• 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
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.

But you chose that. You weren't expected and pressured by society to choose that path. There is some pressure, yes, but men aren't expected to conform to that role nearly the way women are. Men aren't told every single day of their lives that they are supposed to be fathers and that this is the most important thing for them to do. That is the big difference. You had a choice. A real choice, between two realistic alternatives. Often, a woman doesn't have that.
 
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.

She is paying to support the child. She is paying child support.

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

The father is afforded equal treatment under the law
 
She is paying to support the child. She is paying child support.



The father is afforded equal treatment under the law

The mother supports the child and the father supports the child. How in the hell is that not equal?
 
Doesn't appear that way.

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.

Firstly -your comment -it's not coercion to remove a choice she shouldn't have...is the very same as saying ,"Lady, if you have sex and it results in an unintended conception...you made an uninformed choice. All conceptions are the automatic responsibility of a woman. Why? Because a man is coerced to pay for your uninformed choice...and that's not fair." BOO HOO...and even nonsense.

Obviously you have decided to make this into a different argument than the one you expressed to Jerry...which prompted me to reply to your post to Jerry.

"No...sex is not consent to have a child." This was "your" reply to Jerry. I agreed with you on that point. Now you say...apparently I'm not onboard? Really?

Even if there was some strange, but unenforceable, related law created out of magical thinking... it could only state that "sex is consent to conception". But such a law would only have limited effect even it was included with a law that prohibits abortion. And we both know that not even these laws would prevent abortions. Similar laws existed prior to Roe v. Wade and didn't stop abortions. Laws that prohibit abortion only prohibit "legal abortions".

So now you take my comments out of another argument with Captain Adverse about "coercion"... and create it as though it was my part of my response as "being on board with you". Nice, but no dice.

The issue at hand isn't a binary one. There are many more players involved in reproductive issues that just two people. Variable circumstances and outcomes will dictate on how many players will be drawn into a conception between two people.

Since the "current laws, which are created by "government" makes it possible for a woman to have "conditional" unilateral control over the fate of a conception...therefore "a woman" isn't coercing a man...if her choice is to carry a conception to full term.

Lawmakers create laws which force him TO MAKE CHOICES (plural). Therein lies the coercion, which a man might be confronted with.

Even a woman's unilateral control over the fate of a conception has conditions created by laws, which can force, or if you prefer, coerce her into making choices if a woman brings a conception to full term.

Laws designed to create restrictions of behaviors of choice are coercive. Laws designed to prohibit specific behaviors are indeed coercive. They are coercive because laws attach legal consequences.

An Opt-Out law would remove a man's need to make an informed choice. It would exempt a man from the legal consequences - which affects the welfare of a child...which is powerless to provide for itself and has no legal voice to provoke actions to protect its very existence.

If a conception brought to full term - a child will automatically create coercive conditions for both a woman and a man. Laws that are designed to ensure the welfare of a child is based on: A child cannot provide for its own hierarchy of needs, which include, but it not limited to food, shelter, clothing, health care, etc.

Even if both the man and woman who co-create a child... are resistant to coercive laws which will require them to furnish a child's hierarchy of needs, their resistance to comply will not remove them from financial obligations to the state. The state will become the legal conservator of a child. The state will legally pursue reimbursement (in part or whole) from both or either parent...the costs incurred by the state to maintain a child.

There is no way to create an "Opt-out law" that would be "equitable". Legislative bodies will never create any laws that opt-out a man from legal and financial responsibilities.

There are, however, laws, which say that a court can determine if a parent's rights can be terminated. If that event happens, then the person whose rights are terminate will no longer have legal or financial obligations. That's as close to "opt-out" we'll ever see.
 
The mother supports the child and the father supports the child. How in the hell is that not equal?

The mother supports the child that she chose to have. The father supports the child that someone else chose for him to have.
 
Because men can't choose to have a vasectomy or no sex.

Those are beyond his control

Are you guys trying to be a parody of ridulous pro-life arguments or what? We have the keep your pants on argument, the no sex argument, and the get fixed argument made over and over again throughout this thread. It's pretty hilarious that everyone making those arguments are pro-choice. :D
 
The supports the child that she chose to have. The father supports the child that someone else chose for him to have.

There is no available equality in the situation. The "its not fair" tantrums just lack the acknowledgement of that reality.

Man has sex with a woman he has no intention on having children with. He does so without a vasectomy and probably without a condom.

Surprise. Woman gets pregnant.

Woman's body. She choses to continue the pregnancy. Man CANNOT chose for her because he does not have to suffer the inherent risks of pregnancy.

Baby born. Baby needs care. Now it is about the baby's needs.

Both parents have to step up to the plate and support the child.

Now if BOTH parents want the baby adopted out cool. But the man cannot force the woman to adopt out the baby and the woman cannot force the man to adopt out the baby.

So, what is the lesson? There is no equal in a situation that inherently cannot be equal.

There are choices for the man.

Only have sex with women that are post menopausal. The can be kinda hot and flashy.

Only have sex with women that you are ok with if pregnancy occurs.

Have a reversible vasectomy - it is cheaper than child support.

Learn how to use a condom properly.

USe the condom even if the woman is using birth control.

Oh, this one seems to help -stop being a slut and keep your pants on and zipped.
 
Are you guys trying to be a parody of ridulous pro-life arguments or what? We have the keep your pants on argument, the no sex argument, and the get fixed argument made over and over again throughout this thread. It's pretty hilarious that everyone making those arguments are pro-choice. :D

About as funny as the pro-life men making arguments for not caring for the children they have fathered.

But yes, parody implied. Keep your pants on you slut.
 
The mother supports the child that she chose to have. The father supports the child that someone else chose for him to have.

By the way, unless he impregnated her while she raped him....he was an active participant in the activity.
 
By the way, unless he impregnated her while she raped him....he was an active participant in the activity.

Every single argument you make has been tried and found wanting when applied to women when arguing why they shouldn't be allowed to abort. They have been rightfully dismissed as irrational and misogynistic. Repeating these arguments now against men isn't funny, and all the intended irony is lost when you realize that many of the men arguing against you-- arguing for equal rights-- are from men who support women's reproductive rights, who support their right to choose when to have children and their right to control the functions of their own body.
 
The mother supports the child that she chose to have. The father supports the child that someone else chose for him to have.

Exactly and it will remain that way.

See my previous post to Excon.

What people don't understand it that it's NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE STATE nor a child...to legislatively grant an Opt-Out law. The laws allowing a woman to have conditional unilateral right to determine the fate of a fetus won't be undermined...by allowing one of the co-creators off the hook because of all of the reasons I stated in my post. It's not about just inequities between a man and a woman who co-create an unintended conception. The state is involved...or could be. And taxpayers are involved...or could be.

Vik...just read my post. It's too long to repeat. It's around 1180ish or so.


Suck it up guys...it is what it is.
 
Suck it up guys...it is what it is.

No. The reason that I argue about politics in the first place is because I believe in right and wrong, and I believe in moving human society closer to what is right and further away from what is wrong. Sexism is wrong. Violating the natural prerogatives of adult men and women to choose when and how to raise their families is wrong. Creating a moral hazard that leads to a skyrocketing rate of out-of-wedlock births is wrong. I am going to continue arguing about this issue because it is the right thing to do.
 
The mother supports the child that she chose to have. The father supports the child that someone else chose for him to have.

No, both mothers and fathers support the children they have. Choice has nothing to do with it

If some crashes their car into another car, they have to pay damages even if they didn't choose to have an accident
 
No. The reason that I argue about politics in the first place is because I believe in right and wrong, and I believe in moving human society closer to what is right and further away from what is wrong. Sexism is wrong. Violating the natural prerogatives of adult men and women to choose when and how to raise their families is wrong. Creating a moral hazard that leads to a skyrocketing rate of out-of-wedlock births is wrong. I am going to continue arguing about this issue because it is the right thing to do.

Groovy enough...but the argument won't fly. Like everybody else...we're all entitled to opinion. What I'm telling you is not just from my opinion. There is a legal rhyme and reason for women having conditional unilateral choice. If you read the post...then you would clearly understand "why" these reason exist...like it or not.

I can probably name quite a few laws I'm not crazy about, but no matter how I disagree or much I dislike them they won't go away.

I will say that while a lot of men grip like hell about this issue. Nobody has offered or has shown any type of language that could be used to implement some legislation to deal with the inequity you believe isn't right...and that you've pointed out...and are so unhappy with. Let me repeat it:

The mother supports the child that she chose to have. The father supports the child that someone else chose for him to have.

The father supports the child that someone else chose for him to have
Really...how did that happen? While that makes sense to you...two people co-create a conception and it doesn't make a billy-damn as to why an unintended conception occurred. The laws will never exempt one of those co-creators just because they aren't happy about the creation.
 
This is an intriguing thread. When children are involved in a divorce situation, many states are requiring mediation before anything is awarded by the courts. The courts are wanting a workable parenting plan agreed upon between the parties involved. At some point, I think we will arrive at that same place for an unborn life. That life was not created by only one party, so only one party should not have complete irrevocable say so about it, nor should one party have complete and irrevocable termination of responsibility. I doubt there is anyone in the world today who does not know that having sex can result in pregnancy, even in the face of the couple having taken precautions. No one was complaining when the life was conceived. No one should be allowed to crap out of his/her responsibility.
 
No, both mothers and fathers support the children they have. Choice has nothing to do with it

I love how you guys are focusing on a stage of life to avoid the greater point that women get to decide if they are willing to be a parent, while fathers have no choice in the matter. If you guys can't deal with the argument being presented then just stop posting.
 
Really...how did that happen? While that makes sense to you...two people co-create a conception and it doesn't make a billy-damn as to why an unintended conception occurred. The laws will never exempt one of those co-creators just because they aren't happy about the creation.

Except the woman that can abortion after conception that is. :D
 
So now you take my comments out of another argument with Captain Adverse about "coercion"... and create it as though it was my part of my response as "being on board with you". Nice, but no dice.
Wrong!
Two separate comments. Two separate replies.


But that is exactly what you did in the following.

Obviously you have decided to make this into a different argument than the one you expressed to Jerry...which prompted me to reply to your post to Jerry.

"No...sex is not consent to have a child." This was "your" reply to Jerry. I agreed with you on that point. Now you say...apparently I'm not onboard? Really?
Wrong! Obviously you think you made something clear you did not.
Yes you are not on board with me.
You quoted not just my reply to Jerry, but my reply to another, and basically encompasses this whole topic.

You stated; "EX...we've had some difference in other topics.....but I am definitely on board with you in this matter."
And then went on to say the following, clearly encompassing the topic as a whole, not just what I said to Jerry. Clearly establishing that you are not on board with me or on the same page I am, let alone in the same book.

"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.


So my comment of "Doesn't appear that way", was accurate.


Firstly -your comment -it's not coercion to remove a choice she shouldn't have...is the very same as saying ,"Lady, if you have sex and it results in an unintended conception...you made an uninformed choice. All conceptions are the automatic responsibility of a woman. Why? Because a man is coerced to pay for your uninformed choice...and that's not fair." BOO HOO...and even nonsense.
:doh

You obviously find nonsense when there is none.

She should not be able to coerce a man into supporting something that comes about by her choice.
Removing her ability to do so, is not coercing her to do anything. As all options are still available to her.



The issue at hand isn't a binary one. There are many more players involved in reproductive issues that just two people. Variable circumstances and outcomes will dictate on how many players will be drawn into a conception between two people.
No there isn't.
Let's put it this way, who are these "many more players involved" as acknowledged by the law?



Since the "current laws, which are created by "government" makes it possible for a woman to have "conditional" unilateral control over the fate of a conception...therefore "a woman" isn't coercing a man...if her choice is to carry a conception to full term.
Her choice in making such, subjects the man to a legal burden that only he should be able to choose for himself.
Just as only she should be able to choose it for herself.
Her being able to do so, is coercion.
Legal coercion, is still coercion.


Lawmakers create laws which force him TO MAKE CHOICES (plural). Therein lies the coercion, which a man might be confronted with.

Even a woman's unilateral control over the fate of a conception has conditions created by laws, which can force, or if you prefer, coerce her into making choices if a woman brings a conception to full term.

Laws designed to create restrictions of behaviors of choice are coercive. Laws designed to prohibit specific behaviors are indeed coercive. They are coercive because laws attach legal consequences.

An Opt-Out law would remove a man's need to make an informed choice. It would exempt a man from the legal consequences - which affects the welfare of a child...which is powerless to provide for itself and has no legal voice to provoke actions to protect its very existence.

If a conception brought to full term - a child will automatically create coercive conditions for both a woman and a man. Laws that are designed to ensure the welfare of a child is based on: A child cannot provide for its own hierarchy of needs, which include, but it not limited to food, shelter, clothing, health care, etc.

Even if both the man and woman who co-create a child... are resistant to coercive laws which will require them to furnish a child's hierarchy of needs, their resistance to comply will not remove them from financial obligations to the state. The state will become the legal conservator of a child. The state will legally pursue reimbursement (in part or whole) from both or either parent...the costs incurred by the state to maintain a child.

There is no way to create an "Opt-out law" that would be "equitable". Legislative bodies will never create any laws that opt-out a man from legal and financial responsibilities.

There are, however, laws, which say that a court can determine if a parent's rights can be terminated. If that event happens, then the person whose rights are terminate will no longer have legal or financial obligations. That's as close to "opt-out" we'll ever see.
Laws change with attitudes. It may take time but it will happen as we can already seer the attitudes changing.
Whether you recognize that or not doesn't matter.
The change is coming.
It may not be in the U.S. at first, but some other forward looking country. And if the benefits are demonstrated by such laws, as I suspect there will be, it is only a matter of time.
So you can balk all you want. Attitudes change as do laws.
Just because you can't see forward enough to see it coming doesn't mean it wont. Especially as the world population continues to grow.
It is truly only a matter of time.
 
Wrong!
Two separate comments. Two separate replies.


But that is exactly what you did in the following.

Wrong! Obviously you think you made something clear you did not.
Yes you are not on board with me.
You quoted not just my reply to Jerry, but my reply to another, and basically encompasses this whole topic.

You stated; "EX...we've had some difference in other topics.....but I am definitely on board with you in this matter."
And then went on to say the following, clearly encompassing the topic as a whole, not just what I said to Jerry. Clearly establishing that you are not on board with me or on the same page I am, let alone in the same book.


So my comment of "Doesn't appear that way", was accurate.



:doh

You obviously find nonsense when there is none.

She should not be able to coerce a man into supporting something that comes about by her choice.
Removing her ability to do so, is not coercing her to do anything. As all options are still available to her.



No there isn't.
Let's put it this way, who are these "many more players involved" as acknowledged by the law?



Her choice in making such, subjects the man to a legal burden that only he should be able to choose for himself.
Just as only she should be able to choose it for herself.
Her being able to do so, is coercion.
Legal coercion, is still coercion.



Laws change with attitudes. It may take time but it will happen as we can already seer the attitudes changing.
Whether you recognize that or not doesn't matter.
The change is coming.
It may not be in the U.S. at first, but some other forward looking country. And if the benefits are demonstrated by such laws, as I suspect there will be, it is only a matter of time.
So you can balk all you want. Attitudes change as do laws.
Just because you can't see forward enough to see it coming doesn't mean it wont. Especially as the world population continues to grow.
It is truly only a matter of time.

Purely magical thinking and very inaccurate...carry on. It's entertaining. Nothing but conjecture...and a wish list.
 
Back
Top Bottom