• 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
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Apparently one which you cannot answer.

The courts don't allow a man to just abandon his child. If he tries, he is considered a "deadbeat dad" and faces back child support, fines, and even jail.

So by what authority are men going to be allowed to "opt out" of supporting their own children?
Click to expand...

facepalm. Do you have any idea what the purpose of the thread is?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
That's exactly what this thread is about. It's about men who want to be allowed to get a woman pregnant and then get to walk away scot free.
Click to expand...

It's about whether or not men have the right to avoid being a parent, just as women do. If a woman doesn't want to have the responsibility, she can just kill the baby inside her body, as long as she does so before it's born. Men do not have that option.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
I don't know how else to say it: the problem is that women become mothers when they decide to raise children, and men become fathers... when women decide for them. The law doesn't need to be changed to give men the "right" to force women to abort, it needs to be changed to give them the right to refuse paternity. That is the solution, and it's the only equitable solution.
Click to expand...

Vik..I really do see your point, but it has holes in it. This whole argument really would instantly go away if a woman just abort. But that's not what the deal is. It's about what happens if she decided NOT to abort.

Under what circumstance would a man have the right to refuse paternity....If a woman decides NOT to abort...and she can't be forced to...

How would the legislators (Federal/State) justify creating a Opt-Out law? How would the language be created to make it enforceable?

An Opt Out Law, at the very most, be enforceable "during the non-viability stage" of pregnancy. So when a man decides that he wants to opts out...what is going to be the next legal step? How can it be an "automatic" option for a man to opt out... barring all other circumstances that might alter the option?

Example: If a woman has religious reasons for not having an abortion...and she can't financially afford the expenses from prenatal care on up through a child's supportable life...for who knows what possible reason might cause that...? And she can't be forced to have an abortion.

Who do you think...that a court of law is going to protect? A potential mommy or daddy?

If a man is court ordered to have a DNA test. It proves him to be the sperm donor...and a woman engages the court to force him to be legally and financially responsible for an "UNINTENDED" conception.

What argument will this man have in court? NONE! If the DNA confirms.

And while you call this "the only equitable solution"...you're leaving out the most affected element in this argument. THE KID! That's who is being supported! The kid didn't do anything to deserve NOT BEING CARED FOR properly! A kid is dependent. A kid can't defend itself. A kid can't fend for itself.

Once a kid is born...it ain't about mommy or daddy...and their selfish interest any longer! A court will protect the kid. The court won't give a damn about mommy or daddy.

I've listed a number of reasons why an "Opt-Out" law is weak and in some cases not even enforceable. And I gave a better tuned up version of that to Captain Adverse just recently...many on the previous page.

The standing reality of how unilateral control and laws work is base mostly on biology.

Today...

A man has no legal recourse to force a woman to give birth

A man has no legal recourse to force a woman to abort.

A man has no legal recourse to opt out. But for some reason there is some believe that an OPT OUT law is the end all...but it's not for several reason. It might...serve some men, while not others.

And unless there is a very compelling argument to enact an "opt out law"....it's just not going to happen.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Taking your last statement first; perhaps SHE should get to know the man better before SHE allows him to have sex with her?

Lizzie is right, and your own comments support this...a woman lives in her own body and (unless raped) is absolutely sovereign over it. That means SHE has the primary duty of care for it.

A man does not consider his sperm as having any special significance. You'd be surprised how much we intentionally waste in any given month even without women involved. ;)

No one is arguing "fault." We are arguing responsibility. When a woman gets pregnant, if she TRULY believes both share responsibility then she would automatically take that into account before unilaterally deciding to have a child. If she does not wish the responsibility of having a child, no one (pro-choice) argues with her right of opting to abort. So, if HE does not wish the responsibility of raising a child why does she still get to decide for both?

You keep arguing that his unwillingness to "accept responsibility" without any free choice in the matter somehow makes the man unworthy; as if he really has ANY say in your unilateral decision. Clearly he does not. Equally clearly you would prefer to force lifelong obligations to a child and lifelong connections to you onto him wholly against his will. Just how does that typically work out in the real world for all concerned? Not very well from all reports.

If you are pro-life then the greater responsibility is still on the woman. She has moral objections to abortion, so she has the absolute responsibility to ensure all steps are taken to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. She cannot blame the man because nothing can happen without her willing agreement; NOTHING. So I repeat, she should make sure it's a man SHE`can trust before taking that step. Hmmm?
Click to expand...

And nobody who is truly pro-choice should support the coercion you're advocating.
 
lizzie said:
It's about whether or not men have the right to avoid being a parent, just as women do. If a woman doesn't want to have the responsibility, she can just kill the baby inside her body, as long as she does so before it's born. Men do not have that option.
Click to expand...

That's because men can't get pregnant and therefore, don't have the same rights as women when it comes to abortion.
 
ChrisL said:
And lizzie, he needs to be responsible for himself too. This is a two-person issue. One is not more at fault than the other. BOTH decided to have sex.

And yes, if he doesn't want to impregnate somebody, he should take better care of where he puts his sperm, the same as the woman. Both are equally responsible since it takes both to make a baby.
Click to expand...

Apparently that's the old fashioned view, Chris. The modern, enlightened position is to see men as the victim of women and therefore having no accountability for their actions and to heroize guys who couldn't care less what what happens to their kids.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
That's because men can't get pregnant and therefore, don't have the same rights as women when it comes to abortion.
Click to expand...

She wasn't talking about abortion, but the right to avoid being a parent. Something you clearly missed in the first sentence.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
That's exactly what this thread is about. It's about men who want to be allowed to get a woman pregnant and then get to walk away scot free.
Click to expand...

No it is NOT, although YOU might like to make it about that. It is about equality of choice.

The focus is on the fact that currently the law allows abortion with a woman having an absolute right to choose prior to the 22-24th week, i.e. during the first tri-mester. Unless both parties were actively seeking to conceive they were likely engaged in "recreational sex" which does not automatically result in a pregnancy. In fact even if you are actively trying and following all best methods there is only a one in five chance it will work. That makes it an even less likely, albeit still possible, result of even unprotected sex. Thus, both parties who engage in unprotected sex may recognize a possibility of conception but don't necessarily agree to it.

Current law allows a woman the absolute right to abort, regardless of what the male wants. It also allows an absolute right to have the baby, regardless of what the man wants. Well, if he has no choice in keeping it, why must he have the responsibility if she chooses to keep it? If the sole choice is hers, then the sole responsibility is hers. The male should have the right to volunteer to marriage and family, or to opt-out.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
She wasn't talking about abortion, but the right to avoid being a parent. Something you clearly missed in the first sentence.
Click to expand...
Guess what? If she has the baby -- he's a parent. Like it or not, there is no avoiding it.
 
Captain Adverse said:
No it is NOT, although YOU might like to make it about that. It is about equality of choice.

The focus is on the fact that currently the law allows abortion with a woman having an absolute right to choose prior to the 22-24th week, i.e. during the first tri-mester. Unless both parties were actively seeking to conceive they were likely engaged in "recreational sex" which does not automatically result in a pregnancy. In fact even if you are actively trying and following al best methods there is only a one in five chance it will work. That makes it a unlikely, albeit still possible, result of even unprotected sex. Thus, both parties who engage in unprotected sex may recognize a possibility of conception but don't necessarily agree to it.

Current law allows a woman the asolute right to abort, regardless of what the male wants. It also allows an absolute right to have the baby, regardless of what the man wants. Well, if he has not choice in keeping it, why must he have the responsibility if she chooses to keep it? If the sole choice is hers, then the sole responsibility is hers. The male should have the right to volunteer to marriage and family, or to opt-out.
Click to expand...
Until men can get pregnant, there is no equality here.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Guess what? If she has the baby -- he's a parent. Like it or not, there is no avoiding it.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the people that think he isn't a father if he walks. After that little chore is done I will consider your argument.
 
Henrin said:
Tell that to the people that think he isn't a father if he walks. After that little chore is done I will consider your argument.
Click to expand...
Ok, I get it -- you don't grasp the distinction between the words, "father" and "parent."
 
Jerry said:
How many people are in the world does not change the nature of the decision when an individual makes it. There could be 2 or 2 billion and pregnancy is still a known result of sex. It's a risk you accept when you have sex.
Click to expand...

Yes, pregnancy is possible consequence of sex.

And abortion is a possible consequence of pregnancy.

The Moral Fascists who want to ban abortion just have to accept that.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Ok, I get it -- you don't grasp the distinction between the words, "father" and "parent."
Click to expand...

Parent: : a person who is a father or mother : a person who has a child. :shrug:
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Until men can get pregnant, there is no equality here.
Click to expand...

In life nothing is equal, absolutely NOTHING. However, legal equity is possible in a free society. That hypothetical possibility is what we are discussing.
 
Captain Adverse said:
True, it does take two to conceive. But if only ONE get's to decide whether to abort or not, the other should get to decide whether to opt-out or not too. The woman should not have the final decision for BOTH parties.
Click to expand...

Mothers can not opt out of supporting their child

Neither can fathers
 
cpwill said:
Yes. The point is simply that we already allow women the ability to opt out of the charge of providing parenting - and so men deserve the same chance. :) Equal treatment regardless of gender.
Click to expand...

Not true

Women are required to support their children

They can't opt out, so men shouldn't be able to either
 
Henrin said:
Parent: : a person who is a father or mother : a person who has a child. :shrug:
Click to expand...

:roll: :roll: :roll:

par·ent

Biology . any organism that produces or generates another.

That's the distinction which evades you.
 
Captain Adverse said:
In life nothing is equal, absolutely NOTHING. However, legal equity is possible in a free society. That hypothetical possibility is what we are discussing.
Click to expand...

one of the problems we face today is people believe other people are supposed to treat them equal, ...this is false, equality under the law is for government.....not individuals.
 
sangha said:
Nonsense

Pregnant men have just as much right to have an abortion as any pregnant woman
Click to expand...

Don't you believe government creates rights? If so, wouldn't they have to establish that right? I don't think they have established men have the right to abortion. :D
 
Captain Adverse said:
In life nothing is equal, absolutely NOTHING. However, legal equity is possible in a free society. That hypothetical possibility is what we are discussing.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, what you are asking for is two different things, so it's not even about equality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom