• 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
Actually Roe vs. Wade was mostly about Doctor's rights.
It is important to remember that Roe v. Wade did not mean that abortions could be performed. They have always been done, dating from ancient Greek days.

What Roe said was that ending a pregnancy could be carried out by medical personnel, in a medically accepted setting, thus conferring on women, finally, the full rights of first-class citizens — and freeing their doctors to treat them as such.
Click to expand...
Essay - Doctor Recalls Abortion Complications Before Roe v. Wade - NYTimes.com
 
Last edited:
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Wrong, that isn't what the thread is about? :lol:
Click to expand...

Wrong again. It is exactly what this thread is about


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.
Click to expand...

He doesn't pay for the child. Both parents pay for the child.


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.
Click to expand...

The laws requiring parents to support their child are not "enslavement"

The fact that your argument requires so many distortions of fact proves how wrong your position is
 
American said:
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.
Click to expand...

So making the man pay child support is why women want to have a choice to abort a pregnancy ?

No, Roe vs Wade is about doctors rights and the right to privacy regarding reproductivity.

If the woman and man have a good relationship the woman will include the man on major decisions regarding a pregnancy.
 
minnie616 said:
So making the man pay child support is why women want to have a choice to abort a pregnancy ?

No, Roe vs Wade is about doctors rights and the right to privacy regarding reproductivity.

If the woman and man have a good relationship the woman will include the man on major decisions regarding a pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you're getting that. Saying the woman pays half the child support isn't saying much actually.
 
minnie616 said:
So making the man pay child support is why women want to have a choice to abort a pregnancy ?

No, Roe vs Wade is about doctors rights and the right to privacy regarding reproductivity.

If the woman and man have a good relationship the woman will include the man on major decisions regarding a pregnancy.
Click to expand...

And women have abortions in order to "trap the man" :roll:
 
sangha said:
He doesn't pay for the child. Both parents pay for the child.
Click to expand...

One of whom is a non-consenting party?

Again, why do you think women should be able to give up a child and not men?

The laws requiring parents to support their child are not "enslavement"

The fact that your argument requires so many distortions of fact proves how wrong your position is
Click to expand...

Sure is if it's non-consensual.

What distortion? I'm comparing equal situations, here. What women can do, which for some reason men cannot, and which is post-birth, thus having no reliance on biology.

Will you address the hypocrisy in what rights you think women have versus men?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
One of whom is a non-consenting party?
Click to expand...

financial support for a child is something that is required of both parents. Neither can refuse consent to that responsibility

Again, why do you think women should be able to give up a child and not men?
Click to expand...

Men have just as much right to give up their child as a woman does



Sure is if it's non-consensual.
Click to expand...

Consent has nothing to do with child support. Both parents are required to support their child whether they give consent or not.


What distortion? I'm comparing equal situations, here. What women can do, which for some reason men cannot, and which is post-birth, thus having no reliance on biology.
Click to expand...

Men and women are treated equally under the law

Both men and women can have consensual sex

Both men and women can use contraceptives

Both men and women can have abortions

Both men and women are responsible for supporting their children

Will you address the hypocrisy in what rights you think women have versus men?
Click to expand...

There is no hypocrisy. Men and women have the same rights
 
sangha said:
financial support for a child is something that is required of both parents. Neither can refuse consent to that responsibility

Men have just as much right to give up their child as a woman does

Consent has nothing to do with child support. Both parents are required to support their child whether they give consent or not.

Men and women are treated equally under the law

Both men and women can have consensual sex

Both men and women can use contraceptives

Both men and women can have abortions

Both men and women are responsible for supporting their children

There is no hypocrisy. Men and women have the same rights
Click to expand...

No, they do not. Women can give up a child. Men cannot.

Not only can men not give up a child, but they don't even get to consent to that child being here to begin with.

Not that they should have that as a right -- that's biology, not law, and it doesn't have to be fair. But the fact that he doesn't even decide that makes it even more insane that a woman can essentially dictate his entire life without any consent to the situation at all.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
No, they do not. Women can give up a child. Men cannot.
Click to expand...

Men can give up their child too.

Not only can men not give up a child, but they don't even get to consent to that child being here to begin with.
Click to expand...

Men have just as much right to give up their child.

Some men will never get to own a Porsche.

Not that they should have that as a right -- that's biology, not law, and it doesn't have to be fair. But the fact that he doesn't even decide that makes it even more insane that a woman can essentially dictate his entire life without any consent to the situation at all.
Click to expand...

A woman cannot dictate a man's entire life

Your argument depends on lies because it is false.
 
Captain Adverse said:
You've confused me by your response to Cephus. Why do you think the concern is only financial? When there is an unwanted pregnancy one of two situations will result: either the man agrees to marry the woman and try to asssume full parental responsibility, or he rejects marriage and is compelled by law to assume financial responsibilities.

In the first case, where the male is unhappy and only "doing what's right" when he marries the woman; he will resent his position and act out in various ways while he remains tied to the marriage and family scenario. Whether this scenario ends in divorce or not, his attitude while married often results in spousal abuse (intiated by either the man or the woman), child physical and/or emotional abuse, and all sorts of other horrors. If he divorces and tries to start a family with a woman he does "love" this creates further issues, both for his new family and the old one.

In the second case, even though he tries to avoid further contact he is bound by his child support duties. Thus he is often challenged by the mother in court as the child ages and costs increase. Meanwhile he has to continue to deal with her as she argues, cajoles, negotiates, rants, demands, etc.

Then there is the child, who naturally wants to know more about the father. Often the mother's anger is reflected in how she instructs the child about why the father wants nothing to do with it. This leads to many emotional issues with the child. We always hear stories of a child seeking out and trying to confront the father at some later time. Finally, all the issues mentioned about a divorced male starting a new family apply to the father who never stuck with the original woman and child. Now any family he tries to start has to deal with these issues too.

All of this because the woman has an "out" but the man does not.
Click to expand...

CA, as stated late yesterday, I said I would respond to your post...and I'd like to begin with the following.

I responded to Cephus' post, which was....

Cephus: 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...

My response was....

Removable mind: That's not hard to understand at all. You're only speaking from a financial obligation standpoint. It's a hell of a lot more complicated than that.
Click to expand...

First let me point out that you've taken the response I made to Cephus by restating it as “I” think that the only concern is financial. Then, you created a few imitations of life scenarios…which don't really fit with the exchange between Cephus and me.

In essences....if you carefully re-read both Cephus' post and my reply:

I think that you misread my reply to Cephus. My response does not at all show me saying that “I” believe it’s only a financial obligation. In fact, I stated that Cephus was only speaking from a financial standpoint…and that it is a hell of alot more complicated than that.

That said…do we need to move on with this exchange?
 
minnie616 said:
If the right to property means the government should not be able to build a highway through your farmland separating the house, barn and buildings from the farming land. I hear ya loud and clear. That happened to my grandparents farm in the 1930s.

The barn and creamery were on one side of the state hi way and the grazing land for the dairy cattle were on the other side.

Unless there is a court restraint order I don't know why a person would not be able to associate with another person or a group .

That is all I have to say on that subject on this tread.

This thread is about the topic of abortion not people's rights.
Click to expand...

not to associate, , means i dont have to deal with other people in say.... commerce i can refuse their business.
 
ChrisL said:
I can't even believe people are bringing this up because they are selfish and concerned only with "their" rights and screw the child. There are a lot of SICK people in the world. That's why men like this should have a contract in their pocket and have the women they want to sleep with read it. This way the woman, if she's smart, would avoid this man like the plague and NOT have sex with him to begin with.
Click to expand...

Except that the government doesn't respect those kind of contracts.
 
Penderyn said:
It certainly isn't part of a man's.
Click to expand...
I never said it was.

If it is in and totally dependent upon a woman's body it is her business, and well you know it.
Click to expand...
It's also the father's buisness.

You are just making noises because, ultimately, you clearly believe in slavery. Mind your own business.
Click to expand...
Matters of public policy are every voter's buisness.
 
sangha said:
Your sexual behavior is not a good model for others.
Click to expand...
The proof is in the pudding. No unwanted pregnancies in 8 years of abstinentce; add 4 years for the tubal ligation and my being loyal to my wife and not cheating on her.
 
Jerry said:
The proof is in the pudding. No unwanted pregnancies in 8 years of abstinentce; add 4 years for the tubal ligation and my being loyal to my wife and not cheating on her.
Click to expand...

And six children, at least for of them were unplanned.

There are crack whores with better histories.
 
Goshin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's the thing which makes the most rabid supporters of abortion rights sound like moralizing Bible-thumpers: "If you didn't want to have a kid, you should have . . . "
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
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.
Click to expand...
This thread is about forcing a woman to have an abortion, not carry to term. This thread is not about forced pregnancy. Your rant is cute but neither on-topic or intelligent.
 
Jerry said:
It's his child. Do you need it explained to you why a child's health and well being is a parent's business?


That is also everyone's business, but not this thread's topic.


Matters of public policy are my business.
Click to expand...

Who gave him ownership documents, why are other people's potential babies anyone else's business, and who made them public business except would-be slavers, posturing?
 
Penderyn said:
Who gave him ownership documents...
Click to expand...
Ownership documents of the baby? No one. There are no ownership documents of any person since the ratification of the 13th Amendment. Even after the child is born and almost all of us agree that it has the right to life, there are stil no ownership documents. Does that mean it's not the mother's child, since the mother never ever gets ownership documents?

Penderyn said:
...why are other people's potential babies anyone else's business...
Click to expand...
It's not a potential baby, it is a baby, by definition.

Penderyn said:
...and who made them public business except would-be slavers, posturing?
Click to expand...
The names of the women who made this the public's business are Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom