• 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
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Please don't spin my words into something I didn't say. I didn't say it's not up to the woman. I said it's up to both.
Click to expand...

In that you are wrong. The man would be wise to use a condom, especially in circumstances where he does not know much about the woman he is sleeping with.

However, it is completely up to the woman what she allows the man to do with her body. She makes the rules and he must comply or he does not get to do anything. Nothing you say changes that fundamental fact.
 
X Factor said:
being ok with financially coercing a woman into making the "choice" he wants her to make.
Click to expand...
That isn't what is being suggested.
Her choice should be independent of his.
If she wants to support a child, than by all means have it.
But she should not be able to force a burden on a man who doesn't want it either.
 
Jerry said:
And in the middle are all the children neither side cares about.

That's why both prochoice and prolife are wrong.
Click to expand...
You want to care about the children, then do so. Don't try to force others to care about that which they do not need to.
 
Excon said:
That isn't what is being suggested.
Her choice should be independent of his.
If she wants to support a child, than by all means have it.
But she should not be able to force a burden on a man who doesn't want it either.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what's being suggested. It's not like his hands are clean and that he had nothing to do with her being pregnant.. I don't support essentially trying to blackmail women into acting the way he wants. I also do wish that we could stop viewing kids as burdens. If you're a deadbeat, it's you that's the burden.
 
Excon said:
No, your position that consensual sex is somehow consent to have a child, is what is deluded.
Especially if either one are using contraceptives.
Consent to have sex is not consent to have a child.
Click to expand...
Holy ****! That's about the dumbest thing I ever read here.

:doh :doh :doh :doh

Pregnancy is a potential result of a man and woman having sex. Even when using protection. Any man capable of fathering a child knows this. Other than in cases where either partner is incapable of reproducing, having sex is always consenting to having a child since in those cases, it's always a potential risk. At most, you can contend it was not your intention of have a child, but it's absurd to claim you don't consent to having a child. It's explicit when a man who can produce a child has sex with a woman who can produce a child.

Try going to court and explaining to the judge you shouldn't have to support your own child because you didn't consent to the having the child, but the condom tore! See how far that gets ya.

rolling on the floor laughing.gif
 
Excon said:
Which changes the argument none.
Click to expand...
Child support is the right of the child, not the mother.

No it isn't.
Click to expand...
Consent to sex is consent to have a child. Therefor a man's choice is made when he has sex and all is fair and equal.

So again, please provide a SCOTUS ruling saying it is.
Click to expand...
That sperm is legaly a gift the woman may do with as she pleases, or that child sipport is a right of the child parents cannot sign away?
 
X Factor said:
That's exactly what's being suggested. It's not like his hands are clean and that he had nothing to do with her being pregnant.. I don't support essentially trying to blackmail women into acting the way he wants. I also do wish that we could stop viewing kids as burdens. If you're a deadbeat, it's you that's the burden.
Click to expand...

Why is it any more acceptable for her to blackmail the man?

Saying he has the right to make his own independent decisions is not "blackmail." No one is trying to stop her from making whatever decision she wants. If she is determined to have the kid, she still can.

Other people having rights to themselves is not "blackmail." To say so is to deny personal responsibility, and to say that it is ok to actually blackmail men.
 
Excon said:
That isn't what is being suggested.
Her choice should be independent of his.
If she wants to support a child, than by all means have it.
But she should not be able to force a burden on a man who doesn't want it either.
Click to expand...

What you're saying does not make her choice "independent of his" at all. If you're truly pro-choice, I'd think you'd want her to be free to make the choice without financial coercion being a part of it. This is more pro-abortion than pro-choice.
 
X Factor said:
That's exactly what's being suggested. It's not like his hands are clean and that he had nothing to do with her being pregnant.. I don't support essentially trying to blackmail women into acting the way he wants. I also do wish that we could stop viewing kids as burdens. If you're a deadbeat, it's you that's the burden.
Click to expand...
Wrong!
No one has suggested such.
As their decisions are independent of each other, it can't be.
 
Excon said:
That isn't what is being suggested.
Her choice should be independent of his.
If she wants to support a child, than by all means have it.
But she should not be able to force a burden on a man who doesn't want it either.
Click to expand...
She forces nothing. He accepted the burdon when he chose to have sex. He should be a man and stand by his decisions.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Why is it any more acceptable for her to blackmail the man?

Saying he has the right to make his own independent decisions is not "blackmail." No one is trying to stop her from making whatever decision she wants. If she is determined to have the kid, she still can.

Other people having rights to themselves is not "blackmail." To say so is to deny personal responsibility, and to say that it is ok to actually blackmail men.
Click to expand...

By expecting him to support children he helped create? Oh the horror.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Please provide a counter-example in the USA where consensual sex is NOT under the control of the woman; i.e. where it is not up to her whether or not to require the man to use contraception.
Click to expand...
Sex (excluding rape) requires mutual consent.
 
Excon said:
Wrong!
No one has suggested such.
As their decisions are independent of each other, it can't be.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what this is. You saying it isn't doesn't make it so. The time to decide is before pregnancy.
 
X Factor said:
By expecting him to support children he helped create? Oh the horror.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't buy the "keep your legs shut" BS any more when you're saying it about a man, than I do when you're saying it about a woman.

If she makes a decision to have a child without his input, why should he be beholden to support the responsibility she has assumed?

For the record, this works in reverse too. It ain't like abortion is cheap, and she still has no right to expect him to pay for it.

But it's nice to know at least you're consistent in villainizing the genders, whenever they don't wish to take on a child they can't support.
 
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...

So, if I have this straight, you've said you'd jump in the water to save a kid a from drowning *derisive snort* because you're just so pro-human (and me a "human-hater") but when it comes to money, then **** the kid, let him starve. On the other hand you flame the **** out of people that wanted to save their dogs, but it it comes to saving their money, well that's different. Lol.
 
X Factor said:
If it's your kid you shouldn't have to be coerced. What kind of jackass doesn't want to do what's right by their kid?
Click to expand...

What kind of sociopathic monster has her own kid killed?

By comparison, that's pretty tame.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Next time you ask a question where the answer has already been provided, please make sure you quote the entire comment. The answer was already provided to you in that quoted response, and the OP has also made the issue clear.

If after all the discussion that has gone on you still remain confused, perhaps rereading will clarify it for you? :)
Click to expand...
No, there was no answer to my question in your post. All your post contained other than the part I was addressing was a failed analogy which doesn't even correlate to the discussion. :roll: But hey, if it was your intent to avoid answering the questions asked -- congrats, you succeeded.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Holy ****! That's about the dumbest thing I ever read here.

:doh :doh :doh :doh

Pregnancy is a potential result of a man and woman having sex. Even when using protection. Any man capable of fathering a child knows this. Other than in cases where either partner is incapable of reproducing, having sex is always consenting to having a child since in those cases, it's always a potential risk. At most, you can contend it was not your intention of have a child, but it's absurd to claim you don't consent to having a child. It's explicit when a man who can produce a child has sex with a woman who can produce a child.

Try going to court and explaining to the judge you shouldn't have to support your own child because you didn't consent to the having the child, but the condom tore! See how far that gets ya.

rolling on the floor laughing.gif
Click to expand...
You clearly are confused by the depth of this conversation.
You don't understand the arguments, get confused by what is said. You even take things out of context and put words into others mouths they did not say. And then have the audacity to complain when you think someone has done it to you.
I would suggest you run along and try something more in your league.


Consent to have sex is not consent to have children.

Which is not the same thing as a court holding one responsible under archaic child support laws because it came from their loins.
We have already seen where sperm donors have been held liable for support under these archaic laws.
Not the same thing dude, and just shows how severely you are out of your depth in discussing this issue.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Well for one, women were seeking protection over their own bodies; whereas the Million Deadbeat March is about men protecting their own wallets.
Click to expand...

So am I understand the government has authority over your wallets?
 
X Factor said:
That's exactly what this is. You saying it isn't doesn't make it so. The time to decide is before pregnancy.
Click to expand...
:naughty
No, No one has suggested such here.
That is all your convoluted logic say it is when it isn't.

Her choice should be all about herself and not anybody else. Period. That is not anywhere near what you suggest.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Sorry, but I don't buy the "keep your legs shut" BS any more when you're saying it about a man, than I do when you're saying it about a woman.

If she makes a decision to have a child without his input, why should he be beholden to support the responsibility she has assumed?

For the record, this works in reverse too. It ain't like abortion is cheap, and she still has no right to expect him to pay for it.

But it's nice to know at least you're consistent in villainizing the genders, whenever they don't wish to take on a child they can't support.
Click to expand...

This is really hilarious. You get all mad at men for looking at a half naked woman but you're completely fine with men walking away from any responsibility when it comes to the kids and leaving it all on her. Knowing your feelings about kids, I'm not surprised, I guess.
 
Captain Adverse said:
In that you are wrong. The man would be wise to use a condom, especially in circumstances where he does not know much about the woman he is sleeping with.

However, it is completely up to the woman what she allows the man to do with her body. She makes the rules and he must comply or he does not get to do anything. Nothing you say changes that fundamental fact.
Click to expand...
Again, this may be a "fundamental fact" for you personally. That's about it. I've never had sex with a woman where I had no control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom