Male Reproductive Rights

The mother carries a child for nine months. Not the father.

The mother's diet, health, and so on are what impacts the fetus. Not the father's.

The fetus gets its immunities, mitochondrial DNA, and so on overwhelmingly from the mother. Not the father.

The mother is the ones who face the dangers, complications, pain, and (depending on the person and circumstances) inconvenience of pregnancy and giving birth. Not the father.

Sorry, but once you deposit the sperm, the ball's in her court. Arguing for something as silly as "it's partly my genetic material, so I own the fetus too!" is understandable in some ways, but ultimately selfish. This isn't fucking copyright law. What you did by accident in two minutes doesn't trump what she'll have to go through for nine months.

The problem with that kind of argument is that it's essentially arguing that a man should be able to decide whether a woman is allowed to get an abortion. It's arguing that if she doesn't want to carry the baby, he should be able to force her to spent nine months miserable and force her to take the risks of pregnancy and childbirth. I don't know about the States, but here in Canada it's been settled.

Quote:

Tremblay v. Daigle [1989] 2 S.C.R. 530, was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in which it was found that a fetus has no legal status in Canada as a person, either in Canadian common law or in Quebec civil law. This, in turn, meant that men, while claiming to be protecting fetal rights, cannot acquire injunctions to stop their partners from obtaining abortions in Canada.

[...]the Court ruled that there was no precedent for men's rights to protect their "potential progeny."

Jam it back in, in the dark.