• 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, that is his money not his body.

It is his... what is the word? Oh yeah. Labor. ;)

It's his life, his body, his labor, the sweat of his brow. His life. His choice. Her life. Her Choice. Either both deserve choices or neither does.

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.

:shrug: I don't think anyone disagrees that it is women that get pregnant. But they have the option post coitus to decide they do not wish to be a parent - a decision that is not (and should be, if she wants to keep it) afforded to the father.

How far feminism has fallen, that it is reduced to arguing for dependency.

Or not. Perhaps the NOW president has a better grasp on the feminist approach to this issue than yourself.

Perhaps the cheapest route is to get a reversible vasectomy or learn how to use a condom better ( and pick a good brand)

What an interesting argument. I wonder what your response is when people bring up in the abortion debate that if a woman didn't want to get pregnant maybe she should get better birth control or not have sex with people she isn't married to.

:shrug: if you're going to claim that in the sex act the man is accepting responsibility for raising a child then you have to extend the same act to the woman which delegitimizes abortion.

You don't get to have your cake and eat it too ;)
 
Last edited:
Nor is anyone arguing that a father should be allowed to divest himself of responsibilities once the child is born - only beforehand. The exact same as the mother.
No one, huh .... ?

"Therefore, if the male does not wish to have a child and he makes his decision plain, he should be allowed to legally opt-out of all further responsibility (and thus all future parental rights) at some point in the process." ~ Captain Adverse

"but I should be able to have the option to say that if you have this baby, it is with absolutely no obligation (financial or otherwise) from me." ~ Gipper

"He should have the right to absolve all legal responsibility towards the child if he doesn't want to raise it." ~ molten_dragon
 
cpwill said:
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.

Allow me to help, here. The "them" (which is a "pronoun") in the latter portion of the sentence quoted above refers to "decisions" (the noun).
 
cpwill said:
Nor is anyone arguing that a father should be allowed to divest himself of responsibilities once the child is born - only beforehand. The exact same as the mother.
No one, huh .... ?

"Therefore, if the male does not wish to have a child and he makes his decision plain, he should be allowed to legally opt-out of all further responsibility (and thus all future parental rights) at some point in the process." ~ Captain Adverse

"but I should be able to have the option to say that if you have this baby, it is with absolutely no obligation (financial or otherwise) from me." ~ Gipper

"He should have the right to absolve all legal responsibility towards the child if he doesn't want to raise it." ~ molten_dragon

That is correct - all those posters appear to be making the same argument that pre-birth the father should have the right to say he does not wish to be a father, and sign away all rights and responsibilities.
 
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.
Of course he doesn't have that same right -- he's not the one carrying the embryo. He doesn't deserve the same privileges she's afforded.

2. Post-Birth, both are currently responsible for the kid.
That's not what is being debated here. There are some folks here taking the position that if the woman has the baby, the man should not have to be responsible to support his own child.

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.
Since you don't know what's being discussed, your proposed solution is meaningless and doesn't apply to the discussion.

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.
You have an actual quote?
 
That is correct - all those posters appear to be making the same argument that pre-birth the father should have the right to say he does not wish to be a father, and sign away all rights and responsibilities.

That's not what you said. You said they are trying to opt out only of the period while the woman is pregnant but not the 18 years which follow ...

"to the pro-choice side he is choosing to divest himself for responsibility for raising a fetus, not a child. ~ cpwill

Except that is not what is being suggested here. What is being suggested is that men should have the option to opt out of raising their own child.
 
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?

A couple of things

!) Child support is also required of the mother, whether or not she objects

2) Any payments for medical costs during the pregnancy is for the mother, not the child.
 
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.

I am curious, are you pro-life?
 
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.



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



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.



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.



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)

When the woman says...YOU ARE REQUIRED?

The woman isn't saying it...but you know who is.

And coercion can be imposed...not based on "no other choice" but limited choice.

And speaking of choice...the "choice" to opt out was available way before the unintended incident. Biological necessity for a woman to possess unilateral control...isn't a secret. Poor judgment on the guys part for not making that consideration prior to the little digression occurring...no matter who digression it was...or what contraceptive failed or any other unexpected reason.

Your assessment of how many women are making it...is way too optimistic. Nearly 50 million are recipients of some kind of public assistance. Many of those are kids. You now as well as I do that if Opt out was legislated, which it would never be...yes..the numbers would grow and grow. It's inevitable.

And since we can't define the language of an opt out...then...I'm not compelled to consider it as viable. If lawmakers were begin to debate and address all of the potential consequences...do you think for a second that it would be even remotely passable? I haven't even considered the possible constitutional arguments.

And my friend...it's getting late...and I have to indulge in a little "Son's of Anarchy"....

We'll continue later...
 
A couple of things

!) Child support is also required of the mother, whether or not she objects

2) Any payments for medical costs during the pregnancy is for the mother, not the child.

I just have never heard of men being required to pay for cost of pregnancy or delivery. (in a non marriage situation)
 
Of course he doesn't have that same right -- he's not the one carrying the embryo. He doesn't deserve the same privileges she's afforded.

:shrug: easy enough to reverse. She's not the one paying child support, she doesn't deserve the same privileges (of abandonment) that he is afforded.

That's not what is being debated here. There are some folks here taking the position that if the woman has the baby, the man should not have to be responsible to support his own child.

:shrug: well I and I imagine the vast majority of posters on my side here would disagree (assuming that she did not keep the child a secret precisely in order to avoid such; you might get some disparity there) with that claim - can you show it being argued? Thus far the people you cited did not support your description.

You have an actual quote?

Did you not see the earlier citation? :) Allow me to happily re-post it for you.

Child support - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
 
That is untrue

The mother is just as responsible for raising and supporting the child as the father is


Oh sure, she has her own piece of the pie, but hey, she's not specifically paying child support. Ergo, because it's different obviously they shouldn't have equal rights, right? :roll:
 
Oh sure, she has her own piece of the pie, but hey, she's not specifically paying child support. Ergo, because it's different obviously they shouldn't have equal rights, right? :roll:

She is specifically paying to support the child so "Yes, she's paying child support"

What she isn't paying is "court-ordered child support".

If the father wasn't such a dead beat, neither would he
 
I am curious, are you pro-life?

This debate is proving to highlight just how hypocritical these pro-lifers are. What their position amounts to is ...

... if a woman has an abortion, which they're against, they may not agree with that choice, but at least it gets them out of being a parent and doesn't cost them any money ...

... if a woman doesn't have an abortion, which is what they want, then they want to make her pay for choosing to do what they want her to do by not having to support their own child.

The more I think about it ... their position is not only hypocritical, it's downright misogynistic.
 
So, CpWill, are you prolife or are you prochoice?
 
:shrug: easy enough to reverse. She's not the one paying child support, she doesn't deserve the same privileges (of abandonment) that he is afforded.
Of course women pay child support. Where on Earth do you come up with this stuff???

:shrug: well I and I imagine the vast majority of posters on my side here would disagree (assuming that she did not keep the child a secret precisely in order to avoid such; you might get some disparity there) with that claim - can you show it being argued? Thus far the people you cited did not support your description.
I don't see anybody here trying to get out of financial support for just the period the woman is pregnant and not the 18 years which follow. You are completely lost. But since you believe the majority on your side feel that way, it should be very easy for you to quote some, as I did, who clearly say that.....
 
Okay, since when are people held responsible for the consequences of "events" that they did not personally cause?
I hope you're being sarcastic. Or are you saying a man who gets a woman pregnant did not personally cause her to have a baby?
 
It is unreasonable to hand her more responsibility for the outcome when each have an equal role in creating that outcome. It takes sperm and and egg to make a baby you know. That's a pretty clear 50/50 hand in the creation of or prevention of a child. Both know the risks and have an equal obligation to prevent it.

You aren't addressing my argument...
 
You know what guys, if you don't want to have a baby with a woman, don't have sex with her. A lot of men like to argue that women should live by that standard, so maybe they should take it upon themselves. Unless you want to get her pregnant, keep your pants on. And by having sex with her, you implicitly agree to raise the child that comes of it, because that's the natural consequence.

Right?
 
Oh yes they would. You buy into that myth than men like sex more than women? Sorry, not true. They would be knockin' you guys up and leavin' you with the bill..

I don't buy that myth... I know women like it... calm down.

...and if the man could opt out the woman would be more careful, selective and safe.

So are the women. What exactly is your point?

That men should be smarter...

So you suggest we take a time machine back to when exactly?

Why do we need to take a time machine? Is being responsible a thing of the past?....

No, we shouldn't be. What we should be doing is being honest with kids about sex and provide them birth control. Less sexually transmitted disease fewer unwanted pregnancies. Instead we make it dirty and bad so everyone things they need to be ashamed of wanting it. You combine needless shame with parents in denial and bam, you got yourself a little Pebbles or BamBam.

Where do you get that I think that we make sex bad and dirty? What the ****?

Bottom line. Women can have an abortion as a means of birth control. If they don't want a kid they can have an abortion. Deflect it all you like, as most do. I'll just stick to that point and wait for somebody to refute it with logic.
 
Back
Top Bottom