The analogy is not abortion. It would be rape. When a man has sex, he consents to the system we live under. That means he consents to the idea that he can not force a woman to bear the physical consequences of an abortion (possible infertility, infection, etc) or a pregnancy (gestational diabetes, elevated heart rate, etc). When a man has sex, he consents to possibly paying child support. The act of sex is consent. But women consents to the inequality, too. Women consent to the fact that if a pregnancy happens, she will face physically uncomfortable and sometimes dangerous phtsical choices the man does not have to. She consents to possibly getting pregnant every time she has sex, no matter what any doctor, birth control, etc says.

The reason for the rape exception to most abortion bans is simple: if you didn't consent to sex, you didn't consent to the possibility of pregnancy, and being tied to someone for life. If you have sex voluntarily, you do consent.

This is the issue a number of pro-choice activists are having to finally deal with: most people do NOT think abortion is a positive good; it's a necessary evil because of the health/life threatening nature of pregnancy. Saletan at Slate has a really good article on the board about how the absolutist "postive good" response has led to the hollowing out of Roe with majority support. South Dakota and Mississippi overreached, because the abortion absolutist position (no rape, incest, or health bans) ignores the majority position as well- consent matters, health matter, life of the MOTHER matters.

Abortion can have life long negative consequences. Pro-choice activists are finally beginning to acknowledge that. But forced motherhood also has lifelong negative consequences. Forced fatherhood does as well, but the man does not have his body change forever, risk damage to his sciatic nerve, pelvic floor, heart, thyriod, etc. A man's body does not have "saggy" places forever after (having the milk come in does this whether you breatfeed or not). The physical difference is substantial, and undermines the legal argument for men.

WHen he had sex, he consented to fatherhood. When I get in my car, I take the risk of an accident. We can minimize these things, but not avoid them entirely unless we give up the activity entirely.

This man didn't like condoms. He just became the poster boy for why men NEED to wear them. I have a son, too, and I don't think this is an unfair system. He will need to wear a condom, or accept that he consented to this system, and take the consequences. It's not about responsibility (the man in the lawsuit is avoiding that). It's about an American culture that refuses to accept that actions have consequences. If I hit your car, I have to take responsibility for that. If he wouldn't wear a condom (for whatever reason) he needs to take responsibility for the STUPIDITY of that action. NEVER DROP CONDOMS UNTIL MARRIAGE. He's lucky he didn't get AIDs.

No one absolves women form the morning sickness they face until an abortion or term. No one absolves mothers of the pain of adoption. If he didn't want a child, he should have worn a condom.

I will say that women are told EXACTLY the same thing. If you don't want a kid, use birth control or abstain.