• 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
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.

Well sure, making it so fathers don't have an obligation to support their children is clearly better for children and society. Kids getting the things they need is so over rated.
 
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 term. Unless of course your responsibility argument has an exception for some reason.
Then your response to my post is a non-sequitur since I was talking about a child.
 
Then your response to my post is a non-sequitur since I was talking about a child.

Do you think the first stage of life is deemed as child? If so, I have no idea what that nine months is for. It must be a horrible, horrible party or something. I don't know.
 
Do you think the first stage of life is deemed as child? If so, I have no idea what that nine months was for. Must of been a horrible, horrible party or something. I don't know.
No, I don't.
 
Then you're being selective in your responsibility argument.

Who knows how you reach that conclusion?

One involves a woman having an abortion and not leaving a child stranded without that parent's support; where the other leaves a child stranded without the deadbeat dad's support.
 
Who knows how you reach that conclusion?

One involves a woman having an abortion and not leaving a child stranded without that parent's support; where the other leaves a child stranded without the deadbeat dad's support.

I don't imagine you realize that when she decides to abort that is her failing to support her offspring. You know, kind of like what she is doing for that nine month period.
 
I don't imagine you realize that when she decides to abort that is her failing to support it.
So? It's still not a child. That was my point which I can't help but notice you're doing everything in your power to run away from. Oh, and lemme know when parents become obligated to financially support their unborn offspring. :roll:
 
So? It's still not a child. That was my point which I can't help but notice you're doing everything in your power to run away from. Oh, and lemme know when parents become obligated to financially support their unborn offspring. :roll:

I didn't run away from the stage of life you're talking about. Hell, I even dealt with it in post #1003. The fact is what she is doing for that nine months is supporting the child's life and health as it develops, which just so happens to be exactly what parents do after it's born and deemed a child.
 
Last edited:
[/B]It's also a baby before it's born:
"Child" 1 and "baby" 1 have pre-birth uses.
A fetus is a "child" 2 and a "baby" 2 is a "child", thus we can call a fetus a "baby" 3.
Legally a "child" 4 is one's natural offspring, which is what a pregnant woman carries.
So, a pregnant woman carries her "child", her "unborn child", her "unborn baby".
This makes her a "parent", specifically, a “mother”.

"Organism" = "a living being".
Human DNA = "human".
"Organism" + Human DNA = "A Human Being".



That's called slavery, one person belonging to another.


This isn't about the state, this thread is about the father and rather or not he has an inherent universal right to force a woman to stop gestating his child.

Wordplay merely. If I say I 'belong' to the Penderyn family that doesn't mean they own me as a slave, does it, particularly if I put 'belong' in inverted commas? Babies, as you know, exist from birth on - that has always been normal usage, and you cranks are just trying to change the meaning of words to bully women. Why do you think the injection of some sperm gives you slaveholder rights over a woman, and why do you think your State should support an antiquated patriarchy? Do grow up and stop this posturing: what is the USE of it?
 
She wasn't talking about abortion, but the right to avoid being a parent. Something you clearly missed in the first sentence.

The only way to 100% avoid being a parent is to not have sex.
 
Well sure, making it so fathers don't have an obligation to support their children is clearly better for children and society. Kids getting the things they need is so over rated.

Exactly, this whole thread is disgusting. These selfish men are trying to make this an issue about them and how they're mad that it's "NOT FAIR!" They need to STOP thinking about themselves and think about the child. The whole premise is selfish and retarded.
 
Abortion is a right protected by the Constitution.

Abandoning your child is not.

:) Well now you're in a bit of a corner. Is it a CHILD? Or is he abandoning a ZEF? Because if that is a living human child, then there is no justification for killing it unless it poses a life-threatening risk to another. But if it's not a child, then no child-abandonment is taking place.
 
Of course we would have legalized abortion since children aren't being aborted. That would be murder.

Then neither are children being abandoned under the proposal to allow men to divest themselves of parental responsibilities during pregnancy :).
 
Not true

Women are required to support their children

They can't opt out, so men shouldn't be able to either

On the contrary, women get two ways to opt out; they can either have the child killed, or give it up for adoption. No such escapes are made available to the father.
 
That's right. And the way it is is wrong.

No, the way it is, is because of biological factors that cannot be changed. It's nobody's "fault" it just is. This stupid idea will cause even MORE poor people in our society, all because you want to let men shirk their responsibilities.

There is just no way you can get around the fact that sex creates children. Don't want any? Don't have sex or be VERY careful who you choose to have sex with.

Why do you want to punish the children by withholding care. The child has a RIGHT to be supported by both parents, regardless of whether or not you think the fact that women can abort a child "fair" or not.

STOP turning this into a male versus female battle. It is immature. IF you have sex with a woman and she gets pregnant, you are BOTH responsible.
 
No, the way it is, is because of biological factors that cannot be changed.

On the contrary, it is the way it is because of the law. There is no biological demand that we not allow a father equal ability to divest himself from the responsibilities of parenthood as the mother has.

It's nobody's "fault" it just is. This stupid idea will cause even MORE poor people in our society, all because you want to let men shirk their responsibilities.

Quite the contrary - as I've made rather plain in the social and abortion forums, I would prefer incredibly stringent restrictions on abortion, and I would prefer to make divorces much more difficult to get. I think that the breakup of the modern family is our number 1 social disaster, and it's a social disaster with severe follow-on generational effects. Given the option, I would prefer that we keep the vast majority of people from shirking their responsibilities. But if we are going to allow women to do so on a pre-birth basis, then equal treatment of the sexes demands that we do the same for the men.

There is just no way you can get around the fact that sex creates children. Don't want any? Don't have sex or be VERY careful who you choose to have sex with.

Amen and isn't it funny, however, that when people bring up that argument in the abortion debates the argument somehow considered differently because then it's the woman under discussion who is expected to either refrain from sex or select her partners carefully?

Why do you want to punish the children by withholding care. The child has a RIGHT to be supported by both parents, regardless of whether or not you think the fact that women can abort a child "fair" or not.

If the child has rights then its rights start with the right to life. If it does not have rights, then it has no claim on the father.

STOP turning this into a male versus female battle. It is immature

No one on this side is attempting to turn this into a male v female battle. On the contrary, we are arguing for equitable treatment of both. It is your side who wishes to place a relative greater amount of power in the hands of one gender over the other.

IF you have sex with a woman and she gets pregnant, you are BOTH responsible.

Agreed. And should both be held to their responsibility.
 
On the contrary, it is the way it is because of the law. There is no biological demand that we not allow a father equal ability to divest himself from the responsibilities of parenthood as the mother has.



Quite the contrary - as I've made rather plain in the social and abortion forums, I would prefer incredibly stringent restrictions on abortion, and I would prefer to make divorces much more difficult to get. I think that the breakup of the modern family is our number 1 social disaster, and it's a social disaster with severe follow-on generational effects. Given the option, I would prefer that we keep the vast majority of people from shirking their responsibilities. But if we are going to allow women to do so on a pre-birth basis, then equal treatment of the sexes demands that we do the same for the men.



Amen and isn't it funny, however, that when people bring up that argument in the abortion debates the argument somehow considered differently because then it's the woman under discussion who is expected to either refrain from sex or select her partners carefully?



If the child has rights then its rights start with the right to life. If it does not have rights, then it has no claim on the father.



Agreed. And you should both be held to your responsibility.

Look, you can make up all the false scenarios you want. It doesn't change the facts that in our country we hold both men and women responsible for the children they create.

This has NOTHING to do with abortion, and it isn't going to change because you're sad. GROW UP! BE A MAN and accept your part in creating a life.
 
Look, you can make up all the false scenarios you want. It doesn't change the facts that in our country we hold both men and women responsible for the children they create.

No we don't. Currently we allow one gender to duck its' responsibility, and do not allow the other gender to do so. If women are allowed to decide they no longer wish to be held responsible for the child up to a certain point, men ought to be afforded the exact same opportunity.

This has NOTHING to do with abortion, and it isn't going to change because you're sad. GROW UP! BE A MAN and accept your part in creating a life.

On the contrary, it has quite a lot to do with abortion. As you put it, the child either has rights (such as the right to life and support from its parents) or it doesn't.


In the meantime, ad hominem does not make your case for you, it just makes you look foolish and desperate.
 
Pregnancy is a medical condition

No it isn't, only if there are associated complications such as gestational diabetes, or pregnancy-induced hypertension. Pregnancy in and of itself is NOT a medical condition. We only refer to it as such in the United States so that our insurance will cover for pregnancy. In other parts of the world, it is certainly not considered a medical condition but a natural process of the female body. Our bodies are built for carrying and delivering children. There is nothing unnatural about it.
 
No we don't. Currently we allow one gender to duck its' responsibility, and do not allow the other gender to do so. If women are allowed to decide they no longer wish to be held responsible for the child up to a certain point, men ought to be afforded the exact same opportunity.

Oh boo-hoo. Thank you for proving my point that you are not concerned at all about the child and it's rights but only about your own. The ONLY reason women are allowed abortions is because it is in their body and can cause complications, but an abortion can have it's own complications, therefore the woman does not "escape" the responsibility because HER body can be damaged. Your body is NOT at risk during a pregnancy.

On the contrary, it has quite a lot to do with abortion. As you put it, the child either has rights (such as the right to life and support from its parents) or it doesn't.

Actually no, according to the law it has no rights until after it is born. That is when the rights kick in because it is now a separate human entity that no longer feeds off it's mother's body.

In the meantime, ad hominem does not make your case for you, it just makes you look foolish and desperate.

The only ones who appear foolish and desperate are you and the other men and women who want to make this into something that it is NOT, and want to punish the innocent while doing it.
 
Then neither are children being abandoned under the proposal to allow men to divest themselves of parental responsibilities during pregnancy :).


If I knock someone down with my car, I am responsible, as I am if I go in for unprotected sex. That doesn't give me the right to enslave the person I injure, obviously. Choplogic is tedious, it really is.
 
Oh boo-hoo. Thank you for proving my point that you are not concerned at all about the child and it's rights but only about your own.

Apparently you have decided it is safer emotionally for you to engage in personal attacks rather than deal with points as they are actually raised.

1. As I have pointed out to you multiple times, in fact, my preference is for neither parent to be able to absolve their responsibilities for the child.

2. That being said, if we are going to do so, then we need to do so on an equitable basis. If the woman can choose up until a certain point that she no longer wishes to be a mother, a man should get to choose up to that point that he no longer wishes to be a father.

3. That being said, I think that the effects of such a change in the law would actually be long term positive, as it would increase incentives (as you note) to choose ones' sexual partners with an eye towards demonstrated responsibility.

Actually no, according to the law it has no rights until after it is born.

Then it has no right to a father, and the father is not denying it its' rights by divesting himself of any future responsibility to the child.

That is when the rights kick in because it is now a separate human entity that no longer feeds off it's mother's body.

What, you mean when it's 12 months old?

The only ones who appear foolish and desperate are you and the other men and women who want to make this into something that it is NOT, and want to punish the innocent while doing it.

On the contrary - again - I would rather both parents be held responsible for their actions. I merely point out that if we are going to allow people to avoid their responsibilities, we should do so equally rather than give one gender power over the other via the law. It is your continued insistence that those who disagree with you must be coming to it because they wish to personally avoid parental responsibilities (I am happily currently raising 3 children) that is foolish and desperate; as most ad hominem is. It is the standing in of personal attack in the gap created by the lack of a reasonable argument.
 
Then neither are children being abandoned under the proposal to allow men to divest themselves of parental responsibilities during pregnancy :).
You appear to be thoroughly confused to what this thread is about. It's questioning if men who knock someone up can evade supporting their own child should the mother have the baby. So yes, despite your confusion, there really is a child being abandoned by a deadbeat dad under this pathetic scenario.
 
Back
Top Bottom