• 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
Wow! This poll is a window into the soul of our society. Having the majority believe that the most important objective is to relieve one self from the natural consequence and the responsibility for an act that they freely engaged in is telling. with the truly defenseless and innocent paying the price. God help us all!
 
Currently there is birth control method that is 100 percent effective when having consental sex.

Accidental pregnancies can and do happen.

Correction ...I should no method is 100 percent effective.
 
If you live the USA than abortion is restricted by the states at viability.
Currently the limit of viability ( where 50 percent of the premies will survive) is 24 weeks gestation and that has remained unchanged for the last 12 years.

Less than .1 percent of all legal abortions occur after viability.
They are the extreme cases. The cases were the woman's life or irreparable damage to a major bodily function would take place if the pregnancy continued, where the fetus would be stillborn or would only live a few minutes or hours.

There are only 4 doctors left in the USA who perform legal abortions after viability.
In 2008 there were 5.

Dr Tiller also used to perform abortions after viability in these extreme cases.
Kansas was one of a small handful of states that would allow abortions after viability in these extreme cases.
Kansas keep records of all abortions at or the after 22 week gestation mark. 24 weeks is the limit of viability.

OB/GYNs from all the USA would send their patients who had these problem pregnancies to Dr. Tiller.

In 2008 there were 323 abortions that took place at or after 22 weeks gestation.

192 of those cases were because the fetus was not viable. It would be stillborn or it was so malformed it would only live a few minutes or hours.

132 of those cases were because there would be irreparable damage to a major bodily function if the pregnancy were allowed to continue.

They were extreme cases.

"Viability" is somewhat subjective and is a bit of false line. A fetus is never an appendage, they are a separate but dependent life within the womb.
 
Should a man have an absolute right to have his baby aborted?

In the alternative, should he be granted relief from all legal responsibility if it is his clearly stated wish to abort but the woman decides not to?

Let me preface my remarks with this disclaimer; I am Pro-Choice and I support a woman’s absolute right to choose to have an abortion for several reasons, including the fact it is the woman who must endure the pregnancy to carry the child to term, and then follows the lifelong responsibility to raise and care for any child born.

The dilemma occurs when the woman unilaterally decides to have the baby, even when the male does not wish to accept that long-term responsibility.

In a recent news report, a young man was so desperate not to have a child that he tricked his girlfriend into taking a morning after pill. Now I do not support or condone this action, but it does bring up the thesis issue for me…why does the male partner have no say in a decision to keep the baby?





When a woman makes the unilateral decision to keep the baby this then compels lifelong legal and emotional obligations on the part of the unwilling father. This creates resentment and recriminations in both parties. By attempting to force the man to marry and/or support both her and the child this only serves to create a negative environment for all concerned, especially for any child to grow up in.

Since we now have a simple method of aborting in the early stages of the first trimester, without needing an invasive surgery, why should the absolute choice to keep the baby reside with the mother? If it does, why can’t the man be legally relieved of further responsibility to both parties?

I have offered several voting options, please pick and then explain what do you think? I am especially interested in arguments for why the woman has the sole right to keep the child while making the man permanently responsible.




When men start giving birth, I would support giving them the same control over their bodies that women have now.

Anyone who doesn't want to be responsible for babies should stop having sex with women who can have babies.

Pretty simple, eh?

And the only 100% effective way that I know of to avoid making babies.

If you play the game, be prepared to win and lose.




"Condoms aren't completely safe. A friend of mine was wearing one and got hit by a bus." ~ Bob Rubin
 
Last edited:
No, but he ought to be able to be absolved of all legal and financial responsibility for any baby that he doesn't want to have, but he also gives up all parental visitation, etc. If she can vote to have the baby without his consent, he can vote for her to be 100% responsible for it.

I don't know about elsewhere, but in the state of Texas, there is an Affidavit of Voluntary Relinquishment of Parental Rights, which releases a father from all responsibilities and duties to the child. It's a long process, but if that's the route someone feels is best, it exists.
 
Should a man have an absolute right to have his baby aborted?

In the alternative, should he be granted relief from all legal responsibility if it is his clearly stated wish to abort but the woman decides not to?

Let me preface my remarks with this disclaimer; I am Pro-Choice and I support a woman’s absolute right to choose to have an abortion for several reasons, including the fact it is the woman who must endure the pregnancy to carry the child to term, and then follows the lifelong responsibility to raise and care for any child born.

The dilemma occurs when the woman unilaterally decides to have the baby, even when the male does not wish to accept that long-term responsibility.

