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.
Given that we have a constitutional system that created a unilateral advantage - which is slanted and unfair.
What possible legal and/or legislated solution do you perceive could be enacted in which none of the parties involved will be injured (injured meaning: will not affect an involved party by forced medical procedures, legal obligations, financial welfare, or quality of life) as the result of an unintended conception?
If you've already posted an answer...do you mind repeating it or pointing me to a link?
She may very well know who the father is, but she does not have to admit it. In cases where there is no husband she can simply tell the hospital she does NOT know, sign the paperwork giving up the baby for adoption, and that's all there is to it. She has fully opted out for both her and the male.
Beyond the hospital option there is also the "baby drop off" option in some states where all a woman has to do is drop the baby off at a church, hospital, or fire station and then simply disappear. In either case unless the male knew about the prenancy and actively seeks the child, she's just opted-out for both of them. These are clear pro-life option's for women opposed to abortion but who do not wish to raise a child.
Even if the male knows, it's possible for the woman to simply claim she had a miscarriage. Only a husband might know better since they share the medical bills.
It is also disingenuous to presume every male will KNOW a girl he slept with is pregnant. Why? Some engaged in one-night stands; some in short-term hook-ups; some in moderate-term "relationships;" some in long-term but not live-in relationships; some in long-term relationships in which she "takes a break" and he might not see here for a few months. Hell, there's even the possibility in a marriage where the husband is away like a soldier on overseas duty. In each case the woman is in total control of not only her decision to abort, but also her decision to place the child up for adoption. In each case she can also decide to tell him and he is stuck with the obligations.
Are the members arguing against SAM's position really that myopic; only seeing things one absolute way?? The man MUST know? Really? REALLY?!?!
Women abort without telling men all the time. Many women also simply give the child up for adoption without ever telling the male she gave birth. Thus the woman can uniltarally opt-out of childbirth either via abortion, or simply by not telling the male and then abandoning the child for adoption. However, if she tells him and she states she is keeping it...he's stuck.
That is inequitable, and all your fallacious arguments do not balance the equation. Those arguments do not address the essential question, why does she get to unilaterally decide for both when it comes to keeping a child?
Last edited by Captain Adverse; 09-23-13 at 12:57 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 that ain't the point. You aren't reading.
The point is that people have fundamental rights to their own person. If the possibility of negative outcomes is unavoidable -- and it is -- at least I can say I support the only position that doesn't impose harm in itself by treating one sex or the other as a servant or an idiot, either of which need to be controlled by a denial of rights.