Just Smith.

pixyled:

bebinn:

permutationofninjas:

bebinn:

permutationofninjas:

just-smith:

Pro-life versus pro-choice is a false dichotomy.

If you’re a man who supports choice, you don’t notice the difference. If you don’t want to be a father under a pro-life system and find the prohibition of safe abortion frustrating, it can seriously hinder your ability to have sex for fun without risking a child. If you forget contraception just once, or if it fails, or if you are tricked, you may as well consign your life away to supporting a child. 

If the child is unwanted, if you aren’t socially or emotionally ready to become a parent, if you are unable to support any children financially, you have no choice and your life turns upside down. If the child would be diseased or disabled or doomed to live a life of pain, you wouldn’t be able to spare it. If you had been raped, you wouldn’t be able to terminate the pregnancy.

These are problems that both men and women can face under a restrictive pro-life system, and it’s why many of them fight for access to abortion and birth control, which should be a fundamental right to prevent them being forced into parenthood without their consent. 

So what does a ‘pro-choice’ system do? Does it solve a single one of these problems for men? No. It simply gives women sovereign power where their shared children are concerned, and allows them to make all of the decisions - potentially doing causing considerable suffering both to their partner and to an innocent child - single-handedly. There is no difference to a man under either system. All that changes is that the agent suppressing your choice switches from being the government to being the woman who took your semen. She may have done so against your will, she may not like you, but thanks to a neat double standard she now holds your future in her hands. 

In an anti-choice system we didn’t have such double standards: men and women were denied choice equally. Under the new system men are still suppressed and at the mercy of those privileged to have power, and so it can hardly be called pro-choice. It is hardly the opposite. All it does is give women complete power over the future of a child they should be rights share with a partner, and even power over that partner themselves. Pro-life women don’t notice the difference either, because they can still use that power to enforce the old system. Pro-choice men don’t, because they are still victims to the same injustices. Meet the new system, same as the old system - just with a little added inequality. 

We may as well call it a pro-woman stance and be done with it. The old system had its problems, but those problems are exactly the same under the new one for half of us, and at least the old one wasn’t sexist.

Basically guys: don’t have sex, because in doing so you forfeit control over your life. Don’t get raped either, because the law still won’t give you any rights. Your first son or daughter might get to live with your rapist, who can tell them lies about you and claim your money for support. I just saw pro-lifers criticised for ruling that it is better to hold your dying child in your arms than remove a clump of cells, but ‘pro-choicers’ support the exact same thing - they just don’t want it to happen to women. So men, unless you find a woman who actually cares about you enough to use this ridiculous imbalance of power fairly (which means going against their own decisions if they will cause a net increase in suffering), you may as well castrate yourself right now. I am a feminist after all, so that should be what I’m calling for: let’s castrate all men, and see how far women can go on their choice alone. 

A lot of frustration here.  An interesting thing is that the feminist movement regularly rejects the “argument to tone” when leveled at them but use it themselves quite often against others.  Their justification, generally, is that it’s “right to be angry about your oppression.”  Too bad they only recognize their own oppression as valid, despite constantly reminding us that it’s all about “experiences” and thus what they say should be considered valid without evidence.

Regardless of the tone, there are a lot of good points here.  When it comes to men, in practice, there is no difference between a pro-life system and a pro-choice system, because the pro-choice system is only pro-choice for women.  The only difference to men is the agent preventing them from exercising their own right to choice.

Setting aside the cisentric language, I’m sorry, but no. When the right to abortion is taken away, people with uteruses are undoubtedly more oppressed and more burdened, by the simple fact that they are the ones carrying the unplanned, unwanted pregnancies. They could be forced into pregnancy by their rapist/husband/lover, then forced to give birth by law, which would then tie them to their abuser if they weren’t self-sufficient enough to pay for themselves and their new baby, or simply weren’t able to escape. In contrast, cis-dudes can simply walk away. Seriously. Collecting child support is not as easy as people think it is. I agree that in an anti-choice system, everyone’s rights are taken away, but let’s not pretend they are at all equal.

Guys who get raped do face a different, and in a lot of ways more difficult burden, because many people assume they can’t be raped, and that if they were able to “perform,” it couldn’t have been rape. It’s absolutely sickening, and while most rape victim advocacy programs do address and serve male victims, the general public needs to be made more aware of the issue, just as they need to be made more aware of sexual assault issues in general. There are a lot of incredibly damaging misconceptions out there.

I’m still thinking about how I feel about requiring child support from unwilling fathers, so I can’t say much about that. I can certainly see your point, but a financial burden, while challenging for some, is still nowhere near the bodily, financial, and lifelong burden of caretaking.

And again, please, let’s not pretend there’s some epidemic of semen-stealing rapists, as I see implied again and again on men’s rights boards. Reproductive coercion can happen to anyone, in which case there need to be better ways of addressing the issue of support, but if the sex is consensual, everyone needs to be responsible for their own contraception. If you don’t think your lady-friend is being truthful about being on the pill, or if you don’t trust her not to poke holes in the condoms, use your own, tie them off, and throw them away yourself. There’s no need for castration, but you can also get a vasectomy, which is successfully reversible most of the time. Or, don’t fuck people you don’t trust!

Oh, and Tokyo scientists just created baby mice in April without any sperm, so…

For starters, this wasn’t about who had it worse, it was about equity under the law.  In the case of a pro-life system, the law is applied equally in terms of rights.  In our current semi-pro-choice system, the law is applied in a manner that is clearly unequal. 

“which would then tie them to their abuser if they weren’t self-sufficient enough to pay for themselves and their new baby, or simply weren’t able to escape.”

Only if by “tied to their abuser” you mean that the “abuser” would be forced by law to pay for the child regardless of whether she sticks around.  This assuming she doesn’t give the child up for adoption, or abandon it at the nearest hospital as she could in something like forty states and all of Canada.  Child support is a lot easier to collect that you think it is.  This is probably because you’re relying on entirely inaccurate assessments of unpaid child support.  (Hint: 30% of unpaid support is owed by dead people.  This should tip you off that there’s something seriously wrong with the numbers you’re seeing.)

Your assertion that cismen can “simply walk away” is ridiculous.  In the US and Canada the government enforcement mechanism is actually quite complex and multifaceted, including ties to government benefits, income taxes, drivers licences, repossession of property and income garnishing.  Sure, it’s possible, but it’s a helluva lot more difficult than you’re making it out to be.

“It’s absolutely sickening, and while most rape victim advocacy programs do address and serve male victims, the general public needs to be made more aware of the issue, just as they need to be made more aware of sexual assault issues in general.”

Bullshit.  Even now, most support services for rape will outright turn away men, even assuming they don’t feed the poor guy some bullshit about how only women can be victims of rape.  If a man attempts to report sexual assault, partner abuse or rape against him he’s liable to find himself in a jail cell nowadays, regardless of the evidence he presents.  In many countries it’s not even possible to charge women with rape, or for a man to be raped as far as the legal definition is concerned. 

While it might be technically correct that “victim advocacy programs” (assuming we’re thinking about the same thing here) behave in a slightly more egalitarian manner, services meant to help victims (the most important in the short run) certainly don’t.

Would it be appropriate for a woman to who had wished to have an abortion but couldn’t due to medical reasons and after delivery wished to give the baby up for adoption to be forced to give the child to the father, then pay outright extortionate amounts of money to him for the next 18 years for a child she never even wanted in the first place?  If you answered “yes,” I’ll concede that your paragraph about child support is valid.  If not, you’re a hypocrite, plain and simple.

Your final paragraph devolves into victim-blaming that is frankly disgusting and unworthy of response or consideration.

It doesn’t matter what it was about, I addressed what you said about equality, and it was wrong. I don’t see how two people, one with the body parts to bear children, and one without, can be made equal under the law in regards to reproduction, unless both have a complete right to their own bodies. The financial situation is a separate issue. Related, yes, but separate.

I don’t like to assume I know your life situation, but I don’t think you fully understand how abuse works to keep the victim feeling as if they cannot leave. Adding a pregnancy/child to the equation can only trap them further. Adoption can be incredibly difficult, even if one doesn’t want or intend to raise a child, because they’ve borne it for 9 months, given birth to it, and are now subject to a flood of hormones and emotions attaching them to it, and that doesn’t address the difficulties of putting a child up for adoption with an unwilling, manipulative and abusive father.

Do you have citations for your statistic? I’m interested in learning more about child support. I’ve said before that it’s very difficult to find a non-misogynistic men’s rights site or forum, so I haven’t delved much into it, and most of my time spent on reproductive rights is spent on the carrying and birthing and caretaking (or not) aspect.

I was specifically discussing rape victim advocacy programs, one of which I’m training for now, and yes, they do serve male victims unhesitatingly. As for the judicial system and society as a whole, they consistently fail rape victims, though I don’t disagree that they probably fail cismen rape victims at a greater rate than ciswomen (as for trans, genderqueer and non-binary…fuck).

Victim-blaming…who? You’re still assuming I’ve taken a position on child support, which I haven’t. Abortion rights are first and foremost about bodily autonomy, and the decisions you make with your body. As for semen, once it’s inside another person’s body, I can’t say. I really can’t, because it’s completely immoral to legally compel someone to either get an abortion or carry a pregnancy to term. That choice, whether or not to reproduce, ends at ejaculation. As for the financial aspect, which is what I hope you were addressing, I don’t know either. I lean towards no, if there was no consent to parenthood. Someone has to financially support the child, and government support is often inadequate, especially for single parents, and I doubt that will get better any time soon. So…everyone’s fucked?

Ok i’m literally shaking right now cuz this shit has me so upset, so I have to say something.

The idea that abortion should be made illegal because it doesn’t benefit cis-men is horrifying.  Cis-men contribute a single sperm, cis-women have to put their entire lives in danger in order to bring the fetus to term. The world has a history of women being used as broodmares for the state and property of their husbands, where as the child would also be considered the husbands property. We can’t just blatantly ignore the fact that this is history and history repeats itself unless we learn from it.

It is, and that’s not an idea that I support. I think you’ve confused me for a pro-lifer; I am anything but. The current semi-choice system means that women don’t ‘have to put their entire lives in danger’, and the fully pro-choice system I am proposing means the same thing. My system does not seek to remove choice for women, only to add choice for men. When safe abortion is readily available, nobody ‘has to give birth’ - and therefore who is carrying the uterus is irrelevant. When your partner is asking you to abort, the fact that you would suffer through pregnancy and childbirth is meaningless because he is asking you not to undergo that suffering. A ‘forced’ abortion means less suffering for you, less suffering for him, and less suffering for an unwanted child. It is not about taking rights away from women, it is about creating equal rights for everybody. Everybody has the right to have sex without having children, and abortion is one of a number of contraceptions which make that possible. My argument is that neither men nor women deserve to be forced into parenthood, and that everybody deserves a choice.

Women will get abortions regardess of what the legality is. It has happened since the dawn of time.

Cis-Men should not be forced to pay child support for a child that was concieved during rape, but the idea that the way to prevent this is to force every pregnant person to go through with a preganncy, which can be dangerous and life threatnting,  in order to “equalize things” is prepsterous. I’m sure that there is a compromise that can be done without forcing pregnant people to get illegal abortions again.

Again, that is not what I suggest. I am promoting exactly that compromise - support free abortions, and offer them to both women who don’t want to be mothers and men who don’t want to be fathers, even if they disagree. I think you’ll agree that if one person wants a baby and one person doesn’t, it makes much more sense not to. It makes more sense not to bring a child into the conflict, a solution which doesn’t cause suffering and which doesn’t tread on the choice of the unwilling partner. It is always better to remove the argument than to exaggerate it by creating an innocent and unwanted child.

