• 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
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.

What you said here is fiction. Regardless of what the mother does, a father can insist on his parental rights and if the mother tries to interfere with his exercising those rights, he can have the court issue an order protecting his rights.
 
What you said here is fiction. Regardless of what the mother does, a father can insist on his parental rights and if the mother tries to interfere with his exercising those rights, he can have the court issue an order protecting his rights.

If he knows he's the biological father of a child, and can prove it in court. Couple of big ifs, there, and also almost entirely within the woman's control.
 
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.

That's not true. Depending the state, because statutes vary. A DNA test is very possible during prenatal stages, done all the time, and it can be court ordered to done to determine paternity. Then a court can order the "soon" to be daddy to ALSO PAY a portion of prenatal care, delivery, all the way to 18 years of age, and in some cases older.

You are hung up on birth certificate as though they on the only legal instrument which identifies a baby belonging to a specific man and woman. And that a name is require of all parties...and filed with the BVS in order to be recognized as a person. NOT TRUE.

If you purposely murder a 1 minute newborn...which the second it's little butt hits air...it immediately has constitutional rights. And you will go to jail for murdering A PERSON. It's no longer a fetus...but a real live person.

It's personhood is witnessed by doctors, nurses...and even a father. Yes...it is a legal being. It's identifiable by unique DNA and fingerprints and footprints. A hospital will attach a special identification bracelet and always do footprints and some will also do fingerprints will be recorded very shortly after birth.

They have to by law.

Oh...some states don't require names for up to 30 days after birth.
 
The question doesn't have anything to do with custody, nor is it a question of "privilege."

It sounds to me like I was right; you accept the double standard, and would indeed say "if you didn't want to be on the hook for the kid, you shouldn't have had sex."

No, you're very wrong. But you're relying on oversimplifications to reach a predetermined conclusion,so you were pretty much guaranteed to be wrong.
 
From the OP on throughout this thread I have consistently supported a woman’s right to choose; either to abort or to accept the full responsibility of having a baby for herself. It simply seems strange to hear arguments claiming that while BOTH are responsible for conception, only ONE gets to decide if both must commit to lifelong responsibility or not.

If the woman controls access, prevention, and “opt-out” outcome why then must the male be bound by those choices but not relieved of the duty to take care of an unexpected and unwanted child if she chooses the “opt-in” outcome?

A partial answer is that even if I want a child I must respect the woman’s choice to make me use contraception, and her use of contraception, and if she gets pregnant to abort it. That is because it is her body and she may choose not to have it affected by the growth of an unwanted child, nor be forced to assume the responsibilities inherent subsequent to childbirth. I cannot compel her to accept these things.

But this does not answer the essential question; if I do NOT want a child and she still gets pregnant why should she be allowed to compel me to?

It is disingenuous to claim it is not her, but “public policy” which actually compels me; because her decision determines whether or not I will be subject to the compulsion of such “public policy.” Currently women are assured that no matter what the man thinks; if she chooses to have an unwanted child then the male will be compelled to support it.

It is also disingenuous to claim that current “public policy” is “set in stone” and cannot change. It is one thing to argue that a majority could not currently accept any public policy change which might increase the tax burden imposed by public welfare. It is another to state categorically that society would never accept any such public policy change.

Arguments claiming that the male could keep his pants on, wear a “sock,” or recognize he is taking a risk are not determining because sex neither constitutes agreement that conception will occur nor that a baby must be born. Why? The woman’s rights are based upon her greater risks; therefore she has the absolute power to decide what happens, if anything, with her body. As a result, even though both share the possibility of conception only she can limit access by requiring levels of contraception; opt to abort; or even abandon the male to hide the pregnancy in order to give the child up for adoption. So only she currently has the power to opt-out.

This is inequitable; even the nay-sayers in this thread acknowledge that.

In response they use every fallacious argument in the book, from appeals to emotion (there is a child!), through appeals to consequences ("public policy"), to affirming the consequent (if male has sex then he agrees to have a baby; a baby occurs, he agreed to have a baby). None of this addresses the essential inequity of the female “opt-out,” they simply assert “too bad, so sad, deal with it.”

I'm still waiting for a logically sound argument which addresses validly why a man should not have the same right to opt-out as the woman does.
 
Last edited:
If he doesn't know, then he won't be paying child support.

That's not the point and you know it. The point is that his "parental rights" only exist if the mother informs him of the child. Every part of this process is under the woman's control.
 
From the OP on throughout this thread I have consistently supported a woman’s right to choose; either to abort or to accept the full responsibility of having a baby for herself. It simply seems strange to hear arguments claiming that while BOTH are responsible for conception, only ONE gets to decide if both must commit to lifelong responsibility or not.

If the woman controls access, prevention, and “opt-out” outcome why then must the male be bound by those choices but not relieved of the duty to take care of an unexpected and unwanted child if she chooses the “opt-in” outcome?

A partial answer is that even if I want a child I must respect the woman’s choice to make me use contraception, and her use of contraception, and if she gets pregnant to abort it. That is because it is her body and she may choose not to have it affected by the growth of an unwanted child, nor be forced to assume the responsibilities inherent subsequent to childbirth. I cannot compel her to accept these things.

But this does not answer the essential question; if I do NOT want a child and she still gets pregnant why should she be allowed to compel me to?

It is disingenuous to claim it is not her, but “public policy” which actually compels me; because her decision determines whether or not I will be subject to the compulsion of such “public policy.” Currently women are assured that no matter what the man thinks; if she chooses to have an unwanted child then the male will be compelled to support it.

It is also disingenuous to claim that current “public policy” is “set in stone” and cannot change. It is one thing to argue that a majority could not currently accept any public policy change which might increase the tax burden imposed by public welfare. It is another to state categorically that society would never accept any such public policy change.

Arguments claiming that the male could keep his pants on, wear a “sock,” or recognize he is taking a risk are not determining because sex neither constitutes agreement that conception will occur nor that a baby must be born. Why? The woman’s rights are based upon her greater risks; therefore she has the absolute power to decide what happens, if anything, with her body. As a result, even though both share the possibility of conception only she can limit access by requiring levels of contraception; opt to abort; or even abandon the male to hide the pregnancy in order to give the child up for adoption. So only she currently has the power to opt-out.

This is inequitable; even the nay-sayers in this thread acknowledge that.

In response they use every fallacious argument in the book, from appeals to emotion (there is a child!), through appeals to consequences ("public policy"), to affirming the consequent (if male has sex then he agrees to have a baby; a baby occurs, he agreed to have a baby). None of this addresses the essential inequity of the female “opt-out,” they simply assert “too bad, so sad, deal with it.”

I'm still waiting for a logically sound argument which addresses validly why a man should not have the same right to opt-out as the woman does.

There is no opt-out option for taking responsibility for a child. Both mother and father are required by law to care for their children

Your argument relies on the fiction that there is a way for a mother to opt out of her responsibilities to care for her child.
 
That's not the point and you know it. The point is that his "parental rights" only exist if the mother informs him of the child. Every part of this process is under the woman's control.

Wrong again

It's not hard to tell that a woman is pregnant. All he has to do is look at her. He doesn't have to rely on the mother to tell him

Once again, you are relying on fiction.
 
Child support an option? So you are ok with a child not being financially supported? (at least as well as the child should be).

I just have to love these "its not fair" responses. Wear a damned condom no matter what BC she is using or get a vasectomy.

Seriously, if you want "its not fair" try pregnancy.:lol: At least women usually have the sense to know that there isn't fair or unfair....

Yes, an option for the custodial parent to pursue if they wish. Not every single parent WANTS child support. Mine, for example. If they don't want it, then why make the other parent pay it?

But what we are talking about here is completely relinquishing all parental rights. Just like when a woman puts up a child for adoption. Women have the right to choose not to be a parent to a biological child. Why don't men?

The woman decides what to do with her pregnancy. She does not get to decide what to do with a man's life. That has nothing to do with "fairness." That is a basic principal of personal liberty.

And by the way, it's the same principal that makes you pro-choice. It's baffling that you don't think it applies to men.
 
Last edited:
There is no opt-out option for taking responsibility for a child. Both mother and father are required by law to care for their children

Your argument relies on the fiction that there is a way for a mother to opt out of her responsibilities to care for her child.

Sorry Sangha, NOT a "fiction." Whether she is pro-life and cannot opt to abort due to her moral convictions, or not; she can still simply not inform the father and then put the child up for adoption. This is not an unusual occurrance.
 
Sorry Sangha, NOT a "fiction." Whether she is pro-life and cannot opt to abort due to her moral convictions, or not; she can still simply not inform the father and then put the child up for adoption. This is not an unusual occurrance.

You're still posting fiction

A woman can not hide a pregnancy. All the father has to do is take a look at her and know that's she's pregnant. He doesn't need her to inform him.

Then, he can go to court to enforce his parental rights and prevent an adoption, if he wants to.

This too, is not an unusual occurance
 
You're still posting fiction

A woman can not hide a pregnancy. All the father has to do is take a look at her and know that's she's pregnant. He doesn't need her to inform him.

Then, he can go to court to enforce his parental rights and prevent an adoption, if he wants to.

This too, is not an unusual occurance


Wrong sangha, you keep treating this situation as if it were occurring in either a marriage or long-term committed relationship. Often this occurs as the result of one night stands, or short-term periods of recreational sex. Even in long-term but unmarried relationships women have been known to "take a break" to hide a pregnancy in order to put a child up for adoption. In none of these scenarios is the male ever made aware he had a child.

The woman doesn't even have to go through formal adoption procedures, many states now have "baby drop-off" laws allowing anonymous legal abandonment of babies. Did they get created in a vacuum?
 
Wrong sangha, you keep treating this situation as if it were occurring in either a marriage or long-term committed relationship. Often this occurs as the result of one night stands, or short-term periods of recreational sex. Even in long-term but unmarried relationships women have been known to "take a break" to hide a pregnancy in order to put a child up for adoption. In none of these scenarios is the male ever made aware he had a child.

IOW, you think it's unfair that a man has to pay child support when he has a one-night stand and the mother doesn't tell him she's pregnant and gives the kid away for adoption? :screwy

Don't you realize that in this scenario, the father doesn't pay child support? :lamo
 
IOW, you think it's unfair that a man has to pay child support when he has a one-night stand and the mother doesn't tell him she's pregnant and gives the kid away for adoption? :screwy

Don't you realize that in this scenario, the father doesn't pay child support? :lamo

Sangha, the argument is about a woman's ability to opt-out that is not shared by the male. The example we are discussing is one where a woman who has a child can STILL opt-out without the male's knowledge.

While it is true she cannot do this (at least not easily) if she INFORMS him of the baby, you keep forgetting that in an opt-out scenario not only can she abort but she can choose not to inform the male, have the child and put it up for adoption and this still constitutes a unilateral opt-out on her part. If she INFORMS him and he says he wants it put up for adoption (being pro-life) she can simply say no and he is stuck.
 
Last edited:
Sangha, the argument is about a woman's right to opt-out. The example we are discussing is one where a woman who has a child can STILL opt-out without the male's knowledge.

How is a man who isn't going to have to pay any child support being forced to pay child support because the woman had an abortion?

Or did you forget what this thread is about?
 
How is a man who isn't going to have to pay any child support being forced to pay child support because the woman had an abortion?

Or did you forget what this thread is about?

I know perfectly well what this thread is all about. What our current dispute is about shows in the below chain of responses:


Wrong sangha, you keep treating this [adoption] situation as if it were occurring in either a marriage or long-term committed relationship. Often this occurs as the result of one night stands, or short-term periods of recreational sex. Even in long-term but unmarried relationships women have been known to "take a break" to hide a pregnancy in order to put a child up for adoption. In none of these scenarios is the male ever made aware he had a child.

You're still posting fiction. A woman can not hide a pregnancy. All the father has to do is take a look at her and know that's she's pregnant. He doesn't need her to inform him.

Sorry Sangha, NOT a "fiction." Whether she is pro-life and cannot opt to abort due to her moral convictions, or not; she can still simply not inform the father and then put the child up for adoption.

There is no opt-out option for taking responsibility for a child. Both mother and father are required by law to care for their children. Your argument relies on the fiction that there is a way for a mother to opt out of her responsibilities to care for her child.

This is not an unusual occurrance.

Then, he can go to court to enforce his parental rights and prevent an adoption, if he wants to.

The woman doesn't even have to go through formal adoption procedures, many states now have "baby drop-off" laws allowing anonymous legal abandonment of babies. Did they get created in a vacuum?

So I repeat; the current argument between us is about a woman's ability to opt-out that is not shared by the male. The example we are discussing is one where a woman who has a child can STILL opt-out without the male's knowledge or choice.
 
Last edited:
I know perfectly well what this thread is all about. What our current dispute is about shows in the below chain of responses:

A woman can not opt out of her responsibilities to care for her child.



So I repeat; the current argument between us is about a woman's ability to opt-out that is not shared by the male. The example we are discussing is one where a woman who has a child can STILL opt-out without the male's knowledge or choice.

There is no opting out once there is a child, and if the child is put out for adoption without the fathers knowledge then he doesn't have to pay child support. You haven't explained how a situation that doesn't require child support from the father justifies allowing the father to opt out of his responsibility.

You're saying that because there's a situation that doesn't require the father to pay child support, he shouldn't have to pay child support in a completely different scenario. That is absurd!!
 
That's not what you said. You said women don't pay child support, which is ludicrous


Not at all. The woman is raising the child, not sending off a check.

cpwill said:
I have yet to see anyone argue in favor of a post-birth abrogation of responsibility assuming he knew of the child.
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

I've highlighted the relevant portion for you.
 
When the father is raising the child the woman does send off the check.
Both parents pay for the support of the child.
 
When the father is raising the child the woman does send off the check.
Both parents pay for the support of the child.

This isn't just a post to you, minnie, but to a lot of people who seem unclear about what is being discussed here.

As far as I am understanding it, we are discussing men relinquishing ALL parental rights, and not paying child support.

That is different from simply being a non-custodial parent. A non-custodial parent still has legal rights to the child, and thus may pay child support if requested. They are still, oficially, a parent -- just not one the child is living with on a significant basis.

We're discussing a man who basically gives up his child for "adoption" (presumably to the woman, or perhaps to someone else if she doesn't want it either). He has relinquished all of his parental rights.

A woman who gives up all rights to a child does not pay child support.

What we're arguing about here is, basically, the fact that men are generally not allowed to give up parental rights.
 
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.

Though I like the question and really do not know that a man should be absolved of responsibility, should the woman refuse abortion. I tend to think that a problematic concept. But should a woman be allowed to abort, where the man is willing to take responsibility? She did know, after all, that she could become pregnant and chanced it.
 
Though I like the question and really do not know that a man should be absolved of responsibility, should the woman refuse abortion. I tend to think that a problematic concept. But should a woman be allowed to abort, where the man is willing to take responsibility? She did know, after all, that she could become pregnant and chanced it.

There's one big issue here, that makes these situations different.

Pregnancy is no small matter. It's very depleting, potentially dangerous and harmful, and ends in a great deal of pain.

A man who wishes to relinquish his parental rights is not asking the woman to do anything more than she already has. She has already decided to have and raise a child.

A man who wishes to take a child a woman does not want, and is currently pregnant with, is asking her to go through all of that at her own risk and detriment simply for his wishes.

He doesn't have any right to demand that of her, in exactly the same way she doesn't have a right to demand he care for a child that she unilaterally decided to have.

I don't buy the whole "they could have kept their legs shut" thing for either sex. People are allowed to have intimacy in their lives without being punished by force birthing or force servitude.
 
There's one big issue here, that makes these situations different.

Pregnancy is no small matter. It's very depleting, potentially dangerous and harmful, and ends in a great deal of pain.

A man who wishes to relinquish his parental rights is not asking the woman to do anything more than she already has. She has already decided to have and raise a child.

A man who wishes to take a child a woman does not want, and is currently pregnant with, is asking her to go through all of that at her own risk and detriment simply for his wishes.

He doesn't have any right to demand that of her, in exactly the same way she doesn't have a right to demand he care for a child that she unilaterally decided to have.

I don't buy the whole "they could have kept their legs shut" thing for either sex. People are allowed to have intimacy in their lives without being punished by force birthing or force servitude.

No question. Pregnancy is no small matter. That is something to keep in mind, when deciding to spend the night. But we do find consensus on your statement, if you include financial responsibility: "He doesn't have any right to demand that of her, in exactly the same way she doesn't have a right to demand he care for a child that she unilaterally decided to have."
 
I oppose all abortion but legally a man should have the same rights as the woman.
 
Back
Top Bottom