• 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
That's what it is that blows my mind about women who can't accept that they are solely responsible for their own bodies, and for what happens to their bodies (absent a case of rape or forced incest). They want the freedom and the choice, but they don't want to make sure that they are protected against unwanted pregnancy, not to mention the other risks they are taking with unprotected sex. This is junior high school grade knowledge here.

Regardless of how you personally feel about it, it happens all the time. Women are not solely responsible for a sex act because it takes two people. Simple really. Without the contribution of the male, no pregnancy would occur so you are just plain wrong. :shrug: I'm starting to wonder if you ever had sex education because this is basic biology. It takes two, and both are responsible for their actions. Condoms are available for men, and they need to start using them. They can also get diseases and make babies. The ONLY difference is that the woman incubates the child as it develops. That's IT.
 
Regardless of how you personally feel about it, it happens all the time. Women are not solely responsible for a sex act because it takes two people. Simple really. Without the contribution of the male, no pregnancy would occur so you are just plain wrong. :shrug: I'm starting to wonder if you ever had sex education because this is basic biology. It takes two, and both are responsible for their actions. Condoms are available for men, and they need to start using them. They can also get diseases and make babies. The ONLY difference is that the woman incubates the child as it develops. That's IT.

I didn't say two people aren't responsible for a sex act. I said she should be responsible for protecting herself. You and I are not going to see eye to eye on this issue. I think the woman is responsible for what happens to her body. You don't. And ne'r the twain shall meet.
 
I didn't say two people aren't responsible for a sex act. I said she should be responsible for protecting herself. You and I are not going to see eye to eye on this issue. I think the woman is responsible for what happens to her body. You don't. And ne'r the twain shall meet.

I never said she wasn't responsible. That is where you are wrong. I said he is just as responsible for his body and bodily fluids as she is. BIG difference.

Goodness lizzie, this is below you, you even bolded the part where I stated that women are not SOLELY responsible for a pregnancy, and now you try to play it off as if I said they are NOT responsible. That is dishonest, and I'm surprised.
 
I never said she wasn't responsible. That is where you are wrong. I said he is just as responsible for his body and bodily fluids as she is. BIG difference.

Goodness lizzie, this is below you, you even bolded the part where I stated that women are not SOLELY responsible for a pregnancy, and now you try to play it off as if I said they are NOT responsible. That is dishonest, and I'm surprised.

I am not being dishonest at all. The thread is about pregnancy and aborting, and fathers' rights. The bodily fluids thing is just a side issue, as unprotected sex can have other negative outcomes besides pregnancy. My point (and I will say it again) is that since the woman is the one whose body is changed, and she has the sole decision-making power, the primary responsibility lies with her.
 
I am not being dishonest at all. The thread is about pregnancy and aborting, and fathers' rights. The bodily fluids thing is just a side issue, as unprotected sex can have other negative outcomes besides pregnancy. My point (and I will say it again) is that since the woman is the one whose body is changed, and she has the sole decision-making power, the primary responsibility lies with her.

No, if a man does NOT want to have a child, then his sole responsibility is also to himself. No one here is more responsible. Both create the child and both are equally responsible for protecting themselves if they don't want children. That's all there is to it.

The dishonest part is insinuating that I stated the woman is "not" responsible, when I would never ever said anything so stupid.
 
CA...it's not about my concern for child welfare. There is a biological disparity that can't be overridden.

There is a biological disparity, the person with the greatest risk is the woman which is why it is incumbent on her to be both extremely cautious and responsible when it comes to her own body. This is exactly what Lizzie and Smoke&Mirrors are talking about. The risk of pregnancy is borne by the woman, therefore she has the greater responsibility to prevent a pregnancy from occurring.

However, some members seem to think that just by depositing sperm the male has somehow agreed to have a baby result. Nothing could be further from the truth as exemplified by the fact that even when the male WANTS the baby, the woman can simply say “NO, it’s my body and I don’t want one.”

I guess one way to look at the disparity is myopically, i.e. once a male deposits his sperm he is agreeing that whatever happens the choice is solely the woman’s from that point on. Well, some of us don't quite agree.

All of the "dysfunctional family stories", sad as some might be...it is impossible employ a public policy to coerce a woman into reacting to a conception based on someone else beliefs on when and when they should not reproduce.

Where is the coercion? The woman can still have the baby. The woman can still choose not to have the baby. The only coercion I see is that imposed upon the unwilling male, who literally has no choice.

It is possible to develop a “public policy” creating an equitable solution which empowers the female to accept responsibility for her choice to have a baby, while releasing the male who never wanted marriage and family from the get-go. As possible as all the “public policy” subsequently created after Roe v. Wade in support of a woman’s right to choose.

You have yet to outline just a simple version of what such a public policy's language would look like and how it would be enforced.

That’s because this is a hypothetical discussion including a public poll to see what kind of support the idea has. It’s not something I’ve been considering legal action on for years and years. It is merely something that has come to mind from time to time in relation to Pro-Choice; and a recent incident in the news prompted me to bring it up in the forum.

I’m not writing an actual bill, I’m simply sounding out my peers. :)

I've seen nothing but this way of controlling through coercion via a public policy as you call it. Since it's still not possible to create...

I’ve already addressed the possibility. We are not legislators engaged in discussing legislation. We are citizens gathered in a forum discussing issues of interest and concern. It is a “debate” on a particular area of the abortion issue.

I’m interested in hearing what people think. I’m arguing for my position just as you are for yours. The poll (which does not count pro-life votes because they are committed to absolute opposition, hence assume both parties MUST have a child) is to see how many people think the idea is a good one and how many think it is a bad one and why.
 
Last edited:
No, if a man does NOT want to have a child, then his sole responsibility is also to himself. No one here is more responsible. Both create the child and both are equally responsible for protecting themselves if they don't want children. That's all there is to it.

The dishonest part is insinuating that I stated the woman is "not" responsible, when I would never ever said anything so stupid.

What part of "primary" do you not get? And when is a woman not solely responsible for her own body? A man is responsible for his own body, just as she is for hers. If I have sex with someone, he is not responsible for me in the least. It is a voluntary act on my part.
 
What part of "primary" do you not get? And when is a woman not solely responsible for her own body? A man is responsible for his own body, just as she is for hers. If I have sex with someone, he is not responsible for me in the least. It is a voluntary act on my part.

Who is responsible for a child?
 
I guess it depends on who you ask. In my case, it was me.

The only problem is that under most State laws the responsibility is forcibly a shared one where the man has no "choice"...
 
Regardless of how you personally feel about it, it happens all the time. Women are not solely responsible for a sex act because it takes two people. Simple really. Without the contribution of the male, no pregnancy would occur so you are just plain wrong. :shrug: I'm starting to wonder if you ever had sex education because this is basic biology. It takes two, and both are responsible for their actions. Condoms are available for men, and they need to start using them. They can also get diseases and make babies. The ONLY difference is that the woman incubates the child as it develops. That's IT.

A woman decides if a sexual act will happen, unless as Lizzie explained, the act is rape.
If a man doesn't wear a condom, then don't ride his pony.
You really need to think before your speak.
 
Wrong.
If a woman becomes she can opt for an abortion within the parameters of Roe vs Wade which means before viability except in extreme cases.

The extreme cases are when a woman's life ,or irreparable damage to a major bodily function would occur if the pregnancy continued or when the fetus would be stillborn or when the fetus is so malformed it would only live a few minutes or hours.
Those are extreme cases.

Wrong. Doe v Bolton, released the same day as Roe v Wade, effectively did away with any such restrictions, allowing for unrestrained abortion for any reason. Only three other countries have abortion laws that allow abortion in as wide a range of circumstances as the United States - China, North Korea, and Canada.
 
The only problem is that under most State laws the responsibility is forcibly a shared one where the man has no "choice"...

Exactly, under current state law. That is a reflection of current public policy; but it has not always been public policy just as it has not in all instances always been state law. Laws can be changed.
 
Please, more "it's not fair" whining?

If you want "it's not fair" try being pregnant for nine months. While I was headed for pre-eclampsia (read potential organ damage and death) and needing surgery with general anesthesia to deliver my baby....I never thought that "dang, its not fair that only the mom has to go through this".

Sorry, but the numerous physical changes and potential damages that can come from pregnancy kinda over-rides any man's "it's not fair that she can opt out, but I cannot"

I am curious, men are obliged to pay child support once the baby is born - but are they required to pay pregnancy support? Never heard of it if there is such a thing.

But seriously, "opting out" of supporting your child - if any pro-life individual says this...I will say that it strengthens my view that many "pro-life" people are pro-fetus and not pro-life.

:shrug: I've stated multiple times that my preference is for neither individual to be able to opt out of their parental responsibilities at any stage of the childs' development. But if you are going to offer that option then you should do it equally.
 
No woman can legally have a born child killed.

Nor is anyone arguing that a father should be allowed to divest himself of responsibilities once the child is born - only beforehand. The exact same as the mother.
 
You appear to be thoroughly confused to what this thread is about. It's questioning if men who knock someone up can evade supporting their own child should the mother have the baby. So yes, despite your confusion, there really is a child being abandoned by a deadbeat dad under this pathetic scenario.

on the contrary. According to the pro-choice side he is choosing to divest himself for responsibility for raising a fetus, not a child. If we are going to offer one gender a veto over their future commitment to a "fetus", then we need to offer both genders a veto over their responsibility to the "fetus". If it is a child, then neither gender should get a veto excepting in the case where they choose to give a child up for adoption.
 
Exactly, under current state law. That is a reflection of current public policy; but it has not always been public policy just as it has not in all instances always been state law. Laws can be changed.

I'll believe that when men gain the same choices afforded women to divest themselves of responsibility before a child is born..
 
Wrong. Doe v Bolton, released the same day as Roe v Wade, effectively did away with any such restrictions, allowing for unrestrained abortion for any reason. ...

No it did not do away restrictions as I have told you before.
Doe vs Bolton allows for abortions past viability in extreme cases where irreparable damage will take place to a major bodily function if the pregnancy continued.

Currently there are only 4 doctors who legally perform abortions in the USA after viability.
In 2008 there were 5 doctors including Dr. Tiller.

Kansas was one of a small handful of states that allowed abortions after viability in extreme cases.
The extreme cases were cases where the woman's life or irreparable damage to a major bodilily function would occur if the pregnancy continued or cases where the fetus would be still born or was so malformed it would only survive a few minutes or hours.

OB/GYNs from all over the USA would send their patients with these extrem problem pregnancies to Dr. Tiller.

Kansas kept a record of all abortions performed at or after 22 weeks gestation ( 24 weeks gestation is the limit of viabilty ).

There were 323 abortions at or after 22 weeks gestation in Kansas in 2008.
192 were because the fetus was not viable. It would either be stillborn or was so malformed it would only live a few minutes or hours.

The other 132 cases ( your so called any reason Doe v Bolton cases ) were because there would be irreparable damage to a major bodilily function if the pregnancy continued.
 
Last edited:
I'll believe that when men gain the same choices afforded women to divest themselves of responsibility before a child is born..

Well, I don't think anyone is even trying; not to my knowledge anyway. I posted this OP because it has been popping up in my mind from time to time and that kid getting in trouble for tricking his girlfriend into taking a morning after pill prompted me to see what people think.

This kid was so desperate that he jumped through hoops in a crazy attempt to get both the pill and tricking her into taking it...There are stories of other men who have done even worse things, like violence. None of this is acceptable, in fact it is irrational. That does not stop it from happening.

What's more, trying to comply with curent "public policy" results in large numbers of dysfunctional families over just this issue. That's certainly not good for society as a whole. I don't know the answer, but I do wonder if such a change might have beneficial effects on society.
 
No decision is necessary to determine the responsibility of parent...man or woman ONCE A CONCEPTION has developed past viability stage. Responsibilities are intrinsic to the social standards universally applied to both a man and woman who are identified as the biological co-creators of a viable fetus / born child.

So if a man doesn't even have sex with a woman, but his DNA somehow is used to conceive a child with her, he's responsible for that child?
 
What part of "primary" do you not get? And when is a woman not solely responsible for her own body? A man is responsible for his own body, just as she is for hers. If I have sex with someone, he is not responsible for me in the least. It is a voluntary act on my part.

For one thing, again, you have to be corrected. I never stated that he was responsible for her decisions. I said he is responsible for his decisions to have sex.

If he doesn't want to have a child, it is HIS responsibility to protect himself. What if the woman WANTS to have his child? What if she is deceptive about it? You are soooo wrong here. Both parties are responsible for themselves. You want everyone to be responsible but they just aren't and that is a fantasy. You are not looking at this realistically and children WOULD suffer because of this ignorance.
 
I just hope people teach their sons better than this. This is disgusting.

Very depressing too that people have such attitudes. Very sad indeed that it's come to this.
 
So if a man doesn't even have sex with a woman, but his DNA somehow is used to conceive a child with her, he's responsible for that child?

Hmmmm...explain that a bit more. Are you suggesting that a large number of conceptions come into being...by some covert, illegal means to impregnate women? I mean that this happens so frequent it would be considered to be the rule...not the exception?
 
:shrug: I've stated multiple times that my preference is for neither individual to be able to opt out of their parental responsibilities at any stage of the childs' development. But if you are going to offer that option then you should do it equally.

There is no equal. Unless you are saying a man suffers the same physical consequences as a women does during pregnancy. Sorry, but her body her choice. Is it fair that a woman only has to suffer the potentially life threatening consequences of pregnancy? Fairness has nothing to do with it. It just is.

Now, if you want to be fair, I offer that if a man becomes pregnant he will have the same option as the womag abn. ;)

Now after childbirth, the fairness issue is all about the child.
 
Hmmmm...explain that a bit more. Are you suggesting that a large number of conceptions come into being...by some covert, illegal means to impregnate women? I mean that this happens so frequent it would be considered to be the rule...not the exception?

No, I'm using a deliberately unlikely case to feel out your logic. There are no exceptions to the law, except that they are written into the law themselves.
 
Back
Top Bottom