• 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!

Poll based on two other threads re: Billboard Dude

Once he refused to marry her, her decision became none of his business

  • True

    Votes: 6 75.0%
  • False

    Votes: 2 25.0%
  • Unsure

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Can't vote, my personal beliefs are too strong to set aside even in discussion.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    8

BDBoop

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
9,800
Reaction score
2,719
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I am going to ask everybody to vote as though you were pro-choice. Pretend you are just not yourself, for as long as it takes you to answer the question.

This poll will be based on two prior threads, if you want to acquaint yourself. Zimmer posted up the hill in this folder (polls).

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/101058-jilted-ex-boyfriend-puts-up-abortion-billboard.html

And I posted down the hill in the Abortion folder.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/101053-seriously-billboard.html

All I really want to know is this:

Once he knew she was pregnant and refused to ask for her hand in marriage, should he have retained any rights to say what her next move was? Please don't keep in mind that she may have, as friends stated, miscarried. Use the situation as a guide and refer back to the first sentence in this paragraph.
 
He never had any such rights in the first place. A woman chooses whether or not to give a baby to a man. A man chooses whether or not to give a name to a baby.

If a man and a woman can not come to terms with this, they have no business making babies together.
 
I'm kind of over it. They both acted poorly, he acted worse. It was childish, it was stupid, and he'll probably regret it in the long run. But the world ain't ending over a domestic dispute.
 
He never had any such rights in the first place. A woman chooses whether or not to give a baby to a man. A man chooses whether or not to give a name to a baby.

If a man and a woman can not come to terms with this, they have no business making babies together.

So, theoretically, a happily married couple... woman gets pregnent... man is happy... woman is not... woman says 'I am getting an abortion'... man is supposed to say 'sure honey, whatever you say'???
 
The decision was never his business to begin with so it's irrelevant. Whether or not he wanted to marry her has nothing to do with the fact that it's her body, her decision.
 
He never had any such rights in the first place. A woman chooses whether or not to give a baby to a man. A man chooses whether or not to give a name to a baby.

If a man and a woman can not come to terms with this, they have no business making babies together.

the only problem is that the woman can choose to make the man pay for the baby for 18 years, whether he wants it or not. not fair, but guys should always keep that in the back of their mind before they engage their warp drives.
 
her body, her decision. with one caveat

her body, her decision, her financial responsibility
 
So, theoretically, a happily married couple... woman gets pregnent... man is happy... woman is not... woman says 'I am getting an abortion'... man is supposed to say 'sure honey, whatever you say'???

the hard fact is that no one but the woman has any say over her body, and i don't know a single woman who would have an abortion "just because". the situation you describe is probably quite rare.
 
So, theoretically, a happily married couple... woman gets pregnent... man is happy... woman is not... woman says 'I am getting an abortion'... man is supposed to say 'sure honey, whatever you say'???

The problem is, these are decisions that ought to be discussed and made long before the situation ever comes up. If they cannot come to a decision, then the actions that may lead to that decision should never be taken in the first place.

Of course, that requires rational, reasonable people and we all know how hard those are to come by these days.
 
the only problem is that the woman can choose to make the man pay for the baby for 18 years, whether he wants it or not. not fair, but guys should always keep that in the back of their mind before they engage their warp drives.

I should think a VERY high percentage of men in his shoes would have been relieved.
 
Thanks to all who set me straight, but I guess it shows what my first reaction would be in her shoes. "I didn't scramble this egg by myself. I shall talk to the future paternal parental unit, and we shall reach a conclusion."

"I am pregnant. Oh. You don't - oh. .... really? I'm good enough to ____ but not ... oh? Okay. Well, then. Good bye."

After that? I'd never speak to him again because as it turns out, he's a [insert every rotten word you can think of, here].
 
agreed. this guy is a douchebag

Yup, a complete and total asshat without a single redeeming characteristic. However, we live in a country where people are allowed to be douchebags and so long as they don't break any specific laws, while we can all think they're pricks, we can't do a thing about it. That's the whole point of free speech, it's not there to protect the speech we all agree on, but the speech we all hate.
 
Whovian said:
So, theoretically, a happily married couple... woman gets pregnent... man is happy... woman is not... woman says 'I am getting an abortion'... man is supposed to say 'sure honey, whatever you say'???
the hard fact is that no one but the woman has any say over her body, and i don't know a single woman who would have an abortion "just because". the situation you describe is probably quite rare.

As I said, it was a theoretical question, based on Korimir's statement.
 
Yup, a complete and total asshat without a single redeeming characteristic. However, we live in a country where people are allowed to be douchebags and so long as they don't break any specific laws, while we can all think they're pricks, we can't do a thing about it. That's the whole point of free speech, it's not there to protect the speech we all agree on, but the speech we all hate.

That discussion does not belong in this thread. This thread is to ask if people felt (because some didn't) that she had a right to do what she had to do after he refused to marry her when she came up pregnant.
 
Once he refused to marry her, her decision became none of his business
I would say that this is false because if she kept the child he would be financially responsible for that child,therefore making it his business.
 
The problem is, these are decisions that ought to be discussed and made long before the situation ever comes up. If they cannot come to a decision, then the actions that may lead to that decision should never be taken in the first place.

Of course, that requires rational, reasonable people and we all know how hard those are to come by these days.

And then, of course, you have couples who have that discussion thinking they know...but when the situation arises the script gets flipped. Life's a bitch
 
That discussion does not belong in this thread. This thread is to ask if people felt (because some didn't) that she had a right to do what she had to do after he refused to marry her when she came up pregnant.

She had a right to do it regardless, it's her body, as I said in my initial comment. His refusal to marry her, or his acceptance of his responsibility in marrying her, has nothing to do with her decision.
 
I would say that this is false because if she kept the child he would be financially responsible for that child,therefore making it his business.

Nope. He chose not to marry her, thereby signing up for either a) her terminating the pregnancy, or b) at least 18 years of child support payments. As I stated previously, this is the first time I've heard of a guy having a tantrum because she DID terminate (whether by miscarriage or abortion is not actually known, nor do I want to know. He's already gone waaaay over the line sharing her personal business with anybody possible).
 
And then, of course, you have couples who have that discussion thinking they know...but when the situation arises the script gets flipped. Life's a bitch

example from my life...

I wanted 2 kids... wife always agreed, two kids. marriage started going to Hell, and after one of those 'we don't love each other anymore, but lets **** anyway' nights, baby #3 is on the way.

We had always discussed and agreed 2 kids, but her efforts to 'save the marriage' changed that for her. Did not save the marriage.

This is just to illustrate that even with 'discussing' plans for families before hand, things can change for one or the other of those involved.

(BTW, my youngest is the bright spot in my life :) )
 
Nope. He chose not to marry her, thereby signing up for either a) her terminating the pregnancy, or b) at least 18 years of child support payments. As I stated previously, this is the first time I've heard of a guy having a tantrum because she DID terminate (whether by miscarriage or abortion is not actually known, nor do I want to know. He's already gone waaaay over the line sharing her personal business with anybody possible).

It doesn't matter if they were married or not, the decision remains hers, period. Those options exist for any two people having sex. Just being married doesn't magically give the guy control over a woman's uterus.
 
So, theoretically, a happily married couple... woman gets pregnent... man is happy... woman is not... woman says 'I am getting an abortion'... man is supposed to say 'sure honey, whatever you say'???

Yes. If she is not willing to give him as many babies as he wants, and he is not willing to settle for the babies she has already given him, they are not happily married. There is a problem in their marriage, and they need to resolve it; fighting over one baby is not going to solve their problems, and forcing her to give him more is certainly not going to help. If she wants more babies than he's willing to keep, forcing him to keep more is only going to make the problem worse. And if they cannot resolve those problems, then their marriage is over; how can it function when it is broken on such a fundamental level?

This is one of many reasons that men and women should not marry carelessly.

the only problem is that the woman can choose to make the man pay for the baby for 18 years, whether he wants it or not. not fair, but guys should always keep that in the back of their mind before they engage their warp drives.

her body, her decision. with one caveat

her body, her decision, her financial responsibility

That's only a problem as long as we make it a problem. You've already figured out the solution.
 
You've already figured out the solution.

stay away from raggedy bitches. seriously, the way the current system works, a guy should think before he has sex with any female: am I willing to support a kid with this person for 18 years? if the answer is anything other than "yes". keep it in your pants or enter through the backdoor
 
Yes. If she is not willing to give him as many babies as he wants, and he is not willing to settle for the babies she has already given him, they are not happily married. There is a problem in their marriage, and they need to resolve it; fighting over one baby is not going to solve their problems, and forcing her to give him more is certainly not going to help. If she wants more babies than he's willing to keep, forcing him to keep more is only going to make the problem worse. And if they cannot resolve those problems, then their marriage is over; how can it function when it is broken on such a fundamental level?

You read a little more into my theoretcial than was there.
 
Whether from a pro-choice (early fetus is not person) or pro-life (fetus is person) viewpoint, his rights have nothing to do with it.

No property is involved, how does he have rights involved?

His parental rights are irrelevant; there is no visitation or joint custody of a fetus, the logistics don't work.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom