• 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
ok you saying it a right then?

if you have a right to privacy , as you say.

....

There only are certain zones that have the right to privacy.
One of those zones regards reproductivity.
Which is right of a woman/ couple to chose when or if they wish to have children, how many they want and qhow to space to them.
 
There only are certain zones that have the right to privacy.
One of those zones regards reproductivity.
Which is right of a woman/ couple to chose when or if they wish to have children, how many they want and qhow to space to them.

ok, I can accept that, since you of the liberal mind, why does not the left respect right to property and right to association?
 
Regarding your poll choice of "no, only the woman has this right but the man remains responsible." If the woman gets an abortion, then the man has no responsibility. :lol: Do you see what I'm saying? That choice doesn't really make sense the way you have it worded.

I'm confused. There are two poll "No" answers.

One states that a man cannot require a woman to abort, but he can opt out of responsibility for her choice to keep a baby.

The other states that things remain as is: essentially she gets to choose and if she chooses to keep the baby he has no option but to accept (at least) financial responsibility.

The second "NO" keeps the status quo. The first "NO" allows a man to opt-out. Does that clear it up?
 
I'm confused. There are two poll "No" answers.

One states that a man cannot require a woman to abort, but he can opt out of responsibility for her choice to keep a baby.

The other states that things remain as is: essentially she gets to choose and if she chooses to keep the baby he has no option but to accept (at least) financial responsibility.

The second "NO" keeps the status quo. The first "NO" allows a ma to opt-out. Does that clear it up?

If the woman gets an abortion, how is the man still responsible? What exactly is he still responsible for if the woman gets an abortion? That's how it's worded to read anyway. "Only the woman has this right (to abort) and he remains responsible."


Sorry, I'm just nitpicking I guess.
 
We put 2 up for adoption. That's 2 aborted, 2 adopted, 2 kept (and 1 miscarried but I didn't mention that. The X still celebrates what would have been his birthday).


Not because of her, no. I knew of a better way to manage things and didn't do it. I don't think "I wish they were never born". I think "I should have don things differently".

By having a vasectomy at age 16 = not having your children.

You were called on that bull**** statement and now you're backpedaling.

Just - ick. I really hope that it came out all wrong when you wrote that and you actually love your kids to bits and pieces :roll: You know - at least Mac loves his kids and didn't say 'oh, we have five, and I wish I had a vasectomy instead of my kids.'

But never mind - future consideration: don't ever say anything that goes "I never wanted all the many I fathered and regretted the two I did keep" in any discussion on anything - because that's as low as someone can get as a parent, especially while trying to claim that 'life is worth something' and so on.
 
If the woman gets an abortion, how is the man still responsible? What exactly is he still responsible for if the woman gets an abortion? That's how it's worded to read anyway. "Only the woman has this right (to abort) and he remains responsible."


Sorry, I'm just nitpicking I guess.

Ah I see. Some might think it did not mean "right to choose" but only "right to abort." It meant right to choose, I suppose I could have tried to word it more clearly but didn't realize at the time it might confuse some. :)
 
Ah I see. Some might think it did not mean "right to choose" but only "right to abort." It meant right to choose, I suppose I could have tried to word it more clearly but didn't realize at the time it might confuse some. :)

Kind of like the difference between Let's eat grandpa and Let's eat, grandpa. ;)
 
By having a vasectomy at age 16 = not having your children.
That's right. I don't contest that. I addressed how I think of it.

You were called on that bull**** statement and now you're backpedaling.
I don't think of that regret in the way you framed it.

Just - ick. I really hope that it came out all wrong when you wrote that and you actually love your kids to bits and pieces :roll:
I never even hinted that I didn't love my children. I said I regret that I didn't do things in a better way, and that if I could I would go back and do them differently.

You know - at least Mac loves his kids and didn't say 'oh, we have five, and I wish I had a vasectomy instead of my kids.'
I didn't say anything which should give the impression that i don't love my children. I think you're just making things up now.

But never mind - future consideration: don't ever say anything that goes "I never wanted all the many I fathered and regretted the two I did keep" in any discussion on anything - because that's as low as someone can get as a parent, especially while trying to claim that 'life is worth something' and so on.
If you don't like it, don't read it. Maybe my current children would not exist. So what? It's not like my current children would be killed. In fact if we had just kept the first 2 and I got a vasectomy then, my current children would not exist. And again, so what? People are just supposed to keep having infinite children? No.
 
Last edited:
That manner of thinking assumes the worst of women and ignores the fact that since there are two parties involved and that there is equal responsibility. You can't have a baby without there being two people involved.

As I said, it's her body, she has total control of the choices, so the primary responsibility lies with her. As for assuming the worst of women, unfortunately sexually active teenagers need to be aware of this possibility, as it isn't all that uncommon. There's nothing quite so dumb as a teenager in heat, and I would far rather my sons avoid getting a girl pregnant, who was either negligent of her responsibility for birth control, or not quite bright enough to take sex seriously and avoid negative consequences, than to have them dealing with being a daddy at 16. My children are my first concern and my first responsibility, and if I had had girls, they would have gotten the same speech. I offer absolutely no apology for trying to insure optimal chances for my sons' having a life without unnecessary regrets.
 
As I said, it's her body, she has total control of the choices, so the primary responsibility lies with her. As for assuming the worst of women, unfortunately sexually active teenagers need to be aware of this possibility, as it isn't all that uncommon. There's nothing quite so dumb as a teenager in heat, and I would far rather my sons avoid getting a girl pregnant, who was either negligent of her responsibility for birth control, or not quite bright enough to take sex seriously and avoid negative consequences, than to have them dealing with being a daddy at 16. My children are my first concern and my first responsibility, and if I had had girls, they would have gotten the same speech. I offer absolutely no apology for trying to insure optimal chances for my sons' having a life without unnecessary regrets.
As a person who has said unnecessary regrets, I thank you on behalf of your sons. I hope they listen.
 
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.



We, as a society, are highly hypocritical about this stuff. We tell the woman that she gets to choose whether to bear the consequences of her choice to have un- or inadequately-protected sex, both pregnancy and the financial part... no baby, no support costs. We tell her NOBODY can tell her she has to let that baby grow in her body if she does not want it, including the father. At the same time we tell the man "hey, you went there, so you're on the hook buddy! Should'a kept it in your pants if you didn't want to pay!"

Incredibly hypocritical double standard.

I understand the urge to equalize things by allowing the man to "abort his financial responsibility" during the term when abortion is allowed, if he doesn't want the baby and she decides to keep it. I can see viewing this as fair, and in a sense it is.

However I have some reservations about it...

1. More children growing up in poverty.
2. More moms on gov't assistance, putting more strain on a system already generating over a trillion debt per year.
3. More abortions as many young men will opt out of fiscal responsibility, and many young women will decide going it alone isn't worth it.

So I dunno...
 
ok, I can accept that, since you of the liberal mind, why does not the left respect right to property and right to association?

I don't know what you are you referring to when you are talking about property rights and rights to association so I cannot answer your question.

This is an abortion thread and I am not sure what the right to privacy regarding reproductivity has to do with your question.

Perhaps a lawyer could answer your question better.
 
I don't know what you are you referring to when you are talking about property rights and rights to association so I cannot answer your question.

This is an abortion thread and I am not sure what the right to privacy regarding reproductivity has to do with your question.

Perhaps a lawyer could answer your question better.

well please bare with me, the left supports the rights of woman, and they have stated that many times, ..can you answer for me, why do they not support rights which are written in the constitution and rights which the court has stated exist.......

because I have never met a person from the left who supports property right or right to association.
 
Incredibly hypocritical double standard.

However I have some reservations about it...

1. More children growing up in poverty.
2. More moms on gov't assistance, putting more strain on a system already generating over a trillion debt per year.
3. More abortions as many young men will opt out of fiscal responsibility, and many young women will decide going it alone isn't worth it.

So I dunno...

We already have 80% of teen moms not having their babies within a marriage, and less than half of the bio dads being financially involved at all. A large percentage of the dads don't even pay an average of $800 yearly in support. I doubt that there would be a significant change in the poverty statistics in either direction.
 
We already have 80% of teen moms not having their babies within a marriage, and less than half of the bio dads being financially involved at all. A large percentage of the dads don't even pay an average of $800 yearly in support. I doubt that there would be a significant change in the poverty statistics in either direction.


Okay. It's not just teens though, I don't have stats but I'm pretty sure we're talking about a lot of 20-somethings here too. Probably more 20s than teens would be my guess.
 
Okay. It's not just teens though, I don't have stats but I'm pretty sure we're talking about a lot of 20-somethings here too. Probably more 20s than teens would be my guess.

Yeah, I was mostly just addressing the poverty concerns. The teenage moms are the ones who statistically are much more likely to be poor and on welfare.
 
well please bare with me, the left supports the rights of woman, and they have stated that many times, ..can you answer for me, why do they not support rights which are written in the constitution and rights which the court has stated exist.......

because I have never met a person from the left who supports property right or right to association.

Well please start a thread about property right and right of association.

Please include what property rights you think are being infringed upon
And what you mean by right of association.
 
Yeah, I was mostly just addressing the poverty concerns. The teenage moms are the ones who statistically are much more likely to be poor and on welfare.



Frankly, there's a lot of legal demotivation for men to get involved with a woman at all, let alone get married or have children. All legal advantages run straight to the woman these days, and if it wasn't for biological and emotional imperatives our birthrate would probably be far lower than it already is.

I really have no idea why any man gets married these days, unless it is out of strong religious beliefs or traditional sentiments. It's a good way to lose everything you have when the divorce happens... as is as likely as not... and to lose a lot of contact with your kids while still paying for them.

Some equalization is probably in order, but I don't want to see the children suffer as a result of it.
 
Attached does not mean a part of. When you attach a trailer to your car, the trailer does not become part of your car. The trailer even has it's own license plate and registration. A magazine is not a part of a rifle, it's an accessory like a costom grip or scope. Likewise a woman pregnant with a male baby is not a hermaphrodite.


Words mean things. Words matter.

That was covered in my link. Didn't you read it?
And as the guardian of that trailer, you have the right to disconnect it from your trailer and destroy it, if you so choose.
 
Yes you did, post 607, you said your authority for abortion comes from the Constitution, and when asked to cite that part of the constitution you referenced Roe v. Wade, not the Constitution.
You're still lying. Saying the authority "comes from" the Constitution is not the same as saying "it's in" the Constitution. I never said "it's in" it. Again, whether you accept it or not, the U.S.S.C. interprets the U.S. Constitution and they decided that Roe v. Wade is Constitutional. You can complain all you want, but that's how it is.

And that's a wrong answer. The Constitution does not give you the authority to have an abortion.
Are you saying that abortion is unconstitutional??
 
so if I have authority ,then where does that authority come from, it does not come from the constitution , because the constitution does not grant or give any authority to the people, it only places limitations on government.

authority which comes from government is a privilege, ..........so authority which does not come from government is a right.

so authority is a right............. when government is prohibited from creating law which infringe on that authority.
The authority comes from the Constitution in that the state cannot prevent a woman from her right to have an abortion.
 
We, as a society, are highly hypocritical about this stuff. We tell the woman that she gets to choose whether to bear the consequences of her choice to have un- or inadequately-protected sex, both pregnancy and the financial part... no baby, no support costs. We tell her NOBODY can tell her she has to let that baby grow in her body if she does not want it, including the father. At the same time we tell the man "hey, you went there, so you're on the hook buddy! Should'a kept it in your pants if you didn't want to pay!"

Incredibly hypocritical double standard.

I understand the urge to equalize things by allowing the man to "abort his financial responsibility" during the term when abortion is allowed, if he doesn't want the baby and she decides to keep it. I can see viewing this as fair, and in a sense it is.

However I have some reservations about it...

1. More children growing up in poverty.
2. More moms on gov't assistance, putting more strain on a system already generating over a trillion debt per year.
3. More abortions as many young men will opt out of fiscal responsibility, and many young women will decide going it alone isn't worth it.

So I dunno...

Well, I have tried to address some of those questions in prior posts, but not all. Let me see if I can hash some answers out...

1. More children growing up in poverty. Perhaps, but perhaps not. First, recognizing that a womans right to choose remains the same we are ensuring that she tries to make an informed decision. On the one hand, if the male is both supportive and looking forward to marriage and family and she decides to carry to term, then nothing really changes from current status quo. However, if the male indicates that he is not interested in either marriage or family and the law allows him the right to opt-out of further responsibility, then she is now required to take the full burden upon herself. Many of the women who would normally choose to keep a baby would now choose to abort. This, combined with my answers to the following questions might serve to reduce the number of children of single parents facing poverty.

