Forceful_Dragon posted...
What he is saying is that "as long as abortions are illegal, then it should work like this to limit the wrong".
It isn't "picking a group" it is simply choosing not to screw over a second group since one is already being screwed over.
The objection I can see is this: it screws over people who won't get an abortion for religious reasons.
Let's say you have two catholics. They are married try for a kid, and she gets pregnant...but then they start arguing and it becomes clear that a divorce is inevitable. The woman doesn't really have an "opt out" button because she is very religious. But now the man does and let's say he does choose to opt out. Now the woman is very screwed. She has to be a single mother and regardless of who has employment she won't get child support.
I mean, I get the concept behind giving the man an "opt out button." He can declare "I won't support it" and then she can just respond "okie dokie abortion time!" But the problem is that this assumes that every woman should be a-ok with having an abortion if the circumstances are wrong. We know that's not true.
The idea is to give women choice, not to force them into a decision because you've put extra legal pressures on them.
--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision