• 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
Unitedwestand13 said:
you are forcing someone to do something against their will.
Click to expand...
Here's my position on abortion. You tell me who I'm forcing to do what:

Jerry said:
Welcome to the forum.


As a teen I've supported 2 of my children to be aborted. I regret that. We were both trying to escape responsibility. In my early 20s my fiance and I turned away from abortion but weren't ready to raise children. Yes we used condoms but BC has to be properly used consistently. We failed. We gave a child up for adoption. A couple years later (we made it a couple years pregnancy-free) she was pregnant again. We were actually on the fence about this one, to give it to the same couple who adopted the first time or to keep it. We decided to give it to that couple and hopefully further improve our lives.


A couple years later (another couple years pregnancy-free) we decided to keep the child, and soon had a second, after which she tied her tubes.


About 5 years later she developed clinically diagnosed and medically treated mental problems. Her first affair was with someone who didn't actually exist. She imagined him, and she imagined him being dead, too. Creepy. That opened the door to affairs with real people. I filed for divorce 8 years ago and it's only just now coming to a conclusion, with our 2 boys caught in the middle.


If I had it all to do over again I would have had a vasectomy at 16 and joined the military while still in highschool.


****
Today I do not support any form of elective abortion, only abortion when it's medically required. However, the consequences of banning first-term abortion far outweigh the lives saved because of the drastic extent the government would have to intrude into our lives in order to enforce such a ban. So, while I do not support first-term abortion and speak against it, I do see it as the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...
 
ernst barkmann said:
I was addressing united...
Click to expand...
Ok, internet customs and courtesies: it is generally agreed that you are addressing the person you are quoting.

You quoted me, not united, that means you're addressing me, not united. Because you quoted me, the software sent me the notification to my User Control Panel get my attention. It did not send United the notification to his User Control Panel because you did not quote him.
 
Jerry said:
Here's my position on abortion. You tell me who I'm forcing to do what:

...As a teen I've supported 2 of my children to be aborted...

...A couple years later (another couple years pregnancy-free) we decided to keep the child, and soon had a second, after which she tied her tubes...

...If I had it all to do over again I would have had a vasectomy at 16 and joined the military while still in highschool.
Click to expand...

Wow - you just said "we aborted two, gave one up for adoption, and then kept two children . . . and if I had to do it all over again I wouldn't have any kids at all."

So - you don't want your children you didn't abort and wish they were never born? Why - BECAUSE OF YOUR EX WIFE? :shock:

Charming. (sarcasm)

I might be pro-choice, but I have four kids and never once have I regretted that and wished I could go back in time and just erase them out of my life. :shock:
 
Jerry said:
Ok, internet customs and courtesies: it is generally agreed that you are addressing the person you are quoting.

You quoted me, not united, that means you're addressing me, not united. Because you quoted me, the software sent me the notification to my User Control Panel get my attention. It did not send United the notification to his User Control Panel because you did not quote him.
Click to expand...

jerry I don't not believe I was quoting you, about force...will you please provide the quote

please see post 665
 
Jerry said:
No you and the Mod are injecting lies into your arguments.
Click to expand...

Point out where I've lied.

Jerry said:
Speaking of which, where did he go? Maybe he's actually reading Roe and discovering that slavery is not in there.
Click to expand...

I've already addressed this-- I didn't make reference to Roe v. Wade once; this is a false and irrelevant argument designed, once again, to distract from the real argument, that forced gestation is involuntary servitude and thus slavery. You are still not addressing the argument. Why aren't you addressing the argument?
 
Removable Mind said:
That's not hard to understand at all. You're only speaking from a financial obligation standpoint. It's a hell of alot more complicated than that.
Click to expand...

Only because you make it so. It's not really that complicated.
 
Removable Mind said:
That's not hard to understand at all.

Cephus said:
But that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I'm saying. If you are going to allow women an out of an unwanted pregnancy, you have to also allow men an out. To do anything else is unfair and unequal. Why is this so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

You're only speaking from a financial obligation standpoint. It's a hell of alot more complicated than that.
Click to expand...

You've confused me by your response to Cephus. Why do you think the concern is only financial? When there is an unwanted pregnancy one of two situations will result: either the man agrees to marry the woman and try to asssume full parental responsibility, or he rejects marriage and is compelled by law to assume financial responsibilities.

In the first case, where the male is unhappy and only "doing what's right" when he marries the woman; he will resent his position and act out in various ways while he remains tied to the marriage and family scenario. Whether this scenario ends in divorce or not, his attitude while married often results in spousal abuse (intiated by either the man or the woman), child physical and/or emotional abuse, and all sorts of other horrors. If he divorces and tries to start a family with a woman he does "love" this creates further issues, both for his new family and the old one.

In the second case, even though he tries to avoid further contact he is bound by his child support duties. Thus he is often challenged by the mother in court as the child ages and costs increase. Meanwhile he has to continue to deal with her as she argues, cajoles, negotiates, rants, demands, etc.

Then there is the child, who naturally wants to know more about the father. Often the mother's anger is reflected in how she instructs the child about why the father wants nothing to do with it. This leads to many emotional issues with the child. We always hear stories of a child seeking out and trying to confront the father at some later time. Finally, all the issues mentioned about a divorced male starting a new family apply to the father who never stuck with the original woman and child. Now any family he tries to start has to deal with these issues too.

All of this because the woman has an "out" but the man does not.
 
Last edited:
Phys251 said:
If I took an RU-486 pill, I honestly have no idea what would happen! ;)
Click to expand...

You would stop producing progesterone :lam
And would be treating an ulcer you might or might not have.
 
lizzie said:
It does, but since it's her body which can be affected, it is primarily her responsibility. That being said, when my boys were teenagers, I cautioned them that they would be wise to use birth control methods, as females are often not reliable and/or honest about it, and I made it pretty clear that if they trusted the girl to do so, they could easily be misled and find themselves in a bad situation.
Click to expand...

That manner of thinking assumes the worst of women and ignores the fact that since there are two parties involved and that there is equal responsibility. You can't have a baby without there being two people involved.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Wow - you just said "we aborted two, gave one up for adoption, and then kept two children . . . and if I had to do it all over again I wouldn't have any kids at all."
Click to expand...
We put 2 up for adoption. That's 2 aborted, 2 adopted, 2 kept (and 1 miscarried but I didn't mention that. The X still celebrates what would have been his birthday).

Aunt Spiker said:
So - you don't want your children you didn't abort and wish they were never born? Why - BECAUSE OF YOUR EX WIFE?
Click to expand...
Not because of her, no. I knew of a better way to manage things and didn't do it. I don't think "I wish they were never born". I think "I should have don things differently".
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
Why aren't you addressing the argument?
Click to expand...
You come here and claim that pregnancy is savory and demand that others prove you wrong. Do you know the name of that logical fallacy? Would you like a link to it?

You have to first prove that pregnancy is slavery. Then your argument is addressed.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
ok I accept that, thats very good you know your stuff.

so this would be a liberty /property right being exercised would it not?
Click to expand...

Actually it is a right to privacy regarding reproductivity.
In 1965 the precedent of a right to privacy regarding a woman/ couples right to use of contraceptives was uphead.
Before that the right to privacy regarding child rearing was upheld.
 
ernst barkmann said:
jerry, I was stating to you in 672, that I did not say you wanted to use of force, and that it was question, and that question was to...........united from 665
Click to expand...
I never said you did say I was using force, though.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
That manner of thinking assumes the worst of women and ignores the fact that since there are two parties involved and that there is equal responsibility. You can't have a baby without there being two people involved.
Click to expand...

Actually it is possible to have a baby without two people being involved, scientifically speaking. ("Cloning.") Just a point of information.

Over and over again you keep ignoring the fact that while it may take TWO to conceive current law allows ONE to decide if that conception will lead to birth or not. The arguments made do not assume the "worst" of women, they EMPOWER women.

The person who exercises that absolute power of choice whether to abort or not also exercises the absolute power of choice during the sex act, i.e. to decide exactly what will be done with her body and how it will occur. The MALE does not control that decision either. Thus, while two parties are involved only ONE has absolute power and therefore absolute control over the activity.

If both parties are equally responsible for conception, then both parties would have the same right to unilaterally abort or have the child. This is NOT the case.

I find it amusing that people forget all of this and simply focus on asserting one thing: that the mere fact a man ejaculates somehow makes him an equally responsible partner in this process. It is an emotional rather than a rational argument, and holds no real water.
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
Actually it is a right to privacy regarding reproductivity.
In 1965 the precedent of a right to privacy regarding a woman/ couples right to use of contraceptives was uphead.
Before that the right to privacy regarding child rearing was upheld.
Click to expand...

ok you saying it a right then?

if you have a right to privacy , as you say.

do you have a right to property, the DOI says you do, and the constitution says you do twice.

also there is what is know as right to association.

a right cannot limited unless I am infringing on the rights of another citizen, which would be a crime........criminal law, or my actions could infringe on the right of other people.

can you explain how government cannot make a law, because you have a right to privacy, .....but they make laws which violate the right to property and right to association. with discrimination laws?

since no person is having his rights violated by discrimination, and discrimination laws are not criminal law, but statutory laws.

how do you have a right to privacy?...because the USSC says it a right. even though it written in the constitution twice you have a right to property.

why does the left support one right court stated, and don't support a right which is actually written.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Actually it is possible to have a baby without two people being involved, scientifically speaking. ("Cloning.") Just a point of information.

Over and over again you keep ignoring the fact that while it may take TWO to conceive current law allows ONE to decide if that conception will lead to birth or not. The arguments made do not assume the "worst" of women, they EMPOWER women.

The person who exercises that absolute power of choice whether to abort or not also exercises the power of choice during the sex act, i.e. to decide exactly what will be done with her body and how it will occur. The MALE does not control that decision either. Thus, while two parties are involved only ONE has absolute power and therefore absolute control over the activity.

If both parties are equally responsible for conception, then both parties would have the same right to unilaterally abort or have the child. This is NOT the case.

I find it amusing that people forget all of this and simply focus on asserting one thing: that the mere fact a man ejaculates somehow makes him an equal partner in this process. It is an emotional rather than a rational argument, and holds no real water.
Click to expand...

If the point is to guarantee equality of the sexes, then the current situation does not guarantee equality, it guarantees inequality. If the man is an equal partner, then he deserves equal rights and equal responsibilities. The current situation provides neither. The woman has 100% of the control and the man has zero control over the decisions made. If the man is responsible for life because he had sex with the woman, then the woman is equally responsible for life because she had sex with the man. An equal situation would guarantee equal outcomes. Either the man can opt out of raising the child, or the woman cannot opt out of having it. You shouldn't get it both ways.

If you don't see that, then it's you who is being absurdly emotional.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Actually it is possible to have a baby without two people being involved, scientifically speaking. ("Cloning.") Just a point of information.

Over and over again you keep ignoring the fact that while it may take TWO to conceive current law allows ONE to decide if that conception will lead to birth or not. The arguments made do not assume the "worst" of women, they EMPOWER women.

The person who exercises that absolute power of choice whether to abort or not also exercises the power of choice during the sex act, i.e. to decide exactly what will be done with her body and how it will occur. The MALE does not control that decision either. Thus, while two parties are involved only ONE has absolute power and therefore absolute control over the activity.

If both parties are equally responsible for conception, then both parties would have the same right to unilaterally abort or have the child. This is NOT the case.

I find it amusing that people forget all of this and simply focus on asserting one thing: that the mere fact a man ejaculates somehow makes him an equal partner in this process. It is an emotional rather than a rational argument, and holds no real water.
Click to expand...


I am arguing with Liz in regards to the views she has stated.

When I voted, the voted for the option which read: No, but he should have the right to be legally relieved of all responsibility.
 
Captain Adverse said:
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.
Click to expand...

Regarding your poll choice of "no, only the woman has this right but the man remains responsible." If the woman gets an abortion, then the man has no responsibility. :lol: Do you see what I'm saying? That choice doesn't really make sense the way you have it worded.
 
Captain Adverse said:
You've confused me by your response to Cephus. Why do you think the concern is only financial? When there is an unwanted pregnancy one of two situations will result: either the man agrees to marry the woman and try to asssume full parental responsibility, or he rejects marriage and is compelled by law to assume financial responsibilities.

In the first case, where the male is unhappy and only "doing what's right" when he marries the woman; he will resent his position and act out in various ways while he remains tied to the marriage and family scenario. Whether this scenario ends in divorce or not, his attitude while married often results in spousal abuse (intiated by either the man or the woman), child physical and/or emotional abuse, and all sorts of other horrors. If he divorces and tries to start a family with a woman he does "love" this creates further issues, both for his new family and the old one.

In the second case, even though he tries to avoid further contact he is bound by his child support duties. Thus he is often challenged by the mother in court as the child ages and costs increase. Meanwhile he has to continue to deal with her as she argues, cajoles, negotiates, rants, demands, etc.

Then there is the child, who naturally wants to know more about the father. Often the mother's anger is reflected in how she instructs the child about why the father wants nothing to do with it. This leads to many emotional issues with the child. We always hear stories of a child seeking out and trying to confront the father at some later time. Finally, all the issues mentioned about a divorced male starting a new family apply to the father who never stuck with the original woman and child. Now any family he tries to start has to deal with these issues too.

All of this because the woman has an "out" but the man does not.
Click to expand...

CA...now you've confused me ...I see what your saying, "I think"...but I'm not so sure my reply to Cephus...and now yours is...is as confusing to you both as it now appears to be.

I did say in my reply...that the issue is more complex than just financial, which was Cephus' argument..and it is. Getting stuck for 18 yrs thing.

Let me ponder your post and see if I can articulate my position/point...in a more clear and concise way. I can't address this tonight, but I will tomorrow.

Thanks...
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
If the point is to guarantee equality of the sexes, then the current situation does not guarantee equality, it guarantees inequality. If the man is an equal partner, then he deserves equal rights and equal responsibilities. The current situation provides neither. The woman has 100% of the control and the man has zero control over the decisions made. If the man is responsible for life because he had sex with the woman, then the woman is equally responsible for life because she had sex with the man. An equal situation would guarantee equal outcomes. Either the man can opt out of raising the child, or the woman cannot opt out of having it. You shouldn't get it both ways.

If you don't see that, then it's you who is being absurdly emotional.
Click to expand...

I'm the one arguing for the "opt-out" right. The entire post you just argued against was MY argument against a members claim that simply by having sex a man has consented to letting the woman decide his obligation for the rest of his life. You've just reworded and said the same thing...so whats the issue?

Removable Mind said:
CA...now you've confused me ...I see what your saying, "I think"...but I'm not so sure my reply to Cephus...and now yours is...is as confusing to you both as it now appears to be.

I did say in my reply...that the issue is more complex than just financial, which was Cephus' argument..and it is. Getting stuck for 18 yrs thing.

Let me ponder your post and see if I can articulate my position/point...in a more clear and concise way. I can't address this tonight, but I will tomorrow.

Thanks...
Click to expand...

I was just wondering why you might have thought cephus' argument was solely on the basis of financial obligation. I recognize that yours involves more issues than just finance. I decided to clarify some (but not all) of the non-financial reasons that could justify the opt-out argument.

Mr. Invisible said:
I am arguing with Liz in regards to the views she has stated.

When I voted, the voted for the option which read: No, but he should have the right to be legally relieved of all responsibility.
Click to expand...

But Lizzies point of view is supportive of a man's right to opt out. It always has been throughout the thread. Your response seemed to argue that simply by having sex a man consent's to accepting responsibility for whatever a woman decides to do. If I was mistaken, please forgive me. :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom