[Sgt_Schultze]

This episode is like abortion insofar as the woman seems to hold all the cards. She determines the definition of the field of play.

In abortion, only she decides when she will become a mother. But she also has complete capacity to decide if the man will become a father. If the man wants the child and the woman does not, she can decide to abort. If the man does not want the child but she does, she will deliver and require the man's financial support.

With respect to abortion, she has the ability to decide a second time on the ramification of her initial decision. In this pre-nup case, the woman had the ability to decide to accept or reject the man's offer. She chose to accept the deal he put forward. Now, she wants the ability to change her mind - just as she could if it were an abortion.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

This is why there should be "male abortions" - to level the playing field. Men should be able to simply say "I abort" and they have no more responsibility for the non-child mass, possibly to some day become a child. This would DRASTICALLY reduce out of wedlock pregnancies. Of course the angry, shrill, shrieks, of women over this would stop it before it even had a chance to start.

[BibChr]

You are absolutely right, and are right next to my point, but not quite there.

My connection is that both are simply ways of evading responsibility for the consequences of personal choices. Or, of doing what you want, and then denying the bill. Dancing the dance, but not paying the price.

Dan