• 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
hallam said:
I oppose abortion in principle and want it restricted but it is legal without limits federally. And as long as it is legal without restrictions, men should have the option to abort their financial responsibility which would accomplish the equivalent to a woman aborting the physical pregnancy.
Click to expand...


Do you then advocate letting the child die? Throw it in the trash? Obviously you do not care one iota about the child in your message. None. Victimize the child upon birth is just A-OK with you 100%.

Virtually no so-called pro-life men give a damn about the child. That is the BIG LIE of the pro-life advocacy. It is NOT about the child. It is about wanting power over women. The child? Totally irrelevant and we see that in this thread and basically every thread about the FAKE "pro life men" claiming they care about "the baby." They don't give a **** about "the baby" whatsoever.

That is what your message REALLY says. It's just a power trip contest between the man and the woman to you by your message.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
That is as false as it gets. The woman has as much "financial responsibility" as the man after birth.

Explain to me why I should have to pay for THEIR child - since that is your claim UNLESS you advocate killing the child if abandoned by both. Why do you claim I should have to pay for their child? Explain that to me.
Click to expand...

As a republican, this is a silly argument. You are not paying for the child. You are paying taxes. Taxes you will need to pay even if any single pregnancy doesn't results in a child. Child insurance coverage, child education, child WIC, child welfare will exist even if any singular pregnancy exists or not.
 
lizzie said:
No, I really don't. It is a simple issue. Have sex, protect yourself, or take the chance on getting pregnant. This is junior high school stuff here, not rocket science.
Click to expand...

You don't need to be condescending. But no, it is not that simple and all the responsibility should not be placed on the women.
 
Wow, over half the members of the forum so far essential say "LET THE BABY DIE AFTER BIRTH FOR ALL WE CARE."

In other ways, it does seem clear a majority of Americans basically despise children in general. Gratuitously will claim otherwise, but really don't give a damn about children.

Men who want the right to abandon their children. I guess that shouldn't surprise anyone give how many do.
 
lizzie said:
There are exceptions to every rule, but the rule is, aside from rape and/or incest with a young girl, prevention is pretty easy, and is widely available to the general public.
Click to expand...

You keep making the same statement over and over again.
 
joko104 said:
Do you then advocate letting the child die?
Click to expand...

I advocate restriction on abortion once a child is viable and until then, the father gets to abort too. I am egalitarian and if women gets to "choose" then so do men. Plus, the pro-choice side doesn't see it as a child. They see it as a clump of cells and they see it, falsely but I will use the argument here, that it is the woman body. So for pro-choice people, the man isn't aborting his responsibility to a child, he is aborting his responsibility to cells.

Further, if a pregnancy is a child, then abortion is murder and your argument is false from the other-side and women shouldn't be able to abort at all.
 
opendebate said:
You don't need to be condescending. But no, it is not that simple and all the responsibility should not be placed on the women.
Click to expand...

She has a the right to choose as it is. Which she is responsible for.
The man should have the same option.
 
joko104 said:
Explain to me why I should have to pay for THEIR child - since that is your claim UNLESS you advocate killing the child if abandoned by both.
Click to expand...
You shouldn't. So work/lobby to get the laws changed.
 
hallam said:
As a republican, this is a silly argument. You are not paying for the child. You are paying taxes. Taxes you will need to pay even if any single pregnancy doesn't results in a child. Child insurance coverage, child education, child WIC, child welfare will exist even if any singular pregnancy exists or not.
Click to expand...

And that is as stupid a response as possible. It really is absurd for you to claim that the cost of 1 child and 1,000,000 children is the same. I AM paying for the child via taxes.

Nor is it the pregnancy that requires taxes. IT IS DEADBEAT PARENTS - the majority fo which are DEADBEAT MEN - that requires the tax money - and all the other problems that come with child who are abandoned by their parents like higher crime rates. The bastard child you claim you get to make and then dump on society so you got your free 15 minutes of toe curling is who will burglarize my house.

I despise deadbeat parents and any sicko rationalizations they make for it. They are the ULTIMATE meaning of being immoral scum who should live in prisons.
 
joko104 said:
That is as false as it gets. The woman has as much "financial responsibility" as the man after birth.

Explain to me why I should have to pay for THEIR child - since that is your claim UNLESS you advocate killing the child if abandoned by both. Why do you claim I should have to pay for their child? Explain that to me.
Click to expand...

I have no idea how you managed to get that bit of idiocy out of what I posted. A woman has the absolute legal right to terminate the pregnancy whether the man wants it or not

that is the law

I don't think the woman has a right to stick the man with paternity duties if he is willing to pay for the abortion and it was an unwanted pregnancy
 
This issue is deeply complicated and there are far too many variables to come up with some black and white solution. Especially if that solution gets men off the hook and burdens the woman with everything. The only thing that allowing men more freedom to "opt out" is likely to accomplish is men practicing even less self control and taking less responsibility then they already do.

Since it is impossible to determine if a man got tricked, or whose birth control failed or who fooled whom etc. We are forced to deal with the reality. If a man sleeps with a woman and a woman sleeps with a man both are responsible for the outcome. Both should know the risks before they make the choice to jump into bed. If she says she has birth control use something anyway, if you as a man chose not to then you are stuck with the results, including her decision not to abort. Women, make your man use a condom unless you want to be forced to make this decision; or if you decide not to know where he stands on the issue. This is real life not the playground. Be grown-ups.

Side note:
It's odd to me how so many of you talk about personal responsibility ALL the time, but somehow on this issue that principle just goes out the window. We call that situational ethics BTW.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
You shouldn't. So work/lobby to get the laws changed.
Click to expand...

No, the law does require parents have at least financial responsibility for the child(ren) they make. What is being advocated is eliminating those laws on behalf of wannabe deadbeat men.
 
opendebate said:
it certainly is the same to consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. The way men look at this is totally skewed because they do not get pregnant. The man is responsble for taking every precaution for making certain that those swimmers don't make it if he does not keep them in wraps than he is consenting to any obligations that result form sex.
Click to expand...

The only view that seems skewed here is yours. If it is possible she didn't consent to pregnancy by consenting to sex than it is also possible that he didn't consent to pregnancy by consenting to sex. If either party didn't take precautions does not mean that they consented to pregnancy, but simply that they failed to take steps to avoid it.
 
opendebate said:
We are forced to deal with the reality.
Click to expand...
The reality is that she gets to choose. Her choice should not burden the man.
So he should have an effective right of choice also.
 
Excon said:
She has a the right to choose as it is. Which she is responsible for.
The man should have the same option.
Click to expand...

As is always obvious ... the radical prolife men of the forum not only become pro-choice - but pro-forced-abortions IF ANY possible obligation of an unwanted pregnancy lands on them.

Thus, you rage AGAINST abortion in terms of the woman - and then rage FOR abortions in terms of the man. At least you pro-life men are consistent in your total hypocrisy.
 
Excon said:
The reality is that she gets to choose. Her choice should not burden the man.
So he should have an effective right of choice also.
Click to expand...

He did have a choice. He chose to have sex without a condom. His choice just comes before the pregnancy instead of after.
 
joko104 said:
No, the law does require parents have at least financial responsibility for the child(ren) they make. What is being advocated is eliminating those laws on behalf of wannabe deadbeat men.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.
It is advocating choice for men.
And under this, it is more likely that there would be less babies to support.
 
joko104 said:
And that is as stupid a response as possible. It really is absurd for you to claim that the cost of 1 child and 1,000,000 children is the same. I AM paying for the child via taxes.

Nor is it the pregnancy that requires taxes. IT IS DEADBEAT PARENTS - the majority fo which are DEADBEAT MEN - that requires the tax money - and all the other problems that come with child who are abandoned by their parents like higher crime rates. The bastard child you claim you get to make and then dump on society so you got your free 15 minutes of toe curling is who will burglarize my house.

I despise deadbeat parents and any sicko rationalizations they make for it. They are the ULTIMATE meaning of being immoral scum who should live in prisons.
Click to expand...

I am sure glad that we have a government then because if people get to pick what they want their tax dollars to go to then we are in a heap of trouble. How about you think about it this way? Since you don't fund the entire government or any one governmental program, why don't you just pick a favorite government program and think all of your tax dollars go there. I personally just pay taxes for the NIH and NSF to fund cool research. My tax dollars fund nothing else of within the government. My state taxes, go to building highways. And my local taxes, go to funding teachers. This way your tax dollars don't pay for these deadbeat parents; other people's tax dollars do.
 
Can someone help me understand how abortion and child support are equivalent?
 
opendebate said:
He did have a choice. He chose to have sex without a condom. He has a choice to it just comes before instead of after.
Click to expand...

False dilemma.
He chose to have sex. Not have a child.

But under your scenario she let him penetrate her without a condom, so she is responsible.
 
opendebate said:
He did have a choice. He chose to have sex without a condom. His choice just comes before the pregnancy instead of after.
Click to expand...

Do you realize I could flip that argument on you? :lol:
 
Excon said:
False dilemma.
He chose to have sex. Not have a child.

But under your scenario she let him penetrate her without a condom, so she is responsible.
Click to expand...

That childish. We all know that a child can be result and we all know that we need to protect ourselves. They are both responsible
 
Henrin said:
Do you realize I could flip that argument on you? :lol:
Click to expand...

They are both responsible. That would be more evident if you read what I was responding too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom