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.
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.
No civilized society is going to let a man or woman put their own selfish interest over that of a child that cannot provide for itself, or have a legal voice to defend itself. That's where our judicial system comes in if the man and woman conceive...and a woman is determined to bring to full term the conception.
The judicial system won't care about the man...or the woman when push comes to shove.
The KID is the entity being support. That is why...men can cry and bitch and moan all they want if a woman CHOOSES NOT TO ABORT.
No legislator could justify enacting an Opt Out law. And no legislator could effectively create an enforceable language to create an Opt-Out Law, which a man could automatically declare...foregoing all circumstances, which might possibly alter the ability to declare such an option.
In other words...if a woman chooses not to abort...and cant be forced to...a child is born....I assure you, the kid will become the first consideration.
Sorry...to all of the disappointed guys who will have to live with this hardcore reality. And as Smoke and Mirrors has said a number of times. This disparity is all linked to "biology". The story around the biology...will reveal...exactly why men will never be able to legally override a woman's unilateral choice regarding the fate of a conception.
Fathers should not have the right to abandon their children-- but until they have taken that child into their arms and declared it theirs, given that child their name and their home, they are not fathers and forcing them to become fathers is not only impossible, but attempting to do so is grossly irresponsible and morally unconscionable.
You can justify all manner of injustice by saying "it's for the children!" This is no different. It's an injustice, and like all injustice, it doesn't actually help the children in the long run.
That's a pretty argument...but won't fly. Once a woman says she has conceived...and is determined to bring it to full-term. A kid is the object of which this argument revolves around. No civilized society will put its needs behind that of a man or woman and it really doesn't matter if they want to call themselves "parent or not". Kids can't provide for themselves nor do they have a legal voice to defend themselves.
There is a greater obligation to a kid...period. Mommies and daddies ain't **** in this argument...once a woman decides a conception will be brought to full-term. Period.
It is impossible to create an "equal state" in the matter....