[Lorianne]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

What you are proposing is punishing the child so that men gain some king of psuedo-equality with women who abort.

I cannot fathom why a person would lobby for equal "rights" for himself at the expense of a child, particularly one's own child.

Also, if the child is born the father is punishing the child because the woman COULD HAVE had the abortion and didn't. So he is really exactly retribution from the child for the actions of other women, not the child's mother, or he is saying that the child must pay a price for being born.

I find all this reasoning illogical at best, nauseating is moe like it. Since when do we expressly punish people for being born?

[Harrison Bergeron]

Radical feminists - the most politically successful ideological Marxists in America - laugh up their sleeves at "Choice for Men." Were such a thing ever to pass, they will have finally won the "gender war" that these lesbian seperatists have waged for so long and foisted on mainstream heterosexual women. Whatever high ground men can claim in their defense of the family will be lost. Whatever credibility the term "men's rights" may have gathered since the publication of "The Myth of Male Power" would be squandered to the leftist idea of "group identity." But it's a non-issue. Men will see Western civilization collapse before they return social and political fire on women and children. I would argue that this is exactly what is happening around us today.

[Orangedog]

Since when do we expressly punish people for being born?

That started when the courts decided that men don't have any business raising their own children once mom gets bored with him. The divorce industry expressly punishes people for simply being born male.

Riddle me this....what percentage are womwn awarded custody in contested custody cases? Why are they awarded custody in that percentage of those cases?

How is it "punishing children" if the father has the same rights as the mother? Following your line of logic, if giving the father the same rights as the mother is "punishing children", then the mother having those rights that the father is being denied is also "punishing children." Therefore, those rights that she enjoys would have to be restricted or the child would be punished by the mother. If two wrongs don't make a right, then the original "wrong" must be prevented from occuring, or else the wrongful act will punish the child.

[ArGee]

I find all this reasoning illogical at best, nauseating is moe like it. Since when do we expressly punish people for being born?

What you have discovered is what always happens when you toss immutable moral standards for popular ones. Once we decided as a society that it was reasonable for a woman to abort her child we opened up a lot of ethical problems that had not been opened before. Sooner or later you realize that what you are arguing in favor of is morally repugnant. But so was the initial change that allowed the door to be opened. Abortion is morally repugnant. Simply standing firm on the moral laws that have protected societies for millennia would help a great deal. It may be true that some women would get "back-alley" abortions to their own risk and horror, but there would be no societal statement that it is OK to do so. We would be protected from perverse arguments like, "Shouldn't a father be able to force the mother to have an abortion?"

Shalom.