Yes, but only during the first 20 weeks, same as a woman.
Yes, but only during the initial period when a non-invasive technique works.
No, but he should have the right to be legally relieved of all responsibility.
NO! Only the woman has this right and he remains responsible.
I oppose all abortion, so neither have the right.
I Don't Know.
...and I didn't realise that as a father I don't have any responsibility and she was stuck with my kids for 18 years and I wasn't. In fact, as a single father that has more custody that she does... I have more responsibility than she does.
Last edited by opendebate; 09-18-13 at 01:08 AM.
"Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers" - Voltaire
"There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow men. True nobility lies in being superior to your former self" -Hemingway
Woman's age .. A 10 year old body is at risk during a pregnancy , same with a 50 some year old in some cases also falls under irreparable damage in Kansas law.
And there were only 132 cases major irreparable damage to a major bodily function which also included things like kidney, liver, and other organ failure in 2008 in Kansas.
Risk to life/ major bodilily function and not being viable are the reasons allowed after limit of viability in Kansas.
The reason non viability - still birth and the fetus being so malformed it will only live a few hours or minutes are extreme cases are because if the fetus dies in the womb and is not removed quickly it can turn septic and cause a life threatening infection in the woman.
Therefore the viability reason is really a risk of the woman's life reason but it is recorded as non viable in the Kansas records.
Oh snap.... Women do have a choice but men are still being careless, non selective and are still having unprotected sex with women they don't want to have children with.
How is giving men the right to dictate this, dissimilar to giving women the right to abort a living child...? Objectively a child's body is his, not the mother's. As the mother's body is hers, not the father's. If it's an infringement of the child's rights to allow the mother to abort, it's even more complex an infringement of the mother's rights for a male to force her to abort against her will.
You couldn't realistically enforce a law like that without huge difficulty. Apart from all the other issues, maternal and protective instinct is triggered for some women on pregnancy, which might result in the male being dispatched for threatening the child...
The male however, could take responsibility and not create the pregnancy in the first place (avoiding the entire question).