2. More moms on gov't assistance, putting more strain on a system already generating over a trillion debt per year. A public policy change allowing a man to opt-out during the initial stages of pregnancy would also require modification of current welfare law. The modification under such a scenario might include limiting welfare to child support, child medical support, and day care coverage, but NOT full compensation for the mother who would be required to find work for her personal support. Thus, a woman seeing no male child support and finding that she would not be able to simply "live free" by having children is more likely to decide to abort.

3. More abortions as many young men will opt out of fiscal responsibility, and many young women will decide going it alone isn't worth it. This is highly likely, but seems a better recourse than producing dysfunctional families and all the attendant social issues and costs they create. Recall, during the initial 9 weeks there are non-surgical medical methods that stimulate a non-invasive abortion process. This includes the "morning after" pill, and then other medications that induce menstruation. Although a woman may not be aware until the end of the second week that she is pregnant, that still gives her time to inform the male to discover his position, and leave her up to 35 days to use the non-intrusive medical methods.

The point is that it should remain a woman's absolute choice, but she should make an informed and rational decision based on the question: "Can I take full responsibility and care for the child on my own if I have it?"

It should not be left to emotion, nor calculation based on: "Well I've got plenty of safety nets in social welfare and laws forcing the guy to pay me; and if worse comes to worst I can always sell it to some couple for adoption...so what the hell let's do it!"
 
Last edited:
Bull****. He factually confessed to murder.

He committed murder. He is factually a murderer.

Whatever he may have plead to, he was charged with murder and in his confession he confirmed he had done exactly that.

Can you kindly post a link to an article which states he "confessed to murder?" I looked, but I cannot find one. :shrug:
 
Well, I have tried to address some of those questions in prior posts, but not all. Let me see if I can hash some answers out...

1. More children growing up in poverty. Perhaps, but perhaps not. First, recognizing that a womans right to choose remains the same we are ensuring that she tries to make an informed decision. On the one hand, if the male is both supportive and looking forward to marriage and family and she decides to carry to term, then nothing really changes from current status quo. However, if the male indicates that he is not interested in either marriage or family and the law allows him the right to opt-out of further responsibility, then she is now required to take the full burden upon herself. Many of the women who would normally choose to keep a baby would now choose to abort. This, combined with my answers to the following questions might serve to reduce the number of children of single parents facing poverty.

2. More moms on gov't assistance, putting more strain on a system already generating over a trillion debt per year. A public policy change allowing a man to opt-out during the initial stages of pregnancy would also require modification of current welfare law. The modification under such a scenario might include limiting welfare to child support, child medical support, and day care coverage, but NOT full compensation for the mother who would be required to find work for her personal support. Thus, a woman seeing no male child support and finding that she would not be able to simply "live free" by having children is more likely to decide to abort.

3. More abortions as many young men will opt out of fiscal responsibility, and many young women will decide going it alone isn't worth it. This is highly likely, but seems a better recourse than producing dysfunctional families and all the attendant social issues and costs they create. Recall, during the initial 9 weeks there are non-surgical medical methods that stimulate a non-invasive abortion process. This includes the "morning after" pill, and then other medications that induce menstruation. Although a woman may not be aware until the end of the second week that she is pregnant, that still gives her time to inform the male to discover his position, and leave her up to 35 days to use the non-intrusive medical methods.

The point is that it should remain a woman's absolute choice, but she should make an informed and rational decision based on the question: "Can I take full responsibility and care for the child on my own if I have it?"

It should not be left to emotion, nor calculation based on: "Well I've got plenty of safety nets in social welfare and laws forcing the guy to pay me; and if worse comes to worst I can always sell it to some couple for adoption...so what the hell let's do it!"

Thank goodness this is not legal and more than likely never will be. The only way any of this would be valid is if you have an agreement before sex. This way, a woman can avoid this man completely and not have to worry about it at all.
 
well I have not gone in abortion.

the constitution recognizes rights and privileges exist..........there is nothing else but those -------------2

if government gives you a privilege, then that is authority from government to act on something.

if I have authority to act outside of government, that is a right.

so there is no separate authority............... its either a right or a privilege
Abortion is a right.
 
Back
Top Bottom