• 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
And no one is denying HER an abortion. We're just demanding EQUAL TREATMENT FOR MEN AS WELL!

Geez, you people can't read.

Men are treated equally

Men and women can choose to have sex

Men and women can choose to use contraception

Men and women can have an abortion if they become pregnant

And both mother and father are financially responsible for any children they produce
 
So work on getting men the right to stop an abortion or technology that can transplant the embryo to an artificial womb then and stop supporting empowering them to abandon their responsibilities. Letting them get off free when they hold equal responsibility is not an option.

Uh, no.

Where did I say that we should try to make it fair?

A woman has an absolute right to decide under what circumstances her body is used or invaded. Period. I'm ok with that biological unfairness. I have no desire to try to force women to acquiesce their bodies to men.

Women can "get off free" too. You don't want men to have an equivalent to the rights you have. You want rights with no responsibility, and you want men to be mandated to babysit your decisions.

We may not be able to make the laws fair when it comes to biology but get this, if he puts a condom on chances are the problem is solved. Why would we not promote that level of responsibility instead of supporting their right to dodge it.

And don't give that life's not fair deal with it BS. We struggle to make things as fair and equitable as possible in this country.

Yeah, because condoms work 100% of the time, right? And making a simple mistake means he deserves to be a slave for life, right?

Here, let me play the part of an anti-choicer for a minute: "If she didn't want a baby, she should have kept her legs shut." That's what you sound like, only you're talking about men.

If a woman can't carry out her OWN decision, that she made HERSELF, she is the one who is irresponsible. She is the one who didn't consider her capabilities, and expected someone to do it for her because she apparently can't manage that much thinking, like a child.

If he made the choice to have sex he is just as responsible for the outcome. He knows going in that he his pants are full of little baby makers and knowing that he can get off the hook if he chooses not to take responsibility is a pretty surprising position coming from someone who promotes herself as a feminist.

So does the woman. So do you want to ban abortion? Or is your standard of forced servitude limited to men?

As a feminist, I believe women are intellectually capable of making decisions, rising to the occasions they set for themselves, and do not need men to save them from themselves. Apparently you don't.

That is your interpretation of my words Ms. Limbaugh.

Now that is funny. :lol:

You're the one promoting childcare as punishment for men, and I'm Ms. Limbaugh?
 
The fact of the matter is that the law doesn't guarantee that everyone will get to make the same decisions.

Some people will get to decide what color their new Porsche is going to be. Others won't. If that is unfair, it's not the law's doing.

Similarly, some people will get to decide if they will have an abortion. Others won't. Once again, if that's unfair, it's not the law's doing.
 

Where did I say that we should try to make it fair?

Your whole response to mine was based on the premise that it was currently unfair to men. WTH are you talking about?

A woman has an absolute right to decide under what circumstances her body is used or invaded. Period. I'm ok with that biological unfairness. I have no desire to try to force women to acquiesce their bodies to men.

That is not an acquiescence. Explain that one too me. Seriously, I am not being sarcastic. Explain that.

Women can "get off free" too. You don't want men to have an equivalent to the rights you have. You want rights with no responsibility, and you want men to be mandated to babysit your decisions.
I want rights with equal responsibility.

Yeah, because condoms work 100% of the time, right? And making a simple mistake means he deserves to be a slave for life, right?
That's not the point. It is the form of birth control men have available to them and have an obligation to themselves to use.

Here, let me play the part of an anti-choicer for a minute: "If she didn't want a baby, she should have kept her legs shut." That's what you sound like, only you're talking about men.
If you think that's what I sound like then you are not understanding my posts. I said EQUAL responsibility. Men AND women both have an obligation to keep what they contribute to a pregnancy under control.

So does the woman. So do you want to ban abortion? Or is your standard of forced servitude limited to men?
I am beginning to wonder if you are serious.

You're the one promoting childcare as punishment for men
How exactly is it punishment for them men but taking responsibility for the women?
 

It's late, I'm going to bed.
 
Your whole response to mine was based on the premise that it was currently unfair to men. WTH are you talking about?

I'm simply stating reality isn't fair. At present, there is nothing we can do to make it fair without enslaving one sex or the other.

That being the case, we must simply deal with the unfairness, in order to afford everyone maximum rights over their person.

That is not an acquiescence. Explain that one too me. Seriously, I am not being sarcastic. Explain that.

I don't believe a man should have any say over what a woman does with a pregnancy.

I want rights with equal responsibility.

No, you don't. You want women to be able to make a choice without the man's input, and then foist the responsibility that comes with that choice onto the man.

That's not the point. It is the form of birth control men have available to them and have an obligation to themselves to use.

Sure, but again, reality is imperfect. I don't believe the imperfection of reality is a good enough reason to enslave men, any more than it is a good enough reason to enslave women.

If you think that's what I sound like then you are not understanding my posts. I said EQUAL responsibility. Men AND women both have an obligation to keep what they contribute to a pregnancy under control.

No, you don't.

You believe both have that obligation, BUT you think that if they don't meet it, or if it fails to work, that a woman has the right to decide to either not have a child, or not keep a child.

On the other hand, you believe men have absolutely no rights at all, and must be forced to float the woman's unilateral decision at his own detriment.

I am beginning to wonder if you are serious.

As they come.

How exactly is it punishment for them men but taking responsibility for the women?

Your wording -- "get off free" -- reveals a lot about how you think about this issue. You don't want men to "get off free." You think they should have to pay for something. You view a mandate to support the woman's decision as a punishment, however subliminally.

This is a direct analog to the way anti-choicers feel about women, when they say abortion is "not taking responsibility."

As to how it is forcing men to be responsible for women, I have explained this.
 
And what gives the woman the right to have an indentured servant for 20 years?
 
well I could do that, but one thing to add, right to association means to have a right to associate with other people or not associate with other people, this stated by the court.

If the right to property means the government should not be able to build a highway through your farmland separating the house, barn and buildings from the farming land. I hear ya loud and clear. That happened to my grandparents farm in the 1930s.

The barn and creamery were on one side of the state hi way and the grazing land for the dairy cattle were on the other side.

Unless there is a court restraint order I don't know why a person would not be able to associate with another person or a group .

That is all I have to say on that subject on this tread.

This thread is about the topic of abortion not people's rights.
 
You know... If it was that the man could opt out women wouldn't be running around having casual sex. The way it is now, men shouldn't be. They are and they are getting stuck with 18 years. If it was the other way around and women said no until marriage, for instance, then there would be no unplanned or unwanted pregnancies AT ALL and I would think that this is what would satisfy all sides to this debate. We should not be punishing either gender for people that want to have sex with others that they do not want to have a child with. I am a hypocrite about this too... I did it. It was stupid. I was lucky and never got one pregnant though...

Having men opt out is not going to stop people from having pre martial sex.
After World War II the so called sexual revolution was already underway.
And guys could opt out claiming the kid was not his.( before DNA ) so your sweet no unwanted pregnancies and only married couples is not at all realistic.

Also unwanted pregnancies do take place in marriage and committed relationships.
In fact there was a study about unwanted pregnancies and abortions that take place in marriage and committed relationships.
44 percent of the time it was the man who first brought up abortion when an unwanted pregnancy occurred.
 
Allowing men to have agency over their own life is "control" over a woman's decision?

I'm sorry, but BS. And this argument works just as well in reverse: if a man wants to be a father but the woman aborts, then the woman is "controlling" the man's decision.

Hello? This the point I've been trying to make all along. If the man is given the right to insist upon an abortion then he can also insist that she carry a baby to term and deliver it. This IS giving men the power and control over a woman's body, either way.

That is ludicrous. People having control over their own life is not "controlling" anyone else. No one else is ENTITLED to the body or the resources of someone else. You are arguing that women -- and ONLY women -- are in fact entitled to that. That women own men.

Good Lord Smoke! That is because of BIOLOGY. Women can't help or control if they get pregnant. Seeing as how men know full well that the results of ejaculating inside of a woman's body is a BABY, then they give the control to the woman at the time of sexual intercourse when the man CHOOSES to not protect himself by using a condom.

Ideally, everyone should tell their partner where they stand before sex happens. I always do this. But just because someone didn't, or perhaps changed their mind, doesn't mean they are entitled to squat.

Exactly, if a man has sex with a woman, she gets pregnant, he can't just "change his mind" later.

