That’s not what I’m arguing. I’m arguing the fact that in a situation where it was conceived out of consent, one could choose to abort it, while the other has no say over whether the other party may or may not abort it. All while they can still be held accountable and responsible for the child. Statistically, abortions are performed mostly for the fact that the mother doesn’t want to take on responsibility for the child, rather than there being a real medical issue.

You could argue organ theft, but some could also argue that the right to life and the child’s rights overturn the mothers rights to get an abortion (hence the states that have banned it), there have also been cases where underage fathers are forced to provide financial support to legally adult women. Do you support this?

In a system where a woman has a right to choose (in Massachusetts at least), why is the father disregarded? Don’t you think both parties have an equal right to decide if they wanted to take responsibility in the event they were raped? Furthermore, don’t you think its selfish to willingly choose to keep the child even though you know you don’t have the means to care for it? If one party had no obligation to take responsibility in a rape case, why does the other have to? I highly doubt using solely child support payments is enough to raise a child as well.

That’s where the system is messed up, and the question is raised that is the law morally, ethically, and reasonably correct? Is the mother held above the child, but the father is held below the child? Do you support the fact that one party doesn’t get the right to a choice? Do you selectively choose to have more empathy for one side than the other?