It takes two to make a baby (well, unless you purchase your own goods) so why shouldn’t it take two to decide on an abortion?  Or so claims Dr. Keith Ablow a (surprise!) Fox News Medical Team psychiatrist.



I believe that in those cases in which a man can make a credible claim that he is the father of a developing child in utero, in which he could be a proper custodian of that child, and in which he is willing to take full custody of that child upon its delivery, that the pregnant woman involved should not have the option to abort and should be civilly liable, and possibly criminally liable, for psychological suffering and wrongful death should she proceed to do so.

I have limited the scope of my argument intentionally, in order to focus on what I consider to be a question that puts fairness front and center: If a man has participated in creating a new life and is fully willing to parent his child (independently, if necessary), why should he not have any control over whether that life is ended?

We are ignoring the quiet message that current abortion policy conveys to every American male: You have no voice in, and, therefore, no responsibility for, the pregnancies which you help to create. Your descendants are disposable, at the whim of the women you choose to be intimate with.

Ironically, his closing point is that since women have full control over sexual activity as well as their contraceptive use, there’s no reason she should ever be pregnant unless she actually wanted to be.  Which, wouldn’t that inherently negate his whole need for a veto, since every pregnancy based on his assertion must be wanted in the first place?