• 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
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.
And those laws came about because of personal beliefs.
Which should be removed from the equation. And will be, with time.
 
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.

Great post. Although I don't think anyone is lying, they are just misinterpreting things. A lot of people are looking at this as a man versus woman issue period apparently.
 
Ah hello! We are past that point.

No, just because you say we are past that point doesn't mean we accept YOUR explanations. The woman is no more liable for the sex that resulted in said child than the man.
 
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.
Stop with the nonsense Jerry.
A clump can be a compacted mass. It doesn't have to be though.



clump (klmp)
n.
1. A clustered mass; a lump: clumps of soil.
2. A thick grouping, as of trees or bushes.
3. A heavy dull sound; a thud.
clump - definition of clump by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


clump (klŭmp),
To form into clusters, small aggregations, or groups.
[A.S. clympre, a lump]
clump - definition of clump in the Medical dictionary - by the Free Online Medical Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
 
Yeah. THat would probably have to be a requirement. Thus, there is only one use of the "get out of jail free card".
We could use it to then encourage men to get a vasectomy first, thus bypassing all the drama. I'm sure a media & adveretising guru could put together a campaign appealing to the male ego representing vasectomy as a manly way to protect his woman and his future.
 
Great post. Although I don't think anyone is lying, they are just misinterpreting things. A lot of people are looking at this as a man versus woman issue period apparently.

You are correct. "LIE" is the wrong word. "False" would have been the correct choice.

I get stirred up when I read of men giving all their whiny, crying, raging reasons why the get to be deadbeat dads and dump their own children because they are angry at the woman or any other reason. I also feel the same about deadbeat moms too. So my wrong choice of "Lie" was based in anger, when actually "false" would have been better.
 
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.

Case in point.

Someone who tells me that having sex is not consent to creating offspring - something I entirely disagree with - cannot then argue for mandatory child support without being a blatant sexist and a hypocrite. By the status quo, having sex is indeed consent to creating offspring... as long as you're a man.

How do you explain this blatant inconsistency? And no, post #322 did not explain it at all, in its text you simply lied and claimed no inconsistency existed.

You think sex is consent to creating offspring for a man, but not for a woman. That is a double standard. That is sexism, plain and simple.
 
No, just because you say we are past that point doesn't mean we accept YOUR explanations. The woman is no more liable for the sex that resulted in said child than the man.
That is your opinion.
By virtue of he have sole control over her body, she is solely responsible.
Which is irrelevant as we are past that point.

The point being that she is pregnant. She should not get to make a decision that would burden him.
Obviously you agree that she should. Doesn't change that fact that it is unfair and wrong.
He should be given the same effective right to choose. Just as she has. That is fair.

This is just one of those issues that is going to change with time. It is inevitable.
As previously noted by another, a change can already be seen by the responses to the poll.
Nothing but time. I hope you are alive to see it.
 
If the man is the one who carries the baby he has the right to decide whether to have an abortion or not. But as men cannot get pregnant and it is the woman who has the ZEF in her body, she is the only one who has the right to decide about abortion or not. In a perfect world it would be a joint decision but in the end it is her body so it is her choice.
 
Case in point.



How do you explain this blatant inconsistency? And no, post #322 did not explain it at all, it simply lied and claimed no inconsistency existed.

As long as you have consensual sex, the risk of pregnancy is always going to exist unless you've had your reproductive organs removed or otherwise rendered dysfunctional. Hopefully in the future we can have a 100% effective form of birth control and not have to deal with these complicated issues.

Otherwise, people could draw up contracts before they get involved with somebody sexually. I guess you don't have to introduce that on THE NIGHT, if you know what I mean. :mrgreen:
 
Here's the thing - your rights end where another person's begin. You don't have the right to force another person to undergo a medical procedure.
 
A man has 100% exactly the same rights and duties ...
No he doesn't. That has already been clearly established.


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.
Stop making assumptions out of your butt. Beside you being wrong, it is not dignified.


The core premise of the OP is a TOTAL LIE.
The core premiss of fairness is not a lie.
You just don't like it.
 
Here's the thing - your rights end where another person's begin. You don't have the right to force another person to undergo a medical procedure.
That is great you know that.
Nor should they be able to burden another individual with their choice.
 
As long as you have consensual sex, the risk of pregnancy is always going to exist unless you've had your reproductive organs removed or otherwise rendered dysfunctional.

Agreed, entirely. That fact informs my view. Whereas people who support the status quo on child support AND abortion believe that sex is consent to create offspring for only the man, I disagree and realize that it is consent to create offspring for both parties (unless one is sterile - in which case, it's a moot point).

Hopefully in the future we can have a 100% effective form of birth control and not have to deal with these complicated issues.

Nothing is foolproof, and some people are just reckless.

Otherwise, people could draw up contracts before they get involved with somebody sexually. I guess you don't have to introduce that on THE NIGHT, if you know what I mean. :mrgreen:

Well it's probably best to get certain things clear before you do the deed, as it were. I don't know about drafting formal papers, but whatever floats other folks' respective boats.
 
Case in point.



How do you explain this blatant inconsistency? And no, post #322 did not explain it at all, in its text you simply lied and claimed no inconsistency existed.

You think sex is consent to creating offspring for a man, but not for a woman. That is a double standard. That is sexism, plain and simple.

I have never said sex is consent to having offspring. Never said it. Never implied it. What I have stated is obvious:

Neither the man or woman can force the other to undergo any medical procedure of any kind. Neither can prevent the other from having any medical procedure. Both are economically liable for any child they make. There is no double standard whatsoever.

Now... we come to the question of whether you are 1.) pro-life or 2.) just a man who wants power over women. IF you are pro-life, then you would totally oppose a man being able to economically extort a woman to try to pressure her into an abortion. If you are instead pro-abortion if it saves the man money, then you will agree than a man can get out of economic liability for his own children if he fails to extort the woman into an abortion.

Which are you? Anti-abortion? Or pro-abortion if it saves men $$ about their own children?

A true "pro-lifer" would oppose anything and everything that might lead to abortions. A TRUE pro-lifer would NOT support men being given the ability to punish both the woman and child if she doesn't abort.
 
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.

I don't know who you've been with, but it is you who is wrong. Barring cases of rape, sex is a mutually consensual choice. He equally chooses to put in her what she chooses to have put in her. Both make the choice. Both are responsible. The woman inherently gets additional choices after the fact because she is the one who gets pregnant.

And again, if the man doesn't want the burden, he had his chance to back out of the deal.
 
I don't know who you've been with, but it is you who is wrong. Barring cases of rape, sex is a mutually consensual choice. He equally chooses to put in her what she chooses to have put in her. Both make the choice. Both are responsible. The woman inherently gets additional choices after the fact because she is the one who gets pregnant.
He can not put anything into her without her approval.
She is solely responsible for that choice.
Which is irrelevant as we are past that point.


And again, if the man doesn't want the burden, he had his chance to back out of the deal.
Only if we give him the same choice she has and not let her burden him with her choice.
 
That is great you know that.
Nor should they be able to burden another individual with their choice.

So you should be able to **** anyone with impunity?

(If you're a straight man of course. Gays and women can't)

Should a man be able to force a woman to carry the child to term if he chooses that? I'm sorry that you have uterus envy, and therefore have "less rights" than a woman. The fact is that only women can get pregnant and they are the only ones who can get an abortion as a result. You can't have everything.
 
Agreed, entirely. That fact informs my view. Whereas people who support the status quo on child support AND abortion believe that sex is consent to create offspring for only the man, I disagree and realize that it is consent to create offspring for both parties (unless one is sterile - in which case, it's a moot point).



Nothing is foolproof, and some people are just reckless.



Well it's probably best to get certain things clear before you do the deed, as it were. I don't know about drafting formal papers, but whatever floats other folks' respective boats.

I ALWAYS had a formal consent agreement prior to sex and it was recorded (audio). The words had been drafted up by an attorney. My wife and I have a nearly 40 page sworn, signed statement of purpose and legal contract in precise detail. It is not a pre-nup in the nornal sense. Talking thru it was extremely beneficial and has come in handy many times. However, I realized not 1 in 1000 people do so.

Prior to marriage, as for the prospect of condom failure, my stance was simple. It her choice whether to have the child or not. I would prefer she would not if it happened and would pay for the abortion if so. However, if she had the child, I would take not only fully legal responsibility but full parenting responsibility, would marry her if she wished and try to make the absolute best of it - knowing it likely a marriage made in hell - and would otherwise be as much involved in the child's life as possible.

YET NONE of that was my "CONSENTING TO HAVE A CHILD" because I was having sex with her. Nor was do I document her consenting to having a child by me. I was documenting her consent to sex, nothing more.
 
I have never said sex is consent to having offspring. Never said it. Never implied it. What I have stated is obvious:

Neither the man or woman can force the other to undergo any medical procedure of any kind. Neither can prevent the other from having any medical procedure. Both are economically liable for any child they make. There is no double standard whatsoever.

Now... we come to the question of whether you are 1.) pro-life or 2.) just a man who wants power over women. IF you are pro-life, then you would totally oppose a man being able to economically extort a woman to try to pressure her into an abortion. If you are instead pro-abortion if it saves the man money, then you will agree than a man can get out of economic liability for his own children if he fails to extort the woman into an abortion.

Which are you? Anti-abortion? Or pro-abortion if it saves men $$ about their own children?

A true "pro-lifer" would oppose anything and everything that might lead to abortions. A TRUE pro-lifer would NOT support men being given the ability to punish both the woman and child if she doesn't abort.

In reference to pro life/pro choice, I believe I fall somewhere in between because I would be pro life in theory if I thought it was at all feasible in today's times. I would never want to subject a child to a life of torture and abuse because he/she was born of a parent who did not want the child. THAT is the only reason why I accept the fact that there are abortions at all.

Even if there was a 100% effective way to prevent a pregnancy, the people who did NOT use it and got pregnant anyways are just demonstrating their irresponsibility. It is like a necessary evil IMO.
 
Only if we give him the same choice she has and not let her burden him with her choice.

A man has every right to abort any child they are pregnant with.
 
1.)Just a reminder. Very few abortions take place at or after 20 weeks gestation.
2.)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.

1.) yep you are correct it very rare no matter what some people whould have us think
2.) yep you are correct, I think we actually exchanged articles on this when a poster here said his wife had a D&E due to fetus death and we informed him that his wife then in fact had an abortion.


thanks mini. its still where i would like to see the line drawn but has i have stated before id everything else was the same id be willing to go down to 18weeks, just not my pick
 
I have never said sex is consent to having offspring. Never said it. Never implied it.

No. You have said the opposite. Which is what I was talking about...

What I have stated is obvious:

Neither the man or woman can force the other to undergo any medical procedure of any kind. Neither can prevent the other from having any medical procedure. Both are economically liable for any child they make. There is no double standard whatsoever.

Yes, there is currently a double standard. A man has to pay child support for a born kid but pregnancy and giving birth are expensive. A loving partner already provides socially and economically for his offspring from the moment it is known they have conceived, but at the minimum a father should be responsible for half of the costs of his offspring before and after birth.

Currently, that is not the case. That IS a double standard. Joint creation, unilateral responsibility.



Now... we come to the question of whether you are 1.) pro-life or 2.) just a man who wants power over women.

Are you asking about me? I'm "pro-life" (anti-abortion).

IF you are pro-life, then you would totally oppose a man being able to economically extort a woman to try to pressure her into an abortion. If you are instead pro-abortion if it saves the man money, then you will agree than a man can get out of economic liability for his own children if he fails to extort the woman into an abortion.

I don't disagree with the premise of child support - that someone should be held financially responsible for the needs of the offspring that one creates, on the basis that both partners consented to the type of sex that creates offspring and surprise, guess what, it created offspring, big shocker.


I don't support the status quo on abortion; the status quo on child support needs reform as outlined above.

HOWEVER, for folks like yourself who tell me that sex is not consent to create new human beings (which you have), if you then turn around and tell me that you support the status quo on child support (which you just did), then such a position is nakedly hypocritical.

The basis for holding a man financially responsible for kids he did not wish to create is the fact that he did in fact create them and he did consent to the sex. Without that basis, you have no logical support for the practice.
 
Last edited:
He can not put anything into her without her approval.
And she can't put him inside her without his approval. Who know why you can't comprehend that it's a mutual consensual choice? Regardless, it is. Both make the choice. Both are responsible.

She is solely responsible for that choice.
So is the guy. He knows the consequences for putting it in and he's making the choice to do so anyway. If she gets pregnant, he bears the responsibility for his choices.

Which is irrelevant as we are past that point.
Don't worry, I'll let you know when you get to decide when I am past a point.

Only if we give him the same choice she has and not let her burden him with her choice.
Which will be the case when he carries a fetus.
 
So you should be able to **** anyone with impunity?

(If you're a straight man of course. Gays and women can't)

Should a man be able to force a woman to carry the child to term if he chooses that? I'm sorry that you have uterus envy, and therefore have "less rights" than a woman. The fact is that only women can get pregnant and they are the only ones who can get an abortion as a result. You can't have everything.
That was funny.
Obviously you haven't followed along as your second question had been already answered previously.

Your first question makes it appear as you do not know what impunity means.
exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of an action.
Of course people should be able to have consensual sex with impunity.
 
Back
Top Bottom