Quote:
Depends on your definition of pro-choice. As a woman, you have the choice to either keep a kid, or not. If you do keep the child, the father has to spend the next 18 years paying a significant portion of his wages in child support. Conversely, if I want to keep the kid, I have no say in the decision. If women have the right to claim ~25% of the father's income for the next 18 years (approx 10,000 hours of work), the father should have the right to ask the woman to carry the child to term. Cases of rape, incest, risk to the mother's life, etc not included.
You aren't really making a good argument, imo.
For one thing, let's examine specifically what we are talking about. Pigtails, the woman, requires that the men be pro-choice before she sleeps with them (with, I assume, birth control).
So, there are four possible case scenarios.
1. No pregnancy occurs.
2. A pregnancy occurs and is carried to term.
3. A pregnancy occurs but naturally fails.
4. A pregnancy occurs but is aborted.
A man who is not pro choice is facing a situation in which only 1-3 apply. Which is fine, if both parties agree.
Pigtails is requiring that her lovers endorse option number 4 as well. This could be because she actively intends to abort unwanted pregnancies, or because she requires there to be the option for her, or even just because she refuses to sleep with such a man on principle (even if she intends to never abort her own pregnancies).
The man who is pro-choice accepts that 4 is a possibility. And as it is the woman who needs to go through the biological hardships (which include way more health risks than people realize), it makes perfect sense for the choice to be hers *at least when the topic was discussed.*
This doesn't mean the man CANNOT request a pregnancy be carried to term, but the fact remains that he's not facing any biological problems in doing so. If men could carry fetuses, this would be a different situation.
Of course, I'd hold that the law should be equal when it comes to father vs. mother rights after the birth. On the one hand, you actively choose to engage in sex. I'm not of the mind to allow either party to decide, after the fact, that they don't need to support that child (without both legally severing their rights to him/her through adoption).
If the woman decides to carry it to term, both need to be responsible for it. The only exception to this is if it was explicitly understood before the sex that either (or both) parties wouldn't be. For example, a single woman who wants a baby, and wants to use a sperm from a close friend. Or the couple that decide to abort any pregnancies, or carry any pregnancies so as to put the children up for adoption. If one of the two decide to take a new path (like keep the baby), the other shouldn't be held responsible.
But ultimate choice needs to be with the woman, as she is the one that has to face a year of horrible discomfort, health risks, psychological trauma, etc.
What Pigtails means by pro-choice, I assume, is that a man must know that she is, herself, pro-choice and that it is ultimately her decision what she does with her body. And she's requiring him to agree to that before he gets to use her body for his pleasure. Seems perfectly fair to me. It isn't like she's being a tyrant by ticking guys into sex so that she can watch their faces with pleasure as she aborts their children...