Yes, you do, since no one is going to go along with having the state kill the baby.I don't need to go into how a court could deal with the issue of how not being alive is better than being alive anymore than a woman does when justifying her abortion.
Your lack of comprehension of these common legal terms only proves this is way over your head. In order for the father to sue the mother he has to establish that she acted in a negligent manner. In your scenario the negligent act would be punching holes in the condom or using the his sperm to impregnate herself. In order to return the child and father to the state they were in prior to the negligent act the child life would have to be ended.I don't need to go into how a court could deal with the issue of how the state could repair the child to the state of being had the negligent act not occurred because I don't even understand what this incoherent rant is addressing. What state of being? What negligent act?
There is nothing incoherent in what I wrote. Your lack of a capacity to understand does not prove my statements incoherent. It just proves that you are a dim bulb.
We are talking about your points on the woman tricking the man into impregnating her. You backpedaled on what you are now reasserting above in your response to David D. #250.I addressed how the court could and should deal with this in this thread and in other threads already. The woman informs the man she is pregnant within a timely manner (ASAP), he declares his intent. If intent is to not be involved he legally informs her ASAP. She then has the choice to abort or to have the baby. If she has the baby then all financial support is on her, since she made a choice to have the baby knowing that the man would not be involved. If she aborts then the situation is over. This can and has happened... but it is extremely rare if not almost unique. The problem is that most most most women would never agree to this. Why? Why would they when they can have the baby anyway and force the man to help pay for their choice.
You abandoned that point. I have addressed it numerous times and you have yet to respond.Address that. As yet, you have not. That is why I am the winner. I am a winner and eating some tasty ass sushi too... I am also going to meet the US Ambassador in about 15 minutes for cocktails.
You are a loser that does not understand simple legal concepts, like negligence.