• 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
Jerry said:
But can you accept that a man was just convicted of murder for killing an unborn child?

You can only "murder" a "person".

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abort...g-girlfriend-take-abortion-pills-w-393-a.html
Click to expand...

Jerry...if you're referring to the man who gave his girlfriend drugs to cause a miscarriage...or abortion if you prefer...the conviction WAS NOT MURDER...even though he was charged for a crime that lead to the death of an embryo...under the Unborn Victims Violence Act of 2004.

Since the language of the act...allows the used of the word "child" in relationship to the provisions of the law...BASED ON A SPECIAL LEGAL DEFINITION...it was created so as not to imply that it in anyway undermined Roe v. Wade...

The UNBORN VICTIM was an embryo of about 7 weeks old. Technically it was NOT a CHILD. The embryo was considered to be a victim of a crime.

If the above case isn't the one you're referring to...Never mind...Lo Siento...
 
sangha said:
The fuss is because he denied the mother her right to choose.
Click to expand...
If I woke up to find my significant other had clipped my fingernails in my sleep, I don't think I would press criminal charges. I would be a little weirded out, but I don't think I would call the cops.

sangha said:
As a pro-choicer, forcing a pregnant woman to abort her child is just as reprehensible as forcing a pregnant woman to have the child.
Click to expand...
As a pro-choicer you should be supporting the man's choice to not be a father.
 
Jerry said:
If I woke up to find my significant other had clipped my fingernails in my sleep, I don't think I would press criminal charges.
Click to expand...

You must be proud!

As a pro-choicer you should be supporting the man's choice to not be a father.
Click to expand...

I support the man's right to have an abortion whenever he becomes pregnant
 
Jerry said:
If that were true then this man would not have been convicted of murder. He would have been convicted of some kind of tampering charge or assault on the mother.
Click to expand...

He should ALSO have been charged with assault on the woman as he put her life at risk...but that didn't happen, which is a travesty.

He was charge with tampering of a higher degree ...and mail fraud because he forged a name to get the drug via mail.
 
sangha said:
There is no responsibility to support the unborn. The responsibility to support begins when the child is born
Click to expand...
That's what I'm talking about.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
That's what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

Maybe I read it wrong, but you seemed to imply that a man has a responsibility to support a child before the child has been born.

Until the child is born, there is not responsibility, so that responsibility can not be evaded before the child is born because you can't evade something that doesn't exist
 
Removable Mind said:
Jerry...if you're referring to the man who gave his girlfriend drugs to cause a miscarriage...or abortion if you prefer...the conviction WAS NOT MURDER...even though he was charged for a crime that lead to the death of an embryo...under the Unborn Victims Violence Act of 2004.
Click to expand...

The man is a confessed murderer whatever charges the DA filed and whatever sentence they plead for.

sangha said:
I support the man's right to have an abortion whenever he becomes pregnant
Click to expand...

I support your right to be blatantly sexist as evidenced by this post, but I don't want your support for inequality to be policy.
 
Jerry said:
But can you accept that a man was just convicted of murder for killing an unborn child?

You can only "murder" a "person".

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abort...g-girlfriend-take-abortion-pills-w-393-a.html
Click to expand...

Umm, he was convicted of product tampering and mail fraud, not for killing an unborn child. But I'm sure sangha appreciates you making his point.

John Andrew Welden pleads guilty in Tampa abortion pill case

TAMPA — John Andrew Welden pleaded guilty Monday to federal charges of product tampering and mail fraud, admitting in court, as he had to detectives, that he slipped his ex-girlfriend an abortion drug.
 
sangha said:
There is no responsibility to support the unborn. The responsibility to support begins when the child is born
Click to expand...


Birth first...???? :shock: You know, Sangha that if personhood was constitutionally given to the unborn...you couldn't say that. :mrgreen:
 
Removable Mind said:
I don't disagree with what you're saying in terms of support. It's a double whammy deal. Mom...Dad...MUST be responsible for the BIRTH and raising of a child...IF..the woman chooses to carry the conception to full term. And that may not be the case.

Now we know that most conception are brought to full-term. That is a "Choice". And we also know that some women CHOOSE not to carry a conception to full term. That too is her CHOICE.

So in the case where a conception is brought to full term...both mommy and daddy...are indeed responsible for its well being...for at least 18 years. But if you're a parent...sometimes that responsibility never goes away. Some children are born with special challenges that will prevent them from being independent. That will be a lifetime of support required from both mommy and daddy...be they together or not.

But in the end...A woman who conceives...has the legal right to determine the fate of the conception within the boundaries of the law.
Click to expand...
I agree with that. There are some here, however, who are taking the position that men should have the ability to "opt out" of that responsibility, should they so choose.
 
Jerry said:
It's either ok to own another person as property, or it's not. We all play by the same rules. Equality et-all.

If owning another person is ok, then abortion is ok, and so is enslaving women.

If owning another person is not ok, then enslaving women is not ok, but neither is abortion.

#logic
Click to expand...
The problem with your logic is that an embryo is not a person.
 
sangha said:
I've also heard woman say...
Click to expand...
That's a yes.

He made a choice, and you are required to support it since you're pro-choice. That's what pro-choice means, supporting absolutely any choice at all with no regard to ethics or standards. As I said before, the man always has a choice regardless of what the law says. Just as women used to get illegal abortions, men can also use illegal means to enforce their choice. Like women who got illegal abortions, you have to either be smart enough to get away with it, or accept the consequences. It looks like this guy is accepting the consequences.
 
Jerry said:
That's a yes.

As I said before, the man always has a choice regardless of what the law says. Just as women used to get illegal abortions, men can also use illegal means to enforce their choice. Like women who got illegal abortions, you have to either be smart enough to get away with it, or accept the consequences. It looks like this guy is accepting the consequences.
Click to expand...

All people have the choice to break the law or not. That is a distinction of no significance in this discussion
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
The problem with your logic is that an embryo is not a person.
Click to expand...
Of course it is.

Here are the facts:
ROE v. WADE, Section 9a:
"A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses , [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment ."
Click to expand...

In the 40 years since Roe we have written laws such as Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 -- Laci and Conner's Law which extends to the unborn rights as a person in over 60 scenarios. This fulfills the Roe Section 9a clause and warrents a SCOTUS revisit to so that Roe can ban abortion.

The life-cycle of a human begins at fertilization:
The human life cycle begins at fertilization, when an egg cell inside a woman and a sperm cell from a man fuse to form a one-celled zygote . Over the next few days, the single, large cell divides many times to form a hollow ball of smaller cells. On the sixth day after fertilization....

Read more: Life Cycle, Human - Biology Encyclopedia - cells, body, process, system, different, DNA, organs, blood, hormone, produce, major
Click to expand...

Brain death marks the end of life, but brain activity does not mark the beginning. The presence of a zygote marks the beginning.

"Child" 1 and "baby" 1 have pre-birth uses.
A fetus is a "child" 2 and a "baby" 2 is a "child", thus we can call a fetus a "baby" 3.
Legally a "child" 4 is one's natural offspring, which is what a pregnant woman carries.
So, a pregnant woman carries her "child", her "unborn child", her "unborn baby".
This makes her a "parent", specifically, a “mother”.

"Organism" = "a living being".
Human DNA = "human".
"Organism" + Human DNA = "A Human Being".

The problem is that the law doesn't always line up with logic. It's one thing to say that the law does not see the embryo as a "person", but it's quite another thing to say an embryo is not a person objectively. Clearly it is, just as black slaves were persons even while the law saw it differently. The law was wrong on slavery, the law was wrong on voting rights not applying to women, and the law is wrong on unborn persons; hence the campaign to change the law.
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
None of the laws you refer are based on the idea that the unborn have rights. They are based on either protecting the woman's right to choose, ir the governments interest in protecting potential human life, an interest that does not exist until the fetus reaches viability.
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by sangha View Post
Under the constitution, the govt does not have the power to protect the unborn

govt power to protect is also expressed in criminal law, not just rights.
 
Jerry said:
If that were true then this man would not have been convicted of murder. He would have been convicted of some kind of tampering charge or assault on the mother.
Click to expand...

John Andrew Welden pleads guilty in Tampa abortion pill case

TAMPA — John Andrew Welden pleaded guilty Monday to federal charges of product tampering and mail fraud, admitting in court, as he had to detectives, that he slipped his ex-girlfriend an abortion drug.

Seems even according to you, an embryo is not a person. :thumbs:
 
sangha said:
All people have the choice to break the law or not. That is a distinction of no significance in this discussion
Click to expand...
You are required to support the decision to brake the law, because you are pro-choice and that's what pro-choice is about. Pro-choice has shown me this to be true when they broke the law to get abortions. Pro-choice does not support only legal choices, but illegal choices as well. Thus pro-choice has no regard for standards or ethics, only that someone made some kind of choice somewhere.

This man made a choice and you either support him or you are not pro-choice.
 
Jerry said:
Of course it is.

Here are the facts:


In the 40 years since Roe we have written laws such as Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 -- Laci and Conner's Law which extends to the unborn rights as a person in over 60 scenarios. This fulfills the Roe Section 9a clause and warrents a SCOTUS revisit to so that Roe can ban abortion.

The life-cycle of a human begins at fertilization:


Brain death marks the end of life, but brain activity does not mark the beginning. The presence of a zygote marks the beginning.

"Child" 1 and "baby" 1 have pre-birth uses.
A fetus is a "child" 2 and a "baby" 2 is a "child", thus we can call a fetus a "baby" 3.
Legally a "child" 4 is one's natural offspring, which is what a pregnant woman carries.
So, a pregnant woman carries her "child", her "unborn child", her "unborn baby".
This makes her a "parent", specifically, a “mother”.

"Organism" = "a living being".
Human DNA = "human".
"Organism" + Human DNA = "A Human Being".

The problem is that the law doesn't always line up with logic.
Click to expand...

Backpedalling isn't helping you.

In response to sangha posting, "the unborn are not a person," you just said, "if that were true then this man would not have been convicted of murder. He would have been convicted of some kind of tampering charge or assault on the mother. "

Well, he wasn't convicted of murder, i.e., it is true "the unborn are not a person." You said so yourself.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Backpedalling isn't helping you.

In response to sangha posting, "the unborn are not a person," you just said, "if that were true then this man would not have been convicted of murder. He would have been convicted of some kind of tampering charge or assault on the mother. "

Well, he wasn't convicted of murder, i.e., it is true "the unborn are not a person." You said so yourself.
Click to expand...
Mhmm, I saw that.

Then I moved on.
 
Jerry said:
You are required to support the decision to brake the law, because you are pro-choice and that's what pro-choice is about. Pro-choice has shown me this to be true when they broke the law to get abortions. Pro-choice does not support only legal choices, but illegal choices as well. Thus pro-choice has no regard for standards or ethics, only that someone made some kind of choice somewhere.

This man made a choice and you either support him or you are not pro-choice.
Click to expand...


Can you translate that into english?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom