you just gave a good argument for Roe V. Wade for men?

Congratulations Doctor Price, you're batting 100 this morning.

I appreciate the argument you just gave on why we need Roe V. Wade for men, where if a man doesn't want the child, the woman is forced to abort since the baby won't have two loving parents.

do any of the healthcare initiatives offered by democrats currently provide coverage for selective abortions?

Actually that's what you would expect over time. As we learn more about a subject, we come up with new insights regarding that subject.

Except for Broadsheet Feminism(TM) which uses thought policing and speech policing to make sure that only happy thoughts about magical vaginas can be thunk and evil thoughts about evil menz can be thunk.

This is about as legit as Restless Legs Syndrome. I'm sure there will be a pill on the market for it soon enough. But these guys don't have PAS, they are experiencing a common human emotion: GUILT. It's normal to feel guilty after doing something you feel is wrong.

I want to see some hard scientific evidence that real, diagnosable cases of PTSD are happening here before I believe a word of this.

As the article notes, and I think even you have figured out, this is mainly a religious attack on abortion.

The presenters who spoke included not activists or strategists but Christian-oriented counselors, men's healing gurus, a priest and two researchers, including Rue, who directs the Florida-based Institute for Pregnancy Loss.

The article brings in a Glenn Sacks quote, but that quote doesn't deal with so-called "PAS".

I have never seen Sacks discuss anything similar to post-abortion syndrome, instead he discusses Roe V. Wade for men as problematical and in terms relating to issues for fathers and men, how we want to parent our children, and how paternity fraud is widespread, and how unfair the system is where men cannot be a parent to their child though they want to be and yet those same men are forced to pay support for a child that may not be theirs, that they cannot parent, or that they notified the mother they did not want when the mother had plenty of time to take an abortion pill or obtain an abortion legally.

It is 10:17 on the West Coast -- you have plenty of time to reach Glenn Sacks by phone or email.

Of course a woman should not be stopped from having an abortion because it would cause anguish to someone else, be it a partner or anyone else. And of course the (dare I say it - typically American) way this has been posed in terms of a 'syndrome' with 'victims' invites ridicule. But it seems a bit churlish to deny that an abortion can cause anguish and grief for people other than the person having the abortion. Heck, men get enough stick for being emotionally unresponsive without being told that an emotional response to something as serious as his partner's abortion.

We must never let these considerations interfere with a woman's right to choose - the alternative is just too horrible. But equally, fear of 'pro-lifers' should not prevent us from accepting that an abortion is, for some, a deeply affecting incident, and its affects can spread wider than just the woman having the abortion.

I have never heard of any man claiming to get PTSD from abandoning his already-born children to poverty.

There always remains one troubling issue with unplanned pregnancy to me:

It is solely the woman's choice whether or not to abort. Legally, the man has no say in the decision.

Fair enough, it seems - but IF the mother chooses to keep the baby, then the man is required to share the burden of expenses, etc. in raising the child - even though he had no say in the matter.

In other words: the would-be father has no legal right to be involved in whether or not the fetus should be aborted - but if the mother chooses to have the kid, he's on the bill for at least half of the expenses (if not more, given their respective financial situations)!

This strikes me as wrong - rights and responsibilities should be as close to balanced as possible. Of course, in reality there seems to be no way to do this...

**************

SOLUTIONS?

I do not believe giving the father equal choice as the mother in decisions concerning abortion will help. If anything, it will be seized upon by rabid pro-lifers - and/or lead to a whole lot of protracted court cases.

Maybe this alternative might work: If a woman plans to keep an unplanned baby, and the baby's father did not agree/would have chosen abortion instead, then legally he should not have any responsibility since he played NO role in the choice.

But again, this solution is problematic - there are so many deadbeat dads out there as it is, and believe they and their ilk would abuse the hell outta solution 2.

********

So there may be no good solution to the dilemma facing men who are involved in an unplanned pregnancy. I suppose all we can do is wear condoms, use as much spermicide as possible, ask(or demand?) that our female partners use a contraceptive approach they are comfortable with - and hope for the best.

for a well-written piece.

Here's what bugs me the most about the "post-abortion-syndrome" folks, which "The Nation" and Catherine Price both referenced: most of these "victims" (male and female) don't realize they are victims, don't feel sad, don't feel guilty, about the abortions *until the movement brainwashers force them to* through some pretty powerful coercive techniques: rituals among captive audiences that resemble cult indoctrination. This "movement" often goes into prisons, herds the inmates together (involuntarily), lights some candles, plays some sappy music, shows some heart-wrenchingly contrived videos,and tells these people that their lives went wrong when they consented to aborting their children. Then they have the now-guilty "parents" name the fetuses, light candles in their memory, and do some other conjuring tricks that create babies in the victims' minds. Who then haunt them.

These are carnival seance tricks of the worst kind, and the whole point behind them is to *cause* pain in the marks - I mean, "victims." And then recruit them in their army. Like zombies.

Nice. Classy, even. And, really f**kin' Christian.

On another note, this article did give me some more insight into Parson Jim's beloved Glenn Sacks:

"When it comes to reproduction in America today," wrote fathers' rights columnist Glenn Sacks about a man's failed bid to block his ex-girlfriend's abortion, "women have rights and men merely have responsibilities."

Because, of course, a man's rights to not father children don't include using contraception or simply saying "no" to sex with a woman who doesn't want his baby. (And Jim, yes, a woman could also exercise those options. I'd rather s/he did. But ultimately, women are not vessels for men's rights. Nuff said).

Now I don't ever need to listen to him again.