• 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
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...
A man who wants his own child dead, is not a man at all.

No, the man should not have a choice since the only abortions which should be occuring are those which are medicaly necessary.
 
TurtleDude said:
Imagine this scenario

guy hops into bed with girl

guy says-are you protected

Girl lies and says

I am on the pill

she gets pregnant

now tell me why the guy should be on the hook for paternity
Click to expand...
The child will need it.

We do not punish children for their mother's sins.
 
Henrin said:
What is there to explain at this point? Lets review...





If he already had a choice by having sex then it would follow that she also already had a choice by having sex and since as you say they should both be responsible you must therefore be pro-life.
Click to expand...

No. Pro-child.
 
hallam said:
My argument though is theoretical, if women has choice so should men. I wish people were better too but they are not.
Click to expand...
Men do have a choice, it's just not legal.
 
I've read at least three non-judgmental news stories this year about inner city fun seekers who have over thirty children. No problem.

These are the sorts of questions and problems that plague an irresponsible, hypersexualized, no-judgments, it's all good, pop culture that has destroyed it's own moral compass, ridicules traditional values and worships the substitution of political correctness for reason and intelligence.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
:confused:
Click to expand...
You don't need her permission to induce a miscarrage. If you're willing to kill your child, so much less of a crime is assult. One well placed punch will do it. You can wear a mask and change your clothes so she never knows its you. Hell she may even rely on you more after the fact for being there for her.

Elective abortion is murder, so if elective abortion is an option then all lesser crimes are also options, and are even more palatable.
 
Jerry said:
You don't need her permission to induce a miscarrage. If you're willing to kill your child, so much less of a crime is assult. One well placed punch will do it. You can wear a mask and change your clothes so she never knows its you. Hell she may even rely on you more after the fact for being there for her.

Elective abortion is murder, so if elective is an option then all lesser crimes are also options, and are even more palatable.
Click to expand...

OK, I understand what you meant.
 
Henrin said:
I would think we are all pro-child here.
Click to expand...
That would mean everyone here opposes elective abortion, which means the dad would have no right to abort, either.
 
joko104 said:
opendebate said:
This is pointless.
Click to expand...
You are correct in many regards:

1. Obviously the men you are "debating" totally believe in being a deadbeat in terms of non-economic parental responsibilities.
2. Obviously they will continue the lie that only men have financial duties for born children.
3. Obviously they don't care about the child one iota.
4. Obviously they want to be able to financially extort the woman to gain power over her - not just for abortion but in every possible way. "Do what I want or I'll abandon you and the child including economically.

You are debating what used to be called male chauvinistic pigs too the extreme degree - arguing that if they can't make a woman do anything and everything they want - they can just abandon their family including their own children. SO extreme that while they have posted dozens to hundreds of messages how abortion is "killing an unborn baby" - if they can't have total power over the woman that is exactly what they want to be able to do - to kill their "unborn baby" (in their view of it) as a retaliation against the woman not being totally submissive in every way.

There is no "debating" such a view and grotesque hypocrisy.

Rather, just point out what they advocate in terms of what people recognize. They furiously want the right to be deadbeat and totally absentee biological fathers - the ultimate "deadbeat dad." All their words don't change the bottom line to their advocacy. There are many, many deadbeat dads and we're "debating" them or wannabe deadbeats.
Click to expand...
You are doing nothing but speaking and arguing emotion.

It is pointless because she is full of double speak as what she says applies to men and but not women as Henrin pointed out.

It is pointless because she speaks of responsibility of how the pregnancy came about, which is irrelevant to the fact of where we are at, that a woman gets to choose whether or not to burden herself as well as the man with the raising of a child.
She should only get to choose to burden herself, and not the other. She should not be able to choose for him.
He should be able to choose just like she does whether or not he wants that burden.


Under the system you prefer, she would not get this choice either. But that is not the way it is.

Under the current system she does get to choose, so the man should also be able to choose whether or not he wants the burden and not have it forced on him by her. That is equality.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Elective abortion is murder
Click to expand...
Really?
Please point out the law that says it is.

You want to call it killing. Go ahead. But it is not murder.
As for terminating a clump of cells? I wouldn't even call that killing.



Jerry said:
That would mean everyone here opposes elective abortion, which means the dad would have no right to abort, either.
Click to expand...

No, as I do not consider a clump of cells an actual child.
 
Last edited:
opendebate said:
The woman is responsible also. Where did I say she wasn't? Both should be.
Click to expand...

Yet you're granting her an out, while refusing to grant the man an out.
 
Jerry said:
That's nice. Thanks for sharing.
Click to expand...
You are welcome, especially as it puts your comment into proper perspective.
:mrgreen:
 
joko104 said:
Because someone has to pay and there is no reason it should be me. Or are you advocating the government and/or the man killing the child upon birth?
Click to expand...

Yup, the woman can pay. If she can't afford it, then she has no business having it in the first place. Personal responsibility belongs to everyone.
 
Excon said:
You are doing nothing but speaking and arguing emotion.

It is pointless because she is full of double speak as what she says applies to men and but not women as Henrin pointed out.

It is pointless because she speaks of responsibility of how the pregnancy came about, which is irrelevant to the fact of where we are at, that a woman gets to choose whether or not to burden herself as well as the man with the raising of a child.
She should only get to choose to burden herself, and not the other. She should not be able to choose for him.
He should be able to choose just like she does whether or not he wants that burden.


Under the system you prefer, she would not get this choice either. But that is not the way it is.

Under the current system she does get to choose, so the man should also be able to choose whether or not he wants the burden and not have it forced on him by her. That is equality.
Click to expand...

On and on and on you declare the irrelevancy of children and parenting. Just a feud between the mother and father to you. Nothing else.

In your view, then, my birth and fate was PERFECTION! Both abandoned me at birth totally and neither ever paid a dime. Utopian perfection in your model because parenting is only about $$$ and how to not pay it and to avoid all other responsibility if you don't want the child you made.

In your ethics and model, ONE ideal society would be if every parent abandoned their children and legally could do so. That is your perfect equality society. And, as you say, no one would have to pay a dollar for the children either because people don't pay for children, they only pay taxes. And parents are irrelevant to children otherwise in your opinion.
 
Excon said:
You are welcome, especially as it puts your comment into proper perspective.
:mrgreen:
Click to expand...
Opinion isn't context. Its a child from conseption. Thats just a medical fact. That you "disagree" means nothing. Go ahead and "disagree", that's like disagreeing that 1+1=2. Knock yourself out.
 
joko104 said:
On and on and on you declare the irrelevancy of children and parenting. Just a feud between the mother and father to you. Nothing else.

In your view, then, my birth and fate was PERFECTION! Both abandoned me at birth totally and neither ever paid a dime. Utopian perfection in your model because parenting is only about $$$ and how to not pay it and to avoid all other responsibility if you don't want the child you made.

In your ethics and model, ONE ideal society would be if every parent abandoned their children and legally could do so. That is your perfect equality society. And, as you say, no one would have to pay a dollar for the children either because people don't pay for children, they only pay taxes. And parents are irrelevant to children otherwise in your opinion.
Click to expand...
There you go arguing from emotion again.

Nothing you said is factually true. Never did I say children or parenting were irrelevant, did I?

The rest is just emotive blather.

This is about equality and choice.
We already have women choosing. That isn't going to change.
It is time that men have the same effective right also.
 
Jerry said:
Opinion isn't context. Its a child from conseption. Thats just a medical fact. That you "disagree" means nothing. Go ahead and "disagree", that's like disagreeing that 1+1=2. Knock yourself out.
Click to expand...

And you are wrong.
It is a medical fact that it is human cells. Nothing more.
It is not a child yet, but only has the potential to become one. That is the medical fact.
 
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...

All men *do* have the right to have an abortion

whenever they get pregnant

Letting a man have any say over a womans right to choose to have an abortion is like allowing women to have a say over a man's right to have testicular cancer operated on
 
Excon said:
And you are wrong.
Click to expand...
I am neither right nor wrong. I concure with medical science. You are disagreeing with the diciplin of biology on when the life cycle of the organism begins. Good luck with that.
 
Jerry said:
I am neither right nor wrong. I concure with medical science. You are disagreeing with the diciplin of biology on when the life cycle of the organism begins. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Wrong!
You are disagreeing with medical science. It is not a child when it is just a clump of cells.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom