• 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!

Men not being involved in the abortion debate

Nap said:
I fully agree that if people (man or woman) don't want kids they should take the appropriate measures: Abstinence, contraception, or adoption.

Edit: Considering I am against abortion, I am for both sexes taking responsibility.
Click to expand...

Abortion is certainly taking responsibility.

--It's not responsible to have a kid that you know you'll need to take public assistance to raise.

--It's not responsible to have a kid that you believe you'll neglect or abuse.

--It's not responsible to have a kid and give it up for adoption when there are more than 100,000 kids in the US already waiting to be adopted (not the ones in foster care, but actually looking for permanent homes). It means one less of those kids gets a home.

So abortion as a choice is not irresponsible.
 
DebateChallenge said:
I've heard this argument that says men shouldn't be involved in the abortion debate since men don't get pregnant. It doesn't matter if a man is pro choice or pro life men should not be involved. I've heard this argument being made by people in the pro choice crowd but I've never heard anybody from the pro life crowd take this position. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think 97% of men are at some point in their lives involved in the creation of an unborn child, and 100% of men were unborn children themselves at some point. In much the same way that it is morally convenient for men to be pro-life because they will never be subject to the laws they are proposing, it is convenient for pro-choice people to argue that the majority of their enemies' opinions are invalid because they're not themselves subject to them.

I do not believe that anyone should have a "say" or a "voice" in the abortion debate, regardless of whether or not they are male or female. Abortion is a matter of the universal, absolute, and inalienable human rights of the woman bearing an unborn child within her; it is no more subject to debate than any other fundamental human right which has been taken away from the political sphere by the Constitution and the Supreme Court. There are anti-abortion women, and their attempts to restrict other womens' rights are just as intolerably tyrannical as their male counterparts'.
 
Lursa said:
And then so should the taxpayers have the right to abdicate..correct?

Or...why should the taxpayers be stuck paying for his responsibilities? It's equal...once the child is born, both parents, if available, must contribute. Otherwise the taxpayers get stuck.

The man has a chance to exert his 'will.' WHy do you continue to ignore that? If you dont want to pay child support, dont risk having a kid by having sex. WHy is this unacceptable to you?

It's not fair...it cant be fair. WHy should it be unfair for the taxpayers? We didnt create the kid.
Click to expand...

I wish the taxpayers had the ability to abdicate their responsibility.

If abortion was illegal, then I would be 100% in agreement that if men and women didn't want the responsibility of having kids they should take the necessary precautions.

However, abortion is sadly legal in this country. Due to this women can make a decision that impacts both people for the rest of their lives.

If a woman wants an abortion against the will of the father, he is forever stuck with knowing his child was never given a chance. I couldn't even imagine the anger and pain that must cause someone.

If a woman decides to have the child against the will of the father, then he is stuck with the responsibility of the child.

I don't believe anyone should have that level of power over another individual. If abortion is to remain legal, then the father should be able to relinquish any rights or responsibility to the child should he be in favor of the Woman having an abortion rather than have the child.
 
Wait, your "libertarian" argument for why men should have the right to opt out of legal paternity-- a stance I agree with-- is that women shouldn't have the right to their own bodily autonomy if it makes men sad?
 
Nap said:
I fully agree that if people (man or woman) don't want kids they should take the appropriate measures: Abstinence, contraception, or adoption.

Edit: Considering I am against abortion, I am for both sexes taking responsibility.
Click to expand...

You are so close yet so far away from getting it.

This thread is clearly about men, and abortion. Men. Not women. So many men wanna be in the spotlight when it comes to the abortion debate? Surprise, mother****er, here we are. Therefore, as it pertains to this specific discussion, personal responsibility needs to be considered as if it were the prerogative of men. Get it? We don't get to complain that men don't get to be focused in the abortion debate while not being focused on the personal responsibility debate. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

If you want to play the "both sides do it" game, start another thread.
 
CLAX1911 said:
For people who are pro-life it's about whether or not a fetus is considered human life.
Click to expand...

Let's be honest: for most pro-life right-wing men, it's about whether or not women are considered human life.

A fetus could be a human being, an American citizen, a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor and the next incarnation of the Dalai Lama and it still would not have the slightest legal or moral right to occupy a woman's uterus against her will. And according to the theories of property rights and liberty advocated by the majority of so-called "pro-life" activists, forcing a woman to gestate the fetus against her will is slavery.
 
Nap said:
I wish the taxpayers had the ability to abdicate their responsibility.

If abortion was illegal, then I would be 100% in agreement that if men and women didn't want the responsibility of having kids they should take the necessary precautions.

However, abortion is sadly legal in this country. Due to this women can make a decision that impacts both people for the rest of their lives.

If a woman wants an abortion against the will of the father, he is forever stuck with knowing his child was never given a chance. I couldn't even imagine the anger and pain that must cause someone.

If a woman decides to have the child against the will of the father, then he is stuck with the responsibility of the child.

I don't believe anyone should have that level of power over another individual. If abortion is to remain legal, then the father should be able to relinquish any rights or responsibility to the child should he be in favor of the Woman having an abortion rather than have the child.
Click to expand...

So, please feel free to provide a plan that enables men to 'opt out' of child support without placing the burden on the taxpayers?

It's not fair...I asked you: do you expect that? If so, why? Not everything can be fair. The law cant make everything fair.

AGAIN: why cant men OPT OUT before having sex?

Btw, it's pretty clear at this point that you view this a way that women 'control' men. That we can 'force men to do something against their will.'

If that is your objection, why would you GIVE us this control over you? Why wouldnt you CHOOSE to avoid the risk?

Men are not victims...they can 100% protect themselves....why have you not addressed why this is unacceptable to you?
 
CLAX1911 said:
I disagree most people men or women that are against abortion view it as ending human life. I have never heard a man say they have any expertise in pregnancy outside of an OBGYN.

For people who are pro-life it's about whether or not a fetus is considered human life.
Click to expand...

CLAX1911 said:
stating what I said is not a twisting of words is a repeating of words.



thanks for your help but it does not present my personal opinion.
Click to expand...

Are you ****ing kidding me. You STILL refuse to take responsibility for the words that you wrote. You said, and I quote:

CLAX1911 said:
It's foolish on their part. A large majority of women support restricting abortion to the first trimester.

I don't think it has to do with the women in men what I think is that pro-choice people want to silence pro-life people. They're not looking at it from a realistic standpoint it's from the idea that women would largely support abortion which they don't.
Click to expand...

"What I think is" CLEARLY telegraphs that you are writing your opinion. The second highlighted phrase is subjective and is thus your opinion.

Do you even know what an opinion is?
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Let's be honest: for most pro-life right-wing men, it's about whether or not women are considered human life.
Click to expand...
that's not honesty that's rhetoric.

A fetus could be a human being, an American citizen, a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor and the next incarnation of the Dalai Lama and it still would not have the slightest legal or moral right to occupy a woman's uterus against her will. And according to the theories of property rights and liberty advocated by the majority of so-called "pro-life" activists, forcing a woman to gestate the fetus against her will is slavery.
Click to expand...
Opinion noted.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Wait, your "libertarian" argument for why men should have the right to opt out of legal paternity-- a stance I agree with-- is that women shouldn't have the right to their own bodily autonomy if it makes men sad?
Click to expand...

Apparently it's ok to shove their responsibility onto the taxpayers. The taxpayers didnt create that child. The man and woman that did should be held 100% responsible for any child they produce.

It's hardly libertarian to make people pay taxes for things they have no part in creating when the actual responsible parties are available.
 
Phys251 said:
Are you ****ing kidding me. You STILL refuse to take responsibility for the words that you wrote. You said, and I quote:
Click to expand...
if you could show me where I stated my position on abortion I'd happily take responsibility for that. But you can't. Flipping out and cussing up a storm is not going to make me do it. So take a chill pill relax a minute and read what you are quoting and what I'm saying.



"What I think is" CLEARLY telegraphs that you are writing your opinion.
Click to expand...
about what pro-choice people want. I absolutely and completely admit to having an opinion about what pro-choice people want. So if that's all you were after me Merry Christmas.

The second highlighted phrase is subjective and is thus your opinion.
Click to expand...
see above

Do you even know what an opinion is?
Click to expand...
see above
 
Lursa said:
Women have choice right? And if they get pregnant, they have to accept the consequences. (Abortion is a consequence too.) If they dont want to accept the consequences of having sex...they shouldnt have sex, right? People write that here in this sub-forum every week, if not every day.

So it should be the same for men, right? Men choose to have sex, no one's forcing them to.

It's not women's fault that biology makes the time for the decision, and the options, different. Cant change biology so men and women have to face the consequences of their choices. Women have been doing so for millenia....surely men can start doing so now that there's technology to make it harder for them to deny or run off?
Click to expand...

I've recently discovered a fun new game.

You find some place on the internet where people argue about abortion, and you start an argument. When it starts getting heated, you'll start getting the misogynist trolls coming in with "she should have kept her legs shut" and "aspirin is the best form of birth control", and the pro-choice people will start getting self-righteous and shirty about how their opinion and their language is awful.

Then, as a "compromise" suggest that men should have the exact same right to refuse legal and financial responsibility for a child and watch the exact same pro-choice activists make the exact same arguments that they were just (rightfully) condemning as misogynist and oppressive in defense of forcing unwilling men into parenthood. Sure, you can say "different biology is different" all you want while failing to acknowledge that there's nothing biological about a man's paycheck, but the argument still boils down to "people who don't want to be forced into involuntary parental responsibilities shouldn't have sex".
 
Nap said:
I wish the taxpayers had the ability to abdicate their responsibility.

If abortion was illegal, then I would be 100% in agreement that if men and women didn't want the responsibility of having kids they should take the necessary precautions.

However, abortion is sadly legal in this country. Due to this women can make a decision that impacts both people for the rest of their lives.

If a woman wants an abortion against the will of the father, he is forever stuck with knowing his child was never given a chance. I couldn't even imagine the anger and pain that must cause someone.

If a woman decides to have the child against the will of the father, then he is stuck with the responsibility of the child.

I don't believe anyone should have that level of power over another individual. If abortion is to remain legal, then the father should be able to relinquish any rights or responsibility to the child should he be in favor of the Woman having an abortion rather than have the child.
Click to expand...

See the bold: Your objections here have been mainly about men not being able to opt out of being a parent against their will. Abortion then, is the best choice for them, so make up your mind.

And it's dishonest to use a man desperately wanting the unborn that a woman chooses to abort when it's a given that they went into it NOT PLANNING to have a child. Was it discussed before having sex? If not, and birth control is used, then it's ridiculous for a man to come out later and claim he wants a baby.

From what you write, your issue really is about resenting your imagined women controlling men. Esp since you are against abortion...that's a huge clue right there.

How do you think women feel, when we know men like you are out there and think nothing of wanting to control us? To have the power to tell us what to do with our bodily sovereignty and self-determination?
 
year2late said:
They are not obliged to pay "pregnancy support".

They may be obliged to pay child support. He has no say in her health care choices. Assuming you are a competent adult, in what instance does a woman have the right to dictate your health care choices?

IMHO, once a baby is born...it ceases to be about the man or the woman...it is about the child. Now....I am all for ongoing reform of the system. Some of the child support abuses are disgusting. I will say this....(not that it makes anything right) I know women who have been the breadwinner who get divorced and they are getting screwed in the same way men have been all these years.

One thing people should consider when having sex....despite what they say...the other partner may WANT a pregnancy. If you do not want to be responsible for a pregnancy....use the best protection available....on the plus side....if BOTH partners are using high quality protection....the risk of pregnancy is negligible. "I thought he/she was using birth control" should never be a response to pregnancy.
Click to expand...

I see I pinched a nerve.

seriously though. If women want to remove men from the equation of deciding if a child is born or terminated, than they are hypocritical if they want to hold the man responsible for a decision he had no say in.

I am really appalled at the lack of morality and ethics of such a position.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Opinion noted.
Click to expand...

It's not an opinion, it is the inevitable logical conclusion of every moral argument in support of libertarian social policy.

You can be libertarian or pro-life, but if you try to be both, all you are is a ****ing hypocrite.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
It's not an opinion, it is the inevitable logical conclusion of every moral argument in support of libertarian social policy.
Click to expand...
explain how you evaluate the logic.

You can be libertarian or pro-life, but if you try to be both, all you are is a ****ing hypocrite.
Click to expand...
well I didn't claim to be libertarian so thanks for that.
 
Lursa said:
No, it's got to do with choices. Women have the choice of abortion or pregnancy. And they can make that choice later.

Men, biologically, dont have the 'same' choices...they have to decide before having sex if they want control.

But in both cases, if they choose to have sex, then BOTH must accept the consequences of a pregnancy.

If women want to avoid those consequences...same deal: dont have sex. Just like for men.
Click to expand...

So why is it fair for the woman to have an option not to bring the child into the world, and the man has to abide by her will?

My point is if the man has no legal right to decide, then he should not be required to support the child. He should also have a choice.
 
Lursa said:
Yup. It's not fair. Is that what you want? It's not.

Biologically it's not fair at all. It certainly sucks for women. But again: we have to accept the consequences if there's a pregnancy.

Why is it unfair for men if they have 100% control...it just occurs before they take the risk. If they accept the risk, then they should accept the consequences. It's not like it's a secret.
Click to expand...

If a woman cannot accept the risk she might get pregnant, take that control away like you wish to keep away from men. Make abortion illegal except in cases of health.

Why is it fair that men don't have a choice. Stop being hypocritical.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
I've recently discovered a fun new game.

You find some place on the internet where people argue about abortion, and you start an argument. When it starts getting heated, you'll start getting the misogynist trolls coming in with "she should have kept her legs shut" and "aspirin is the best form of birth control", and the pro-choice people will start getting self-righteous and shirty about how their opinion and their language is awful.

Then, as a "compromise" suggest that men should have the exact same right to refuse legal and financial responsibility for a child and watch the exact same pro-choice activists make the exact same arguments that they were just (rightfully) condemning as misogynist and oppressive in defense of forcing unwilling men into parenthood. Sure, you can say "different biology is different" all you want while failing to acknowledge that there's nothing biological about a man's paycheck, but the argument still boils down to "people who don't want to be forced into involuntary parental responsibilities shouldn't have sex".
Click to expand...

I've done this a couple of times in this thread, at least.

The men refuse to even acknowledge that men not having sex to avoid their consequences is an option.

All you get is: "but she does!" Yes...biology does enable women to have different options at different times.

Stop whining and acting like victims. Men can completely protect themselves from unwanted parenthood...but they refuse to think before having sex. Millennia of sex without consequences is deeply embedded in their sub-consciences and they feel so entitled to it that they wont even consider anything else.

But you are 100% right: it's the exact same thing they've told women forever: dont want a kid, keep your legs closed. And in the case of Nap, that is exactly what he, as a pro-life supporter, has already admitted!
 
Lursa said:
Abortion is certainly taking responsibility.

--It's not responsible to have a kid that you know you'll need to take public assistance to raise.

--It's not responsible to have a kid that you believe you'll neglect or abuse.

--It's not responsible to have a kid and give it up for adoption when there are more than 100,000 kids in the US already waiting to be adopted (not the ones in foster care, but actually looking for permanent homes). It means one less of those kids gets a home.

So abortion as a choice is not irresponsible.
Click to expand...

Abortion is for the irresponsible. it is irresponsible to put yourself in that position to begin with.

May as well play Russian Roulette with a reset button.

I find abortion advocated rather immoral people.
 
Lord of Planar said:
If a woman cannot accept the risk she might get pregnant, take that control away like you wish to keep away from men. Make abortion illegal except in cases of health.

Why is it fair that men don't have a choice. Stop being hypocritical.
Click to expand...

Women have rights that are violated in many ways by attempting to discover if they are pregnant and forcing them to remain pregnant. Women have Constitutional rights that are protected and allow elective abortion. You cant make it illegal without violating our rights.

What men's rights are violated by paying child support? And which ones outweigh the best interests of the child and of the taxpayers who get stuck paying for their kid? (And dont forget, women and men are held equally responsible for the child).

It's not fair. Who told you life was fair? The law cant make everything fair. Stop being a victim, men have 100% ability to not become parents against their will.
 
CLAX1911 said:
explain how you evaluate the logic.
Click to expand...

Seriously? This is 101-level stuff, the very basis of libertarianism:

"I am not responsible for any societal obligation that I did not explicitly consent to", "my rights to my own property, including my own body, are absolute", "enforcement of any nonconsensual obligation of my labor or my property is literal slavery".

But then they turn around and they try to argue that all of that philosophy, their entire ****ing worldview, does not apply to a woman with a child in her belly. It's okay to force her to gestate a child for nine months, consuming her biological resources, because she has a moral obligation to the child and/or (more often) the biological father to do so, regardless of any explicit statements she may have made to the contrary.

If you didn't consent to paying your income taxes, you shouldn't have consented to collecting a paycheck you filthy workslut.


CLAX1911 said:
well I didn't claim to be libertarian so thanks for that.
Click to expand...

Well, two points:

1) General "you", not you specifically. I apologize, sincerely, for not being more clear about that.
2) On the left side of the forum, beneath your user name, you have identified yourself as being "Libertarian - Right". And the other person arguing that women do not have the right to control their own body is also right-libertarian.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
I see I pinched a nerve.

seriously though. If women want to remove men from the equation of deciding if a child is born or terminated, than they are hypocritical if they want to hold the man responsible for a decision he had no say in.

I am really appalled at the lack of morality and ethics of such a position.
Click to expand...

What's appalling is your lack of any intelligent argument. "Pinched a nerve"? What kind of dumb deflection is that? What, you never read an argument supported by reasoning before.

People like you just throw out your conclusions with absolutely nothing explaining why you take such a position.
 
Lord of Planar said:
it is irresponsible to put yourself in that position to begin with.

May as well play Russian Roulette with a reset button.
Click to expand...

THANK YOU!
Because the exact same things apply to men who sleep with women they arent married to or dont know well enough to know what they'd do with an unplanned pregnancy. They have ZERO right to complain about an unplanned pregnancy.

Much appreciated.

And btw, I find people that would advocate for women to be forced to remain pregnant against their will to be immoral.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
The men refuse to even acknowledge that men not having sex to avoid their consequences is an option.
Click to expand...

Neither the woman or man should have sex unless thay are financially prepared to have a child. To do so is irresponsible. Problem is, the woman is given an out. The man is not.

Hypocritical!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom