• 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
You appear to be thoroughly confused to what this thread is about. It's questioning if men who knock someone up can evade supporting their own child should the mother have the baby. So yes, despite your confusion, there really is a child being abandoned by a deadbeat dad under this pathetic scenario.

Actually, the thread is about whether or not a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion against her will, in order to prevent himself from becoming a parent. The discussion of whether or not men should have the right to refuse paternity is slightly off-topic, and has been presented as a more morally viable alternative to giving a man wrongful legal authority over a woman's medical decisions.
 
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.

Wrong.
If a woman becomes she can opt for an abortion within the parameters of Roe vs Wade which means before viability except in extreme cases.

The extreme cases are when a woman's life ,or irreparable damage to a major bodily function would occur if the pregnancy continued or when the fetus would be stillborn or when the fetus is so malformed it would only live a few minutes or hours.
Those are extreme cases.
 
On the contrary, women get two ways to opt out; they can either have the child killed, or give it up for adoption. No such escapes are made available to the father.

No woman can legally have a born child killed. You are playing word games.
 
I am correct.
No Jerry. You are wrong, as consent to have sex is not consent to a child.

You have been asked twice so far to provide a SCOTUS case saying so.
And you have failed at doing so both times - because you can't.
You can't, because you are wrong.
Consenting to sex is not consenting to children.


In my view, this will never, ever happen for one simple reason - if the father of a child isn't responsible for the financial wellbeing of his child, the child will, in all likelihood, become a financial burden on the state. The state will never pass a law that makes them the child's supporter by default. And as a taxpayer, you should never support any law that makes the state "daddy".
Really?
You think women are going to bring children into the world knowing that she wont be getting any support from the man?
I am sure some will. But then we will be having those who choose otherwise.

Then if there is still a problem with women bring children into this world that need to be supported by the state, then we can make further laws to prevent that.

But back to the fairness. It will happen. Not in my lifetime, but it will happen. Attitudes are, and will continue to change.
It is not fair for her to subject another to a hardship by her decision.
 
On the contrary, women get two ways to opt out; they can either have the child killed, or give it up for adoption. No such escapes are made available to the father.

Wrong. There are no children to be responsible for until birth, so an abortion doesn't opt out of having children.
 
Women are not allowed to opt out of their responsibility to raise a child, so men should not be allowed to do
You are playing word games.
If a woman chooses to abort there is no child to be spoken of.
If she chooses to have a child, it should only effect her and not another unless they choose also.
 
You are the one trying to force taxpayers to pay for the child. If the father is not responsible, then a lot of times the mother will just collect welfare for herself and the child. So the choice is yours, either the father pays for his child or you let him walk away without any kind of responsibility and we all pay instead.
No I am not.
As it is, that is the way it happens.
As it would be, no.
She brought a child into this world believing that he would be, voluntarily or not, supporting the child.
Under the proposal, she would not be thinking such if he said he wasn't.


Exactly, this whole thread is disgusting. These selfish men are trying to make this an issue about them and how they're mad that it's "NOT FAIR!" They need to STOP thinking about themselves and think about the child. The whole premise is selfish and retarded.
What is disgusting is the unfairness to begin with.
Nor is there anything wrong with seeking fairness of choice.


STOP turning this into a male versus female battle. It is immature. IF you have sex with a woman and she gets pregnant, you are BOTH responsible.
And yet you apparently are ignoring that after that, she is allowed to make a choice that doesn't just effect her.
That is wrong.
Her choice should only effect her.


This is just a terrible idea. It will create more broken homes, fatherless unwanted children and more people collecting public assistance or MORE abortions. What an AWFUL idea. :roll:
What?
It would likely reduce such things.
What you are saying under this proposal, is that if a woman knows the man would not support the child, she would have it anyway.
The likelihood of that would most likely swing in the opposite direction - that she would choose to abort unless she was able to support the child on her own.


You are also forgetting about the guys who would accept.

It is a great idea.


If there isn't child support, then the obligation will fall on the rest of us.
This problem would be lessened under the proposal.
Woman would finally be making a truly informed decision.

No longer would you see those who shouldn't be mothers on shows like Jerry Springer saying that they are going to get their money.



Although not the topic.

It could even be reenforced with laws that prevent women from bringing children into this world if they are not mentally fit, and able to provided financial support for it, whether it be from them, the sperm donor, or family and friends who would go on the record as being responsible.
Then we would only be left with those who have temporarily fallen on hard times and need support.
 
No we don't. Currently we allow one gender to duck its' responsibility

Until it's born, there is no responsibility. One cannot duck a responsibility that does not yet exist

Once born, neither the mother nor the father can evade their responsibility to raise the child.
 
No it isn't, only if there are associated complications such as gestational diabetes, or pregnancy-induced hypertension. Pregnancy in and of itself is NOT a medical condition. We only refer to it as such in the United States so that our insurance will cover for pregnancy. In other parts of the world, it is certainly not considered a medical condition but a natural process of the female body. Our bodies are built for carrying and delivering children. There is nothing unnatural about it.

Wrong.

It's not a disease or an illness, but pregnancy is most certainly a medical condition
 
You are playing word games.
If a woman chooses to abort there is no child to be spoken of.

And if there is no child, then there is no responsibility to the child to evade

If she chooses to have a child, it should only effect her and not another unless they choose also.

If there is a child, both mother and father are responsible for raising that child.
 
And if there is no child, then there is no responsibility to the child to evade

If there is a child, both mother and father are responsible for raising that child.
Still with the games I see.

Nothing would be evaded, as what you speak of would not exist if the proposal came to fruition.

Next.
 
It is entirely possible. All it takes is a "public policy" change on a state per state basis. How realistic? Well, how realistic were any of the social changes of the 1960's if someone tried to bring them about in the 1950's??? Especially abortion rights?

I respect your opinion, and understand your position concerning child welfare. However, IMO supporting the creation of dysfunctional families because of a woman's refusal to face facts seems more socially detrimental than allowing a male to legally opt-out.

I certainly respect your opinion a well, but the more these post are defining the various dynamics of conception and parameters that create this perceived means of legal opt-out law...is predicated on magical thinking.

CA...it's not about my concern for child welfare. There is a biological disparity that can't be overridden.

All of the "dysfunctional family stories", sad as some might be...it is impossible employ a public policy to coerce a woman into reacting to a conception based on someone else beliefs on when and when they should not reproduce.

You have yet to outline just a simple version of what such a public policy's language would look like and how it would be enforced.

So far all I've seen is: LIFE'S NOT FAIR - I RAISE MY STAFF - LET THERE BE AN MALE OPT-OUT LAW! Poooof...and there came upon the earth...an opt-out law or public policy.

I've seen nothing but this way of controlling through coercion via a public policy as you call it. Since it's still not possible to create...it really is nothing less than a "I'm not gonna get mad - I'm gonna get even" mentality somehow converted into some form of legal instrument.

Actually this whole thing reminds me of stories about the flood of witch burning during the 16th century...ALL BASED ON...one person's perception of another person's life not being lived in a way they thought they should live.

So now...we would have to have a judicial system that can foretell the future of any given woman. In other words...okay...Ma'am, you'll have a dysfunctional family and the guy doesn't want to be a part of that so he's opting out.

The Opt-Outer...need to be way more specific about how this policy is constructed...and how to truly enforce it without infringing on the rights of a woman. EQUAL RIGHTS.
 
On the contrary, women get two ways to opt out; they can either have the child killed, or give it up for adoption. No such escapes are made available to the father.

Please, more "it's not fair" whining?

If you want "it's not fair" try being pregnant for nine months. While I was headed for pre-eclampsia (read potential organ damage and death) and needing surgery with general anesthesia to deliver my baby....I never thought that "dang, its not fair that only the mom has to go through this".

Sorry, but the numerous physical changes and potential damages that can come from pregnancy kinda over-rides any man's "it's not fair that she can opt out, but I cannot"

I am curious, men are obliged to pay child support once the baby is born - but are they required to pay pregnancy support? Never heard of it if there is such a thing.

But seriously, "opting out" of supporting your child - if any pro-life individual says this...I will say that it strengthens my view that many "pro-life" people are pro-fetus and not pro-life.
 
Wrong.

It's not a disease or an illness, but pregnancy is most certainly a medical condition

No it isn't. It can be accompanied by medical conditions and can even cause medical conditions but in and of itself, if it is a healthy pregnancy, not a medical condition and requires no "treatment."

Pregnancy and Medical Conditions
 
No it isn't. It can be accompanied by medical conditions and can even cause medical conditions but in and of itself, if it is a healthy pregnancy, not a medical condition and requires no "treatment."

Pregnancy and Medical Conditions

Pregnancy is considered a medical condition

Medical Diseases and Conditions from MedicineNet - Index of disease information produced by doctors

FMLA & Family Care Act - Health Condition Definitions

Medical condition — definition written & reviewed by Australian experts | NPS MedicineWise

Definition of Medical Condition
 
Until it's born, there is no responsibility. One cannot duck a responsibility that does not yet exist

If there is no responsibility before the child is born, how then does the "father" become responsible afterwards? It can't be the decision to conceive the child, because that decision obviously did not create any responsibility toward the child-- either on his part or on the mother's. So what decision makes the father responsible for the born child?
 
Please, more "it's not fair" whining?

If you want "it's not fair" try being pregnant for nine months. While I was headed for pre-eclampsia (read potential organ damage and death) and needing surgery with general anesthesia to deliver my baby....I never thought that "dang, its not fair that only the mom has to go through this".

Pregnancy is a natural function of womans body. There is nothing fair or unfair about it. It just is.

Sorry, but the numerous physical changes and potential damages that can come from pregnancy kinda over-rides any man's "it's not fair that she can opt out, but I cannot"

If she decides to carry the pregnancy to term then she has made a choice to accept those physical changes and potential damages. When she makes this decision it is a decision on what she wants and what she is willing to do. It has no bearing on what he wants and what he is willing to do.

But seriously, "opting out" of supporting your child - if any pro-life individual says this...I will say that it strengthens my view that many "pro-life" people are pro-fetus and not pro-life.

Pro-life is just a slogan. Arguing against a slogan isn't really worth anyones time.
 
I personally think it's the woman's responsibility to make sure that she doesn't get pregnant since it is her body, and solely her choice when it comes to the future of the baby.

If she is to get to have all the control and make all of the choices after the fact, then she should have all of the responsibility before the fact........
 
If she is to get to have all the control and make all of the choices after the fact, then she should have all of the responsibility before the fact........

That's what it is that blows my mind about women who can't accept that they are solely responsible for their own bodies, and for what happens to their bodies (absent a case of rape or forced incest). They want the freedom and the choice, but they don't want to make sure that they are protected against unwanted pregnancy, not to mention the other risks they are taking with unprotected sex. This is junior high school grade knowledge here.
 
If there is no responsibility before the child is born, how then does the "father" become responsible afterwards? It can't be the decision to conceive the child, because that decision obviously did not create any responsibility toward the child-- either on his part or on the mother's. So what decision makes the father responsible for the born child?

No decision is necessary to determine the responsibility of parent...man or woman ONCE A CONCEPTION has developed past viability stage. Responsibilities are intrinsic to the social standards universally applied to both a man and woman who are identified as the biological co-creators of a viable fetus / born child.

The DNA identifies a man and woman as being the co-conceivers of a child. DNA can be extracted prior to birth...and identified. Once identified, these joint contributors to the biological creation of an offspring are subject to social laws, which define their roles necessary to ensure the welfare of the child is maintained within the hierarchy of "basic needs"...not wants.

Social laws also define the consequences to individuals biologically identified as the co-creators of offspring for not providing fundamental necessities to a child that is incapable for it's own food, shelter, clothing, health care...etc.

Oh...let me add. DNA from the woman...is a bit redundant since a child will come out of her body...so obviously the man's DNA identification is bit more complex and requires a different process to indentify.
 
Last edited:

Nope, it says certain periods if you are laid up during pregnancy would be considered a medical condition related to pregnancy, also after birth, but that is only for insurance purposes.

A lot of women have perfectly healthy pregnancies and do not get sick at all. Some feel great.
 

Nope, it says certain periods if you are laid up during pregnancy would be considered a medical condition related to pregnancy, also after birth, but that is only for insurance purposes.

A lot of women have perfectly healthy pregnancies and do not get sick at all. Some feel great. It all depends on the person, and every pregnancy is different.
 
Back
Top Bottom