• 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:
And that was your decision to make about your body.
Click to expand...

I am not following you. What decision do you seem to think that I am making about her body?

No, if you support the proposal in the OP, then you support men having indirect control over a woman's decision.
Click to expand...

No. She can decide based on the information that she is given. She can decide to keep it or not keep it. She has millions of ways to go about making sure that she makes the best decision for her.

Like I said, the only way this would be fair is if you tell her this before the sex act occurs. Then she decide if that's a chance she is willing to take, instead of waiting until she already has her child growing inside her.
Click to expand...

Unless she is married then the assumption, 99.9% of the time, is that the man DOES NOT WANT A CHILD. How about we start with the obvious premise. Men are simple. Women make it complicated... just like you are doing now.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
:roll: weren't you paying attention? This was already covered. I said it's not in the Constitution -- I said it was a decision from the U.S.S.C., the body with the privilege of interpreting the Constitution. In that ruling, they said it's a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.

That decision renders the authority to allow women the right to an abortion from the Constitution.
Click to expand...

It isn't in the Constitution, which means it isn't a constitutional right. By admitting it isn't in the Constitution, you admit that the Supreme Court's decision was wrong.
 
Jerry said:
You know what....I'm not going to complain about that one because that's the kind of thing that if you're going to do, you should be smart about it. It looks like this guy did a little research on the labels, but his final product was lacking. From the start he had or should have known that the prescription would come under close scrutiny.

If it were me, there would have been a "car accident" where I was driving and she was wearing her seat belt. The force of the collision would have caused a miscarriage and "it was a car accident" would have white-washed 99% of my motive away. Instead of over thinking the whole thing, I probably would have looked for a target of opportunity in normal driving.

Even if she thought it was on purpose, good luck proving it in court.
Click to expand...

Dodge all you like, but you said if the unborn were not a person, then he would not have been convicted of murder

He wasn't convicted of murder. Your own argument proves that the unborn are not persons.

You got pwned....by yourself

But you don't have to admit that in public. I understand why you don't want to do that. It's OK.
 
Jerry said:
It actually IS that simple. I know because I've been abstinent for nearly 8 years now.
Click to expand...

After being non-abstinent for how many years?

And fathering how many children?

Yeah, you're a regular PSA for abstinence :roll:
 
Bodhisattva said:
I am not saying that it is fair... but women fought for, won and WANT the right to abortion, and that is good. But it is MORE unfair to force a man to pay for the woman's choice. If a woman, as the one that will be pregnant and face that difficult decision, is pro-life or not positive that she would abort... then she should not be having sex out of a secure relationship or marriage. The guy shouldn't either, really, but she is the one that will be having the baby.
Click to expand...

It is unreasonable to hand her more responsibility for the outcome when each have an equal role in creating that outcome. It takes sperm and and egg to make a baby you know. That's a pretty clear 50/50 hand in the creation of or prevention of a child. Both know the risks and have an equal obligation to prevent it.
 
Jerry said:
Time to wake up, because I've had no unwanted pregnancies in the last 8 years. Considering my history, that's pretty damn good.
Click to expand...

Wow!!

NO unwanted pregnancies in the last 8 years?

Do you realize how idiotic that sounds?
 
Jerry said:
You want to say that X is in a document because someone interpreted such. That's exactly how Young-Earth Creationism got started eventhough the bible itself never says how old the earth is.

The Constitution does not address abortion. At best abortion falls under the 10th Amendment as a right not enumerated which falls to the people. Abortion is not in the Constitution, and that's why you had to reference Roe v. Wade instead of quote the Constitution directly.
Click to expand...

Actually, you were the one who referenced RvW long before SY did
 
Bodhisattva said:
.
Click to expand...

You know... If it was that the man could opt out women wouldn't be running around having casual sex.
Click to expand...
Oh yes they would. You buy into that myth than men like sex more than women? Sorry, not true. They would be knockin' you guys up and leavin' you with the bill..


The way it is now, men shouldn't be. They are and they are getting stuck with 18 years.
Click to expand...
So are the women. What exactly is your point?


If it was the other way around and women said no until marriage, for instance, then there would be no unplanned or unwanted pregnancies AT ALL and I would think that this is what would satisfy all sides to this debate.
Click to expand...
So you suggest we take a time machine back to when exactly?


We should not be punishing either gender for people that want to have sex with others that they do not want to have a child with. I am a hypocrite about this too... I did it. It was stupid. I was lucky and never got one pregnant though..
Click to expand...
No, we shouldn't be. What we should be doing is being honest with kids about sex and provide them birth control. Less sexually transmitted disease fewer unwanted pregnancies. Instead we make it dirty and bad so everyone things they need to be ashamed of wanting it. You combine needless shame with parents in denial and bam, you got yourself a little Pebbles or BamBam.
 
Jerry said:
Just show me where in Roe v. Wade slavery is discussed. Do you need a link to Roe? Here you go: FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Show me. Where is slavery addressed in Roe. Where is it?
Click to expand...

Here:

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3;[53] in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.[54]
Click to expand...
 
Cephus said:
If you don't want to have a kid, don't spread your legs. Problem solved. The second you provide an out for one side, you need to provide an out for the other. Either or both. No special treatment.
Click to expand...

Both parents are responsible for supporting their child.
 
Cephus said:
But that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I'm saying. If you are going to allow women an out of an unwanted pregnancy, you have to also allow men an out. To do anything else is unfair and unequal. Why is this so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

Men have an out from an unwanted pregnancy.

Whenever they have one, they can get an abortion
 
sangha said:
Both parents are responsible for supporting their child.
Click to expand...

Is it just me or does it seem like half these people skipped health class on a really critical day?
 
JayDubya said:
It isn't in the Constitution, which means it isn't a constitutional right. By admitting it isn't in the Constitution, you admit that the Supreme Court's decision was wrong.
Click to expand...
Your claim is only true if the U.S. Supreme Court is not granted the power to interpret the Constitution; which is ludicrous on its face.
 
Cephus said:
You have no idea how utterly stupid that is. It makes about as much sense as the idiots who say that gay people have the same rights as straight people, they just have to marry people of the other gender.
Click to expand...

SSM bans are inherently discriminatory because they disallow marriages based on sex.

Abortion laws are not discriminatory. Any person of either sex is free to have an abortion under the law. The law doesn't discriminate
 
ChrisL said:
No, if you support the proposal in the OP, then you support men having indirect control over a woman's decision.

Like I said, the only way this would be fair is if you tell her this before the sex act occurs. Then she decide if that's a chance she is willing to take, instead of waiting until she already has her child growing inside her. :roll:
Click to expand...

Allowing men to have agency over their own life is "control" over a woman's decision?

I'm sorry, but BS. And this argument works just as well in reverse: if a man wants to be a father but the woman aborts, then the woman is "controlling" the man's decision.

That is ludicrous. People having control over their own life is not "controlling" anyone else. No one else is ENTITLED to the body or the resources of someone else. You are arguing that women -- and ONLY women -- are in fact entitled to that. That women own men.

Ideally, everyone should tell their partner where they stand before sex happens. I always do this. But just because someone didn't, or perhaps changed their mind, doesn't mean they are entitled to squat.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Wow - you just said "we aborted two, gave one up for adoption, and then kept two children . . . and if I had to do it all over again I wouldn't have any kids at all."

So - you don't want your children you didn't abort and wish they were never born? Why - BECAUSE OF YOUR EX WIFE? :shock:

Charming. (sarcasm)
Click to expand...

And the icing on the cake is he thinks people should emulate his sexual behavior :lamo
 
Cephus said:
But that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I'm saying. If you are going to allow women an out of an unwanted pregnancy, you have to also allow men an out. To do anything else is unfair and unequal. Why is this so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

Just a heads up. Women had no voice when the incubator for an embryo was chosen. Talk about unfair! I'll tell you what if I could have made my X grow those little 9lb ****ers I would have. So why should a woman shoulder more responsibility for something she had no control over? The one place they both have equal footing and control is consenting to sex and practicing it safely. So both have an equal responsibility for saying no or using birth control on their own parts. And if the outcome is a child since it was a 50/52 project both are responsible.
 
sangha said:
Here:

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3;[53] in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.[54]
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I can't even begin to explain how some of the same folks here claim that abortion is unconstitutional because the word, "abortion," does not exist anywhere in the U.S. Constitution; are the same folks claiming an unborn non-person (non-person according to Jerry) is a person even though that is not found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. :shrug:
 
Jerry said:
You come here and claim that pregnancy is savory and demand that others prove you wrong. Do you know the name of that logical fallacy? Would you like a link to it?

You have to first prove that pregnancy is slavery. Then your argument is addressed.
Click to expand...

First, I never argued that pregnancy was slavery; I argued that forced pregnancy was slavery, and I demonstrated this logically. The fact that you are arguing about everything except my actual case doesn't change the fact that forcing someone to gestate a baby is involuntary servitude.
 
minnie616 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Property rights is a posters' hobby horse that he wants to inject into every thread he posts in
 
opendebate said:
Just a heads up. Women had no voice when the incubator for an embryo was chosen. Talk about unfair! I'll tell you what if I could have made my X grow those little 9lb ****ers I would have. So why should a woman shoulder more responsibility for having for something she had no control over? The one place they both have equal footing and control is consenting to sex and practicing it safely. So both have an equal responsibility for saying no or using birth control on their own parts.
Click to expand...

And that is why you have the unilateral right to abort. And hey, guess what? That's not fair either. It's not fair that you have that right, and the man has no say.

But hey, that's biology. It's not fair. You can't make the laws "fair" when biology itself is not fair.

You're pro-choice, but you just used the "keep his legs shut" argument against men. You don't see the tiniest bit of hypocrisy with that?

So you think he should be forced into servitude over your decisions, but you don't think he has any right to do that to you?

He didn't have any control over it either. He didn't tell his sperm what to do any more than you told your ova what to do.

Rights come with responsibilities. If you want the rights and not the responsibilities, what you're saying is that you aren't intellectually capable of understanding your own rights, and that men don't have any rights, because they should be forced to babysit women's decisions.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
And yet, it remains true. Abortion is Constitutionally legal. Since only women can get pregnant, only women can make the choice to terminate their unborn non-person.
Click to expand...

Good for it. What has that got to do with the price of tea in China?
 
ChrisL said:
Because it's HER body.
Click to expand...

And no one is denying HER an abortion. We're just demanding EQUAL TREATMENT FOR MEN AS WELL!

Geez, you people can't read.
 

And that is why you have the unilateral right to abort. And hey, guess what? That's not fair either. It's not fair that you have that right, and the man has no say
Click to expand...
So work on getting men the right to stop an abortion or technology that can transplant the embryo to an artificial womb then and stop supporting empowering them to abandon their responsibilities. Letting them get off free when they hold equal responsibility is not an option.

But hey, that's biology. It's not fair. You can't make the laws "fair" when biology itself is not fair.
Click to expand...

We may not be able to make the laws fair when it comes to biology but get this, if he puts a condom on chances are the problem is solved. Why would we not promote that level of responsibility instead of supporting their right to dodge it.

And don't give that life's not fair deal with it BS. We struggle to make things as fair and equitable as possible in this country.

You're pro-choice, but you just used the "keep his legs shut" argument against men. You don't see the tiniest bit of hypocrisy with that?
Click to expand...

Uhhhhh, no I didn't.


So you think he should be forced into servitude over your decisions, but you don't think he has any right to do that to you?
Click to expand...

If he made the choice to have sex he is just as responsible for the outcome. He knows going in that he his pants are full of little baby makers and knowing that he can get off the hook if he chooses not to take responsibility is a pretty surprising position coming from someone who promotes herself as a feminist.

He didn't have any control over it either. He didn't tell his sperm what to do any more than you told your ova what to do.
Click to expand...
Yes he did have control over it. It's called a condom.

Rights come with responsibilities. If you want the rights and not the responsibilities, what you're saying is that you aren't intellectually capable of understanding your own rights, and that men don't have any rights, because they should be forced to babysit women's decisions
Click to expand...

That is your interpretation of my words Ms. Limbaugh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom