Let me explain to you what the current social/political dynamic looks like.
Our very good family friends have a 15 year old son who is currently the most sought after young man in his school. He literally has teenage girls throwing themselves at him, constantly. He's not particularly charismatic, or handsome. He's not particularly talented, nor gifted. In fact, he has a fairly serious learning disability.
What he IS is the last remaining virgin in his school, and the girls are constantly vying for the prestige of deflowering him.
You see, that is the kind of aggressive, flagrantly cavalier, self-destructive attitude that is engendered when one group, in all other respects equal to it's peers (and in the case of women, actually superior given our democratic society and their small, but significant edge in numbers), is given favored status by the government.
That favor is something you and your misguided comrades have fostered by not actually warring over the murder of children, and then making common cause with the abortion rights crowd to retain the pre-Roe social and cultural privileges of women.
More than anything, you fools resemble the Hollywood half-wits who occasionally ship huge amounts of food to starving nations. They congratulate themselves for their compassion, while at the same time ruining local farmers, thus perpetuating the starvation.
I know; you did it "for the children."
How high are your court-ordered child support payments when you could not bully the mom into aborting the offspring.
I have never been associated with an abortion. I have no children at this time, but my wife of 20 years and I are in the process of adopting.
We do not voluntarily associate with people who are unrepentant aborters. We do have friends who describe themselves as "pro-choice," but should any of them actually obtain, or facilitate an abortion we would immediately terminate the relationship.
In short, your question is nothing but venomous vituperation with absolutely zero basis in reality.
If you favor a right of men to order the murder of their offspring, you are trying to make the problem worse.
It is a measure of your duplicity that you, no doubt, think this kind of blatant mendacity is justifiable. I have never made the suggestion that men should be able to "order the murder of thier offspring." My suggestion is that men be permitted to "opt out" of parenthood by a simple legal procedure disavowing the child.
Obviously, there can be no exact parallel to the woman's "right" owing to biology. The "paper abortion" would be a close enough approximation to serve as "equality." Even so, the male analog would not even involve the death of the child as the female exercise of the same "right" does.
I really don't care one bit about your imagined lack of "equal rights" to murder your offspring and I certainly do not welcome such homocidal notions or their holders having anything whatsoever to do with the pro-life movement.
The lack is anything but "imagined." The only thing that IS imagined is your vicious accusation that "murder of your offspring" is the goal. The goal is to restore the balance that existed prior to Roe. If you don't like the balance God instituted, take it up with Him. Even with your fossilized viewpoint you should be able to see the havoc that has been wrought by man's attempt to try to correct THAT particular "defect" in his existence.
I really have no interest whatsoever in your ideas any more than I would have cared for Hitler's opinions of Jews or Pitchfork Ben Tillman's opinions of blacks.
Certainly an ironic comment coming from someone evincing such spitting rage over nothing more than a threat to the privileged status of women that has thus-far lead to the widespread abandonment of such concepts as chasitity, modesty, and propriety.
Furthermore, this disingenuous outrage is aimed at men engaging in "unprotected" sex when it's universally known the single contraceptive available to men from the broad range of contraceptive choices is the *least* effective at preventing pregnancy. Rather reminiscent of the proverbial fury of rejected women for their rivals rather than their object of affection, if you ask me.
We also cannot make laws requiring men to resist feminine enticements but we can and do make such men as do not resist pay their child support. And a good thing too.
Again, I don't know what to say to someone so far out of date. It's like running across someone who refuses give up an antiquated disdain for Japanese manufacturing. Your assertion is exactly the wrong thing for the problem you profess to be concerned about.
Has it ever occured to you why so many stable, successful, couples are going overseas to adopt? To be sure, there are those trying to cover over the truth with accusations of "fashion" or "ignoring American kids," but the reality is people with good sense recognize, in America, there is no such thing as a binding contract with a woman where children are involved. The only way to guarantee no future "shakedown" or unwanted involvement from the birth mother is to adopt from a place that won't allow her to renege on the adoption. Do you think anyone with any sense is going to sit across the table from a 15 year old girl in crisis, and negotiate terms for adopting "her" baby, because that is the expectation in America's default "open adoption" culture.
Is this kind of "protection" a "good thing," too?
I am STILL waiting to hear what YOU personally have done to translate the principle of pro-life into political, practical and legal reality. Until you respond to that, we may safely assume that the answer is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING and that your beer budget is dearer than your offspring-—to you at least.
I'm not going to trot out a pro-life resume to someone who is going to ignore it, and call me a liar, anyway. What I am writing here stands or falls on it's own merit, with or without your approval.
My wife and I have a long history of pro-life efforts, and we both come from families with a proud tradition of adoption.
I will admit having a hard time with those who insist on "staying the course" when the opposition has managed to get every single effective tactic used by the pro-life movement made illegal. I seriously wonder what it would take to prove to such people they have indeed failed, and their efforts are not just a waste, but a hindrance. More than anything, it reminds me of the backward African cultures that promote having sex with a virgin as the treatment for AIDS.
And by the way, I don't drink.
You don't trot out your "pro-life" resume because you do not have one. When you trot it out, I will start paying attention. Meanwhile, you are irrelevant and so are your opinions. I just cannot imagine why you expect to be called a liar. Force of habit, perhaps???
If, by "rehabilitate", you mean convert me to your delusions and desire to empower irresponsible men, don't waste your time. It won't happen in your lifetime or in God's lifetime. Nor will your pet eccentricities have the slightest effect on the pro-life movement (or the conservative movement) in those time frames.
As to foreign adoptions, American courts are governed by "choice of law" principles favoring the laws of the country where the child was conceived., where the parents reside, where the contract for adoption was initiated, etc. This makes it simpler to guarantee long term results. Also, so long as the US recognizes the legal system of the country in question as competent generally, the US courts will tend to defer to foreign law with jurisdiction over the adoption.
I would never have guessed that you don't drink. The content of your posts certainly suggests otherwise.