• 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
lizzie said:
It does, but since it's her body which can be affected, it is primarily her responsibility. That being said, when my boys were teenagers, I cautioned them that they would be wise to use birth control methods, as females are often not reliable and/or honest about it, and I made it pretty clear that if they trusted the girl to do so, they could easily be misled and find themselves in a bad situation.
Click to expand...

That should be said of ALL teens - period.

Girls should be told that about boys, and boys should be told that about girls . . . because it's just true all around.
 
Well, all of the talk about the morality of the situation and how this or that would make everything more fair, it doesn't make any difference. In the eyes of the law and most people, both parties are responsible for creating a new life, not one more so than the other. Unless there is a rape (which happens more often to women BTW), then BOTH parties agreed to have sex, thus creating a baby. And there is no way people are going to accept a man being able to inadvertently force a woman into having an abortion because he doesn't feel he should have to take any responsibility for his part in the sexual act. It's utterly ridiculous suggestion. :roll:

AND there would still be plenty of irresponsibility to go around, and then WE the taxpayers will be paying for these selfish men's children.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Correct as a matter of "public policy" i.e. current state law. However, law can be changed and this discussion is about the rationale for and against.
Click to expand...

I gave you the obvious rationale. Should I explain it to you again?

Allowing men to decide when a fetus is aborted would amount to men having control over a woman's body.

Allowing men the use of "Paper Abortions" would amount to men being able to relinquish the obligations they have towards a child that is 50% there creation.

Neither is desirable. In fact, I would go so far as to call both evil.
 
Excon said:
Doesn't matter.

Consent to sex, is not consent to children.
Click to expand...

It is consent to create offspring, and parents are obliged to be responsible for the well-being of the offspring they create.

Or they should be at least. In a rational society with laws to reflect such.


As opposed to an irrational and sexist society that says that men are consenting to create offspring when they have sex, but women are not. Which is what we have right now.
 
Being an irresponsible jerk isn't limited to either men or women. It applies to both genders. It just so happens that it's the woman who is charged with carrying and incubating an unborn baby. It's the woman who bears the most burden, that is why she is the one who makes the final decision. There is just no way we can allow the male counterpart in the relationship to shirk his part of the responsibility though. Then that places the burden on the rest of us if a woman does choose to go through with the pregnancy anyway.

In this scenario, it doesn't make things equal in any way, it gives the man power over the woman's decision, her body and the life of the unborn.
 
babilfish said:
I gave you the obvious rationale. Should I explain it to you again?

Allowing men to decide when a fetus is aborted would amount to men having control over a woman's body.

Allowing men the use of "Paper Abortions" would amount to men being able to relinquish the obligations they have towards a child that is 50% there creation.

Neither is desirable. In fact, I would go so far as to call both evil.
Click to expand...

You may call it whatever you wish, the fact remains that even when a couple is sincerely TRYING to have a baby there is no more than a 20% chance of success in any single month. That means that even unprotected sex does not automatically produce a baby.
Discovery Health "Can you get pregnant any time in your monthly cycle?"

Therefore, having sex does not amount to “consent to having a baby.”

I, for one, am not arguing for a man’s right to choose whether or not a woman has an abortion. I have stated over and over again (including in the OP) that I support a woman’s absolute right to choose what to do with her body.

The issue is making an informed choice and then accepting FULL responsibility for that choice. Often-times a woman will make the decision to keep the baby based on emotion or calculation. In the first instance she thinks it is a wonderful idea and assumes the sperm donor would also think so and leap at the chance of marriage and family.

In the second case the woman is thinking of personal future security, i.e. pressuring the male to marry her so she can live happily ever after. Failing that, she thinks she can get both child support from him and welfare from the state and still live happily ever after.

The male thought he was just having recreational sex (unless the couple was already married or in a “committed” relationship), and now he finds he has a lifelong duty to this woman and a possible child. In neither case is he likely to be a willing and happy participant. This leads to tragic results, especially for any child caught in such a situation.

We already have a welfare state, and rules can be modified to ensure that a woman who chooses a child despite a male “opt-out” will only qualify for current child support and day care but not complete welfare benefits for herself. Allowing the man to “opt-out” will require the woman in the situation to consider this factor in time to make a properly informed decision, can I take care of this child on my own or not?
 
Last edited:
ChrisL said:
Well, all of the talk about the morality of the situation and how this or that would make everything more fair, it doesn't make any difference. In the eyes of the law and most people, both parties are responsible for creating a new life, not one more so than the other. Unless there is a rape (which happens more often to women BTW), then BOTH parties agreed to have sex, thus creating a baby. And there is no way people are going to accept a man being able to inadvertently force a woman into having an abortion because he doesn't feel he should have to take any responsibility for his part in the sexual act. It's utterly ridiculous suggestion. :roll:
Click to expand...

Although the OP mentions the possibility of giving the man some right to choose abortion, you also see that in my very first response on page one that I do not support that. The right to choose rests absolutely with the woman as far as I am concerned. However, the issue should be about making an informed decision and then accepting FULL responsibility for it. Trying to force an unwilling male that both KNOW did not intend nor want a baby into a lifelong relationship creates lifelong problems for all parties concerned.

ChrisL said:
You are the one trying to force taxpayers to pay for the child. If the father is not responsible, then a lot of times the mother will just collect welfare for herself and the child. So the choice is yours, either the father pays for his child or you let him walk away without any kind of responsibility and we all pay instead.
Click to expand...

ChrisL said:
Being an irresponsible jerk isn't limited to either men or women. It applies to both genders. It just so happens that it's the woman who is charged with carrying and incubating an unborn baby. It's the woman who bears the most burden, that is why she is the one who makes the final decision. There is just no way we can allow the male counterpart in the relationship to shirk his part of the responsibility though. Then that places the burden on the rest of us if a woman does choose to go through with the pregnancy anyway.

In this scenario, it doesn't make things equal in any way, it gives the man power over the woman's decision, her body and the life of the unborn.
Click to expand...

So your answer is allowing an irresponsible female to have a baby and then force her equally irresponsible male sperm donor to help her act irresponsibly in raising a child?

I am going to let other women address the points you raised in your comments:

lizzie said:
I personally think it's the woman's responsibility to make sure that she doesn't get pregnant since it is her body, and solely her choice when it comes to the future of the baby.
Click to expand...

lizzie said:
They do, but on this issue, since the woman has all the rights, I believe the primary responsibility lies on her shoulders. People want to have it both ways, and have their cake and eat it too. This is one of those issues where men can really get screwed, and have no say in the matter whatsoever.

I realize that being a woman, I'm "supposed" to look at this from a woman's point of view, but before I am a woman, I am a human, and I can see that men really are at a disadvantage on this issue. Since women neglect to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies, I encourage men to take care of the birth control issue themselves, but that's because it is the intelligent thing to do.
Click to expand...

SmokeAndMirrors said:
… For women who truly cannot support their children on their own, child support is usually a drop in the bucket. It doesn't even begin to cover the true expense. Plenty of women get both child support and assistance.

Also, a woman who is so poor she cannot afford her children probably didn't have them with a rich man. Oftentimes, he can't afford the payments. So a lot of the time, he doesn't pay at all. It's relatively easy to get out of child support payments. Even if he doesn't and his wages are garnished, that can effectively put him on the dole himself, in addition to doing almost nothing to help the woman since his wages are so small to begin with. You will likely still wind up with at least one person on welfare in this situation -- which applies to an awful lot of people.

Second, the reality is that it is the child of the one who accepts responsibility for it. A woman who puts a child up for adoption is not responsible for its well-being despite the fact that she is responsible for its existence. Why should a man, who has basically done the same thing, be forced to pay where a woman isn't?

…a bio mother who put her child up for adoption even MORE than it applies to a man who wrote away his rights: a child put for up adoption will almost certainly require public support. By your logic, adoption shouldn't be allowed due to the near-certainty of the child requiring public support.

For that matter, it could apply to public schooling. Why do we pay for the education of a child you made?

Also, the fact that this conversation always goes in one direction: money from the man to the woman. Women can work these days, and there are single fathers too. Why do we always talk about this in the subliminal context of the "weaker sex"?

But the reality is this. First, that child support does not cure ills. In some instances, it simply makes more. Second, that we live in a society that is sufficiently complex that none of us can be said to be truly independent. And third, that even if neither of those were the case, it somehow justifies forcing a man to spend his life and income a certain way for something he had no say in.
Click to expand...

SmokeAndMirrors said:
What it is, I think, is the lack of emphasis on empowerment for ones own choices. We talk about responsibility in the context of punishment so often, in everything from the abortion debate to employment. There's no pride or empowerment in rising to the occasion.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Although the OP mentions the possibility of giving the man some right to choose abortion, you also see that in my very first response on page one that I do not support that. The right to choose rests absolutely with the woman as far as I am concerned. However, the issue should be about making an informed decision and then accepting FULL responsibility for it. Trying to force an unwilling male that both KNOW did not intend nor want a baby into a lifelong relationship creates lifelong problems for all parties concerned.
Click to expand...

Yes, the man made a fully informed decision just as much as the female did when he agreed to have sex. Neither party is more innocent than the other, and you are trying to place more responsibility on the female because of biological factors which cannot be changed or controlled. There is no 100% effective form of birth control, so if you don't want to accept responsibility for your actions then you should not sleep with any females unless you are married to them and keep your penis safely inside your trousers. :)



So your answer is allowing an irresponsible female to have a baby and then force her equally irresponsible male sperm donor to help her act irresponsibly in raising a child?

I am going to let other women address the points you raised in your comments:
Click to expand...

This is irrelevant because it does absolutely nothing to address the problems of irresponsibility. You are just transferring it from the father/mother to the rest of society. Women and men are still going to have sex, and children are going to result from these unions. It's best that you charge the parents who created the life with the responsibility.

And if you think about, the woman who would want to keep the baby is actually accepting the responsibility for her actions, whereas you want to be able to absolve the man of the same responsibilities that result from his irresponsible behavior. Your claims and your arguments are just bogus.
 
sangha said:
Under the constitution, the govt does not have the power to protect the unborn
Click to expand...

This post of yours is absolutely and empirically untrue. There are valid laws in place that not only protect the unborn, there are laws that help their development and health. There are also criminal sanctions against those that harm the unborn in the commission of assaults of various degrees upon them or their mother.
 
Removable Mind said:
I get what Excon is saying. I get what you're saying. However, the language by Excon is...well, not technically correct...and your post not isn't "technically correct.

Men and women who have sex can agree that a sexual event is intended for pleasure only...and not for conception. But when the "unintended" happens there is an order of events.

First...fertilization...then a zygote, then a blastocyst, then an embryo, then a non-viable fetus, then a variably developed fetus...then fully mature fetus ready to give birth to.

Consequently...

Ex's comment should have been..."consent to sex isn't consent to conception".

Your claim "Excluding cases were either the man or the woman is incapable of producing a child, pregnancy is always a risk of sex"....should therefore read..."That makes conception consensual even if unintended."

My point is: At the very most...having sex would only make conception consensual...not "having children". And I'm not implying that I agree with that. I'm only trying to bring out the technical point.

Ultimately...current laws are....

A woman, can at will, without the consent of a man, have an abortion, of course complying with the boundaries of Roe v. Wade's viability provision. There is no standing legal recourse for a man that would automatically render her "choice" impotent.

My question to you is: I see your "exclusions" but, how does your "that makes conception consensual even if unintended" more true than Excon's version?

The fact is, and nothing new to you, is that sex is performed many, many more times for pleasure than procreation.

Because of the fact the fact sex is performed many, many more times for pleasure...then I believe that unless a man and woman have declared that they are purposely trying to achieve having a pregnancy, that sex is always regarded as an act of pleasure. Not the other way around.

Therefore the more intended consequence of having sex is to have an orgasm...or two...etc. And that an unintended pregnancy...is not consensual (or by agreement), but rather an unwanted consequence.

How that unwanted or unintended consequence is managed - at present day - and allowable by law - the woman can decide the fate of that conception...all by herself...within the boundaries of the law.
Click to expand...
The intent for sex is irrelevant. Anytime a couple has sex, whether for pleasure or procreation, there is a chance the woman will get pregnant. Even if it's solely for pleasure and even if birth control is used, it is an implied consent since a child could result. Claiming otherwise is nothing more than a pathetic excuse from a deadbeat trying to evade responsibility.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
The intent for sex is irrelevant. Anytime a couple has sex, whether for pleasure or procreation, there is a chance the woman will get pregnant. Even if it's solely for pleasure and even if birth control is used, it is an implied consent since a child could result. Claiming otherwise is nothing more than a pathetic excuse from a deadbeat trying to evade responsibility.
Click to expand...

Evade what responsibility?

The consequence of an unintended "pregnancy"...should be what...in your opinion?
 
johndylan1 said:
This post of yours is absolutely and empirically untrue. There are valid laws in place that not only protect the unborn, there are laws that help their development and health. There are also criminal sanctions against those that harm the unborn in the commission of assaults of various degrees upon them or their mother.
Click to expand...

None of the laws you refer are based on the idea that the unborn have rights. They are based on either protecting the woman's right to choose, ir the governments interest in protecting potential human life, an interest that does not exist until the fetus reaches viability.
 
Removable Mind said:
Evade what responsibility?

The consequence of an unintended "pregnancy"...should be what...in your opinion?
Click to expand...
Evade the responsibility of financially supporting their own child.

At the very least, even if the father wants to have nothing to do with his own child, is to support his own child financially.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Evade the responsibility of financially supporting their own child.

At the very least, even if the father wants to have nothing to do with his own child, is to support his own child financially.
Click to expand...

There is no responsibility to support the unborn. The responsibility to support begins when the child is born
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Evade the responsibility of financially supporting their own child.

At the very least, even if the father wants to have nothing to do with his own child, is to support his own child financially.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with what you're saying in terms of support. It's a double whammy deal. Mom...Dad...MUST be responsible for the BIRTH and raising of a child...IF..the woman chooses to carry the conception to full term. And that may not be the case.

Now we know that most conception are brought to full-term. That is a "Choice". And we also know that some women CHOOSE not to carry a conception to full term. That too is her CHOICE.

So in the case where a conception is brought to full term...both mommy and daddy...are indeed responsible for its well being...for at least 18 years. But if you're a parent...sometimes that responsibility never goes away. Some children are born with special challenges that will prevent them from being independent. That will be a lifetime of support required from both mommy and daddy...be they together or not.

But in the end...A woman who conceives...has the legal right to determine the fate of the conception within the boundaries of the law.
 
Penderyn said:
Well, there is nothing like simple assertion for proving utter nonsense, is there? Enslaving women is no man's business.
Click to expand...
It's either ok to own another person as property, or it's not. We all play by the same rules. Equality et-all.

If owning another person is ok, then abortion is ok, and so is enslaving women.

If owning another person is not ok, then enslaving women is not ok, but neither is abortion.

#logic
 
Jerry said:
It's either ok to own another person as property, or it's not. We all play by the same rules. Equality et-all.

If owning another person is ok, then abortion is ok, and so is enslaving women.

If owning another person is not ok, then enslaving women is not ok, but neither is abortion.

#logic
Click to expand...

The unborn are not a person

#fact
 
sangha said:
The unborn are not a person

#fact
Click to expand...
If that were true then this man would not have been convicted of murder. He would have been convicted of some kind of tampering charge or assault on the mother.
 
Jerry said:
If that were true then this man would not have been convicted of murder. He would have been convicted of some kind of tampering charge or assault on the mother.
Click to expand...

He was not convicted of murder, and was convicted of other charges, including tampering.

Thanks for proving I was right, and you were wrong

#Irony
 
sangha said:
He wasn't convicted of murder

He was plead to several charges (ex mail fraud, etc) none of which were murder
Click to expand...
Wise of him to cop to a plea deal, imo. Why all the fus if it's just a "clump of cells"? I clipped my fingernails this morning, send the cops!

Oh, there must be something different about the ZEF...hmm I wonder what that could be....
 
Jerry said:
Wise of him to cop to a plea deal, imo. Why all the fus if it's just a "clump of cells"? I clipped my fingernails this morning, send the cops!
Click to expand...

The fuss is because he denied the mother her right to choose. As a pro-choicer, forcing a pregnant woman to abort her child is just as reprehensible as forcing a pregnant woman to have the child.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom