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.
Last edited by Korimyr the Rat; 09-20-13 at 07:58 AM.
So answer this simple question, yes or no:
Should a man who does not "consent to have a child" be on the hook for supporting that child if the woman decides to have it?
Once you've answered with a simple yes or no (because that's all that's required), if the answer is yes, tell me why he should be forced to support a child he did not consent to.
(This is your opportunity to be crystal clear and dispel any possible confusion about your position.)
2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.
I can understand a person being bitter about a breakup or divorce.
I can understand some people want the other person to suffer terribly in a breakup or divorce.
I can understand some people would rather property be destroyed than the other person having it in a breakup or divorce.
But wanting your own child to suffer to harm the other person and child is as cold-hearted as it gets. All the claims of "this is fair" is real sicko stuff in my opinion.
Yes, of course. Child need zero attention. Just put them in a box and stuff food through an opening? Children only need things money can buy and otherwise just stuck in a cage like an unwanted pet turned in to the animal shelter.
Claiming a man has a "fundamental human liberty" to abandon him child isn't "human liberty." It is the basest form of animalism in my opinion.