• 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:
Your thread title says: "Should a Man have an Absolute Right to Choose to Abort His Baby?"

The first sentence of your OP says: "Should a man have an absolute right to have his baby aborted?"

Opting out of responsibility is offered as an alternative to abortion.

So, no, that was NOT made clear in your OP. In fact the exact opposite was made crystal clear in your OP. This thread is about a man having the right to have his child aborted.
Click to expand...

Simply because you fail to read for full content is not a problem I need to deal with. All options were made available in order to allow members to speak their piece about each possible issue. Very few people are arguing that men should have a right to force a woman to abort, (only two actual votes reflect such a position). I am am certainly not one of them.

Yet in response to members who support a choice to opt-out you remain focused on the "forced abortion" option. This because you seem to think that merely by engaging in sex a man has automatically bound himself to caring for any possible offspring should the woman choose to have it....something I find particularly hypocritical given your self-admissions of past history regarding this result.

Over and over people like yourself emphasize it takes two to conceive, and then irrationally argue that only one gets to decide the ultimate outcome of life-long responsibility for both. You keep ignoring the fact that one has an opt-out regardless of how the other might feel, and your only counter is "life ain't fair." Equitability of rights would argue that BOTH should have at least the "absolute opt-out" option in some form or another.

The male and female members on the side of allowing a male to "opt-out" of further responsibility seek to empower the woman by not only supporting her right to absolute choice but also her right to make an informed decision and then to accept full responsibility for it.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Simply because you fail to read for full content is not a problem I need to deal with.
Click to expand...
Why, then, are you dealing with it?

Captain Adverse said:
Yet in response to members who support a choice to opt-out you remain focused on the "forced abortion" option.
Click to expand...
I was being accused of wanting to ban abortion, an option which isn't even in your poll. I highlight 'forced abortion' as a correction to that accusation. Your thread is not about banning abortion, but some thought it was. I think you should concern yourself with them more than me because clearly they read neither your OP or your poll whereas I read both.

Captain Adverse said:
This because you seem to think that merely by engaging in sex a man has automatically bound himself to caring for any possible offspring should the woman choose to have it....something I find particularly hypocritical given your self-admissions of past history regarding this result.
Click to expand...
Hypocrisy requires present action, that I need to be currently doing what I'm speaking against. I'm not doing what I'm speaking against, I've been abstinent for 8 years. Please report yourself to the mod team for infraction points and a thread bad for ad-homanim attacks as a demonstration of integrity.

Captain Adverse said:
Over and over people like yourself emphasize it takes two to conceive, and then irrationally argue that only one gets to decide the ultimate outcome of life-long responsibility for both. You keep ignoring the fact that one has an opt-out regardless of how the other might feel, and your only counter is "life ain't fair." Equitability would argue that BOTH should have at least the "opt-out" option in some form or another.
Click to expand...
Please quote where I said "life ain't fair". I believe you're thinking of someone else.

Captain Adverse said:
The male and female members on the side of allowing a male to "opt-out" of further responsibility seek to empower the woman by not only supporting her right to absolute choice but right to make an informed decision to accept full responsibility for it.
Click to expand...
No they're supporting child abuse by condoning child abandonment, a crime.
 
sangha said:
Men have just as much right to have an abortion as a woman does
Click to expand...
You're correct, but this thread is about "have his baby aborted" not "have an abortion". Two different things.
 
This is just a terrible idea. It will create more broken homes, fatherless unwanted children and more people collecting public assistance or MORE abortions. What an AWFUL idea. :roll:
 
Jerry said:
Why, then, are you dealing with it?

I was being accused of wanting to ban abortion, an option which isn't even in your poll. I highlight 'forced abortion' as a correction to that accusation. Your thread is not about banning abortion, but some thought it was. I think you should concern yourself with them more than me because clearly they read neither your OP or your poll whereas I read both.

Hypocrisy requires present action, that I need to be currently doing what I'm speaking against. I'm not doing what I'm speaking against, I've been abstinent for 8 years. Please report yourself to the mod team for infraction points and a thread bad for ad-homanim attacks as a demonstration of integrity.
Click to expand...

I WROTE the OP!

First, addressing your last point, I don't have to quote "life aint fair;" your repeated positions about compelling a man to accept full responsibility for whatever the woman decides simply because he slept with her are clear enough.

Second, there is a voting option to "ban abortion" although I only added it to prevent Pro-Life advocates from stating they didn't get an option to show their position. I ignore them and don't worry about their votes because this is really all about a factual reality; women have the legal right to choose, to abort or not to abort, so where does that leave the male half of the "conception pair?"

Third, I'm dealing with it as a hypothetical because it has always been at the back of my mind regarding my Pro-Choice stance, and the incident I mention in the OP brought it up as an idea for discussion in our forum.

Finally, there have been no "ad hominem attacks." If you are referring to the "hypocrisy" comment please recall that you opened up the issue by stating your prior history in the thread. It is not "ad hominem" to point this out.
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
Women *choose* to have a uterus? :screwy
Click to expand...

It was late. It was supposed to be "does not choose" :lol:
If a had a choice I don't know that I would have chosen that one
 
OscarB63 said:
at least he was a stand-up guy and did the right thing by the child.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but still, that is one awful human being the kid has as a mother. That is the kind of stuff that makes me hate people. Then again, this whole topic revolves around some pretty awful people. You got the I don't want to deal with this **** women that abort the kid and on the other side you got the I don't want to deal with this **** douchebag fathers. Some real winners for sure.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I WROTE the OP!
Click to expand...
Are you just realizing this?

Captain Adverse said:
First, adressing your last point, I don't have to quote "life aint fair," your repeated positions about compelling a man to accept full responsibility for whatever the woman decides simply because he slept with her are clear enough.
Click to expand...
That's not a "life ain't fair" position, that's a "you made your bed" position.

Captain Adverse said:
Second, there is a voting option to "ban abortion" although I only added it to prevent Pro-Life advocates from stating they didn't get an option to show their position. I ignore them and don't worry about their votes because this is really all about a factual reality; women have the legal right to choose, to abort or not to abort, so where does that leave the male half of the "conception pair?"
Click to expand...
There is no "ban abortion" option. There's an "oppose abortion" option which does not mean you want it banned, only that you object ideally.

Captain Adverse said:
I'm dealing with it as a hypothetical....
Click to expand...
But you are dealing with it ;)

Captain Adverse said:
Finally, there have been no "ad hominem attacks." If you are referring to the "hypocrisy" comment please recall that you opened up the issue by stating your prior history in the thread. It is not "ad hominem" to point this out.
Click to expand...
Calling me a hypocrite is a personal attack, yes.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
You're correct, but this thread is about "have his baby aborted" not "have an abortion". Two different things.
Click to expand...

Woman do not have the right to have their baby aborted if it's in someone else's body

Neither do men
 
Jerry said:
That's not a "life ain't fair" position, that's a "you made your bed" position.
Click to expand...

A distinction without a difference.

Jerry said:
Calling me a hypocrite is a personal attack, yes.
Click to expand...

I've made myself perfectly clear and it requires no further explanation. I've also intentionally ignored those parts of your response geared toward luring me into a personal attack. Nor do I intend to argue semantics with you. However, if you feel personally insulted by any opinion I've expressed I offer my apologies.

I would like to point out that when the source of a thesis explains what his purpose was and why he chose the methodology he used to do so, one might try to accept it and move on. That, of course, remains entirely up to you.
 
sangha said:
Woman do not have the right to have their baby aborted if it's in someone else's body

Neither do men
Click to expand...
The very first word of the thread title is "should", which in this context is an auxiliary function to express what is probable, not what is.

What you're doing here is stating what is. That men do not currently have the right to have their child aborted from someone else's body is the very premise of the question OP asks. It isn't clear why you're restating the premise of this thread as though it's a point.

I swear to God people on this forum don't know how to read.
 
Jerry said:
The very first word of the thread title is "should", which in this context is an auxiliary function to express what is probable, not what is.

What you're doing here is stating what is. That men do not currently have the right to have their child aborted from someone else's body is the very premise of the question OP asks. It isn't clear why you're restating the premise of this thread as though it's a point.

I swear to God people on this forum don't know how to read.
Click to expand...

SO change "do" to "should"
 
Captain Adverse said:
A distinction without a difference.
Click to expand...
The difference is that one is fair and one is not because one was chosen and one was not. If you were born with a handicap that's a "life ain't fair" situation because you had no choice in the matter. With pregnancy you consented to the risk when you consented to sex, you had a choice, some degree of control, and having made your choice it manifests a consequence you knew about before hand; "you made your bed".

Captain Adverse said:
I've made myself perfectly clear and it requires no further explanation. I've also intentionally ignored those parts of your response geared toward luring me into a personal attack. Nor do I intend to argue semantics with you. However, if you feel personally insulted by any opinion I've expressed I offer my apologies.

