• 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
NoC_T said:
You don't like men. I get it.
Click to expand...

I love men..but I am a realist..

Do you honestly think..a drunken screw with someone you don't know..or even like..

Would lead you to being a good and caring father??
 
wolfie said:
I love men..but I am a realist..

Do you honestly think..a drunken screw with someone you don't know..or even like..

Would lead you to being a good and caring father??
Click to expand...
Would a woman who welcomes such company make a good mother?
 
NoC_T said:
Would a woman who welcomes such company make a good mother?
Click to expand...

The mother will not be a quick ejaculation of self-satisfaction..

Once she is pregnant..she has 2 choices...If she chooses to keep it, our social services will make sure she has everything she wants..

We did have something called the ''child support agency'' whose sole purpose was to hunt down errant fathers..it failed!!
 
a351 said:
Also, a man should only be allowed to "opt out" of financial and parental responsibilities if his partner mutually accepts. The idea that he is somehow less obligated to provide for the child's well being is absurd.
Click to expand...

Exactly. A man can discuss the options with his partner, but at the end of the day, it's her body. Indeed, until the fetus has formed enough to become a child that could survive outside of the womb, it is existing inside the woman at her discretion.

Now, if we are willing to be mature about this and declare that last paragraph to be true, we can move on to finances. Whether the woman chooses to carry the child or not, the immediate financial burden automatically falls upon her. So if she keeps the child, then she should have the legal recourse to seek financial assistance from the man whose half of the child's genetics are made from.

But ideally this should depend on the circumstances. Your typical wayward male who has unprotected sex without thinking of the consequences should be legally obligated to provide for the child because of his careless actions. He should have used protection himself to cover his obligations.

On the other hand, suppose two partners are in a committed relationship, married or unmarried. They might have moved past condoms and onto birth control, in which case the woman has voluntarily shifted the responsibility of contraception onto herself. The man cannot be accountable for her medication. In this scenario, if the woman decides she wants a child, and takes herself off medication, she could do so without his knowledge or input. Obviously the man is still physically responsible for the child, but intent is important. If, when he is told that she is pregnant, he protests to the point where it would be a deal-breaker for the relationship, and he was led to believe that she was on birth control, it should then be on the woman to take care for the child if he doesn't intend to. This would have to be argued out in a court of law. It would be tricky, but with free choice comes responsibility.
 
EVERY PERSON who said the man should be relieved of all responsibility if he wanted her to abort but didn't is declaring that children are absolute nothing whatsoever for which there is total indifferent to whether the child starves to death or not. To those who gave that answer, it is just a fight between the woman and the man for which the child means exactly nothing to them.

Once again, I point out - now maybe the 100th time - for most people the abortion debate has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do about the child - born or unborn - whatsoever. The child is exactly NOTHING to them. Rather, it is a fight over power - whether the man has power over the woman or not.

As for who takes care of the child then? Well, on that, most members of the forum become 100% socialists claiming that is the government's job and that anyone can just dump their child on society anytime they want to.

My own view is that NEITHER parent can ever be "relieved" of responsibility towards a child they create. EVER. But I realize making the child the central issue is a repulsive concept to most people.
 
MaggieD said:
If a man makes his "decision plan" and "does not wish to have a child," he needs to put a damned sock on it. If he's going to lay there and complain . . . whine that he doesn't feel as good . . . believe!!! a woman who says she's protected . . . tell a woman he's not capable of fathering a child . . . He gets exactly what he's earned: 18 years of child support payments and help with college.
Click to expand...

You got that right! SOMEONE IS GOING TO PAY FOR THE KID HE AND SHE MADE! And it sure as hell shouldn't be you and I.
 
wolfie said:
So why do you think that would be?
Click to expand...

There are plenty of reasons. Ignorance. Religion. Embarrassment. I'm sure you can think of others.
 
wolfie said:
The mother will not be a quick ejaculation of self-satisfaction..
Click to expand...
She was quick enough to open her legs. These things don't occur via osmosis.

Once she is pregnant..she has 2 choices...If she chooses to keep it, our social services will make sure she has everything she wants..

We did have something called the ''child support agency'' whose sole purpose was to hunt down errant fathers..it failed!!
Click to expand...
I think you've wandered off the beaten track somewhat. You're far from a 'realist' since you believe men are all drunken opportunists. Your 'love' of men evidently compels you to believe such, again, since you believe there are no exceptions.

I've stated for the record that the father shouldn't disavow himself of responsibility. You're attempting to degrade the issue with a piss poor 'men are evil' rant. You can look elsewhere for your psychological crutch.
 
MaggieD said:
And I love you right back.

Women lie. Women are nesters. They often, even subconsciously, want children with the man they love. "I'm on birth control." Don't believe it. Don't believe she's taking her medication correctly. The way the laws are now (and they're not going to change the way some in the post would like to see them change any time soon), the burden is on the one who doesn't want children. Don't want kids? Use protection. Yeah, sometimes it fails. But not as often as whiney men and women would lead us to believe.

I think guys have got to remember something. The child is an innocent consequence. The child doesn't deserve to suffer because a woman was careless or a man (or woman) lied. A mother is NEVER going to be able to give away her child's right to child support. Never-ever.
Click to expand...

The other fact is that if the man gains child custody - adversely, because he is the superior parent, because she's a rotten parent or because she abandons the child - then SHE pays child support. We do know a couple of women who DO have to pay child support and the man has primary or full custody of the child(ren).
 
NoC_T said:
She was quick enough to open her legs. These things don't occur via osmosis.


I think you've wandered off the beaten track somewhat. You're far from a 'realist' since you believe men are all drunken opportunists. Your 'love' of men evidently compels you to believe such, again, since you believe there are no exceptions.

I've stated for the record that the father shouldn't disavow himself of responsibility. You're attempting to degrade the issue with a piss poor 'men are evil' rant. You can look elsewhere for your psychological crutch.
Click to expand...

Once again..people on this forum state things I haven't said..I am not talking about All Men..i am talking about a male/female coupling that results in a child when you don't really want to have anything to do with the mother..are you trying to tell me you'd stay around??
 
wolfie said:
Very ingenious..what happens when there's no baby??

I'm sure the authorities are wise to this by now...come on!!
Click to expand...

Well authorities can't arrest her, perhaps she could be sued for false advertisement but arrested? I doubt it. Craigslist may have taken the ad down.
 
lizzie said:
I personally think it's the woman's responsibility to make sure that she doesn't get pregnant since it is her body, and solely her choice when it comes to the future of the baby.
Click to expand...

What if she takes every precaution but gets pregnant anyway?
 
wolfie said:
Once again..people on this forum state things I haven't said..I am not talking about All Men..i am talking about a male/female coupling that results in a child when you don't really want to have anything to do with the mother..are you trying to tell me you'd stay around??
Click to expand...
Only now do you make such a concession. Your previous posts have included a laughing emote, in response to the suggestion that most men are responsible. How else am I to interpret that?

If I wanted nothing to do with the mother, why would I be ****ing her? Wouldn't my time and effort be better employed in pursuing someone of genuine interest? I couldn't 'stay around' as I would never have been there in the first place.

Has this been your experience? You never met a man who wasn't a promiscuous, alcoholic philanderer? If so, then let me reassure you that your biography has been lamentably atypical.
 
Last edited:
a351 said:
Also, a man should only be allowed to "opt out" of financial and parental responsibilities if his partner mutually accepts. The idea that he is somehow less obligated to provide for the child's well being is absurd.
Click to expand...

What though if the woman told him she had protection and did not? It happens more often then you would think. As a woman I find it deplorable but, it happens none the less.
 
Gipper said:
This is my position as well.

I shouldn't be able to force my seed on a woman, but I should be able to have the option to say that if you have this baby, it is with absolutely no obligation (financial or otherwise) from me. If she chooses to keep the baby, she does so under her own volition with the understanding that she cannot come back at the man for any purpose or reason whatsoever.
Click to expand...

What if you both consented to having sex, you both relied on a condom and it didn't work?
 
opendebate said:
What if she takes every precaution but gets pregnant anyway?
Click to expand...

It's still her choice to do what she wants about the baby, and I am assuming from your question that she wants to abort the baby. If the man doesn't want her to have it, then this would not be an issue in the first place.
 
If you don't have the right to murder your baby after the baby is born, then you don't hate the right to murder the baby before the baby is born.
 
wolfie said:
Once again posters on this forum get ''confused!''
Click to expand...

I asked you to show me where I said that a man has a right to choose what happens in a woman's body. Who is confused here?
 
lizzie said:
I asked you to show me where I said that a man has a right to choose what happens in a woman's body. Who is confused here?
Click to expand...

I never said you did..are you trippin??
 
Cephus said:
Exactly. If she doesn't inform him by a certain time, he is automatically absolved of responsibility unless he takes steps to retain responsibility.
Click to expand...
I would put it this way.
No responsibility attaches unless it is accepted.
 
lizzie said:
It's still her choice to do what she wants about the baby, and I am assuming from your question that she wants to abort the baby. If the man doesn't want her to have it, then this would not be an issue in the first place.
Click to expand...

She can decide whether she wants to keep or abort, it's 100% her choice, although to be honest, she's kind of an idiot if she's out having sex with men that she's not committed to, just like any man who is just sleeping around is. I really would rather idiots not breed. However, it's her body, her decision. Likewise, the man ought to have the right to decide if he's going to be financially responsible for the baby, should she decide to have it. Right now, she has all the rights, he has none whatsoever.

Equality my ass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom