• 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
JayDubya said:
What kind of sociopathic monster has her own kid killed?

By comparison, that's pretty tame.
Click to expand...

He's no different if he coerces her to have an abortion.
 
Jerry said:
Child support is the right of the child, not the mother.
Click to expand...
That is what our laws currently are. They need to catch up.
It is what needs to be changed as he should not be burdened if he does not want the burden. The same choice she has.
It is only fair, and equal.


Jerry said:
Consent to sex is consent to have a child. Therefor a man's choice is made when he has sex and all is fair and equal.
Click to expand...
Wrong!
Consent to sex is not consent to a child.


Jerry said:
That sperm is legaly a gift the woman may do with as she pleases, or that child sipport is a right of the child parents cannot sign away?
Click to expand...
And again. As a gift it solely belongs to her. Her choice of what she does with it should have no say/sway over what him, as it no longer belongs to him.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Should a man have an absolute right to have his baby aborted?
Click to expand...

I can't imagine why.

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?
Click to expand...

"Paper abortions" are a terrible idea.

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.
Click to expand...

With you so far...

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.
Click to expand...

Not really a dilemma, just don't have sex with said woman.

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?
Click to expand...

You do realize pregnancy is a medical condition that can only affect women?

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.
Click to expand...

Who forces people to marry one another?

Also, men have no obligation to support the mother of the child, only the child itself.

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?
Click to expand...

Said fetus, not baby, resides inside the mother's body.

If it does, why can’t the man be legally relieved of further responsibility to both parties?
Click to expand...

Why can't a man sign off on his obligations to his child? Is this what you're asking?

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.
Click to expand...

Life just ain't fair, is it?
 
X Factor said:
Try not paying taxes and come back with that question.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I realize taxes are involuntary. That doesn't really answer my question.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Sex (excluding rape) requires mutual consent.
Click to expand...

Entering my house requires "mutual consent," what you do in it requires MY consent.

X Factor said:
So, if I have this straight, you've said you'd jump in the water to save a kid a from drowning *derisive snort* because you're just so pro-human (and me a "human-hater") but when it comes to money, then **** the kid, let him starve. On the other hand you flame the **** out of people that wanted to save their dogs, but it it comes to saving their money, well that's different. Lol.
Click to expand...

I thought you would bring that unrealated issue up. Typical deceptive tactics; misdirection and appeals to over-emotionalism. Tut tut! :naughty

The issue is abortion and why a male has no opt-out rights when a woman unilaterally decides to keep a child. The child will not die if the man does not participate in child support. The woman will care for it, her family will help, and we have a whole system of social welfare to make sure the child is given support. :prof

Sheik Yerbuti said:
No, there was no answer to my question in your post. All your post contained other than the part I was addressing was a failed analogy which doesn't even correlate to the discussion. :roll: But hey, if it was your intent to avoid answering the questions asked -- congrats, you succeeded.
Click to expand...

Again, repeating the same thing over and over serves no purpose. read for content, or move on. :shrug:
 
X Factor said:
What you're saying does not make her choice "independent of his" at all. If you're truly pro-choice, I'd think you'd want her to be free to make the choice without financial coercion being a part of it. This is more pro-abortion than pro-choice.
Click to expand...
There is no coercion. The choices are independent of each other.
If she wants to have a child and support it, it would be all her choice. No one else, just hers. No one is saying she can't make that decision.

If he also wants to provided support and be it's father, he can make that choice, or not. His choice.
There is no coercion of any of them.
 
X Factor said:
This is really hilarious. You get all mad at men for looking at a half naked woman but you're completely fine with men walking away from any responsibility when it comes to the kids and leaving it all on her. Knowing your feelings about kids, I'm not surprised, I guess.
Click to expand...

While I certainly agree that a father actually abandoning the new family he just created through voluntary action is both despicable and likely to result in more abortions, more kids in the adoption system, more poverty and hardship - a real **** deal all around - at least it's logically consistent with the view that a mom can unilaterally and entirely abdicate responsibility by hiring a killer.

So yeah, it's awful but at least folks who believe as she does are consistent in their awfulness... or something.
 
X Factor said:
This is really hilarious. You get all mad at men for looking at a half naked woman but you're completely fine with men walking away from any responsibility when it comes to the kids and leaving it all on her. Knowing your feelings about kids, I'm not surprised, I guess.
Click to expand...

I've never gotten mad for anyone looking at anyone. Just another one of your strawmen.

Anyone who has rights has responsibilities. Again, the fact that you argue against this is yet another wormhole in your supposedly conservative ideals.

As I've told you, I feel that way about abortions as well. Every man I've ever been with knows where I stand. Their only choice is to accept it or not. As such, I would never accept any monetary assistance. If I'm short on cash, that's my problem. I never gave him a choice, so I certainly wouldn't have the audacity to make him pay for mine.
 
Jerry said:
She forces nothing. He accepted the burdon when he chose to have sex. He should be a man and stand by his decisions.
Click to expand...

Wrong!

And consent to sex is not consent to a child.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I thought you would bring that unrealated issue up. Typical deceptive tactics; misdirection and appeals to over-emotionalism. Tut tut! :naughty

The issue is abortion and why a male has no opt-out rights when a woman unilaterally decides to keep a child. The child will not die if the man does not participate in child support. The woman will care for it, her family will help, and we have a whole system of social welfare to make sure the child is given support. :prof
Click to expand...

So you think people should sacrifice their beloved pets but not their beloved money. Got it.
 
Last edited:
babilfish said:
...so, men have no obligation to support the mother of the child, only the child itself... Why can't a man sign off on his obligations to his child? Is this what you're asking?

Life just ain't fair, is it?
Click to expand...

Correct as a matter of "public policy" i.e. current state law. However, law can be changed and this discussion is about the rationale for and against.

As for life not being fair? No one said LIFE was... However we do strive to to make things as equitable for all citizens as possible...at least we seem to.
 
X Factor said:
He's no different if he coerces her to have an abortion.
Click to expand...

Abandoning your family is terrible, but it doesn't in and of itself coerce anyone to do something even worse.

I am assuming that is what you meant.

Literally, if you are coerced into an action you bear no responsibility for that action, the other agent does. What we were talking about is awful but not tantamount to the proverbial "gun to the head."
 
Excon said:
Consent to have sex is not consent to have children.
Click to expand...
Repeating the dumbest post I ever read on this forum does not make it any wiser. And I didn't take your words out of context. I quoted your post and addressed it.

I'll address it again since you didn't understand the first time.

Excluding cases were either the man or the woman is incapable of producing a child, pregnancy is always a risk of sex. That makes having a child consensual even if unintended.
 
X Factor said:
So you think people should sacrifice their beloved pets but not their beloved money. Got it. You really are a lawyer aren't you.
Click to expand...

You are impossible. Trolling is supposed to occur in a different forum, and even then parties are not required to participate. Up here, we are supposed to follow forum rules of debate. If you were not a moderator I could simply place you on ignore. Since I cannot, I'll plainly state I have no intention of responding to you again. :coffeepap
 
Well we are getting close to the 500 post mark and currently the
No, but he should have the right to be legally relieved of all responsibility.​
is in the lead.

And some folks think it wont eventually happen. Yeah right. :doh :lamo
Wise up. It is going to. It is only right and fair.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Repeating the dumbest post I ever read on this forum does not make it any wiser. And I didn't take your words out of context. I quoted your post and addressed it.

I'll address it again since you didn't understand the first time.

Excluding cases were either the man or the woman is incapable of producing a child, pregnancy is always a risk of sex. That makes having a child consensual even if unintended.
Click to expand...

Only in your fantasies.
Consent to sex is not consent to a child. No mater how you try to spin it, it just ain't so.
Show us a SCOTUS case saying otherwise.
You can't because it just ain't so.
 
Captain Adverse said:
You are impossible. Trolling is supposed to occur in a different forum, and even then parties are not required to participate. Up here, we are supposed to follow forum rules of debate. If you were not a moderator I could simply place you on ignore. Since I cannot, I'll plainly state I have no intention of responding to you again. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Kinds exposed your hypocrisy didn't I? Saving animal lives = wrong and bad, saving money = good.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Of course it does. Try not paying your taxes.
Click to expand...

How is the government making taxes involuntary give them the power to make taxes involuntary? How does that work exactly? I see nothing in the Constitution that permits them to take what they want from people without their consent. Do you?
 
JayDubya said:
Abandoning your family is terrible, but it doesn't in and of itself coerce anyone to do something even worse.

I am assuming that is what you meant.

Literally, if you are coerced into an action you bear no responsibility for that action, the other agent does. What we were talking about is awful but not tantamount to the proverbial "gun to the head."
Click to expand...

Jay, to a young girl who's pregnant, she may literally feel as she has no choice but to abort.
 
I would no more expect a man to have veto power over a woman's body and her life than I would expect a woman to have control/demand access to her husband/boyfriends sperm.

As the old saying goes, if you can't serve the time, don't do the crime.
 
Excon said:
Well we are getting close to the 500 post mark and currently the
No, but he should have the right to be legally relieved of all responsibility.​
is in the lead.

And some folks think it wont eventually happen. Yeah right. :doh :lamo
Wise up. It is going to. It is only right and fair.
Click to expand...

In my view, this will never, ever happen for one simple reason - if the father of a child isn't responsible for the financial wellbeing of his child, the child will, in all likelihood, become a financial burden on the state. The state will never pass a law that makes them the child's supporter by default. And as a taxpayer, you should never support any law that makes the state "daddy".
 
CanadaJohn said:
In my view, this will never, ever happen for one simple reason - if the father of a child isn't responsible for the financial wellbeing of his child, the child will, in all likelihood, become a financial burden on the state. The state will never pass a law that makes them the child's supporter by default. And as a taxpayer, you should never support any law that makes the state "daddy".
Click to expand...

Eh... this is making a lot of assumptions.

First of all, that child support payments prevent this. That isn't true.

For women who truly cannot support their children on their own, child support is usually a drop in the bucket. It doesn't even begin to cover the true expense. Plenty of women get both child support and assistance.

Also, a woman who is so poor she cannot afford her children probably didn't have them with a rich man. Oftentimes, he can't afford the payments. So a lot of the time, he doesn't pay at all. It's relatively easy to get out of child support payments. Even if he doesn't and his wages are garnished, that can effectively put him on the dole himself, in addition to doing almost nothing to help the woman since his wages are so small to begin with. You will likely still wind up with at least one person on welfare in this situation -- which applies to an awful lot of people.

Second, the reality is that it is the child of the one who accepts responsibility for it. A woman who puts a child up for adoption is not responsible for its well-being despite the fact that she is responsible for its existence. Why should a man, who has basically done the same thing, be forced to pay where a woman isn't?

Your argument would apply to a bio mother who put her child up for adoption even MORE than it applies to a man who wrote away his rights: a child put for up adoption will almost certainly require public support. By your logic, adoption shouldn't be allowed due to the near-certainty of the child requiring public support.

For that matter, it could apply to public schooling. Why do we pay for the education of a child you made?

Also, the fact that this conversation always goes in one direction: money from the man to the woman. Women can work these days, and there are single fathers too. Why do we always talk about this in the subliminal context of the "weaker sex"?

This gets really screwy and hypocritical really fast.

But the reality is this. First, that child support does not cure ills. In some instances, it simply makes more. Second, that we live in a society that is sufficiently complex that none of us can be said to be truly independent. And third, that even if neither of those were the case, it somehow justifies forcing a man to spend his life and income a certain way for something he had no say in.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Entering my house requires "mutual consent," what you do in it requires MY consent.
Click to expand...
Entering your house does not produce a child for which you are financially liable for the next 18 years.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Eh... this is making a lot of assumptions.

First of all, that child support payments prevent this. That isn't true.

For women who truly cannot support their children on their own, child support is usually a drop in the bucket. It doesn't even begin to cover the true expense. Plenty of women get both child support and assistance.

Also, a woman who is so poor she cannot afford her children probably didn't have them with a rich man. Oftentimes, he can't afford the payments. So a lot of the time, he doesn't pay at all. It's relatively easy to get out of child support payments. Even if he doesn't and his wages are garnished, that can effectively put him on the dole himself, in addition to doing almost nothing to help the woman since his wages are so small to begin with. You will likely still wind up with at least one person on welfare in this situation -- which applies to an awful lot of people.

Second, the reality is that it is the child of the one who accepts responsibility for it. A woman who puts a child up for adoption is not responsible for its well-being despite the fact that she is responsible for its existence. Why should a man, who has basically done the same thing, be forced to pay where a woman isn't?

Your argument would apply to a bio mother who put her child up for adoption even MORE than it applies to a man who wrote away his rights: a child put for up adoption will almost certainly require public support. By your logic, adoption shouldn't be allowed due to the near-certainty of the child requiring public support.

For that matter, it could apply to public schooling. Why do we pay for the education of a child you made?

Also, the fact that this conversation always goes in one direction: money from the man to the woman. Women can work these days, and there are single fathers too. Why do we always talk about this in the subliminal context of the "weaker sex"?

This gets really screwy and hypocritical really fast.

But the reality is this. First, that child support does not cure ills. In some instances, it simply makes more. Second, that we live in a society that is sufficiently complex that none of us can be said to be truly independent. And third, that even if neither of those were the case, it somehow justifies forcing a man to spend his life and income a certain way for something he had no say in.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with anything you've said here - my point, in a brief and flippant way, was that the state will never pass a law that makes it more likely that the state will become financially responsible for a child. We can discuss the exceptions to the rule and I don't belittle any single woman who chooses to keep her child, but the evidence would be pretty clear that most single mothers today are reliant in some part on the state for assistance in the financial responsibilities of child rearing. A single father would likely be no different. It's why governments all over the western world set up offices that garnishee wages from men reluctant to pay their child support so that they can ensure fewer tax dollars are spent helping that child mature and why in extreme cases they'll imprison a father who fails to pay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom