• 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
I'm just arguing that the mean have responsibilities also.

They do, but on this issue, since the woman has all the rights, I believe the primary responsibility lies on her shoulders. People want to have it both ways, and have their cake and eat it too. This is one of those issues where men can really get screwed, and have no say in the matter whatsoever.

I realize that being a woman, I'm "supposed" to look at this from a woman's point of view, but before I am a woman, I am a human, and I can see that men really are at a disadvantage on this issue. Since women neglect to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies, I encourage men to take care of the birth control issue themselves, but that's because it is the intelligent thing to do.
 
No, he should not have the right to force a woman to abort, nor to force her to carry the child to term.

He should have the right to absolve all legal responsibility towards the child if he doesn't want to raise it. It's only fair. We give women plenty of ways out of being a mother if she gets pregnant and doesn't want to be. A man should have the same option.

There would need to be some sort of time limit put in place, so if the woman didn't want to raise the baby alone she could abort it. Give him 30 days from the day that he is informed that he got someone pregnant to make his decision and inform the court/mother of his decision. That way, assuming she tells him as soon as she finds out, she'll have time to make her decision after she finds out his.
 
I wanted to give a couple of people a chance to respond before I put my two cents in. For my own part, I don't believe a man should dictate to a woman how to deal with her own body. I agree with Lizzie, the responsibility for her own body is uniquely the woman's. However, I believe that a unilateral choice should have unilateral consequences. Therefore, if the male does not wish to have a child and he makes his decision plain, he should be allowed to legally opt-out of all further responsibility (and thus all future parental rights) at some point in the process.

I sense a bit of a back story to your view. In another thread you think a woman should be prepared to deal with a pregnancy every time she spreads her thighs so I'd say a guy can't just opt out. He knew there might be a baby created if he hops on board.

But I have to wonder just how much of a real issue this is. I know several 'sperm donors' who signed away their parental rights and avoided child support payments (not sure that works with the State if the mommy is on the public dole)

Does anyone know how many one night stands, tricked boyfriends, are slaves to a mommy dearest....
 
It has to be a set amount of time to make the decision from the time he is informed of the pregnancy.
Otherwise you would just have women who wouldn't inform the guy until after the time limit had passed.

That's on her then. She has the burden of providing opportunity. If she denies it to the man, she is in turn deprived of it herself.

Obviously this would bring up grey areas, but if you set up a firm backdrop, you'd have less pregnant women trying to game the system. We get that enough with welfare.
 
The woman's choice is just that, her choice. She bears the burden of carrying the child and in the case that she doesn't feel the need to terminate the pregnancy, for whatever reason, the equal participant in creating that child should not be able to simply stroll away without a lick of responsibility. I don't think many who support your position fully realize the implications of allowing such a thing to happen.

I see you are speaking from your vast experience as a woman....OH! Sorry, you are NOT a woman. :shock:

You seem to forget that a woman controls her body absolutely, which is the foundation of my support for her absolute right to choose. The man at worst is merely a sperm donor (although at best a loving mate). If the woman may make the unilateral choice to have a baby knowing the full consequences of such a choice then she should also have the unilateral responsibility of living with that choice if the man opposes marriage and family.

Foisting a lifelong obligation on a man for a single act of passion means that YOU don't realize the implications which are clearly evident in many negative examples throughout our society. The anger and resentment display themselves in abusive marital relationships, child emotional and physical abuse, alcoholism, and so on. Part of the woman's decision should be based on cognizanse that the male may NOT accept (or be required to accept) the burden she is choosing to bear. That way an informed rather than a emotional decision can be reached by all parties.
 
Give him 30 days from the day that he is informed that he got someone pregnant to make his decision and inform the court/mother of his decision.
Wouldn't it be more fair if he was given roughly the same about of time she theoretically had also?
 
Nobody is going to say that the woman should be forced to abort. What some of us are saying is that the man should have a legal avenue to absolve himself of obligation, should a woman decide to carry to term against a man's wishes.
And what others will point out is the distinct potential for sharp upticks in single parent households, dire poverty and generally careless behavior as a result of allowing men to simply stroll away without a consequence to be found.


If she wants to do that with the full knowledge that the child is hers and hers alone, so be it. Otherwise, you force not only an economic burden on a man.. but a moral hazard insofar that she could keep this baby for the purposes of "trapping" a man against his will.

What you're proposing is a moral hazard and an economic burden. There's a variety of reasons as to why many women choose to carry to term, even in less than optimal circumstances. If you help to knock over the first domino, you necessarily share the burden for the remainder that fall afterwards.
 
If anything, men are legally bound enough to raising their children.

Men need to help accountable for their choices. Women by nature can't so easily avoid the burden and as an enlightened society we have to ensure that all parties responsible accept their share of the burden.

But, of course, the positon of wanting to hold deadbeat fathers accountable to support their families stems from the same principle as my opposition to abortion, which is obviously my extreme hatred for women.
 
That's on her then. She has the burden of providing opportunity. If she denies it to the man, she is in turn deprived of it herself.

Obviously this would bring up grey areas, but if you set up a firm backdrop, you'd have less pregnant women trying to game the system. We get that enough with welfare.
Yes. A firm backdrop. He gets 90 days firm from the point he is notified to make his choice.
Even if she has already given birth.
 
And what others will point out is the distinct potential for sharp upticks in single parent households, dire poverty and generally careless behavior as a result of allowing men to simply stroll away without a consequence to be found.




What you're proposing is a moral hazard and an economic burden. There's a variety of reasons as to why many women choose to carry to term, even in less than optimal circumstances. If you help to knock over the first domino, you necessarily share the burden for the remainder that fall afterwards.

If a woman carries a child to term when she is well informed that the man wishes no responsibility for her, that's on her. If she herself is in no condition financially to raise a child, that shows poor decision-making on her part.

The man's irresponsibility is conditional. The woman's is absolute.

Yes. A firm backdrop. He gets 90 days firm from the point he is notified to make his choice.
Even if she has already given birth.

Well I'm guessing that if the baby is born within 90 days, she either a) took her sweet ass time to tell him, or b) is miscarrying.
 
I wanted to give a couple of people a chance to respond before I put my two cents in.

For my own part, I don't believe a man should dictate to a woman how to deal with her own body. I agree with Lizzie, the responsibility for her own body is uniquely the woman's.

However, I believe that a unilateral choice should have unilateral consequences. Therefore, if the male does not wish to have a child and he makes his decision plain, he should be allowed to legally opt-out of all further responsibility (and thus all future parental rights) at some point in the process.

For years I posted this argument and for years I was all alone getting screamed at and called names by posters here at DP. Times have certainly changed recently and I have no idea why, but it is good to see.
 
I sense a bit of a back story to your view. In another thread you think a woman should be prepared to deal with a pregnancy every time she spreads her thighs so I'd say a guy can't just opt out. He knew there might be a baby created if he hops on board.

But I have to wonder just how much of a real issue this is. I know several 'sperm donors' who signed away their parental rights and avoided child support payments (not sure that works with the State if the mommy is on the public dole)

Does anyone know how many one night stands, tricked boyfriends, are slaves to a mommy dearest....

Sorry, in another thread I what??!!

Anyone can sign away their affirmative parental rights, in fact that's one method whereby parent's can put a child up for adoption.

I'm not familiar with all state laws, but I would be surprised if there were laws currently allowing a male to avoid child support if the mother retains parental rights over a shared child. I suppose extreme financial hardship is a possibility, but his finances would be under continuous scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
And what others will point out is the distinct potential for sharp upticks in single parent households, dire poverty and generally careless behavior as a result of allowing men to simply stroll away without a consequence to be found.


What you're proposing is a moral hazard and an economic burden. There's a variety of reasons as to why many women choose to carry to term, even in less than optimal circumstances. If you help to knock over the first domino, you necessarily share the burden for the remainder that fall afterwards.
No. Such Law would make it even more likely that women without support would not be giving birth as much.

of allowing men to simply stroll away without a consequence to be found.
The point is that she should not be able to force consequences on a man that she herself can decide not to have.
He should have the same effective choice.
 
Last edited:
Also, a man should only be allowed to "opt out" of financial and parental responsibilities if his partner mutually accepts. The idea that he is somehow less obligated to provide for the child's well being is absurd.

If she doesn't want to raise the child alone she can use birth control and abort the pregnancy... why is that option not a valid one? What is absurd is allowing the woman to have 100% total power backed up by the government and its unstoppable force. THAT **** is absurd and the sexist ideas behind it are slowly dissolving away, thank god.
 
Sorry, in another thread I what??!!

Anyone can sign away their affirmative parental rights, in fact that's one method whereby parent's can put a child up for adoption.

I'm not familiar with all state laws, but I would be surprised if there were laws currently allowing a male to avoid child support if the mother retains parental rights over a shared child.

Your back story is out now.... !!
 
I wanted to give a couple of people a chance to respond before I put my two cents in.

For my own part, I don't believe a man should dictate to a woman how to deal with her own body. I agree with Lizzie, the responsibility for her own body is uniquely the woman's.

However, I believe that a unilateral choice should have unilateral consequences. Therefore, if the male does not wish to have a child and he makes his decision plain, he should be allowed to legally opt-out of all further responsibility (and thus all future parental rights) at some point in the process.

If a man makes his "decision plan" and "does not wish to have a child," he needs to put a damned sock on it. If he's going to lay there and complain . . . whine that he doesn't feel as good . . . believe!!! a woman who says she's protected . . . tell a woman he's not capable of fathering a child . . . He gets exactly what he's earned: 18 years of child support payments and help with college.
 
Yes. A firm backdrop. He gets 90 days firm from the point he is notified to make his choice.
Even if she has already given birth.

That was the crux of my argument!! Fair for everyone involved...
 
If a man makes his "decision plan" and "does not wish to have a child," he needs to put a damned sock on it. If he's going to lay there and complain . . . whine that he doesn't feel as good . . . believe!!! a woman who says she's protected . . . tell a woman he's not capable of fathering a child . . . He gets exactly what he's earned: 18 years of child support payments and help with college.

He's earned 18 years of hell because his birth control method fails? Birth control is not 100%.

You know I love you Mags but that is just harsh and illogical. Why can't she just abort?
 
Captain Adverse good topic.

I selected I don't know by mistake. Although a man has a right in the discussion of whether to abort, ultimately the woman has the power since it's gestating in her body. However if she decides to abort the man ought to not have financial, emotional nor psychological responsibility if she does so on her own cognizance.
 
Last edited:
Well I'm guessing that if the baby is born within 90 days, she either a) took her sweet ass time to tell him, or b) is miscarrying.

The point is that he should get a set amount of time after being notified. When ever that may be.
From the point she finds out, or 5 years later when she finally tells him.

If she gets roughly 90 days to decide, why shouldn't he? This is about fairness isn't it?

This set amount of time eliminates any discrepancies caused by her not telling him in a timely manner.
It would be the law at the time and she would know it.
 
He's earned 18 years of hell because his birth control method fails? Birth control is not 100%.

You know I love you Mags but that is just harsh and illogical. Why can't she just abort?

And I love you right back.

Women lie. Women are nesters. They often, even subconsciously, want children with the man they love. "I'm on birth control." Don't believe it. Don't believe she's taking her medication correctly. The way the laws are now (and they're not going to change the way some in the post would like to see them change any time soon), the burden is on the one who doesn't want children. Don't want kids? Use protection. Yeah, sometimes it fails. But not as often as whiney men and women would lead us to believe.

I think guys have got to remember something. The child is an innocent consequence. The child doesn't deserve to suffer because a woman was careless or a man (or woman) lied. A mother is NEVER going to be able to give away her child's right to child support. Never-ever.
 
If a man makes his "decision plan" and "does not wish to have a child," he needs to put a damned sock on it. If he's going to lay there and complain . . . whine that he doesn't feel as good . . . believe!!! a woman who says she's protected . . . tell a woman he's not capable of fathering a child . . . He gets exactly what he's earned: 18 years of child support payments and help with college.

I was almost with you up until the underlined part. I'm confused there....so if a woman lies in order to get pregnant you're saying that's a perfectly acceptable method of force-starting a family?? You do realize that using a condom is not 100% certain, right? Beyond that, as Lizzie point's out, the WOMAN is in charge of her body and can REQUIRE a man to put protection on right?

This should be especially true of any woman who is Pro-Life! She should NEVER allow a male to engage in sexual activity unless she is fully protected by both his "sock" and her contraceptives. IMO No one should expect a moment of passion to become a lifetime of hatred and recrimination.
 
The point is that he should get a set amount of time after being notified. When ever that may be.
From the point she finds out, or 5 years later when she finally tell him.

If she gets roughly 90 days to decide, why shouldn't he. This is about fairness isn't it?

This set amount of time eliminates any discrepancies caused by her not telling him in a timely manner.
It would be the law at the time and she would know it.

Well, the reason I said 90 days is because I am pro-choice in the first trimester. After 3 1/2 to 4 months, the risks become greater and we're dealing with a lot more ethical dilemmas. I don't think a guy needs 3 months to know if he's going to want to be a dad. I'd be willing to bet that most guys would know if they want to be a dad before the end of SportsCenter. Barring that, 7 days is enough thinking. It's just the woman's responsibility to inform as early as possible.
 
Sorry, in another thread I what??!! Anyone can sign away their affirmative parental rights, in fact that's one method whereby parent's can put a child up for adoption. I'm not familiar with all state laws, but I would be surprised if there were laws currently allowing a male to avoid child support if the mother retains parental rights over a shared child.

In the thread where the woman's responsibilities were being discussed you said every time a woman has sex she should be prepared for the consequences if she becomes pregnant. I'd say that shoe can be made to fit every man who engages in sex. He should also be VERY aware there can very well be long term consequences if a child is conceived that he doesn't have an absolute say in. Double coats are for more than paint!

Oklahoma has provisions for a dad to bail if he signs away his parental rights. It is part of a few divorce decrees I know of. (not me, I am sticking with the woman I got drunk enough to marry me!) but the ex-wife has a say in it, the Judge approves it.

But does anyone know just how many men are so enslaved???? :confused:
 
I was almost with you up until the underlined part. I'm confused there....so if a woman lies in order to get pregnant you're saying that's a perfectly acceptable method of force-starting a family?? You do realize that using a condom is not 100% certain, right? Beyond that, as Lizzie point's out, the WOMAN is in charge of her body and can REQUIRE a man to put protection on right?

This should be especially true of any woman who is Pro-Life! She should NEVER allow a male to engage in sexual activity unless she is fully protected by both his "sock" and her contraceptives. IMO No one should expect a moment of passion to become a lifetime of hatred and recrimination.

I hope I was clear that what I was saying was that a man should never believe a woman who says she's on birth control if he doesn't want children. A child should NEVER suffer the consequences of irresponsible sex. Should never be raised in poverty by a single, unsupported mom. And especially not because the GUY wanted her to have an abortion.

That's just me. Maybe I'm old-fashioned. BUT the law's on my side. And, realistically, it's not changing any time soon. A woman CANNOT give up a child's legal right to support.
 
Back
Top Bottom