In a recent news report, a young man was so desperate not to have a child that he tricked his girlfriend into taking a morning after pill. Now I do not support or condone this action, but it does bring up the thesis issue for me…why does the male partner have no say in a decision to keep the baby?

When a woman makes the unilateral decision to keep the baby this then compels lifelong legal and emotional obligations on the part of the unwilling father. This creates resentment and recriminations in both parties. By attempting to force the man to marry and/or support both her and the child this only serves to create a negative environment for all concerned, especially for any child to grow up in.

Since we now have a simple method of aborting in the early stages of the first trimester, without needing an invasive surgery, why should the absolute choice to keep the baby reside with the mother? If it does, why can’t the man be legally relieved of further responsibility to both parties?

I have offered several voting options, please pick and then explain what do you think? I am especially interested in arguments for why the woman has the sole right to keep the child while making the man permanently responsible.





Any man who doesn't want to be responsible for a baby should avoid engaging in activity that produces babies.

Pretty simple, eh?
 
Currently there is birth control method that is 100 percent effective when having consental sex.

Accidental pregnancies can and do happen.

Did you omit the word "not?" Because I don't know of any BC methods that are 100% effective other than abstinence, and you say when having consensual sex. :confused:
 

Did you not notice where I said when having concentsual sex?

I do not feel a married couple should have to give up the marriage bed because they fear a birth control failure.
 
Did you not notice where I said when having concentsual sex?

I do not feel a married couple should have to give up the marriage bed because they fear a birth control failure.

In that case you have manual and oral stimulation that offer sexual pleasure without the possibility of pregnancy.
 
In that case you have manual and oral stimulation that offer sexual pleasure without the possibility of pregnancy.

And toys! :rofl
 
"Viability" is somewhat subjective and is a bit of false line. A fetus is never an appendage, they are a separate but dependent life within the womb.

Do you even understand what viability means?

Viaibilty means the abilty to live outside the woman's womb with or without medical help.

If a pregnant dies a pre viable fetus will not suvive eeven if quickly removed and given the most advanced medical help.
The pre viable fetus depends completly on the woman's life forces.

Once a fetus becomes viabile if the woman dies it has a very good chance of surviving if quickly reoved and given an infant CPAP and neo natal unit if needed.

Once born the infant is a person. Also it no longer completely dependent on the woman. Someone else...a nurse, the father, a grandparent an adoptive parent, a foster parent can feed and take of the infant.
 
Did you omit the word "not?" Because I don't know of any BC methods that are 100% effective other than abstinence, and you say when having consensual sex. :confused:

Yes...I omitted the word 'not'.
Once again my dyslexia got the best of me.:3oops:
 
Should a man have an absolute right to have his baby aborted?

Sure, just as soon a man can get pregnant.
 
I don't know about elsewhere, but in the state of Texas, there is an Affidavit of Voluntary Relinquishment of Parental Rights, which releases a father from all responsibilities and duties to the child. It's a long process, but if that's the route someone feels is best, it exists.

I like how Conservatives' feel abortion should not be allowed ... but once born, they want an option out of personal responsibility to raise the child. :roll:
 
Should a man have an absolute right to have his baby aborted?

In the alternative, should he be granted relief from all legal responsibility if it is his clearly stated wish to abort but the woman decides not to?

Let me preface my remarks with this disclaimer; I am Pro-Choice and I support a woman’s absolute right to choose to have an abortion for several reasons, including the fact it is the woman who must endure the pregnancy to carry the child to term, and then follows the lifelong responsibility to raise and care for any child born.

The dilemma occurs when the woman unilaterally decides to have the baby, even when the male does not wish to accept that long-term responsibility.

In a recent news report, a young man was so desperate not to have a child that he tricked his girlfriend into taking a morning after pill. Now I do not support or condone this action, but it does bring up the thesis issue for me…why does the male partner have no say in a decision to keep the baby?

When a woman makes the unilateral decision to keep the baby this then compels lifelong legal and emotional obligations on the part of the unwilling father. This creates resentment and recriminations in both parties. By attempting to force the man to marry and/or support both her and the child this only serves to create a negative environment for all concerned, especially for any child to grow up in.

Since we now have a simple method of aborting in the early stages of the first trimester, without needing an invasive surgery, why should the absolute choice to keep the baby reside with the mother? If it does, why can’t the man be legally relieved of further responsibility to both parties?

I have offered several voting options, please pick and then explain what do you think? I am especially interested in arguments for why the woman has the sole right to keep the child while making the man permanently responsible.

Why are you even asking? it's just obvious, everyone should know that no one can tell you want to DO with your body unless you're unable to speak for yourself and that person making the decision has a relationship with you in some legally recognized fashion.
 
But the reason for that is because the woman has to deal with a "procedure" on her body no matter what choice is made. The man does not have that burden. Either the child birth or an abortion can have negative consequences, so it is the woman who takes the risk. The only responsibility the man bears is a financial one, if he doesn't want to be involved in that child's life.

I wish there was a way that the man could have more say in the matter. I would suggest that perhaps people discuss these things before they have sex, but then again what a mood killer THAT would be. :rofl

When men start giving birth, I would support giving them the same control over their bodies that women have now.

Anyone who doesn't want to be responsible for babies should stop having sex with women who can have babies.

Pretty simple, eh?

And the only 100% effective way that I know of to avoid making babies.

If you play the game, be prepared to win and lose.

In the USA abortion is not legal without limits.

(Minnie, I added you to provide support for your points using the links to medical procedures below)


The woman's absolute right to choose comes from HER absolute right to control over her own body. Thus, not only is the choice to abort within her control, but also whether or not to have sex and under what conditions she will allow it. The following support a man's right to avoid the responsibility of HER choice.

First, as has been stated by other members, not all sex leads to pregnancy. That's because a woman is not always "ripe" for pregancy. A woman is well-aware of her monthly cycle and can pretty much avoid sex when she is at greatest risk of unwanted pregnancy. Remember, the woman is in control of whether to have sex or not.

Second, (in voluntary sexual activity) the woman can always refuse to have sex unless the male conforms to her requirements. She decides if she wants to take contraceptives and/or if he must wear one himself before she will engage in the activity. Again, the woman is in control of whether to have sex or not.

Third, in the event she does get pregnant she has the absolute right to decide whether to abort or not. This we all already know, whether we agree with abortion or not. It does not matter if the male wants to be a father or not, is willing to marry her or not; SHE has the final decision. Thus SHE gets to decide what happens to ALL parties (man, woman, and child) for the rest of their lives!

Under our current system if a woman decides to have the baby the male is then obligated to financially support the child until it's 18th birthday. This also often carries with it the social onus of parental responsibility, i.e. both society at large as well as his unwanted family (woman and child) expect some emotional support; holding the father accountable if he is unwilling to provide it.

There is intense social pressure to marry, or at least "take responsibility" as we see repeated in this thread over and over. This leads to anger, resentment, hatred of this unwanted burden. Such emotions then lead to domestic abuse, child abuse, alcoholism or drug abuse, etc., etc., etc. none of which is good for anyone caught in this situation, least of all the unwanted child.

So not only are the initial consequences NOT clear, but people seem perfectly willing to ignore the very real consequences we see repeatedly when a couple is forced to deal with an unwanted child because of a unilateral decision made by the woman. Remember, it is only the WOMAN who has the absolute right to choose.

Finally, I would like to point out that during the first nine weeks of the pregnancy there are non-surgical MEDICAL methods of aborting the developing fetus. That means there is time to inform the male, find out how he feels about things, and if he does NOT wish "marriage and family" the female can assess the situation and simply take some medicine to induce the abortion. No invasive surgery required.

National Abortion Federation: Options for Pregnant Women: Abortion

Abortion Procedures | American Pregnancy explores abortion

Early Termination of Pregnancy | New York City Private Abortion Services - NYC - Safest Early Abortion Options | Early Options ®

Men should have the option of "opting-out" of responsibility for the woman's absolute choice.
 
Last edited:
....

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.

Some states do go after the bio father for child support.
Here is one pretty bizarre case where the state of Kansas is going after a sperm donor for child support:

TOPEKA, Kansas (AP) — A U.S. man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple after answering an online ad is fighting efforts by Kansas state authorities to suddenly force him to pay child support for the now 3-year-old girl, arguing that he and the women signed an agreement waiving all of his parental rights.

<SNIP>

Angela de Rocha, spokeswoman for the Kansas Department for Children and Families, said that when a single mother seeks benefits for a child, it's routine for the department to try to determine the child's paternity and require the father to make support payments to lessen the potential cost to taxpayers.

,SNIP>

The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed a court petition against Marotta in October, asking that he be required to reimburse the state for the benefits and make future child support payments. Marotta is asking that the case be dismissed, arguing that he's not legally the child's father, only a sperm donor.

read more:

Kansas wants sperm donor to pay child support
 
Do you even understand what viability means?

Viaibilty means the abilty to live outside the woman's womb with or without medical help.

If a pregnant dies a pre viable fetus will not suvive eeven if quickly removed and given the most advanced medical help.
The pre viable fetus depends completly on the woman's life forces.

Once a fetus becomes viabile if the woman dies it has a very good chance of surviving if quickly reoved and given an infant CPAP and neo natal unit if needed.

Once born the infant is a person. Also it no longer completely dependent on the woman. Someone else...a nurse, the father, a grandparent an adoptive parent, a foster parent can feed and take of the infant.

I absolutely understand what viability is. I say its somewhat subjective because it can not be quantified as an average length of time for two reasons:
1. Every fetus develops at a different rate.
2. We are not talking about happenstance, we are talking about an intentional act.

So, that intentional act today (if today is the day before average viability), will be ok despite the individual state of development of this particular fetus. Is that right?
 
well if a woman has an unlimited ability to abort the pregnancy even if the man is willing to pay for the the child,
the man ought to have a right to opt out of that financial burden




He does have a way to opt out, all that he has to do is keep his penis in his pants.

That shouldn't be too hard, eh?

Anyone who plays the game should be prepared to win or lose.
 
Last edited:
Some states do go after the bio father for child support.
Here is one pretty bizarre case where the state of Kansas is going after a sperm donor for child support:

The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed a court petition against Marotta in October, asking that he be required to reimburse the state for the benefits and make future child support payments. Marotta is asking that the case be dismissed, arguing that he's not legally the child's father, only a sperm donor.

read more:

Kansas wants sperm donor to pay child support

I highlighted the relevant part ...

... Every birth includes a male sperm donor. The only difference is the method employed make the donation.
 
(Minnie, I added you to provide support for your points using the links to medical procedures below)


The woman's absolute right to choose comes from HER absolute right to control over her own body. Thus, not only is the choice to abort within her control, but also whether or not to have sex and under what conditions she will allow it. The following support a man's right to avoid the responsibility of HER choice.

First, as has been stated by other members, not all sex leads to pregnancy. That's because a woman is not always "ripe" for pregancy. A woman is well-aware of her monthly cycle and can pretty much avoid sex when she is at greatest risk of unwanted pregnancy. Remember, the woman is in control of whether to have sex or not.

Second, (in voluntary sexual activity) the woman can always refuse to have sex unless the male conforms to her requirements. She decides if she wants to take contraceptives and/or if he must wear one himself before she will engage in the activity. Again, the woman is in control of whether to have sex or not.

Third, in the event she does get pregnant she has the absolute right to decide whether to abort or not. This we all already know, whether we agree with abortion or not. It does not matter if the male wants to be a father or not, is willing to marry her or not; SHE has the final decision. Thus SHE gets to decide what happens to ALL parties (man, woman, and child) for the rest of their lives!

Under our current system if a woman decides to have the baby the male is then obligated to financially support the child until it's 18th birthday. This also often carries with it the social onus of parental responsibility, i.e. both society at large as well as his unwanted family (woman and child) expect some emotional support; holding the father accountable if he is unwilling to provide it.

There is intense social pressure to marry, or at least "take responsibility" as we see repeated in this thread over and over. This leads to anger, resentment, hatred of this unwanted burden. Such emotions then lead to domestic abuse, child abuse, alcoholism or drug abuse, etc., etc., etc. none of which is good for anyone caught in this situation, least of all the unwanted child.

So not only are the initial consequences NOT clear, but people seem perfectly willing to ignore the very real consequences we see repeatedly when a couple is forced to deal with an unwanted child because of a unilateral decision made by the woman. Remember, it is only the WOMAN who has the absolute right to choose.

Finally, I would like to point out that during the first nine weeks of the pregnancy there are non-surgical MEDICAL methods of aborting the developing fetus. That means there is time to inform the male, find out how he feels about things, and if he does NOT wish "marriage and family" the female can assess the situation and simply take some medicine to induce the abortion. No invasive surgery required.

National Abortion Federation: Options for Pregnant Women: Abortion

Abortion Procedures | American Pregnancy explores abortion

Early Termination of Pregnancy | New York City Private Abortion Services - NYC - Safest Early Abortion Options | Early Options ®

Men should have the option of "opting-out" of responsibility for the woman's absolute choice.
Ummm, this is not about what's best for the man. It's about what's best for the child.
 
I absolutely understand what viability is. I say its somewhat subjective because it can not be quantified as an average length of time for two reasons:
1. Every fetus develops at a different rate.
2. We are not talking about happenstance, we are talking about an intentional act.

So, that intentional act today (if today is the day before average viability), will be ok despite the individual state of development of this particular fetus. Is that right?

No because most states require that that the doctor determine if the fetus is viable on a fetus 22 weeks or more gestation before an abortion is performed.

If you look at the Kansas abortion stats they ask if the fetus is viable.

http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/abortion_sum/08itop1.pdf
 
Back
Top Bottom