There is so very much wrong going on in this thread.
Let's tackle child support first, and the alleged "unfairness" to a man being "made" to pay child support for a pregnancy he has no control over. A first point: Child support is gender neutral. In other words, if the *man* is taking care of the child, then it is expected that the *woman* will provide child support. It's not about the woman, but the child. Child support is instituted for the precise social good of making sure the child has adequate resources for his care. Secondly, the simple reason that a man cannot "veto" a birth is because he is not the one carrying the child. The law is not "fair" because *biology* is not fair. The woman carries the child, she is the one who bears the risk of childbirth. Furthermore, a woman is at much higher risk of suffering financial consequences from motherhood (reduced career opportunities, reduced pay, etc).
Engaging in sex is to to accept the risk of parenthood, and both parties know this and have, in essence accepted it. One party can not (should not) be able to walk away from the consequences of a *mutual* decision. He choose to have sex, he has agreed to bear part of the consequences. (it should be noted that under just about any normal child support regime, the amount of money given is nowhere near to half of the actual expenses of taking care of a child).
Furthermore, as regards the claim that a fetus is a child. If an individual believes this, the most rational course is a liberal family planning regime. Restricting abortion and birth control, statistically, increases the incidence of both abortions and risky abortions which are a threat to the mother's life. Comparing the rates of abortion between a highly restrictions state, such as Honduras, to a medium restrictions state, such as the US, to a liberal regime state, such as Canada and most of western Europe, makes this abundantly clear.
It also pays to recall how abortion restrictions are actually enforced in fact, rather than in the magical universe where ponies exist: Under any abortion regime, the upper class women always have access to abortion. They are capable of traveling abroad, if necessary, to get an abortion, they can afford to take time off from work, they can afford to pay the higher fees in a "gray market" for a good doctor that won't get her killed. This is precisely what the case was in the US prior to Ro. Any person who takes equality under the law should grasp why this is an objectionable state of affair. Furthermore, preventing this would require a sufficiently restrictive regime as to represent a real cost of liberty. (it would mean, firstly, restricting women's ability to travel)
As a further point as to the reality of how abortion laws are restricted, it's useful to remember that abortion always are built in such a way that they are terrible at preventing abortion, but are rather clear attempts to control and restrict female sexuality. Take the recent banning on DRX abortions in the US. This was a ban on a particular *method* of abortion. It will not stop a single abortion, it will simply make late term abortions more risky, and more costly, and has been justified along sexist grounds that it is the place of government to prevent women from being able to make decisions about their own bodies that they "might come to regret later."
Forced abortion and Abortion restriction (i.e forced pregnancy) and allowing men any control over abortion are quite simply not defensible on any grounds that takes the rule of law, gender equality, or democracy seriously. If women are to be equal, they can and should be able to abort a fetus prior to the third trimester, period.
Let's tackle child support first, and the alleged "unfairness" to a man being "made" to pay child support for a pregnancy he has no control over. A first point: Child support is gender neutral. In other words, if the *man* is taking care of the child, then it is expected that the *woman* will provide child support. It's not about the woman, but the child. Child support is instituted for the precise social good of making sure the child has adequate resources for his care. Secondly, the simple reason that a man cannot "veto" a birth is because he is not the one carrying the child. The law is not "fair" because *biology* is not fair. The woman carries the child, she is the one who bears the risk of childbirth. Furthermore, a woman is at much higher risk of suffering financial consequences from motherhood (reduced career opportunities, reduced pay, etc).
Engaging in sex is to to accept the risk of parenthood, and both parties know this and have, in essence accepted it. One party can not (should not) be able to walk away from the consequences of a *mutual* decision. He choose to have sex, he has agreed to bear part of the consequences. (it should be noted that under just about any normal child support regime, the amount of money given is nowhere near to half of the actual expenses of taking care of a child).
Furthermore, as regards the claim that a fetus is a child. If an individual believes this, the most rational course is a liberal family planning regime. Restricting abortion and birth control, statistically, increases the incidence of both abortions and risky abortions which are a threat to the mother's life. Comparing the rates of abortion between a highly restrictions state, such as Honduras, to a medium restrictions state, such as the US, to a liberal regime state, such as Canada and most of western Europe, makes this abundantly clear.
It also pays to recall how abortion restrictions are actually enforced in fact, rather than in the magical universe where ponies exist: Under any abortion regime, the upper class women always have access to abortion. They are capable of traveling abroad, if necessary, to get an abortion, they can afford to take time off from work, they can afford to pay the higher fees in a "gray market" for a good doctor that won't get her killed. This is precisely what the case was in the US prior to Ro. Any person who takes equality under the law should grasp why this is an objectionable state of affair. Furthermore, preventing this would require a sufficiently restrictive regime as to represent a real cost of liberty. (it would mean, firstly, restricting women's ability to travel)
As a further point as to the reality of how abortion laws are restricted, it's useful to remember that abortion always are built in such a way that they are terrible at preventing abortion, but are rather clear attempts to control and restrict female sexuality. Take the recent banning on DRX abortions in the US. This was a ban on a particular *method* of abortion. It will not stop a single abortion, it will simply make late term abortions more risky, and more costly, and has been justified along sexist grounds that it is the place of government to prevent women from being able to make decisions about their own bodies that they "might come to regret later."
Forced abortion and Abortion restriction (i.e forced pregnancy) and allowing men any control over abortion are quite simply not defensible on any grounds that takes the rule of law, gender equality, or democracy seriously. If women are to be equal, they can and should be able to abort a fetus prior to the third trimester, period.