As a pro-choicer I believe that a clump of cells is not a child. So in early pregnancy, there is no child - just as there is no child at the point when other contraception is being considered, which may be before or after sex. If we have decided that not having a child is the best course of action when one parent does not consent to having one, then this applies to the situation where we can prevent the clump of cells from growing into one. If abortion saves on pain, then there is no difference between terminating the group of cells after fertilisation, and stopping them from joining in the first place. Abortion is just contraception, and it is something that every man and woman should have access to.

In the case of the rapist, the cells could simply be terminated and the victim wouldn’t be forced into fathering a rape baby, his rapist wouldn’t suffer as she would be spared pregnancy and childbirth, and the child of rape wouldn’t suffer to be brought up by the immoral woman who raped their dad. It’s the best solution for everyone, it underlines the man’s fundamental right to choose, and it should be made legal.

The fact of the matter is, no one has the righ tto use another persons body without their consent. Your semen isn’t some precious special thing that somehow deserves the right to use an entire individuals body without their consent to grow and develop. Their should definately be resources available to people who are dealing with the loss of thier potential child due to their Partner’s choice not to carry to term, but the idea that they should be able to force the person to do it because their 1 cell contribution is more important, or even equally important, than the 9 months organ contribution that the person carrying it will have to go through is down right ridiculous.

It’s ridiculous, and once again it’s not my idea. On all of these pro-choice arguments I am in complete agreement with you. The only pain my suggestion will bring to women is preventing them from going through that 9 month organ contribution, until they have found a father who is willing to support it. That’s not nearly as bad, is it?

That fetus, if you consider it a human life, has no right to use that persons’ body against their will. And most certainly, it doesn’t suddenly get that right just because a man decides it should have it because it’s half his.

Absolutely. Nobody has the right to use anybody else. Men shouldn’t be able to force women to be mothers. Women shouldn’t be able to force men to be fathers. Men shouldn’t be able to use women’s bodies without their consent simply because they want children. Women shouldn’t be able to use men’s bodies without their consent simply because they want children. To rule otherwise is disgusting, but that’s exactly what the law does.

If you wish to give a fetus that right because you are concerned with rights, you have to work to change the set precedent of society that says using some one else’s body is illegal even to save your own life. After all, everyone should have equal rights, right? Isn’t that what this is about? So if I’m dieing on my death bed because there’s no available donors for a kidney or blood or whatever, I should be allowed to save my own life by taking some one else’s. My life shouldn’t be considered worht less than a fetus; that’s plain insulting. I have worth and value. I have potential too. If a cis person should be able to make a cis woman give birth against her will because he contributed half the DNA, then my father shold be able to force my mother to give her kidney to me on my death bed. After all, half of my DNA is still is; that hasn’t changed at all. Why should his investment in my life change at all simply because I’m born? Don’t I matter just as much as I did when I was a fetus? I’d like to think as much! I’d like to have all the rights that a fetus has, and under pro-choice world, I do. Under an anti-choice world, I wouldn’t. Under a TRUE pro-life world, in which everyone has the right to use some one else’s body against their will to save their own life [thuis meaning fetuses are not being given super rights as thye would be in an anti-choice world], I would be equal to a fetus. But so far, I’ve yet to meet a SINGLE PERSON who doesn’t simply want to give fetus’ super rights over other people. That’s insulting to me. That hurts. I’m worth just as much as a fetus and my right to life should be considered just as superior to bodily autonomy as a fetus’ right to life is. Everyone’s right to life should be considered more important than everyone’s right to bodily autonomy if that’s the argument being made. It’s just not fair at all otherwise, and if the argument here is equal rights, then we should be concerned with being fair.

I don’t think that you’re worth less than a fetus is - a fetus certainly couldn’t tackle the pro-life position so thoroughly. I feel bad that you’ve dedicated this effort to rebutting me, when that’s not my position and in fact you’re actually in agreement with me on most of this. I don’t think that fetuses should be considered human with human rights. To that end, I think that if a fetus would cause suffering to an adult, they should be able to terminate it. If they would cause suffering to a mother, she should have the right to abort. If they would cause suffering to a father, he should have the right to abort. If they would be born as a child which would suffer, both caring parents should have the right to abort. As a pro-choicer, I will always choose human happiness over a ball of cells. I just value male human happiness as much as I value female human happiness, and unfortunately our current system (half pro-choice, half pro-life) doesn’t agree.

Continuing, I’ve already said that in the past,  forcing a woman to give  birth against her will by a man happened al lthe time because people with uterus’ were seen as having a sole purpose to bear the children of their husbands aka owners. No matter how much you want to say that this isn’t the implication behind the thought of this, the fact of the matter is this has happened. It’s a part of history. It can happen again. There are plenty of times in history where women made progress only to later be shoved back into the role of subhuman once again, and the idea that it somehow can’t happen again is downright wrong. There have been times in history in different civilizations where women had rights close to equal to men, but then the rights were taken away due to changes in society or a fall of civilization or any numbre of things. The thought that we could never go back to a society where women were considerd completely and utterly inferior, forbidden from working outside the home, and considered completel property is wrong. Because there have been civilizations that allowed women to do things such as have jobs outside the home or even vote, and then hundreds of years later or so, suddenly women are nothing but incubators and men servers again. It’s happened to countless opressed groups.

I agree. That’s why I’m pro-choice. That’s why I’m a feminist. The last thing I want is to see those times again, but the current system is by no means perfect. I’m proposing progress, not a relapse.

I personally don’t know that I believe men should be forced to pay child support for a child he doesn’t want but that the woman wants to raise anyways. Maybe I don’t know much about it, but personally, it just doesn’t seem very fair. I’d much rather these single mothers be supported by the government, or some kind of other method. I had heard something before baout men being allowed to sign away their rights to the child where he doesn’t have to pay child support, but on the flip side he no longer has any claim to the child [so like 10 years later he can’t just pop in and be like “I WANNA BE A DAD NOW GUISE”]. And I don’t know why women aren’t made to pay child support when the man has custody, but they definately should. My father has raised us when our mother bailed us (Stealing all my dads retirment money, forging his names on checks, etc, to buy drugs and alcohol and abandon us for days at a time while my dad couldn’t look after us cuz he worked 12 hours shifts so we werekinda just home alone), and even though he has to pay her alimony every week, she never had to pay a single sent back of what she sdtole OR had to give us kids a single cent in child support (i mean, she had no money anyways so it might not’ve mattered).So i know how hard it can be to get by without child support, even when you live a priviliged life.

Now you’re moving into my territory. I’m also a masculist, which means I believe men should have equal rights too, and this is exactly the sort of fairness I’m campaigning for. We have these stereotypes that men aren’t very nurturing, and so fathers aren’t as valued or given the same legal rights as mothers are, which I think is wrong. I’m arguing that children matter to men too, and we should have rights which reflect that.

So wrapping this whole thing up, I’m not saying that the pro-choice system is without flaws. Because of the fact one person has to carry and go through the pregnancy and the other doesn’t, there’s just not going to be full equality. If a woman wants an abortion and the man wants to keep it, there’s no reason that a woman’s right to reproductive rights should be considered less important than the mans’ when she’s the one that has to go through it.

Agreed, my only problem is when it’s the other way around. When the woman wants to have a child against the man’s will. In this situation nobody ‘has’ to go through with it, and abortion has been invented to make that problem go away. So if both partners aren’t agreed in wanting the child, it is better to be forcing the consenter into not having one (removing suffering, and they can have one at a later date), than to force the dissenter into having one (with the lifetime of consequences). Simply by making abortion safe and free to everyone, we can have that equality.

And considering the history of women, who have had to be brood mares for their husbands only about ~200, if not less, years ago, it’s just not right to say that a 1 cell contribution is equal to or greater than a 9 month contribution. Men’s acheivements have always been considered more important than womens, and an ejaculation being an equal effort as 9 months of pregnacy is just enforcing that idea.

 That’s not to say men should be left high and dry and just to suck it up when this particular scenario happens. They should talk it over, he should get to give his opinion, and if she decides to abort, he should have resources available to him to help him cope with the loss. He shouldn’t be allowed to compel the other person to give birth, though, because the fetus doesn’t have  a right to the woman’s body, and even though it’s half his, he can’t suddenly decide it should get that right. What if my dad decided that because I’m half his DNA, I should get the right to free medical care? After all, he’s protecting his sperm investment, correct? As i’ve said, I don’t suddenyl stop being half his DNA because I’m born. But the thing is, NO ONE has the right to just mosey on into a hospital without paying with insurance or something. Just because my dad decides it’d be best for his sperm if I were able to do that doesn’t mean suddenly the laws change to suit that.

Still in complete agreement on this scenario, just having problems with the double standard when it is flipped around.

Also I just thought of something. If the fetus is also half of the womans…why doesn’t her opinion seem to matter? I mean, the idea is that a woman should be forced to give birth against her will because the fetus is half his, but why does his opinion weigh more than hers anyways? The fetus is half hers, too. What if she doesn’t want it? She’s also the one who will be having it and putting her health at risk, as well as emotional well being. I mean, obviously t hey can’t just compromise cuz a fetus can’t be half born, but why is it the guys’ opinion that’s the right one automatically when he’s not the one that will be carrying it? Shouldn’t the one who actually has to do the grunt work have more of a say than the person who can, technically, leave anytime they want? I mean, if he changes his mind and no longer wants the kid, how’s she exactly going to prove it was his if he doesn’t agree to a DNA test? She’ll have to get a court order. How many single moms have money on hand to bring a guy to court to get a court order for a DNA test? Not many that i know, for sure.  You kind of have to have both time and money to be able to prove the paternity of a child. You have to have free time to take off from work and a way to get there as well. You have to have enough money to buy a lawyer or whatever to try and get a court order. It’s no easy task. Try doing this as well all while your now trying to raise a kid on your own that you never wanted in the first place.

Exactly. Nobody should be forced into being a parent. Both mother and father are connected the child, whether genetically, emotionally, or legally, and so both deserve rights where it is concerned. It’s the woman’s child, so she deserves the right not to have it. It’s the man’s child, so he deserves the right not to have it. It’s both of their child, so they both deserve the right to spare it from a life of suffering or neglect. If both parents don’t consent, we shouldn’t be forcing in a child. That’s final.

I’ve been sitting here typing this for a straight up hour or so. The bottom line is that pro-choice is good. Women will get abortions even if fetus are given super rights. If we are going to argue that a fetus should get a right to the woman’s body because the man who contributed to it said so and its half his, this should be allowed anywhere and my father should be able to compel some one to give a kidney to me if I were on my death bed because i’m still half his dna wise and I therefore he should be able to keep me alive even if it means taking away some one else’s right to their own kidney (though kidney transplants are certinaly less invasive than pregnancy is). The history behind forced birthing is not a pretty one, and not a practice we want to start repeating because it sets a precedent that a woman’s right to her body is worth less than a man’s right to his sperms’ future. Men can leave whenever they want, and most women will not be able to afford to prove paternity because the women getting abortions as it is are not wealthy women and are usually poor as it is. Men should have resources available to them to deal with the loss of a potential child from abortion and should be allowed to sign away rights to children that they don’t wish to father, while women should be supported financially to raise and support children by other means. Likewise, women should be compelled to pay child support just as much as men are if we choose to continue this system because it’s not right that my father had to struggle to keep the house and stuff because he was busy paying my horrid mother alimony while trying to also support 3 kids and she didn’t have to pay a cent of child support. meanwhile she spent all the alimony money on drugs. We should be able to come up with a compromise to address forced fatherhood  that doesn’t neccesitate outlawing a neccessary medical procedure that not only makes sure that fetus are given the same rights as human being and not super rights, but has significantly increased the health and standing of people with uteruses and allowed them to take control of their sexuality like never before.

Pro-choice is good, agreed. Gender equality is good, agreed. That’s why I’ve come up with that compromise. Rather than outlawing that necessary medical procedure, let’s also note that it’s necessary for many fathers. It’s currently already outlawed for these fathers under a partially pro-life system, and I propose making this contraception, like any other, free to anyone. It doesn’t matter which genitals you were given - if you don’t want to have children, you shouldn’t be forced into having them. You should have a choice.

Also, rights can go backwards, it has happened before, so outlawing things that have allowed women to take control over themselves instead of having to be tied to a man because otherwise they can’t afford to raise a child on their own (whether or not the man is abusive or whether or not they are in love, etc) or instead of having to try and abort using old fashioned methods that put her life in danger would set women back. And repealing any thing that has allowed women to be in control of themselves sets women back. The same people that are usually against abortion are suually dead set in the idea that contraception is bad, women should be at home raising children instead of out in the work force, and other ideas that are backwards thinking. So allowing them to get their way on one thing could very well allow them to start pushing for other things.

Contraception is good, abortion is good, women having the freedom to works good. Of course those stereotypes work backwards, and men are expected to be out in the work force and restricted from being at home raising children, which is just as ridiculous. I feel that fathers are just as important to children as mothers are, and they can care just as much - which is why they deserve retro-active contraception to not have children which are unwanted. Every child should be a wanted child, and wanted by two consenting adults. I’m no pro-lifer.

Edit: OK wait i thought of another thing
The idea that pro choice or pro life doesn’t make a difference to men is inherently flawed. In a pro life world, a man can be made happy because the person he impregantned is being made to give birth against her will and he wanted to keep teh child. Of course, this is assuming she doesn’t try to get an illegal abortion and die or whatever. But in a pro life world, there is no mutuality bewteen a pregnat person and their partner that woudn’t be present in a pro choice world.

In a pro choice world, let’s say that neither the pregnant person OR the partner want to keep the child. They can celebrate and go “YAY FOR ABORTION CUZ NEITHER OF US WANT TO KEEP THE CHILD”. It’s a mutual celebration. I mean, in a pro life world they can also mutually go “YAY LETS KEEP THE CHILD”, but that’s prefectly possible in a pro choice world as well, where as “YAY FOR ABORTION” mutuality is not possible in a pro life world. Forcing some people to give birth against hteir will is also creating fathers who dont want to become fathers, assuming the pregnant person doesn’t, again, try to abort unsafely and die.
So yes, a pro choice world DOES do something for men who are mutual with their partners. It does make a difference to some men. A pro-life world would just be creating more unwilling fathers (assuming they do the honorable thing instead of just going “LOL BYE BITCH” and leaving, because like i said, a single mom can’t usually afford a court ordered paternity test) and unwilling mothers, as well as more dead mothers because the majority of people who get abortions already have at least one child. A pro choice world allows more men to not be forced to be fathers because of the fact their partner can get an abortion. So to say that it doesn’t make a difference to men at all is incorrect.

This world is partially pro-life and partially pro-choice. You’re right that it makes a difference to pro-life men, in making life worse for them. It also makes a difference to pro-choice women, in making life better for them. But pro-life women and pro-choice men feel no change, because the former are just as powerful in getting their own way, and the latter are just as powerless. 

Obviously things are okay if you are agreed with your partner, but that’s by no means always the case. Even if it was, you are suggesting that it is somehow promoting of free choice and equality to make men puppets in the hands of their female partners, and slaves to whatever they choose. If the woman wants a child, she gets a child. If she doesn’t, it disappears. The man just sits back and watches, completely at her mercy. Where is the choice there? 

A pro-life stance would create more unwilling fathers, but a true pro-choice stance - legalising abortion - would alleviate this problem for good. Under such a system every child would be wanted, and there would be no forced parenthood. Fathers would find that they actually have rights as to their children, and women would lose none of their hard-gained equality. 

I do support the current system as a step towards choice, but we still have a lot more walking to go before we reach it.