I understand this has the potential to be inflammatory but I mean it as an honest discussion point. I still think abortion should be 100% the woman's decision because it is her body/her medical risk in giving birth. (FYI - the stats on that are the mortality rate of giving birth in the US is 100x that of having a surgical abortion and 10x that of having a medical, eg RU-486, abortion as I learned in my MD training).

But, in the case the women was willing to give birth provided she didn't want to parent (an option for men, who are required to provide financial not custodial support), how many men of unplanned, non-married pregnancies would want to be a single, full-time parent to an infant? Seriously. I think most men would prefer part-time or co-parenting because single parenthood is really hard and financially disadvantageous, a fate of that happens to a number of the women who do not have abortions.

There, they have an undigestable mass from a single country of origin that they refuse to make any accommodation for and treat as forever alien. You have third and fourth generation Turkish "guest workers" in Germany, little Algerias in France that are being compelled to become Frenchmen, albeit eternally second class Frenchmen, and parts of Britain that look a lot like New Delhi, essentially because they aren't welcome at the local pub.

I think a big part of that is the government allowing in tons of immigrants, against the wishes of the native population. You can't force people to accept hordes of unknown strangers.

However, bear in mind that in France immigrants get great social services and free education, unlike the States.

Here in North America, both the US and Canada have shown that there is much better way of doing things. Both countries have much higher immigration rates than the Europeans, and much less strife and tension. Why?

Mostly because we are much less scared of strangers.

Let's not kid ourselves. We can accept more immigrants because we have more space. If you take a train across Europe, you'll see that just about every bit of land is accounted for, it is entirely cultivated. In America, you can drive (not many people take the train) for miles and miles without seeing anyone. I think we need to account for that before we start congratulating ourselves.

"It's not racism to want to preserve certain parts of your culture."

Well, that kind of thinking pretty quickly does lead you to racism. Either your culture is attractive and decent and productive enough that other people will want to join it, which has been the North American experience so far, or it is exclusive and repulsive and racist, in which case you will get riots.

Just because it can lead to racism, doesn't make it racist. What would happen to gay rights and feminism if large groups of people from a conservative country came in?

And the thing is, immigrants don't necessarily come in wanting to join the culture. Many only come to make money, but they don't want to join the culture because they hate the culture itself. They just like the money. Which is understandable, from their point of you, but not very good for the native population.

while the women get abortions with no anesthesia -- those poor men....such victims.

The people in our government are hypocrites. On the one hand, you have people bemoaning "post-abortion syndrome" for men, and on the other, you have asylum being denied to men whose wives are victims of forced abortion. So, they're saying that it isn't so bad for the guys after all.

Procreation and pregnancy are not parenting. Men have rights as parents once a baby is born. That's fair since they share no burden in caring for a fetus. Women do and that's just how nature devised it. I think it's basically inappropriate to equate elective abortion with forced abortion. One is a woman's the right to control procreation. The other is a forced procedure endured by the woman disproportionately.

It is to your credit that you do at least acknowledge the pain and grief of men adversely affected by a womans unilateral decision to abort. The planning aspect though is also primarilly in the womans hands because the pill is by far the more reliable method of contraception currently available. The other problem concerns those cases where it was originally intended by both partners to have a child but then later the woman for whatever reason changes her mind. The bottom line is there is a great inequity in parenting laws currently and sooner or latere that must be addressed if we as a society want to encourage responsible parenting.

I am a pro-choice feminist, and I acknowledge the pain and grief some men may feel when the woman they conceived with has an abortion. This is why it is so important that pregnancies always be planned.

..the point being is that the chinese would be dad may have WANTED to be the father of the developing child so an enforced abortion could cause him to feel much grief and loss. Of course I expect this point to be IGNORED by feminists here in the USA because to acknowledge that would force them to acknowledge a similar infliction of grief and loss on men who wanted to be fathers in the USA but the women they co-created with ignored their wishes as they are legally 'entitled' to do and went ahead anyway with their abortions.

If we men were anywhere near as cavalier with women rights issues and feelings we would be hearing howls of outrage and our 'parentage' would be doubted.

...because under liberal laws in the USA fathers HAVE NO RIGHTS just responsibilities - furthermore a would be father has no say whatsoever over whther the child he helped co-create ever gets to be born. The argument 'her body her decision' is used by feminists to 'justify' this disenfranchisment - however since the developing child is thus deemed to be wholly HERS and hers alone - it comes a bit rich to then saddle the father with demands for CS should the child be brought to term (again a choice and decision of the woman ONLY). This is the classic 'heads I win tails you lose' deal that were that 'deal' forced on women would have their shrill harpy 'spokespersons' all over our networks and mainstream press declaring the great injustice.!

So in short the question shouldn't be 'are men the victims of forced abortions' but adapted for the reality of the 'liberal' west it should be "Are men victims of abortions" - since abortions are the unilateral decision of the woman alone the answer must certainly be "YES" at least where those men actually wanted to be a father. Odd that when you think this suits the 'fuck and run' men whilst penalises those men who WANT to take on the responsibility of parenthood - we should be PRESUMING to give other cultures lectures on this issue until we we also learn the meaning of EQUALITY.