• 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 a Man have an Absolute Right to Choose to Abort His Baby?

Should a Man have an Absolute Right to abort his baby?

  • Yes, but only during the first 20 weeks, same as a woman.

    Votes: 3 3.4%

  • Yes, but only during the initial period when a non-invasive technique works.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No, but he should have the right to be legally relieved of all responsibility.

    Votes: 44 49.4%

  • NO! Only the woman has this right and he remains responsible.

    Votes: 18 20.2%

  • I oppose all abortion, so neither have the right.

    Votes: 19 21.3%

  • I Don't Know.

    Votes: 5 5.6%
  • Total voters
    89
opendebate said:
Lake I have a million times, both have responsibility. The man and the woman because both contributed to the creation of a child. If a guy slips it in without cover he is just as responsible.
Click to expand...

And yet they don't. One has months to get out of their responsibility, while the other doesn't. It's funny how that abortion thing keeps getting in your way and yet your argument stays the same.
 
sangha said:
A male has just as much right to have an abortion as a female does. No one, male or female, has the right to interfere with another persons decision to have an abortion





No man or woman has the right to not be financially responsible for their child.
Click to expand...

I love how this view doesn't even begin to make sense. She has the right to kill her offspring, but no one has the right to walk away. Is this supposed to be a joke or do people really not realize how backwards it is?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
It's going to change?? Men are going to start carries the fetus?
Click to expand...
How cute, you pretending like you can't follow along.
Like you do not know that the one word answer of "wrong" was directed to your absurdity.
And yes, it is going to change.

So lets provide the exchange to show everybody how absurd you are being by pretending you can't follow along.

Excon said:
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Excon said:
Sheik Yerbuti said:
And again, if the man doesn't want the burden, he had his chance to back out of the deal.
Click to expand...
Only if we give him the same choice she has and not let her burden him with her choice.
Click to expand...
Which will be the case when he carries a fetus.
Click to expand...
Wrong!
It is unfair as it is and it is going to change. It is nothing more than a matter of time.
Click to expand...


Sheik Yerbuti said:
You're deluded,
Click to expand...
:naughty
No, your position that consensual sex is somehow consent to have a child, is what is deluded.
Especially if either one are using contraceptives.
Consent to have sex is not consent to have a child.


Sheik Yerbuti said:
You're deluded, nothing is going to change.
Click to expand...
Wrong! The change has already been noted in this forum alone.
It is just a matter of time.
You are deluded to think otherwise.


Sheik Yerbuti said:
Men are not going to get pregnant ...
Click to expand...
You are the only one squawking such absurdities.


Sheik Yerbuti said:
men are not going to get the option to evade their financial responsibilities.
Click to expand...
How little you know.
This isn't an evasion. This is about choice.
Those who want it will take on the responsibility, those who don't, wont have to, as there would be no responsibility to take it on.

Presently, the only responsibilities that exist, are those that were artificially created.
Created before women had the choice.
Just as they were artificially created, they can be undone.
Especially to come into line of the decision to give women that choice.
That is called progress, which I am sure you are aware of.


Sheik Yerbuti said:
You're only chance is that abortion will be outlawed, but aside from being highly unlikely, you will never be able to prevent a woman from aborting a fetus she doesn't want.
Click to expand...
Where do you come up with this ****?
Are you confused? Or is this just more of your convoluted and delusional thoughts?
Hell, it is like you do not even know what is being argued.
No one has argued such.


Sheik Yerbuti said:
You ought to coordinate a march in Washington ... the Million Deadbeat March!
Click to expand...
You clearly are seriously confused as to what is being discussed.




Jerry said:
A ZEF is never a clump. Its an organism. They're not the same. An organism is structured, a mass or clump is not.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
In the beginning, it is a clump. Also known as a mass.
As already shown.

Jerry said:
When the law debases its own authority it is void. Killing has to be justified. Not rationalised, justified, as in that person was an iminent threat to you. Whenever a killing is not justified, it is murder regardles of what the law says.

This may come as a suprise to some people but the law can be wrong.
Click to expand...
Sorry, you are still wrong.
A justification is nothing more than a rationalization for an action.


Jerry said:
Since child support is a right of the child the courts will void your contract on the grounds that parents cannot sign away their child's rights.
Click to expand...
Which is another thing that will change.
If the planet ever becomes overcrowded you can be damn sure that governments will start requiring abortions. Which really shows that what is best for the a clump of cells is subjective.
 
Unles a court has declaired you to be mentaly incompetent, you know that pregnancy is a risk of sex. By having sex you are accepting the risk of pregnancy. That's called implied consent.

Yes, when you have sex you are consenting to pregnany.
 
From conseption on the ZEF is a human organism, which means its a "person", which means killing it without justification is murder.
 
Jerry said:
Unles a court has declaired you to be mentaly incompetent, you know that pregnancy is a risk of sex. By having sex you are accepting the risk of pregnancy. That's called implied consent.

Yes, when you have sex you are consenting to pregnany.
Click to expand...
Which is irrelevant to the the argument about fairness and choice.

But since you think it is, please provide a SCOTUS ruling saying so.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
From conseption on the ZEF is a human organism, which means its a "person", which means killing it without justification is murder.
Click to expand...
:doh
It doesn't mean any such thing.
 
Jerry said:
Hold up.

You seriously don't see how giving consent is relevant to choice?
Click to expand...
You hold up.
The argument is that she gets a choice which may burden him.
That is not fair. And she should not be able to place a burden on anybody but herself.
So to make it fair, he should have the same effective right to choice.

And consenting to sex is not consent to have a child.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Circular arguments have no value is a discourse. Please try again.

I don't think men are "powerless," I know this for a fact. All a man can do is try to persuade a woman to engage in sex. The law already prevents him from forcing her.

Women are well-aware that any male they allow to pass their "heavenly gates" is only there on a "visitors pass." Whatever he leaves might end up "trespassing" in there. So it is up to her to control visitation rights.

There are no two ways around it. The WOMAN has absolute control; whether or not she completely surrenders it is up to her.
Click to expand...

No, you don't know that for a fact. Perhaps you speak from personal experience, so it's a fact for you, but that's not how it is for everyone.
 
Excon said:
You hold up.
Click to expand...
Held.

The argument is that she gets a choice which may burden him.
Click to expand...
That's not an argument, that's just a fact.

That is not fair.
Click to expand...
Of course it is. The man deligates his authority in the matter to her with the act of sex. His sperm is legaly considered a gift. The only way a man can retain control is by refusing to deligate that power in the first place: abstonence.

Even with a vasectomy and condoms there is still a small risk.

If you don't want an outcome, don't assume the risk.

If you give her the keys to your car she may wrek it. If you aren't ready to deal with that then don't give her the keys. Duh! Common sense.
 
Last edited:
Sheik Yerbuti said:
No, you don't know that for a fact. Perhaps you speak from personal experience, so it's a fact for you, but that's not how it is for everyone.
Click to expand...

Please provide a counter-example in the USA where consensual sex is NOT under the control of the woman; i.e. where it is not up to her whether or not to require the man to use contraception.
 
Captain Adverse said:
That's right it takes TWO. Yet only ONE gets to decide? Sorry does not fly.
Click to expand...
WTF?? How is it men don't get to decide? You think men, in general, have stronger urges for sex than women?
 
Captain Adverse said:
Please provide a counter-example in the USA where consentual sex is NOT under the control of the woman; i.e. where it is not up to her whether or not to require the man to use contraception.
Click to expand...
Please don't spin my words into something I didn't say. I didn't say it's not up to the woman. I said it's up to both.
 
Jerry said:
That's not an argument, that's just a fact.
Click to expand...
:doh
Really dude? You really think you are saying something that isn't known?
You don't understand that is stating the framework for which the following argument is based on and/or arguing against?


Jerry said:
Of course it is.
Click to expand...
Of course it isn't fair. If it was there would be no complaints.


Jerry said:
The man deligates his authority in the matter to her with the act of sex.
Click to expand...
No he doesn't.


Jerry said:
His sperm is legaly considered a gift.
Click to expand...
And as a gift it is all hers.
He is not responsible for what she does with it. Nor should he ever be.
Her choices should never effect him.


Jerry said:
The only way a man can retain control is by refusing to deligate that power in the first place: abstonence.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter.
Consent to sex, is not consent to children.



Jerry said:
Even with a vasectomy and condoms there is still a small risk.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.
 
Excon said:
And as a gift it is all hers.
He is not responsible for what she does with it. Nor should he ever be.
Her choices should never effect him.
Click to expand...
Until there's a child born from it, then there's 3 people involved.

Consent to sex is consent to have a child.
 
Surtr said:
It's an issue that is far more complex than anything partisan hackery can cover.
Click to expand...
Not really. This argument stems from Conservatives' frustration over abortion. They [in general] prefer abortion would be outlawed; but failing miserably to accomplish that, they fall back on plan 'B' -- which is to punish the child (and the mother) because she can get an abortion and they are helpless to stop it.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Should a man have an absolute right to have his baby aborted?

In the alternative, should he be granted relief from all legal responsibility if it is his clearly stated wish to abort but the woman decides not to?

Let me preface my remarks with this disclaimer; I am Pro-Choice and I support a woman’s absolute right to choose to have an abortion for several reasons, including the fact it is the woman who must endure the pregnancy to carry the child to term, and then follows the lifelong responsibility to raise and care for any child born.

The dilemma occurs when the woman unilaterally decides to have the baby, even when the male does not wish to accept that long-term responsibility.

In a recent news report, a young man was so desperate not to have a child that he tricked his girlfriend into taking a morning after pill. Now I do not support or condone this action, but it does bring up the thesis issue for me…why does the male partner have no say in a decision to keep the baby?

When a woman makes the unilateral decision to keep the baby this then compels lifelong legal and emotional obligations on the part of the unwilling father. This creates resentment and recriminations in both parties. By attempting to force the man to marry and/or support both her and the child this only serves to create a negative environment for all concerned, especially for any child to grow up in.

Since we now have a simple method of aborting in the early stages of the first trimester, without needing an invasive surgery, why should the absolute choice to keep the baby reside with the mother? If it does, why can’t the man be legally relieved of further responsibility to both parties?

I have offered several voting options, please pick and then explain what do you think? I am especially interested in arguments for why the woman has the sole right to keep the child while making the man permanently responsible.
Click to expand...

I voted yes. But my position is, as always, more complex.

Men should have that right for as long as all options remain open to the woman. In other words, they have the same timeframe to make their respective decisions. The woman has time to consider what she will do if she cannot get support from the man.

I am also open to conditional "paper abortions," dependent on paternity testing. The woman knows whether there's a risk it isn't his genetically, so she can make that decision whether it's a risk or not. However, this does NOT mean he can go back when the kid is 10, finds out it isn't his genetically, and sign away rights. At that point, he is a father to that kid, and the child's well-being must be considered at that point. It must be done under the same timeline as the above, and the test must be performed immediately upon birth.

This all needs to be lined up with legally binding contracts that can be executed quickly with safeguards for both partners in the case of manipulation or avoidance of signature.

I believe this because I do believe women have a unilateral right to their body which is simply a rule of the nature of human reproduction. Fair? No. But it's reality, and at present, there is no way to make reality fair.

As such, the man should have a right to dictate the use of his finances, and his life, and how he reacts to a woman's unilateral decision. That is his right.

The woman has every right to decide unilaterally keep the child, as long a she understands this does not entitle her to support from the man.

I see all reproductive choices as a right; contraception, abortion, adopting out or in, keeping a child, etc. But a vital component of rights of choice is responsibility.

To say women have an absolute right, but no responsibility, is to imply women are basically children, and men are just tools.
 
Last edited:
Sheik Yerbuti said:
WTF?? How is it men don't get to decide? You think men, in general, have stronger urges for sex than women?
Click to expand...

Next time you ask a question where the answer has already been provided, please make sure you quote the entire comment. The answer was already provided to you in that quoted response, and the OP has also made the issue clear.

If after all the discussion that has gone on you still remain confused, perhaps rereading will clarify it for you? :)
 
Kinda sucks to see so many guys in favor of abdicating their responsibility. I'd starve before I let my kid starve. It's also curious to see pro-choicers being ok with financially coercing a woman into making the "choice" he wants her to make.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
The women seemed to get their rights without calling themselves "the women that want to kill their offspring". Why would this be different?
Click to expand...
Well for one, women were seeking protection over their own bodies; whereas the Million Deadbeat March is about men protecting their own wallets.
 
X Factor said:
Kinda bummed here to see so many guys in favor of abdicating their responsibility. I'd starve before I let my kid starve. It's also curious to see pro-choicers being ok with financially coercing a woman into making the "choice" he wants her to make.
Click to expand...

Not all of us are. Me, for example.

It isn't terribly surprising men are more in favor of this. Not because they are men, but because of how the real-world discussion of rights always works.

This is something that uniquely affects men, in most cases. Thus they are more sympathetic to it. Same reason the majority of pro-choicers are women.

As to why more women may be against it, again, it's a predictable human reaction that occurs in most discussions of rights: most people want rights without responsibility.
 
X Factor said:
Kinda to see so many guys in favor of abdicating their responsibility. I'd starve before I let my kid starve. It's also curious to see pro-choicers being ok with financially coercing a woman into making the "choice" he wants her to make.
Click to expand...

It's not coercion to refuse to be coerced.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Well for one, women were seeking protection over their own bodies; whereas the Million Deadbeat March is about men protecting their own wallets.
Click to expand...
And in the middle are all the children neither side cares about.

That's why both prochoice and prolife are wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom