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.
Recruiting the "frustrated" is exactly what I'm suggesting.
Comments like "Nations dependent on such "men" are not long for this world" and " if the woman can say no, so can you" sure aren't doing it.