There’s an awesome article on FindLaw about abortion… and specifically, about the discrimination against men in the current abortion system. I recommend reading the whole thing, but if you’re lazy, here are the highlights.
…[A] woman has the ability forcibly to place her unwitting partner or ex-partner in a position he never wanted to occupy—that of a father—with all of the financial and emotional baggage that the status carries.
Some fathers’ rights advocates feel so strongly about this reproductive inequity that they maintain that if either a man or a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy, against the wishes of the other partner, he or she should be able to do so. According to the New York Times magazine, Michael Newdow, for example, railed against “the imbalance in reproductive rights—women can choose to end a pregnancy but men can’t….” Newdow then cut himself off, in order, he said, not to “alienate” the interviewer.
Newdow, of course, being the plaintiff in the Pledge of Allegiance suit. Continues the article:
There is a less extreme version of this argument: Men and women may be differently situated with respect to pregnancy, so that women but not men have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. But with rights come responsibilities, and a woman who gives birth without the biological father’s blessing should not be able to collect child support from him. By failing to terminate her pregnancy in accord with the father’s wishes, in other words, she should assume the risk of parenting the child alone.
Some have referred to this approach as the right of men to a “financial abortion.” A man who does not want his child brought into the world should let his sexual partner know of his feelings, they contend, and if she nonetheless goes on to keep the child that she conceives with him, then he should have the right to “choose” not to affiliate with that child and not to provide support. He should be entitled to opt out of the role of parent in the only way he can, just a woman is able to opt out absolutely by having an abortion.
Like I said, read the whole thing: this is a good policy question to churn your mental cogs, partly because it’s so counter-intuitive to the conventional wisdom.
Back on March 5, the very idea of a law that would needlessly outlaw vintage electronics had populist blogger 
Yukan Fuji has learned on March 16 that just before announcing his engagement, the “100% Koizumi Child” and self-described representative of the unemployed LDP Diet member Taizo Sugimura (PR, S. Kanto block, 26yo) was on a date with the ravishing private secretary (26) of former prime minister Tsutomu Hata. Sugimura (or “Taizo” as he is often called by his given name) had just announced his engagement the previous day. The act may be misinterpreted as “cheating,” but the woman, in an interview with Yukan Fuji, denied such allegations forcefully, remarking, “I am like his female friend (who doesn’t see him as a [dateable] man).” 
Taro Aso, on a trip to Australia for talks with his U.S. and Australian counterparts, said Saturday he thought he had had “more experience” in the political arena than Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe…
With the Japanese people in an uproar over leaks of personal information, often to unscrupulous scam artists, it should come as nothing less than a slap in the face that the government is publishing their fellow citizens’ home addresses. I’m just a curious nerd, but what’s to stop some right wing group from harassing new citizens for tainting Japan’s supposedly sacred and pure bloodline? (Of course, they’d have to go looking for it at a relatively obscure and boring government website, but gosh darnit, it’s just like that