So, I've pondered this and discussed this on a couple of threads over the last few months and thought it might warrant a discussion unto itself.

My contention is that the MHRM can be well-served by supporting pro-choice reproductive rights for women. I will lay out my reasoning in brief and hope this will spur some discussion on the matter. Both additional and counter-arguments are welcome.

1. More reproductive choices for women means more choices for men.

In some, perhaps many, cases the desires of the respective parents align and both want an abortion or to use post-coital contraception like Plan B or RU486.

Access to these options is limited, expensive, and in some cases can legally be denied by a pharmacist arbitrarily based on his/her moral grounds.

This, by extension, limits reproductive choices for men. By supporting pro-choice efforts, we can provide those men with additional options with regards to their reproductive freedoms.

2. More access to abortion and post-coital contraception paves the way for LPS or other similar legislation.

Opponents to LPS, or other balanced efforts to equalize reproductive rights, are correct to point out that LPS without access to abortion creates an inequitable situation. This would place undue burden on a mother and/or the state.

With greater access to abortion and post contraception, the issue can be limited directly to the personal choice of the mother and not involve complicating factors. It is reasonable to argue that if a woman, given easy access to discrete abortion, chooses to keep the child, she has not been coerced by circumstance.

This would have the effect of defeating feminist objection to such measures which is a major potential obstacle.

Without easy access, the only equitable recourse available would be to resort to current models where a man who fathers a child must share financial responsibility even if he does not wish to consent to that.

3. This stance aligns with the MHRM's general stance on Male Genetial Mutilation/Circumcision.

Both pro-choice advocates and intactivists base much of their stance on the importance of bodily autonomy/integrity.

Since many in the MHRM agree with this, it is both logically valid and fair to extend that thinking with regards to bodily integrity/autonomy for women.

There are, of course, nuances to what I've posted above but I thought I would at least get the ball rolling.

Looking forward to hearing what r/MR has to say!