• 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
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Oh, really?

Did you know a lot of women never tell their partners they aborted?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant

When a woman aborts, the man has no obligation to support the child who will never be born.

Sure she can, if she just stops hanging out with him. Like I said, I've seen women do it.
Click to expand...

That doesn't stop the man from looking at her
 
sangha said:
Irrelevant

When a woman aborts, the man has no obligation to support the child who will never be born.
Click to expand...

Well, obviously. I'm just saying it's impossible for you to say that for certain.

That doesn't stop the man from looking at her
Click to expand...

Sure it does. If you don't see someone, you can't look at them.

Like I said, plenty of women actually do this. It isn't tough.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Well, obviously. I'm just saying it's impossible for you to say that for certain.
Click to expand...

Huh?

I can say for certain that man is not obligated to support a human that has been aborted




Sure it does. If you don't see someone, you can't look at them.
Click to expand...

If you stop "hanging out" with someone, that does not mean they can't still see you

Like I said, plenty of women actually do this. It isn't tough.
Click to expand...

Because the man doesn't care enough to do what is necessary

That's not tough either
 
sangha said:
Huh?

I can say for certain that man is not obligated to support a human that has been aborted
Click to expand...

Good lord, sangha.

You can't say for certain you've never gotten anyone pregnant.

If you stop "hanging out" with someone, that does not mean they can't still see you

Because the man doesn't care enough to do what is necessary

That's not tough either
Click to expand...

It does if you don't see them. What, are you just going to stalk her to see if she has a bump in a few months?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Good lord, sangha.

You can't say for certain you've never gotten anyone pregnant.
Click to expand...

I sure can.

I just did

And I'm right.




It does if you don't see them. What, are you just going to stalk her to see if she has a bump in a few months?
Click to expand...

It doesn't require stalking. All it requires is a look.

In fact, the father doesn't have to be the one who looks. He can have someone he trusts take a look and report back to him.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
There is no possible system that could do that, with the present limitations of medicine. Our present system presents substantial harm to all parties involved. And likely, any other system would too.

But that ain't the point. You aren't reading.

The point is that people have fundamental rights to their own person. If the possibility of negative outcomes is unavoidable -- and it is -- at least I can say I support the only position that doesn't impose harm in itself by treating one sex or the other as a servant or an idiot, either of which need to be controlled by a denial of rights.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd like to reply to your post, but can you give me a bit more clarification on what you meant regarding the highlighted comment at the end of your post?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Well, obviously. I'm just saying it's impossible for you to say that for certain.

Sure it does. If you don't see someone, you can't look at them.

Like I said, plenty of women actually do this. It isn't tough.
Click to expand...

I have just come to the realization that Sangha is merely a "contrarian." He simply "asserts" something and thus it becomes a "proven fact." He simply states the opposite of your position and this becomes a "proven fact."

I suppose it is possible that if he has had very few heterosexual experiences and remained in constant visual contact with all of the women he did have such experiences with he could state with some certainty he has never gotten anyone pregnant. It's also possible if he has always been celibate, or has never been interested in sex with a woman.

He can also state that if a man stays in constant visual contact with a woman from conception until birth, eventually he will notice changes in her body indicative of pregnancy. What he cannot state with such absolute certainty is that ALL men do so, and that those who don't WILL KNOW when a woman they have slept with has gotten pregnant, had an abortion, or had the baby.

He also keeps focusing on the issue of child support, which is only one of the many concerns with having an unwanted child. In any case he will simply make absolute statements contradicting whatever is said, and then "accept your surrender" when you get tired of responding. ;)
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
I have just come to the realization that Sangha is merely a "contrarian." He simply "asserts" something and thus it becomes a "proven fact." He simply states the opposite of your position and this becomes a "proven fact."

I suppose it is possible that if he has had very few heterosexual experiences and remained in constant visual contact with all of the women he did have such experiences with he could state with some certainty he has never gotten anyone pregnant. It's also possible if he has always been celibate, or has never been interested in sex with a woman.

He can also state that if a man stays in constant visual contact with a woman from conception until birth, eventually he will notice changes in her body indicative of pregnancy. What he cannot state with such absolute certainty is that ALL men do so, and that those who don't WILL KNOW when a woman they have slept with has gotten pregnant, had and abortion, or had the baby.

He also keeps focusing on the issue of child support, which is only one of the many concerns with having an unwanted child. In any case he will simply make absolute statements contradicting whatever is said, and then "accept your surrender" when you get tired of responding. ;)
Click to expand...

I cannot state that all men do what I have done, but I can state with certainty that their actions were ones that they chose to engage in. Men have choices

And I focus on child support because that was the issue your OP focused on
 
Well....on a bright note, it is nice that only 3 folks in the poll thought that a man has the right to force a woman to abort.
 
Well (once you remove the Pro-Life votes), here's the real breakdown so far:

68% indicate a man should have a right to opt-out. (50 votes counting 1 member who posted that he accidentally voted "I don't know.")
22% indicate a man should adhere to the status quo. (16 votes)
5% indicate they don't know. (4 votes)
4% indicate a man should have a right to require abortion. (3 votes)

As stated, the pro-life option was only added to prevent complaints from members about not having a "choice" to vote for. I'm all about "choice." ;)

I do want to personally thank the pro-life members who've gotten into the spirit of the discussion and posted hypothetical comments for purposes of debate. :)
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
I have just come to the realization that Sangha is merely a "contrarian." He simply "asserts" something and thus it becomes a "proven fact." He simply states the opposite of your position and this becomes a "proven fact."

I suppose it is possible that if he has had very few heterosexual experiences and remained in constant visual contact with all of the women he did have such experiences with he could state with some certainty he has never gotten anyone pregnant. It's also possible if he has always been celibate, or has never been interested in sex with a woman.

He can also state that if a man stays in constant visual contact with a woman from conception until birth, eventually he will notice changes in her body indicative of pregnancy. What he cannot state with such absolute certainty is that ALL men do so, and that those who don't WILL KNOW when a woman they have slept with has gotten pregnant, had an abortion, or had the baby.

He also keeps focusing on the issue of child support, which is only one of the many concerns with having an unwanted child. In any case he will simply make absolute statements contradicting whatever is said, and then "accept your surrender" when you get tired of responding. ;)
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, I forgot, you're new-ish. :lol:

It's almost impressive at times, watching the act, isn't it?
 
sangha said:
It doesn't require stalking. All it requires is a look.

In fact, the father doesn't have to be the one who looks. He can have someone he trusts take a look and report back to him.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's not creepy at all.

I can see it now: a horde of men enlisting spies on their ex-girlfriends for the next year, following them to each medical appointment, staring at their abdomens.

Pretty sure you can be prosecuted for that.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Wow, that's not creepy at all.

I can see it now: a horde of men enlisting spies on their ex-girlfriends for the next year, following them to each medical appointment, staring at their abdomens.

Pretty sure you can be prosecuted for that.
Click to expand...

Looking isn't stalking.

If you're talking about some guy who bangs random female strangers he just met, I could see how that man could lose contact with the girl. However, by having sex with such women, he has demonstrated a lack of concern about the possible offspring he has created.
 
sangha said:
Looking isn't stalking.

If you're talking about some guy who bangs random female strangers he just met, I could see how that man could lose contact with the girl. However, by having sex with such women, he has demonstrated a lack of concern about the possible offspring he has created.
Click to expand...

we have no idea who the bio-dad for my oldest adopted son is. his crackhead mother slept with so many guys that she doesn't have a clue. before the adoption, she accused at least 8 guys of being the baby daddy and DNA test ruled them all out
 
RECAP of variables.

The biggie complaint by mainly men:

Current laws allow unilateral control for women to legally deprive a man of his right to become a parent...or force him to become one against his will.

The following categories are probably the most considered elements involved:

Abortion vetoing

If a man impregnates a woman with the explicit goal of having a child, in a manner that is mutually consensual, then it would be morally unacceptable for that woman to later have an abortion.

Pregnancy vetoing

If one grants a man veto power over a woman’s choice to have an abortion in cases where he is willing to pay for the child, why not grant him the right to demand an abortion where he is unwilling to provide for the child?

Opting out:

Captain Adverse made available a source the author created a theory called "Male Abortion" in which she argues that men should be able to terminate their legal and financial obligations to unwanted children...based on constitutional gender-equality. (I personally think substantive due process is an issue)


Opting in (this is hard to articulate...soooo)

It is also possible, rather than taking the stance that men should have the freedom to opt out of inherent responsibilities and rights, to take the stance that one must opt-in and agree to undertake those responsibilities to be compelled to follow them, and only through doing so, earn parental rights. This is what occurs during adoption.

Unilateral Control

A huge can of worms no matter which party possesses it.

Very light version of objection (list too long)

Those who object to men having a right to direct involvement argue that because it is the woman who carries the couple's unborn, her determination for or against abortion should be the definitive one and that embryo or fetus is within the woman's body, it can't be separated from her, so it's not just her decision-making about whether to bear a child, it's about her body and potential related consequences. (reasons are considerably more complex than this - so don't drop the hammer)

So far I haven't seen any solutions which exempts potential harm to any or all of the parties involved The issue that I see is that there appears to be the existence of a special case of substantive due process jurisprudence (theory or a philosophical element of due process), which are those rights which involve a degree of "third-party harm"; that is, the chance that someone or something else may suffer by exercise of the right.
 
sangha said:
Looking isn't stalking.

If you're talking about some guy who bangs random female strangers he just met, I could see how that man could lose contact with the girl. However, by having sex with such women, he has demonstrated a lack of concern about the possible offspring he has created.
Click to expand...

Now we're talkin'. Good old fashioned slut-shaming. Way to be a hypocrite.

Because it's not like people ever break up, right? It must be that the guy is just a slut, by whatever your criteria are, and he deserves what he gets.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is total equality on adoption. The woman can not give away a born baby for adoption without the bio-father's consent, and visa versa.

Once the child is born, in most states there is NO distinction of legal duties and rights between the man and the woman. Courts tend to show a custody preference for women particularly for young children, but that generally is not based in law.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Now we're talkin'. Good old fashioned slut-shaming. Way to be a hypocrite.

Because it's not like people ever break up, right? It must be that the guy is just a slut, by whatever your criteria are, and he deserves what he gets.
Click to expand...
Not sure which you mean, but I'm pretty sure if he was shaming anyone it was slutty men, not women. I imagine he probably dates women who have the decency to let people know if they become a father. I say father for lack of a better term in case you were thinking nitpicking.
 
joko104 said:
There is total equality on adoption. The woman can not give away a born baby for adoption without the bio-father's consent, and visa versa.

Once the child is born, in most states there is NO distinction of legal duties and rights between the man and the woman. Courts tend to show a custody preference for women particularly for young children, but that generally is not based in law.
Click to expand...

That's true in theory, but in practice, like I said, it's relatively easy for a woman to get around the consent of the bio father.

So, in practice, women do have the ability to unilaterally give up their rights to a child.

Courts show more than a "preference" for the woman. I've seen it plenty. If there's a battle, the courts will often prefer a troubled woman over a fit man, simply because she is a woman, and a man better be prepared to lose everything but the shirt on his back if he wants to win. It can be done, but it's very, very difficult. And that is yet another problem that we have in this country as regards men's rights in reproduction and parenting.
 
sbrettt said:
Not sure which you mean, but I'm pretty sure if he was shaming anyone it was slutty men, not women. I imagine he probably dates women who have the decency to let people know if they become a father. I say father for lack of a better term in case you were thinking nitpicking.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's my point.

Is it somehow more acceptable to slut shame men? Since when did that happen?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Yes, that's my point.

Is it somehow more acceptable to slut shame men? Since when did that happen?
Click to expand...

LOL men are typically the slutty ones so yes. We deserve it. I couldn't tell it was your point because I couldn't even figure out what you two were actually disagreeing on. :lol:
 
sbrettt said:
LOL men are typically the slutty ones so yes. We deserve it. I couldn't tell it was your point because I couldn't even figure out what you two were actually disagreeing on. :lol:
Click to expand...

Men deserve to have bad things wished on them because you don't like their sexual behavior?

Sorry, gotta disagree.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Now we're talkin'. Good old fashioned slut-shaming. Way to be a hypocrite.

Because it's not like people ever break up, right? It must be that the guy is just a slut, by whatever your criteria are, and he deserves what he gets.
Click to expand...

I said nothing about the fathers morals, and certainly did not use the word "slut". Funny how your mind goes there

And I have broken up with females. That doesn't mean that I lost all contact with them.

And the father doesn't "deserve what he gets". What he does *NOT* get is the ability to shirk his responsibility to support any children he produces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom