Ok, I think I've got the plan:

First we have to adopt all the unimplanted "snowflake embryos", grow them, birth them and raise them. Then we have to adopt all the babies that would/could/should have been terminated in the first trimester.

But wait. That's a lot of babies. And they add up fast, year after year, since a certain prcentage of them will have unwanted babies to put out for adoption. After a decade or two, exactly how many babies per capita would that give us? Should we start legislating: adopt a baby before conceiving your own (oh, wait, if you go ahead and get pregnant anyway, what will they do: adopt that baby out too?)? Insist the wealthiest 1% take on a dozen and do a sliding income scale for everyone else? Ebay?

Given how overworked the child welfare system is already, we'll need to hire a lot more agents. And do more paperwork. It's a lot of babies to keep track of. And about a million ways the whole thing can be corrupted. With the parent pool becming necessarily larger, will we be as picky to whom we allow to adopt? (I mean, it's not a Boxer Rescue Shelter, folks: we gotta be flexible). What about black market babies? Under the table babies? Babies "adopted" to be sold into slavery, rented out for trial runs, used as donor organ farms ... how can we wnsure the safety and care of each snowflake?

On a more serious note, if daycare-even part time daycare - is supposedly so harmful to children, kids in orphanages hardly sounds ideal. How many tens of thousands of these childern would grow up in orphanages? With no adult to bond with them? No sense of family? And quite likely, neglected, ignored and/or abused? What kind of adults would they become? Statistically speaking, knowing individuals may vary: Not happy ones. Most likely, not ones with a strong sense of empathy. Most likely, antisocial ones. Certainly predisposed towards becoming sociopathic.

Somehow, when you actually start to think about those children, it all sounds a little less compassionate, doesn't it?

OA and brightstar should form one.

Both perceive themselves to be victims of nasty women (whether or not that's reality or their own personal skewed take on it remains to be proved, but, giving them the benefit of he doubt, let's say their exes were real nasty).

OA and brightstar hold their exes up as the template for all women, and for feminism. "My ex was a b*tch, therefore so are all women." "You feminists are just like my ex."

AKA Smith, I agrew with your take on OA's take on his children. The only time he's said "my daughter" was in the context of "If my daughter ever does x, I'll burn her at the stake". Never "My daughter did/said/likes/has/fears/ants/is ...." He talks abot "the kids" (as in "My wife has the kids" and "I pay for the kids"), and he's said more about AKA Smith's fictional (made up by OA) son than his own offspring.

Now, it sounds like OA feels he's been kicked around by the system. Which may be true. But he speaks of his kids in terms of things he is entitled to. That sets off alarm bells in my head. (I know several abusers who spoke thusly). Were I a child advocate, I'd be very leery of granting custody to someone who speaks of his kids like burdens and possessions.

But in any case, OA's custodial situtaion has naught to do with me or any of the other posters here, and it usually has naught to do with the subject at hand. Just like whatever happened to brightstar rarely touches on the subject being discussed.

Enjoy your club, boys.

"...quite possible that there are less sexual crimes aganst women in more traditional societies, especially if you don't count marriage as a sex crime."

Where oh where would we get reliable statistics on that?

Besides, many of these "traditional societies" do not perceive the following as crimes:

1. a man forcing his wife to have sex with him.

2. a man maiming his wife or daughter to make her less appealing/promiscious (infublation, among other practices)

3. killing a woman who besmirches the family honor by having sex (or simply being accused of having sex) outside of marriage

4. negating the "crime" of raping a woman by exacting a fine on the rapist, payable to the woman's family

5. negating the "crime" of rape by forcing the rapist to marry his victim.

6. violently punishing a woman for dressing provocatively (beating, raping, choking, killing by stoning, etc).

7. violently punishing a woman for behaving "indecently" (talking with a man not of her family. driving. voting differentky than her husband. voting at all. etc.)

8. violently punishing (or killing) a daughter who refuses to marry the chosen groom.

9. violently punishing a woman who isn't a "good wife" (bad cooking, sloppy housekeeping, bearing a child of the wrong gender, bearing too many children, not being able to bear children at all, not respecting the in-laws, etc)

So how could their crime stats be comparable to ours?

Never mind the fact that women in "traditional societies" are often resistant to reporting sexual crimes against them, since they become less valuable in society, and are often charged as instigators in their own rapes?

Yeah, we have sex crimes in America. Bur at least we recognize them as crimes.