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 don't necessarily mean you, but some prolifers think that urging animalistic morality and standards makes their case. If you have something I want, natural law says I just take it if I want it and can get away with it. "Natural" law allows theft, murder, rape. Marriage is not "natural law" nor is monogamy. Getting the flu is a natural occurrence if you kiss someone.
The legal and ethical reason why the bio-parents including the bio-father are economically required to provide for the child(ren) he and they make is because SOMEONE has do pay. Thus, who has to pay is who made it happen.
That's true...and I'll tell you what else is true.
The reason why legislators won't ever exempt either parent or both parents from legal and financial responsibilities is that if a conception, which is brought to birth for any reason: The government created laws, which serves to protect a child because the child cannot provide for itself any of the hierarchy of needs (food, housing, medical care, etc). A child has no voice in political or legal arenas, which would allow a child to advocate for its own existence or needs or assistance.
And some people in this forum who scream out about "Constitutional Rights"...have somehow forgotten than once a child is born...KABOOM...it has Constitutional Rights which is government's duty to protect.
In addition, if either or both parents fail to meet the hierarchy of needs of a child. The state government (sometimes federal) will intervene.
In the case of both parents failing to meet a child's needs (including legally pronounced unfit). The state will take conservatorship of the child. The state will enforce its right to hold the parents financially accountable (in part of whole). The state will pursue child support from these parents in order to offset the expense to the state, which is also an expense to the taxpayers.
In the case of one parent failing to provide their legal obligation according to the respective state statutes, the state will pursue whatever legal means available to collect any possible or portion of monies that went to the child in the form of State or Federal Assistance. This can apply to a mother or father.
An opt-out law would remove one of the co-creators of the child from any legal or financial responsibility...and that isn't in the interest of the child, first and foremost,...nor the state. And when I say "State" I am also saying taxpayers.
Courts are used to settle disputes in relationships of all kinds. There are so many different types of relationships...I can't name them all.
However, the most common types of disputes are settled in family court. If co-creator (parent) was legally able to opt out of any responsibility for a child. That would render both the state powerless...and the guardian of a child, whether that be a parent or state conservator...to legally intervene ON BEHALF OF THE CHILD in order to protect its interest, which would normally implicate a parent (MEN) who would OPT OUT of responsibility....because life is unfair...
As a last resort...will a court terminate a parent's rights... for the very same reasons there will never be legislation to allow a MAN to OPT out of responsibility. It is simply not in the best interest of a child...the state...and taxpayers.
Oh, and even when parents are rendered unfit by a court...that does not terminate their rights...or the states rights to hold them legally and financially responsible.
Two people make a baby...two people will be held legally and financially responsible. Be prepared to pay the piper...
You deflect with parodies of pro-life misogynistic arguments, but nobody is willing to answer that simple question.
Last edited by Korimyr the Rat; 09-19-13 at 12:45 AM.
And I can say the same to you. I've asked you how such an arrangement would be legally worded in order for a man to opt out.
You...like so many others want to ignore that a 3rd party has been created...which can't provide for itself..and no man...all things aren't equal for women in so many ways...but tough **** for her..because they choose to keep the bastard.
You've already said bunches of times..."the kid isn't important". He or she is just a victim of poor choices of the two people who created it....tough **** for the kid. How do you think the welfare state has gotten so crazy? You hate the welfare state, but you can't see the implications of one parent saying...I'm not doing this so **** you and **** the kid.
You tell us all what an EQUAL OR TRULY EQUITABLE solution looks like. But I will tell you that whatever it is...can't compromise the best interest of the kid. Sorry, Vik...but it's not a fair situation. Life ain't fair.
I still can't get over the argument that...hey a man and a woman ****...and a conception happens accidentally...and damn...the guy doesn't want it...so he tells the chick, if you want the kid...you're on your own...I'm out of here pal.
That's when the state will intervene...for the best interest of the kid.
You only see a punitive solution. You want to punish the woman for the CHOICE of having a kid (which he helped create)...and punish the kid by denying it SHARED support it would have gotten from BOTH parents.
Is it all fair? NOOOOOOOOOOO....when it comes to JUST THE MAN'S INTERESTS. And when he opts out...then it's not fair to the kid.
Everybody get tubes tied and vasectomies at birth...that's the solution. Or...it might be a hell of alot cheaper for a man to get fornication insurance...for those unhappy moments (if that type of insurance could be underwritten.) Why not...it would work and be a lot cheaper in the long run for man.
But now your gonna cry.,..but why does the man have to pay for the insurance. NO INSURANCE....NO NOOKIE! That's a choice...
But you do fail to acknowledged that things change. The change in opinion can be seen in this thread. Clearly showing you are unable to anticipate the future or what it holds.
You saying "legislators won't ever" is ridiculous. You have no idea what they will or wont do. They could very well determine that this would be in the best interest of the state and the child.
Constitutional protection to a born child can take other forms than those that exist now.
It doesn't mater about any third party considerations as they can go away as easily as they were created.
The responsibility truly belongs to the person who decided to bring a child into this world.
Just as it should be if a woman used a sperm donor.
And with the thought of an over populated earth for the resources, it is more likely than not that something akin will be implemented prior to full out and out forced abortions. Because as we know, the Constitution will have to protect those alive, not the unborn.
So can your horse**** arguing the way it is. We know the way it is. This is about the way it can be and most likely will be.
"The law is reason, free from passion."
Now, you make like there is no choice.
Make the choice to have a vasectomy.
Make a choice to wear condoms even if the woman is using contraception (hell, planned parenthood will tell you that)
Only have sex with women you would like to have a family with
Have sex with post menopausal women.
keep you pants on and zipped up
You have a lot of choices. But you have no control over a woman's body. Accept the consequences of your actions.
And please stop asking for fair and equal in an anatomical and physiological situation where things cannot be equal.