• 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
Here comes the trying to divert every topic on abortion to "its a baby"... "not it's not".... "yes it is".... always to derail the topic.:roll:
It always happens.
 
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.
:doh

In all actuality, all you are doing is speaking partisan crap and injecting it where it doesn't belong.
There are those on both sides of the isle that do not tow the line when it comes to this topic.


Ummm, this is not about what's best for the man. It's about what's best for the child.
No it isn't.
It is about fairness and not allowing another to burden someone else by their decision.

If it was about what was best for the clump of cells, under the prevalent train of thought, abortion would be disallowed except for a few reasons.
But then again, who is to say that allowing a birth to occur is what is best for the clump of cells? You?


As I said, the needs of the child outweigh the needs of the man.
They shouldn't.
This is nothing but a line of thought that will of course change with time.

If this planet ever becomes over populated for the resources left, you can be guaranteed that society, through the law, will make abortion mandatory in many cases.
Which of course will be touted as what is best for the clump of cells.





But it's not in the childs best interest ...
A line of thought that needs to change is all that is.
And it will given sufficient time.
 
She should NEVER allow a male to engage in sexual activity unless she is fully protected by both his "sock" and her contraceptives.
....or a wedding ring. Just saying there's no need to act like a slut.
 
It is understood why it came about. The ruling then allows her to arbitrarily decide if he should be burdened. That is neither fair or right. Especially when she is allowed not to burden herself if she so chooses.
She should not be able to make a decision that burdens him. That is wrong.
Which is why he should have the same effective right.

Wrong. Both parties involved "burdened" themselves when they had sex and took the risk. One is not more innocent in this than the other.
 
It is understood why it came about. The ruling then allows her to arbitrarily decide if he should be burdened. That is neither fair or right. Especially when she is allowed not to burden herself if she so chooses.
She should not be able to make a decision that burdens him. That is wrong.
Which is why he should have the same effective right.


There is no g_d involved here, nor should there be.
Times change. Laws need to keep up with the changes.






What is even simpler would be making the woman 100% responsible for the outcome of what she allows into her body.


We are past that point.
She is pregnant and presently gets to arbitrarily decide whether or not to burden the man. Which is wrong and unfair
Giving the man an effective right removes the unfairness.

Nice of you to address my prayer rather than the substance of what I said related to the issue of responsibility. But in respect to your ChrisL response, I believe you are under the mistaken impression that the only cost one can pay is financial, there are also long lasting emotional and psychological costs associated with abortion.
 
:doh

In all actuality, all you are doing is speaking partisan crap and injecting it where it doesn't belong.
There are those on both sides of the isle that do not tow the line when it comes to this topic.
Of course there are exceptions. There are exceptions to most things in life. Despite the exceptions, it is Conservatives who are the champions at limiting abortions.

No it isn't.
It is about fairness and not allowing another to burden someone else by their decision.
Fairness is also on the child's side. If you want to speak fairness, it is not fair to the child to be denied financial support simply because the man didn't want the child.

If it was about what was best for the clump of cells, under the prevalent train of thought, abortion would be disallowed except for a few reasons.
But then again, who is to say that allowing a birth to occur is what is best for the clump of cells? You?
Sorry, but I can't help that you are incapable of distinguishing between a "clump of cells" in utero, and a living breathing child. :roll:

They shouldn't.
But they do.
 
That was the crux of my argument!! Fair for everyone involved...
Exept for the child, who seems to be getting the shaft either way.

The child has unwed parents who evidently don't get along very well, so right off the bat the child will have to deal with the broken/fatherless home. Add to that the fact that one or both parents are considering having the child killed, or at the very least not providing for the child.

In some ways, abortion is the only civilised choice, because knowingly having a child in a broken home is child abuse.
 
Wrong. Both parties involved "burdened" themselves when they had sex and took the risk. One is not more innocent in this than the other.
Wrong!
She controls her body. She controls what she allows into it.
She had and has absolute control.


And it was about having sex. Nothing more.

And we are past that point, to where she can choose, but he can't. A choice that may burden him when it should not. That is unfair and needs to be rectified.
He should also have an effective right to choose just as she does.
 
Nice of you to address my prayer rather than the substance of what I said related to the issue of responsibility. But in respect to your ChrisL response, I believe you are under the mistaken impression that the only cost one can pay is financial, there are also long lasting emotional and psychological costs associated with abortion.
Which belongs to those that made the decision.
Not for you to say it is disallowed because of them.
 
Wrong!
She controls her body. She controls what she allows into it.
She had and has absolute control.

Yes, she has as much control as he does regarding what he puts his body parts into. :lol:

And it was about having sex. Nothing more.

And with sex, just as with smoking and other completely voluntary activities, there are inherent risks involved that you are not immune from should you choose to engage in such activities.

And we are past that point, to where she can choose, but he can't. A choice that may burden him when it should not. That is unfair and needs to be rectified.
He should also have an effective right to choose just as she does.

I already stated that you better make damn sure you are ready to face the consequences of your actions, that goes for BOTH parties.
 
Really?
Please point out the law that says it is.

You want to call it killing. Go ahead. But it is not murder.
You're comitting the appeal to legality falacy. It was once legal to beat a slave to death. That was murder eventhough it was legal, because a higher law was being broken. It was legal for Saddam to rape women. It was legal under Syerian law to gas its own people. Honor killings are legal in many ME countries, yet that's still murder regardless.

Elective abortion is murder.
 
It is understood why it came about. The ruling then allows her to arbitrarily decide if he should be burdened. That is neither fair or right. Especially when she is allowed not to burden herself if she so chooses.
She should not be able to make a decision that burdens him. That is wrong.
Which is why he should have the same effective right.


There is no g_d involved here, nor should there be.
Times change. Laws need to keep up with the changes.




What is even simpler would be making the woman 100% responsible for the outcome of what she allows into her body.


We are past that point.
She is pregnant and presently gets to arbitrarily decide whether or not to burden the man. Which is wrong and unfair
Giving the man an effective right removes the unfairness.




Any man who doesn't want to be responsible for the support of a baby shouldn't engage in activity that produces babies.

All that he has to do is keep his penis in his pants, what's so hard about that?
 
And you are wrong.
It is a medical fact that it is human cells. Nothing more.
It is not a child yet, but only has the potential to become one. That is the medical fact.
Its an organism, but you don't seem interested in truth.
 
Any man who doesn't want to be responsible for a baby should avoid engaging in activity that produces babies.

Pretty simple, eh?
That's what I did. Its been 7 years and so far I haven't gotten anyone pregnant.
 
Of course there are exceptions. There are exceptions to most things in life. Despite the exceptions, it is Conservatives who are the champions at limiting abortions.
And it is still crap as a generalization.
If you want to call out a specific persons hypocrisy do so. Don't generalize because in this topic covers the spectrum from both sides of the isle.


Fairness is also on the child's side. If you want to speak fairness, it is not fair to the child to be denied financial support simply because the man didn't want the child.
No one is denying a child support.

It is being defined, by choice, as from whom it comes.


Sorry, but I can't help that you are incapable of distinguishing between a "clump of cells" in utero, and a living breathing child.
Apparently you don't know that that clump of cells is not a living breathing child.


But they do.
No they shouldn't.
This is nothing but a line of thought that will change with time.

Presently they do not outweigh a woman's right to choose. And in the ,it will not outweigh a man's right to choose either.
 
Its an organism, but you don't seem interested in truth.
It seems that it is more likely that you want to twist the truth.
Example:
Did I say it wasn't an organism?
 
what's so hard about that?
One, sexual drive. Two, an erection.


Like I said; What is even simpler would be making the woman 100% responsible for the outcome of what she allows into her body.
 
Which belongs to those that made the decision.
Not for you to say it is disallowed because of them.

Any procedure that might impact the mental health of many is a public concern, to be discussed and examined. I wouldn't disallow the decision on that basis in ones own life but when the parties are in disagreement the decision can effect another party. BTW, This runs both directions.
 
You're comitting the appeal to legality falacy. It was once legal to beat a slave to death. That was murder eventhough it was legal, because a higher law was being broken. It was legal for Saddam to rape women. It was legal under Syerian law to gas its own people. Honor killings are legal in many ME countries, yet that's still murder regardless.

Elective abortion is murder.
The fallacy is all yours.
If it was legal to do, than it is just killing.
Murder is illegal killing.

What you are basically saying is that a soldier isn't just killing his opponent, but murdering them. That is wrong and you know it.
 
Yes, she has as much control as he does regarding what he puts his body parts into.
:doh



I already stated that you better make damn sure you are ready to face the consequences of your actions, that goes for BOTH parties.
And she gets to choose, so, so should he.
 
Any procedure that might impact the mental health of many is a public concern, to be discussed and examined. I wouldn't disallow the decision on that basis in ones own life but when the parties are in disagreement the decision can effect another party. BTW, This runs both directions.
Bs. Abortion and birth is a private issue and should remain that way, unless and until the government decides we need more or less people.
 
:doh



And she gets to choose, so, so should he.

The only reason she chooses is because it's her body. Abortion comes with some risk as well. Also, what if they disagree? What if he wants her to keep the child and she wants to abort it and they can't come to a consensus. Then what? Are you going to force the woman to carry this child that she doesn't want?
 
...

You just equated the "nonviable" fetus to an appendage. Really?

It was you compared the non viable fetus to an arm.
I just used your analogy. that niether would survive without the life forces of the woman.
... Now you say if separated from the mother, the fetus has no chance of survival. I would suggest that neither would her arm if she chose to dissect and discard it.
 
Last edited:
It seems that it is more likely that you want to twist the truth.
Example:
Did I say it wasn't an organism?
Yes you did. You said it was a clump of cells. "Clump" has a definition. An organism is not a compacted mass, it has structure.

A fingernail is a clump of cells, not an organism. A ZEF is an organism, not a clump of cells.

When you call it a clump of cells you are necesseraly divorcing yourself from medical fact.
 
Neither mother nor father should be allowed to kill their offspring anymore than they should be allowed to kill a born human, because all humans are created equal and governments should protect the rights of all humans.


Even if one to ignore that specific angle, the element of gender inequality is also quite significant, and the status quo is misandrist.


I am told on this forum time and time again that having sex is not consent to making kids, despite the fact that the evolutionary purpose of sexual reproduction is to reproduce sexually and that's logically an outcome you tacitly accept when you engage in hetero vaginal sex...

... but then our society expects a father who didn't want kids or a longterm relationship to pay child support. Someone who tells me that having sex is not consent to creating offspring - something I entirely disagree with - cannot then argue for mandatory child support without being a blatant sexist and a hypocrite. By the status quo, having sex is indeed consent to creating offspring... as long as you're a man.


I would certainly support any and all restrictions on abortion, and that includes not allowing an abortion to go through over the objection of the kid's father - it takes two to make the kid, it shouldn't be permitted for one to unilaterally hire a killer. The question in the OP / thread title presents the same issue as the status quo, neither parent should unilaterally be allowed to destroy the human being they mutually created.


Ideally, abortion is banned and a father is obliged to provide for his half of any costs of pregnancy and prenatal care, not just for child support once the kid is born.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom