• 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!

How do you feel about men’s versus woman’s rights to their babies?

What about men’s versus woman’s rights to their babies? Select all that apply

  • Regardless of the woman’s choice, men should choose whether their baby will be born or not

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • A woman should be able to choose whether to give birth or not, regardless of the man’s choice

    Votes: 16 48.5%

  • If the man doesn’t want a baby, he should be able to choose whether to give financial support or not

    Votes: 18 54.5%

  • I am “pro-choice” (I think women should be able to choose to abort their babies if they want to)

    Votes: 19 57.6%

  • I am "pro-life" (against abortion)

    Votes: 8 24.2%
  • Total voters
    33
naturalrights said:
Except that a vasectomy is much more expensive than an early term abortion and it does more damage to the reproductive system than an abortion does. In addition, most women who are trying to get pregnant or who do not use birth control, have miscarriages without even knowing it. Often the woman thinks she is having a "heavy" period when it is actually a still birth. Around 50% of pregnancies are naturally miscarried. Therefore, an early term abortion (the (equivalent to an early term miscarriage) is much less painful, a far less risky and a much less expensive procedure and is far less potentially damaging to the reproductive system than a vasectomy is. Clearly, in trying to keep things fair, a vasectomy and an abortion are not at all comparable.
Click to expand...

So what? It's not my problem
 
naturalrights said:
In regard to your "abstinence" argument, if abstinence is a legal form of birth control for a man, it is also a legal form of birth control for a woman. Therefore, if both create a fertilized egg, both are equally responsible for the child.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I said, so why are you disagreeing with me?

As long as abortion is legal, it is only fair for the father to at least have a say in whether he will support the child financially (if the mother decides to keep the baby), since he cannot choose whether or not to keep his child.
Click to expand...

The fathers irresponsibility in not using BC does not absolve him of his responsibility for caring for any child produced by said irresponsibility. His failure to use BC does not give him the right to force a woman to use BC.


I am curious .. are you for or against abortion?

This is a relevant question, because if you are against abortion, then the above reasoning would not apply. However, if you are for abortion, the above reasoning is sound. Simply put, using the above mentioned reasoning, the mother keeps her right to choose (abort or birth) and the father keeps his right to choose as well (support (financially) or not support the mother's decision to birth the baby). I don't see how this is not fair .. it seems like the most logical and reasonable compromise available to us currently.
Click to expand...

So you think that logic and reason change depending on who is talking?

That is illogical nonsense
 
Having an 8 month daughter and paying child support, while giving her mother more money and buying my daughter stuff here and there while saving for her future I think men need to be men and take care of their child. If you would like for them not to, then they should be listed on some site similar to child molesters showing they are pos dads.

Her mother isn't very fair sometimes and does a lot to make it hard on me sometimes but every man needs to be a man and take care of their children as much as humanly possible. As for abortion it is a horrible thing and should only be used when someone can be medically harmed.
 
sangha said:
The fathers irresponsibility in not using BC does not absolve him of his responsibility for caring for any child produced by said irresponsibility. His failure to use BC does not give him the right to force a woman to use BC.
Click to expand...

I don't I said anything about forcing a woman to use birth control .. try reading what I said again.

sangha said:
So you think that logic and reason change depending on who is talking?

That is illogical nonsense
Click to expand...

Its O.K. if you don't understand .. it wasn't a big part of the point anyway. I was just saying that the argument would look differently if you were pro-life that's all.
 
naturalrights said:
I don't I said anything about forcing a woman to use birth control .. try reading what I said again.
Click to expand...

Using the threat of not paying child support if they don't have an abortion is coercive birth control.

Its O.K. if you don't understand .. it wasn't a big part of the point anyway. I was just saying that the argument would look differently if you were pro-life that's all.
Click to expand...

I understand the flaws in your argument, but I don't blame you from walk away from your flawed argument.

And of course I would look at the argument differently if I were ignorant and clueless enough to be a pro-lifer
 
sangha said:
Using the threat of not paying child support if they don't have an abortion is coercive birth control.
Click to expand...

It's coercive, but not "coercive birth control". It is the father exercising his rights. Again, no one is forcing the mother to do anything to her body.

sangha said:
I understand the flaws in your argument, but I don't blame you from walk away from your flawed argument.
Click to expand...

You answered your own misunderstanding (see below)

sangha said:
And of course I would look at the argument differently if I were ignorant and clueless enough to be a pro-lifer
Click to expand...

This is all I was saying .. don't know why that's so hard to understand or something to get in a tizzy about.
 
Last edited:
naturalrights said:
It's coercive, but not "coercive birth control". It is the father exercising his rights.
Click to expand...

A lie which is why you can't post anything that proves that a father has such a "right". It doesn't exist and it is dishonest to insist that it does

You answered your own misunderstanding (see below)
Click to expand...

Nope.


This is all I was saying .. don't know why that's so hard to understand or something to get in a tizzy about.
Click to expand...

Again, no. Do you really expect anyone to believe you were making an argument from a position that even you admit is flawed?

Maybe that's why you have to impute an emotional (ie "tizzy") to me. It just shows you lack any argument to make
 
sangha said:
A lie which is why you can't post anything that proves that a father has such a "right". It doesn't exist and it is dishonest to insist that it does
Click to expand...

You say no, I say yes ... oh well

sangha said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

Yep :)

sangha said:
Again, no. Do you really expect anyone to believe you were making an argument from a position that even you admit is flawed?

Maybe that's why you have to impute an emotional (ie "tizzy") to me. It just shows you lack any argument to make
Click to expand...

Umm .. when did I admit it was flawed again? Are you seeing things? :)
 
naturalrights said:
You say no, I say yes ... oh well
Click to expand...

I posted links proving that men have no such rights. You just post lies about mythical rights and claim it is true...oh well



Yep :)
Click to expand...

Nope


Umm .. when did I admit it was flawed again? Are you seeing things? :)
Click to expand...

I already told you that I don't blame you for walking away from your own words so don't get in a tizzy about it
 
sangha said:
I posted links proving that men have no such rights. You just post lies about mythical rights and claim it is true...oh well
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? What links? If you are talking about current policy and calling that proof .. you clearly do not understand that something being a law does not make it right.

sangha said:
I already told you that I don't blame you for walking away from your own words so don't get in a tizzy about it
Click to expand...

When did I walk away again and what did I walk away from?
 
naturalrights said:
What are you talking about? What links? If you are talking about current policy and calling that proof .. you clearly do not understand that something being a law does not make it right.
Click to expand...

If you can't keep up with what has been posted several times, it is not my fault; it is yours. I have posted proof that there is no such right, not just now, but never

And I'm still waiting for you to post some evidence to support your claims, and not just additional claims.

When did I walk away again and what did I walk away from?
Click to expand...

No need to get in a tizzy about it.
 
sangha said:
If you can't keep up with what has been posted several times, it is not my fault; it is yours. I have posted proof that there is no such right, not just now, but never

And I'm still waiting for you to post some evidence to support your claims, and not just additional claims.

No need to get in a tizzy about it.
Click to expand...

Again, you clearly do not understand that something being a law does not make it right .. I think even you know this as you have argued against laws in some of your other posts.
 
naturalrights said:
Again, you clearly do not understand that something being a law does not make it right .. I think even you know this as you have argued against laws in some of your other posts.
Click to expand...

And you clearly do not understand the difference between "the law" and "a law"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom