That is why I said the laws should be that the father can sign over his rights BEFORE the child is born.
I just don't see those things that already exist as increasing if a man has the opportunity to legally take no financial responsibility.
At this point, it's all on the woman because it's her body and that I understand and agree with--no one should be making those decisions for her.
"A women could also decide she does not want a child and give it up after 24 weeks but that is legally fine to do."
Yeah, but then she gets to carry it another 16 weeks before she does it, whereas according to your system, the man could say he'd had it, sign some paperwork and be done.
Personally, I think the way to reduce the number of abortions is to make pregnancy easier on women, not harder. Paving the way for their sexual partners to abandon them two months prior to the birth does not make pregnancy easier, nor does it lessen the desire for late-term abortions.
Powered by CGISpy.comThanks
"I think the first trimemster is as long as a woman would need to terminate pregnancy."
Yes, but as the poster was indicating, that's completely arbitrary. Why not 12 weeks and 3 days? Why not 12 weeks and 4 days?
If you became pregnant while on Depo-Provera, that's not necessarily enough time to discover that you had become pregnant. I knew I was pregnant almost from the moment of conception, but I was trying to conceive and was actively looking for the signs. I might have missed them if I wasn't looking for them. That and my cycles were very regular, but that's not the case for everyone.
And the man should be able to walk away from the POTENTIAL child - z/e/f as long as it is prior to viability.
"It is right to be contented with what we have, but never with what we are."
"You have to have a cut off date wouldn't you agree?"
Ah, but I don't agree. I am actually more stringent in my opinions of elective abortion than you are. You say that elective abortion after 12 weeks is wrong; I say it's always wrong. I just don't feel that legislation against it solves the problem, and do all I can to help people prevent pregnancy instead.
Case in point of why arbitrary cut-off dates are wrong: There is a woman on my EC who had some questionable results at her 20-week ultrasound. She had another one just before 24 weeks (a couple of weeks ago), which discovered soft markers for either Trisomy 13 or 18. As you probably know, these are catastrophic fetal anomalies with a very low rate of survival even to birth.
She was given a heartbreaking choice to make, thanks to that arbitrary cut-off date. She could either abort immediately after the ultrasound (with the risk that the ultrasound was wrong) because she was prior to 24 weeks; or, she could wait for an amniocentesis to confirm, and have to carry the fetus to term regardless of the results. So she was given the choice to abort a very-much-wanted pregnancy and wonder for the rest of her life if the fetus would have survived, or run a likely risk of having to carry a dead or dying fetus to term. The last I heard from her, she decided to go for the amnio but I haven't heard the result of it yet.
I'm so lucky that my ultrasounds have always come back completely normal with a very healthy fetus. But how horrible are we as a society if we support forcing a woman to continue carrying a dead or dying fetus just to prevent a handful of women from having elective abortion at that stage?