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.
You are hung up on birth certificate as though they on the only legal instrument which identifies a baby belonging to a specific man and woman. And that a name is require of all parties...and filed with the BVS in order to be recognized as a person. NOT TRUE.
If you purposely murder a 1 minute newborn...which the second it's little butt hits air...it immediately has constitutional rights. And you will go to jail for murdering A PERSON. It's no longer a fetus...but a real live person.
It's personhood is witnessed by doctors, nurses...and even a father. Yes...it is a legal being. It's identifiable by unique DNA and fingerprints and footprints. A hospital will attach a special identification bracelet and always do footprints and some will also do fingerprints will be recorded very shortly after birth.
They have to by law.
Oh...some states don't require names for up to 30 days after birth.
From the OP on throughout this thread I have consistently supported a woman’s right to choose; either to abort or to accept the full responsibility of having a baby for herself. It simply seems strange to hear arguments claiming that while BOTH are responsible for conception, only ONE gets to decide if both must commit to lifelong responsibility or not.
If the woman controls access, prevention, and “opt-out” outcome why then must the male be bound by those choices but not relieved of the duty to take care of an unexpected and unwanted child if she chooses the “opt-in” outcome?
A partial answer is that even if I want a child I must respect the woman’s choice to make me use contraception, and her use of contraception, and if she gets pregnant to abort it. That is because it is her body and she may choose not to have it affected by the growth of an unwanted child, nor be forced to assume the responsibilities inherent subsequent to childbirth. I cannot compel her to accept these things.
But this does not answer the essential question; if I do NOT want a child and she still gets pregnant why should she be allowed to compel me to?
It is disingenuous to claim it is not her, but “public policy” which actually compels me; because her decision determines whether or not I will be subject to the compulsion of such “public policy.” Currently women are assured that no matter what the man thinks; if she chooses to have an unwanted child then the male will be compelled to support it.
It is also disingenuous to claim that current “public policy” is “set in stone” and cannot change. It is one thing to argue that a majority could not currently accept any public policy change which might increase the tax burden imposed by public welfare. It is another to state categorically that society would never accept any such public policy change.
Arguments claiming that the male could keep his pants on, wear a “sock,” or recognize he is taking a risk are not determining because sex neither constitutes agreement that conception will occur nor that a baby must be born. Why? The woman’s rights are based upon her greater risks; therefore she has the absolute power to decide what happens, if anything, with her body. As a result, even though both share the possibility of conception only she can limit access by requiring levels of contraception; opt to abort; or even abandon the male to hide the pregnancy in order to give the child up for adoption. So only she currently has the power to opt-out.
This is inequitable; even the nay-sayers in this thread acknowledge that.
In response they use every fallacious argument in the book, from appeals to emotion (there is a child!), through appeals to consequences ("public policy"), to affirming the consequent (if male has sex then he agrees to have a baby; a baby occurs, he agreed to have a baby). None of this addresses the essential inequity of the female “opt-out,” they simply assert “too bad, so sad, deal with it.”
I'm still waiting for a logically sound argument which addresses validly why a man should not have the same right to opt-out as the woman does.
Last edited by Captain Adverse; 09-20-13 at 12:53 AM.
If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.
But what we are talking about here is completely relinquishing all parental rights. Just like when a woman puts up a child for adoption. Women have the right to choose not to be a parent to a biological child. Why don't men?
The woman decides what to do with her pregnancy. She does not get to decide what to do with a man's life. That has nothing to do with "fairness." That is a basic principal of personal liberty.
And by the way, it's the same principal that makes you pro-choice. It's baffling that you don't think it applies to men.
Last edited by SmokeAndMirrors; 09-20-13 at 01:16 AM.