Father's should have equal rights as women in abortion.

Men are incapable of having equal rights regarding the termination of pregnancies because they cannot become pregnant. The idea that a man can have a legal say over a woman's body is the core of the argument. It's a little cold and calculated but there it is. The flip side is the emotional part of a man learning that his child's life has been terminated without his knowledge, consent or having his concerns addressed. There is a small paradox at the center of the argument that cannot be legislated or debated in court: If you're in a relationship with something that discounts your concerns regarding your unborn child, that may not be a legal issue but a personal decision that cannot be undone. While a law that mitigates the damages done by this would be ideal, such a law could not be implemented without having detrimental effects towards women in different situations where the fathers may use such tools to cause harm; case in point: rapists wanting parental rights over children born out of sexual assault. On the surface the idea has merit and passes the common sense test. The probably comes afterwards when society is allowed to repurpose laws written to protect, into something wielded for their own agenda or ideology. Any law can be implemented with the best intentions but when you're in court in front of someone that has no investment in your life or isn't having a good day, the intentions of the law can be easily dismissed and things can go horribly wrong for anyone involved. The questions I would pose to the Pro crowd: How many pregnancies occur in adult women annually due to due rape alone? Of those, how many are aborted? Of those aborted, how many are contested by the father? Of those, how many were married or in a committed/long-term relationship? To first assert a resolution to a problem, the problem must be measured in order to be framed and understood by all parties. Only then can it be addressed from all sides and a reasonable conclusion can be reached. To claim that the legalities of a hypothetical situation must fit your opinion, removes the idea that the problem in society needs to be identified. Yes there are a significant amount of abortions annually in the United States. (In excess of three million is a figure I've heard before but I will have to nail down a supported figure. ) Yes there are a significant amount of rape incidents in this country. Not all abortions are from rape incidents and not all rape incidents result in pregnancy or even terminated pregnancies. At the same time, men in relationships with women should not be denied their right of involvement when a child has been conceived. It is a joint decision. But what should happen to a woman that decides on her own to terminate her pregnancy? Prison? Fine? On the surface it sounds like a good idea but how do you keep the law from being misused? How do we as society grant legal rights to someone over another persons body that also has legal rights? In my mind, it becomes a paradox of legalities: The ideal situation where this law would be implemented in an ideal way, with the ideal people involved wouldn't necessarily occur because those two ideal, reasonable people in a committed relationship wouldn't need a law to intervene. They wouldn't end up in the court room at all. They would decide together, as parents, to either carry the child to term and raise the child or give the child up for adoption. Or they would decide that they are not ready for a child and agree to terminate the pregnancy despite the difficulty and guilt surrounding the implications of their decision.