Also, an important thing for YOU to remember is this is about the CHILD that results from the union and that child's right to be supported by both parents. It isn't about the selfish man or woman.
 
Having men opt out is not going to stop people from having pre martial sex.
After World War II the so called sexual revolution was already underway.
And guys could opt out claiming the kid was not his.( before DNA ) so your sweet no unwanted pregnancies and only married couples is not at all realistic.

Also unwanted pregnancies do take place in marriage and committed relationships.
In fact there was a study about unwanted pregnancies and abortions that take place in marriage and committed relationships.
44 percent of the time it was the man who first brought up abortion when an unwanted pregnancy occurred.

I can't even believe people are bringing this up because they are selfish and concerned only with "their" rights and screw the child. There are a lot of SICK people in the world. That's why men like this should have a contract in their pocket and have the women they want to sleep with read it. This way the woman, if she's smart, would avoid this man like the plague and NOT have sex with him to begin with.
 
A man has an absolute right not to engage in sexual intercourse with a woman.
 
Hello? This the point I've been trying to make all along. If the man is given the right to insist upon an abortion then he can also insist that she carry a baby to term and deliver it. This IS giving men the power and control over a woman's body, either way.

Uh, ok. And I don't support that either. What's your point?

I'm not saying a man can "insist" anything, except what he will do with his OWN life.

Good Lord Smoke! That is because of BIOLOGY. Women can't help or control if they get pregnant. Seeing as how men know full well that the results of ejaculating inside of a woman's body is a BABY, then they give the control to the woman at the time of sexual intercourse when the man CHOOSES to not protect himself by using a condom.

Yes, I know. That's why women have a right to abort or not. But guess what?

Who takes care of that baby is NOT governed by biology. The woman can give up the baby. Why can't the man?

What you just did is use the "keep your legs shut" argument against men.

Exactly, if a man has sex with a woman, she gets pregnant, he can't just "change his mind" later.

Also, an important thing for YOU to remember is this is about the CHILD that results from the union and that child's right to be supported by both parents. It isn't about the selfish man or woman.

Yes, he can, just like she can. Have you forgotten about the whole adoption industry?

Well, if that's the case, then the woman needs to consider her ability to care for the child if the man is unwilling to do so, seeing as how he has every much as right as her to decide he doesn't want to, and she made that decision regardless of his feelings on the matter, thus assuming full responsibility for HER choice.

You cannot have choice without responsibility.
 
Uh, ok. And I don't support that either. What's your point?

I'm not saying a man can "insist" anything, except what he will do with his OWN life.

If a man can refuse to support his child that HE helped create, do you think women are just going to abort their babies? LOL! NO, you and I will be paying for these children as the child's father and creator walks away free from any responsibility.



Yes, I know. That's why women have a right to abort or not. But guess what?

Who takes care of that baby is NOT governed by biology. The woman can give up the baby. Why can't the man?

He should think about this and wear protection at all times. If not, then he is responsible, regardless of what the woman decides to do.

What you just did is use the "keep your legs shut" argument against men.

Exactly, and I use the same argument with women. If you don't want to pay, then don't play. It's a simple concept. If you decide to play, then you realize what CAN result in such activities. You are giving your consent at the time of the act as you are aware.

Yes, he can, just like she can. Have you forgotten about the whole adoption industry?

So now you think he can force a woman to give her child up for adoption? Wow that's effing harsh. Grow a frigging heart will you? If a man has consensual sex with a woman and she gets pregnant as a result, he is responsible, regardless of whether or not he thinks it's "fair." LIFE isn't fair.

Well, if that's the case, then the woman needs to consider her ability to care for the child if the man is unwilling to do so, seeing as how he has every much as right as her to decide he doesn't want to, and she made that decision regardless of his feelings on the matter, thus assuming full responsibility for HER choice.

This is true but changes nothing about what I said. BOTH are responsible. It just so happens that nature decided to make the woman the one to carry and bear the child. So cry to mother nature about how "unfair" it is. :roll:

You cannot have choice without responsibility.

Of course not, that is why the man who chose to sleep with a woman and not protect himself is also responsible, regardless of what the woman's decision might be. If he doesn't like that, he should keep his trouser snake inside his trousers. SEX comes with consequences and they are not always "fair."
 
If a man can refuse to support his child that HE helped create, do you think women are just going to abort their babies? LOL! NO, you and I will be paying for these children as the child's father and creator walks away free from any responsibility.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't care what they do.

I've already addressed this fallacy earlier in the thread. Search my name in-thread. We'll be paying for it either way, except perhaps we might be paying for him instead of the kid. Or maybe all three of them, with the nice chunk the government takes for itself off of child support payments for women on assistance.

Or, perhaps, the woman will consider her choice with these new factors in mind. That could happen too. I imagine it will depend on the woman.

He should think about this and wear protection at all times. If not, then he is responsible, regardless of what the woman decides to do.

And who says he didn't? Condoms aren't 100% effective.

Regardless, she still has no right to own his life for a decision SHE made.

He does not control his sperm any more than she controls her ova. You've said a woman "can't help" getting pregnant, but you think a man somehow dictates what his sperm do or whether the condom breaks in all cases? Do you read what you write?

Exactly, and I use the same argument with women. If you don't want to pay, then don't play. It's a simple concept. If you decide to play, then you realize what CAN result in such activities. You are giving your consent at the time of the act as you are aware.

Well, then you're wrong in both cases.

The fact that you think of children as a punishment on the parents is so callous I don't even know where to begin. Yes, you're obviously so concerned about the child.

So now you think he can force a woman to give her child up for adoption? Wow that's effing harsh. Grow a frigging heart will you? If a man has consensual sex with a woman and she gets pregnant as a result, he is responsible, regardless of whether or not he thinks it's "fair." LIFE isn't fair.

Uh, no. I think she can make her choice about that.

What I said is that a woman has a right to give up a child. There is no biological mandate that she care for it.

So why are you using biology as a way to deny men a right that women have? Women can and do give up their children. Why can't men?

I have no heart? You're the one who thinks children should be wielded as a punishment against people whose sex lives you disagree with.

This is true but changes nothing about what I said. BOTH are responsible. It just so happens that nature decided to make the woman the one to carry and bear the child. So cry to mother nature about how "unfair" it is. :roll:

It's true that she assumes full responsibility, but it doesn't change that he should have to pay for her choices and take on her responsibilities as though she were a child herself?

Mother nature has nothing to do with it. Mother nature is utterly silent on who "has" to care for a baby.

Of course not, that is why the man who chose to sleep with a woman and not protect himself is also responsible, regardless of what the woman's decision might be. If he doesn't like that, he should keep his trouser snake inside his trousers. SEX comes with consequences and they are not always "fair."

People whose sex lives erk you should be punished with a child they don't care for. Got it. I'm heartless. Right.
 
Maybe, maybe not. I don't care what they do.

I've already addressed this fallacy earlier in the thread. Search my name in-thread. We'll be paying for it either way, except perhaps we might be paying for him instead of the kid. Or maybe all three of them, with the nice chunk the government takes for itself off of child support payments for women on assistance.

Or, perhaps, the woman will consider her choice with these new factors in mind. That could happen too. I imagine it will depend on the woman.



And who says he didn't? Condoms aren't 100% effective.

Regardless, she still has no right to own his life for a decision SHE made.

He does not control his sperm any more than she controls her ova. You've said a woman "can't help" getting pregnant, but you think a man somehow dictates what his sperm do or whether the condom breaks in all cases? Do you read what you write?



Well, then you're wrong in both cases.

The fact that you think of children as a punishment on the parents is so callous I don't even know where to begin. Yes, you're obviously so concerned about the child.



Uh, no. I think she can make her choice about that.

What I said is that a woman has a right to give up a child. There is no biological mandate that she care for it.

So why are you using biology as a way to deny men a right that women have? Women can and do give up their children. Why can't men?

I have no heart? You're the one who thinks children should be wielded as a punishment against people whose sex lives you disagree with.



It's true that she assumes full responsibility, but it doesn't change that he should have to pay for her choices and take on her responsibilities as though she were a child herself?

Mother nature has nothing to do with it. Mother nature is utterly silent on who "has" to care for a baby.



People whose sex lives erk you should be punished with a child they don't care for. Got it. I'm heartless. Right.

Look you can be illogical all you want about this issue. The bottom line is both men and women are aware that pregnancy can and does result from sex. If they don't want to be responsible, then they have no business having sex. That is the problem with our society and the reason why unwanted children exist to begin with.

Now since this will NEVER happen, then both people who were involved are both responsible for any life that results from such a union. It is just too damn bad if you don't like it.
 
Look you can be illogical all you want about this issue. The bottom line is both men and women are aware that pregnancy can and does result from sex. If they don't want to be responsible, then they have no business having sex. That is the problem with our society and the reason why unwanted children exist to begin with.

Now since this will NEVER happen, then both people who were involved are both responsible for any life that results from such a union. It is just too damn bad if you don't like it.

Your version of "responsibility" is for a child to be used as a billy club to the life and psyche of people who are unable to raise it. I don't find that either caring or responsible.
 
Your version of "responsibility" is for a child to be used as a billy club to the life and psyche of people who are unable to raise it. I don't find that either caring or responsible.

Absolutely not. I am being a realist. People who are "unable" to raise children have them all the time. The question is what is BEST for the child, and that is to have BOTH parents in it's life, financially as well as emotionally.
 
...
Who takes care of that baby is NOT governed by biology. The woman can give up the baby. Why can't the man?...

Yes, he can, just like she can. Have you forgotten about the whole adoption industry?...
.

Just a reminder.

In the case of adoption both bio parents have to give up their parental rights.
Only 2 percent of born infants are given up for adoption.

Adoption is not a realistic solution.
 
Last edited:
Just a reminder.

In the case of adoption both bio parents have to give up their parental rights.
Only 2 percent of born infants are given up for adoption.

Adoption is not a realistic solution.

Unless she never declares a father, which is relatively easy for her to do.

I'm not suggesting adoption as a solution. I'm just demonstrating that women have a right to give up their children, that this right is not governed by biology but rather by who claims responsibility, and that therefore there is no reason to deny that right to men.
 
Good Lord Smoke! That is because of BIOLOGY. Women can't help or control if they get pregnant. Seeing as how men know full well that the results of ejaculating inside of a woman's body is a BABY, then they give the control to the woman at the time of sexual intercourse when the man CHOOSES to not protect himself by using a condom.

So women can't help or control if they get pregnant, but men can?

Also, an important thing for YOU to remember is this is about the CHILD that results from the union and that child's right to be supported by both parents. It isn't about the selfish man or woman.

Unless, of course, the woman decides to abort the child or give it up for adoption. In either of those cases, the child ends up supported by neither of its biological parents.
 
So women can't help or control if they get pregnant, but men can?

Did I say that? I don't think I did. Until there is a form of BC that is 100%, that is a risk you knowingly take when you engage in sexual activity, both man and woman.

Unless, of course, the woman decides to abort the child or give it up for adoption. In either of those cases, the child ends up supported by neither of its biological parents.

Adoption usually will not occur if one party does not wish for it, so that argument is bogus. Both parents have to sign off on an adoption. As far as abortion, I would prefer responsible behaviors from BOTH parties to avoid such an outcome, but it is the woman's body and the woman's risk because she has to have a procedure on her body no matter her choice. The man faces NO such risks.
 
Did I say that? I don't think I did. Until there is a form of BC that is 100%, that is a risk you knowingly take when you engage in sexual activity, both man and woman.

And yet, women have a legal and moral right to not be forced into parental responsibilities they don't want... while men should just "keep their legs shut".

Adoption usually will not occur if one party does not wish for it, so that argument is bogus. Both parents have to sign off on an adoption.

Unless, as Smoke has already pointed out, the woman simply claims not to know who the father is. I absolutely support her right to do this... but it's dishonest to claim that it doesn't happen.l

As far as abortion, I would prefer responsible behaviors from BOTH parties to avoid such an outcome, but it is the woman's body and the woman's risk because she has to have a procedure on her body no matter her choice. The man faces NO such risks.

Indeed. But the lack of medical risks to the "father" in no fashion justifies the fact that he is legally forced to become a parent against his will.
 
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.

I think it just comes down to this, I do not support something that makes abortion more likely, and I imagine S&M would support anything that would make the "choice" of abortion more likely.
 
Back
Top Bottom