Explain this to me...

Why is it that whenever the topic of abortion comes up, it's always a bunch of men discussing what women should or shouldn't do?

Why is it that men who don't want women to have abortions also don't want women to have easy access to birth control?

Why is it that men who don't want medicare to cover the cost of abortions, still want medicare to cover the cost of viagra?

Explain to me how a non-existant person (someone who has not yet been born) can have any rights at all, let alone rights that supercede the rights of a person who does exist (a pregnant woman)?
This whole notion that even a woman who is RAPED should be compelled to carry a resulting fetus to term, creates a special privileged class whose privileges outweigh the woman's rights.
Even if you think a fetus is a "person" (Hey, why not? Apparently, corporations are persons), what is the reason for that person to be more important than the pregnant woman --- whom I believe we can also assume is a "person?"

If you're going to say that a "person" begins at conception, what's your evidence of that? If that's a religious conviction, fine. Keep it between you and whatever God you believe in. In this republic we're supposed to have a wall between church and state. So give me some rational, medical or legal evidence to support your position.
The Constitution says a "citizen" is a person "BORN" or naturalized....
So under the Constitution, a fetus can have no rights until "BORN."

If the argument is that a fetus has a "right to be born" or a "right to life," then explain why. Is it because you assume the fetus has a "soul" at conception? OK. Is that soul CREATED at conception? Prove it. Prove that such a thing as a soul actually even exists. Oh-oh, sounds like we're slipping back into religion, doesn't it?

What if the soul exists BEFORE conception and is just hanging around in the ether waiting to hitch a ride on the next available fetus? Some people believe that. Should there be a "right to conception?" Golly, maybe every time a guy masturbates he's guilty of a million counts of murder.

Why is it that men are making these decisions when it is women and women alone who must bear the physical and emotional burden of carrying the fetus to term and experiencing childbirth?

At the very LEAST, if men are going to be involved in the decision-making, then they should be involved in the result of the decision.

Here's a couple of suggestions:
1. If a man insists on a woman bearing a child she doesn't want to bear, then it seems only fair that he should share in the "joy" of childbirth. To approximate the "miracle of birth" I recommend that during the delivery that man should be strapped to a chair and repeatedly kicked in the nuts while having a large zucchini stuffed up his ass.

2. All men who want women to bear children that they don't want should be required to personally adopt them and pay for the all the costs of rearing them.

3. Men who don't want women to have access to birth control should, as an alternative, be immediately castrated. Likewise, men who impregnate a woman against her will, or who won't "allow" the woman to abort. In fact, let's just let women get together and decide who's going to remain a stallion and who's going to get gelded, based on whatever criteria they devise.

At least then we won't have to worry about medicare paying for all that viagra.


sj