• 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
Befor making the 'in my house' analogy, ask yourself if you really want to go down the road of squatters rights, eminent domain and right-of-way.

You cannot just kick your born child out of your house. That is illegal. So by default that argument is against you.

If you do want to go down that road, then were first going to want to verify that the woman's body meets local code, and if it doesn't (ie she's out of shape or ill) then were going to revoke her body's habitability certificet, close it and have it demolished.

Just think about what you say before you say it.
 
I don't disagree with anything you've said here - my point, in a brief and flippant way, was that the state will never pass a law that makes it more likely that the state will become financially responsible for a child. We can discuss the exceptions to the rule and I don't belittle any single woman who chooses to keep her child, but the evidence would be pretty clear that most single mothers today are reliant in some part on the state for assistance in the financial responsibilities of child rearing. A single father would likely be no different. It's why governments all over the western world set up offices that garnishee wages from men reluctant to pay their child support so that they can ensure fewer tax dollars are spent helping that child mature and why in extreme cases they'll imprison a father who fails to pay.

Ah, ok.

And what's interesting about the whole thing is that, in many cases where the custodial parent both gets support and assistance, the child support payer pays directly to the government, not the custodial parent, where some of the payment is then kept for the government. Basically, it's reducing the effectiveness of child support to an even lower level than it already is and creating more of a need for the welfare state.

It's one of the many ways in which there is a welfare mindset. And to be clear, I don't think the mere existence of welfare creates a welfare state. We had welfare for many decades without the kind of entitlement climate that we have today.

What it is, I think, is the lack of emphasis on empowerment for ones own choices. We talk about responsibility in the context of punishment so often, in everything from the abortion debate to employment. There's no pride or empowerment in rising to the occasion.
 
Ah, ok.

And what's interesting about the whole thing is that, in many cases where the custodial parent both gets support and assistance, the child support payer pays directly to the government, not the custodial parent, where some of the payment is then kept for the government. Basically, it's reducing the effectiveness of child support to an even lower level than it already is and creating more of a need for the welfare state.

It's one of the many ways in which there is a welfare mindset. And to be clear, I don't think the mere existence of welfare creates a welfare state. We had welfare for many decades without the kind of entitlement climate that we have today.

What it is, I think, is the lack of emphasis on empowerment for ones own choices. We talk about responsibility in the context of punishment so often, in everything from the abortion debate to employment. There's no pride or empowerment in rising to the occasion.

Again, I agree. Perhaps you're left with the impression that I don't think a man should be able to forfeit all rights/responsibilities to a pregancy he opposes - I don't have any objection to that - it does seem fair - I just don't think it will ever be legislated for the reasons stated. Being a man, I'm not worried about women having this particular biological advantage considering that men have a multitude of their own biological advantages and no man can ever claim to be duped into an unwanted pregnancy - that's just a non-started with me.
 
I did see that suggestion. The problem is it would not work, because as other members have stated many courts hold that "the needs of the child trump the desires of the father." That's the basis of the case Minnie616 posted; where a lesbian couple placed an ad for a sperm donor so they could have a child. A sperm donor provided a "sample" but the lesbian couple later broke up. Now the "mother" is suing the sperm donor for child support. There may well be other cases where "sperm donors" have been held accountable in state courts for child support, I don't know. But unless there is some legal recourse created, currently even your idea would not work.

It would be nice though. :)

Actually in the article I posted the state was suing the sperm donor for child support so that the state would not have to support the child.

The mother had a signed a contract that the sperm donor had given up parental rights.
 
Repeating the dumbest post I ever read on this forum does not make it any wiser. And I didn't take your words out of context. I quoted your post and addressed it.

I'll address it again since you didn't understand the first time.

Excluding cases were either the man or the woman is incapable of producing a child, pregnancy is always a risk of sex. That makes having a child consensual even if unintended.

I get what Excon is saying. I get what you're saying. However, the language by Excon is...well, not technically correct...and your post not isn't "technically correct.

Men and women who have sex can agree that a sexual event is intended for pleasure only...and not for conception. But when the "unintended" happens there is an order of events.

First...fertilization...then a zygote, then a blastocyst, then an embryo, then a non-viable fetus, then a variably developed fetus...then fully mature fetus ready to give birth to.

Consequently...

Ex's comment should have been..."consent to sex isn't consent to conception".

Your claim "Excluding cases were either the man or the woman is incapable of producing a child, pregnancy is always a risk of sex"....should therefore read..."That makes conception consensual even if unintended."

My point is: At the very most...having sex would only make conception consensual...not "having children". And I'm not implying that I agree with that. I'm only trying to bring out the technical point.

Ultimately...current laws are....

A woman, can at will, without the consent of a man, have an abortion, of course complying with the boundaries of Roe v. Wade's viability provision. There is no standing legal recourse for a man that would automatically render her "choice" impotent.

My question to you is: I see your "exclusions" but, how does your "that makes conception consensual even if unintended" more true than Excon's version?

The fact is, and nothing new to you, is that sex is performed many, many more times for pleasure than procreation.

Because of the fact the fact sex is performed many, many more times for pleasure...then I believe that unless a man and woman have declared that they are purposely trying to achieve having a pregnancy, that sex is always regarded as an act of pleasure. Not the other way around.

Therefore the more intended consequence of having sex is to have an orgasm...or two...etc. And that an unintended pregnancy...is not consensual (or by agreement), but rather an unwanted consequence.

How that unwanted or unintended consequence is managed - at present day - and allowable by law - the woman can decide the fate of that conception...all by herself...within the boundaries of the law.
 
Doesn't matter.
Consent to sex, is not consent to children.

.

I agree. Consent to sex is consent to sex. It not consent to continuing a pregnancy and giving childbirth.
 
Your claim "Excluding cases were either the man or the woman is incapable of producing a child, pregnancy is always a risk of sex"....should therefore read..."That makes conception consensual even if unintended."

Which is about as silly as saying that by getting into an automobile, because there is always a risk of getting into an accident, getting into that accident is therefore consensual. So let's leave those people who get into traffic accidents bleeding by the side of the road, they knew the risks and still did it.
 
Actually in the article I posted the state was suing the sperm donor for child support so that the state would not have to support the child.

The mother had a signed a contract that the sperm donor had given up parental rights.

The basis of the legal argument for the lesbian mother's case is "public policy" which requires parents maintain financial responsibility for their children. The "sperm donor" is the male half of that "parent" equation. Currently, the argument would go, he cannot sign away his parental responsibilities. That's why she is coming after him, since her same-sex ex-partner has no legal standing.
 
?..

Which is not the same thing as a court holding one responsible under archaic child support laws because it came from their loins.
We have already seen where sperm donors have been held liable for support under these archaic laws.
Not the same thing dude, and just shows how severely you are out of your depth in discussing this issue.

Let me set the record straight.
The state of Kansas did drop their case against the erm donor. He is not liable for child support since he gave up his parental rights.
 
Entering your house does not produce a child for which you are financially liable for the next 18 years.

It might if you come in and have sex with my daughter on the couch without my knowledge and in violation of my house rules. Which is a silly response to an even sillier comment.

If you cannot understand a metaphorical example, that is not my problem. I did refer you back to the original "house on fire" analogy in my earlier post. Try that again, maybe it would help. :)
 
Which is about as silly as saying that by getting into an automobile, because there is always a risk of getting into an accident, getting into that accident is therefore consensual. So let's leave those people who get into traffic accidents bleeding by the side of the road, they knew the risks and still did it.
Its an assumed risk, yes, and is why I have both insurense and a small box in the trunk with everything from a quart of oil to a small 1st-aid kit. A small fire extinguisher is under the driver's seat, the Colt45 in the glove box.

**** happens. Be prepaired.
 
It might if you come in and have sex with my daughter on the couch without my knowledge and in violation of my house rules.


.............. :lamo

Sorry, not trying to be disrespectful to any poster's comments...but that is funny, CA...what can I else can I say?
 
.............. :lamo

Sorry, not trying to be disrespectful to any poster's comments...but that is funny, CA...what can I else can I say?

No problem. :) It was meant to be; hence the follow-on "silly" explanation. ;)
 
It takes two to tango. Both parties have the responsibility of making sure that the woman doesn't get pregnant.

It does, but since it's her body which can be affected, it is primarily her responsibility. That being said, when my boys were teenagers, I cautioned them that they would be wise to use birth control methods, as females are often not reliable and/or honest about it, and I made it pretty clear that if they trusted the girl to do so, they could easily be misled and find themselves in a bad situation.
 
From conseption on the ZEF is a human organism, which means its a "person", which means killing it without justification is murder.

Under the constitution, the govt does not have the power to protect the unborn
 
Under the constitution, the govt does not have the power to protect the unborn
It's my understanding that a so-called "absolute right" trancends local law. It's wrong to rape regardles of what your government says, for example.

I'm not turning to the government, but I'll entertain your sidebar by pointing out that the government has the power to protect all persons. See Article 1 of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment. That our government chooses not to is simply a human rights violation identical to legalized slavory, in that the government allows you to own another person as property.
 
Last edited:
It's my understanding that a so-called "absolute right" trancends local law. It's wrong to rape regardles of what your government says, for example.

I'm not turning to the government, but I'll entertain your sidebar by pointing out that the government has the power to protect all persons. That our government chooses not to is simply a human rights violation identical to legalized slavory, in that the government allows you to own another person as property.

The unborn are not "persons" and have no rights.
 
The unborn are not "persons" and have no rights.
We were just talking about this in the Feedback and Sugestions forum; people replying while the post is still being edited.
 
You want to care about the children, then do so. Don't try to force others to care about that which they do not need to.

You are the one trying to force taxpayers to pay for the child. If the father is not responsible, then a lot of times the mother will just collect welfare for herself and the child. So the choice is yours, either the father pays for his child or you let him walk away without any kind of responsibility and we all pay instead.
 
I think a better argument is he should be able to opt out of child support.
 
Back
Top Bottom