Sauce for the Gander?

 A while back someone framed the Pro-Choice position as a question of sovereignty, providing a perfect opportunity to serve up a little food for thought.

I've always thought that casting the issue of abortion as one of personal sovereignty creates more problems than it solves. Even leaving aside the status of the fetus, if the issue is maintained on that basis sooner or later another question will have to be addressed.

 To the best of my knowledge no human female has ever demonstrated a capacity for parthenogenesis. It still takes two to tango. So how can it be that only one of them is entitled to choice after the fact? As it stands now the question revolves entirely around the woman’s right to control her own destiny. All well and good, but while she’s making up her mind there’s another sovereign individual, knowingly or not, in thrall to her decision.

 You can see the problem here. Legally, ethically, and financially, I omit morally for fear of upsetting the delicate sensibilities of those unable to differentiate morality from religion; the other gene donor is no longer free. He has no choice regarding his own fate, or that of his progeny. The various permutations are obvious and you may consider them at your leisure, just let me say that as I understand the concept of what makes something a “Right” rather than license or privilege is that one person’s right cannot possibly preclude another’s exercise of the same right.

So polish up your right to express your opinion and tell me what you think.