I would like to point out that when the source of a thesis explains what his purpose was and why he chose the methodology he used to do so, one might try to accept it and move on. That, of course, remains entirely up to you.
Click to expand...
In the abortion forum, we move only in circles.
 
sangha said:
SO change "do" to "should"
Click to expand...
Just as I don't have the ability to abort your child, neither do I have the ability to edit your posts. Maybe I should have that ability?
 
sangha said:
nope.
Click to expand...
If I shouldn't have that ability, then maybe you shouldn't be asking me to edit your posts, because asking me to do it means you want me to be able to do it.
 
Jerry said:
The difference is that one is fair and one is not because one was chosen and one was not. If you were born with a handicap that's a "life ain't fair" situation because you had no choice in the matter. With pregnancy you consented to the risk when you consented to sex, you had a choice, some degree of control, and having made your choice it manifests a consequence you knew about before hand; "you made your bed."
Click to expand...

Incorrect. It is NOT "fair" because while sexual activity may lead to pregnancy it does not automatcially do so. As I've pointed out several times in this thread; even when a couple follows all procedures in sincerely trying to conceive there is only a 20% chance of success in any month. That's not cumulative, that is the standard chance in any one month. Furthermore, most sexual activity is motiviated purely by a desire to experience pleasure; not procreation. In such situations both parties have merely agreed to engage in sex.

So unless both partners have agreed to actively pursue having a baby, merely engaging in sex for pleasure does NOT incur "automatic consent to conceive" on the part of either party. Thus such conception is clearly an accident unless either party intended to entrap the other in order to have a baby for their own reasons. That is not rare for females, as Lizzie attempted to point out in some of her replies. In such a situation even oral sex can be problematic since a mere transfer of the goods can result in a male facing a completely unexpected conception. Then there are also men who desire children where the women do not...examples exist of men intentionally damaging condoms to increase the chances of pregnancy in unsuspecting women.

In any case arguing that the mere fact of sex incurs permission to conceive is disingenuous. The woman is always in control, can always require preventive methods as well as use them herself, and can always act immediately thereafter to insure no pregancy occurs. (I.e. morning after pill, medicinal abortion, surgical abortion.)

If she has the absolute right to opt-out of keeping a baby, then the male should also have the right. Since most agree that he cannot force her to abort since it is her body and he was just a short-term "visitor," then the law should allow him to act as if HE legally aborted by opting out of all personal and financial responsibility. That is a rationally equitable solution, rightly dismissing "guilting" or "public policy" claims.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
The difference is that one is fair and one is not because one was chosen and one was not. If you were born with a handicap that's a "life ain't fair" situation because you had no choice in the matter. With pregnancy you consented to the risk when you consented to sex, you had a choice, some degree of control, and having made your choice it manifests a consequence you knew about before hand; "you made your bed".


In the abortion forum, we move only in circles.
Click to expand...

Jerry...when only Adam and Eve existed....maybe, just maybe consent to risk when there was a consent to sex...was the rule...not the exception.

That was then....this is now. "THE RULE" has become "THE EXCEPTION".

You've got it backward. For eons now sex was, is, and probably always will be performed many, many, many, many more times for pleasure than for reproduction.

Today...when people have sex...it is automatically regarded that each sexual event IS FOR PLEASURE ONLY...NOT for reproduction UNLESS DECLARED to be for reproduction.

The "intended consequence" for having sex is "orgasms"...well, some women might add "expressing love"....UNLESS DECLARED to reproduce.

So now the NORM would also be: The "unintended" consequence of sex is conception unless declared otherwise!

And...nooooo, it's not a "You made your bed so now lay in it" world anymore. We're way, way past that concept.

That's as nonsensical as "keep peckers in pants" or "Keep legs closed". That's not going to happen.

There is 7 billion folks here now. How many folks existed before that? Humanity isn't at risk of extinction or even negative growth population problems.

All is good with populations.
 
Removable Mind said:
The current dilemma is related to "legal recourse" for men when an unintended conception occurs. In other word there is the contention that there should be a way to give men "equal" rights with a woman...which would allow the man to also determine the fate of an unintended conception.
Click to expand...

Equal rights would be a man having the legal right to choose whether or not to accept paternity of a child. Then, in order for a child to have two parents, two parents must choose to become parents. This gives neither partner legal authority over the other's decisions or their body. The courts have ruled that once the ejaculate leaves the body, the man has no more legal authority over it, and this I agree with. He does not have any right to tell the woman whether or not have a child once he's given her his genetic material-- but neither does she have the right to tell him whether or not to accept a child.

ChrisL said:
This is just a terrible idea. It will create more broken homes, fatherless unwanted children and more people collecting public assistance or MORE abortions. What an AWFUL idea. :roll:
Click to expand...

The current child support regime has created a moral hazard that produces broken homes and fatherless children. A paycheck and two weekends a month is not a parent.
 
Last edited:
Korimyr the Rat said:
It's simple. A woman is not a mother just because she has given birth; she is a mother because she has given birth and kept the child. It should work the same for a man.


Let me offer the following situations that make this legal paradox so complex.





So now, we're quickly coming back to a huge part of this argument which involves...



Now we're to the point where we are going to engage in a circular argument.


There are "biological reasons" that there will NEVER BE EQUITABLE LEGAL SOLUTIONS...."YET" Smoke and Mirrors has pointed this out several times.

But I do want to say that I believe that in the near future that there will be a technological remedies to these legal problems.

There will always be things in life that will never be fair.

_________________________________________________________________________________


The current dilemma is related to "legal recourse" for men when an unintended conception occurs. In other word there is the contention that there should be a way to give men "equal" rights with a woman...which would allow the man to also determine the fate of an unintended conception.

1) a man can't prevent the woman from having an abortion...even it he wants the conception brought to full term and be willing to take full financial responsibility ...and custody without child support.

2) a man can't prevent the woman from having a child...even if before having sex they agreed that the sexual event was strictly for pleasure and not conception... again he can be forced by court order to be at least jointly financially responsible from prenatal care all the way to 18 years of age child.

__________________________________________________________________________________


My opinion regarding “surprise conceptions” is:

A) If a woman who has a "surprise conception"...and knows that she will abort. Her best option is not to disclose the conception. That automatically removes any adversities between her and the person she co-conceived with. There will be no legal arguments. And there will be no moral arguments.

B) If a woman has a "surprise conception" and decides she will carry it to full-term and she decides she will holds the co-conceiver equally responsible for all that follows...then the co-conceiver has no legal ground to opt out, therefore the co-conceiver must prepare to pay the piper.

C) If the woman discloses the "surprise conception" and is determined to have an abortion...then MUST BE AWARE AND BE WILLING to opening herself up to potential legal issues, moral issues, and other adversities that can be raised by the man she co-conceived with.

By circumstance of birth...women are already burden with a very unfair role in reproduction. Consequently, I'll ALWAYS support the following for women: If a woman conceives (regardless of circumstance around the cause of the conception)...and she chooses to abort for any reason whatsoever...prior to viability stage...regardless of the co-conceivers opinions or objections.



The current child support regime has created a moral hazard that produces broken homes and fatherless children. A paycheck and two weekends a month is not a parent.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Child support is for the children. If there isn't child support, then the obligation will fall on the rest of us. Face it, women don't stay with men because of the children anymore. That is an idea from the past which has died. It still doesn't absolve the father of the child of his responsibility for helping to create the child.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
It's simple. A woman is not a mother just because she has given birth; she is a mother because she has given birth and kept the child. It should work the same for a man.
Click to expand...

You're just saying the same as before, but saying it different...not a solution.
 
Removable Mind said:
Jerry...when only Adam and Eve existed....maybe, just maybe consent to risk when there was a consent to sex...was the rule...not the exception.

That was then....this is now. "THE RULE" has become "THE EXCEPTION".

You've got it backward. For eons now sex was, is, and probably always will be performed many, many, many, many more times for pleasure than for reproduction.

Today...when people have sex...it is automatically regarded that each sexual event IS FOR PLEASURE ONLY...NOT for reproduction UNLESS DECLARED to be for reproduction.

The "intended consequence" for having sex is "orgasms"...well, some women might add "expressing love"....UNLESS DECLARED to reproduce.

So now the NORM would also be: The "unintended" consequence of sex is conception unless declared otherwise!

And...nooooo, it's not a "You made your bed so now lay in it" world anymore. We're way, way past that concept.

That's as nonsensical as "keep peckers in pants" or "Keep legs closed". That's not going to happen.

There is 7 billion folks here now. How many folks existed before that? Humanity isn't at risk of extinction or even negative growth population problems.

All is good with populations.
Click to expand...
How many people are in the world does not change the nature of the decision when an individual makes it. There could be 2 or 2 billion and pregnancy is still a known result of sex. It's a risk you accept when you have sex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom