• 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
No it is NOT, although YOU might like to make it about that. It is about equality of choice.

The focus is on the fact that currently the law allows abortion with a woman having an absolute right to choose prior to the 22-24th week, i.e. during the first tri-mester. Unless both parties were actively seeking to conceive they were likely engaged in "recreational sex" which does not automatically result in a pregnancy. In fact even if you are actively trying and following all best methods there is only a one in five chance it will work. That makes it an even less likely, albeit still possible, result of even unprotected sex. Thus, both parties who engage in unprotected sex may recognize a possibility of conception but don't necessarily agree to it.

Current law allows a woman the asolute right to abort, regardless of what the male wants. It also allows an absolute right to have the baby, regardless of what the man wants. Well, if he has no choice in keeping it, why must he have the responsibility if she chooses to keep it? If the sole choice is hers, then the sole responsibility is hers. The male should have the right to volunteer to marriage and family, or to opt-out.

Sorry, that's not possible. If a woman chooses NOT TO ABORT. You, like Vik...you're leaving out the object of which the argument is built around. THE KID. Once a conception occurs, a woman cannot be forced to abort. That means in all likelihood there will be a child born.

No civilized society is going to let a man or woman put their own selfish interest over that of a child that cannot provide for itself, or have a legal voice to defend itself. That's where our judicial system comes in if the man and woman conceive...and a woman is determined to bring to full term the conception.

The judicial system won't care about the man...or the woman when push comes to shove.

The KID is the entity being support. That is why...men can cry and bitch and moan all they want if a woman CHOOSES NOT TO ABORT.

No legislator could justify enacting an Opt Out law. And no legislator could effectively create an enforceable language to create an Opt-Out Law, which a man could automatically declare...foregoing all circumstances, which might possibly alter the ability to declare such an option.

In other words...if a woman chooses not to abort...and cant be forced to...a child is born....I assure you, the kid will become the first consideration.

Sorry...to all of the disappointed guys who will have to live with this hardcore reality. And as Smoke and Mirrors has said a number of times. This disparity is all linked to "biology". The story around the biology...will reveal...exactly why men will never be able to legally override a woman's unilateral choice regarding the fate of a conception.
 
By what authority should men be able to "opt out" of supporting their own children?

You're asking the wrong question. By what authority are they forced to accept the responsibilities of parenthood? By what justification? I am not talking about allowing fathers to abandon their children-- I am talking about the fact that forcing men to accept every child offered to them, making them fathers without their consent, is a violation of their basic human rights and the natural order in the first place.

Fathers should not have the right to abandon their children-- but until they have taken that child into their arms and declared it theirs, given that child their name and their home, they are not fathers and forcing them to become fathers is not only impossible, but attempting to do so is grossly irresponsible and morally unconscionable.

Under what circumstance would a man have the right to refuse paternity....If a woman decides NOT to abort...and she can't be forced to...

Under any circumstances, except that he has previously accepted paternity and claimed the child as his own. Until he has chosen to become a father, his is not a father, and if he is not a father, it is not acceptable to force him to become one.

How would the legislators (Federal/State) justify creating a Opt-Out law? How would the language be created to make it enforceable?

An Opt Out Law, at the very most, be enforceable "during the non-viability stage" of pregnancy. So when a man decides that he wants to opts out...what is going to be the next legal step? How can it be an "automatic" option for a man to opt out... barring all other circumstances that might alter the option?

It shouldn't be an "opt out" law at all, in the first place. It should be an "opt in" law. The fundamental problem is that we have attempted to turn a social issue into a biological one; DNA does not make parents.

And while you call this "the only equitable solution"...you're leaving out the most affected element in this argument. THE KID! That's who is being supported! The kid didn't do anything to deserve NOT BEING CARED FOR properly! A kid is dependent. A kid can't defend itself. A kid can't fend for itself.

Lot of kids don't have fathers who can support them. Doesn't give them the right to just force someone to be their daddy. I'm sorry that it's rough for the kid, but kids are born into rough circumstances all the time, and that's simply part of the responsibilities that people have to assume when they're deciding whether or not to have children. A woman has to think about whether or not she can support a kid on her own, and whether or not she has a man who will stand by her side and raise children with her-- same as a man has to decide whether or not he can support a child, and whether or not he wants to raise children with the woman offering them to him.

