We all know that maintaining a pregnancy is a woman's prerogative, and that a man has no legal say until after the child is born. Is that fair? If a woman becomes pregnant, does not want to have a child but he does, should the law support the man's parental rights by doing something like test tubing the embryo. Get it out of her because she doesn't want it, while allowing the fetus to grow outside the womb through alternative measure? Then when it's at term, he can claim it.

That tape is redder than Chris Cringle's jumpsuit. During
the window of time where abortion is permissable, there is no way to
prove that the guy has any biological connection to the embryo. Too
early for a paternity test. What if it turns out not to be his? The law
can in no way back such an outlandish suggestion. After the child is born, men will have 18+ years to exert their parental claim and rights...but they have to accept taking the backseat when it comes to womens pregnancies and having no legal say in how it's handled. If she's carrying his child, is bent on having an abortion and he can't talk her out of it, then he needs to reconcile that for the rest of his life his swimmers can always make another baby at some other time, or with someone else.

RiteDiva wrote:

his swimmers can always make another baby at some other time, or with someone else.

They say the same thing to women who lose custody of their children, 'you're young, you can have more', it's not a stereo system, one can not be replaced by another and you'll never know the difference, each person is an individual from beginning to end.

Supernova wrote:

They say the same thing to women who lose custody of their children, 'you're young, you can have more', it's not a stereo system, one can not be replaced by another and you'll never know the difference, each person is an individual from beginning to end.

I don't think these two scenarios are parallel. For one, we're talking about the termination of a pimple-sized zygote versus losing custody of live children. The latter is a greater extreme. Second of all, any woman who loses custody of her children is going to be hassled by the system should she attempt to have more.

^^^That pimple-sized thing is a living human being according to science and common sense. And besides, many abortions take place when that baby is much more than a pimple. People act like the only abortions that take place are done in the first three weeks. lol Most women don't even find out until it's already significantly bigger.

As for the man's rights, if the man wanted the baby dead but the woman didn't, nobody for so-called "choice" ever intervenes. The "choice" moniker is such an illusion. The man hell yeah has rights. But you know what, forget his rights. The child has a right to not be torn apart. Once the kid is born, if the woman doesn't want him, she can sign him away to the father and never look back.

Reign wrote:

We all know that maintaining a pregnancy is a woman's prerogative, and that a man has no legal say until after the child is born. Is that fair? If a woman becomes pregnant, does not want to have a child but he does, should the law support the man's parental rights by doing something like test tubing the embryo. Get it out of her because she doesn't want it, while allowing the fetus to grow outside the womb through alternative measure? Then when it's at term, he can claim it.

That isn't at all realistic. Like Ritediva said, there is no way of proving paternity at such an early stage to give the father that sort of authority. I'm no doctor, but I would imagine that the science experiment of transporting embryos out of the mother has a large potential to fail, and would cost a huge sum. Most men aren't going to go through that sort of trouble, knowing that they can impregnate someone else.

^^^^What if the man happened to believe in life from conception and decided he wanted to fight for his kid? It may not be an every-man case, but the fact is, people exist who would fit this scenario. I could make a movie out of it.

He has a point. Unwanted babies come into the world all the time and are eventually given to somebody who wants them, if there's somebody who wants the kid right up front, why should that kid be any less entitled to life?

Supernova wrote:

He has a point. Unwanted babies come into the world all the time and are eventually given to somebody who wants them, if there's somebody who wants the kid right up front, why should that kid be any less entitled to life?

I agree. But then again, since when is a right to life contingent on being wanted? I never understood THAT so-called logic.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Explain why there are millions of children in the foster care system and who spend their ENTIRE lives in that system. Not ALL unwanted children get lucky and find someone willing to love and take care of them like they were their own.

So it's better to just kill them. I see where you're coming from. I'd have my add-on, but I don't want to offend anybody.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Didn't we go over this already? Let it go.

Let what go? I've moved on, you still stuck back there?

It's a far fetched question IMO. Even if it were legal, I don't think most men would go through the trouble of proposing something so convoluted as having the embryo removed from the unwanting mothers womb.