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.
I can probably name quite a few laws I'm not crazy about, but no matter how I disagree or much I dislike them they won't go away.
I will say that while a lot of men grip like hell about this issue. Nobody has offered or has shown any type of language that could be used to implement some legislation to deal with the inequity you believe isn't right...and that you've pointed out...and are so unhappy with. Let me repeat it:
The mother supports the child that she chose to have. The father supports the child that someone else chose for him to have.Really...how did that happen? While that makes sense to you...two people co-create a conception and it doesn't make a billy-damn as to why an unintended conception occurred. The laws will never exempt one of those co-creators just because they aren't happy about the creation.The father supports the child that someone else chose for him to have
This is an intriguing thread. When children are involved in a divorce situation, many states are requiring mediation before anything is awarded by the courts. The courts are wanting a workable parenting plan agreed upon between the parties involved. At some point, I think we will arrive at that same place for an unborn life. That life was not created by only one party, so only one party should not have complete irrevocable say so about it, nor should one party have complete and irrevocable termination of responsibility. I doubt there is anyone in the world today who does not know that having sex can result in pregnancy, even in the face of the couple having taken precautions. No one was complaining when the life was conceived. No one should be allowed to crap out of his/her responsibility.
Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, loon, xenophobe, islamaphobe, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.
Two separate comments. Two separate replies.
But that is exactly what you did in the following.
Yes you are not on board with me.
You quoted not just my reply to Jerry, but my reply to another, and basically encompasses this whole topic.
You stated; "EX...we've had some difference in other topics.....but I am definitely on board with you in this matter."
And then went on to say the following, clearly encompassing the topic as a whole, not just what I said to Jerry. Clearly establishing that you are not on board with me or on the same page I am, let alone in the same book.
"Biology alone" dictates that a woman should have the unilateral decision regarding the fate of a conception...within the parameter of the law. Then when we review the potential personal and social ramifications.. there could be many...if a woman isn't able to control her reproductive role.
Men who think that an OPT-OUT law is the solution..is in complete denial....because a civilized society will NOT PERMIT the co-creator of a born child to be forced to be LESS CARED FOR...because of a DICK bio-dad...being an unhappy camper. Children cannot fend for themselves. It would be a equal crime for women to be forced to seek government help...when a bio-dad thinks he got an unfair deal...in the scheme of life. Also...what if a woman is against having an abortion or passing off a child to an adoption agency or people when she has no guarantee out the care the child will receive. There are numerous reasons NOT to consider this option as viable. It's nothing short of a not well thought out option...which is more of in line with magical thinking. Not logical thinking.
There was a suggestion by Year2Late...sounds like a much cheaper alternative to deal with unintended conceptions. She posted the following:
So...here's the deal. It's simple. No insurance...no nookie."Fornication Insurance": A man can opt out of child support if he is insured and the insurance pays out what should be child support .
Somethings in life are intrinsically unfair...and no solution based current knowledge and or technology. Women having unilateral control over conception is just one of these unfair life situations...for now.
So my comment of "Doesn't appear that way", was accurate.
You obviously find nonsense when there is none.
She should not be able to coerce a man into supporting something that comes about by her choice.
Removing her ability to do so, is not coercing her to do anything. As all options are still available to her.
Let's put it this way, who are these "many more players involved" as acknowledged by the law?
Just as only she should be able to choose it for herself.
Her being able to do so, is coercion.
Legal coercion, is still coercion.
Whether you recognize that or not doesn't matter.
The change is coming.
It may not be in the U.S. at first, but some other forward looking country. And if the benefits are demonstrated by such laws, as I suspect there will be, it is only a matter of time.
So you can balk all you want. Attitudes change as do laws.
Just because you can't see forward enough to see it coming doesn't mean it wont. Especially as the world population continues to grow.
It is truly only a matter of time.
"The law is reason, free from passion."