• 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!

Abortion and child support

Tetron

Member
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
168
Reaction score
74
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Under current laws if a man gets a woman pregnant and she has the child he is required to pay child support for that child. Given that abortion allows a woman to choose to either have the child or abort it should men be given the right to disown the child prior to birth and not have to pay child support. The essential question is, if a man doesnt want the child but the woman keeps it anyway should he be required to pay for it?
 
Please see this thread on the exact same subject currently going on:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abort...w-men-should-able-veto-women-s-abortions.html

btw, in 2 other threads I note that you posted initially (on abortion 'timeframe & the legitimacy of homosexuality) and then abandoned the threads. Perhaps some follow-thru on your part would lend some credibility to your efforts.
First my thread is not about if men should be able to control a women's right to get an abortion it is should they be held financially responsible for the child if they do not want it. It is a separate issue that is worth considering.

Secondly while I have commented on certain threads and left it at that, of the threads I have started I have continued active participation, I would say that lends all the credibility I need.
 
First my thread is not about if men should be able to control a women's right to get an abortion it is should they be held financially responsible for the child if they do not want it. It is a separate issue that is worth considering.

Secondly while I have commented on certain threads and left it at that, of the threads I have started I have continued active participation, I would say that lends all the credibility I need.

This is exactly what those threads are discussing however..specifically and exactly. (bold) If you looked, you'd know.

And I wouldnt have mentioned the 2 examples if you had done so.
 
I think that the simple way to ask this question is this:

If a woman can choose to not be a mother, then can a man choose to not be a father?
 
If a woman can choose to not be a mother, then can a man choose to not be a father?

Both can make that choice at any time, and can do everything in their power to prevent falling in to such a situation.

But once a life is conceived either parent's wishes should go right out the window and the child should take priority.

I fully realize that as a society we decided to bastardize the concept of what a "human" is in order to pander to the woman's vote and that we now legally consider an organism with two heads, four arms, and four legs to be a single human being for the purposes of contraception.

But just because we've gone down the wrong road in that respect I don't see how adding an additional wrong would make a right.

If women want to kill children in order to abdicate responsibility for what they've knowingly done there's little we can do about that. We should still do what we can, but it will only go so far in the current political environment.

But that doesn't give us, as men, free reign to abdicate our responsibility.
 
The essential question is, if a man doesnt want the child but the woman keeps it anyway should he be required to pay for it?

No, men should be able to refuse parental responsibilities aswell as the rights and priveledges that come with them. Should he refuse to pay child support he should no longer be legally considered the child's parent.
 
Both can make that choice at any time, and can do everything in their power to prevent falling in to such a situation.

But once a life is conceived either parent's wishes should go right out the window and the child should take priority.

I fully realize that as a society we decided to bastardize the concept of what a "human" is in order to pander to the woman's vote and that we now legally consider an organism with two heads, four arms, and four legs to be a single human being for the purposes of contraception.

But just because we've gone down the wrong road in that respect I don't see how adding an additional wrong would make a right.

If women want to kill children in order to abdicate responsibility for what they've knowingly done there's little we can do about that. We should still do what we can, but it will only go so far in the current political environment.

But that doesn't give us, as men, free reign to abdicate our responsibility.

The purpose of a question like this is to follow liberal agendas to their logical conclusion. The reason this is beneficial is that any liberal agenda followed to its logical conclusion results in a condition liberals would object to. By helping them see the logical conclusion of their actions you help them over time realize that their agendas do not in fact provide them with the goals they are after. This is not a quick process, but by presenting the logic to them it gets into their brains and over time eats away at the double speak they have indulged in to maintain all of their conflicting views. I have converted more than one liberal in real life by simply helping them follow their plans to their logical conclusions. They are normally angry for awhile but over time they come to realize that what they want, and what liberals make happen are two separate things.
 
Under current laws if a man gets a woman pregnant and she has the child he is required to pay child support for that child. Given that abortion allows a woman to choose to either have the child or abort it should men be given the right to disown the child prior to birth and not have to pay child support. The essential question is, if a man doesnt want the child but the woman keeps it anyway should he be required to pay for it?

The man does have a choice. He can choose to keep his pants zipped. If the woman gets pregnant it's her choice because it's her body. If a child comes into the world it deserves the support of both parents. It's not just the man and the woman who have rights and should be treated fairly.
 
The man does have a choice. He can choose to keep his pants zipped. If the woman gets pregnant it's her choice because it's her body.

That's a double standard, and it's ridiculously sexist.
 
