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.
Captain Adverse (and all) since we are on the subject of lies how do you guys feel about the woman who is selling positive pregnancy tests on craigslist? I had the link but the story behind it is you pay $25 for the test, she urinates, the test becomed positive and you pick it up.
Once she is pregnant..she has 2 choices...If she chooses to keep it, our social services will make sure she has everything she wants..
We did have something called the ''child support agency'' whose sole purpose was to hunt down errant fathers..it failed!!
Now, if we are willing to be mature about this and declare that last paragraph to be true, we can move on to finances. Whether the woman chooses to carry the child or not, the immediate financial burden automatically falls upon her. So if she keeps the child, then she should have the legal recourse to seek financial assistance from the man whose half of the child's genetics are made from.
But ideally this should depend on the circumstances. Your typical wayward male who has unprotected sex without thinking of the consequences should be legally obligated to provide for the child because of his careless actions. He should have used protection himself to cover his obligations.
On the other hand, suppose two partners are in a committed relationship, married or unmarried. They might have moved past condoms and onto birth control, in which case the woman has voluntarily shifted the responsibility of contraception onto herself. The man cannot be accountable for her medication. In this scenario, if the woman decides she wants a child, and takes herself off medication, she could do so without his knowledge or input. Obviously the man is still physically responsible for the child, but intent is important. If, when he is told that she is pregnant, he protests to the point where it would be a deal-breaker for the relationship, and he was led to believe that she was on birth control, it should then be on the woman to take care for the child if he doesn't intend to. This would have to be argued out in a court of law. It would be tricky, but with free choice comes responsibility.