You swallowed that one way too easily. The real point they're trying to push isn't fathers rights at all; their point is to re-define a fetus as a child and pregnancy as a condition of the child rather than of the woman. And you bought it wholesale.

The father has rights and responsibilities regarding the child. He has neither regarding the medical condition of pregnancy, or even the status of a fetus.

Has Conley read Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale"? What was so brilliant about this book (and it's worth re-reading, as it has become more prescient over time) is that while it was written as science fiction, it was really a metaphor for what happens when the government takes control of women's bodies for the purpose of reproduction.

In Conley's world, when a man wants to prevent a partner from having an abortion, that woman becomes a hostage. She is forced to carry a baby to term, against her will, and the only way to enforce the completion of an unwanted pregnancy is through enforcement by government.

If I remember correctly, Justice O'Connor's written decision striking down Alito's ruling on spousal notification, pointed out: where does it end? Could a man legally keep his wife/girlfriend from drinking, smoking, (and these are now my comments) driving, working at a job he sees as "dangerous to the fetus"? Or, what if she has a new partner and he believes their sexual activity is dangerous to the fetus, could he prevent her from having sex? From traveling? Could he force her to exercise or lose weight?

Once someone else takes control of an individual's body, that person (and in this case, that woman) loses her liberties. She is no longer a free individual. That is why, even though parents may have deep emotional attachments to a fetus (I don't want to dismiss these feelings - they exist), we can't legally recognize the rights and therefore the liberty of a fetus as ever taking precedence over the rights and liberty of a woman.

Once we can grow fetuses outside of a woman's body, I'd be willing to reconsider my position.

Once the man can carry the fetus to viability and birth, he should be given a say. The technology to transplant the fetus from woman to man likely isn't all that far off and at that point, if the man is willing to take the pregnancy, he should be allowed to.

Until then it is akin (but with a more onerous burden) to saying "you do all the work, I'll take all the profit."

Oh wait, that IS Republican policy, isn't it...

So a man who is 19, in college, and his girlfriend gets pregnant. She can keep the baby, abort the baby, or give it up for adoption. His options meanwhile are non-existent. He goes along for the ride. She aborts the baby, and he has to except it, whether he agrees or not. She gives it up for adoption, ditto, although he may be able to try for custody. She decides to keep the baby and he is legally and financially enslaved to her for 18 years. Talk about taking control of somones' body/life. Men have no reproductive rights, only reproductive responsibilities. Its no wonder men often treat marriage and fatherhood as a burden, while women treat as a cause for celebration. Women have everything to gain, and men have everything to lose. Our society does nothing but punish and legally/financially imprison men for engaging in either.

that the ability they have to change their mind after the pregnancy starts is a great advantage and benefit that they have that men don't. Women say men are obligated to pay child support by virtue to having sex, so why aren't women obligated to be mothers? there's a reason, but instead of complaining women should admit they are in a better position than men, not a worse one. If men could undergo an abortion rather than pay 20 years of child support you can be sure the illegitimacy rate would be zero.

Fine - let's say if you play you pay and you have a say. (hey!) Now what? If after all this fooforah, all the hand-wringing about having an equal say in the choice, etc. the father decides he wants to leave the mother in the third trimester to shack up with someone else. What if after the child is born, the woman files for divorce or otherwise breaks up with the man, even after all that support? The whole "you pay" part of the equation turns to mud the minute the man decides to pursue other interests.

I know someone who had a child with his wife, she left him and moved back to Germany with the kid. He's never seen either of them since. It happens all the time the other way around, probably more often - dad leaves and doesn't come back.

If you could prove that the man vetoing the woman's opinion would always be around as a caring, supportive father, then fine, let them both have their "play and pay and say." Otherwise, forget it.

his former fianc�e is pregnant with his child and has chosen to keep the baby. About the fianc�e's decision, Conley attempts diplomacy, writing, "That is her right, of course, and nobody should be able to take that away."

Seems like a contradiction to his arguement, if you ask me... If the man is to be given equal rights to veto, he should be given equal rights to force the woman to have an abortion...

Which, of course is so disturbing, I don't even want to go there... Also, if the man is allowed to veto an abortion, is he going to go to greater lengths to enforce child support payments? What if the guy only vetos the abortion to saddle an uppity-ex with a child?

What a dick.

If men like Mr Conley are so concerned about their sex partner's choice of abortion in the event of a pregnancy, why not discuss the matter before enagaging in sex? Then simply choose not to have sex with pro-choice women. And not having any sexual activity that could result in a pregnancy would completely eliminate the problem. If you are morally opposed to an activity or the potential results of any activity, abstain...