• 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
Unless she never declares a father, which is relatively easy for her to do.

I'm not suggesting adoption as a solution. I'm just demonstrating that women have a right to give up their children, that this right is not governed by biology but rather by who claims responsibility, and that therefore there is no reason to deny that right to men.

Not that easy nowadays to not declare the father unless she claims she was raped.
Most women cannot even collect aid to dependent children without naming the bio father.
And once the bio father is named most states go after him for child support.

That is the reality of the situation.

I am torn on the OP issue but I am a realist and I don't see the states letting bio dads have " paper abortions".

Is it fair ...no I don't think it is fair..but I just don't see it ever becoming legal in the eyes of the state.
 
Last edited:
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.
First of all I do not support banning first-term abortion.

Secondly all you did was assert a claim without linking to any supporting source material. That means you haven't presented an argument, only an opinion. Just point out where in Roe SCOTUS struck down abortion bans based on slavery.

And thirdly your opinion is false on it's face because no one owns the pregnant woman, so she's not a slave.
 
Last edited:
After being non-abstinent for how many years?

And fathering how many children?

Yeah, you're a regular PSA for abstinence :roll:

Even someone as sexualy active and irresponsable as I was can stop cold.
 
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.
That would be true if he was aquitted of murder, but that didn't happen. He took a plea deal for lesser charges.

Don't you know that a point isn't false just because a given argument fails? Have you seriously never looked at FalacyFiles.com or a similer website?
 
Wow!!

NO unwanted pregnancies in the last 8 years?

Do you realize how idiotic that sounds?
It doesn't sound idiotic at all. In fact it sounds pretty damed responsable.
 
Also, a man should only be allowed to "opt out" of financial and parental responsibilities if his partner mutually accepts. The idea that he is somehow less obligated to provide for the child's well being is absurd.

Sure, like that's ever going to happen. You're obviously in the MEN HAVE ZERO RIGHTS CAMP.
 
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
If something is part of your body, kid, it is your business. Stop posturing.
 
And what others will point out is the distinct potential for sharp upticks in single parent households, dire poverty and generally careless behavior as a result of allowing men to simply stroll away without a consequence to be found.




What you're proposing is a moral hazard and an economic burden. There's a variety of reasons as to why many women choose to carry to term, even in less than optimal circumstances. If you help to knock over the first domino, you necessarily share the burden for the remainder that fall afterwards.

And conversely if you want the baby and she doesn't, you have no say. I don't see you protesting that. So in your world men have zero reproductive rights, but all the economic burden. So turning a man into a slave is okay with you. If she tells him she's on the pill, and it's a lie, well in your world it makes no difference because he's still screwed.
 
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:
"Person" is found allover the Constitution.
 
Not that easy nowadays to not declare the father unless she claims she was raped.
Most women cannot even collect aid to dependent children without naming the bio father.
And once the bio father is named most states go after him for child support.

That is the reality of the situation.

I am torn on the OP issue but I am a realist and I don't see the states letting bio dads have " paper abortions".

Is it fair ...no I don't think it is fair..but I just don't see it ever becoming legal in the eyes of the state.

And why would she want to collect aid for her dependent child if she plans to give up that child for adoption?

Not tough at all, if she doesn't plan to keep it.

I think it's entirely likely, although perhaps not for the reasons I think it should be. There's increasing demand, the demographic concerned has a lot of power, and the state has failed to enforce the laws we do have to positive effect.
 
The ZEF is not a part of the woman's doby. We just went over this.

It certainly isn't part of a man's. If it is in and totally dependent upon a woman's body it is her business, and well you know it. You are just making noises because, ultimately, you clearly believe in slavery. Mind your own business.
 
And conversely if you want the baby and she doesn't, you have no say. I don't see you protesting that. So in your world men have zero reproductive rights, but all the economic burden. So turning a man into a slave is okay with you. If she tells him she's on the pill, and it's a lie, well in your world it makes no difference because he's still screwed.

Actually men no longer are saddled with all the economic burden.
The courts expect the women to also pay half the child support cost.

Even if she did not lie and she is on the pill, birth control pills are not 100 percent effective and you could still be " screwed ".
Using a condom would help decrease the chance of an accidental pregnancy and also help protect against STDs.
 
No, you don't. You want women to be able to make a choice without the man's input, and then foist the responsibility that comes with that choice onto the man.

That is not accurate. The financial responsibility for raising a child is not "foisted" on the father. Under the law, both parents share that responsibility
 
Actually men no longer are saddled with all the economic burden.
The courts expect the women to also pay half the child support cost.

Even if she did not lie and she is on the pill, birth control pills are not 100 percent effective and you could still be " screwed ".
Using a condom would help decrease the chance of an accidental pregnancy and also help protect against STDs.

It's obvious you never paid child support, so you don't understand what a farce that is. Using a condom, blah blah blah....doesn't change the right of a woman to have an abortion. No matter what, the pro-choice side can always find some reason to trap the man. This isn't about babies, it's about power. Abortion was started by the feminists who wanted to grab some power. This is one of the ways they got it.
 
That is not accurate. The financial responsibility for raising a child is not "foisted" on the father. Under the law, both parents share that responsibility

We're all aware of what the law is. What we're debating is what it should be.
 
I think it just comes down to this, I do not support something that makes abortion more likely, and I imagine S&M would support anything that would make the "choice" of abortion more likely.

I agree that it would make abortion more common and / or put more strain on the adoption system.

I agree that it would be bad policy. I would not support that change and indeed I think it is appropriate for a man to begin paying for his half of the responsibility for making a kid before birth.

You will find no support for abortion from me, of course, but those who do support it have told me time after time that sex is not consent to conceive offspring.

If they actually believe that, then they cannot logically agree with court-mandated child support, as the father never consented to having kids, only to having sex.

That was my point. I think it's a good one.
 
Last edited:
We're all aware of what the law is. What we're debating is what it should be.

Wrong

Your argument is based on the fictional "fact" that financial responsibility gets "foisted" on the male

It doesn't. Both parents are financially responsible for raising their child.

Being held financially responsible for supporting ones' own child is not enslavement and it is not unfair in any way.
 
Wrong

Your argument is based on the fictional "fact" that financial responsibility gets "foisted" on the male

It doesn't. Both parents are financially responsible for raising their child.

Being held financially responsible for supporting ones' own child is not enslavement and it is not unfair in any way.

Wrong, that isn't what the thread is about? :lol:

Anyway, it doesn't matter. If she makes the decision alone, without the consent of the man, then she has no right to expect him to pay for it. It wasn't his call.

Sure is. You're pro-choice, aren't you? Do you want to ban adopting out, and abortion? No? Then you do indeed think that would be enslavement... when it comes to the woman.

But for some reason, men don't get that consideration.
 
Back
Top Bottom