• 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
Wtf?
Giving the male a choice is the proposal.


Wrong, as this proposal is and can be viable and legal.
So stop pretending like it can't.


No it doesn't, as we are talking about the time after conception when she gets to choose. A choice which may burden the male. Which is what is unfair, and the proposal eliminates that unfairness.


Yes, we know you stated a ridiculous suggestion.
Once this proposal is excepted there is no need for all the other bs.
We know who is responsible for the child. Obviously the woman, and anybody else who accepted responsibility.


The below already put you arguments in their place as nonsense.
So why you persist at being wrong, I have no idea.


And what is the best interest of the child and the state, can change with the flick of a pen or the wisp of a decision.
And having it established prior to birth as to whom is responsible, seems like it is in the best interest of both.

Which also means that a woman choosing to bring a child into this world would be doing so knowing she would be responsible for supporting the child if the man didn't want to. Which equates to a more informed decision as whether or not to bring a child into this world. Likely resulting in less births. Less births where the state wouldn't have to seek out someone to be responsible because she couldn't.

Making a decision before birth as to who is responsible does not compromise anybody's welfare. It actually ensures who is responsible for the child's welfare.

Ex...all circular.

Until I see the actual legislative language used to enact a law that GIVE MEN CHOICE...back to square one.

And the more you say that I'm "wrong" doesn't make it anymore true.
 
Ex...all circular.
:doh
Yes that is what those on your side of the coin have been doing.
They know we are past the point of sex and actually after the point of conception, yet they keep wanting to go back to the initial point which is irrelevant.
Very circular of them.

Until I see the actual legislative language used to enact a law that GIVE MEN CHOICE...back to square one.
Oy vey!
No responsibility attaches until acceptance.
That is basically the proposal.
So stop playing games like you do not know what it is.


And the more you say that I'm "wrong" doesn't make it anymore true.
Exactly, because it can't be any more true than it already is.
You are wrong.
It is repeated as it needs to be.
 
They don't break them wide open. Any idiot can see that. They poke holes in them, or age them with heat, or take them and use them to "turkey baste." Yes, really.

It may not be condoms she bought. It may be condoms he bought, and she just knows where he keeps them.

And FYI... all of the people I know who got "oopsed" were in relationships.

Your judgementality about other people's sex lives is not a good excuse to take people's rights away, or to treat a child as a punishment. Gee, great parenting ethic there.

When the baby is born, I am concerned with his/her rights to be supported. Why is that so difficult to understand?

I think it is disgusting and abhorrent that a woman would sabotage the man. I am not sure if their are legal remedies. Can the sabotages be proven? A many would have every right to be angry. How does he know that there was "turkey basting" or heating or pin pricks? Did the woman acknowledge it?

But again, my primary concern is for the child and the support of the child.
 
:doh
Yes that is what those on your side of the coin have been doing.
They know we are past the point of sex and actually after the point of conception, yet they keep wanting to go back to the initial point which is irrelevant.
Very circular of them.

Oy vey!
No responsibility attaches until acceptance.
That is basically the proposal.
So stop playing games like you do not know what it is.



Exactly, because it can't be any more true than it already is.
You are wrong.
It is repeated as it needs to be.

Oh brother....

All you want to see occur is to create a different "unilateral authority"...

And you believe that government can recreate best interest which is, beyond reasonable doubt, truly the best interest of a kid...based off of a couple of people who like to have sex without consequences...until the consequences actually happen.

Nothing...absolutely NOTHING you've posted that proves me wrong.
 
Oh brother....

All you want to see occur is to create a different "unilateral authority"...

And you believe that government can recreate best interest which is, beyond reasonable doubt, truly the best interest of a kid...based off of a couple of people who like to have sex without consequences...until the consequences actually happen.

Nothing...absolutely NOTHING you've posted that proves me wrong.
As you already know, you are wrong.
But I don't mind telling you again.
 
Last edited:
I am always curious about the "vandalized" condom stories. If the condom breaks when it is put on - don't penetrate. It is really that simple. If you are relying on condoms she bought? Why? You don't buy her birth control. why do you let her buy your condoms?

Wow, seriously? Your response to this is "he should have been more careful"?

I'm starting to understand what all the fuss about "slut shaming" is all about.
 
When the baby is born, I am concerned with his/her rights to be supported. Why is that so difficult to understand?

I think it is disgusting and abhorrent that a woman would sabotage the man. I am not sure if their are legal remedies. Can the sabotages be proven? A many would have every right to be angry. How does he know that there was "turkey basting" or heating or pin pricks? Did the woman acknowledge it?

But again, my primary concern is for the child and the support of the child.

In one case I know of, yes, she did actually admit it. I also know of a case of a man admitting it after he got her pregnant.

However, in many cases they don't, and I have no trouble accepting that they were "oopsed" because I have a good understanding of the situation, and I'm not going to explain that here.

The way I know how they do it is, well... Google it. Plenty of people admit to doing this to their partners. It's actually way more common than people think.

You're concerned with the child's rights, as long as the woman doesn't have to provide them, right? She can give it up for adoption. She can have it knowing she's unfit and someone else will have to pick up the slack. That's all good and well.

But the man should be forced into parenthood, no matter what the circumstance or how unable he might be, and that's just too damn bad for him?

You're no better than anti-choicers in the sexism and shaming and lack of care for liberty that you express against men.
 
In one case I know of, yes, she did actually admit it. I also know of a case of a man admitting it after he got her pregnant.

However, in many cases they don't, and I have no trouble accepting that they were "oopsed" because I have a good understanding of the situation, and I'm not going to explain that here.

The way I know how they do it is, well... Google it. Plenty of people admit to doing this to their partners. It's actually way more common than people think.

You're concerned with the child's rights, as long as the woman doesn't have to provide them, right? She can give it up for adoption. She can have it knowing she's unfit and someone else will have to pick up the slack. That's all good and well.

But the man should be forced into parenthood, no matter what the circumstance or how unable he might be, and that's just too damn bad for him?

You're no better than anti-choicers in the sexism and shaming and lack of care for liberty that you express against men.

She can give up for adoption? If the father is known does he not have to agree to the adoption? I was under the impression there had to be a good faith effort to find the father so he will sign the papers as well. If this was very casual sex or bar pick ups or such, it may not be possible to know

But you make it sound like a woman in each case has the right to give up the baby for adoption without the father's approval. I am not sure this is true. I had a coworker in danger of losing her soon to be born openly adopted baby because the father changed his mind. The father did some soul searching and ended up agreeing to the adoption, but there was a few weeks of tears and agony when it was thought that the adoption was in danger.

But at least in this case, he had to sign the papers to give up parental rights and have the baby to be adopted legally. I am not sure how this relates to laws across the country or if this was a lawyer being over cautious. But my guess is there are laws against adopting the baby without good faith efforts to find the father.
 
She can give up for adoption? If the father is known does he not have to agree to the adoption? I was under the impression there had to be a good faith effort to find the father so he will sign the papers as well. If this was very casual sex or bar pick ups or such, it may not be possible to know

But you make it sound like a woman in each case has the right to give up the baby for adoption without the father's approval. I am not sure this is true. I had a coworker in danger of losing her soon to be born openly adopted baby because the father changed his mind. The father did some soul searching and ended up agreeing to the adoption, but there was a few weeks of tears and agony when it was thought that the adoption was in danger.

But at least in this case, he had to sign the papers to give up parental rights and have the baby to be adopted legally. I am not sure how this relates to laws across the country or if this was a lawyer being over cautious. But my guess is there are laws against adopting the baby without good faith efforts to find the father.

And how tough is it for her to simply not reveal the father? Not tough at all.

Lots of women hide their pregnancies. The hospital has no recourse if she simply says she doesn't know, whether that's true or not. What are they gonna do about it?

The man can't do anything without the woman allowing him to. Not even as pertains to his own life.

On the other hand, the woman can do virtually anything she wants without his permission or knowledge, including give away the baby and ensuring he will never even see it.
 
And interestingly (although, to me anyway, totally unsurprisingly), a lot of the pro-choicers here don't accept it when it pertains to men.

I prefer not to be sexist towards anyone, personally. When I say I'm pro-choice, there's no qualifiers about which sex you must be in order to control your own life.

I have no idea what this even means. Can you please clarify?
 
And how tough is it for her to simply not reveal the father? Not tough at all.

Lots of women hide their pregnancies. The hospital has no recourse if she simply says she doesn't know, whether that's true or not. What are they gonna do about it?

The man can't do anything without the woman allowing him to. Not even as pertains to his own life.

On the other hand, the woman can do virtually anything she wants without his permission or knowledge, including give away the baby and ensuring he will never even see it.

So a woman who says something is evil and if she withholds the information she is evil as well.

Y'all keep talking about fair, and it just comes off as a temper tantrum.

The bottom line is that once the baby is born it is about the baby. And if the baby needs to be supported - daddy - whether he throws a tantrum or not is just gonna have to "man up" and except the consequences of his actions.
 
So a woman who says something is evil and if she withholds the information she is evil as well.

Y'all keep talking about fair, and it just comes off as a temper tantrum.

The bottom line is that once the baby is born it is about the baby. And if the baby needs to be supported - daddy - whether he throws a tantrum or not is just gonna have to "man up" and except the consequences of his actions.

What?

All I think is that men should be allowed to make their own decisions. I honestly don't care what she does, so long as she isn't trying to force anyone else to do her wishes.

Daddy has to support the baby, but apparently mommy doesn't. Mommy can do whatever she wants with it, but you don't think the man has any say at all.
 
Oy Vey! :doh
That is not proof of your position.
Nor can you provide proof of such.

Consent to have sex is not consent to have a child.
Nothing in what you provided says so.
You are engaging in silliness.

As I previously stated; If sex resulted in pregnancy a majority of the time, you might be able to assert such a claim. As it is, it doesn't, so your position is silly.
Consent to have sex is not consent to have a child, only to sex.

Especially when contraceptives are involved. Which plainly indicate there is no consent to a child.


No it is not Jerry.
You can ignore that all you want and continue to hold to your absolutely absurdly idiotic position, but it changes nothing.
Consent to sex is not consent to a child.

I have debunked this in different ways.
So for you and those like you, lets go in this direction.

We already know that this isn't consent to have a child because if it was then the woman would also be consenting to a child by having sex. Yet that simply isn't true. Her choice to consents comes later when she knows she is pregnant.
If it isn't consent for her at the time of sex, it isn't consent for the male either.
Stop being irrational....
1.jpg

But lets go with your absurd idea that it is. (even though it isn't)
The woman later gets to change her mind/withdraw consent once she finds out she is pregnant.
Since she gets to do this, then so should the male.
It is only fair and proper.
Neither should be able to. No pregnancy should be aborted except for medical necessity. Neither the man nor the woman should be able to opt out. That's fair to all 3 people involved, not just the mother and father.
 
Last edited:
Everything is so unfair to us men! :2bigcry:
 
Hi RM. Hows things today? :)

Since you wish to see something along the lines of a "Model Statute" here is a link to a dissertation provided by Melanie G. McCulley. It' starts off like this:



The rest (along with some good reading on the merits) can be found here: http://maleabortion.com/

Perhaps that will help. ;)


Wow, what a BIZARRE TWIST OF REASONING. To claim that because rotten deadbeat fathers don't pay child support and the children don't like that, then the solution is to make EVERYONE a deadbeat dad.

Why not argue that because rape upsets women, then the solution is to legalize non-consensual sex thereby eliminating "rape."

The claim in your link is absurd. The child won't like having a deadbeat dad - whether or not being a deadbeat parent is legalized. Not many little children read the statutes of the Family Code. Not requiring child support would not eliminate a deadbeat father being a deadbeat father. That makes as much sense as saying no one is troubled anymore by adultery because it is no longer illegal.
 
What?

All I think is that men should be allowed to make their own decisions. I honestly don't care what she does, so long as she isn't trying to force anyone else to do her wishes.

Daddy has to support the baby, but apparently mommy doesn't. Mommy can do whatever she wants with it, but you don't think the man has any say at all.

That is a totally false statement AND YOU KNOW IT. Women who do not primary custody/conservatorship 100% have to pay child support on 100% exactly the same basis for determining the amount required.

Overall, by law, once a child is born there is NO distinction in law between the man or the woman in legal rights or obligations.
 
Wow, what a BIZARRE TWIST OF REASONING. To claim that because rotten deadbeat fathers don't pay child support and the children don't like that, then the solution is to make EVERYONE a deadbeat dad.

Why not argue that because rape upsets women, then the solution is to legalize non-consensual sex thereby eliminating "rape."

The claim in your link is absurd. The child won't like having a deadbeat dad - whether or not being a deadbeat parent is legalized. Not many little children read the statutes of the Family Code. Not requiring child support would not eliminate a deadbeat father being a deadbeat father. That makes as much sense as saying no one is troubled anymore by adultery because it is no longer illegal.

(SIGH) RM kept asking for an example of "legislation," but I am not writing one. As I explained over and over this is a hypothetical discussion about an existing inequity.

I discovered quite by accident that there are groups actually working on the issue. If you want more information google "male abortion" and see what comes up.

Meanwhile, you have offered nothing but the same fallacies I pointed out in my recent post on the issue. When you offer something I think needs a response I will as you've seen me do. ;)
 
That is a totally false statement AND YOU KNOW IT. Women who do not primary custody/conservatorship 100% have to pay child support on 100% exactly the same basis for determining the amount required.

Overall, by law, once a child is born there is NO distinction in law between the man or the woman in legal rights or obligations.

It's a completely true statement. She can relinquish her parental rights, can she not? Again, have you forgotten about adoption?

There is an enormous distinction. The woman can do virtually anything. The man can do virtually nothing.
 
Stop being irrational....
As you are the one being so... Your comment applies to you.


Neither should be able to. No pregnancy should be aborted except for medical necessity. Neither the man nor the woman should be able to opt out. That's fair to all 3 people involved, not just the mother and father.
Neither should be he says! :doh
More irrationality... and showing your claims that that consent to sex is consent to have a child, was nothing other than the manifestations of your irrational thoughts. Not something that is universal or even accepted. And definitely not law.

One is allowed that is the way it is.
As that is the way it is, it needs to be equalized so the man has the same option. That is rational.
 
What?

All I think is that men should be allowed to make their own decisions. I honestly don't care what she does, so long as she isn't trying to force anyone else to do her wishes.

Daddy has to support the baby, but apparently mommy doesn't. Mommy can do whatever she wants with it, but you don't think the man has any say at all.

If mom keeps the baby........mom and dad support the baby.

If mom wants to adopt out the baby she needs the fathers approval.

If the mother wants to adopt the baby out and the father wants to keep the baby, is that not allowable?

If the dad keeps the baby, would the mother not be on the hook for child support?

Please tell me if I am wrong.
 
Wow, seriously? Your response to this is "he should have been more careful"?

I'm starting to understand what all the fuss about "slut shaming" is all about.

No, my point is that sex is high stakes. It is a wonderful intimate part of our lives, but high stakes. Folks should know that pregnancy and life threatening STDs can be part of that union.

So being careful with your partner, protecting yourselves from unwanted STD/pregnancy is part of the deal.

But the bottom line is that both have to live with the consequences of their actions.
 
If mom keeps the baby........mom and dad support the baby.

If mom wants to adopt out the baby she needs the fathers approval.

If the mother wants to adopt the baby out and the father wants to keep the baby, is that not allowable?

If the dad keeps the baby, would the mother not be on the hook for child support?

Please tell me if I am wrong.

First one's right.

Second two are both wrong.

If the mother wants to give the baby away, she doesn't need anyone's approval. All she has to do is not tell who the father is, that way they can't try to get his permission. That simple.

I am fairly sure the woman would not be allowed to relinquish the baby to the father. Now, before you tell me things are therefore "fair," keep in mind that the woman has an extremely easy way to get around that, which I mentioned above.

If she remained a legal parent, yes, but again, see above. It's ridiculously easy for her to avoid that.

What we have right now is a system that practically encourages women to find loopholes.
 
No, my point is that sex is high stakes. It is a wonderful intimate part of our lives, but high stakes. Folks should know that pregnancy and life threatening STDs can be part of that union.

I agree with this...

But the bottom line is that both have to live with the consequences of their actions.

... but I don't agree with this, because it's not true. When a woman becomes pregnant, she still has options; the man doesn't. And like all inequities of power, this leads to exploitation and abuse.
 
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?

Uh, yeah, they are. Again, it's called giving up a child for adoption.

If the father objects, the court will not allow her to give the kid up for adoption
 
So if neither "parent" has any legal or moral obligations to the ZEF, how does a man become obligated to the ZEF when it is born?

Because a born baby is a person



There is, however, a fundamental human liberty to make your own reproductive choices.

And men have that liberty
 
Back
Top Bottom