By Dustin Hawkins
web posted March 27, 2006
The website for The National Center for Men offers a bumper sticker that reads KIDS NEED BOTH PARENTS. Statistics have consistently shown that children raised by only one parent are far more likely to drop out of school, turn to criminality, and fall into poverty, and thus the phrase is both true and meaningful. So it is somewhat counterproductive when the "men's rights" group began to seek ways to abdicate themselves from the responsibility of fatherhood and force kids to be raised by only one parent.
The situation almost seems a parody: A group of men file a lawsuit seeking their own version of Roe vs. Wade so they can "opt out" of having any accountability for a child they helped create. When they aren't fighting for what they label "Roe vs. Wade for Men" they complain about having to pay for dates, whining that "many professional women still place themselves high on sexual pedestals, expecting to be courted and pursued and paid for." This is what happens when liberal men pursue professional, conservative women. They have to pay for dates. If these guys want to go Dutch I'd suggest they pick up their women at a screening of the Vagina Monologues. And by the way, good luck with that.
I'm trying to figure out whom the group is actually trying to get on their side. The National Center for Men would have some luck courting liberals if not for a few problems. On the positive side, they support abortion, favor having wild bouts of unprotected sex that result in unwanted pregnancies that they can then pretend never happened, and have turned themselves into pathetic, emasculated wimps - just the kind of men liberal women love. Those are all good things for any group trying to get in with the liberal establishment but unfortunately they are fighting for a supposed men's right as well, and we all know that being a liberal is all about hysterical militant feminism.
Remember, men have been oppressing women for hundreds of years and being a liberal is all about satisfying the totalitarian goals of the feminist agenda. Liberal men are expected to spend their time fighting for women's abortion rights, "equal pay" in the workplace, and an end to sexual harassment on the job - unless the sexual harassment comes from Bill Clinton, where your first grope is always free. So this whole faux-pro-male agenda isn't exactly going to work out too well for them.
There are six groups of activist liberals: Feminist women, feminist men, women who used to be men, men who want to be women, men who just act like women, and men who are owned by women, but still won't pay for dates. In any event, you get the point. And the point is: There is no pro-male agenda allowed among the liberal elites, even if that agenda includes liberal hard-line issues involving abortion, having unprotected sex with multiple partners, and a complete absence of moral principles.
The group won't find large numbers of conservatives on their side, either. Conservatives generally believe actions have consequences. Sex, an act, often results in pregnancy, a consequence, and thus a responsibility, raising a child. Any law allowing a man to fully abandon all responsibilities of fatherhood, including child support, would lead to either more abortions or more one-parent families, neither of which is a good outcome. Plus, as already discovered, we do not much care for whiners, either.
But I must admit, I sympathize with the group on a few levels. In instances of divorce, mothers are far more likely to be given greater parental rights than are fathers. Oftentimes the laws batter fathers when it comes the rights that they do have in regards to their children. And I also agree that it is unfair that women have full control over their pre-born child when it comes to abortion, especially when the father would choose life while the mother is choosing death.
There have been over 45 million abortions in the United States since 1973, the combined population of Florida and California, and most have been abortions of convenience and many without the fathers' consent or knowledge. If men want reproductive rights, the right they should be given is the option to raise their child even if the mother wants to prevent her child from ever being born. Abortion rights activists often say it is their goal to make abortions a "safe, rare, and legal" option, but oppose any measure to make the procedure rare. If fathers are willing to raise their child, they should have full rights under the law to do so and prevent the mother from going ahead with an abortion. Fathers should be notified and have to give consent to an abortion.
If the National Center for Men wants to stand up and be men, then this is the reproductive right that they should be standing up for. Men should have the right to be able to stop the unwanted abortion of their child by the mother who is seeking to avoid the "inconvenience" of parenthood. 
Dustin Hawkins is the editor of the Capitol Hill Journal, a columnist, and a political writer for Townhall.com. His website is www.dustinmhawkins.com.
Other related stories:
- Abortion, authority, and responsibility by Selwyn Duke (March 20, 2006)
Selwyn Duke believes that a lawsuit launched to obtain "reproductive rights" for men allows a vote for those without voices