You can justify all manner of injustice by saying "it's for the children!" This is no different. It's an injustice, and like all injustice, it doesn't actually help the children in the long run.

And nobody who is truly pro-choice should support the coercion you're advocating.

Part of having choices in this world is being responsible for the consequences. It isn't "coercion" to refuse to bear responsibility for choices you didn't have a say in.
 
That's kind of like what I just said.

That's not what you said at first.

You said,
"Tell that to the people that think he isn't a father if he walks."

Then you gave the definition for "parent," not "father." :lamo

A [male] parent IS a father; a father MAY be a parent.

That's the distinction you don't understand.
 
Part of having choices in this world is being responsible for the consequences. It isn't "coercion" to refuse to bear responsibility for choices you didn't have a say in.

Didn't have any "say" in? Are we presuming all these men were raped? Sounds like you're saying that everyone is responsible for the consequences of their actions except men who father children. Interesting.
 
You're asking the wrong question. By what authority are they forced to accept the responsibilities of parenthood? By what justification? I am not talking about allowing fathers to abandon their children-- I am talking about the fact that forcing men to accept every child offered to them, making them fathers without their consent, is a violation of their basic human rights and the natural order in the first place.

Fathers should not have the right to abandon their children-- but until they have taken that child into their arms and declared it theirs, given that child their name and their home, they are not fathers and forcing them to become fathers is not only impossible, but attempting to do so is grossly irresponsible and morally unconscionable.



Under any circumstances, except that he has previously accepted paternity and claimed the child as his own. Until he has chosen to become a father, his is not a father, and if he is not a father, it is not acceptable to force him to become one.



It shouldn't be an "opt out" law at all, in the first place. It should be an "opt in" law. The fundamental problem is that we have attempted to turn a social issue into a biological one; DNA does not make parents.



Lot of kids don't have fathers who can support them. Doesn't give them the right to just force someone to be their daddy. I'm sorry that it's rough for the kid, but kids are born into rough circumstances all the time, and that's simply part of the responsibilities that people have to assume when they're deciding whether or not to have children. A woman has to think about whether or not she can support a kid on her own, and whether or not she has a man who will stand by her side and raise children with her-- same as a man has to decide whether or not he can support a child, and whether or not he wants to raise children with the woman offering them to him.

You can justify all manner of injustice by saying "it's for the children!" This is no different. It's an injustice, and like all injustice, it doesn't actually help the children in the long run.



Part of having choices in this world is being responsible for the consequences. It isn't "coercion" to refuse to bear responsibility for choices you didn't have a say in.



That's a pretty argument...but won't fly. Once a woman says she has conceived...and is determined to bring it to full-term. A kid is the object of which this argument revolves around. No civilized society will put its needs behind that of a man or woman and it really doesn't matter if they want to call themselves "parent or not". Kids can't provide for themselves nor do they have a legal voice to defend themselves.

There is a greater obligation to a kid...period. Mommies and daddies ain't **** in this argument...once a woman decides a conception will be brought to full-term. Period.

It is impossible to create an "equal state" in the matter....
 
Sorry, that's not possible. If a woman chooses NOT TO ABORT. You, like Vik...you're leaving out the object of which the argument is built around. THE KID. Once a conception occurs, a woman cannot be forced to abort. That means in all likelihood there will be a child born.

No civilized society is going to let a man or woman put their own selfish interest over that of a child that cannot provide for itself, or have a legal voice to defend itself. That's where our judicial system comes in if the man and woman conceive...and a woman is determined to bring to full term the conception.

The judicial system won't care about the man...or the woman when push comes to shove.

The KID is the entity being support. That is why...men can cry and bitch and moan all they want if a woman CHOOSES NOT TO ABORT.

No legislator could justify enacting an Opt Out law. And no legislator could effectively create an enforceable language to create an Opt-Out Law, which a man could automatically declare...foregoing all circumstances, which might possibly alter the ability to declare such an option.

In other words...if a woman chooses not to abort...and cant be forced to...a child is born....I assure you, the kid will become the first consideration.

Sorry...to all of the disappointed guys who will have to live with this hardcore reality. And as Smoke and Mirrors has said a number of times. This disparity is all linked to "biology". The story around the biology...will reveal...exactly why men will never be able to legally override a woman's unilateral choice regarding the fate of a conception.

Society has already let the woman put her "selfish choice" into play by allowing her the absolute right to choose.

It is NOT about the child, because as CPwill points out, if that were what it was all about there would be NO abortion right at all. It would only occur when the woman's life was in danger, if at all.

If it were about the child then the woman contemplating having one would be required to make a more informed decision, not an emotional or calculated one. If she knew there were no "safety nets" because the male does not want a child and could legally opt-out, then she still askes herself can she do it all alone?

Having some experience in CPS you know very well the horrors of dysfunctional families. Men who feel trapped by a "do the right thing" marriage. Women who are angered by men who refused to marry and fight about child support. Children who grow up abused, emotionally disturbed, resentful of being resented.

This issue is NOT about the children. It is about choice. A woman should not make an irrational choice to have an unwanted child. However, if you are concerned about the child then ask yourself this: If it is not a mutual voluntary choice to have the baby then who will suffer most? The child!

Society has changed to allow abortion. Society can adjust to a male's right to opt-out. ;)
 
Last edited:
So everyone is responsible for the consequences of their actions except men who father children. Interesting.

Men should be held responsible for their decision whether or not to become parents, just like women are. You're not talking about "responsibility", you're talking about coercion.
 
Society has already let the woman put her "selfish choice" into play by allowing her the absolute right to choose.

It is NOT about the child, because as CPwill points out, if that were what it was all about there would be NO abortion right at all. It would only occur when the woman's life was in danger, if at all. If it were about the child then the woman contemplating having one would make a more informed decision, not an emotional or calculated one. If she knew there were no "safety nets" because the male does not want a child and could legally opt-out, then she still askes herself can she do it all alone?

Having some experience in CPS you know very well the horrors of dysfunctional families. Men who feel trapped by a "do the right thing" marriage. Women who are angered by men who refused to marry and fight about child support. Children who grow up abused, emotionally disturbed, resentful of being resented.

This issue is NOT about the children. It is about choice. A woman should not make an irrational choice to have an unwanted child. However, if you are concerned about the child then ask yourself this: If it is not a mutual volutary choice to have the baby then who will suffer most? The child!

Society has changed to allow abortion. Society can adjust to a males right to opt-out. ;)

Of course it's about the children. There is a child who is being denied financial support; whereas with abortion, there is no child.
 
Didn't have any "say" in? Are we presuming all these men were raped? Sounds like you're saying that everyone is responsible for the consequences of their actions except men who father children. Interesting.

You're making the same argument that pro-lifers make against women, that a man made the choice to become a father when he had sex. It's stupid when it's applied to women, and it's just as stupid when it's applied to men. The decision to have sex, the decision to give birth, and the decision to raise children are all separate decisions.
 
You're making the same argument that pro-lifers make against women, that a man made the choice to become a father when he had sex. It's stupid when it's applied to women, and it's just as stupid when it's applied to men. The decision to have sex, the decision to give birth, and the decision to raise children are all separate decisions.
They're separate decisions but it is known that having sex can produce a child. You play, you pay.
 
That's not what you said at first.

You said,
"Tell that to the people that think he isn't a father if he walks."

Then you gave the definition for "parent," not "father." :lamo

A [male] parent IS a father; a father MAY be a parent.

That's the distinction you don't understand.

A parent is a father or mother of a child. Culturally speaking all you need to do to be a father or mother is to be a caregiver of a child and biologically speaking all you need to do is to produce a child. So exactly where did I make a mistake again?
 
Last edited:
Society has already let the woman put her "selfish choice" into play by allowing her the absolute right to choose.

It is NOT about the child, because as CPwill points out, if that were what it was all about there would be NO abortion right at all. It would only occur when the woman's life was in danger, if at all.

