Replies

Explain.

Essentially, we officially recognize a woman's right to "reproductive freedom" as defined by the abortion advocates themselves. But, we also maintain it is fundamentally unjust to allow women to have the entire gestation period of the fetus to decide whether or not to reproduce, but expect men to make that decision before the procreative act is even performed.

We provide for male reproductive rights by allowing "paper abortions." At any time during the pregnancy, the male may got to the local courthouse and officially disavow any responsibility for the child if born. Also, children born without official notification of the father would automatically be considered "aborted" unless he accepts fatherhood.

In this way we enlist the ranks of deadbeats to overcome the abortion advocates by turning them against each other.

Thus the original dynamic is restored, and they did it to themselves!

The reason we have the butchery we have now is because pregnant woman have a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation that relies on "women's rights" on the one hand, and compassion for children in compeling fathers to support on the other. Whatever she decides, he's compelled by law to facilitate.

We can break that vicious circle by doing nothing more than giving to men what feminist have been calling a woman's right for 50 years.

PT: Your argument seems far less respectable than a flat out pro-abort position. Your position suggests that we recruit those who are frustrated in their inability to force the pregnant girlfriend to abgort the "unwanted" child. Conservatism is also (much though this may frustrate pro-abort liberals) not opposed to abortion out of a desire to "control" women but on principle. There have always (since Roe vs. Wade) been men who have complained that with abortion being legal and solely in the control of the mother, there should be no requirement of child support imposed on any father who claims he wanted his child murdered at the local mill: i.e., "Don't blame me. It's HER fault!"

Nations dependent on such "men" are not long for this world. No man is "compelled by law" to impregnate any woman. If the woman can say no, so can you. That gives you equal rights to non-parenthood. It just does not guarantee your "right" to retroactively revise history.

Hildy: You and I have long had major differences on this issue but you are certainly consistent in your arguments and you put this guy to shame in that respect. We still don't agree but I can respect your consistent defense of your principles.