Except you're wrong about pretty much everything.  Even the part where the OP agrees with you, somewhat you're wrong.

"Useless flap of skin" is simply wrong. You would know that if you had ever done any sort of real research of actual reliable sources on the topic. I wont be arguing that circumcision is bad, but it's by no means something that only gets rid of something "useless" and is only positive as you're clearly stating is your opinion. Get informed better and stop telling everyone who tells you you're wrong that they are idiots.

Sadly, some very good points that I agree with, except perhaps #5.

I myself was very angry about "having" to sign up for "Selective Service", just to get aid or college, to be able to vote, etc. But it isn't even that, it isn't like if you DON'T care about those things, you don't have to do it. Nope, getting a letter in the mail when you turn 18, that says "Do it or you could face 5 years in prison and/or be fined $250,000", that's pretty fucking unnerving. And also absolutely against the idea of a "Free nation".

That's some of the biggest, most ridiculous strawmanning I have seen in the past weeks (and I do take part in many discussions on different topics).

The discussion has been from the beggining about parental rights AFTER BIRTH. There's no one arguing that there are equal decision rights on the woman's body or her fetus pre birth.

I believe you were the first person to bring it up and then decided to attack that position that I have failed to see anyone else hold.

The conversation is about equal rights after birth and mostly about the chance for a man to abstain from being a father or have the same rights over the child post birth as the woman does. Again before you decide to keep the straw man going.

PRE BIRTH - the woman has 100% rights over the child in my view.

POST BIRTH - both have equal rights over the child. 50-50.

end of rant

The op brought up abortion as one of the ways in which women can absolve responsibility and men can't.  No one is saying men and women shouldn't have equal rights after birth either. Has anyone stated men shouldn't have custody or visitation? That women shouldn't pay for their child? Or that women can walk away after birth and men can't?

This whole argument is based on the "extra rights" women have that deal with their own bodies. Please tell me how a man can absolve himself in the same way if he can't be pregnant? Tell me a fair way  in which a man can absolve his reponsibility. 

Btw to correct you just because a woman is pregnant for 9 months doesn't mean that she can get an abortion at any stage. I believe it's illegal to get one after 24 weeks.

I hate that some laws protect woman too much, I remember one day when I was 14, one girl was punching a dude and the girl said "what are going to do hit me? Or call the police and tell them that I start this, I can tell them that you hit me first and they will believe" that stuff makes me anger same with number 3 they want the custody but they sometime cannot support the child right.

How are you correcting me? When did I mention women can get an abortion at any stage?

You did say that the first 9 months is not part of the man's responsibility.

 I was talking about men can't be pregnant and all the physical ordeals related to that, that was the responsibility I was speaking of. The man is just as financially liable during pregnancy and after as the woman. You weren't following the entire conversation I was having and you didn't even quote the relevant post. And that still doesn't explain how you thought that I was implying women could abort anytime during pregnancy.

Maybe I misunderstood your claims, if so, I apologise.

I'm not usually one to "propose laws", but if you insist:

1) Let men absolve responsibilities if within a certain time frame, that time frame being less than the woman is allowed to abort within the jurisdiction. ie - If a woman is allowed to abort within first 20 weeks, men have right to absolve within first 12 weeks. Same restrictions apply as abortion, so if a woman needs to go through some kind of spiel as to why abortions are bad (as they do in some states, I believe) a man must do the same, and he can't say he's absolved, there needs to be some kind of legal document signed with the mother being informed prior to the granting of the document.

This way, men can absolve, but there are hoops to jump through, and there's time afterwards to allow the mother to decide whether she wants to raise the baby without the father.

2) In cases of divorce or separation, the primary care giver should not be defaulted to either parent. If the children are old enough to decide, it should be their choice, secondly if one parent forgoes the primary caregiver role, the role goes to the other parent. Beyond those, it's a court case.

3) The primary caregiver should not be allowed to restrict access to secondary caregiver. Moreover, under a certain age, the secondary caregiver should have an obligation to see the children a certain number of days per month, refusal to do so will incur a higher financial burden on providing child support to primary caregiver.

4) If it is determined that the primary caregiver is abusing child support money, then the secondary caregiver should be allowed to place restrictions on the money, a bit like food stamps, where the money can only be spent on items like food, children's clothing, and education.

Obviously, these laws apply to "normal cases", and will not handle situations like violent partners, underraged parents, issues like non-biological parents, etc.

These laws would be far from perfect, but certainly much "fairer" than the current setup.