• 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
Harshaw said:
Then you just ignored the qualifier he put in and you gave an example of something which fell within that qualifier. That was either intentional or you simply don't understand you did this. It's one or the other. You tell me which.
Click to expand...

I'll be happy to tell you which ... it's the third choice you left out ...

His qualifier was ... "assuming he knew of the child."

The quote I showed him contained that qualifier ... "Yes. A firm backdrop. He gets 90 days firm from the point he is notified to make his choice. Even if she has already given birth. "

So why did you leave that 3rd choice out? Was it intentional or didn't you understand?
 
Removable Mind said:
No...there is no "legislative way to create equal choice".
Click to expand...

I just told you how. You said the contract would do it. You legislate the contract as the default. Done.

There are any number of things which do exactly this, like warranty rights. They used to be simply contractual. Now they're statutory. It's exactly the same thing.


A kid can't provide for its hierarchy of needs...and the state will take conservatorship...if need be but they will pursue legal actions against both parents to recover cost of maintain. That is a fact.
Click to expand...

Whether or not it's a "fact," it's irrelevant to the question.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I'll be happy to tell you which ... it's the third choice you left out ...

His qualifier was ... "assuming he knew of the child."

The quote I showed him contained that qualifier ... "Yes. A firm backdrop. He gets 90 days firm from the point he is notified to make his choice. Even if she has already given birth. "

So why did you leave that 3rd choice out? Was it intentional or didn't you understand?
Click to expand...

"From the moment he's notified" indicates he DIDN'T know about the child.

Never mind; I have no patience for a merry-go-round of stupid tonight. You carry on.
 
Harshaw said:
No, it's at the very heart of the matter. If you don't think it is, then you do not understand the point of the argument.

That sounds like the argument for outlawing abortion.
Click to expand...


I exactly understand the "heart of the matter" - and the "heart of the matter" to me is the welfare of a living, breathing child - and the heart of of the matter" to us is that men should be able to be deadbeats to their own to get even with women by harming/abandoning his own child.

And, once again, you exactly make the point that many pro-life men actually don't care in the slightest about the child - none, zero, nada. It is solely about power over women. NOTHING you post is in any way good for the child.

Show me any message you posted of ANY concern about the child whatsoever.

You want a man to be able to try to extort a woman into getting an abortion - and then to totally be a deadbeat towards his own child if she doesn't. You promote abortion prior to birth and you promote economic and total parental responsibility abortion by the man after birth.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
I exactly understand the "heart of the matter" - and the "heart of the issue" to me is the welfare of a living, breathing child - and the heart of of the matter" to men should be able to be deadbeats to their own to get even with women.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you don't.
 
Harshaw said:
I just told you how. You said the contract would do it. You legislate the contract as the default. Done.

There are any number of things which do exactly this, like warranty rights. They used to be simply contractual. Now they're statutory. It's exactly the same thing.




Whether or not it's a "fact," it's irrelevant to the question.
Click to expand...

That undermines choice...if there was a legislated contract. A sweeping contract...isn't anything more than saying that even women who don't believe in abortion...and who wouldn't have to enter into the same contract...isn't an option. Sorry...no banana. A woman might agree to having a child and giving it to the man if he wants...and some do, but she would be removed from any further responsibility.

There various ways to write a contract...and that's between relationships...not the government. Screw them.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
In other words, there is no consistent principle by which fatherhood is assigned-- the system is based on sticking the responsibility to any poor sucker it can find.

And you support this.



I don't support bringing fatherless children into the world, but I think it's better than forcing men into unwanted parenthood. That is a profound violation of his human rights and the natural order; it is morally inexcusable.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if I remember correctly you also believe the child may be killed up to 3 days after birth.

As for forcing men to be fathers against their will, after the 3-day kill-period (if I got that right), you instead do support SOMEONE forced to raise the child, don't you? Just not the father. The who? Who do you want to FORCE to raise the child?
 
Removable Mind said:
That undermines choice...if there was a legislated contract. A sweeping contract...isn't anything more than saying that even women who don't believe in abortion...and who wouldn't have to enter into the same contract...isn't an option. Sorry...no banana. A woman might agree to having a child and giving it to the man if he wants...and some do, but she would be removed from any further responsibility.

There various ways to write a contract...and that's between relationships...not the government. Screw them.
Click to expand...

It undermines nothing. Anyone can still choose to have a baby and to be a parent to that baby, or to do anything you say here. All it does is keep someone else from making that choice for you.
 
Harshaw said:
"From the moment he's notified" indicates he DIDN'T know about the child.

Never mind; I have no patience for a merry-go-round of stupid tonight. You carry on.
Click to expand...

Holy ****! :doh

Once he's notified, he knows about the child. :doh
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Holy ****! :doh

Once he's notified, he knows about the child. :doh
Click to expand...

Good lord. But not before the baby was born.

Like I said -- merry-go-round of stupid.
 
Harshaw said:
Good lord. But not before the baby was born.

Like I said -- merry-go-round of stupid.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the qualifier CP stated. :doh:

His qualifier was just that the guy knew he had a child. And we were talking in terms of after the child was born.

Read it again. Only this time, concentrate.

"On the contrary, I have yet to see anyone argue in favor of a post-birth abrogation of responsibility assuming he knew of the child." ~ cpwill

I posted someone saying men should be allowed to do just that even if they're notified after the birth.

Holy ****! :doh:
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
That wasn't the qualifier CP stated. :doh:

His qualifier was just that the guy knew he had a child. And we were talking in terms of after the child was born.

Read it again. Only this time, concentrate.

"On the contrary, I have yet to see anyone argue in favor of a post-birth abrogation of responsibility assuming he knew of the child." ~ cpwill

I posted someone saying men should be allowed to do just that even if they're notified after the birth.

Holy ****! :doh:
Click to expand...

Yeah, holy ****, but it's because cpwill's qualifier clearly contemplated that the father knew about the child before birth.

Good God, I let myself get sucked into the stupid anyway. I have no one but myself to blame -- it was plain as day; the gaping vortex of stupid was right there in front of me.
 
American said:
Does the woman agree to that if she has sex with a man?
Click to expand...

Harshaw said:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Illustration of what I said earlier:
Click to expand...

Okay, so for those of you who aren't keeping up, I'm making fun of you. I'm making fun of all the idiots who spout that kind of nonsense when we're talking about a woman's right to an abortion, and then here is a thread full of pissy men who can't stand to live up to the same standard they're trying to apply to women, and whining about how hard it is to be privileged because they're not even more privileged than they already are.
 
Paschendale said:
Okay, so for those of you who aren't keeping up, I'm making fun of you. I'm making fun of all the idiots who spout that kind of nonsense when we're talking about a woman's right to an abortion, and then here is a thread full of pissy men who can't stand to live up to the same standard they're trying to apply to women, and whining about how hard it is to be privileged because they're not even more privileged than they already are.
Click to expand...

If you can find where I've ever "spouted that kind of nonsense" at any women's rights, you might have a point. Until then, you most certainly don't.

In any case, I suspect you meant it earnestly, and that's really what you do think about the question of this thread. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that and you do see it as an unfair double-standard.
 
Harshaw said:
It undermines nothing. Anyone can still choose to have a baby and to be a parent to that baby, or to do anything you say here. All it does is keep someone else from making that choice for you.
Click to expand...

Man...you've missed the boat. A contract need not legislated. One contract won't fit all variables. A legal Contract is between 2 agreeing people...without the ****ing government involved.

How people want to agree is none of your business...my business or the ****ing governments business. It will be enforceable...without government.

What's so hard to understand about a contract?
 
Removable Mind said:
Man...you've missed the boat. A contract need not legislated. One contract won't fit all variables. A legal Contract is between 2 agreeing people...without the ****ing government involved.

How people want to agree is none of your business...my business or the ****ing governments business. It will be enforceable...without government.

What's so hard to understand about a contract?
Click to expand...

Nothing's hard to understand about a contract, but obviously my point is well beyond your grasp. I can't force you to understand something that you don't want to, so I'll leave you to whatever you feel comfortable with.
 
Harshaw said:
Nothing's hard to understand about a contract, but obviously my point is well beyond your grasp. I can't force you to understand something that you don't want to, so I'll leave you to whatever you feel comfortable with.
Click to expand...

Thanks..I appreciate that. It'll be a relief for us both.
 
Harshaw said:
Yeah, holy ****, but it's because cpwill's qualifier clearly contemplated that the father knew about the child before birth.

Good God, I let myself get sucked into the stupid anyway. I have no one but myself to blame -- it was plain as day; the gaping vortex of stupid was right there in front of me.
Click to expand...
Now you're seeing things which aren't there. He never said that, yet you imagine he does. :shrug:

Even worse for you, we were talking about a "child," not a fetus, which also speaks to post-birth.
 
Harshaw said:
If you can find where I've ever "spouted that kind of nonsense" at any women's rights, you might have a point. Until then, you most certainly don't.

