• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • 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!

Legally Abortion Laws are flawed because they are one sided in terms of Reproductive Rights.

Renae

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,244
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I will start out by saying any silly comments about "When a man carries a fetus for 9 months..." will be ignored because this thread does not ignore that fact, it's just that it is irrelevant to the discussion.

Neither is this about men having any say in what a woman chooses to do in terms of a pregnancy. Posts claiming otherwise will also be summarily ignored as such comments are patently dishonest.

Now that the groundwork is laid, and yes, some might remember a similar thread from many a moon ago, but here it is again.

1. Abortion gives a woman the right to decide her future should an unwanted pregnancy occur. SCOTUS has decided they have that right.
This will not be contested or debated again.

2. Much of this is "Right to her body" and "Reproductive Rights", and it is the latter that is the focus here as in the long term, that is where the incongruity and unfairness in the law resides.

Let's say, Tom and Jane have a consensual sexual relationship, be it a steady relationship or a one night fling.

Whatever or lack of, birth control used fails to prevent a pregnancy. These are the basic outcomes (barring injury, illness, miscarriage or the like)

A: Jane chooses to carry to term and keep her child.
B: Jane carries to term, but gives the child up for adoption/to the father
C: Jane aborts her child

That's all understood, but what about Tom?

Tom has no say in the matter, if he wants his child, and she aborts... so sad to bad.
If he doesn't want the child, he's just starting med school and cannot afford to pay for it, so sad, to bad, he's going to be paying child support for the next 18 years of his life at minimum.

In both cases, his reproductive rights are denied. In the initial instance, she chooses to abort, that's her body, her choice.
But why, if she chooses to carry to term, does Tom lack the legal grounds to not "abort" his rights and obligations?

After all, a common reason for abortion is "Not ready to care for or support a child". Why is Tom denied that right? What legal, moral or rational reason is there to deny Tom his reproductive rights and self determination of his future?

I open the floor to discussion.
 
Renae said:
I will start out by saying any silly comments about "When a man carries a fetus for 9 months..." will be ignored because this thread does not ignore that fact, it's just that it is irrelevant to the discussion.

Neither is this about men having any say in what a woman chooses to do in terms of a pregnancy. Posts claiming otherwise will also be summarily ignored as such comments are patently dishonest.

Now that the groundwork is laid, and yes, some might remember a similar thread from many a moon ago, but here it is again.

1. Abortion gives a woman the right to decide her future should an unwanted pregnancy occur. SCOTUS has decided they have that right.
This will not be contested or debated again.

2. Much of this is "Right to her body" and "Reproductive Rights", and it is the latter that is the focus here as in the long term, that is where the incongruity and unfairness in the law resides.

Let's say, Tom and Jane have a consensual sexual relationship, be it a steady relationship or a one night fling.

Whatever or lack of, birth control used fails to prevent a pregnancy. These are the basic outcomes (barring injury, illness, miscarriage or the like)

A: Jane chooses to carry to term and keep her child.
B: Jane carries to term, but gives the child up for adoption/to the father
C: Jane aborts her child

That's all understood, but what about Tom?

Tom has no say in the matter, if he wants his child, and she aborts... so sad to bad.
If he doesn't want the child, he's just starting med school and cannot afford to pay for it, so sad, to bad, he's going to be paying child support for the next 18 years of his life at minimum.

In both cases, his reproductive rights are denied. In the initial instance, she chooses to abort, that's her body, her choice.
But why, if she chooses to carry to term, does Tom lack the legal grounds to not "abort" his rights and obligations?

After all, a common reason for abortion is "Not ready to care for or support a child". Why is Tom denied that right? What legal, moral or rational reason is there to deny Tom his reproductive rights and self determination of his future?

I open the floor to discussion.
Click to expand...

First

Before having sex, provided it is consensual both have the same ability to try to prevent pregnancy

During pregnancy, as the fetus is only within one body, and legally we grant people sovereignty to their own body (provided they are not in prison, or mentally incompetent, Tom can not force Jane to have an abortion. Only Jane can do something to her own body.

Should the baby be born, the babies rights come before those of Jane or Tom (not I do not agree with only one parent being able to give a baby up for adoption). So Tom could sue for custody and force Jane to provide child support or Jane to the same to Tom. Both could agree to give the baby up for adoption.

For the term of pregnancy there is no legal entity in which Tom could "abort" his rights to. For that period of time legally there is only Jane, and Tom.

Also, Abortion is not a legal procedure, but a medical one. A medical procedure that is legal. like getting breast implants or getting a heart transplant. As such, Tom's right to an abortion is not being infringed, if he could have one, he could get one
 
Last edited:
Right to her body?

A healthy pregnancy can turn unhealthy as quick as you can say "BOO".

Only the person who will be affected by the inherent risks should decide.

I was healthy, had great social resources, decent financial resources and the best OBGYN and great insurance. By the time all was said and done, I had several major complications and surgery unrelated to those complications. I lost almost 6 months from work...lost a promotion that should have been mine for the taking. 6 months off of work with COBRA payments to boot? It took me years to come back financially. Almost 25 years later I still have medical issues related to my pregnancy.

I accepted the risk by remaining pregnant. So my complications are on me.

I had the best of insurance and the best of medical care and reasonable financial resources.

Most women who chose abortion do not have the great resources that I did.If I was on Medicaid and sent to overburdened county clinics, it is very possible I would be on dialysis or dead.

I stayed pregnant knowing I had the best of care and insurance to cover it. 6 months off of work??? Sounds like a recipe for homelessness to me. I keep hearing about section 8 housing and such...do folks actually know how long those waiting lists are?
 
Roe vs Wade was decided on the basis of the 14th Amendment and a woman's right to privacy. Your argument is based on an incorrect version of the decision concerning the legality of abortion.

Tom continues to have a right to his privacy.
 
Renae said:
I will start out by saying any silly comments about "When a man carries a fetus for 9 months..." will be ignored because this thread does not ignore that fact, it's just that it is irrelevant to the discussion.
Click to expand...

You want those comments ignored because that is the legitimate reason Tom doesn't get to have a say in those rights. He's not the one carrying the baby to term. Period.

That's like saying, hey let's have a talk about religion but don't bring any religious texts into the discussion.
 
Praxas said:
You want those comments ignored because that is the legitimate reason Tom doesn't get to have a say in those rights. He's not the one carrying the baby to term. Period.

That's like saying, hey let's have a talk about religion but don't bring any religious texts into the discussion.
Click to expand...

You didn't read the discussion. This isn't about Tom having a say over her rights

This is about Tom's rights.

I don't want to discuss those issues because they are IMMATERIAL to the discussion.
 
JMR said:
Roe vs Wade was decided on the basis of the 14th Amendment and a woman's right to privacy. Your argument is based on an incorrect version of the decision concerning the legality of abortion.

Tom continues to have a right to his privacy.
Click to expand...

Except he doesn't, her choice, affects him and he has little to no recourse. How is that fair?
 
Renae said:
You didn't read the discussion. This isn't about Tom having a say over her rights

This is about Tom's rights.

I don't want to discuss those issues because they are IMMATERIAL to the discussion.
Click to expand...

And I explained that, Tom doesn't have any rights to the baby being born due to Tom not carrying to term the baby. Now, if you want to discuss what happens AFTER the baby is born, that's fine. But no, Tom doesn't get a choice in the baby being born.
 
Renae said:
Except he doesn't, her choice, affects him and he has little to no recourse. How is that fair?
Click to expand...

It’s not. But it will not change. Who is best served by this policy is government. If Tom does not pay then many times government benefits would have to be paid. This is the only reason for this policy
 
Praxas said:
And I explained that, Tom doesn't have any rights to the baby being born due to Tom not carrying to term the baby. Now, if you want to discuss what happens AFTER the baby is born, that's fine. But no, Tom doesn't get a choice in the baby being born.
Click to expand...

Uhm... that's the discussion, after the baby, not during pregnancy or birth decisions, if that's not clear I do apologize.
 
"So then men should consciously make a 'reproductive' decision. Are you saying that men are not capable of this? That they cant decide if it's smart to risk 18 yrs of child support or not?[/B]

Because they can. You know that. What you dont like is that it means men can no longer have sex without consequences anymore. Some men still feel *entitled* to sex without consequences...but that ship has sailed. Now you will be held responsible for your reproductive decisions just like women are and always have been. Do you feel that men should be entitled to sex without consequences?

Sounds pretty equal to me.

Can you please, instead of avoiding it, directly answer the questions in bold?"
 
"Because they get pregnant....men cannot. That is biological.

So then why cant women decide to stay pregnant or not? It affects their future, their health, their very life.

If men got pregnant...and in some cases they do now...I agree that their choices should be exactly the same

So if the biological factors were the same, so would the equality....not a single bit of sexism or discrimination.

It's a simple answer and one that makes me wonder if you are too.

Now...I asked you questions that once again, you avoided: please answer them:


--unless you feel that in order to make it equal: the father must suffer ALL the same consequences as the pregnant woman. Including, he's killed if she dies. How does that sound? Crummy right? But it's equal and that is what you believe is ALL IMPORTANT. So...should we make this law so that "things are equal?"

--Are you saying that men should be entitled to have sex without consequences (even tho, unequally, women cannot)? Yes or no? A direct answer for once please.

--Are you saying that men are incapable of protecting themselves by making a choice BEFORE having sex? Yes or no...a direct answer please."
 
"Both men and women can protect themselves equally from an unwanted pregnancy....before sex occurs. After that, both must accept the consequences of that choice:

No escape from consequences
Also, no women that gets pregnant can avoid paying the consequences, there is no escape. There are only 4 scenarios:

--she has a kid
--miscarriage
--abortion
--dying during pregnancy/childbirth

And she can die or suffer permanent health damage from the first 3 too.

However men escape consequences in*all but one of those. If they are pissed they get stuck with that one...then since*they know it before they have sex...either dont have sex or accept that*your consequence is that you dont have control over the woman's choices."
 
Renae said:
Except he doesn't, her choice, affects him and he has little to no recourse. How is that fair?
Click to expand...

What you seem to be fighting for is Tom's right to insist Jane have an abortion, if he does not want to have a child. That would be fair in your analysis?
 
Lursa said:
"Both men and women can protect themselves equally from an unwanted pregnancy....before sex occurs. After that, both must accept the consequences of that choice:

No escape from consequences
Also, no women that gets pregnant can avoid paying the consequences, there is no escape. There are only 4 scenarios:

--she has a kid
--miscarriage
--abortion
--dying during pregnancy/childbirth

And she can die or suffer permanent health damage from the first 3 too.

However men escape consequences in*all but one of those. If they are pissed they get stuck with that one...then since*they know it before they have sex...either dont have sex or accept that*your consequence is that you dont have control over the woman's choices."
Click to expand...

That seems pretty clear to me.
 
"Father's cannot 'opt out' of childhood because "the state steps in" in the best interests of the child. Esp if the mother applies for public assistance, she doesnt even have a choice...the state does it's best to coerce the identity of the father from her or withholds benefits.

This is equal, except that more women end up with custody. If more men want custody or co-custody, I'm all for that.

However *the non-custodial* parent cannot opt out of paying because if they dont, then the taxpayers gets stuck paying for THEIR kids. The taxpayers didnt create those kids. We arent responsible for producing them.

If you think it's unfair for men to get stuck with paying for something they knowingly risked creating 50% of, it's certainly unfair to stick the taxpayer with their responsibilities. Why should we pay more? It's not an endless well....for every $ that goes to kids with parents available, less goes to the kids with no parents, kids in foster care, etc.

Men know the risks, just like women do...why should men not have to be responsible for their choices?"
 
Renae said:
I will start out by saying any silly comments about "When a man carries a fetus for 9 months..." will be ignored because this thread does not ignore that fact, it's just that it is irrelevant to the discussion.

Neither is this about men having any say in what a woman chooses to do in terms of a pregnancy. Posts claiming otherwise will also be summarily ignored as such comments are patently dishonest.
Click to expand...

Answered (see: posts 11, 12, 13, 16…from many many previous threads on the same thing.)

Except for that if and when men are pregnant, I 100% support the same law and treatment of them during pregnancy and choices and if needed, child support.

So nothing remotely sexist...and men are kinda/sorta getting pregnant now.
 
Last edited:
JMR said:
What you seem to be fighting for is Tom's right to insist Jane have an abortion, if he does not want to have a child. That would be fair in your analysis?
Click to expand...

Not in the least. That is an absurd conclusion. Tom should have the right to negate his financial and parental rights and obligations, in line with his reproductive rights and legal parity with Jane's ability to choose such a path. Jane should not be the one to decide his financial and personal future without his having say, just as he should not have any say over her future.
 
Lursa said:
"Father's cannot 'opt out' of childhood because "the state steps in" in the best interests of the child. Esp if the mother applies for public assistance, she doesnt even have a choice...the state does it's best to coerce the identity of the father from her or withholds benefits.

This is equal, except that more women end up with custody. If more men want custody or co-custody, I'm all for that.

However *the non-custodial* parent cannot opt out of paying because if they dont, then the taxpayers gets stuck paying for THEIR kids. The taxpayers didnt create those kids. We arent responsible for producing them.

If you think it's unfair for men to get stuck with paying for something they knowingly risked creating 50% of, it's certainly unfair to stick the taxpayer with their responsibilities. Why should we pay more? It's not an endless well....for every $ that goes to kids with parents available, less goes to the kids with no parents, kids in foster care, etc.

Men know the risks, just like women do...why should men not have to be responsible for their choices?"
Click to expand...

Why can women opt out of their responsibilities but not the men? How is that justifiable?

It's unfair to give one part the "opt out" and not the other.
 
Renae said:
Why can women opt out of their responsibilities but not the men? How is that justifiable?

It's unfair to give one part the "opt out" and not the other.
Click to expand...

If there's a kid, she cannot.

Up until there's a kid, the man has no obligations for her pregnancy.

And he knows it. So why is he blaming the woman for making choices they both know she has?

It's the choices that arent fair, not the law. And biology isnt fair.

Why is it fair to make the taxpayers pay for HIS responsibility? It's the same exact question.
 
Renae said:
Not in the least. That is an absurd conclusion. Tom should have the right to negate his financial and parental rights and obligations, in line with his reproductive rights and legal parity with Jane's ability to choose such a path. Jane should not be the one to decide his financial and personal future without his having say, just as he should not have any say over her future.
Click to expand...

Well ...hmmmm..."in line with his reproductive rights" is a construct of your own imagination. Tom became responsible for the financial support of his potential child the moment he had sex. If no pregnancy occurred or Jane had an abortion within her OWN right to privacy then he would have no obligation. If she carries his child to term, than he does. Simple.
 
Lursa said:
If there's a kid, she cannot.

Up until there's a kid, the man has no obligations for her pregnancy.

And he knows it. So why is he blaming the woman for making choices they both know she has?

It's the choices that arent fair, not the law. And biology isnt fair.

Why is it fair to make the taxpayers pay for HIS responsibility? It's the same exact question.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It is the law that is not fair. If not for the law the man could just walk away...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Wrong. It is the law that is not fair. If not for the law the man could just walk away...
Click to expand...

If not for the law, the child would suffer and/or the taxpayers would be stuck paying for his decision.

I one-up your 'unfairness' claim. He is a responsible party...walking away.
 
JMR said:
Well ...hmmmm..."in line with his reproductive rights" is a construct of your own imagination. Tom became responsible for the financial support of his potential child the moment he had sex. If no pregnancy occurred or Jane had an abortion within her OWN right to privacy then he would have no obligation. If she carries his child to term, than he does. Simple.
Click to expand...

Why?

She can choose not to have an obligation, or to have it. Why does he lose that right?
 
Lursa said:
If not for the law, the child would suffer and/or the taxpayers would be stuck paying for his decision.

I one-up your 'unfairness' claim. He is a responsible party...walking away.
Click to expand...

I never argued "unfair".

I argued your assertion that it is the choices, not the law, that is unfair.

If we stick to that alone you are incorrect. Fact.

Without the law the man can choose to walk away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom