• 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
ChrisL said:
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.
Click to expand...

The regulars on the abortion board know I have very hard views on the topic - BUT in THREE regards.

1. I totally support the right of a woman to have and abortion.

2. I intensely oppose any pressure being put on the woman to abortion or to not abortion. This thread is men advocating a legal right to pressure women to abort.

3. In my opinion, if a person makes a child they are responsible for that child totally. Doesn't matter whether the child was planned or not, an accident or not nor any other excuse or reason. That responsibility is not only economic, not just child support. But ALL the obligations a parent has towards their child. In my opinion, a parent must even put the child's life before their own. It means total interaction and parenting the children and the THOUSANDS of hours (sometimes quite frustrating) and all the sacrifices required to do so.

I INTENSELY oppose ANY bioparent being able to dump a child and any/all excuses to do so. IF a man or woman is not willing to do so should that happen, get a vascetomy, tubal, use every contraceptive there is or don't have sex etc.

In my opinion, I do NOT see having sex as consent to having a child. BUT I do see total obligation to a child once born by BOTH. The reason "consent" is NOT relevant in my view, is that overall people have piles of ethical and legal obligations just because circumstantially they have them, not because the person consented to such obligation and duty.
 
opendebate said:
As a man you accept the realities of the "out" that is available to you. You don't whine and run because you dropped the ball
Click to expand...

As a woman, if you don't want to get pregnant, don't spread your legs. Why are you being so biased?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
And she can't put him inside her without his approval.
Click to expand...
And when you get down to the nitty gritty as I previously stated, she is solely responsible for what she willing allows into her body.
You can't change that.


Sheik Yerbuti said:
Who know why you can't comprehend that it's a mutual consensual choice? Regardless, it is. Both make the choice. Both are responsible.
Click to expand...
:doh
No one said it wasn't mutual. That doesn't change the fact that she is solely responsible for what she willingly allows into her body.


Sheik Yerbuti said:
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.And again we are past that point. It is irrelevant.


Sheik Yerbuti said:
Don't worry, I'll let you know when you get to decide when I am past a point.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant as we are past that point to the point where a choice gets to be made.
He should be given the same effective choice.
Even under your assertion of equal responsibility, her getting to make a choice which can burden him then makes it an unequal equation.
That unequalness needs to be rectified, whether you want to admit it or not.


Sheik Yerbuti said:
Which will be the case when he carries a fetus.
Click to expand...
Wrong!
It is unfair as it is and it is going to change. It is nothing more than a matter of time.
Click to expand...
 
Excon said:
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.​
Click to expand...
A zygote is a single-cell organism. An embrio and fetus are a molti-celled organisms. Easy stuff.

All you're saying is that there are moltiple cells. Well, you're right, its a molti-celled organism.

I don't see how that harms my argument, or helps yours, though.
 
joko104 said:
The regulars on the abortion board know I have very hard views on the topic - BUT in THREE regards.

1. I totally support the right of a woman to have and abortion.

2. I intensely oppose any pressure being put on the woman to abortion or to not abortion. This thread is men advocating a legal right to pressure women to abort.

3. In my opinion, if a person makes a child they are responsible for that child totally. Doesn't matter whether the child was planned or not, an accident or not nor any other excuse or reason. That responsibility is not only economic, not just child support. But ALL the obligations a parent has towards their child. In my opinion, a parent must even put the child's life before their own. It means total interaction and parenting the children and the THOUSANDS of hours (sometimes quite frustrating) and all the sacrifices required to do so.

I INTENSELY oppose ANY bioparent being able to dump a child and any/all excuses to do so. IF a man or woman is not willing to do so should that happen, get a vascetomy, tubal, use every contraceptive there is or don't have sex etc.

In my opinion, I do NOT see having sex as consent to having a child. BUT I do see total obligation to a child once born by BOTH. The reason "consent" is NOT relevant in my view, is that overall people have piles of ethical and legal obligations just because circumstantially they have them, not because the person consented to such obligation and duty.
Click to expand...

Yes but even with abortion, birth control and adoption, there are still parents who don't care about their kids out there raising them in bad conditions. There is just absolutely no way to control for all factors involved in these complicated situations.

This is just one reason why I agree with your premise about the law ONLY giving regard to what is best for the CHILD, who is the only truly innocent party in the situation.

Edit: Oops, that was you that said that wasn't it?
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
And those laws came about because of personal beliefs.
Which should be removed from the equation. And will be, with time.
Click to expand...

All laws begin with personal beliefs. Yet abortion restrictions also have a protective function consistent with what was stated earlier.
 
Jerry said:
I don't see how that harms my argument, or helps yours, though.
Click to expand...

Interesting!
You say I said it wasn't an organism because I called it a clump of cells.
That was your argument. It was wrong. So of course it harmed your argument.

You also argued, "It is never a clump.", which we also know is wrong.
Of course it has harmed your argument. You were and are wrong in what you asserted.

Should I go on?

This theory of yours of killing vs murder is ridiculous on it surface.
It is only murder when the killing is illegal, which is defined by law. Not you.
Which further harms your argument, as you are wrong.

Not only that, but even under your idea of "justification", you ignore the personal justification one has for aborting.
As that is personal, it is none of your business.
Further harming your argument.

You really have nothing.
 
johndylan1 said:
All laws begin with personal beliefs. Yet abortion restrictions also have a protective function consistent with what was stated earlier.
Click to expand...
And like I said, changes happen with time. The law needs to keep up.
 
Excon said:
And when you get down to the nitty gritty as I previously stated, she is solely responsible for what she willing allows into her body.
You can't change that.
Click to expand...
It's a meaningless point since the man is equally responsible for what he puts in her.

Excon said:
:doh
No one said it wasn't mutual. That doesn't change the fact that she is solely responsible for what she willingly allows into her body.
Click to expand...
Just as he is equally responsible for what he puts in her.

Excon said:
Irrelevant as we are past that point to the point where a choice gets to be made.
He should be given the same effective choice.
Even under your assertion of equal responsibility, her getting to make a choice which can burden him then makes it an unequal equation.
That unequalness needs to be rectified, whether you want to admit it or not.
Click to expand...
There is nothing to rectify since the man knows the risks going into it. Since women have the additional burden of carrying a fetus to term, they get the additional choice to terminate it where the man doesn't get that choice.

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Which will be the case when he carries a fetus.

Excon said:
Wrong!
It is unfair as it is and it is going to change. It is nothing more than a matter of time.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
It's going to change?? Men are going to start carries the fetus? :eek:

You're deluded, nothing is going to change. Men are not going to get pregnant ... men are not going to get the option to evade their financial responsibilities. You're only chance is that abortion will be outlawed, but aside from being highly unlikely, you will never be able to prevent a woman from aborting a fetus she doesn't want.
 
Excon said:
And like I said, changes happen with time. The law needs to keep up.
Click to expand...
You ought to coordinate a march in Washington ... the Million Deadbeat March!

:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo
 
joko104 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is the silliest argument I have seen so far. It is the same fuzzy logic used by opponents of same-sex marriage. Take a look:

"Homosexuals already have the same rights as heterosexuals, because a gay man can marry a woman, and a lesbian can marry a man. Granting them the right to marry someone of the same sex is giving them a 'special right.'" Sound famiiar??

It takes TWO to make a baby. Only ONE gets to decide whether or not to have it. Those of us who support Pro-Choice recognize and accept this right because it is the woman's body and she has absolute contol over it. However, if she chooses to keep the baby she has just made a LIFE CHOICE for ALL parties. The baby has no say in whether or not to be aborted, and the man has no say in whether or not to abort the baby. Fine.

BUT if the woman chooses to have the child against the will of the man, he should have the right to be legally absolved of all responsibility. The woman should take this into consideration before attempting to tie him, her, and their prospective child into a permanent knot of obligations. She has made the decision unilaterally to abort...the male suffers in silence. She makes the decision to have the baby, the male should have the right to choose: to agree or to be free.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
That is the silliest argument I have seen so far. It is the same fuzzy logic used by opponents of same-sex marriage. take a look:

"Homosexuals already have the same rights as heterosexuals, because a gay man can marry a woman, and a lesbian can marry a man. Granting them the right to marry is giving them a 'special right.'"

It takes TWO to have a baby. Only ONE gets to decide whether or not to have it. Those of us who support Pro-Choice recognize this because it is the woman's body and she has absolute contol over it. However, if she chooses to keep the baby she has just made a LIFE CHOICE for ALL parties. The baby has no say in whether or not to be aborted, and the man has no say in whether or not to abort the baby. Fine.

BUT if the woman chooses to have the child against the will of the man, he should have the right to be legally absolved of all responsibility. The woman should take this into consideratin before tying him, her, and their prospective child into a permanent knot of obligations.
Click to expand...

ONLY if he notifies of his intentions before the sexual act takes place.
 
Captain Adverse said:
That is the silliest argument I have seen so far. It is the same fuzzy logic used by opponents of same-sex marriage. Take a look:

"Homosexuals already have the same rights as heterosexuals, because a gay man can marry a woman, and a lesbian can marry a man. Granting them the right to marry someone of the same sex is giving them a 'special right.'" Sound famiiar??
Click to expand...

Nope, not the same

The laws prohibiting SSM are discriminatory by definition because they allow/proscribe an individuals freedom to marry based on sex.
 
ChrisL said:
ONLY if he notifies of his intentions before the sexual act takes place.
Click to expand...

But ONLY if SHE tells him she wants to have a baby before the sexual act takes place. :shrug:

ChrisL, the woman is in control. All she has to do is refuse sex until he puts on a condom.
 
Captain Adverse said:
But ONLY if SHE tells him she wants to have a baby before the sexual act takes place. :shrug:

ChrisL, the woman is in control. All she has to do is refuse sex until he puts on a condom.
Click to expand...

All he has to do is get a vasectomy.

And dip himself in latex
 
Captain Adverse said:
But ONLY if SHE tells him she wants to have a baby before the sexual act takes place. :shrug:

ChrisL, the woman is in control. All she has to do is refuse sex until he puts on a condom.
Click to expand...
By the same token, all the man has to do is refuse sex until he puts on a condom.
 
Excon said:
Interesting!
You say I said it wasn't an organism because I called it a clump of cells.
That was your argument. It was wrong. So of course it harmed your argument.

You also argued, "It is never a clump.", which we also know is wrong.

Of course it has harmed your argument. You were and are wrong in what you asserted.

Should I go on?
Click to expand...

A ZEF is never a clump. Its an organism. They're not the same. An organism is structured, a mass or clump is not.

This theory of yours of killing vs murder is ridiculous on it surface.
It is only murder when the killing is illegal, which is defined by law. Not you.
Which further harms your argument, as you are wrong.
Click to expand...
When the law debases its own authority it is void. Killing has to be justified. Not rationalised, justified, as in that person was an iminent threat to you. Whenever a killing is not justified, it is murder regardles of what the law says.

This may come as a suprise to some people but the law can be wrong.
 
sangha said:
Nope, not the same

The laws prohibiting SSM are discriminatory by definition because they allow/proscribe an individuals freedom to marry based on sex.
Click to expand...

Silly rabbit; trix are for kids, and not for debate.

It is exactly the same. You are denying a male the right to CHOOSE if he wants to keep a baby or not. There are many men who would choose to keep a baby that a woman has elected to abort. Since it is her body, it is her absolute right to say NO!

However, when a woman tells a man who unintentionally got her pregnant that she is going to have that baby, then those men are now denied their right NOT to be tied to her and a baby for the rest of their lives. Sex should not be a "trap."
 
Captain Adverse said:
But ONLY if SHE tells him she wants to have a baby before the sexual act takes place. :shrug:

ChrisL, the woman is in control. All she has to do is refuse sex until he puts on a condom.
Click to expand...

All HE has to do is put on a condom. He has just as much if not even MORE control over his putting on a condom than she does. Actually, I don't think a condom really effects sex for a female and can sometimes even feel better with some of the added features they have nowadays,. A lot of times it's men who don't want to wear a condom for sensation purposes.

Besides, pregnancies DO occur with condoms sometimes. Accidental pregnancies happen.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Not even then.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If he tells the woman up front that he has no intention of providing for any child that may result from their union, and she goes and has sex with him anyway, he probably shouldn't be held responsible in that situation IMO. .
 
sangha said:
All he has to do is get a vasectomy.

And dip himself in latex
Click to expand...

Sheik Yerbuti said:
By the same token, all the man has to do is refuse sex until he puts on a condom.
Click to expand...

Sorry boys, the WOMAN is in control.

While I agree it would be "wise" for a man to do so on his own...when it comes to sexual matters most young men have no wisdom at all. Since the primary physical risk is to the woman; if she does not want a child she can simply say put on a condom...or contnue to insist on no sex until marriage.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Silly rabbit; trix are for kids, and not for debate.

It is exactly the same. You are denying a male the right to CHOOSE if he wants to keep a baby or not.
Click to expand...

A male has just as much right to have an abortion as a female does. No one, male or female, has the right to interfere with another persons decision to have an abortion



However, when a woman tells a man who unintentionally got her pregnant that she is going to have that baby, then those men are now denied their right NOT to be tied to her and a baby for the rest of their lives. Sex should not be a "trap."
Click to expand...

No man or woman has the right to not be financially responsible for their child.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Sorry boys, the WOMAN is in control.

While I agree it would be "wise" for a man to do so on his own...when it comes to sexual matters most young men have no wisdom at all. Since the primar risk is to the woman, if she does not want a child she can simply say put on a condom..or contnue to insist on no sex until marriage.
Click to expand...

Sorry boy, but everyone is in control of their own bodies.

Boys with no wisdom are just as financially responsible for their children as women with no wisdom
 
Captain Adverse said:
Sorry boys, the WOMAN is in control.

While I agree it would be "wise" for a man to do so on his own...when it comes to sexual matters most young men have no wisdom at all. Since the primary physical risk is to the woman; if she does not want a child she can simply say put on a condom...or contnue to insist on no sex until marriage.
Click to expand...

What about if the situation is a man who impregnates a teenage girl, which is often the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom