• 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
Korimyr the Rat said:
Let me ask a question, then, for all you people who argue a man should be responsible for the children he created: if a father and a mother are getting divorced, and the issue of paternity comes up, should the man be exempted from child support for children that a DNA tests concludes are not related to him by blood? Let's say he's been raising them for years and the issue of paternity never came up before the divorce.
Click to expand...

Different issue - different thread
 
sangha said:
They clearly do. Your position is without merit because it depends on the fiction that a man has no choice but to have a child
Click to expand...

It is not a fiction. When a woman becomes pregnant, she has several options and several opportunities to avoid parenthood. A man does not have any of these options.

Your position is sexist, and as a pro-choicer, hypocritical.

sangha said:
Different issue - different thread
Click to expand...

No, it is not a different issue. You assert that a man's responsibility to "his" child is based on the fact that he helped "create" the child, and that it is just to force a man to support a child he does not want-- that he never wanted-- on that basis alone. In the United States, the majority of States automatically assume that the husband in a married couple is the father of all of the products of the union and hold him responsible for their support regardless of DNA evidence to the contrary.

If the basis of a man's responsibility for child support is biological paternity, do you consider this law to be fair and just?
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
After the child is born, yes. After the child is claimed by him, no. I do not consider DNA to be morally relevant; he does not become a father until she offers him the child and he accepts. His willingness to pay child support does not entitle him to claim the child against her will, as he did not produce the child.
Click to expand...

So in your opinion she can declare the bio-father has no rights towards the child upon birth without exception?

In general, you have rare views on these topics. Does anyone else agree with that?
 
Paschendale said:
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?
Click to expand...

Does the woman agree to that if she has sex with a man?
 
Because there is no legal solution to create an equal choice...we clearly see that having a unilateral choice by either party creates conflicting interests. If neither man or woman want to choose a solution involving abstinence or sterilization. Perhaps a legal contractual solution for sexual relationships might level the playing field.

But that would sure mess up those spontaneous wild nights of fun and frolic known as a one night stand.
 
Paschendale said:
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?
Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Illustration of what I said earlier:

Harshaw said:
Yeah, it's the thing which makes the most rabid supporters of abortion rights sound like moralizing Bible-thumpers: "If you didn't want to have a kid, you should have . . . "
Click to expand...
 
cpwill said:
No, the woman in this instance has chosen to raise a child. A choice the man was never afforded.
Click to expand...
That's not what you said. You said women don't pay child support, which is ludicrous. But I don't blame you know for trying to change your argument.

cpwill said:
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.
Click to expand...
Now ya have ...

"Yes. A firm backdrop. He gets 90 days firm from the point he is notified to make his choice. Even if she has already given birth. " ~ Excon
 
American said:
Does the woman agree to that if she has sex with a man?
Click to expand...

IN FACT, upon birth the woman has exactly the same legal obligations as the bio-father does.

It has already been pointed out:
1. Any man who becomes pregnant has exactly the same right to abort or not as a woman - and the woman can not prevent that decision.
2. No woman has any legal ability to force a man to undergo a medical procedure nor prevent him from having a medical procedure.
3. No man has any legal ability to force a man to undergo a medical procedure nor prevent him from having a medical procedure.

There is no "unfairness."

What are reading - again - is men demanding special rights and powers women do not have.

1. Many on this thread claim a man should have a right to extort a woman into having an abortion - but if not successful - then
2. The man should have the right to have full parental rights OR fully economically and in all other ways abort the child from birth thru the rest of the children's lives.

Personally, I think any bio-parent - man or woman - is becomes a deadbeat abandoning her or his child is a rotten a person as there can be. Deadbeat parents - man or woman - as despicable. If a bio-parent abandons a child after birth - UNLESS a fully capable and irreversibly adoptive replace is found - should be 1.) forcibly sterilized to never do so again and 2.) imprisoned until the child turns 18.

I see all this whining, boo-boo, life's so unfair to men claiming the just thing to do is abandon their own children to leave them more $$ to spend at the strip-club and a nice pick-up car is so much BS. They reveal how much they should never be parents as it is all only about himself and his child is exactly nothing to him.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Now ya have ...

"Yes. A firm backdrop. He gets 90 days firm from the point he is notified to make his choice. Even if she has already given birth. " ~ Excon
Click to expand...

Did you even read what you quoted?
 
joko104 said:
IN FACT, upon birth the woman has exactly the same legal obligations as the bio-father does.
Click to expand...

Whether or not the birth happens is entirely under her control. The rest of your post is obviated by that.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Let me ask a question, then, for all you people who argue a man should be responsible for the children he created: if a father and a mother are getting divorced, and the issue of paternity comes up, should the man be exempted from child support for children that a DNA tests concludes are not related to him by blood? Let's say he's been raising them for years and the issue of paternity never came up before the divorce.
Click to expand...

Most courts rule he has to pay. But there is a reason for that and one most seem to just blow past.

SOMEONE HAS TO PAY THE EXPENSES OF THAT CHILD. That is a fact. So the court asks WHO? Who has to pay - and the court MUST pick who. Must pick SOMEONE.

Granted, many men on this thread suddenly all became Maoist communist socialists claiming it is the government that is the true parent of all children and that the government should provide everything for free - including raising people's child if they don't want to.

But most judges and most courts are NOT total communists and socialists. Thus, the reason they say that man has to pay is because it makes more sense he has to rather than total strangers (ie tax-payers).

They will say the same about the woman too if the man gets the kid(s).
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
Whether or not the birth happens is entirely under her control. The rest of your post is obviated by that.
Click to expand...

That is entirely irrelevant to anything

This may came as a totally repulsive shock to you, but there are actually people - like myself and my wife - that actual think the child's life come BEFORE that of the parents - and that a parent should be willing to give up his or her life to save the life of their child.
 
joko104 said:
So in your opinion she can declare the bio-father has no rights towards the child upon birth without exception?
Click to expand...

Yes. Not so much that she can declare that he has no rights, but that he has no rights unless she declares otherwise-- it's nothing against men, it's the fact that genetics are absolutely morally irrelevant to my concept of paternity. Mothers and fathers are equal partners in parenthood, but a man isn't a father until the mother has given the child to him, and he has chosen to give it his name.

joko104 said:
In general, you have rare views on these topics. Does anyone else agree with that?
Click to expand...

Can't speak for anyone else in specific, but there are people who agree with me, at least in general terms.

Removable Mind said:
But that would sure mess up those spontaneous wild nights of fun and frolic known as a one night stand.
Click to expand...

Now, wouldn't that just be a tragedy? :roll:
 
I used to post how the United States and Americans increasing are coming to despise children and in general trivial them - to exchange it with a me!ish culture. The poll numbers confirm this. Half the members of the forum see children as having no more value than kittens or puppies your pet has that you don't want - even if their own child. Just dump your child off at the animal shelter.
 
joko104 said:
That is entirely irrelevant to anything
Click to expand...

No, it's at the very heart of the matter. If you don't think it is, then you do not understand the point of the argument.


This may came as a totally repulsive shock to you, but there are actually people - like myself and my wife - that actual think the child's life come BEFORE that of the parents - and that a parent should be willing to give up his or her life to save the life of their child.
Click to expand...

That sounds like the argument for outlawing abortion.
 
joko104 said:
SOMEONE HAS TO PAY THE EXPENSES OF THAT CHILD. That is a fact. So the court asks WHO? Who has to pay - and the court MUST pick who. Must pick SOMEONE.
Click to expand...

In other words, there is no consistent principle by which fatherhood is assigned-- the system is based on sticking the responsibility to any poor sucker it can find.

And you support this.

joko104 said:
Granted, many men on this thread suddenly all became Maoist communist socialists claiming it is the government that is the true parent of all children and that the government should provide everything for free - including raising people's child if they don't want to.
Click to expand...

I don't support bringing fatherless children into the world, but I think it's better than forcing men into unwanted parenthood. That is a profound violation of his human rights and the natural order; it is morally inexcusable.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Yes. Not so much that she can declare that he has no rights, but that he has no rights unless she declares otherwise-- it's nothing against men, it's the fact that genetics are absolutely morally irrelevant to my concept of paternity. Mothers and fathers are equal partners in parenthood, but a man isn't a father until the mother has given the child to him, and he has chosen to give it his name.



Can't speak for anyone else in specific, but there are people who agree with me, at least in general terms.



Now, wouldn't that just be a tragedy? :roll:
Click to expand...

Well, at this point in my life...it probably would kill me. If the wild times didn't get me, my wife would...so yes a tragedy...

I guess bars could have a service that would have contracts on hand...with a notary.

While I do respect your puritan views...human sexual behaviors won't be tamed by punitive efforts.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Yes. Not so much that she can declare that he has no rights, but that he has no rights unless she declares otherwise-- it's nothing against men, it's the fact that genetics are absolutely morally irrelevant to my concept of paternity. Mothers and fathers are equal partners in parenthood, but a man isn't a father until the mother has given the child to him, and he has chosen to give it his name.



Can't speak for anyone else in specific, but there are people who agree with me, at least in general terms.



Now, wouldn't that just be a tragedy? :roll:
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody disagrees that there is a disparity created by our judicial system. But if we could remove the kid from the equation...who is really most impacted by poor choices, then I wouldn't have any personal issues.

It is impossible to have a equal choice. You know that. And how would it be better for a kid if the man has the unilateral choice.

This problem...isn't a binary one. It's just not. It's damn unfortunate, but only a bona fide sexual relationship contract...enforceable in a court of law...would really level the equality. It would have to read that a woman agrees to either an abortion...or take full legal and financial responsibility and remove the man from the equation. There is no other legal remedy.

So I bet that also narrows a guy's ability to find a willing woman who would sign such a contract. But...better than a sharp stick in the eye..
 
Harshaw said:
Did you even read what you quoted?
Click to expand...
Of course. CP said he hadn't seen anyone on here suggesting that men should be allowed to opt out after the baby was born.

I showed him one.
 
Removable Mind said:
And how would it be better for a kid if the man has the unilateral choice.
Click to expand...

He doesn't. The woman can choose the same by aborting.

"Better for the kid" doesn't factor into "reproductive choice" as it's advocated for abortion, so it doesn't factor into this.

Individuals may absolutely choose to factor it into their own choices, but that boils down to "don't like abortion? Don't have one."

This problem...isn't a binary one. It's just not. It's damn unfortunate, but only a bona fide sexual relationship contract...enforceable in a court of law...would really level the equality. It would have to read that a woman agrees to either an abortion...or take full legal and financial responsibility and remove the man from the equation. There is no other legal remedy.
Click to expand...

Sure there is. You just make the default of the law the same as if that contract were in force. This is done for many, many things.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Of course. CP said he hadn't seen anyone on here suggesting that men should be allowed to opt out after the baby was born.

I showed him one.
Click to expand...

Then you just ignored the qualifier he put in and you gave an example of something which fell within that qualifier. That was either intentional or you simply don't understand you did this. It's one or the other. You tell me which.
 
Harshaw said:
He doesn't. The woman can choose the same by aborting.

"Better for the kid" doesn't factor into "reproductive choice" as it's advocated for abortion, so it doesn't factor into this.

Individuals may absolutely choose to factor it into their own choices, but that boils down to "don't like abortion? Don't have one."



Sure there is. You just make the default of the law the same as if that contract were in force. This is done for many, many things.
Click to expand...

No...there is no "legislative way to create equal choice".

Well, as it stands...the State will protect a born kid...over that of the woman and a man. Once a kid born...KABOOM...both will pay as it is.

A kid can't provide for its hierarchy of needs...and the state will take conservatorship...if need be but they will pursue legal actions against both parents to recover cost of maintain. That is a fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom