• 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

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
34
Reaction score
11
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I have seen a good thread with some good arguments surrounding the issue of men’s rights versus women’s rights to their babies. Should a man have rights to their baby? If so, to what degree should the rights come into play? Should a man be able to force a woman to have his baby? Should a man be forced to pay child support for a baby he stated that he did not want? If you are against abortion, this may not be the best argument to partake in; perhaps a separate poll and or thread can be created to debate “pro-choice” versus “pro-life”. However, if you are able to work within the framework of abortion being legal, feel free to join in.
 
Last edited:
I have seen a good thread with some good arguments surround the issue of men’s rights versus women’s rights to their babies. Should a man have rights to their baby? If so, to what degree should the rights come into play? Should a man be able to force a woman to have his baby? Should a man be forced to pay child support for a baby he stated that he did not want? If you are against abortion, this may not be the best argument to partake in; perhaps a separate poll and or thread can be created to debate “pro-choice” versus “pro-life”. However, if you are able to work within the framework of abortion being legal, feel free to join in.

If you're talking only about the decision to abort or not, why start a whole new thread when one already exists? And if you're talking about more than abortion, then can you say what you are talking about? I have no idea what you mean by "rights to their baby". Custody rights? Visitation?
 
If you're talking only about the decision to abort or not, why start a whole new thread when one already exists? And if you're talking about more than abortion, then can you say what you are talking about? I have no idea what you mean by "rights to their baby". Custody rights? Visitation?

Sorry, sangha, I hope the poll clears your questions up for you. Mainly I wanted to see what people would vote for; of course a little discussion in another venue never hurts either. :)

By rights I am referring to the following considerations: (if anyone else knows of any other related rights, feel free to bring them up)

Should a man be forced to pay child support for a baby he stated that he did not want?

and ...

Should a man be able to force a woman to have his baby?
 
Last edited:
You've left out what I believe is an important option. If a lady and I had consensual sex and it resulted in her getting pregnant, we should have equal rights to the child. The best case scenario is us both wanting the child. However, if only one party wants the child then the other should not be allowed to deny the child's birth. In particular, I'm speaking out for the case in which the father wants the child. While many argue that the female should have the right to choose because she has to deal with the pregnancy, I argue that both parties made the decision to take the risk in having sex.
 
You've left out what I believe is an important option. If a lady and I had consensual sex and it resulted in her getting pregnant, we should have equal rights to the child. The best case scenario is us both wanting the child. However, if only one party wants the child then the other should not be allowed to deny the child's birth. In particular, I'm speaking out for the case in which the father wants the child. While many argue that the female should have the right to choose because she has to deal with the pregnancy, I argue that both parties made the decision to take the risk in having sex.

So essentially, you agree with option number 1? i.e. :"Regardless of the woman’s choice, men should choose whether their baby will be born or not"

This is essentially what you are saying since, if the mother does not want to give birth to the child and the father does want the child, the person who does want the child wins the battle .. is that correct? And your argument as to why this should be is because the two have already chosen to play by these rules since they had sex?

Are you for or against abortion? For example, lets say both decide they do not want the child .. should they be able to abort the child?

Finally .. if only one party wants the child and thus the child is born, does the financial obligation to the child fall to that person alone? Or to both parents?

Just trying to understand where you are coming from ..
 
Last edited:
Sorry, sangha, I hope the poll clears your questions up for you. Mainly I wanted to see what people would vote for; of course a little discussion in another venue never hurts either. :)

By rights I am referring to the following considerations: (if anyone else knows of any other related rights, feel free to bring them up)



and ...

Ahhh, I didnt see the poll before. I'll go and answer it now. Thanks

on edit: Choice 2 & 4 seem to me to be the same. I went with 4
 
Last edited:
I voted for the middle three...
 
I voted for the middle three...

Yeah that's what I am thinking too .. it seems to be the most fair ruling. This way the mother can have control of her body without affecting the father's rights.
 
If the father wants to avoid the risk of paying for his child then he shouldn't have sex.
 
So essentially, you agree with option number 1? i.e. :"Regardless of the woman’s choice, men should choose whether their baby will be born or not"

This is essentially what you are saying since, if the mother does not want to give birth to the child and the father does want the child, the person who does want the child wins the battle .. is that correct? And your argument as to why this should be is because the two have already chosen to play by these rules since they had sex?

Are you for or against abortion? For example, lets say both decide they do not want the child .. should they be able to abort the child?

Finally .. if one of the party's wants the child and thus the child is born, does the financial obligation to the child fall to that person alone? Or to both parents?

Just trying to understand where you are coming from ..

Read #1 again, because what I said clearly does not match that answer. I said that if EITHER parent wants the child then the baby should be born. So, if only the mother wants the child then this case is not the man making the decision.

My argument behind this approach is simple. If reproduction was not the intended purpose of the intercourse, then BOTH are taking the risk of pregnancy. Unless we're talking about rape, then this was a mutual decision. Similarly, the child bears the DNA of BOTH parents. So I argue that neither parent has the right to deny the other parent THEIR child.

I am neither for nor against abortion. I'm also open to different solutions in handling the financial details. However, I am about taking responsibility for your own actions.
 
Read #1 again, because what I said clearly does not match that answer. I said that if EITHER parent wants the child then the baby should be born. So, if only the mother wants the child then this case is not the man making the decision.

You are right, I should have had the option "If one party wants to have the baby, the baby should be born without interference"

(for some reason I thought I had put that option in there, but I stand corrected; thanks for picking up on that)

My argument behind this approach is simple. If reproduction was not the intended purpose of the intercourse, then BOTH are taking the risk of pregnancy. Unless we're talking about rape, then this was a mutual decision. Similarly, the child bears the DNA of BOTH parents. So I argue that neither parent has the right to deny the other parent THEIR child.

I can see where you are coming from on this point .. although I disagree, i.e. I think the mother should be able to decide what she wants to do with her body and since the baby is in her body, she should be able to decide whether she gives birth or not .. however I agree with option number 3 i.e. : "If the man doesn’t want a baby, he should be able to choose whether to give financial support or not"

(just so you know, I chose options 2, 3 & 4)

I am neither for nor against abortion.

So you are leaving the decision up to the parents? If this is correct are you not, in a way, "pro-choice"? For example, lets say both decide they do not want the child .. should they be able to decide to abort the child?

Of course you know my answer is yes as if only the mother wanted to abort the child, I would say she has the choice to do so.

I'm also open to different solutions in handling the financial details.

Like what kind of details? Lets say one party wants to have the child and the other doesn't .. who should be financially responsible for the child? Both parties? Or only the person who wanted the child?

However, I am about taking responsibility for your own actions.

What would this mean in terms of law?
 
Her body, her choice, her responsibility...
 
Note that the baby being in the mother's body is not a choice. The father, no matter how badly he wants the child, can't offer to take over the pregnancy. Face it, there are gender roles which are unavoidable. This is something fair to expect a woman to know and comprehend by the time she has sex.

My take on abortion depends highly on the circumstances. I'd much rather see an abortion versus a child born and suffering due to a drug addicted mother. However, I'd usually prefer a child born and well cared for.

I would say both parents should be financially responsible for a child. How much each contributes should be a formula based on how often they have custody, especially when they both want custody.

Ultimately, not just with sex but with many issues, I find the typical American careless when it comes to thinking before they act. How hard is it to analyze the potential outcomes of most actions? If something is a consequence of your actions then take responsibility. If you're unwilling to care for or financially support a child then keep it in your pants! Granted, this is coming from a man whose biological father denied him at birth. Therefore, I resented my father for not taking responsibility. Lacking a man worthy of the title Dad in my life, I look forward to that title more than almost any other man. That's one reason I feel so strongly about the idea of a woman choosing to abort a kid who came from me.
 
Her body, her choice, her responsibility...

This sums me up pretty well.

Obviously it's ideal if the man and woman can come to an agreement about what to do. But failing that, the choice of whether or not to continue the pregnancy always defaults to the woman, and so does the responsibility to make sure her decision is feasible without forcing the man to do anything. If it's her choice, it's also her responsibility to make a workable choice.

I voted pro-choice, woman's choice, and men should not be forced into financial support.
 
If the father wants to avoid the risk of paying for his child then he shouldn't have sex.

Not as long as the woman has the right to chose unilaterally.
 
I am in opposition to abortion in almost all cases. The only exceptions would be situations where the woman did not consent to the sexual act that initiated the pregnancy and cases where the pregnancy causes an immediate and very likely risk of death to the mother. I have always been of the belief that the moment two adults consent to commit a sexual act which COULD result in pregnancy, that both adults have also consented to potentially becoming parents.

To that end, I am of the opinion that any male who conceives a child should be at least 50% responsible for the financial needs of that child from the moment of conception until at least the child's 18th birthday. He should also be responsible for some portion of the financial needs of the woman who is taking care of that child during that same period. So long as he is meeting the financial needs of the child and mother; poses no physical, psychological, or moral risk to the child; and it is reasonably feasible to facilitate he should be granted visitation to that child on a regular basis. IF the mother is unfit to tend to the child, it should be the responsibility of the father to take over the care of the child. IF the mother does not with the father to be involved in the child's life other than with sufficient cause, she should give up all financial support from the father of the child.
 
I am in opposition to abortion in almost all cases. The only exceptions would be situations where the woman did not consent to the sexual act that initiated the pregnancy and cases where the pregnancy causes an immediate and very likely risk of death to the mother. I have always been of the belief that the moment two adults consent to commit a sexual act which COULD result in pregnancy, that both adults have also consented to potentially becoming parents.

To that end, I am of the opinion that any male who conceives a child should be at least 50% responsible for the financial needs of that child from the moment of conception until at least the child's 18th birthday. He should also be responsible for some portion of the financial needs of the woman who is taking care of that child during that same period. So long as he is meeting the financial needs of the child and mother; poses no physical, psychological, or moral risk to the child; and it is reasonably feasible to facilitate he should be granted visitation to that child on a regular basis. IF the mother is unfit to tend to the child, it should be the responsibility of the father to take over the care of the child. IF the mother does not with the father to be involved in the child's life other than with sufficient cause, she should give up all financial support from the father of the child.

This is one of the few times I agree with you. In my sig, I'm pro-abortion, but like you, I only favor it when the mother didn't consent to the sexual act that initiated the pregnancy, and when the pregnancy is a potentially huge threat to the mother's health
 
I am unqualified to vote in this poll until such a time that I can become pregnant.
 
Unfortunately, there is something inherently wrong in asking a woman to sacrifice her body for 9 months simply because the man wants a child that the woman does not want. So yeah, his desires cannot override hers in that instance. At the same time, I've always been a proponent of allowing EITHER parent to sign away their parental rights and financial obligations, but I would stipulate that there must be a time line (say, within 1 week of birth) for those decisions to be made. Reversal of such decisions at a later date would be contingent upon a mutual agreement and some sort of financial obligation retroactive to the child's birth for the absentee parent.

...
 
Last edited:
I voted for the middle three...

So did I. Whether or not to continue a pregnancy is a woman's choice, but if the man doesn't want children and the woman does, he should also be able to opt out in the beginning. However, he shouldn't be able to simply walk away once the child is older.
 
This sums me up pretty well.

Obviously it's ideal if the man and woman can come to an agreement about what to do. But failing that, the choice of whether or not to continue the pregnancy always defaults to the woman, and so does the responsibility to make sure her decision is feasible without forcing the man to do anything. If it's her choice, it's also her responsibility to make a workable choice.

I voted pro-choice, woman's choice, and men should not be forced into financial support.

NM, that's a broad brush statement above...

I love you, baby. I will be your man forever. I'll be there for you no matter what cuz I just love you so much. "NOW, GET THEM BRITCHES OFF"!

WHAT? Your pregnant!

That's bull****, you must have ****ed somebody else. That's not my kid. **** you, I'm out of here!

The man still shouldn't have to pay child support?
 
So did I. Whether or not to continue a pregnancy is a woman's choice, but if the man doesn't want children and the woman does, he should also be able to opt out in the beginning. However, he shouldn't be able to simply walk away once the child is older.

Why should he be able to just walk away? He wasn't interested in walking away from the act that created the child, why should he be able to just walk away from the child that was created? I'm not saying he has to be actively involved in the kid's life. In fact I think a lot of these kids would be better off if their dads weren't involved in their lives. However, there is still a financial responsibility there that should be required to be maintained.

The idea that I can get a woman pregnant and simply say... "I don't want the kid. I'll sign away my rights and then not be financially responsible." is disgusting to me. The idea that any Man would do something like that is just unthinkable. Of couse we have a lot of little boys masquerading as Men these days.
 
Why should he be able to just walk away? He wasn't interested in walking away from the act that created the child, why should he be able to just walk away from the child that was created? I'm not saying he has to be actively involved in the kid's life. In fact I think a lot of these kids would be better off if their dads weren't involved in their lives. However, there is still a financial responsibility there that should be required to be maintained.

The idea that I can get a woman pregnant and simply say... "I don't want the kid. I'll sign away my rights and then not be financially responsible." is disgusting to me. The idea that any Man would do something like that is just unthinkable. Of couse we have a lot of little boys masquerading as Men these days.

If a woman can end the pregnancy, it's only fair to allow the man a similar choice. What if he's not ready to be a father? As someone who experienced being abandoned as a child, I would have rather not even known the other parent at all. It was that painful.
 
Back
Top Bottom