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.
1. More children growing up in poverty. Perhaps, but perhaps not. First, recognizing that a womans right to choose remains the same we are ensuring that she tries to make an informed decision. On the one hand, if the male is both supportive and looking forward to marriage and family and she decides to carry to term, then nothing really changes from current status quo. However, if the male indicates that he is not interested in either marriage or family and the law allows him the right to opt-out of further responsibility, then she is now required to take the full burden upon herself. Many of the women who would normally choose to keep a baby would now choose to abort. This, combined with my answers to the following questions might serve to reduce the number of children of single parents facing poverty.
2. More moms on gov't assistance, putting more strain on a system already generating over a trillion debt per year. A public policy change allowing a man to opt-out during the initial stages of pregnancy would also require modification of current welfare law. The modification under such a scenario might include limiting welfare to child support, child medical support, and day care coverage, but NOT full compensation for the mother who would be required to find work for her personal support. Thus, a woman seeing no male child support and finding that she would not be able to simply "live free" by having children is more likely to decide to abort.
3. More abortions as many young men will opt out of fiscal responsibility, and many young women will decide going it alone isn't worth it. This is highly likely, but seems a better recourse than producing dysfunctional families and all the attendant social issues and costs they create. Recall, during the initial 9 weeks there are non-surgical medical methods that stimulate a non-invasive abortion process. This includes the "morning after" pill, and then other medications that induce menstruation. Although a woman may not be aware until the end of the second week that she is pregnant, that still gives her time to inform the male to discover his position, and leave her up to 35 days to use the non-intrusive medical methods.
The point is that it should remain a woman's absolute choice, but she should make an informed and rational decision based on the question: "Can I take full responsibility and care for the child on my own if I have it?"
It should not be left to emotion, nor calculation based on: "Well I've got plenty of safety nets in social welfare and laws forcing the guy to pay me; and if worse comes to worst I can always sell it to some couple for adoption...so what the hell let's do it!"
Last edited by Captain Adverse; 09-15-13 at 10:30 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.
Anti-Democracy advocate, Mixed government is the only good government
THE second point to be examined is, whether the [constitutional ]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.
That is a confession to murder under the UVVA, which requires the homicide he committed to be dealt with the same way as the homicide of any born human.
As it stands right now, a mother may elect to commit legal homicide despite a lack of justification. A father cannot.
I am not in the habit of calling homicides that should be murder "murder." Abortion should be prosecuted as murder but it is not currently.
His action was an illegal premeditated aggressive homicide which explicitly fits the criminal code for murder, and he has confessed to it.
Under our criminal code as it stands RIGHT NOW, he is a murderer and he confessed to murder. If he is allowed to plead to a lesser charge, then that is a travesty... but he is a confessed murderer just the same.
Last edited by JayDubya; 09-15-13 at 10:50 PM.