• 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
Korimyr the Rat said:
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.
Click to expand...
By what authority should men be able to "opt out" of supporting their own children?
 
I can't even believe how retarded this is?! It's HER fault she got pregnant. :lamo I think I must be in the Twilight Zone or something. This is SOO stupid and juvenile.
 
ChrisL said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, he does need to take responsibility for his own actions, but that's not what the thread was about.
 
I suppose the man must be the victim of the vindictive whore who intentionally got pregnant just so she could have an abortion (or not) and trap the innocent unsuspecting man. :rofl Hilariously ridiculous and unrealistic and in denial of the facts of life.

WE, as a society, concern ourselves with what is BEST for the resultant CHILD. NOT what is best for the man.
 
lizzie said:
Yes, he does need to take responsibility for his own actions, but that's not what the thread was about.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. It's about allowing a man to abandon his responsibilities. Now I'm done talking about this because I'm getting annoyed now.
 
ChrisL said:
I can't even believe how retarded this is?! It's HER fault she got pregnant. :lamo I think I must be in the Twilight Zone or something. This is SOO stupid and juvenile.
Click to expand...

No, it's not at all "retarded". For a woman to get pregnant, she MUST participate, willingly or not. It is HER body that gets pregnant. She can get pregnant via in vitro. Whose fault is that? The doctor's? Come on Chris, you're smarter than this.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would disagree that it is the solution, but it is at least equitable.
 
lizzie said:
No, it's not at all "retarded". For a woman to get pregnant, she MUST participate, willingly or not. It is HER body that gets pregnant. She can get pregnant via in vitro. Whose fault is that? The doctor's? Come on Chris, you're smarter than this.
Click to expand...

The MAN participates too, knowing full well of the consequences. He is NOT any more innocent than she is.

If he is too immature to deal with those consequences, whatever they might be, then he has no business sticking his dick anywhere besides in his trousers.
 
lizzie said:
Yes, he does need to take responsibility for his own actions, but that's not what the thread was about.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what this thread is about. It's about men who want to be allowed to get a woman pregnant and then get to walk away scot free.
 
ChrisL said:
Yes it is. It's about allowing a man to abandon his responsibilities. Now I'm done talking about this because I'm getting annoyed now.
Click to expand...

Yes. The point is simply that we already allow women the ability to opt out of the charge of providing parenting - and so men deserve the same chance. :) Equal treatment regardless of gender.
 
ChrisL said:
I suppose the man must be the victim of the vindictive whore who intentionally got pregnant just so she could have an abortion (or not) and trap the innocent unsuspecting man. :rofl Hilariously ridiculous and unrealistic and in denial of the facts of life.
Click to expand...

I can see it now:

Well, I'm glad you paid the standard $500, but you're gonna need to cough up another $500 or I'm not taking this morning after pill... big daddy.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
That's exactly what this thread is about. It's about men who want to be allowed to get a woman pregnant and then get to walk away scot free.
Click to expand...

Just as women get the chance to walk away. Women should not have the right to trap men into parenting if they do not wish to, but demand that same privilege for themselves.
 
cpwill said:
Yes. The point is simply that we already allow women the ability to opt out of the charge of providing parenting - and so men deserve the same chance. :) Equal treatment regardless of gender.
Click to expand...

No, because when the woman "opts out" as you so eloquently put it, she doesn't leave the man to raise the child without her input. Do you see the difference here? It isn't about the woman or the man. It's about the CHILD.
 
ChrisL said:
The MAN participates too, knowing full well of the consequences. He is NOT any more innocent than she is.

If he is too immature to deal with those consequences, whatever they might be, then he has no business sticking his dick anywhere besides in his trousers.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Is that your argument about when a woman chooses to take off her clothes with regards to abortion? If she's not willing to deal with the consequences, whatever they might be, then she has no business putting anything that isn't mechanical inside her?
 
ChrisL said:
The MAN participates too, knowing full well of the consequences. He is NOT any more innocent than she is.

If he is too immature to deal with those consequences, whatever they might be, then he has no business sticking his dick anywhere besides in his trousers.
Click to expand...

I agree what that. I am not saying he is innocent. The op question was about whether or not a man should have the right to choose. Women are the only ones who have that right. Their decision is the sole seat of the power in this circumstance. If she wants to have the baby, she can choose to do so, with our without his consent. If she chooses to abort, she can do so, with or without his consent. The question is, in a circumstance where she insists on having the baby, against his wishes, does he, or should he, have any rights? According to your logic, and that of a few other posters, the man has zero rights, although he shares half the responsibility, which is solely dependent upon the whims of the woman.
 
ChrisL said:
No, because when the woman "opts out" as you so eloquently put it, she doesn't leave the man to raise the child without her input. Do you see the difference here? It isn't about the woman or the man. It's about the CHILD.
Click to expand...


Wrong. If it was about the child we wouldn't have legalized abortion in the first place. If it was about the child we wouldn't allow no-fault divorce. Women demand that men subordinate their interests to the interests of having and supporting a child, but are unwilling to legally tie themselves with the same restrictions. What you are proposing is the equivalent of criminalizing abortion but then legalizing male abandonment of the mother.
 
cpwill said:
Yes. The point is simply that we already allow women the ability to opt out of the charge of providing parenting - and so men deserve the same chance. :) Equal treatment regardless of gender.
Click to expand...
A difference is that an abortion doesn't leave a child stuck without financial support of its parents. That is what some here are proposing; which will never fly in the courts since the court views the needs of the child to be paramount above the desires of the father.
 
lizzie said:
I agree what that. I am not saying he is innocent. The op question was about whether or not a man should have the right to choose. Women are the only ones who have that right. Their decision is the sole seat of the power in this circumstance. If she wants to have the baby, she can choose to do so, with our without his consent. If she chooses to abort, she can do so, with or without his consent. The question is, in a circumstance where she insists on having the baby, against his wishes, does he, or should he, have any rights? According to your logic, and that of a few other posters, the man has zero rights, although he shares half the responsibility, which is solely dependent upon the whims of the woman.
Click to expand...

That is not anyone's fault and is out of our control. That is biology that decided the woman carries the child in her body, and not the man. She is the one who can even die during childbirth (although rare today in our country). That is why the decision rests with the female. Fair? No, but a lot of things in life are not fair. This is why the man has to be extra careful where he puts his penis. The woman he puts his penis in might not be a very nice person.
 
cpwill said:
Wrong. If it was about the child we wouldn't have legalized abortion in the first place. If it was about the child we wouldn't allow no-fault divorce. Women demand that men subordinate their interests to the interests of having and supporting a child, but are unwilling to legally tie themselves with the same restrictions. What you are proposing is the equivalent of criminalizing abortion but then legalizing male abandonment of the mother.
Click to expand...

I'm not proposing anything cpwill. That's just the way it is.
 
cpwill said:
Just as women get the chance to walk away. Women should not have the right to trap men into parenting if they do not wish to, but demand that same privilege for themselves.
Click to expand...

Abortion is a right protected by the Constitution.

Abandoning your child is not.
 
There, now this is my LAST post to this thread for tonight. It's annoying and I'm just going to ignore you all now. No offense. :mrgreen:
 
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...

Taking your last statement first; perhaps SHE should get to know the man better before SHE allows him to have sex with her?

Lizzie is right, and your own comments support this...a woman lives in her own body and (unless raped) is absolutely sovereign over it. That means SHE has the primary duty of care for it.

A man does not consider his sperm as having any special significance. You'd be surprised how much we intentionally waste in any given month even without women involved. ;)

No one is arguing "fault." We are arguing responsibility. When a woman gets pregnant, if she TRULY believes both share responsibility then she would automatically take that into account before unilaterally deciding to have a child. If she does not wish the responsibility of having a child, no one (pro-choice) argues with her right of opting to abort. So, if HE does not wish the responsibility of raising a child why does she still get to decide for both?

You keep arguing that his unwillingness to "accept responsibility" without any free choice in the matter somehow makes the man unworthy; as if he really has ANY say in your unilateral decision. Clearly he does not. Equally clearly you would prefer to force lifelong obligations to a child and lifelong connections to you onto him wholly against his will. Just how does that typically work out in the real world for all concerned? Not very well from all reports.

If you are pro-life then the greater responsibility is still on the woman. She has moral objections to abortion, so she has the absolute responsibility to ensure all steps are taken to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. She cannot blame the man because nothing can happen without her willing agreement; NOTHING. So I repeat, she should make sure it's a man SHE can trust before taking that step. Hmmm?
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
Wrong. If it was about the child we wouldn't have legalized abortion in the first place. If it was about the child we wouldn't allow no-fault divorce. Women demand that men subordinate their interests to the interests of having and supporting a child, but are unwilling to legally tie themselves with the same restrictions. What you are proposing is the equivalent of criminalizing abortion but then legalizing male abandonment of the mother.
Click to expand...
Of course we would have legalized abortion since children aren't being aborted. That would be murder.
 
Henrin said:
By what authority? What kind of question is that? :lamo
Click to expand...
Apparently one which you cannot answer.

The courts don't allow a man to just abandon his child. If he tries, he is considered a "deadbeat dad" and faces back child support, fines, and even jail.

So by what authority are men going to be allowed to "opt out" of supporting their own children?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom