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.
What you are seeking is a special exception, simply for being male, based on the societal bias that women should be the ones raising children. You not only want to enjoy the privilege where that is not expected of you, but add more privilege onto it where you don't even have to support the child. You are only seeking to make gender disparity worse. You want to really shift it around? You want to prove something for men? Get custody yourself. And then don't make her pay any support. Then you can come back and whine about things being unfair. As it stands, you're just trying to benefit even more from stripping women of their choices.
You do not get to opt out unilaterally any more than she does. The two of you together could agree that you don't have any part in supporting the child. The two of you together could agree to give the child up. But you do not get a special dispensation that she does not, simply for being male.
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
Is CONDITIONAL, UNILATERAL CONTROL to decide the fate of a conception SLANTED? YES!
Is CONDITIONAL, UNILATERAL CONTROL to decide the fate of a conception UNFAIR? YES!
And it's especially unfair to a kid born into Freak World where one of it's creators don't give a **** about its welfare.
The standing provisions that allow unilateral control to exist is built around "best interest"...period.
As of today there is no existing legal device to make it fair.
But this is what's most amazing about this thread:
All of the bitching in the past 1343 post...and not one single person has come up with a legal solution or legislated solution with is TRULY EQUITABLE. WHY?
PUT THE **** UP OR SHUT THE **** UP! What is a solution in which no party involved is injured (meaning welfare compromised) by the decision of the other?
I posted earlier that a LEGALLY BINDING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP CONTRACT, which can define all of the variable which two people AGREE is the only way I can think of to level the equality issue. And even that doesn't guarantee that one of the parties involved won't be injured from the agreement. But it will remove the fundamental legal dispute about what happens when an unintended conception occurs. And this process removes government from intervention...unless the contract is broken. Then a court action will occur.
That's poppycock; it's not what I'm saying in the slightest.What you are seeking is a special exception, simply for being male, based on the societal bias that women should be the ones raising children.
What I'm saying is that if a woman decides to have and keep the child, when she doesn't have to, putting an unwilling father on the hook for it is hypocritical when the woman has the absolute choice to be a mother or not.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the "bias" that women should be raising the child. If she has the child, it's entirely by her own choice.
She has the absolute right to opt out, by aborting the child. At no point does the man have that ability.You do not get to opt out unilaterally any more than she does.
You say "having sex is not consenting to have a child," but when you put the man on the hook for the woman's sole decision to have the child, you very much say that it IS so consenting.
There's no "special privilege" about it, and in fact, it's the woman who has the "special privilege," because she alone is the one who decides if the child is born or not. She's making the decision to be a parent for both.
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.
We are discussing the ability for a man to unilaterally eliminate all his parental obligations towards his biological child. He can give up his "rights."
Any person can give up his/her rights. What he can't eliminate is parental obligation, nor can she, once the child is born.
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
I will overlook your repeated appeals to emotion and veiled ad hominem "maoist" statements and focus on the points you raise.
Beyond that we do not know the condition of this "10 year-old child." Did the parent(s) put him up for adoption at birth? Did the mother abandon the father and choose to raise the child alone? Did the parents marry and elect to try to care for the 10 year-old together? Was there a divorce? Are one or both parents still alive? There are all sorts of other conitions we would need to know to discuss a "10 year-old child" that your overly simplistic appeal to emotion fails to provide for a complete analysis of "explain how the view is fair to the child." That was your final fail.
Your false analogy fails, sorry.
Last edited by Captain Adverse; 09-20-13 at 02:10 PM.
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.