In any case, I suspect you meant it earnestly, and that's really what you do think about the question of this thread. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that and you do see it as an unfair double-standard.
Click to expand...

No, I understand consent well enough to know that sex does not mean consenting to children. A person's body belongs to them and them alone, so the answer to the OP's question is a resounding no. The other part, about child support, is a bit more complex. When children live with their fathers, the mothers are on the hook for child support, just like when the reverse happens. So, the trouble then is that children frequently live with the mother. So then the problem is the societal double standard that women are supposed to be responsible for the children. Feel free to attack that if you like, and contend that there should not be a presumption of custody to mothers, but that's really the only reasonable argument to have about the issue. Anything else is nonsense or whining about not having enough privilege.
 
joko104 said:
Yes, but if I remember correctly you also believe the child may be killed up to 3 days after birth.
Click to expand...

Nine.

joko104 said:
As for forcing men to be fathers against their will, after the 3-day kill-period (if I got that right), you instead do support SOMEONE forced to raise the child, don't you? Just not the father. The who? Who do you want to FORCE to raise the child?
Click to expand...

No. The purpose of the nine-day period is for the parents to decide if they want the child. If they don't want the child, and a panel of doctors deems the child healthy and likely to be adopted, I support the State temporarily supporting the child until such time as suitable adoptive parents can be found. If the child isn't adoptable and the biological mother doesn't want it, or can't afford it, the child should be killed. I do not support, under any circumstances, forcing either a man or a woman to become a parent to a child they do not want; the only people who should ever be compelled, legally or morally, to raise a child are people who have already agreed to do so.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
I am not saying that is how it is. I am saying that is how it ought to be, IF she relinquishes her parental rights, which is what is being discussed for men here.

If she simply becomes the non-custodial parent, then child support should still be an option for the custodial parent.
Click to expand...

Child support an option? So you are ok with a child not being financially supported? (at least as well as the child should be).

I just have to love these "its not fair" responses. Wear a damned condom no matter what BC she is using or get a vasectomy.

Seriously, if you want "its not fair" try pregnancy.:lol: At least women usually have the sense to know that there isn't fair or unfair....
 
Paschendale said:
No, I understand consent well enough to know that sex does not mean consenting to children. A person's body belongs to them and them alone, so the answer to the OP's question is a resounding no. The other part, about child support, is a bit more complex. When children live with their fathers, the mothers are on the hook for child support, just like when the reverse happens. So, the trouble then is that children frequently live with the mother. So then the problem is the societal double standard that women are supposed to be responsible for the children. Feel free to attack that if you like, and contend that there should not be a presumption of custody to mothers, but that's really the only reasonable argument to have about the issue. Anything else is nonsense or whining about not having enough privilege.
Click to expand...

The question doesn't have anything to do with custody, nor is it a question of "privilege."

It sounds to me like I was right; you accept the double standard, and would indeed say "if you didn't want to be on the hook for the kid, you shouldn't have had sex."
 
Paschendale said:
No, I understand consent well enough to know that sex does not mean consenting to children. A person's body belongs to them and them alone, so the answer to the OP's question is a resounding no. The other part, about child support, is a bit more complex. When children live with their fathers, the mothers are on the hook for child support, just like when the reverse happens. So, the trouble then is that children frequently live with the mother. So then the problem is the societal double standard that women are supposed to be responsible for the children. Feel free to attack that if you like, and contend that there should not be a presumption of custody to mothers, but that's really the only reasonable argument to have about the issue. Anything else is nonsense or whining about not having enough privilege.
Click to expand...

I agree Pasch...

Nobody is disputing that a disparity exist. But it does so for a purpose. It's built around "best interest". The government has a duty to protect. And when a child is born, it is born with rights that are the same as the parents, which the government has a duty to protect.

But what separates the interest of a child is that it cannot provide for its own hierarchy of needs. The government does and should require all involved parties to be legally and financially responsible...and neither parent is excluded.

The rub is about one issue only. We all know what it is. UNILATERAL CONTROL over the fate of the conception. IS IT FAIR? Obviously it's a slanted situation. But one that NO PERSON has figured out how to legally resolve this disparity without injury to one or more parties.

Harshaw is looking for a punitive revenge remedy. Not about resolving the issues regarding unilateral choice...which, by the way, won't be resolved legislatively. ,People can't accept that this is not a binary issue. Depending on circumstances, the number of entities of interest can vary. But if a child is born, there will be at least 3 and possibly 4. Man, woman, child, state.

That is the reality with conditional, unilateral control over the fate of a fetus. As far as I can determine there is no equitable legal remedy for all parties of interest.

Such as life...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom