly admitted so yourself.

It's probably more a libertarian viewpoint (big L).

If the woman doesn't have a choice, then the man doesn't either, if you want to be "fair". that makes them both "equal"

Actually the deadbeat position seems to be a progressive one, more so at the non-leadership positions. Oh, courts make attempts at forcing men to pay up, but in the end progressives are OK with big daddy government taking over, because it increases government power, and government dependency.

You reiterate my point. This is all about conservatives, frustrated they lost the abortion argument, seeking an alternative avenue to try to end abortions.

Your argument can be reduced to.... it’s unfair women can choose abortion when men can’t, therefore, abortion should be illegal.

Sorry to break your deadbeat heart, but that ain’t gonna happen. Abortion isn’t going away simply because you think it’s unfair. Nor will conservative men be allowed to legally shirk their responsibilities to raise their own children.

 

[Vastator]

Both parties made a choice. Do you have a point that bears on the matter of choice after conception?

There’s only one choice post conception. And that choice is terminating the pregnancy. And that choice is available to the person who’s pregnant.

Actually there are others such as adoption. But regardless that is the point I think that the OP raises. That currently only women have an effective means of absorbing themselves of the responsibilities of an un wanted pregnancy. In a nation that prides itself on equal opportunity it only stands to reason that both parties are given that choice.

”That currently only women have...”

You’ll never gain ground on this argument because currently, only women can get pregnant.

You keep repeating the obvious. Do you have an actual point?I Or is that the ultimate depth of your insight on the issue?

Because that is the only point. Only women can get pregnant so only women get the choice to terminate their parental obligations post conception.

Men have choices too. They can choose whether or not to get s woman pregnant. And given men know women have an additional choice they don’t have, a responsible man will take additional precautions before getting a woman pregnant. But g’head, keep arguing for irresponsibility and deadbeat dads.

You're arguing with yourself. No one is promoting the idea of forced abortion...

 

[Vastator]

Both parties made a choice. Do you have a point that bears on the matter of choice after conception?

There’s only one choice post conception. And that choice is terminating the pregnancy. And that choice is available to the person who’s pregnant.

Actually there are others such as adoption. But regardless that is the point I think that the OP raises. That currently only women have an effective means of absorbing themselves of the responsibilities of an un wanted pregnancy. In a nation that prides itself on equal opportunity it only stands to reason that both parties are given that choice.

”That currently only women have...”

You’ll never gain ground on this argument because currently, only women can get pregnant.

You keep repeating the obvious. Do you have an actual point?I Or is that the ultimate depth of your insight on the issue?

And given men know women have an additional choice they don’t have...

Finally you admit that you see the inequity of the law. You just lack the courage to admit that you fear the consequence of losing the judicial advantage over men...

 

[martybegan]

That isn't inequality, unless of course you are one of those people that sees pregnancy as only a burden.

It is reality, however legal abortion and the ability to detect pregnancy during said period negates the impact if both parties are given a choice in the matter.

LOLOL

It has nothing to do with burdens and everything to do with biological inequalities.

And here’s yet another failure in your bizarre deadbeat position... the choice women have doesn’t result in a child being raised without a mother. What you’re suggesting is men be given a legal option for the child to be raised without a father.

Yet again, conservatism rears its ugly head and produces deadbeat dads who seek to shirk personal responsibility.

Or given the information that she will be raising the child herself, she chooses to abort.

This actually isn't a conservative position at all, at least not a social conservative one. Most social conservatives would go the opposite way, ban abortion and make everyone equally responsible.

This is absolutely a conservative position from what I see since as I’ve stated, I’ve seen no one but conservatives argue for this.

And the reason they do is tied to you pointing out conservatives are anti-choice. That’s true, conservatives don’t want women to have a choice to terminate their own pregnancy. But they do anyway which causes conservatives frustration, leading to an argument where they want the legal right to hold a proverbial gun to womens’ heads to end abortions.

That’s what this is all about. So yes, this deadbeat position is absolutely a conservative position. You unwittingly admitted so yourself.

It's probably more a libertarian viewpoint (big L).

If the woman doesn't have a choice, then the man doesn't either, if you want to be "fair". that makes them both "equal"

Actually the deadbeat position seems to be a progressive one, more so at the non-leadership positions. Oh, courts make attempts at forcing men to pay up, but in the end progressives are OK with big daddy government taking over, because it increases government power, and government dependency.

You reiterate my point. This is all about conservatives, frustrated they lost the abortion argument, seeking an alternative avenue to try to end abortions.

Your argument can be reduced to.... it’s unfair women can choose abortion when men can’t, therefore, abortion should be illegal.

Sorry to break your deadbeat heart, but that ain’t gonna happen. Abortion isn’t going away simply because you think it’s unfair. Nor will conservative men be allowed to legally shirk their responsibilities to raise their own children.

Again, social conservatives would not use this line of argument, because they usually don't want legal abortion.

You imply my next response would be to make abortion illegal. It's not. again this is a theoretical debate only.

And if you want to get into the political demographics of those men who don't want to support their kids, i don't think you will get "conservative" most of the time.

It would probably lean towards apolitical democrat voters.

 

[Faun]

There’s only one choice post conception. And that choice is terminating the pregnancy. And that choice is available to the person who’s pregnant.

Actually there are others such as adoption. But regardless that is the point I think that the OP raises. That currently only women have an effective means of absorbing themselves of the responsibilities of an un wanted pregnancy. In a nation that prides itself on equal opportunity it only stands to reason that both parties are given that choice.

”That currently only women have...”

You’ll never gain ground on this argument because currently, only women can get pregnant.

You keep repeating the obvious. Do you have an actual point?I Or is that the ultimate depth of your insight on the issue?

Because that is the only point. Only women can get pregnant so only women get the choice to terminate their parental obligations post conception.

Men have choices too. They can choose whether or not to get s woman pregnant. And given men know women have an additional choice they don’t have, a responsible man will take additional precautions before getting a woman pregnant. But g’head, keep arguing for irresponsibility and deadbeat dads.

You're arguing with yourself. No one is promoting the idea of forced abortion...

Who knows what I said which led your conservative brain to translate that into anything about forced abortions?

 

[hadit]

I do find it interesting that a man loses his reproductive freedom when he decides to have sex and that is applauded as right and just, yet when that same standard is applied to women in the context of abortion, suddenly it becomes, "you can't interfere with her reproductive freedom", and it's religious nonsense to even suggest that everyone should keep it zipped until they're ready for the potential consequences of sexual activity.

Quite frankly, that's the best way to avoid the whole issue.

 

[Faun]

There’s only one choice post conception. And that choice is terminating the pregnancy. And that choice is available to the person who’s pregnant.

Actually there are others such as adoption. But regardless that is the point I think that the OP raises. That currently only women have an effective means of absorbing themselves of the responsibilities of an un wanted pregnancy. In a nation that prides itself on equal opportunity it only stands to reason that both parties are given that choice.

”That currently only women have...”

You’ll never gain ground on this argument because currently, only women can get pregnant.

You keep repeating the obvious. Do you have an actual point?I Or is that the ultimate depth of your insight on the issue?

And given men know women have an additional choice they don’t have...

Finally you admit that you see the inequity of the law. You just lack the courage to admit that you fear the consequence of losing the judicial advantage over men...

I never denied women have a choice men don’t have. But not even the law can level a playing field where only women can get pregnant.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

It has nothing to do with burdens and everything to do with biological inequalities.

And here’s yet another failure in your bizarre deadbeat position... the choice women have doesn’t result in a child being raised without a mother. What you’re suggesting is men be given a legal option for the child to be raised without a father.

Yet again, conservatism rears its ugly head and produces deadbeat dads who seek to shirk personal responsibility.

Or given the information that she will be raising the child herself, she chooses to abort.

This actually isn't a conservative position at all, at least not a social conservative one. Most social conservatives would go the opposite way, ban abortion and make everyone equally responsible.

This is absolutely a conservative position from what I see since as I’ve stated, I’ve seen no one but conservatives argue for this.

And the reason they do is tied to you pointing out conservatives are anti-choice. That’s true, conservatives don’t want women to have a choice to terminate their own pregnancy. But they do anyway which causes conservatives frustration, leading to an argument where they want the legal right to hold a proverbial gun to womens’ heads to end abortions.

That’s what this is all about. So yes, this deadbeat position is absolutely a conservative position. You unwittingly admitted so yourself.

It's probably more a libertarian viewpoint (big L).

If the woman doesn't have a choice, then the man doesn't either, if you want to be "fair". that makes them both "equal"

Actually the deadbeat position seems to be a progressive one, more so at the non-leadership positions. Oh, courts make attempts at forcing men to pay up, but in the end progressives are OK with big daddy government taking over, because it increases government power, and government dependency.

You reiterate my point. This is all about conservatives, frustrated they lost the abortion argument, seeking an alternative avenue to try to end abortions.

Your argument can be reduced to.... it’s unfair women can choose abortion when men can’t, therefore, abortion should be illegal.

Sorry to break your deadbeat heart, but that ain’t gonna happen. Abortion isn’t going away simply because you think it’s unfair. Nor will conservative men be allowed to legally shirk their responsibilities to raise their own children.

Again, social conservatives would not use this line of argument, because they usually don't want legal abortion.

You imply my next response would be to make abortion illegal. It's not. again this is a theoretical debate only.

And if you want to get into the political demographics of those men who don't want to support their kids, i don't think you will get "conservative" most of the time.

It would probably lean towards apolitical democrat voters.

And I’m saying this argument is rooted in anti-choice, which is the conservative position. So yes, this notion of shirking personal responsibility in order to be a deadbeat dad is absolutely a conservative position.

Which is why I see only conservatives ever trying to make it.

 

[martybegan]

Or given the information that she will be raising the child herself, she chooses to abort.

This actually isn't a conservative position at all, at least not a social conservative one. Most social conservatives would go the opposite way, ban abortion and make everyone equally responsible.

This is absolutely a conservative position from what I see since as I’ve stated, I’ve seen no one but conservatives argue for this.

And the reason they do is tied to you pointing out conservatives are anti-choice. That’s true, conservatives don’t want women to have a choice to terminate their own pregnancy. But they do anyway which causes conservatives frustration, leading to an argument where they want the legal right to hold a proverbial gun to womens’ heads to end abortions.

That’s what this is all about. So yes, this deadbeat position is absolutely a conservative position. You unwittingly admitted so yourself.

It's probably more a libertarian viewpoint (big L).

If the woman doesn't have a choice, then the man doesn't either, if you want to be "fair". that makes them both "equal"

Actually the deadbeat position seems to be a progressive one, more so at the non-leadership positions. Oh, courts make attempts at forcing men to pay up, but in the end progressives are OK with big daddy government taking over, because it increases government power, and government dependency.

You reiterate my point. This is all about conservatives, frustrated they lost the abortion argument, seeking an alternative avenue to try to end abortions.

Your argument can be reduced to.... it’s unfair women can choose abortion when men can’t, therefore, abortion should be illegal.

Sorry to break your deadbeat heart, but that ain’t gonna happen. Abortion isn’t going away simply because you think it’s unfair. Nor will conservative men be allowed to legally shirk their responsibilities to raise their own children.

Again, social conservatives would not use this line of argument, because they usually don't want legal abortion.

You imply my next response would be to make abortion illegal. It's not. again this is a theoretical debate only.

And if you want to get into the political demographics of those men who don't want to support their kids, i don't think you will get "conservative" most of the time.

It would probably lean towards apolitical democrat voters.

And I’m saying this argument is rooted in anti-choice, which is the conservative position. So yes, this notion of shirking personal responsibility in order to be a deadbeat dad is absolutely a conservative position.

Which is why I see only conservatives ever trying to make it.

Social conservative.

Federalists like me just want it sent back to the States where it belongs.

Progressives want government to replace many personal responsibilities, not most conservatives.

 

[Faun]

I do find it interesting that a man loses his reproductive freedom when he decides to have sex and that is applauded as right and just, yet when that same standard is applied to women in the context of abortion, suddenly it becomes, "you can't interfere with her reproductive freedom", and it's religious nonsense to even suggest that everyone should keep it zipped until they're ready for the potential consequences of sexual activity.

Quite frankly, that's the best way to avoid the whole issue.

Because you’re not arguing “reproductive freedom” for dads. You’re arguing for deadbeat dads.

 

[Faun]

This is absolutely a conservative position from what I see since as I’ve stated, I’ve seen no one but conservatives argue for this.

And the reason they do is tied to you pointing out conservatives are anti-choice. That’s true, conservatives don’t want women to have a choice to terminate their own pregnancy. But they do anyway which causes conservatives frustration, leading to an argument where they want the legal right to hold a proverbial gun to womens’ heads to end abortions.

That’s what this is all about. So yes, this deadbeat position is absolutely a conservative position. You unwittingly admitted so yourself.

It's probably more a libertarian viewpoint (big L).

If the woman doesn't have a choice, then the man doesn't either, if you want to be "fair". that makes them both "equal"

Actually the deadbeat position seems to be a progressive one, more so at the non-leadership positions. Oh, courts make attempts at forcing men to pay up, but in the end progressives are OK with big daddy government taking over, because it increases government power, and government dependency.

You reiterate my point. This is all about conservatives, frustrated they lost the abortion argument, seeking an alternative avenue to try to end abortions.

Your argument can be reduced to.... it’s unfair women can choose abortion when men can’t, therefore, abortion should be illegal.

Sorry to break your deadbeat heart, but that ain’t gonna happen. Abortion isn’t going away simply because you think it’s unfair. Nor will conservative men be allowed to legally shirk their responsibilities to raise their own children.

Again, social conservatives would not use this line of argument, because they usually don't want legal abortion.

You imply my next response would be to make abortion illegal. It's not. again this is a theoretical debate only.

And if you want to get into the political demographics of those men who don't want to support their kids, i don't think you will get "conservative" most of the time.

It would probably lean towards apolitical democrat voters.

And I’m saying this argument is rooted in anti-choice, which is the conservative position. So yes, this notion of shirking personal responsibility in order to be a deadbeat dad is absolutely a conservative position.

Which is why I see only conservatives ever trying to make it.

Social conservative.

Federalists like me just want it sent back to the States where it belongs.

Progressives want government to replace many personal responsibilities, not most conservatives.

And yet, here you are trying to make this argument. And again, the end goal is really to eliminate abortion.

 

[Vastator]

Actually there are others such as adoption. But regardless that is the point I think that the OP raises. That currently only women have an effective means of absorbing themselves of the responsibilities of an un wanted pregnancy. In a nation that prides itself on equal opportunity it only stands to reason that both parties are given that choice.

”That currently only women have...”

You’ll never gain ground on this argument because currently, only women can get pregnant.

You keep repeating the obvious. Do you have an actual point?I Or is that the ultimate depth of your insight on the issue?

And given men know women have an additional choice they don’t have...

Finally you admit that you see the inequity of the law. You just lack the courage to admit that you fear the consequence of losing the judicial advantage over men...

I never denied women have a choice men don’t have. But not even the law can level a playing field where only women can get pregnant.

Sure it can. Where do you think handicap accessibility laws come from?

 

[martybegan]

It's probably more a libertarian viewpoint (big L).

If the woman doesn't have a choice, then the man doesn't either, if you want to be "fair". that makes them both "equal"

Actually the deadbeat position seems to be a progressive one, more so at the non-leadership positions. Oh, courts make attempts at forcing men to pay up, but in the end progressives are OK with big daddy government taking over, because it increases government power, and government dependency.

You reiterate my point. This is all about conservatives, frustrated they lost the abortion argument, seeking an alternative avenue to try to end abortions.

Your argument can be reduced to.... it’s unfair women can choose abortion when men can’t, therefore, abortion should be illegal.

Sorry to break your deadbeat heart, but that ain’t gonna happen. Abortion isn’t going away simply because you think it’s unfair. Nor will conservative men be allowed to legally shirk their responsibilities to raise their own children.

Again, social conservatives would not use this line of argument, because they usually don't want legal abortion.

You imply my next response would be to make abortion illegal. It's not. again this is a theoretical debate only.

And if you want to get into the political demographics of those men who don't want to support their kids, i don't think you will get "conservative" most of the time.

It would probably lean towards apolitical democrat voters.

And I’m saying this argument is rooted in anti-choice, which is the conservative position. So yes, this notion of shirking personal responsibility in order to be a deadbeat dad is absolutely a conservative position.

Which is why I see only conservatives ever trying to make it.

Social conservative.

Federalists like me just want it sent back to the States where it belongs.

Progressives want government to replace many personal responsibilities, not most conservatives.

And yet, here you are trying to make this argument. And again, the end goal is really to eliminate abortion.

I'm exploring the argument, I have never said it is my official position.

 

[hadit]

I do find it interesting that a man loses his reproductive freedom when he decides to have sex and that is applauded as right and just, yet when that same standard is applied to women in the context of abortion, suddenly it becomes, "you can't interfere with her reproductive freedom", and it's religious nonsense to even suggest that everyone should keep it zipped until they're ready for the potential consequences of sexual activity.

Quite frankly, that's the best way to avoid the whole issue.

Because you’re not arguing “reproductive freedom” for dads. You’re arguing for deadbeat dads.

Nonsense. I have consistently pointed out in this thread that the sexes cannot be equal in this regard. It's not controversial to point out that a man loses his reproductive freedom the moment his sperm impregnates a woman's egg, while a woman's reproductive freedom extends to the moment of birth. During that time frame, she can force him to become a father or deny him fatherhood and there's no legal way for him to avoid it. That's not a value judgement, it's simply stating reality.

AFAIC, they both should lose their freedom when she gets pregnant and both should be responsible to raise the child together. Keep it zipped until you can handle the potential consequences and you avoid the whole problem.

 

[evenflow1969]

Who decided to file for divorce? 80% of filings are made by women. There's your responsibility. Who grants primary residence to the mother, automagically? The courts. There's your responsibility...

Yes, women file for most divorces as men are more than content to stay married while cheating on their spouse.

Straw man argument. With the arrival of the "no fault divorce" the reason for divorce isn't even an event of record. Nice try though...

Yeah, it is just a crying shame that women can now get out of bad marriage and are not forced to stay married. That has to suck for you.

you were just born a century too late

So you think it is fair that a women can go purposely get pregnant from the guy she actually loves and tags the poor guy she made a promise to with the financial responsibility of raising that child for life effectively making him her slave. When I was in the mortgage business I commonly saw women with over 10k a month in income and no job. Very common to see a women with that type of income collecting from four or five different fellows. It is not equal rights as it currently sits. Sorry when they are collecting from that many guys this was surely strategy. If you think her daughters are not seeing that strategy and repeating you are nuts.

 

[Dana7360]

Is there an argument to be made for a man to not have to pay child support, if he can prove he encouraged the mother to get an abortion, and she went against his wishes?

No there isn't.

She didn't become pregnant alone. That child is his child and he needs to support it.

Too many men walk away from their own flesh and blood in America. Too many people think it's just fine for a man to create a new life then walk away from their own flesh and blood.

 

[NightFox]

I do find it interesting that a man loses his reproductive freedom when he decides to have sex and that is applauded as right and just, yet when that same standard is applied to women in the context of abortion, suddenly it becomes, "you can't interfere with her reproductive freedom", and it's religious nonsense to even suggest that everyone should keep it zipped until they're ready for the potential consequences of sexual activity.

Quite frankly, that's the best way to avoid the whole issue.

Because you’re not arguing “reproductive freedom” for dads. You’re arguing for deadbeat dads.

Nonsense. I have consistently pointed out in this thread that the sexes cannot be equal in this regard. It's not controversial to point out that a man loses his reproductive freedom the moment his sperm impregnates a woman's egg, while a woman's reproductive freedom extends to the moment of birth.

Actually it doesn't given the current legal limitations placed on abortion, which appears to be on average (in the U.S.) about 23 weeks into the pregnancy, which appears to be prior to what doctors consider the point of viability.

So one might say that the Women gets a 6 month extension of her "reproductive freedom", which seems reasonable since she's the one that has to do all the work of lugging the would be rugrat around inside her.