And pretty much every other woman you ask will say the same.

except wolf

Somehow, I don't see wolf allowing a man to tell her what to do about her own health, unless he happened to be a healthcare professional.

Edit: I don't see her allowing a woman to either though, and I think that's the point. Just because the person carrying the child happens to be a woman doesn't give anyone, including the sperm donor who happens to be a man, a right to tell her what her rights are.

Removing what they "happen to be" from consideration removes the debate from reality, IE the sexes are not reproductively equal.

My point is that no one has a right to tell anyone what to do with their own body. How's that for reality.

Good think I was talking about the fetus, half his.

hey, rk. here's a proposed plan for you. I read that the fetus this and full custody that and none of this after the fact blah blah blah...

So. You find a man that feels this way? That he wants full custody of the child he fathers? No problemo. Get the agreement between the parties, man and woman, **before** the fact. Now, you've a leg to stand on. Now each person is making an informed decision. Informed consent. Discuss, agree, sign, sex, pregnancy, birth, custody.

--aside-- Talk about a mood killer.. yeesh.

But now there will be no surprises, no mistaken assumptions. He and she knew the job was dangerous when they took it.

I agree this is not foolproof. People change their minds. Happens all the time in all kinds of situations, even those as important and emotionally supercharged as this one. And still, people work it out. Build into the contract the "escape clauses" and the penalties for breaking the contract. Then you have a law that can be objectively evaluated. You have a structure that can be anticipated and navigated. Reform and refine as you go.

I daresay a man that protects his interests in this way, while effective, will ever have any interests to actually protect. What woman would sign? And a woman that would sign (and a man that would sign) would likely be bound by the unwritten social contract that is in effect every day.

But trying to enforce something like this **after** it has begun... not gonna happen. No contracts, no agreements of any kind get made when you mix up cooperation and compulsion.

Consent and coercion are mutually exclusive. One cannot be transformed into the other.

Not a bad idea, have the contract, keep it with you, and get it signed before-hand.
At least you would have legal standing after the fact.

Glad you like it.

I bet it would be a highly effective prophylactic. 100% effective.

Serious Question:
 

Would the man, were he to have these "Equal Rights" over the fetus, have the option of FORCING THE WOMAN TO HAVE AN ABORTION?

Shoulda' made it bigger and put it in red.

You mean blood red, for the blood of the innocent victims, slaughtered in the name of equal reproductive rights?

LOL!!!

Well it's a good question. I'm interested to know your thoughts on that one rkz.

I asked that in my first post in this thread...how can you consider giving a man the right to force a woman to take a pregnancy to term and make him a father, but not have the same right to force a woman to abort in order to NOT make him a father?