• 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
The thought of forcing a women to get an abortion disgusts me.

I think abortion should be restricted, and I don't think a man should be able to run away from his responsibilities. But I do agree its kind of hypocritical to have free abortions for females, but males are obligated to support the child.
 
Camlon said:
The thought of forcing a women to get an abortion disgusts me.

I think abortion should be restricted, and I don't think a man should be able to run away from his responsibilities. But I do agree its kind of hypocritical to have free abortions for females, but males are obligated to support the child.
Click to expand...

Not a fan of the abortion myself, but I don't think they are free.
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

But so what? I mean really, so what? Voluntarily "taking a risk" is not then consenting to suffering consequences if that suffering can be medically eliminated. A snow skier breaks in leg and therefore he should not seek any medical treatment to "bear the consequences of the risks he voluntarily took?" That's not a logical conclusion.

You are driving your car and some diversion causes you to not see a red light, for which you are seriously injured. YOU know tens of thousands of people DIE in car accidents and hundreds of thousands injured. YOU TOOK THE RISK! And it was YOUR FAULT too. Are you really claiming you are going to tell the EMT's - "no I took the risk when I got in the car and it was my fault too. Just leave me here bleeding and with broken bones."

Under you logic, NO SOLDIER should ever receive medical care for battle wounds UNLESS he was involuntarily drafted.

Skydiving is "accepting a risk" of all sorts of injuries, so is eating regularly at McDonalds, virtually ANY sporting activity, certainly riding a motorcycle or even driving a car.

I don't read ANYONE claiming doctors and hospitals should refuse services to injuries and illnesses caused by a person "taking a risk," nor anyone declaring if a person is injured from taking a risk the person is evil if they go to a doctor to have the injury or illness medically eliminated.
 
Camlon said:
I didn't mean free in that way. I meant free of requirements.
Click to expand...

I think the biggest problem here is social. People are picking the wrong partners, or they don't the person as well as they think they do.

Perhaps people should get to know one another better before "doing the deed." I see that if two people could just discuss certain situations like adults beforehand, it would avoid a lot of complications later on because accidents DO happen even if you are being careful.

Even though my contract idea I talked about earlier wouldn't hold up in court, I still think it's a good idea for the two parties involved to get such things out in the open before having sex.

If a man doesn't want to be a father, even if it's an accidental pregnancy, then he should let the woman know that immediately. He should tell her that if the condom tears or the BC fails, he has no intentions of being responsible for any resulting child. That's the only fair way to approach this as far as I'm concerned.
 
joko104 said:
But so what? I mean really, so what? Voluntarily "taking a risk" is not then consenting to suffering consequences if that suffering can be medically eliminated.
Click to expand...
That someone would think it's suffering, is the problem. A person who thinks that way is wrong for thinking that way. It is unethical to turn your back on your child.

joko104 said:
Under you logic, NO SOLDIER should ever receive medical care for battle wounds UNLESS he was involuntarily drafted.
Click to expand...
While pregnancy is not an injury, but the point and purpose of the reproductive system, a soldier accepts personal bodily harm as an known risk before signing the enlistment contract.
 
joko104 said:
But so what? I mean really, so what? Voluntarily "taking a risk" is not then consenting to suffering consequences if that suffering can be medically eliminated. A snow skier breaks in leg and therefore he should not seek any medical treatment to "bear the consequences of the risks he voluntarily took?" That's not a logical conclusion.

You are driving your car and some diversion causes you to not see a red light, for which you are seriously injured. YOU know tens of thousands of people DIE in car accidents and hundreds of thousands injured. YOU TOOK THE RISK! And it was YOUR FAULT too. Are you really claiming you are going to tell the EMT's - "no I took the risk when I got in the car and it was my fault too. Just leave me here bleeding and with broken bones."

Under you logic, NO SOLDIER should ever receive medical care for battle wounds UNLESS he was involuntarily drafted.

Skydiving is "accepting a risk" of all sorts of injuries, so is eating regularly at McDonalds, virtually ANY sporting activity, certainly riding a motorcycle or even driving a car.

I don't read ANYONE claiming doctors and hospitals should refuse services to injuries and illnesses caused by a person "taking a risk," nor anyone declaring if a person is injured from taking a risk the person is evil if they go to a doctor to have the injury or illness medically eliminated.
Click to expand...

An unborn child is not an injury or a disease but a natural occurrence when you have sex.
 
Captain Adverse said:
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.
Click to expand...

CA...sorry, I sliced out the last paragraph of your post, but I want to address the above only. There wasn't much to disagree with the other portion of your post.

Obviously...the above are "should have" situations. And I suggest that even if there was a law created in which the man could "legally abort by opting out" there are issues that would prevail if such a law was enacted, which might render it only a partial solution.

Unless my thinking is way off...and it's entirely possible....however:

Such an opt-out law would "still" have to hinge on the woman agreeing to have an abortion or taking total financial responsibility, at some level.

Viability Period...

If the woman agreed on having an abortion...then opting out period for the man would have to be done before the viability period of a fetus. It would be necessary to remaining in compliance with Roe v. Wade.

Also I think the following would foil this law from being fully enforceable...and why a woman would have to agree to take total financial and legal responsibility.

Against a Woman's religious beliefs or personal moral beliefs...

The most obvious situation would be that a woman is against having an abortion and also at the same time not financially able to manage expenses for prenatal through 18 years of age. "In addition"...she could be against going through gestation and delivery only to give up the child for adoption.

Related to viability period...It's probably rare, but I have read where some woman don't know they're pregnant..until 2nd trimester and up.

And some women wouldn't agree to an abortion after 12 weeks.

I'm sure there are other situations, which I haven't given consideration.

Just food for thought, CA. If I'm way off base, please let your thoughts be known...or other posters.

I know men don't want to hear it, but the reality is that "biology" does play a major role in a woman's unilateral ability to decide the fate of a conception. And given that...also hold a man mutually responsible (legally and financially) if she chooses not to abort...despite the man's opposition to being an active parent and financially obligated.

In most cases...at least today...

There is no legal recourse for a man in which he can force a woman to abort.

There is no legal recourse for a man to force a woman to give birth.

An Opt-Out law...might work for some...

But...... :shrug:

Thanks. This is a really good thought provoking thread.
 
Yes, a man has a right to abort any baby he is carrying in his womb .
 
Guys, you are just as responsible for a pregnancy as the woman. If you willingly had sexual intercourse, that is a risk you take. This has been a known fact since LONG before there was ever legalized abortions. It is simple and basic biology.

Let me put this for you guys more simple, as if I was discussing this with a child. When two people have sex together, sometimes they can make a baby, that is why you should always protect yourself by using a condom plus birth control and you are doubly protected if you really don't want to make any babies. If you fail to take these simple precautions, you will more than likely end up making a baby because when your sperm enters a female's vagina, it fertilizes the egg and makes a baby grow. :mrgreen: Simple right?
 
ChrisL said:
Guys, you are just as responsible for a pregnancy as the woman. If you willingly had sexual intercourse, that is a risk you take. This has been a known fact since LONG before there was ever legalized abortions. It is simple and basic biology.

Let me put this for you guys more simple, as if I was discussing this with a child. When two people have sex together, sometimes they can make a baby, that is why you should always protect yourself by using a condom plus birth control and you are doubly protected if you really don't want to make any babies. If you fail to take these simple precautions, you will more than likely end up making a baby because when your sperm enters a female's vagina, it fertilizes the egg and makes a baby grow. :mrgreen: Simple right?
Click to expand...


Hmm, gee...so WHO is it that is going to be receiving the sperm and having the baby again? Oh, yeah...THE FEMALE. So ladies, if you know there is a risk of having a baby if you let a man have unprotected sex with you why don't you just say no? No to sex without a condom? No to sex without also personally using contraception? Or just plain NO to sex entirely until you are married?

Also, recall...even with all the protection there is still a chance of having a baby, didn't you say that yourself? Neither party wanted it and took all the right steps...soooo shouldn't the woman automatically choose abortion if that was the case?
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmm, gee...so WHO is it that is going to be receiving the sperm and having the baby again? Oh, yeah...THE FEMALE. So ladies, if you know there is a risk of having a baby if you let a man have unprotected sex with you why don't you just say no? No to sex without a condom? No to sex without also personally using contraception? Or just plain NO to sex entirely until you are married?

Also, recall...even with all the protection there is still a chance of having a baby, didn't you say that yourself? Neither party wanted it and took all the right steps...soooo shouldn't the woman automatically choose abortion if that was the case?
Click to expand...

Exactly, this works both ways and both are responsible. Thank you for acknowledging that simple fact of biology.

No the woman shouldn't automatically choose abortion. Some women don't believe in abortion.
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

A NORMAL consequence of having sex is ALSO an "UNINTENDED CONCEPTION". But it is NOT (and I hope is never) the normal consequence to be forced to have a child.

Herein lies the most fundamental act of responsibility:

If a man has a moral opposition to abortion. Then it would be in his best interest...and in the best interest of a woman he has sex with...that she also shares that same moral opposition.

Likewise...

A man who believes a woman has the intrinsic right to manage her own health, body, and reproductive role....then he can:

a) have a relationship with a woman who has a moral opposition to abortion...with the knowledge that if she conceives...he will more than likely become a parent each and every time she conceives.

OR....

b) have a relationship with a woman who will make all consideration regarding a unintended conception and act accord to her own devise and will.
 
ChrisL said:
Exactly, this works both ways and both are responsible. Thank you for acknowledging that simple fact of biology.
Click to expand...

True, it does take two to conceive. But if only ONE get's to decide whether to abort or not, the other should get to decide whether to opt-out or not too. The woman should not have the final decision for BOTH parties.

ChrisL said:
No the woman shouldn't automatically choose abortion. Some women don't believe in abortion.
Click to expand...

Sorry, then your logic fails. Good argument for a legal opt-out right for any male.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Sorry, then your logic fails. Good argument for a legal opt-out right for any male.
Click to expand...

No, your proposal would have just awful consequences. I'm sorry you are too near-sighted to see that simple fact.
 
ChrisL said:
No, your proposal would have just awful consequences. I'm sorry you are too near-sighted to see that simple fact.
Click to expand...

The one making the unilateral decision to keep a child despite the unwillingness of the other is the one CREATING the "awful consequences." I am sorry you are too near-sighted to see THAT. :shrug:
 
Captain Adverse said:
The one making the unilateral decision to keep a child despite the unwillingness of the other is the one CREATING the "awful consequences." I am sorry you are too near-sighted to see THAT. :shrug:
Click to expand...

No the awful consequences are men who feel they can walk away from the child that they create. Pathetic. I feel sorry for any woman who would find herself the victim of such a selfish rotten person.
 
ChrisL said:
No the awful consequences are men who feel they can walk away from the child that they create. Pathetic. I feel sorry for any woman who would find herself the victim of such a selfish rotten person.
Click to expand...

THe same could be said for the men who would love to have their child survive to birth, but for them, there is no power at all. The woman has the sole decision-making power, thus she is the one who holds the primary responsibility for prevention, if she does not want to be pregnant. If there were equal say, there should be equal responsibility, but since she holds the power, the responsibility is on her shoulders. If a woman finds herself sleeping with a man whom you would classify as rotten and selfish, she is the one who made that choice, unless she was raped against her will. If men are to be forced to pay, then they should have equal rights in the matter.
 
lizzie said:
THe same could be said for the men who would love to have their child survive to birth, but for them, there is no power at all. The woman has the sole decision-making power, thus she is the one who holds the primary responsibility for prevention, if she does not want to be pregnant. If there were equal say, there should be equal responsibility, but since she holds the power, the responsibility is on her shoulders. If a woman finds herself sleeping with a man whom you would classify as rotten and selfish, she is the one who made that choice, unless she was raped against her will. If men are to be forced to pay, then they should have equal rights in the matter.
Click to expand...

I know it's not fair, but life isn't fair, as I'm sure you know. The only reason why it is the way it is, is because it is the woman's body which has to take the toll of whatever decision is made, therefore she already owns this responsibility. This isn't a conspiracy to make men into slaves, just wanting them to be responsible for their own actions as well.
 
lizzie said:
THe same could be said for the men who would love to have their child survive to birth, but for them, there is no power at all. The woman has the sole decision-making power, thus she is the one who holds the primary responsibility for prevention, if she does not want to be pregnant. If there were equal say, there should be equal responsibility, but since she holds the power, the responsibility is on her shoulders. If a woman finds herself sleeping with a man whom you would classify as rotten and selfish, she is the one who made that choice, unless she was raped against her will. If men are to be forced to pay, then they should have equal rights in the matter.
Click to expand...
Gee, so all the guy has to do to not give the woman that much power over him is to package his junk before he dunks? Seems there is just as much reason for the guy to take precaution.
 
ChrisL said:
I know it's not fair, but life isn't fair, as I'm sure you know. The only reason why it is the way it is, is because it is the woman's body which has to take the toll of whatever decision is made, therefore she already owns this responsibility. This isn't a conspiracy to make men into slaves, just wanting them to be responsible for their own actions as well.
Click to expand...

Well, if the woman would be responsible for her own actions to begin with, this issue wouldn't even exist. I am amazed at how many women have no strong sense of responsibility for what happens to their own bodies. It frankly just shocks me. I knew this **** when I was 13 years old, and as soon as I decided to become sexually active (5 years later), my ass was in the PPH office to get put on the pill. There was no way in hell that I was going to take such a foolish chance.
 
lizzie said:
Well, if the woman would be responsible for her own actions to begin with, this issue wouldn't even exist. I am amazed at how many women have no strong sense of responsibility for what happens to their own bodies. It frankly just shocks me. I knew this **** when I was 13 years old, and as soon as I decided to become sexually active (5 years later), my ass was in the PPH office to get put on the pill. There was no way in hell that I was going to take such a foolish chance.
Click to expand...

The same for the man. They should protect their sperm as well. This is not a her fault/his fault issue. This is TWO people who, knowing full well the risks, both decided to take the risk, and now both are responsible.

That's nice that you got on the pill. Not all children are so self aware, neither are a lot of adults apparently.

I've agreed many times in the thread that the fact that a woman can decide to abort the child is certainly not always fair to the man involved, but perhaps he should get to know the woman he sleeps with first? Make sure that's the woman he can trust?
 
Removable Mind said:
You're just saying the same as before, but saying it different...not a solution.
Click to expand...

I don't know how else to say it: the problem is that women become mothers when they decide to raise children, and men become fathers... when women decide for them. The law doesn't need to be changed to give men the "right" to force women to abort, it needs to be changed to give them the right to refuse paternity. That is the solution, and it's the only equitable solution.
 
ChrisL said:
The same for the man. They should protect their sperm as well. This is not a her fault/his fault issue. This is TWO people who, knowing full well the risks, both decided to take the risk, and now both are responsible.

That's nice that you got on the pill. Not all children are so self aware, neither are a lot of adults apparently.

I've agreed many times in the thread that the fact that a woman can decide to abort the child is certainly not always fair to the man involved, but perhaps he should get to know the woman he sleeps with first? Make sure that's the woman he can trust?
Click to expand...

Ummm, sperm don't require protection, and she is not protecting her ova. She is protecting herself from carrying a baby for nine months, giving birth, and taking care of another human being for 18-20 years.
 
lizzie said:
Ummm, sperm don't require protection, and she is not protecting her ova. She is protecting herself from carrying a baby for nine months, giving birth, and taking care of another human being for 18-20 years.
Click to expand...

And lizzie, he needs to be responsible for himself too. This is a two-person issue. One is not more at fault than the other. BOTH decided to have sex.

And yes, if he doesn't want to impregnate somebody, he should take better care of where he puts his sperm, the same as the woman. Both are equally responsible since it takes both to make a baby.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom