Most women with unintended pregnancies do not find out early enough to schedule an abortion. The major reason for the restrictions is to push off the scheduling of voluntary abortions so far that it hits second trimester, with the intent of then cutting off the access (which can be legally done in the second trimester). This has been effective in many states. So abortion is not necessarily an option today. Given this Supreme Court, abortion may not be an option much longer. What does that do to this guy's argument? Since adoptions require the consent (or severing) of the father's rights, adoption is an equal process.

Most people here seem to be pro-choice, or at least are not expressing doubt about the morality of abortion. Out in the real world, most people in the US do NOT feel women should be able to "opt out" of abortion for casual reasons. That's why the limitations we see on abortion are expanding, and legal scholars expect that the Roberts COurt will "hollow out" abortion rights by allowing more and more restrictions. The "husband notification" cases winding their way through the courts are one manifestation. The illogical "counseling" before abortions, the waiting periods, etc are another set of queasiness manifesting. Very few women "opt out" for frivolous rationales. In some states, an abortion for anything but life saving is practically impossible (Louisiana, parts of Mississippi, parts of Iowa, etc) because there are few practitioners, or the state has made it impossible for the hospitals to afford the insurance (through ridiculous equipment regulations, etc), or because of cost.

The abortion argument does not hold up because MOST people in the US do not approve of what they see as "casual" abortion. The parenthood opt out option for men would actually make pro-lifers get more violent (killing providers, women in line at clinics, bombing, etc) to intimidate women into abortions. These pro-lifers would work even harder to make abortion illegal, due to this new incentive for abortion. Practically, the parental opt out would likely result in more abortion restrictions, thanks to the infiltration of pro-lifers in both parties.

By the way, non-custodial mothers DO pay child support in places where they can not get abortions (cost, lack of providers) or figured out they were pregnant too late (not first trimester).About 15% of deadbeat parents are non-custodial mothers.

This whole "opt out" argument falls because 1. abortion is about allowing a woman to not RISK her LIFE in prenancy and delivery 2. child support goes to the child, not the mother. Abortion is solely a woman's choice because she can DIE in pregnancy and delivery. WHen men can DIE from fatherhood, they will get an opt out. Men do not DIE from financial responsibility. Women die (or suffer life threatening complications)in more than half of all pregnancies (13% die, 61% need medical interventions for problems that would have killed them in the past).

It is the DEATH issue that causes women to get the choice. When you risk your life, you get the choice. Men don't risk their lives.

I have relatives who are lawyers in Houston. If a man is declared in abstentia who was not married to the woman, he may contest upon being found through DNA testing. If the testing is negative, he can have the support order removed and be off the hook. However, if he is found to be the father, yes, he has money to make up. The courts will work with these men to make payments reasonable. Reason 6439 why men need to be more careful about who they sleep with, and REALLY not have one night stands. No one of either gender should have one night stands, because you do face the possibility of having a baby. In this age of abstinence education, with students being given incredibly inaccurate information about contraceptives (when they are given ANY information), the issue of the effectiveness of birth control is moot. Just GETTING the kids accurate informaiton AND birth control is increasingly a problem.

As for the married man decision, that's actually based on English common law. A child born of the marriage is considered the child of the father. Now, DNA is overturning that presumption, and most states allow for DNA testing in disputed cases. While Texas has a high barrier to such testing (they are crazy about the death penalty and a number of things, too), most other states are not. Texas is abnormal, just like California. On the other hand, be careful who you marry, no matter who the gender.

Moralists out there would like to cut off this debate by forcing women to carry and forcing men to marry them (Governor Nepali of South Dakota is the loudest, but he's not the only one). The issue of the man having no choice and the woman having any choice is increasingly moot. In most states, a woman can neither afford nor access an abortion, due to delays by regulations which push her into the second trimester, delays in confirming pregnancy, lack of providers, or lack of money. She really has no choice, other than to use two forms of birth control and be very choosy about her partners. ALl of this "he was tricked" stuff amuses me, because I remember the talks to the boys in the Eighties and the Nineties "It doesn't matter what she says, you use a condom; if she says she's infertil, on the pill, tied her tubes, you still use the jimmy hat". That was what all of my male friends were told. Women are also told that men lie, and that it doesn't matter what he says about disease, he needs to wear a condom, too.

This is not about choice, it's about risk. These guys want a world without the risk of unplanned pregnancy. Risk is managed by precautions, not by "trusting the partner". If that message got out, we'd have fewer unwed pregnancies.