In a sense, I agree, but I think winning fathers the "right" to a paper abortion is much more politically feasible. The net effect would be to make women much more cautious again...the original dynamic. If it weren't for pro-life women not wanting to risk the preferential legal position of women in general, pro-lifers teamed with pro-choice men could finally punch a real hole in the Roe v. Wade doctrine.
However, I don't mind having pro-life men coalitioning with C4M guys to jointly expose the incongruity of the current situation. Which, of course, is a situation where DNA imparted at the conception of one's child results in responsibilities, enforced to a draconian degree, without concordant rights.
Men are logic-based, and tend to view things in terms of inviolably linked pairs: cause and effect, rights and responsibilities, weight and counterweight.
On a natural level, the incongruity of having any one-half of any of the pairings above without the other one-half bothers men greatly, a well it should.
While feminist men sublimate their own nature, it is still---at least amongst the straight ones---an intrinsic part of what they are, and so not hard to call out. If you put a duck in water, it will paddle.
Thus, having pro-life men coalitioning with C4M guys to jointly expose the incongruity of the current situation is a very legitimate venture.
Now the two groups reach different conclusions:
---The C4M crowd contends that given the lack of a paternal veto of abortion (which the C4M crowd doesn't want anyway), there should be no financial responsibilities for fathers who want to opt out.
---The Veto For Fathers contingent, of which I am the progenitor, contends that as fathers have financial responsibility based upon DNA imparted at conception, there must concordantly (although not derivatively) be a conception-forward father's right to veto the abortion of his own preborn child.
Either way, both groups expose the incongruity, and seek internally congruous packages: no rights and no responsibilities (C4M), or complete rights and complete responsibilities (V4F).
However, I don't mind having pro-life men coalitioning with C4M guys to jointly expose the incongruity of the current situation. Which, of course, is a situation where DNA imparted at the conception of one's child results in responsibilities, enforced to a draconian degree, without concordant rights.
Men are logic-based, and tend to view things in terms of inviolably linked pairs: cause and effect, rights and responsibilities, weight and counterweight.
On a natural level, the incongruity of having any one-half of any of the pairings above without the other one-half bothers men greatly, a well it should.
While feminist men sublimate their own nature, it is still---at least amongst the straight ones---an intrinsic part of what they are, and so not hard to call out. If you put a duck in water, it will paddle.
Thus, having pro-life men coalitioning with C4M guys to jointly expose the incongruity of the current situation is a very legitimate venture.
Now the two groups reach different conclusions:
---The C4M crowd contends that given the lack of a paternal veto of abortion (which the C4M crowd doesn't want anyway), there should be no financial responsibilities for fathers who want to opt out.
---The Veto For Fathers contingent, of which I am the progenitor, contends that as fathers have financial responsibility based upon DNA imparted at conception, there must concordantly (although not derivatively) be a conception-forward father's right to veto the abortion of his own preborn child.
Either way, both groups expose the incongruity, and seek internally congruous packages: no rights and no responsibilities (C4M), or complete rights and complete responsibilities (V4F).