It is a double standard because the pregnancy/childbirth ONLY affects the woman's body. Why should a man have the power to FORCE a woman to endure pregnancy/childbirth?

If both have a part in the choice, what will be done when there is disagreement, or in other words, a tie vote?

Just don't allow yourself to get impregnated in the first place. They figured out what causes babies a long time ago. Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

If ya spread dem legs, make sure ya on the pill! yuk, yuk, yuk..........

That is totally wrong. My gripe is with people passing laws to control women's reproduction when many of them have a limited understanding of pregnancy/childbirth. There is no benefit to society in criminalizing abortion; it is simply a punitive action toward women.

You have failed to explain why men should have the power to veto abortion as a woman's choice or what to do when the two parties disagree.

They figured out what causes babies, but they have never figured out how to prevent people from having sex. Duhhhhhh.

Granny, you are aware that many women abort children for reasons that have nothing to do with there bodies? Right? So your saying if a women doesnt want a child, cause she feels she cant afford it, then she shouldnt be able to abort him/her? I mean that has nothing to do with her body. Right?

And if you feel she should still be able to abort, why do you feel the man should be held responcible if she decides to have the child? How is that equal rights?? What if he feels that he cant afford a child? Why does she have more rights than him?

This conclusion from Grannie:
First of all, we are discussing Roe v. Wade. And as abortion became legalized, it was not by a passing of a law so much as interpretation of law. Of constitution.

Here's a scenario, Grannie.

I have a yard. A pretty yard, patio stones up near the house, a statuesque bird bath, shrubbery and in the spring, daffodils and tulips.
I even have some trees. Mountain Ash and Water Oak.

Now I have a good friend who loves my yard. He wants me to plant a cedar too. He cannot plant one in his own yard, cos he lives in a high-rise without any yard to call his own. So we discussed it. And agreed. I have the yard and he went to the nursery and bought the tree. I agreed to let him plant it in my yard. He said he would take care of it for me and with me.

Once I agreed to allow him to plant his tree in my yard, and have reasonably discussed the terms, I cannot rightfully just uproot his tree and put it out to the curb with the trash! Sure I have rights, cos it is my yard, not his!!!

But once I agree to let him plant something in my yard, even if I don't like the way it shades my daffodils too much, I can't just back out of my responsibility to my friend. To the tree that he and I planted in agreement and did enjoy the afternoon together planting.

Maturity and responsibility would weigh in on this, in a court of law. Would it not? Perhaps I could be given allowance to uproot the tree, but not without the courts giving the man a certain time frame to find another "home" for the cedar.

My yard, my rights. Sure. But his tree, his rights.

OhDear

Very wise point you make Grace. It is NOT the woman's body that prompts her to keep or abort the baby. It is her circumstances more often than not. This routine about "it's the woman's body" is a crock. And as a woman, I am embarrassed that anyone wants to advocate for my rights on such a lame foundation as that deceptive premise!

And so again, then what makes her circumstances more valuable than the birth father's circumstances?

OhDear