• 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
No, I'm using a deliberately unlikely case to feel out your logic. There are no exceptions to the law, except that they are written into the law themselves.

I've provided multiple reasons that show why an Opt-Out proposal hasn't been logically defined...and that I haven't seen anybody display any well thought out arguments or premises that justify their claims of being a victim of this horrible disparity between men and women.

Now...how about your logic? How would you create such a proposal without infringing on a woman's equal rights defined in the constitution which includes life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and including right to privacy between her and her medical provider...which by the way hasn't been challenged for men.

Another words...I see a lot of bitching...without providing any achievable way of solving this disparity.

I want to see the language of how such a opt-out is constructed in order to prove that it is achievable without diminishing a woman's fundamental, equal rights.
 
I've provided multiple reasons that show why an Opt-Out proposal hasn't been logically defined...and that I haven't seen anybody display any well thought out arguments or premises that justify their claims of being a victim of this horrible disparity between men and women.

Now...how about your logic? How would you create such a proposal without infringing on a woman's equal rights defined in the constitution which includes life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and including right to privacy between her and her medical provider...which by the way hasn't been challenged for men.

Another words...I see a lot of bitching...without providing any achievable way of solving this disparity.

I want to see the language of how such a opt-out is constructed in order to prove that it is achievable without diminishing a woman's fundamental, equal rights.

Can there be fornication insurance? A man can opt out of child support if he is insured and the insurance pays out what should be child support .
 
Can there be fornication insurance? A man can opt out of child support if he is insured and the insurance pays out what should be child support .

HOLY ****! That is an achievable solution. Brilliant! No insurance...no nookie!
 
HOLY ****! That's is an achievable solution. Brilliant! No insurance...no nookie!

No flow, call Flo

200px-Flo_from_Progressive_Insurance.jpg
 
There is a biological disparity, the person with the greatest risk is the woman which is why it is incumbent on her to be both extremely cautious and responsible when it comes to her own body. This is exactly what Lizzie and Smoke&Mirrors are talking about. The risk of pregnancy is borne by the woman, therefore she has the greater responsibility to prevent a pregnancy from occurring.

However, some members seem to think that just by depositing sperm the male has somehow agreed to have a baby result. Nothing could be further from the truth as exemplified by the fact that even when the male WANTS the baby, the woman can simply say “NO, it’s my body and I don’t want one.”

I guess one way to look at the disparity is myopically, i.e. once a male deposits his sperm he is agreeing that whatever happens the choice is solely the woman’s from that point on. Well, some of us don't quite agree.



Where is the coercion? The woman can still have the baby. The woman can still choose not to have the baby. The only coercion I see is that imposed upon the unwilling male, who literally has no choice.

It is possible to develop a “public policy” creating an equitable solution which empowers the female to accept responsibility for her choice to have a baby, while releasing the male who never wanted marriage and family from the get-go. As possible as all the “public policy” subsequently created after Roe v. Wade in support of a woman’s right to choose.



That’s because this is a hypothetical discussion including a public poll to see what kind of support the idea has. It’s not something I’ve been considering legal action on for years and years. It is merely something that has come to mind from time to time in relation to Pro-Choice; and a recent incident in the news prompted me to bring it up in the forum.

I’m not writing an actual bill, I’m simply sounding out my peers. :)



I’ve already addressed the possibility. We are not legislators engaged in discussing legislation. We are citizens gathered in a forum discussing issues of interest and concern. It is a “debate” on a particular area of the abortion issue.

I’m interested in hearing what people think. I’m arguing for my position just as you are for yours. The poll (which does not count pro-life votes because they are committed to absolute opposition, hence assume both parties MUST have a child) is to see how many people think the idea is a good one and how many think it is a bad one and why.

Lordy, Lordy...Counselor...gotta do better than that. Still chopping away at a woman's fundamental constitutional rights....

But really, this whole thing has now drifted to what is appropriate for a woman to think and how to behave regarding to her reproductive role..according to men.

Meh...what else is new?

Oh, yes...there is coercion. You're assuming that just because a man wants opts out...she's obliged to just abort...since he's an unhappy camper. Not really. If not abort...then you have to assume that if she wants to proceed with having a child...well, she shouldn't have been so short sighted in not considering the possibility of an unintended conception, which her sex partner would freak out about and opt out. And the big coercion is...If she is against having an abortion and can't financially manage prenatal care...all the way up to child support. And there are other consideration...that I'm not going to post now.

The biggest hole in this whole deal is what you want to eliminate in face of the outcome of an unintended conception brought to full term...regardless of reasons...and that is...once a birth has occurred...no civilized society is going to allow the man to NOT be beholding in at least his share of support. Not gonna happen.

CA...I lost a really much longer reply...and this damn time-out feature demolished it...and my train got broke. I'll try to reconstruct it and post it when I can...
With much clearer and concise response. This is a really quicky thing...and not conveyed in the want I would like. So I'll get back soon as I can.
and concise response.

If there's no reviewable language in how such an opt-out option would be constructed...then I don't see it as a viable option at all.
 
Well I found something on "wikipedia" about this issue, and from two female woman's rights advocates:

Melanie McCulley, a South Carolina attorney coined the term male abortion in 1998, suggesting that a father should be allowed to disclaim his obligations to an unborn child early in the pregnancy.[85] Proponents hold that concept begins with the premise that when an unmarried woman becomes pregnant, she has the option of abortion, adoption, or parenthood; and argues, in the context of legally recognized gender equality, that in the earliest stages of pregnancy the putative (alleged) father should have the same human rights to relinquish all future parental rights and financial responsibility—leaving the informed mother with the same three options.

McCulley states:

'When a female determines she is pregnant, she has the freedom to decide if she has the maturity level to undertake the responsibilities of motherhood, if she is financially able to support a child, if she is at a place in her career to take the time to have a child, or if she has other concerns precluding her from carrying the child to term. After weighing her options, the female may choose abortion. Once she aborts the fetus, the female's interests in and obligations to the child are terminated. In stark contrast, the unwed father has no options. His responsibilities to the child begin at conception and can only be terminated with the female's decision to abort the fetus or with the mother's decision to give the child up for adoption. Thus, he must rely on the decisions of the female to determine his future. The putative father does not have the luxury, after the fact of conception, to decide that he is not ready for fatherhood. Unlike the female, he has no escape route'.

McCulley's male abortion concept aims to equalize the legal status of unwed men and unwed women by giving the unwed man by law the ability to 'abort' his rights in and obligations to the child. If a woman decides to keep the child the father may choose not to by severing all ties legally.

This same concept has been supported by a former president of the feminist organization National Organization for Women, attorney Karen DeCrow, who wrote that "if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support...autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice."[86]

The legal concept was tried in Dubay v. Wells and was dismissed. This was not surprising, since legislation in the various jurisdictions currently sets forth guidelines for when child support is owed as well as its amount. Accordingly legislation would be required to change the law to implement McCulley's concept.

Child support - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I guess there are efforts out there to try to change public policy.
 
Last edited:
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.


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.
Consenting to sex is consenting to have a child, and SCOTUS doesn't need to say it for it to be true, so asking for SCOTUS quotes is just stupid.
 
Consenting to sex is consenting to have a child, and SCOTUS doesn't need to say it for it to be true.

NONSENSE...and each and every time you make this claim ...doesn't make it anymore true.
 
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.


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.

EX...we've had some difference in other topics.....but I am definitely onboard with you in this matter.

"Biology alone" dictates that a woman should have the unilateral decision regarding the fate of a conception...within the parameter of the law. Then when we review the potential personal and social ramifications.. there could be many...if a woman isn't able to control her reproductive role.

Men who think that an OPT-OUT law is the solution..is in complete denial....because a civilized society will NOT PERMIT the co-creator of a born child to be forced to be LESS CARED FOR...because of a DICK bio-dad...being an unhappy camper. Children cannot fend for themselves. It would be a equal crime for women to be forced to seek government help...when a bio-dad thinks he got an unfair deal...in the scheme of life. Also...what if a woman is against having an abortion or passing off a child to an adoption agency or people when she has no guarantee out the care the child will receive. There are numerous reasons NOT to consider this option as viable. It's nothing short of a not well thought out option...which is more of in line with magical thinking. Not logical thinking.

There was a suggestion by Year2Late...sounds like a much cheaper alternative to deal with unintended conceptions. She posted the following:

"Fornication Insurance": A man can opt out of child support if he is insured and the insurance pays out what should be child support .

So...here's the deal. It's simple. No insurance...no nookie.

Somethings in life are intrinsically unfair...and no solution based current knowledge and or technology. Women having unilateral control over conception is just one of these unfair life situations...for now.
 
Oh, yes...there is coercion. You're assuming that just because a man wants opts out...she's obliged to just abort...since he's an unhappy camper. Not really. If not abort...then you have to assume that if she wants to proceed with having a child...well, she shouldn't have been so short sighted in not considering the possibility of an unintended conception, which her sex partner would freak out about and opt out. And the big coercion is...If she is against having an abortion and can't financially manage prenatal care...all the way up to child support. And there are other consideration...that I'm not going to post now.

Oh no, that is not "coercion." That is assessing the facts and arriving at a rational and informed final decision. Furthermore, I never stated she was "obligated to abort," I stated that many woman who assess such (currently hypothetical) "facts" and come to realize that they won't have a "free ride" might opt to abort. However, if they feel up to the challenge of raising a child without support from the male they can still opt to carry the baby to term.

The biggest hole in this whole deal is what you want to eliminate in face of the outcome of an unintended conception brought to full term...regardless of reasons...and that is...once a birth has occurred...no civilized society is going to allow the man to NOT be beholding in at least his share of support. Not gonna happen.

That's neither a "hole" nor an argument. Many Pro-Life advocates state "no civilized society allows a baby to be aborted;" so apparently to some we already live in an uncivilized society. My counter-statement is that no civilized society should allow such blatant inequity where one person has the absolute right to opt-out but the other does not.

If there's no reviewable language in how such an opt-out option would be constructed...then I don't see it as a viable option at all.

We don't currently need "reviewable language; as it is currently a social dilemma forcing men into desparate acts like the kid who was convicted under this Unborn Victims of Violence Act created by Congress in 2011. The first thing to decide is, is the idea rational and truly equitable. That is part of what this debate is about, equal choice to accept or reject responsibility.
 
Last edited:
Oh no, that is not "coercion." That is assessing the facts and arriving at a rational and informed final decision. Furthermore, I never stated she was "obligated to abort," I stated that many woman who assess such (currently hypothetical) "facts" and come to realize that they won't have a "free ride" might opt to abort. However, if they feel up to the challenge of raising a child without support from the male they can still opt to carry the baby to term.



That's neither a "hole" nor an argument. Many Pro-Life advocates state "no civilized society allows a baby to be aborted;" so apparently to some we already live in an uncivilized society. My counter-statement is that no civilized society should allow such blatant inequity where one person has the absolute right to opt-out but the other does not.



We don't currently need "reviewable language; as it is currently a social dilemma forcing men into desparate acts like the kid who was convicted under this Unborn Victims of Violence Act created by Congress in 2011. The first thing to decide is, is the idea rational and truly equitable. That is part of what this debate is about, equal choice to accept or reject responsibility.


It's coercion...if women are forced to engage in other choice than they might not have...if a crybaby mistreated man...doesn't want to be legally obligated.

Love your connection to UVVA...but when men or a woman feel compelled to negate rational differences between right and wrong...well, they most likely go to prison...and some are executed.

Pro-life arguments ...meh. The arguments are at this date not legally relevant. They can't get convictions where there is no statutory crime committed. Boo hoo for Pro-life.

Equitable solutions aren't possible...in an opt-out law. Or shall I say...you've yet provided me with any evidence...only about why men think they've been wrong in the greater scheme of life. Unilateral control by women...well, call it the greatest misjustice ever perpetrated on "men"..ever...and it still won't the biological necessity in woman in controlling the outcome of a conception.

Kid's here...society says...it can't take care of itself. Sooooooo, yes, there would be a huge hole. And I can name a whole bunch of people who are gonna scream bloody murder when women start lining up for government assistance to raise a child...because a poor mistreated man opted out. There'll be a big demand on taxpayer's pocketbook.

And Yes CA...we are a nation ruled by laws. And an Opt out would have to be legislated. Thus Yes ...a language would be necessary in order to enforce it.
 
I just hope people teach their sons better than this. This is disgusting.

Very depressing too that people have such attitudes. Very sad indeed that it's come to this.

Frankly, I did teach my sons exactly that. I taught them that they would be wise to make sure they could not get a girl pregnant, because so many girls aren't reliable to protect themselves, regardless of what they may tell you. I taught them not to trust in what they were being told by girls regarding birth control, and that if they were wise, they would either avoid having sex, or use condoms every single time they had sex. I, as a mother, was not willing to trust a stupid teenage girl with my son's future, and rightfully so.

This thread is a perfect example of why I taught my sons as I did.
 
Last edited:
If there is no responsibility before the child is born, how then does the "father" become responsible afterwards?

It's called "birth"

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?

Birth is not a "decision"; it's an "event"
 
I'll believe that when men gain the same choices afforded women to divest themselves of responsibility before a child is born..

Until birth, there is no responsibility so it's impossible for anyone to divest themselves of a responsibility that doesn't exist

Once it's born, neither can divest themselves of the responsibility

Your position depends on the fiction that an abortion is a divestment of something that doesn't exist
 
No it did not do away restrictions as I have told you before.
Doe vs Bolton allows for abortions past viability in extreme cases where irreparable damage will take place to a major bodily function if the pregnancy continued.

Incorrect. Doe v Bolton declared that "the medical judgment [that an abortion is required] may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age." No "irreparable damage to a major bodily function" is required whatsoever.

In otherwords, the only "burden of proof" is that a baby would be inconvenient and difficult (and since when are babies ever easy?), or that emotionally you dont' want a child. It is a barrier that is effectively non-existant due to the broad and vague language attached to it.

:) But this is a discussion of whether or not we should have equal rights for men and women, and perhaps you having to deal with that is better reserved for the abortion forum itself.
 
on the contrary. According to the pro-choice side he is choosing to divest himself for responsibility for raising a fetus, not a child. If we are going to offer one gender a veto over their future commitment to a "fetus", then we need to offer both genders a veto over their responsibility to the "fetus". If it is a child, then neither gender should get a veto excepting in the case where they choose to give a child up for adoption.

That's not what this is about at all. You are even more confused about this thread than I first thought if you think folks here are advocating to merely get out of expenses during pregnancy and not from birth through age 18.

:eek:
 
There is no equal. Unless you are saying a man suffers the same physical consequences as a women does during pregnancy. Sorry, but her body her choice.

Oh really. What exactly do you suppose he is going to be using to earn the money he will spend on 18-22 years of child support?

His body. His choice.
 
It's called "birth"



Birth is not a "decision"; it's an "event"

I am curious. we all know that child support may be required of the father despite his objections.....does the law ever require the man to pony up for pregnancy and delivery costs?
 
That's not what this is about at all. You are even more confused about this thread than I first thought if you think folks here are advocating to merely get out of expenses during pregnancy and not from birth through age 18.

1. Pre-birth, the mother has the right to make the unilateral decision that she does not wish to be a mother. The father does not have the right to make a unilateral decision that he does not wish to be a father.

2. Post-Birth, both are currently responsible for the kid.

3. Therefore we should either make both responsible pre birth (my preferred position) or we should make both equally capable of making a unilateral decision not to be a parent pre birth.



As the NOW President put it so aptly: women should not have the ability to make unilateral decisions and then demand that men fund them.
 
Oh really. What exactly do you suppose he is going to be using to earn the money he will spend on 18-22 years of child support?

His body. His choice.

No, that is his money not his body.

He can choose not to work and there will be nothing to take.

You are really trying to make like there is some huge disparity in the treatment of men. But you are asking for actual equality in a system where there is no possible equality.

A woman physically has to endure the pregnancy. Even the most loving and doting of husbands cannot "feel her pain" or suffer her potential life/death health issues.

There is no equity in that situation.

Perhaps the cheapest route is to get a reversible vasectomy or learn how to use a condom better ( and pick a good brand)
 
It's coercion...if women are forced to engage in other choice than they might not have...if a crybaby mistreated man...doesn't want to be legally obligated.

Please reconsider that comment. The best decisions are based upon a rational assessment of all pros and cons. The mere fact that a change in legal rights might lead a woman to a deeper assessment than is currently required does not necessarily lead to coercion. She still has a choice. The male states at a time when she still has an easy out, "I do not want a baby and if you elect to keep it then it will be entirely your responsibility." She still has the same options, the only difference is she cannot coerce HIM into supporting them.

When coercion occurs there is NO choice, you do what you are told; i.e. say uncle or I will twist your arm off. The situation discussed is not coercion. The real coercion occurs when the woman says "I've decided to do this, now YOU are REQUIRED to do THAT because failure to do so will result in jail, garnishment, etc."

Love your connection to UVVA...but when men or a woman feel compelled to negate rational differences between right and wrong...well, they most likely go to prison...and some are executed.

Wow great argument in support of MY contention that the the REAL coercion occurs against the male. ;)

Equitable solutions aren't possible...in an opt-out law. Or shall I say...you've yet provided me with any evidence...only about why men think they've been wrong in the greater scheme of life. Unilateral control by women...well, call it the greatest misjustice ever perpetrated on "men"..ever...and it still won't the biological necessity in woman in controlling the outcome of a conception.

Simply because you say "this is the way things are and they will never change" does not make it a truth. In fact, things are subject to change all the time or else we would not be seeing abortions rights at all because there would be no abortion rights.

Kid's here...society says...it can't take care of itself. Sooooooo, yes, there would be a huge hole. And I can name a whole bunch of people who are gonna scream bloody murder when women start lining up for government assistance to raise a child...because a poor mistreated man opted out. There'll be a big demand on taxpayer's pocketbook.

Not automatically true. Many single parents currently take full care of their own kids. No welfare, no social support...on. Their. Own. As argued, it is entirely possible that a woman facing only "welfare" might choose to abort and wait to have a child until she can either find a man who wants one with her, or have one and take care of it herself. Saying that just because under current public policy she gets to "double dip" with child-support from the father and social welfare from the state is the status quo does not mean that changes can't correct or modify that situation for the better.

And Yes CA...we are a nation ruled by laws. And an Opt out would have to be legislated. Thus Yes ...a language would be necessary in order to enforce it.

Of course it would have to be legislated. Just not HERE and right NOW. This is a debate; I am not going to write up a fake legislation example to support a hypothetical position. However, I did provide a citation to a wikipedia article wich might lead YOU to some current action in this regard. Read back a few pages and you might find it. ;) (Post 1081 on page 109)
 
Last edited:
1. Pre-birth, the mother has the right to make the unilateral decision that she does not wish to be a mother. The father does not have the right to make a unilateral decision that he does not wish to be a father.

2. Post-Birth, both are currently responsible for the kid.

3. Therefore we should either make both responsible pre birth (my preferred position) or we should make both equally capable of making a unilateral decision not to be a parent pre birth.



As the NOW President put it so aptly: women should not have the ability to make unilateral decisions and then demand that men fund them.

Let us get this PERFECTLY straight. A man does not "fund" the woman. He supports his child. It is kind of telling you do not see the difference.
 
Back
Top Bottom