If it were about the child then the woman contemplating having one would be required to make a more informed decision, not an emotional or calculated one. If she knew there were no "safety nets" because the male does not want a child and could legally opt-out, then she still askes herself can she do it all alone?

Having some experience in CPS you know very well the horrors of dysfunctional families. Men who feel trapped by a "do the right thing" marriage. Women who are angered by men who refused to marry and fight about child support. Children who grow up abused, emotionally disturbed, resentful of being resented.

This issue is NOT about the children. It is about choice. A woman should not make an irrational choice to have an unwanted child. However, if you are concerned about the child then ask yourself this: If it is not a mutual volutary choice to have the baby then who will suffer most? The child!

Society has changed to allow abortion. Society can adjust to a males right to opt-out. ;)

Again...I disagree. It is impossible to create an "equal legal state"

You claim it's not about the children. Cool. Well...if it's not, then I suggest that something happened in our legal world that allows women to be forced to abort.

Otherwise...regardless of the reason for a conception. If a woman can't not be forced to abort...and is determined to bring a conception to full term.

YES...it is about the child. And neither the selfish interests of man or woman will override the obligations required to support the kid.

No...society can't create an equal or offsetting law UNLESS the MAN can bear children as well.
 
They're separate decisions but it is known that having sex can produce a child. You play, you pay.

Then why shouldn't she have to carry it to term? :D She played, right?
 
Of course it's about the children. There is a child who is being denied financial support; whereas with abortion, there is no child.

You keep saying that and ignoring every response. The fact of the matter is there are all sorts of situations in which single parent's bear full responsibility for a child, including support. This is not an unusual social situation, even when both parents are still alive. Furthermore, we are discussing the hypothetical of a man having a legal right to opt-out. A woman who can still afford to care for the child alone would still have one, a woman who realized she could not would not.

As I mentioned to another member long ago in the thread, perhaps some adjustments in how women qualify for full welfare benefits would be necessary, perhaps not. Unilaterally deciding to have a child should not entail forced responsibility on an unwlling partner.
 
A parent is a father or mother of a child. Culturally speaking all you need to do to be a father or mother is be a caregiver of a child and biologically speaking all you need to do is produce children to be a parent. So exactly where did I make a mistake again?
Hey, you're finally catching on. Now maybe you can understand why this comment made no sense in response to mine ...

"Tell that to the people that think he isn't a father if he walks."

He isn't a father if he walks ... but he is still a parent.

Capiche?
 
Hey, you're finally catching on. Now maybe you can understand why this comment made no sense in response to mine ...

"Tell that to the people that think he isn't a father if he walks."

He isn't a father if he walks ... but he is still a parent.

Capiche?

Except you're wrong. He is a father by producing a child. :D
 
Men should be held responsible for their decision whether or not to become parents, just like women are. You're not talking about "responsibility", you're talking about coercion.

I'm talking about being responsible for the child he helped create. You're saying everyone else is responsible for the consequences of their actions, except men who don't want to be. As far as it being coercion, all laws are a form of coercion. If I broke into a home can I argue that I consented only to breaking into the house, but not to being held legally responsible for my actions? If pregnancy is a consequence of my actions, I'm just as responsible for my actions as the girl is.
 
You keep saying that and ignoring every response. The fact of the matter is there are all sorts of situations in which single parent's bear full responsibility for a child, including support. This is not an unusual social situation, even when both parents are still alive. Furthermore, we are discussing the hypothetical of a man having a legal right to opt-out. A woman who can still afford to care for the child alone would still have one, a woman who realized she could not would not.

As I mentioned to another member long ago in the thread, perhaps some adjustments in how women qualify for full welfare benefits would be necessary, perhaps not. Unilaterally deciding to have a child should not entail forced responsibility on an unwlling partner.
Because you're trying to equate a man being allowed to opt out of being a father with a woman having an abortion. The two are not analogous because there is no child involved in an abortion; whereas there is a child involved in letting the deadbeat dad "opt out." The child makes the difference.
 
Again...I disagree. It is impossible to create an "equal legal state"

It is entirely possible. All it takes is a "public policy" change on a state per state basis. How realistic? Well, how realistic were any of the social changes of the 1960's if someone tried to bring them about in the 1950's??? Especially abortion rights?

