• 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
Clearly, any man who is actually bearing the child should do as he pleases. Otherwise he should mind his own business.
 
The only reason she chooses is because it's her body.
You are going in circles now. This was already addressed.
It is understood why it came about. The ruling then allows her to arbitrarily decide if he should be burdened. That is neither fair or right. Especially when she is allowed not to burden herself if she so chooses.
She should not be able to make a decision that burdens him. That is wrong.
Which is why he should have the same effective right.



What if he wants her to keep the child and she wants to abort it and they can't come to a consensus.

Then what? Are you going to force the woman to carry this child that she doesn't want?
That is silly to even bring up, as we have already established that she has the right over her own body and that this is an effective right to choose to terminate as she has.
Because she should not have the right to burden him with her choice.
 
Clearly, any man who is actually bearing the child should do as he pleases. Otherwise he should mind his own business.

Speaking of blatant sexism.
 
If it was legal to do, than it is just killing.
Taking a life must be justified. Not rationalized, justified. Any law which removes the inherant requierment for the taking of a life to first be justified undermines its own authority and is void.

Elective abortion does not require justification, therefor elective abortion is murder.
 
You are going in circles now. This was already addressed.
It is understood why it came about. The ruling then allows her to arbitrarily decide if he should be burdened. That is neither fair or right. Especially when she is allowed not to burden herself if she so chooses.
She should not be able to make a decision that burdens him. That is wrong.
Which is why he should have the same effective right.



That is silly to even bring up, as we have already established that she has the right over her own body and that this is an effective right to choose to terminate as she has.
Because she should not have the right to burden him with her choice.

He willingly made a choice himself when he slept with the woman. I don't feel any more sorry for him than I do for her. Don't play if you can't pay. :2razz:
 
I believe that the men who "father" children but want nothing to do with raising them should not be responsible for paying for them if they give up paternal rights and state they rather the child were aborted. THat would strike a fair balance with women wanting to have unfettered access to abortions against the father's wishes.
 
Last edited:
Yes you did. You said it was a clump of cells. "Clump" has a definition. An organism is not a compacted mass, it has structure.

A fingernail is a clump of cells, not an organism. A ZEF is an organism, not a clump of cells.

When you call it a clump of cells you are necesseraly divorcing yourself from medical fact.
:doh

Stop twisting.
It is still a clump of cells.
It has the potential to become more than a clump if not aborted soon enough, but it is still just a clump of cells in the beginning.
You can even call it a mass of cells, which is the same thing.



You aren't going to get anywhere with this bs Jerry, so you might as well cease.
You don't like abortion, don't have one.
You value life, get out of the killing business.
 
Taking a life must be justified. Not rationalized, justified. Any law which removes the inherant requierment for the taking of a life to first be justified undermines its own authority and is void.

Elective abortion does not require justification, therefor elective abortion is murder.

Wrong!
 
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.

Of course he NEVER gets to force the woman abort or give birth, its that simple thats not even debatable.

but having said that i picked "No, but he should have the right to be legally relieved of all responsibility."

and i have talked about this many times.


just like i think RvW should be 21 weeks i think the guy should have a choice to be involved up until say 18 weeks to give the woman an extra 3.

also the man has to be notified immediately, if not of course his decision time limited is extended and does take place until he is notified.

the laws are severely one sided in this equation but the reality they will never be balanced, they simply can be, its impossible. But they can be better and moved close to balanced.
 
You are going in circles now. This was already addressed.
It is understood why it came about. The ruling then allows her to arbitrarily decide if he should be burdened. That is neither fair or right. Especially when she is allowed not to burden herself if she so chooses.
She should not be able to make a decision that burdens him. That is wrong.
Which is why he should have the same effective right.



That is silly to even bring up, as we have already established that she has the right over her own body and that this is an effective right to choose to terminate as she has.
Because she should not have the right to burden him with her choice.

It became his burden when he got her pregnant. He didn't have to do that. That is when he got to choose.
 
He willingly made a choice himself when he slept with the woman. I don't feel any more sorry for him than I do for her. Don't play if you can't pay. :2razz:
Circles again. She controlled that.
Which is irrelevant as we are past that point to where she gets to then make a choice which may burden him. She should not be able to burden him by her choice.
So he should have an effective right to choose also. Just as she has.
 
:doh

Stop twisting.
It is still a clump of cells.
At no point in the pregnancy is it a compacted mass.

By definition it is an organism from conception forward.
 
It became his burden when he got her pregnant. He didn't have to do that. That is when he got to choose.

Wrong. It was her body which she has full control over. She decided what she would allow into her and what she would not. She is solely responsible from that stand point.
 
At no point in the pregnancy is it a compacted mass.

By definition it is an organism from conception forward.
Did I say compacted mass, or just a mass of cells, which it is.
Do you not understand that you are a mass of cells?
 
I believe that the men who "father" children but want nothing to do with raising them should not be responsible for paying for them if they give up paternal rights and state they rather the child were aborted. THat would strike a fair balance with women wanting to have unfettered access to abortions against the father's wishes.
I can go along with this if a visectomy is part of the deal.
 
Circles again. She controlled that.
Which is irrelevant as we are past that point to where she gets to then make a choice which may burden him. She should not be able to burden him by her choice.
So he should have an effective right to choose also. Just as she has.

You're a hoot. He has just as much control over his sexuality as she does. When he agrees to the act of sex, he certainly knows that pregnancy is ALWAYS a possibility. If not, then he should not have sex because he is too irresponsible to accept the potential outcomes. It's as simple as that since there is no way to 100% avoid pregnancy other than abstinence.
 
Bs. Abortion and birth is a private issue and should remain that way, unless and until the government decides we need more or less people.

BS. is right. Birth and child hood issues are private issues, but abortion is already public and as evidence; certain restrictions are already enshrined in the law.
 
I can go along with this if a visectomy is part of the deal.

Yeah. THat would probably have to be a requirement. Thus, there is only one use of the "get out of jail free card".
 
Perhaps you men should tell this to the woman up front before sex. If you ever get pregnant as a result of our sex, I am not willing to provide for the child and have her sign a contract and then have it notarized. :lol: Maybe that would hold up in a court of law. Heck, it's actually not a bad idea, although you might not be getting much action anymore. Lol!
 
It was you compared the non viable fetus to an arm.
I just used your analogy. that niether would survive without the life forces of the woman.

Yes I baited you, and you fell into the trap. Now defend your position or admit that a 21 week old fetus is an individual life that is dependent.
 
That would be you who is lying.
First of all you are requoting what you already responded to, and not the reply given to that response.

I did not say the things you attributed to me in the other reply.
And when I asked "did I?", which is a challenge to you to prove these things you say I said. You deflect with this nonsense.

So prove it. Show us all these lies you speak of. Or get on Jerry's truck.


No it is not.
It is about giving the man the same right a woman has. An effective right to choose.


No I do not when it is equally accepted by both.
So stop spouting nonsense.


More emotive irrelevant and ridiculous blather from you.
None of that has anything with equality of choice, and you know damn well it doesn't.
So stop with the nonsense.

A man has 100% exactly the same rights and duties - economically and otherwise - as a woman. There are NO exceptions. IF a man became pregnant, he absolutely has a right to an abortion or have the child - and the woman could not dictate to him either way. IF he had the child despite her wanting him to abort it, she still would be economically liable.

Otherwise, upon birth a woman and man both have an identical economic obligation in law to the child, regardless of who gave birth to it.

Otherwise, yes I recognize that the welfare of children are irrelevant to you and it all is just a power struggle between the man and the woman to you.

There is EXACTLY the same legal rights and restrictions. There is NO medical procedure a woman can force a man to undergo nor prevent him from having. There is NO medical procedure a man can force a woman to undergo or prevent her from having.

The core premise of the OP is a TOTAL LIE.

There is NO legal inequality WHATSOEVER between men and women in terms of abortion, medical procedures or economic liabilities for children they make. None. NEITHER OF THEM can force the other to undergo any medical procedure the person does not want. NEITHER OF THEM can prevent the other from any medical procedure the person wants. BOTH OF THEM have EXACTLY the same economic liabilities for a child he and she makes.


The only reason some men see non-existent inequality is because they believe they should have a right to shove women around and make them do what they want them to do for their own sake. And, as we see, some men absolutely don't give a damn about children, including their own.

If you see it as "unfair" that YOU can't get pregnant against your wishes and then have get to have an abortion, bitch at God or evolution about it.
 
Last edited:
You're a hoot. He has just as much control over his sexuality as she does. When he agrees to the act of sex, he certainly knows that pregnancy is ALWAYS a possibility. If not, then he should not have sex because he is too irresponsible to accept the potential outcomes. It's as simple as that since there is no way to 100% avoid pregnancy other than abstinence.
Ah hello! We are past that point.
 
Did I say compacted mass, or just a mass of cells, which it is.
You said "a clump of cells". A 'clump' is a compacted mass. That's what clump means.

Rather its a "person" or not, at no point in the pregnancy are the cells compacted. It is never a clump.
 
....


just like i think RvW should be 21 weeks i think the guy should have a choice to be involved up until say 18 weeks to give the woman an extra 3....

.

Just a reminder. Very few abortions take place at or after 20 weeks gestation.
By 20 weeks gestation a regular D & E can no longer be performed because the skull is too large to fit through the undialted cervix .
Therefore only a highly skilled, specially trained doctor is allowed to legally perform abortions past the 20 week mark.
The fetus needs to be given a lethal injection then the doctor insets sticks with medication into the cervix to help the cervix dialate which may take a few days before the fetus can be removed and the abortion completed.
 
Back
Top Bottom