Actually when it comes to "reproductive rights" it's really the men that get "the fuzzy end of the lollipop" (Name that quote for 15 pts). If a woman wants to abort the baby --men have no say. It's not a baby but "the woman's body" (even if they're married) ...BUT if the woman wants the baby (and the man doesn't...if it's "inconvenient" for him or is he's "not ready to be a parent") he will still have to pay $600/mo until the kid is 18. How is that fair? If you are going to make men pay for kids they didn't want then it's only fair that they should have a say on the other end. If he wants the baby --she shouldn't be able to abort...and she should have to pay support. You can't have it both ways girls...
"Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.
The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit _ nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men _ to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter. The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government _ literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want. There's nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized." (source)
How would a pro-choice woman respond to this issue (or a pro-choice man for that matter) --why do the women get to be the only ones to "choose"? How is it "his baby" if you want a check, but none of his business if you want the suction?