I respect your opinion, and understand your position concerning child welfare. However, IMO supporting the creation of dysfunctional families because of a woman's refusal to face facts seems more socially detrimental than allowing a male to legally opt-out.
 
Because you're trying to equate a man being allowed to opt out of being a father with a woman having an abortion. The two are not analogous because there is no child involved in an abortion; whereas there is a child involved in letting the deadbeat dad "opt out." The child makes the difference.

There is still the life of the offspring and if you're going to hammer down on the idea that he must be responsible than your argument on abortion is suspect since you're allowing her to not be responsible.
 
Because you're trying to equate a man being allowed to opt out of being a father with a woman having an abortion. The two are not analogous because there is no child involved in an abortion; whereas there is a child involved in letting the deadbeat dad "opt out." The child makes the difference.

You are misusing the term "deadbeat dad," since the man never wanted a child, made it plain to the woman, and then because of HER choice alone is now considered by YOU to be a "father" responsible for the unwanted results of his sperm donation.

They are analogous because some men WANT to be a father and want the woman to carry to term. She gets to say NO, I don't feel like it. It's her body, and I am fine with that. I am not fine with her saying to a man who does NOT want a baby, "too bad cuz WE are having one," and then imposing on him for the rest of his life. This is bound to turn out badly.

Yes, under such circumstances there is a child involved. One who may get some "money" out of "daddy" for a few years; but who will also face all the travails of a dysfunctional family. IMO it is better for a woman who recognizes her full responsibility to raise the child alone. It's better for all involved, including society.
 
There is still the life of the offspring and if you're going to hammer down on the idea that he must be responsible than your argument on abortion is suspect since you're allowing her to not be responsible.

Great, yet another distinction which eludes you ... :roll: ... there is no child involved in an abortion. There is a child left without support if men have an "opt out" clause.
 
It is entirely possible. All it takes is a "public policy" change on a state per state basis. How realistic? Well, how realistic were any of the social changes of the 1960's if someone tried to bring them about in the 1950's??? Especially abortion rights?

I respect your opinion, and understand your position concerning child welfare. However, IMO supporting the creation of dysfunctional families because of a woman's refusal to face facts seems more socially detrimental than allowing a male to legally opt-out.

The woman's refusal to face the fact that she alone is the reason she's pregnant? What mental gymnastics you go through to make sure a guy doesn't have to sacrifice his money for a child. It's touching, really, how pro human you are.
 
Great, yet another distinction which eludes you ... :roll: ... there is no child involved in an abortion. There is a child left without support if men have an "opt out" clause.

I said nothing about a child. What I said is that in even before birth there is still the life of the offspring, and if we are interested in making people be responsible in their lives she must carry it to term. Unless of course your responsibility argument has an exception for some reason.

I'm going to guess that to you caring for the offspring before birth is not important, but after birth it's all that matters. It's kind of interesting logic if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
You are misusing the term "deadbeat dad," since the man never wanted a child, made it plain to the woman, and then because of HER choice alone is now considered by YOU to be a "father" responsible for the unwanted results of his sperm donation.

They are analogous because some men WANT to be a father and want the woman to carry to term. She gets to say NO, I don't feel like it. It's her body, and I am fine with that. I am not fine with her saying to a mad who does NOT want a baby, "too bad cuz WE are having one," and then imposing on him for the rest of his life.

Yes, under such circumstances there is a child involved. One who may get some "money" out of "daddy" for a few years; but who will also face all the travails of a dysfunctional family. IMO it is better for a woman who recognizes her full responsibility to raise the child alone. It's better for all involved, including society.
I don't see where I'm misusing the term at all. There are plenty of "deadbeat dads" who don't want their children. Just because they don't want them doesn't mean they're not deadbeat dads, it only means they don't want to own up to their responsibilities of raising their own child.

And they are absolutely not analogous in that an abortion doesn't produce a child not being supported by his/her parents; whereas what you're pulling for does -- which is why it will never happen since the child is what makes the two situations completely different.
 
Back
Top Bottom