Under current laws if a man gets a woman pregnant and she has the child he is required to pay child support for that child. Given that abortion allows a woman to choose to either have the child or abort it should men be given the right to disown the child prior to birth and not have to pay child support. The essential question is, if a man doesnt want the child but the woman keeps it anyway should he be required to pay for it?

Society should not be burdened by dead beat dads who refuse to be responsible for their actions and attempting to control women's reproductive systems by black mail is UnConstitutional.
 
The man does have a choice. He can choose to keep his pants zipped. If the woman gets pregnant it's her choice because it's her body. If a child comes into the world it deserves the support of both parents. It's not just the man and the woman who have rights and should be treated fairly.

He has no choice and is beholden to the will of the woman... he is a slave to her choice.
 
He has no choice and is beholden to the will of the woman... he is a slave to her choice.

Sure he does, but after a certain point it's out of his hands. Watching the consequences of one's own choices unfold might make one uncomfortable, but there's no use in complaining about it.
 
Under current laws if a man gets a woman pregnant and she has the child he is required to pay child support for that child. Given that abortion allows a woman to choose to either have the child or abort it should men be given the right to disown the child prior to birth and not have to pay child support. The essential question is, if a man doesnt want the child but the woman keeps it anyway should he be required to pay for it?

Um, not exactly. The law says if parents share custody, the one who makes more money will pay child support to the other. I know plenty of women who pay child support to their ex husbands. It's not a sexist law, but men love to complain about it.

To answer your question: Yes. Once there is a child, the parents both should be responsible for him or her.
 
Under current laws if a man gets a woman pregnant and she has the child he is required to pay child support for that child. Given that abortion allows a woman to choose to either have the child or abort it should men be given the right to disown the child prior to birth and not have to pay child support. The essential question is, if a man doesnt want the child but the woman keeps it anyway should he be required to pay for it?

Theoretically, if you allow one you need to allow the other. Though I would say ideally the unborn child should be considered since it was created through no fault or action of its own, but rather through the actions of the "adults" in question. In which case neither mother nor father could abort responsibility to the life they created. But that's just an ideal, not law.
 
He has no choice and is beholden to the will of the woman... he is a slave to her choice.

He doesn't have a choice after she's pregnant, true. Men and women are in unequal situations during a pregnancy, so it can't be equal.

Pro-life men who advocate for "equal rights for men" by allowing them to shirk their responsibilities to their children kind of make me laugh. It's so patently transparent that they don't care one bit about the wellbeing of the baby. Their fake outrage about how abortion is murder only stems from petty jealously than men can't do it too.

Not claiming this is you Bod. Some men as well as some women really do believe abortion is equal to murder. But the men advocating for a system that would only create more abortions are lying to everyone and themselves about their true beliefs.
 
Under current laws if a man gets a woman pregnant and she has the child he is required to pay child support for that child. Given that abortion allows a woman to choose to either have the child or abort it should men be given the right to disown the child prior to birth and not have to pay child support. The essential question is, if a man doesnt want the child but the woman keeps it anyway should he be required to pay for it?

basic answer yes

both parents should have the ability to give up thier parental rights in a certain time frame. This area of the law needs addressed and I have said so many times.

going by current limits of 24 weeks the man should have to be notified ASAP and he should have until 16 weeks to decide, giving the woman extra time after words.
Ive gone in to greater detail in other threads but we'll just stick to the basics.
 
Both can make that choice at any time, and can do everything in their power to prevent falling in to such a situation.

But once a life is conceived either parent's wishes should go right out the window and the child should take priority.

I fully realize that as a society we decided to bastardize the concept of what a "human" is in order to pander to the woman's vote and that we now legally consider an organism with two heads, four arms, and four legs to be a single human being for the purposes of contraception.

But just because we've gone down the wrong road in that respect I don't see how adding an additional wrong would make a right.

If women want to kill children in order to abdicate responsibility for what they've knowingly done there's little we can do about that. We should still do what we can, but it will only go so far in the current political environment.

But that doesn't give us, as men, free reign to abdicate our responsibility.

and theres the GLARINGLY dishonest and biased remark right there.
Millions of people are driven by their morals and responsibilities TOO abort. WHat makes your subjective opinions greater than theirs and vice versa.
 
The purpose of a question like this is to follow liberal agendas to their logical conclusion. The reason this is beneficial is that any liberal agenda followed to its logical conclusion results in a condition liberals would object to. By helping them see the logical conclusion of their actions you help them over time realize that their agendas do not in fact provide them with the goals they are after. This is not a quick process, but by presenting the logic to them it gets into their brains and over time eats away at the double speak they have indulged in to maintain all of their conflicting views. I have converted more than one liberal in real life by simply helping them follow their plans to their logical conclusions. They are normally angry for awhile but over time they come to realize that what they want, and what liberals make happen are two separate things.

LMAO talk about a complete fail . . . .wow thanks for the laugh
please share with us all what factually the liberal agenda is

you can't group them (liberals) all together anymore than you can group other people together, that type of dishonest, mentally inane hyperbole will never be taken seriously by educated, objective and honest people.

next what about the millions of non-liberals that support rights and pro-choice?
 
basic answer yes

both parents should have the ability to give up thier parental rights in a certain time frame. This area of the law needs addressed and I have said so many times.

going by current limits of 24 weeks the man should have to be notified ASAP and he should have until 16 weeks to decide, giving the woman extra time after words.
Ive gone in to greater detail in other threads but we'll just stick to the basics.

That's not practical. While abortion is a very safe procedure, the risks increase with every week of gestation. A woman should not be forced to wait while a man makes up his mind whether he's willing to support his child.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/5113/9611/5527/Abortion_After_first_trimester.pdf

Overall, abortion has a low morbidity rate. Less
than 0.3 percent of women undergoing legal
abortion procedures at all gestational ages sustain
a serious complication requiring hospitalization
(Boonstra et al., 2006; Henshaw, 1999). The rate
of complication increases 38 percent for each
additional week of gestation beyond eight weeks

(Paul et al., 2009).
 
That's not practical. While abortion is a very safe procedure, the risks increase with every week of gestation. A woman should not be forced to wait while a man makes up his mind whether he's willing to support his child.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/5113/9611/5527/Abortion_After_first_trimester.pdf

Overall, abortion has a low morbidity rate. Less
than 0.3 percent of women undergoing legal
abortion procedures at all gestational ages sustain
a serious complication requiring hospitalization
(Boonstra et al., 2006; Henshaw, 1999). The rate
of complication increases 38 percent for each
additional week of gestation beyond eight weeks

(Paul et al., 2009).

whoa whoa whoa, sorry if i wasnt clear lol my apologies but thats not what I meant at all . . . I said nothing about making the woman wait

when ever the woman decides, she decides, and thats tough for the man, i simply meant that there should be an earlier limit for him in case its a factor for her . . .

the man or others NEVER get to have that power and should never
 
Millions of people are driven by their morals and responsibilities TOO abort. WHat makes your subjective opinions greater than theirs and vice versa.

There's nothing "moral and responsible" about killing innocent people.

Yes, I know you disagree with me and will argue that human embryos aren't people.

Legally speaking, I'm well aware of that and said as much in the comment you responded to.

There was a time when African Americans weren't considered people because it was socially and politically expedient to consider them something less than a "person".

Thank God that time has passed and God willing this current craziness will too.
 
whoa whoa whoa, sorry if i wasnt clear lol my apologies but thats not what I meant at all . . . I said nothing about making the woman wait

when ever the woman decides, she decides, and thats tough for the man, i simply meant that there should be an earlier limit for him in case its a factor for her . . .

the man or others NEVER get to have that power and should never

She was saying that giving a man a window to decide if they want to be a father will make it so women wait until he makes up his mind before they make theirs.
 
If the woman gets pregnant it's her choice because it's her body.

You're talking about all those women out there with two heads, two brains, two hearts, four arms, four legs...I guess?

Yeah, seems a little crazy to me.

Fact of the matter is we're not, at all, talking about what a woman does with "her" body.

If a woman wants to kill herself far be it from me to oppose her right to do so.

I'm a huge supporter of individual liberty and I would never stand in the way of a woman who wants to drill a hole in her own head and vacuum her brain out.

But we're really not talking about what a woman does to herself, or to her body.

We're talking about her killing someone else because that someone else's body, and her responsibility to care for and support that someone else through the age of majority, is an inconvenience.
 
1.)There's nothing "moral and responsible" about killing innocent people.
2.)Yes, I know you disagree with me and will argue that human embryos aren't people.
3.)Legally speaking, I'm well aware of that and said as much in the comment you responded to.
4.)There was a time when African Americans weren't considered people because it was socially and politically expedient to consider them something less than a "person".
5.) hank God that time has passed and God willing this current craziness will too.

1.) the discussion is about abortion and thats your opinion and nothign more
2.) ahhhhh what? i dont argue that ever and me agreeing with you or disagree with you doesnt change the fact that all you have presented is your opinino
3.) great now hopefully you can move on from that strawman then
4.) see 3 and 4 im not interested in your strawman
5.) guess you cant let it go

fact remains: Millions of people are driven by their morals and responsibilities TOO abort.
WHat makes your subjective opinions greater than theirs and vice versa.
 
Back
Top Bottom