• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”[W:589]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”


I don't think being married invalidates a woman's right to bodily autonomy. Aborting a child that the father wants may very well be considered grounds for divorce, but she is still entirely within her rights to do so.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Lursa said:
And apparently this alone...this 'unfairness' (that cannot be made fair) is grounds to take serious objection with the law that protects kids and taxpayers.
Click to expand...

There is no kid if she aborts... I am gonna keep saying this even though you ignore this fact. This fact shoots down your entire argument too... no kid if she aborts. Easy...
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”


When did taxpayers consent to paying child support? (I did make the distinction earlier) Or to paying unnecessary public assistance when the parents are available?

And since it's child support, then how is it justifiable to force ME, the taxpayer, into unwilling parenthood? A non-custodial doenst have to have ANY contact with a child agaisnt his/her will but he DOES have to pay. Just like the taxpayer.

See....it's very hypocritical and you cannot justify it.

Edit: And of course the father is DNA verifiably a 'father.' That's more denial of biology.
 
Last edited:
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Bodhisattva said:
There is no kid if she aborts... I am gonna keep saying this even though you ignore this fact. This fact shoots down your entire argument too... no kid if she aborts. Easy...
Click to expand...

Sure, we agree that's her choice that men dont have. Too bad. Just like men dont have a choice or abilty to become pregnant. Too bad. Cant change those things.

Edit: Can a woman demand that a man impregnate her against his will? No, having sex with her is HIS choice,, under his control.

It's not fair. It cant be fair. Doesnt make it immoral or wrong to hold the parties directly responsible for their (different but very relevant AND controllable) choices.

I note that you were unable to address justifying placing the burden created by those 2 parents onto taxpayers.
 
Last edited:
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Korimyr the Rat said:
I don't think being married invalidates a woman's right to bodily autonomy. Aborting a child that the father wants may very well be considered grounds for divorce, but she is still entirely within her rights to do so.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't invalidate it - but when you marry you're not longer 100% 'individual', either. Think of matters in which a spouse can make legal decisions for you - but if you weren't married they wouldn't be permitted to do so.

I think a loving husband/father has the legal right to address the matter via court (etc). I am not and never will be 100% pro-choice. There are gray areas in which I feel a woman does not have the right or has a bit less of a right - such as if she just doesn't want to use birth control or murdered her children by drowning them in a bathtub - I don't believe she has the right to decide these things for herself, anymore.

Mostly - I think this way because I think some women can be horrid and mean and do something such as abort a wanted child ONLY to hurt him.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Lursa said:
When did taxpayers consent to paying child support? (I did make the distinction earlier)
Click to expand...

Welfare isn't child support-- it's a government program to assist families who can't afford to support themselves, including single mothers who don't make enough to support the children they chose to have.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Aunt Spiker said:
No, it doesn't invalidate it - but when you marry you're not longer 100% 'individual', either. So I think a father has the legal right to address the matter via court (etc).
Click to expand...

I can't support any system in which a woman can be forced to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want. It's an unacceptable violation of her freedom whether she's married or not.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”


My argument was not to justify that but to get you to at least admit that she can abort if she does not want to raise the child alone as a logical option. Your refusal to be honest leaves me with no choice but to stop debating with you.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”


I know you like ranting about deadbeat dads, but actually more mothers than fathers don't pay their child support payments. Isn't that funny? Feminists rant and rave about deadbeat dads, but all the while moms are more often deadbeats.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Korimyr the Rat said:
I can't support any system in which a woman can be forced to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want. It's an unacceptable violation of her freedom whether she's married or not.
Click to expand...

Right . . . so if she wanted to go to a back alley abortionist when she's 30 weeks along - or have a partial-birth abortion - you'd be okay with that? Bull.

There are situations - however extreme or strange - in which personal autonomy goes out the freakin window.

A court decision.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Korimyr the Rat said:
Welfare isn't child support-- it's a government program to assist families who can't afford to support themselves, including single mothers who don't make enough to support the children they chose to have.
Click to expand...

Debating Lursa on this issue is futile... FYI.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Henrin said:
I know you like ranting about deadbeat dads, but actually more mothers than fathers don't pay their child support payments. Isn't that funny? Feminists rant and rave about deadbeat dads, but all the while moms are more often deadbeats.
Click to expand...

Or spreading their legs when they know they can't afford a kid even with a dad helping... talk about hypocrisy. The man chose when he had sex but she can choose after she has sex. Even then she can choose to stick it to him and not simply have an abortion, which is her choice. Hell, she even has the choice to not acknowledge that she could simply choose to abort if he doesn't want the kid. Choice for the woman... great. Choice for the man... almost non-existent.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Korimyr the Rat said:
Welfare isn't child support-- it's a government program to assist families who can't afford to support themselves, including single mothers who don't make enough to support the children they chose to have.
Click to expand...

I made the distinction...and parallel...earlier. If you just want to avoid the discussion,stop posting. Otherwise please do so honestly.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Bodhisattva said:
Debating Lursa on this issue is futile... FYI.
Click to expand...

I noticed that you did not justify shifting the male's obligations onto taxpayers...innocent bystanders in the creation of the child.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Aunt Spiker said:
Right . . . so if she wanted to go to a back alley abortionist when she's 30 weeks along - or have a partial-birth abortion - you'd be okay with that? Bull.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I'm torn on the issue of abortion after the point of viability. But before that point, I can't justify giving anybody else that authority over her body and her reproductive decisions; certainly, marriage isn't sufficient to justify such a gross violation of her autonomy.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Lursa said:
I made the distinction...and parallel...earlier. If you just want to avoid the discussion,stop posting. Otherwise please do so honestly.
Click to expand...

It's a false comparison, and I've been perfectly honest in my discussion.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”


Can men avoid these terrible, horrible choices women get to make (cuz I agree, these are choices available to women, altho IMO 90% of the time the choices are made honestly and not to 'stick it to men. LOLOLOL your bitterness and clear bias is showing)?

100% yes they can. So then what is the problem?
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Korimyr the Rat said:
It's a false comparison, and I've been perfectly honest in my discussion.
Click to expand...

OK, then it still stands that the parties responsible for creating the child should pay for it whenever possible as it is clearly unfair to force the taxpayers to do so when they are innocent of any participation.

Can you justify that *unnecessary* burden on the taxpayers?
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Lursa said:
I noticed that you did not justify shifting the male's obligations onto taxpayers...innocent bystanders in the creation of the child.
Click to expand...

I already stated that it is the woman's shifting the pay to the taxpayers because she wants to be selfish and not abort... very easy. This is an option. A logical one.

You will ignore it though... :roll:
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Bodhisattva said:
My argument was not to justify that but to get you to at least admit that she can abort if she does not want to raise the child alone as a logical option. Your refusal to be honest leaves me with no choice but to stop debating with you.
Click to expand...

Of course she can. When did I ever say she couldnt?

And you can stop anytime you want. Since you cant justify the unfair harm to the taxpayers, it's a likely move anyway.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”


Bitterness at what? :roll: I have two beautiful daughters that I have 50% of the time and that I would gladly talke full time from my bitch ex-wife. I pay. Why would I be bitter at men paying even when I pay $800 dollars more a month to her than she does to me based off of income, because she "chooses" to no work? Even then I am not bitter. It sucks but that is life. I AM disappointed at the dishonesty of some posters here that will not acknowldge that there is more than one valid option in this debate though...
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Lursa said:
Of course she can.
Click to expand...

Then what is the problem with the man being able to opt out then?
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Bodhisattva said:
I already stated that it is the woman's shifting the pay to the taxpayers because she wants to be selfish and not abort... very easy. This is an option. A logical one.

You will ignore it though... :roll:
Click to expand...

You dont know her motives. She may think she has a safety net in the man...and then he leaves her after an early termination window. Or her parents back out of supporting her. Or she is learns she has no maternity benefits at work (I never looked into that stuff ever...didnt care, not relevant.) She may have strong religious beliefs that prevent her from having an abortion. Do you not respect that?

Not only that, they dont force a father to pay child support until and if a mother applies for child support. Maybe she doesnt realize how much work she'd miss, how much daycare costs, or gets in over her head and then later applies for assistance? Maybe she loses her job? What a BITCH huh?

There are a million legitimate reasons why a woman would choose to keep the baby and then need public assistance. And just like for abortion, it's no one else's decision to tell her what is best for her and the child. If the father is concerned about the best interests of the child, he has an equal right to fight for it and custody.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”


I don't think his point was that men don't make horrible choices, but the attitude generally is that women are honest and not out to screw anyone and men are just out to sleep around and leave. The funny thing about male v. female sterotypes is that more times than not the exact opposite is true.

All these stereotypes are wrong...

More women want children than men. Wrong. More men than women want children.
More women than men want to marry. Wrong. More men than women want to marry
More men than women are abusive to their children. Wrong. More women than men are abusive to their children. Since this one is hard to believe...( 45.3% of the perpetrators were male and 53.5% were female.)
Men have more sex partners than women. Wrong. Women have more sex partners than men.
More men cheat than women. Wrong. Women cheat more often than men.
And of course..on average women are more likely to not pay their child support.

I love how men are the evil of everything though.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Bodhisattva said:
Then what is the problem with the man being able to opt out then?
Click to expand...

Because if at anytime she cannot pay for the kid, then taxpayers...ME...have to. Much less fair in the whole 'fairness' scheme of things in world where the law and reality cannot always be fair.

If you believe that 'fairness' is the issue here, then it's hypocritical not to respect the taxpayer's rights to "opt out" if the parents are available to do as much as they can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…