Regrettable that the tongue-in-cheek (no puns or double meanings intended) tone of this article gives short-shrift to a real issue. Feminist emphasis on the ideal of a woman controlling her own reproductive life was necessary - all the real sociopolitical empowerment that women have achieved is due not to feminist "consciousness-raising", but rather, is the direct result of that evil plot of the patriarchy, the oral contraceptive ( if this really was just another conspiracy of male-supremicists to further their own gratification, then it wasn't well thought-out at all ). However, when feminists argue that this reproductive right extends to absolute monopoly regarding all pregnancies, they err. The argument that they have control because the pregnancy is housed in their bodies, over which they have absolute authority, ignores two issues: consent and empirically verifiable biology. In all normally-conceived pregnancies, half the DNA is the male's. Presumably this is the justification for compulsory child support. Assuming ( and perhaps it is a huge and inevitably erroneous assumption ) full disclosure and absent fraud, this should invest the male with rights in addition to his well-enforced responsibilities. Feminist "thinkers" will shriek hysterically at this assertion, their political ideology being immune to concepts of justice and equality. The problem is, consent to physical intimacy waives a degree of control over one's own body. It affirms acceptance of a SHARING of consequences, whether these are pregnancy, disease, or subsequent emotional bliss/devastation. Thus, BOTH parties have RIGHTS that must be addressed. The implication of this is, at the moment, vastly politically incorrect, but ultimately inescapable.

"Feminist "thinkers" will shriek hysterically at this assertion, their political ideology being immune to concepts of justice and equality."

Don't you be telling me what I am shrieking about, bub.

I have friends (male friends! gasp!) who were trapped by some chick deciding to get pregnant because "then he would love her forever". I despise those women; they are taking advantage of their reproductive capabilities as surely as men were when women had no say in the matter.

I have always insisted that men should have the same right as women do in many states: they should be able to "abandon" i.e. give up all rights to the infant during a period of, say, three days from FINDING OUT about the birth.

My husband and I have discussed it; if I were to get pregnant (hypothetical gods forbid) he would get one vote and I would get two. I get an extra because the thing is gestating inside my body, and not his. However, he gets a say because that is his DNA also.

As an aside, yes, we discussed this well before we were married. Before we ever had sex, as a matter of fact.

This has nothing to do with political correctness. You are couching this as a Men Vs. Feminazis situation, when in fact it is both logical and fair.

Freki

"My husband and I have discussed it; if I were to get pregnant (hypothetical gods forbid) he would get one vote and I would get two. I get an extra because the thing is gestating inside my body, and not his. However, he gets a say because that is his DNA also."

How hypocritical. He gets a vote and you get two? That is just like saying he gets no vote. He has a say? More like you can tell me your opinion but mine is still the only one that matters. If I agree with you fine, if I don't oh well you can feel good because I let you have a vote.

"Assuming ( and perhaps it is a huge and inevitably erroneous assumption ) full disclosure and absent fraud, this should invest the male with rights in addition to his well-enforced responsibilities."

But how exactly do we enforce those male responsibilities? Plenty of kids still get run-out on so we're not doing a good job of it now.

No, not being told at all would be like getting no vote. My husband gets a vote because, like me, he would be a potential parent. I get the deciding vote because I am actually in possession of the uterus. Short of locking me in the bedroom, there is no way for him to prevent me from having an abortion should I desire one.

He thinks I am being fair. His previous lady said "if I ever got pregnant, you would never even know." In this case, if I was undecided, he would get the tie-breaker.

It is kind of a moot point, however, since we don't like kids and don't want them. I am glad I live in a time and place where I have that option, because I think that while getting saddled with a baby would put a crimp in our lifestyle, it would be FAR FAR more damaging to the unwanted kid.

To tell you the truth, I don't see us really VOTING per se. I think it would be a discussion, where we eventually came to an agreement, because otherwise we would both have to live with the unpleasant consequences of one person overruling the feelings of another.

Freki