• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the man have any say in whether a woman aborts or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
sangha said:
Abstinence isn't reliable?

Only if you think abstinence allows for an occasional bout of sex
Click to expand...

Abstinence goes the same way against abortion to there, sir.
 
The Baron said:
Should a man have any say in whether or not a woman slaughters his child?

Well, hell ya!
Click to expand...

And here I thought it was your position that NEITHER the man nor the woman should have a say about abortion!! Turns out it's OK with you IF it's the man's idea!! Who would have thought?
 
Ockham said:
But, she has a second chance - an abortion; a legal abortion.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I was merely pointing out the double standard of abstinence to our friend there.
 
sangha said:
Of course it does not. If the female doesn't want a child, she can abstain from sex....or she could have an abortion should she get pregnant
Click to expand...

It's kinda weird that you agreed with me, but you're still trying to argue that I'm wrong.
 
sangha said:
It's kind of weird that you think I'm agreeing with you.
Click to expand...

You did. You said and I quote "If the female doesn't want a child, she can abstain from sex."
 
DashingAmerican said:
You did. You said and I quote "If the female doesn't want a child, she can abstain from sex."
Click to expand...

You had to edit my quote to find agreement!! :lol:

That's like me saying you said "...I'm wrong." and then asking "Why did you say you're wrong?"
 
Ockham said:
A man does have his say... it's before he ejaculates into the vagina without a contraceptive. A small percentage of pregnancies occur even though pregnancy protection is provided and that's unfortunate.
Click to expand...

I agree, if a man doesn't want to be put into that position, then he should do everything he can to eliminate the possibility of that circumstance.
 
sangha said:
You had to edit my quote to find agreement!! :lol:

That's like me saying you said "...I'm wrong." and then asking "Why did you say you're wrong?"
Click to expand...

True, but that was my point. That abstinence works both ways. If the man doesn't penetrate and the woman doesn't get penetrated there is no baby. That was my point.
 
DashingAmerican said:
True, but that was my point. That abstinence works both ways. If the man doesn't penetrate and the woman doesn't get penetrated there is no baby. That was my point.
Click to expand...

They're aren't the same. The woman can have an abortion. I don't think any man has ever had an abortion, but I could be wrong.

Children aren't produced by legal contracts that both parties agree to and sign before performance. Child support is a legal obligation that a man risks every time he has sex with a (fertile) female.

Don't want the risk? Then keep it in your pants.

Problem solved
 
sangha said:
Abstinence isn't reliable?

Only if you think abstinence allows for an occasional bout of sex
Click to expand...

It didn't work for hte Virgin Mary - God still raped her :D

Ok - joking aside . . . are you really expecting a married couple to abstain from sex?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
It didn't work for hte Virgin Mary - God still raped her :D

Ok - joking aside . . . are you really expecting a married couple to abstain from sex?
Click to expand...

I expect married couples to make plans about how they would handle the situation and come to an agreement BEFORE they wed. If a man doesn't make clear his desire to have a veto on the decision before he gets married, then he shouldn't complain if she won't agree to give him the veto AFTER they're married
 
sangha said:
I expect married couples to make plans about how they would handle the situation and come to an agreement BEFORE they wed. If a man doesn't make clear his desire to have a veto on the decision before he gets married, then he shouldn't complain if she won't agree to give him the veto AFTER they're married
Click to expand...

So do I - but a lot of people are ****ing idiots OR change their minds after they think they've made them up.

Example: I'm pro-choice, now. My husband is pro-life. It use to be the opposite. He use to be pro-choice and I use to be pro-life.

Our experiences during the pregnancies and rearing years of our children have created a completely different view of these situations - When we had our 4th He spent a lot of time overseas missing everyone and being heartbroken while I struggled to raise the children without him between bedrest, stays in the hospital and having to rely on everyone in my family to come over and help out. It was living hell for us, here - and for him it was only emails and phone calls.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
So do I - but a lot of people are ****ing idiots OR change their minds after they think they've made them up.
Click to expand...

If the man neglects to get his wife to give him veto power, it was his decision not to pursue it.

The law is clear about this, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. If a man wants his wife to give him veto power, she can if she wants to. If she doesn't want to, then she doesn't have to. If the man doesn't like this, he can get a divorce for irreconciliable differences. Or, he can forget about having a veto and let her make the decision.
 
sangha said:
If the man neglects to get his wife to give him veto power, it was his decision not to pursue it.

The law is clear about this, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. If a man wants his wife to give him veto power, she can if she wants to. If she doesn't want to, then she doesn't have to. If the man doesn't like this, he can get a divorce for irreconciliable differences. Or, he can forget about having a veto and let her make the decision.
Click to expand...

Veto power? Just exactly what are you discussing, here?

There is no clause - anywhere - that states that your body and your life is 100% your partners when you marry and they can make medical decisions *for* you at all times.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Veto power? Just exactly what are you discussing, here?

There is no clause - anywhere - that states that your body and your life is 100% your partners when you marry and they can make medical decisions *for* you at all times.
Click to expand...

Allowing the man to decide that the woman will not have an abortion is the equivalent of giving him a veto power over the decision to abort.

The only ways that I know of for a man to have 100% control of their wifes' medical care is

1) If she grants him medical power of atty
2) He goes to court to have her declared incompetent and has himself appointed as her guardian
 
sangha said:
I expect married couples to make plans about how they would handle the situation and come to an agreement BEFORE they wed. If a man doesn't make clear his desire to have a veto on the decision before he gets married, then he shouldn't complain if she won't agree to give him the veto AFTER they're married
Click to expand...

That's just fine and dandy to have those discussions before the marriage is signed and sealed, but the fact is that women don't know until they ARE pregnant, HOW they are going to FEEL. A man watching a pregnancy doesn't know how she feels either, and you'd better not expect much sympathy.
 
Graffias said:
I made this point in another thread, but I will recap. Though I am not anti-abortion, I believe it is extremely unjust that a woman is allowed to make a unilateral decision as to whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. Though the woman carries the fetus in her body for nine months, it is the man's fetus every bit as much as it is hers.

Men are completely powerless after a woman becomes pregnant. If the woman doesn't want to become a mother, but the man has the ability and desire to raise the child by himself, the woman can still go ahead and have the abortion without his approval. If the man doesn't want to become a parent and the woman decides she wants to give birth and knows she won't have the means to support the child alone, she can basically force the man into fatherhood and years of child support.

Even if a man is not physically invested in the birth of a child, there is often a great emotional investment. And also there is a great financial investment that he may have to make if the child is born. So considering these facts, shouldn't what he wants matter as much as what she wants?
Click to expand...

A man should be given approximately 6 months to abort his responsibility to the fetus/child, once it is documented that he is likely the father.
 
OKgrannie said:
That's just fine and dandy to have those discussions before the marriage is signed and sealed, but the fact is that women don't know until they ARE pregnant, HOW they are going to FEEL. A man watching a pregnancy doesn't know how she feels either, and you'd better not expect much sympathy.
Click to expand...

Sure. Nothing is for certain. People change. And nothing is perfect.

That's what divorce is for. If one spouse finds that their opinion on a matter of grave importance to their family is changing, they should talk about it with their spouse, no? This way, it doesn't become a surprise if an unplanned pregnancy occurs.

Imagine a woman who

1) is pro-choice
2) Does not want any more children
3) Who has told her husband (after their last child was born) that if she gets pregnant she'l have an abortion
4) thinks her husband is pro-choice (because he was when they married but he hasn't told her that he's changed her mind)

Now imagine this woman gets pregnant, tells her husband, and he demands that she keep the child. If I were that woman, I would just tell him "If you didn't want me to have an abortion, why didn't you tell me? We could have taken more stringent precautions to prevent a pregnancy. For example, you could have yourself sterilized"

If the man doesn't get his way in this situation, it's his own fault. The wife made her position clear. She acted responsible. The husband did not. I don't see why such a man should be given the power to prevent an abortion
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
Sure. Nothing is for certain. People change. And nothing is perfect.

That's what divorce is for. If one spouse finds that their opinion on a matter of grave importance to their family is changing, they should talk about it with their spouse, no? This way, it doesn't become a surprise if an unplanned pregnancy occurs.

Imagine a woman who

1) is pro-choice
2) Does not want any more children
3) Who has told her husband (after their last child was born) that if she gets pregnant she'l have an abortion
4) thinks her husband is pro-choice (because he was when they married but he hasn't told her that he's changed her mind)

Now imagine this woman gets pregnant, tells her husband, and he demands that she keep the child. If I were that woman, I would just tell him "If you didn't want me to have an abortion, why didn't you tell me? We could have taken more stringent precautions to prevent a pregnancy. For example, you could have yourself sterilized"

If the man doesn't get his way in this situation, it's his own fault. The wife made her position clear. She acted responsible. The husband did not. I don't see why such a man should be given the power to prevent an abortion
Click to expand...

No man should ever be given the power to prevent an abortion regardless of any previous agreements. In fact it is not possible to give a man that power since women will if necessary just have an abortion without telling him. A man gets his "say" which doesn't come with any power to enforce his "say."
 
Graffias said:
I made this point in another thread, but I will recap. Though I am not anti-abortion, I believe it is extremely unjust that a woman is allowed to make a unilateral decision as to whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. Though the woman carries the fetus in her body for nine months, it is the man's fetus every bit as much as it is hers.

Men are completely powerless after a woman becomes pregnant. If the woman doesn't want to become a mother, but the man has the ability and desire to raise the child by himself, the woman can still go ahead and have the abortion without his approval. If the man doesn't want to become a parent and the woman decides she wants to give birth and knows she won't have the means to support the child alone, she can basically force the man into fatherhood and years of child support.

Even if a man is not physically invested in the birth of a child, there is often a great emotional investment. And also there is a great financial investment that he may have to make if the child is born. So considering these facts, shouldn't what he wants matter as much as what she wants?
Click to expand...

Until the technology exists to allow a ZEF to be removed from the woman's body at any point and grown to term in an artificial womb, then I cannot support a man being able to prevent a woman from having an abortion if she chooses to.

Once that technology is available though, then yes, I do believe that a woman shouldn't be allowed to abort without the man's agreement. If she doesn't want the child and he does, then it will be removed (live) from her body, and grown to term artificially. That way, he gets the child, and she doesn't have to carry it to term if she doesn't want to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom