There are only two "says" possible: Either the man can voice his opinion and the women "has" to consider it, but the choice is ultimately up to her or the man has the final say and can veto the woman's choice to have an abortion.

Your choices, then, are two: The men has no real say or the man has control over a woman's uterus once she has been impregnated.

"There is so much testing available to ascertain whether or not the child will be born healthy it's truly amazing."

Be that as it may, what do you propose if the child should be discovered to have mental retardation, Cerebral Paulsey, Down Syndrome or a number of other debilitating diseases. What if the father still wants the child but the mother doesn't? Is there going to be a point system, who gets to make the final decision , a judge? One of the parents?

As for the danger to the mother; it isn't always known until the complications arise during the pregnancy that the mother's life is in danger. Sometimes it is too late to make the decision. sometimes death occurs after the birth has already taken place.

As of 2007 (I found some more statistics) one in every 4800 women in the United States die of complications resulting from pregnancy. That's over 31,000 women a year in the United States.

All you can offer pregnant women is a bland and optimistic view that everything is gonna be okay, things are so nice and easy, they aren't in much danger..etc..etc. You also have extremely vague ideas about who gets to decide things; you talk about the man "making a case", involving courts, having it "resolved between the two parties". Do you not realize you need to actually have a law in place for courts to decide on?

Unless the parents actually create some kind of contract where the woman must have the consent of the man or state law dictates that the man must also consent to the abortion there would be nothing for the courts to decide, it is her choice.

Do you have anything beyond vague ideas of what should happen and excuses about how "complicated" the issue is? Your whole "solution" is both redundant and provenly impossible to implement fully. It is basically the old child-support system plus the ability of the father to choose whether or not the child can be aborted. In other words, a flawed system plus further control of the woman to the man with an increased risk and responsibility to the woman.

It is even less fair than what we have now with our growing number of single women and their dead-beat child's fathers. I don't see how you can so glowingly advocate what would be a massive chain being wrapped around a woman's uterus, with a lock whose key is firmly held by a man.

I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. I don't know what the joke is supposed to be here.

Am I supposed to be a woman angry at men who abused me?

A man who is angry at women who abused him?

A gay man angry at straight men abusing him so he encourages women to emasculate them for his own sick amusement? (I mean, this one is at least close to the truth, but I don't know if this was your intended meaning).

If you are going to crack jokes could you at least make a good one, one that makes a small amount of sense? I think that's a rather small request, really.

There are some major problems with that line of thinking:

First of all, that whole situation would be unconstitutional. You would have to amend the constitution to give the power of denying abortions to the courts.

Secondly, you are now advocating the ability of both the man and the legal system to have power over a woman's body and her very life. That, in itself, is disturbing. Courts make mistakes all of the time; in this case there isn't even a crime being committed, why put a woman's life in hands other than her own?

Lastly, health complications can arise without notice, without warning, without foreknowledge. Birth is always risky, there are always mild impacts on women's health, but anything could happen that would endanger the woman's long-term health, well-being, and life. Complications could arise weeks before the birth, what then? Would you have this woman, while in the throws of late pregnancy and all of its problems, get her lawyer to petition to court for the ability to abort? What if it is too late to protect her? How long would it take for the court to decide?

But besides that, again, you've decided that the people who get to decide whether the woman's life is worth being put at risk is not the woman herself but her husband and male-dominated courts. That's rather oppressive, rather disturbing, and unbelievably simplistic and cold.

"If there are health complications or she dies, its as much the womans fault as it is the mans."

Are you serious? Not everyone is aware of every possible health issue prior to getting pregnant. I had four flawless pregnancies, but my fifth had me bedridden with sever edema and blood pressure issues.

"After all she made the choice to have the kid."

Again. Are you serious? What if she didn't choose to have a kid. What if they used a condom and she was on the pill. Accidents do happen.

"She wasn't at gun point and she could've gotten out of any dangerous situation had there been one."

Dangerous situations aren't always forseen...again from personal experience...'crazy' doesn't always rear it's ugly head from the beginning.

So, it's her fault for getting pregnant which makes her give up the right to her own body. She could prevent her death or health problems, of course, but she should have thought about that before she let a man have sex with her.

I see, I see. Women give their rights up at conception; just because the man is under no risk for going through the same act he gets to make the decision over her life. Because, you know, it's her fault for letting him take control over her uterus.

I completely understand now! Women don't have a choice after they get pregnant; they give up their rights! You have certainly opened by eyes.

You are not really explaining, of course, why the woman has to make all...and I mean ALL of the sacrifices of pregnancy. Seems sort of a raw deal, ya know, they both get a few minutes or hours of pleasure and then the woman goes through months of pain and sickness, then a day or so of intense pain, possible health complications, and even death.

But it's fair...as you have pointed out, because they both made the choice.

Did you really read my entire argument? Because you misrepresented it.

I never once said a man should force a woman to do anything. I don't know where you got that bit of information from.

You also tried to say...

"What you want is two people having an equal vote but, if there is dissent, the man gets to be the tie-breaker. Essentially, this gives the man the say and the woman no say at all."

That wasn't what I said at all. Take a look at my argument and check out that last sentence.

It says a man should have a say in it but the choice shouldn't be his.

So why are YOU making things up?

As far as the 80 hour work week, you obviously have never known a man to work that much. I've known many. Maybe its because of my latin heritage (with woman more often then not, acting as stay at home moms).

Oh and the child support thing, I know a guy who lives in a suite and works 2 jobs because he pays child support for three kids. Yes, it's his fault for having three kids (i'm not saying it's not his fault). But sometimes the courts aren't as fair as you might think they are.

And you obviously aren't giving men enough credit.

Yes, woman sacrifice a lot. And when its a single mother, she really sacrifices a lot. But it was her choice to have the kid even though she probably couldn't support him. She made her choice, regardless if the man was around or not.

But you act like men never sacrifice a thing... or that there's no such thing as a single father.

I'm grateful for every sacrifice my father made for me. And he made quite a number of them, too. Arguably as many as my mother.

It seems that to you, a man should have no say at all in the matter. That his opinion shouldn't even count. Really?

So you're basically saying that a woman could pop a hole in a condom and get pregnant if she wants kids, and never once tell or consider the man. Or that if a woman is pregnant, that she doesn't have to tell the father that she is.

I guess she doesn't 'have' to, but it doesn't make it right. Of course there are situations where the woman would fear for her life if she told the man. In that case, i agree she shouldnt have to tell him.

But if this is a normal relationship, the man SHOULD know when the woman is pregnant and tell her his opinion on the matter.

He shouldn't force her to do anything - that's her choice. But he definitely should know about what's happening and at least have a say in the decision making process.

nope, of course you decide to ignore everything else and just attack one simple phrase that can mean anything.

the point is, that's his child too. if she thinks it's a "burden" to have a child, maybe she should be fuckin' a guy who's okay with her killing his kid.

the problem is that you're totally ignoring the third party in this situation.

i'm not too worried about the dude actually. i'm more worried about the kid. it's bad enough that i'm for abortion, but at least a guy who cares about the life of his child could save the thing.

but no, don't worry about innocent lives that have nothing to do with it... don't care about the guy who wants to save his child. nope, you just care about your .13%. more die from car accidents. more die from just about anything really.

and how am i anti-woman? how is wanting both parents to decide on whether their kid should be murdered or not anti-woman? if anything... you're anti-father.