• 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 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?

People have sex... be realistic.
 
Having men opt out is not going to stop people from having pre martial sex.
After World War II the so called sexual revolution was already underway.
And guys could opt out claiming the kid was not his.( before DNA ) so your sweet no unwanted pregnancies and only married couples is not at all realistic.

Also unwanted pregnancies do take place in marriage and committed relationships.
In fact there was a study about unwanted pregnancies and abortions that take place in marriage and committed relationships.
44 percent of the time it was the man who first brought up abortion when an unwanted pregnancy occurred.

Who is trying to stop people from having pre-marital sex? I will never get married again and I still want to have sex.
 
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.



That men should be smarter...



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



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.
Ummm, men have means of birth control as well.
 
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?

Given that, from the moment of conception until the point of viability (and sometimes beyond), she has the legal option of terminating the pregnancy and, if she declines to name the father, once she has given birth she has the option of unilaterally surrendering the child for adoption... yes, that is exactly what I am saying. He helped her conceive. She didn't "have a baby" until she made a series of decisions to have a baby. She has choices.

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.

A lot of men like to argue against that standard, too. It is no more fair and just to make such arguments against men's rights than it is to make them against women's rights.

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?

If a consequence can be prevented, keeping someone from preventing it is not "letting nature take its course". Likewise, holding one person responsible for another person's decisions is not "responsibility".
 
Ummm, men have means of birth control as well.

Seriously?

But seriously folks... of course. The argument is about using BC and having it fail. What do you do then...? She can abort.
 
A lot of men like to argue against that standard, too. It is no more fair and just to make such arguments against men's rights than it is to make them against women's rights. If a consequence can be prevented, keeping someone from preventing it is not "letting nature take its course". Likewise, holding one person responsible for another person's decisions is not "responsibility".

I was being sarcastic. To illustrate that the OP's question is rather silly, and the double standards involved in the whole issue.

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.

You still have to prove that this is a bad thing.
 
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.

I'm pro life. Where did you get any of that from anything I posted?
 
Okay, since when are people held responsible for the consequences of "events" that they did not personally cause?

Since when do people "consent to" consequences? What other responsibilities should I be able to abdicate by saying, well, I don't consent to be held responsible for my actions?
 
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?


You know what ladies, if you don't want to have a baby with a man, don't have sex with him. A lot of women like to argue that men should live by that standard, so maybe they should take it upon themselves. Unless you want to get pregnant, keep your pants on. And by having sex with him, you implicitly agree to give birth to the offspring, because that's the natural consequence.

Right?
--

Thanks for my argument. I love when people make it easy.
 
Given that, from the moment of conception until the point of viability (and sometimes beyond), she has the legal option of terminating the pregnancy and, if she declines to name the father, once she has given birth she has the option of unilaterally surrendering the child for adoption... yes, that is exactly what I am saying. He helped her conceive. She didn't "have a baby" until she made a series of decisions to have a baby. She has choices.



A lot of men like to argue against that standard, too. It is no more fair and just to make such arguments against men's rights than it is to make them against women's rights.



If a consequence can be prevented, keeping someone from preventing it is not "letting nature take its course". Likewise, holding one person responsible for another person's decisions is not "responsibility".

Then you're being ridiculous. A woman can't have a baby without a man causing it to happen. Whether directly by having sex or indirectly by sperm donation, a man caused her to have the baby. That's not to say she too didn't cause it, it obviously takes two. And to absolve the man of all causation simply because the woman chose to have the baby is mind boggling. Most woman choose to have their baby. According to your post, not a single man in this country caused that to happen. Millions of babies born, not one man responsible.

:roll: :roll: :roll:
 
I was being sarcastic. To illustrate that the OP's question is rather silly, and the double standards involved in the whole issue.



You still have to prove that this is a bad thing.

That what is a bad thing? Honestly... not following you. I think that women having an abortion, exercising their right, is fine. Sticking a guy with 18 years is not fine.
 
Seriously?

But seriously folks... of course. The argument is about using BC and having it fail. What do you do then...? She can abort.
So your beef is that women have more options then men? How about premenstrual medications? Do you have a beef because women have more options with those too?
 
You know what ladies, if you don't want to have a baby with a man, don't have sex with him. A lot of women like to argue that men should live by that standard, so maybe they should take it upon themselves. Unless you want to get pregnant, keep your pants on. And by having sex with him, you implicitly agree to give birth to the offspring, because that's the natural consequence.

Right?
--

Thanks for my argument. I love when people make it easy.

Right... but women want ALL the choices, ALL of the power and in order for that to happen men have to get NO choices and have NO power...
 
I'm pro life. Where did you get any of that from anything I posted?

Being pro-life wasn't the only criteria. It is the dastardly combination of being both pro-life AND believing that men should have the right to evade supporting their own child.
 
Then you're being ridiculous. A woman can't have a baby without a man causing it to happen. Whether directly by having sex or indirectly by sperm donation, a man caused her to have the baby. That's not to say she too didn't cause it, it obviously takes two. And to absolve the man of all causation simply because the woman chose to have the baby is mind boggling. Most woman choose to have their baby. According to your post, not a single man in this country caused that to happen. Millions of babies born, not one man responsible.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

So you're still only holding one party responsible. How many pages are going to pass before people realize that is what they are doing?

Support abortion? Oh hell ya!

Support men walking? No,no,no, that is just wrong.

Lol..
 
So your beef is that women have more options then men? How about premenstrual medications? Do you have a beef because women have more options with those too?

We are talking about abortion vs. having a child. Does your point relate to that? Because I don't see it.
 
That what is a bad thing? Honestly... not following you. I think that women having an abortion, exercising their right, is fine. Sticking a guy with 18 years is not fine.
But it's ok to "stick the woman with 18 years?"
 
Being pro-life wasn't the only criteria. It is the dastardly combination of being both pro-life AND believing that men should have the right to evade supporting their own child.

Kind of like how you're pro-choice and for government imposed child support. :mrgreen:
 
We are talking about abortion vs. having a child. Does your point relate to that? Because I don't see it.
You just complained that women have more options than men. That was your complaint. You said, birth control fails, the woman has another option but then man does not. So at this point, your complaint comes down to the woman having more options. So what about in other things? Things like premenstrual medication, which is for women, not for men. Do you have a problem with medications where women have more choices than men?
 
That what is a bad thing? Honestly... not following you. I think that women having an abortion, exercising their right, is fine. Sticking a guy with 18 years is not fine.

My mistake. I thought you were making the argument that abortion being birth control rather than emergency life saving medical procedure (which it still sometimes is) somehow sullies it and is some kind of sneaky agenda conspiracy thing. Some people argue that. I thought you were. Carry on.

Right... but women want ALL the choices, ALL of the power and in order for that to happen men have to get NO choices and have NO power...

Which actually seems quite fair, since society puts an obligation on women to actually give up those aforementioned 18 years to raise a child, while the most it demands from men is part of their paychecks. Meanwhile, women get pregnant and men don't. It sounds like women get all the responsibility already. Why shouldn't they get all the choice?

Either way, since she is the one who gets pregnant and the fetus lives in her body, there's really no possible way to say any person besides her has the right to decide on whether or not she obtains an abortion. There is just no way to make the argument that she doesn't have that absolute right and that other situations don't involve a person losing control of their body as well.
 
Nobody can stick it to the woman since she can abort... THAT IS THE WHOLE ****ING POINT!
Do you not understand that abortion isn't an option for many women? So it's ok to "stick them for 18 years" while the guy bears absolutely no responsibility at all?
 
You just complained that women have more options than men. That was your complaint. You said, birth control fails, the woman has another option but then man does not. So at this point, your complaint comes down to the woman having more options. So what about in other things? Things like premenstrual medication, which is for women, not for men. Do you have a problem with medications where women have more choices than men?

Options (I think I said "choices") regarding birth control failure. When men start having menstrual cramps ask me your question again...

:lol: I love it when people try to tell me what my point is! :lol:
 
Do you not understand that abortion isn't an option for many women? So it's ok to "stick them for 18 years" while the guy bears absolutely no responsibility at all?

Why isn't abortion an option for many women...?
 
Back
Top Bottom