• 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
From the OP on throughout this thread I have consistently supported a woman’s right to choose; either to abort or to accept the full responsibility of having a baby for herself. It simply seems strange to hear arguments claiming that while BOTH are responsible for conception, only ONE gets to decide if both must commit to lifelong responsibility or not.

If the woman controls access, prevention, and “opt-out” outcome why then must the male be bound by those choices but not relieved of the duty to take care of an unexpected and unwanted child if she chooses the “opt-in” outcome?

A partial answer is that even if I want a child I must respect the woman’s choice to make me use contraception, and her use of contraception, and if she gets pregnant to abort it. That is because it is her body and she may choose not to have it affected by the growth of an unwanted child, nor be forced to assume the responsibilities inherent subsequent to childbirth. I cannot compel her to accept these things.

But this does not answer the essential question; if I do NOT want a child and she still gets pregnant why should she be allowed to compel me to?

It is disingenuous to claim it is not her, but “public policy” which actually compels me; because her decision determines whether or not I will be subject to the compulsion of such “public policy.” Currently women are assured that no matter what the man thinks; if she chooses to have an unwanted child then the male will be compelled to support it.

It is also disingenuous to claim that current “public policy” is “set in stone” and cannot change. It is one thing to argue that a majority could not currently accept any public policy change which might increase the tax burden imposed by public welfare. It is another to state categorically that society would never accept any such public policy change.

Arguments claiming that the male could keep his pants on, wear a “sock,” or recognize he is taking a risk are not determining because sex neither constitutes agreement that conception will occur nor that a baby must be born. Why? The woman’s rights are based upon her greater risks; therefore she has the absolute power to decide what happens, if anything, with her body. As a result, even though both share the possibility of conception only she can limit access by requiring levels of contraception; opt to abort; or even abandon the male to hide the pregnancy in order to give the child up for adoption. So only she currently has the power to opt-out.

This is inequitable; even the nay-sayers in this thread acknowledge that.

In response they use every fallacious argument in the book, from appeals to emotion (there is a child!), through appeals to consequences ("public policy"), to affirming the consequent (if male has sex then he agrees to have a baby; a baby occurs, he agreed to have a baby). None of this addresses the essential inequity of the female “opt-out,” they simply assert “too bad, so sad, deal with it.”

I'm still waiting for a logically sound argument which addresses validly why a man should not have the same right to opt-out as the woman does.


^ Another Maoist sub silentio declaration that child rearing duties and expenses defaults to the state/government - and otherwise a declaration of total indifference of what becomes of the child.

Since whether the child lives or dies is irrelevant to you, then I'll agree with you for the sake of argument the child is just an object the man and woman are arguing over.

A man and a woman sign a loan to buy a car together. BUT then the woman leave and takes the car with her, and there is no clue where the car is at - yet the man is still liable for the loan.

HOW THE HELL IS THAT FAIR?! OMG the INJUSTICE! Obviously the man should be able to stop making payments and have the government pay the loan. Why should the government pay the loan? Because it is unfair that he has to.

That is essentially what you and many others are claiming. A man's child is absolutely nothing other than an object the woman and man feud over. If the man loses the feud, then the child becomes the governments/MY responsibility.

Finally, apparently you see no difference between a ZEF and a 10 year old child. Thus, you conclude if the woman can abort the ZEF her parental duties during the first few months of pregnancy, then the man gets to abort his parental obligations for his child for 18 years after birth. And you call that "fairness."

Explain how your view is fair to the child?
 
Finally, apparently you see no difference between a ZEF and a 10 year old child. Thus, you conclude if the woman can abort the ZEF her parental duties during the first few months of pregnancy, then the man gets to abort his parental obligations for his child for 18 years after birth. And you call that "fairness."

If a woman aborts during the first few months of pregnancy, she absolves herself of her parental obligations for 18 years, too. Nobody is talking about allowing the father of a ten year old child to change his mind and shirk his duties to his children-- only that he should have the same right to refuse to become a parent as women have.
 
If a woman aborts during the first few months of pregnancy, she absolves herself of her parental obligations for 18 years, too. Nobody is talking about allowing the father of a ten year old child to change his mind and shirk his duties to his children-- only that he should have the same right to refuse to become a parent as women have.

Your statement is based upon asserting there is exactly no difference between a ZEF and a born child.

What other "unfairness to men" do you think we-the-people should have to pay for? What other chores of men that are not fair and the man doesn't want to do should we-the-people have to do for them?
 
Yes, an option for the custodial parent to pursue if they wish. Not every single parent WANTS child support. Mine, for example. If they don't want it, then why make the other parent pay it?

But what we are talking about here is completely relinquishing all parental rights. Just like when a woman puts up a child for adoption. Women have the right to choose not to be a parent to a biological child. Why don't men?

The woman decides what to do with her pregnancy. She does not get to decide what to do with a man's life. That has nothing to do with "fairness." That is a basic principal of personal liberty.

And by the way, it's the same principal that makes you pro-choice. It's baffling that you don't think it applies to men.

Pro-choice is about a women's right to control her own body. It is not about what happens when the baby is born.

I did not take child support. I could have forced the issue, but frankly I was always the breadwinner, I saw no reason to make him destitute to pay for our child.

But have him totally relinquish future need to support. Nope.

There was a time when I needed several ankle surgeries to get back to work. I was off about a year. I had to cobra my healthcare .Had he not been a "legal" parent, I would not have had the ability to switch our son over to his health care. As it was, a unique opportunity presented itself, and I was able to keep him covered with me - but not at cobra prices. ;)

This is not what is in the man's or woman's best interest....it is what is in the child's best interest.

And as someone stated earlier, if mom goes searching for welfare and ongoing support? Why should the state pay for a child when there is another parent to possibly help with the bills. Hell, the ability alone to place the child on a good health insurance plan (read not Medicaid) is a good thing. As a taxpayer I would say...you better be going after both parents to support this child before the state gives out my tax dollars.

But yeah, I elected not to receive support for my child, as I was always the breadwinner. But give away total future rights for my child - are you nuts?

What about social security benefits? Why the hell would I give up his rights to his social security benefit?
 
If a woman aborts during the first few months of pregnancy, she absolves herself of her parental obligations for 18 years, too. Nobody is talking about allowing the father of a ten year old child to change his mind and shirk his duties to his children-- only that he should have the same right to refuse to become a parent as women have.

Ok, I will give you fair. When the man gets pregnant. He can "absolve" himself of financial responsibility in this manner as well. Fair is fair. You want equal - you got it.



It is predictable that you narrowed abortion to just be about absolving the woman of financial responsibility. :doh
 
What other "unfairness to men" do you think we-the-people should have to pay for? What other chores of men that are not fair and the man doesn't want to do should we-the-people have to do for them?

I don't support violating a person's fundamental human liberties to save tax money. What other liberties do you support suspending in order to save the State money?
 
Last edited:
Ok, I will give you fair. When the man gets pregnant. He can "absolve" himself of financial responsibility in this manner as well. Fair is fair. You want equal - you got it.

This is utterly disingenuous and ignores the entire crux of the argument.

It is predictable that you narrowed abortion to just be about absolving the woman of financial responsibility. :doh

It isn't about being absolved of financial responsibility. It's about not being forced into a solemn and profound obligation against one's will. You're the one narrowing down a father's responsibilities to nothing more than financial support-- which is also a direct consequence of coercing them into providing that support in the first place.
 
No, you're very wrong. But you're relying on oversimplifications to reach a predetermined conclusion,so you were pretty much guaranteed to be wrong.

You said that "having sex is not consenting to have a child." Then you went on about custody. So you did not clearly answer the question at all.

So answer this simple question, yes or no:

Should a man who does not "consent to have a child" be on the hook for supporting that child if the woman decides to have it?

Once you've answered with a simple yes or no (because that's all that's required), if the answer is yes, tell me why he should be forced to support a child he did not consent to.

(This is your opportunity to be crystal clear and dispel any possible confusion about your position.)
 
I oppose all abortion but legally a man should have the same rights as the woman.

It would seem clear by your message the reason you oppose abortion has nothing to do with the fetus and only about the man having power.
 
I can understand a person being bitter about a breakup or divorce.

I can understand some people want the other person to suffer terribly in a breakup or divorce.

I can understand some people would rather property be destroyed than the other person having it in a breakup or divorce.

But wanting your own child to suffer to harm the other person and child is as cold-hearted as it gets. All the claims of "this is fair" is real sicko stuff in my opinion.
 
It would seem clear by your message the reason you oppose abortion has nothing to do with the fetus and only about the man having power.

Sure because that resembles something I said.

:roll:
 
I don't support violating a person's fundamental human liberties to save tax money. What other liberties do you support suspending in order to save the State money?


Yes, of course. Child need zero attention. Just put them in a box and stuff food through an opening? Children only need things money can buy and otherwise just stuck in a cage like an unwanted pet turned in to the animal shelter.

Claiming a man has a "fundamental human liberty" to abandon him child isn't "human liberty." It is the basest form of animalism in my opinion.
 
Sure because that resembles something I said.

:roll:

Point to anything in your messages on this topic that show you give the slightest damn about the child and you may have a point.
 
This isn't just a post to you, minnie, but to a lot of people who seem unclear about what is being discussed here.

As far as I am understanding it, we are discussing men relinquishing ALL parental rights, and not paying child support.

That is different from simply being a non-custodial parent. A non-custodial parent still has legal rights to the child, and thus may pay child support if requested. They are still, oficially, a parent -- just not one the child is living with on a significant basis.

We're discussing a man who basically gives up his child for "adoption" (presumably to the woman, or perhaps to someone else if she doesn't want it either). He has relinquished all of his parental rights.

A woman who gives up all rights to a child does not pay child support.

What we're arguing about here is, basically, the fact that men are generally not allowed to give up parental rights.

That last line is nonsense.

Women are not generally allowed to give up parental rights either.
 
If a woman aborts during the first few months of pregnancy, she absolves herself of her parental obligations for 18 years, too. Nobody is talking about allowing the father of a ten year old child to change his mind and shirk his duties to his children-- only that he should have the same right to refuse to become a parent as women have.

There are no parental obligations to a ZEF, so an abortion does not absolve her of parental obligations.

One can't absolve oneself of obligations that don't exist
 
I don't buy the whole "they could have kept their legs shut" thing for either sex. People are allowed to have intimacy in their lives without being punished by force birthing or force servitude.

Which is exactly what the misogynists don't accept, at least for women.
 
Point to anything in your messages on this topic that show you give the slightest damn about the child and you may have a point.

:roll:

Messages?

I posted one message.

That one message said I opposed all abortion.

How you took that to mean I don't give the slightest damn about children is beyond me.
 
You said that "having sex is not consenting to have a child." Then you went on about custody. So you did not clearly answer the question at all.

So answer this simple question, yes or no:

Should a man who does not "consent to have a child" be on the hook for supporting that child if the woman decides to have it?

Once you've answered with a simple yes or no (because that's all that's required), if the answer is yes, tell me why he should be forced to support a child he did not consent to.

(This is your opportunity to be crystal clear and dispel any possible confusion about your position.)

Yes, you are on the hook. And I will tell you why. Every situation where at least one parent retains custody, both parents retain some responsibility for that child. Unless it is completely given up, such as with adoption, both are still responsible. Regardless of which parent has custody. Regardless of how either parent feels about it. That's how the law works. There are sometimes exceptions, based on specific circumstances.

What you are seeking is a special exception, simply for being male, based on the societal bias that women should be the ones raising children. You not only want to enjoy the privilege where that is not expected of you, but add more privilege onto it where you don't even have to support the child. You are only seeking to make gender disparity worse. You want to really shift it around? You want to prove something for men? Get custody yourself. And then don't make her pay any support. Then you can come back and whine about things being unfair. As it stands, you're just trying to benefit even more from stripping women of their choices.

You do not get to opt out unilaterally any more than she does. The two of you together could agree that you don't have any part in supporting the child. The two of you together could agree to give the child up. But you do not get a special dispensation that she does not, simply for being male.
 
Is CONDITIONAL, UNILATERAL CONTROL to decide the fate of a conception SLANTED? YES!

Is CONDITIONAL, UNILATERAL CONTROL to decide the fate of a conception UNFAIR? YES!


And it's especially unfair to a kid born into Freak World where one of it's creators don't give a **** about its welfare.

The standing provisions that allow unilateral control to exist is built around "best interest"...period.

As of today there is no existing legal device to make it fair.

But this is what's most amazing about this thread:

All of the bitching in the past 1343 post...and not one single person has come up with a legal solution or legislated solution with is TRULY EQUITABLE. WHY?

PUT THE **** UP OR SHUT THE **** UP! What is a solution in which no party involved is injured (meaning welfare compromised) by the decision of the other?

I posted earlier that a LEGALLY BINDING SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP CONTRACT, which can define all of the variable which two people AGREE is the only way I can think of to level the equality issue. And even that doesn't guarantee that one of the parties involved won't be injured from the agreement. But it will remove the fundamental legal dispute about what happens when an unintended conception occurs. And this process removes government from intervention...unless the contract is broken. Then a court action will occur.
 
Yes, you are on the hook. And I will tell you why. Every situation where at least one parent retains custody, both parents retain some responsibility for that child. Unless it is completely given up, such as with adoption, both are still responsible. Regardless of which parent has custody. Regardless of how either parent feels about it. That's how the law works. There are sometimes exceptions, based on specific circumstances.

What you're saying is that they should be on the hook because they currently are on the hook.

What you are seeking is a special exception, simply for being male, based on the societal bias that women should be the ones raising children.

That's poppycock; it's not what I'm saying in the slightest.

What I'm saying is that if a woman decides to have and keep the child, when she doesn't have to, putting an unwilling father on the hook for it is hypocritical when the woman has the absolute choice to be a mother or not.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the "bias" that women should be raising the child. If she has the child, it's entirely by her own choice.


You do not get to opt out unilaterally any more than she does.

She has the absolute right to opt out, by aborting the child. At no point does the man have that ability.

You say "having sex is not consenting to have a child," but when you put the man on the hook for the woman's sole decision to have the child, you very much say that it IS so consenting.

There's no "special privilege" about it, and in fact, it's the woman who has the "special privilege," because she alone is the one who decides if the child is born or not. She's making the decision to be a parent for both.
 
This isn't just a post to you, minnie, but to a lot of people who seem unclear about what is being discussed here.

As far as I am understanding it, we are discussing men relinquishing ALL parental rights, and not paying child support.

That is different from simply being a non-custodial parent. A non-custodial parent still has legal rights to the child, and thus may pay child support if requested. They are still, oficially, a parent -- just not one the child is living with on a significant basis.

We're discussing a man who basically gives up his child for "adoption" (presumably to the woman, or perhaps to someone else if she doesn't want it either). He has relinquished all of his parental rights.

A woman who gives up all rights to a child does not pay child support.

What we're arguing about here is, basically, the fact that men are generally not allowed to give up parental rights.

No we're not. A man can always "give up parental rights."

We are discussing the ability for a man to unilaterally eliminate all his parental obligations towards his biological child. He can give up his "rights."

Any person can give up his/her rights. What he can't eliminate is parental obligation, nor can she, once the child is born.
 
No. I'm also pro-choice but that baby doesn't grow inside my body. If I didn't want a baby, I could have put my horse in a trojan. Or I could have been "fixed" (I am). Once I fire my missle then I'm responsible for the result even though it's not growing up in MY refugee camp:)

That argument is a 2 way street.

But I guess to be inline with the topic, I'm prolife and I say neither side gets reprieve. Wrap it up or accept the consequences.
 
I will overlook your repeated appeals to emotion and veiled ad hominem "maoist" statements and focus on the points you raise. :)

A man and a woman sign a loan to buy a car together. BUT then the woman leave and takes the car with her, and there is no clue where the car is at - yet the man is still liable for the loan.

Here is where your argument first fails. In order to buy a car together (as you propose) both parties must not only agree they wish to own a car, they must also agree to go through all the legal processes required to assume joint custody and pay for it. As I've already pointed out in the comment you quoted, sex is neither an agreement to conception nor a guarantee a baby will be born.

HOW THE HELL IS THAT FAIR?! OMG the INJUSTICE! Obviously the man should be able to stop making payments and have the government pay the loan. Why should the government pay the loan? Because it is unfair that he has to.

It is fair because the two parties have actually agreed to enter into such a contract. Here is where your second fail occurs. There are rules of joint property ownership and the male does have legal recourse to alleviate his share of the financial burden in the event the female attempts to assert full ownership of joint property. This does not occur when a female makes a unilateral decision about having a baby or not, or abandoning the male in order to have the baby and put it up for immediate adoption.

That is essentially what you and many others are claiming. A man's child is absolutely nothing other than an object the woman and man feud over. If the man loses the feud, then the child becomes the governments/MY responsibility.

You appear to be arguing from an essentially pro-life position. However, the fact remains that under current law during a clearly defined iniital period a woman has the absolute right to abort the baby. Your third fail is forgetting that under current state laws a woman has the right to legal abandonment (baby drop off) in some states, and immediate abandonment (giving it to the hospital to place in an orphanage) in others. In these scenarios even a pro-life woman can have the baby and then opt-out for both parties merely by not informing the male she was ever pregnant and then placing it up for immediate adoption.

Finally, apparently you see no difference between a ZEF and a 10 year old child. Thus, you conclude if the woman can abort the ZEF her parental duties during the first few months of pregnancy, then the man gets to abort his parental obligations for his child for 18 years after birth. And you call that "fairness." Explain how your view is fair to the child?

I am Pro-Choice! Of course I find a difference between a "ZEF" and a 10 year old child. The first is only a "potential" child and the law allows a woman the absolute right to abort during the initial stages of it's development in the womb. The second is a human being fully protected under the same laws that protect you and I from abuse, assault, murder, etc. That was your fourth fail.

Beyond that we do not know the condition of this "10 year-old child." Did the parent(s) put him up for adoption at birth? Did the mother abandon the father and choose to raise the child alone? Did the parents marry and elect to try to care for the 10 year-old together? Was there a divorce? Are one or both parents still alive? There are all sorts of other conitions we would need to know to discuss a "10 year-old child" that your overly simplistic appeal to emotion fails to provide for a complete analysis of "explain how the view is fair to the child." That was your final fail.

Your false analogy fails, sorry. :)
 
Last edited:
No we're not. A man can always "give up parental rights."

We are discussing the ability for a man to unilaterally eliminate all his parental obligations towards his biological child. He can give up his "rights."

Any person can give up his/her rights. What he can't eliminate is parental obligation, nor can she, once the child is born.

Yes, she can. She can sign that baby over, someone will take it away to be put up for adoption, and she will have no further obligation towards it. Happens every day.

Why is he beholden to her demands, where she isn't even beholden to the child?
 
Back
Top Bottom