• 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
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.

That's not what you said, now is it? It doesn't matter though. I think I've gotten all I can out of this thread, chief among what I've learned is what a powerless victim I am to women (I always suspected as much) and that I can choose to opt out of the consequences of my actions (that'll come in handy with my next speeding ticket).
 
Which actually seems quite fair, since society puts an obligation on women to actually give up those aforementioned 18 years to raise a child...

Women can give up the kid even at the hospital right after it's born. No one is forcing women to raise the kid even when they decide to carry it to term. Try some other argument.
 
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 is saying that she does not have the absolute right or that she has any chance of losing control of her body... I hear this and I think "where is this coming from? Because I ain't being heard AT ALL".

...and I didn't realise that as a father I don't have any responsibility and she was stuck with my kids for 18 years and I wasn't. In fact, as a single father that has more custody that she does... I have more responsibility than she does.
 
That's not what you said, now is it? It doesn't matter though. I think I've gotten all I can out of this thread, chief among what I've learned is what a powerless victim I am to women (I always suspected as much) and that I can choose to opt out of the consequences of my actions (that'll come in handy with my next speeding ticket).
That's exactly what I said. I was talking about those here are suggesting men should have the right to opt out of supporting their child. I pointed out those who are pro-life and gave two examples of how they are looking for a way to evade being responsible for their own kid.
 
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.

All good... :)
 
I don't buy that myth... I know women like it... calm down.


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.

Apparently logic is subjective, because in my opinion your posts are lacking it.
 
Last edited:
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. ...

.

There are no inconvenient reasons allowed after viability unless you think major psychological damage which falls under irrepable damage to a major bodilily function in Kansas law is an inconvenience reason I myself don't ...to me the brain ( mind ) is a major bodiliy function.

Woman's age .. A 10 year old body is at risk during a pregnancy , same with a 50 some year old in some cases also falls under irreparable damage in Kansas law.

And there were only 132 cases major irreparable damage to a major bodily function which also included things like kidney, liver, and other organ failure in 2008 in Kansas.

Risk to life/ major bodilily function and not being viable are the reasons allowed after limit of viability in Kansas.

The reason non viability - still birth and the fetus being so malformed it will only live a few hours or minutes are extreme cases are because if the fetus dies in the womb and is not removed quickly it can turn septic and cause a life threatening infection in the woman.

Therefore the viability reason is really a risk of the woman's life reason but it is recorded as non viable in the Kansas records.
 
Last edited:
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".

...

When a father wins custody of the child /children the mother is often required child support.

That happened to one of friends daughters just recently.
 
....

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

And if a woman could chose to opt out or not opt out the man would more careful, selective and safe.

Oh snap.... Women do have a choice but men are still being careless, non selective and are still having unprotected sex with women they don't want to have children with.
 
Should a man have an absolute right to have his baby aborted?

In the alternative, should he be granted relief from all legal responsibility if it is his clearly stated wish to abort but the woman decides not to?

Let me preface my remarks with this disclaimer; I am Pro-Choice and I support a woman’s absolute right to choose to have an abortion for several reasons, including the fact it is the woman who must endure the pregnancy to carry the child to term, and then follows the lifelong responsibility to raise and care for any child born.

The dilemma occurs when the woman unilaterally decides to have the baby, even when the male does not wish to accept that long-term responsibility.

In a recent news report, a young man was so desperate not to have a child that he tricked his girlfriend into taking a morning after pill. Now I do not support or condone this action, but it does bring up the thesis issue for me…why does the male partner have no say in a decision to keep the baby?

When a woman makes the unilateral decision to keep the baby this then compels lifelong legal and emotional obligations on the part of the unwilling father. This creates resentment and recriminations in both parties. By attempting to force the man to marry and/or support both her and the child this only serves to create a negative environment for all concerned, especially for any child to grow up in.

Since we now have a simple method of aborting in the early stages of the first trimester, without needing an invasive surgery, why should the absolute choice to keep the baby reside with the mother? If it does, why can’t the man be legally relieved of further responsibility to both parties?

I have offered several voting options, please pick and then explain what do you think? I am especially interested in arguments for why the woman has the sole right to keep the child while making the man permanently responsible.

That is invasive, an infringement of rights.

How is giving men the right to dictate this, dissimilar to giving women the right to abort a living child...? Objectively a child's body is his, not the mother's. As the mother's body is hers, not the father's. If it's an infringement of the child's rights to allow the mother to abort, it's even more complex an infringement of the mother's rights for a male to force her to abort against her will.

You couldn't realistically enforce a law like that without huge difficulty. Apart from all the other issues, maternal and protective instinct is triggered for some women on pregnancy, which might result in the male being dispatched for threatening the child...

The male however, could take responsibility and not create the pregnancy in the first place (avoiding the entire question).
 
There are no inconvenient reasons allowed after viability unless you think major psychological damage which falls under irrepable damage to a major bodilily function in Kansas law is an inconvenience reason I myself don't ...to me the brain ( mind ) is a major bodiliy function.

Woman's age .. A 10 year old body is at risk during a pregnancy , same with a 50 some year old in some cases also falls under irreparable damage in Kansas law.

And there were only 132 cases major irreparable damage to a major bodily function which also included things like kidney, liver, and other organ failure in 2008 in Kansas.
....

Kansas District Attorney Kline tried to prosecute Dr. Tiller because Dr. Tiller aborted viable fetuses in extreme cases including a viable fetus of a 10 year girl.

Dr. Tiller was acquitted of the charges.

George Tiller, Kansas Doctor, Acquitted In Late-Term Abortion Case

It did not matter to Kline that the girls life was at risk...It only mattered that the fetus was viable.
It was one of the extreme cases that is supposed to be allowed under Doe v Bolton.


From the following article:
<SNIP>
At the time, Kansas law required a second opinion from a licensed physician before a woman could obtain a late-term abortion in order to prove that she would suffer "substantial and irreversible" harm to a major bodily function if she continued with her pregnancy. Mental health was considered to be "a major bodily function."
<SNIP>

Neuhaus freely admits that her documentation was indeed sparse on detail. She notes that the Kansas district attorney began investigating abortion clinics, including Tiller's, in 2003. (Until his murder in 2009, Tiller was one of the few doctors who would perform abortions on fetuses older than 25 weeks.)

The records -- which contained personal details about the young women Neuhaus evaluated -- were obtained by Kansas District Attorney Phil Kline in 2007.
Neuhaus knows how Kline got them: His lead investigator, she says, tricked her into handing them over by falsely promising her that he'd give them right back.

The records contain few identifying details about the females, but in one case, Neuhaus describes a 10-year-old girl who was raped by her uncle as “tiny” and physically incapable of being able to have a baby.
<SNIP>

Ann Kristin Neuhaus, Doctor And Tiller Colleague, Is The Latest Casualty In Kansas Abortion War
 
Last edited:
The male however, could take responsibility and not create the pregnancy in the first place (avoiding the entire question).

Couldn't the woman do that as well? I know it's very simple for a man to control that, but isn't both that are responsible? If both parents must support this child and both are involved in it's conception, both should be involved in the decision making.

As wrong as this may sound it is the absolute truth, women are the gate keepers. I can't imagine that, and it isn't fair but it is reality. Men never will get the say so in whether or not their child is allowed to be born, they will never get to know the feeling of having the child grow inside of them. That isn't fair, but it is reality.

I think that the option to terminate a pregnancy should be shared between the two parents. but then again the child is inside of the womens body. It's difficult if you think about it after she is pregnant. But before it's really a mutual issue.
 
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.

What is stupid is you continually saying something that isn't true.
And when asked to provide proof of your assertion you fail to do so.


If it were true you could show it.
You fail because you can't, because it isn't true.

If you want to believe that for yourself go straight on ahead.
Doesn't change the fact that it isn't true.


If it were a true statement it would be so for all parties involved, but it just isn't.

Consent to have sex is not consent to have a child.

So, when two men have sex, is that consent to a child? Of course not.
When two women have sex, is that consent to a child? Of course not.

But to you, when a man and a woman have sex, the man is the only one consenting to have children by it. That is an absurd position.
She later consents or doesn't, when she finds out she is pregnant. Not at the time of sex.
You do understand the "or doesn't" part, right?


Consent to have sex is not consent to have a child. Period.
 
...but I am definitely onboard with you in this matter.
Doesn't appear that way.


It's coercion...if women are forced to engage in other choice than they might not have...
It is only coercion to the man.
It is not coercion to remove a choice she should not have.
No one is saying she can't decide to have a child, no one is saying she has to either.

It leads to a woman making a truly informed choice.
Not one that is dependent on an assumption of support that may not come to fruition.





That is invasive, an infringement of rights.
No it is not.


How is giving men the right to dictate this,
Dictate?
He would be given a choice whether or not to support the child, a decision that should be his and his alone.
The woman should not make that decision for him.


You couldn't realistically enforce a law like that without huge difficulty.
What is being proposed is easily enforceable.
Please show us the "Consent to Support" form you filed.
Not filed? No support required.
 
Of course women pay child support. Where on Earth do you come up with this stuff???

No, the woman in this instance has chosen to raise a child. A choice the man was never afforded.

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.....

On the contrary, I have yet to see anyone argue in favor of a post-birth abrogation of responsibility assuming he knew of the child.
 
There are no inconvenient reasons allowed after viability unless you think major psychological damage which falls under irrepable damage to a major bodilily function in Kansas law is an inconvenience reason I myself don't ...to me the brain ( mind ) is a major bodiliy function.

Woman's age .. A 10 year old body is at risk during a pregnancy , same with a 50 some year old in some cases also falls under irreparable damage in Kansas law.

And there were only 132 cases major irreparable damage to a major bodily function which also included things like kidney, liver, and other organ failure in 2008 in Kansas.

Risk to life/ major bodilily function and not being viable are the reasons allowed after limit of viability in Kansas.

The reason non viability - still birth and the fetus being so malformed it will only live a few hours or minutes are extreme cases are because if the fetus dies in the womb and is not removed quickly it can turn septic and cause a life threatening infection in the woman.

Therefore the viability reason is really a risk of the woman's life reason but it is recorded as non viable in the Kansas records.

"All Factors" to include "emotional". If the woman emotionally doesn't want a kid, that justifies its' killing. Sure you can push the "age" bit to its extremes and ask what about 10 year olds; which obviates the fact that it equally applies to 28 year olds who think that their family would be negatively effected ("familial", you will recall) by the addition of another child not at all.

Doe v Bolton effectively gets rid of any restrictions by making the "harm" hurdle so broadly defined as to include anything including regular childbirth. I realize that's a problem for you because you've latched on to this artificial barrier of "viability under current technology" as some kind of magical border, but there it is nonetheless.

Heck, up until a few years ago it was still legal to kill the child after birth.
 
Last edited:
She is specifically paying to support the child so "Yes, she's paying child support"

Incorrect - she is raising a child, which was her choice. If she chooses to put the child up for adoption (end her responsibilities to it) she won't owe a dime in Child Support.

If the father wasn't such a dead beat, neither would he

:shrug: if the father was afforded equal treatment under the law, your argument would have more merit.
 
"All Factors" to include "emotional". If the woman emotionally doesn't want a kid, that justifies its' killing. Sure you can push the "age" bit to its extremes and ask what about 10 year olds;...

Doe v Bolton effectively gets rid of any restrictions by making the "harm" hurdle so broadly defined as to include anything including regular childbirth. I realize that's a problem for you because you've latched on to this artificial barrier of "viability under current technology" as some kind of magical border, but there it is nonetheless...
.

No it does not because get rid restrictions as seen in the Kansas cases. It does not allow abortions except in extreme emotional/pscological cases. It does allow doctors with some state restriction such as an independent 2ed doctor to make allowances in extreme cases where bodily harm including psychological harm will occur if the pregnancy continued.

Less than .1 percent of all legal abortions in the USA after the limit of viability which is currently at 24 weeks gestation and has remained unchanged for 12 years.
 
No it does not because get rid restrictions as seen in the Kansas cases. It does not allow abortions except in extreme emotional/pscological cases. It does allow doctors with some state restriction such as an independent 2ed doctor to make allowances in extreme cases where bodily harm including psychological harm will occur if the pregnancy continued.

As seen in the Kansas case? The Kansas case you cited demonstrates my point, which is that under Doe v Bolton "health" is defined to include "emotional, familial, mental, etc. so on and so forth"., which is to say, to lower the bar to the point of nonexistance. Citing a case where just such a standard was applied doesn't exactly disprove the standard ;)

Less than .1 percent of all legal abortions in the USA after the limit of viability which is currently at 24 weeks gestation and has remained unchanged for 12 years.

Oh goody :roll: Even if I took your numbers at face value, the murder of millions of children doesn't exactly excuse itself.
 
On the contrary, I have yet to see anyone argue in favor of a post-birth abrogation of responsibility assuming he knew of the child.
They don't realize what you are saying. The underlined.
Heck, it doesn't appear that they understand much.

I set it out in the beginning.
He should have a choice.
To ensure fairness he should also be given roughly the same about of time that she has to make the decision once informed.
Roughly 90 days.
Whether that be before or after the birth.
This ensures that she is not able to coerce him into taking responsibility by not informing him. Which oof course has to be taken into consideration in designing such law.
 
"All Factors" to include "emotional". If the woman emotionally doesn't want a kid, that justifies its' killing. Sure you can push the "age" bit to its extremes and ask what about 10 year olds; which obviates the fact that it equally applies to 28 year olds who think that their family would be negatively effected ("familial", you will recall) by the addition of another child not at all.

...

Familial does NOT refer to family members but rather to a Prenatal diagnosis of familial genetic disorders like the following one I linked.

From the PUB Med website:
Familial Dysautonomia (FD) is an autosomal recessive sensory neuropathy that affects about 1 in 3,700 individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. The underlying biochemical and genetic defects are unknown, thereby precluding prenatal diagnosis in at-risk families. Recently, the FD gene (DYS) was mapped with strong linkage disequilibrium to polymorphic markers in the chromosome 9 region q31-q33.

Prenatal diagnosis of familial dysautonomia b... [Am J Med Genet. 1995] - PubMed - NCBI
 
Incorrect - she is raising a child, which was her choice. If she chooses to put the child up for adoption (end her responsibilities to it) she won't owe a dime in Child Support.



:shrug: if the father was afforded equal treatment under the law, your argument would have more merit.

I am curious, don't both parents have to agree to adoption?
 
...

Oh goody :roll: Even if I took your numbers at face value, the murder of millions of children doesn't exactly excuse itself.

Millions of post viable fetuses are NOT being aborted.

Less than .1 percent of all legal abortions that take in USA are of viable fetuses and those are the extreme cases that I have mentioned numerous times.
 
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?

They think the law should make everyone equal instead of merely treating everyone equally

I have the option to buy a Porsche, so maybe the law should allow everyone to have a Porsche

FREE PORSCHE'S FOR EVERYONE!!
 
Back
Top Bottom