Didn't Bleeker have any choice in the adoption?

Yeah he even said something to her like "do what you think you should do"

Because there's a difference between terminating a pregnancy and giving your child away.

My body my choice applies to men already, and it has for a long long time. I mean men have the right to go putting their sexual organs where they want to, yet like I said, they could easily just walk away and not have anything to do with the child which is what a lot of men who don't care where they put their penis do. Men are not forced onto the battlefield either. I don't know where you live. If they ever were, it was because they were seen as more able than women, which they still are. But back then, women had so little perceived worth arguing that men had it hard is kind of irrelevant. Now it's different, things are leveling out more even if they are still not so level. Women barely have the choice to go out on the battlefield, even if they are as qualified or more qualified than a man standing next to them in line at Walmart. So that's the other side of it. It's not an anti male thing, but like I said, think about it...This is what I send to the other guy:
Fathers have many rights, but one thing masculinists just can't come to grips with is that men and women are just not equal when it comes to babies. Not unless they are in a committed relationship or unless they were trying for a baby. But if not, the woman has higher precedence. Why? You're forgetting something...The man doesn't have to carry the baby. He just has to put his sperm into the woman. The woman typically has more direct work to do as far as the baby goes also. Especially since we live in a very archaic society where women are expected to actually care for the child while the man again is allowed more freedom in what he does. And when you're presented with two equally qualified parents, one male and one female, who has more rights when it comes to the child? It's really really hard to say. But if there has to be a way to choose only one, both can't be equal, the child is more connected to the mother on a certain level. And another problem is that men typically only want their parental rights as far as it suits them. This 'greater connection to the mother' thing extends to that. Men in a non committed relationship quite often might just walk away and not have anything to do with the child, because they don't want to. I'm sure those men would appreciate their freedom they have to walk away because the child is more connected to the mother and because they aren't stuck carrying it up to birth. So think about it...If in that type of relationship, it really is more their choice

So if you're in a strong committed relationship/you were trying to have a child, it is definitely wrong to not include the father. But Bleeker and Juno were not there at all. And Juno came onto him, so he wasn't trying to have a child. And obviously she wasn't either and she took control of that situation. Why should he have more rights than she does? It's not like they were fit parents, maybe she wasn't ready to be pregnant either. How old was she? 16 or so? How would it feel to be 16 and pregnant? It would interfere with so many things. Bleeker didn't have to go through that. The only thing I think is that if the father doesn't want to keep the child, he shouldn't have to pay anything, but that's as far as it goes

I think the original poster's original question has gotten lost in the debate. The question was whether Bleeker had choice in the adoption, as he was the baby's father.

The legal answer is yes. Even though Juno said her parents wouldn't tell his parents, if the father is known, then that father also has to sign away parental rights in the case of a born baby being adopted.

I think we can assume by Bleeker's attitude that he would have signed away these rights if he had been named as the father on paper, but since Juno never did this, there was no need. Had he wanted to keep and raise the baby, that would have been his right.

As far as abortion goes, no, he would have no rights. I'm sure it varies state to state as to the particulars of the length of pregnancy etc. but in general, the law sees the pregnancy (fetus) as the woman's choice as it's in her body. You can agree, disagree, feel indifferent about whether or not this is the case (and really, is a movie message board a) the place to do it, and b) the place where you are going to change someone else's mind?) but your own personal or religious beliefs are irrelevant. In answer to the poster's question, Bleeker would have a say in adoption. To answer the side question, no, Bleeker would not have a say in abortion.

The men who have an issue (myself included) want men to have the option to give up their rights and responsibilities during the time the women can abort. I also want mandatory paternity tests and charges levied on women who lie about who the father is. BTW, as far as the woman's body argument, I'd guarantee you if men were the ones carrying the baby that crap would never fly. Women would be on TV crying about how it's another case of the patriarchy controlling women's lives or some other garbage.