• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Male Rights During a Womans Pregnancy

Should a Man be able to choose?

  • No, He needs to take responsibity

    Votes: 5 29.4%
  • Yes, it should be his choice.

    Votes: 12 70.6%

  • Total voters
    17
Tom Leykis......gross. He occasionally says some very truthful things but it's so wrapped up in his general objectivity of women that the wisdom gets lost. Plus he is so judgemental when it comes to what a woman should look like that I expected him to be hot. How could you be sooo ugly and so judgemental with the physical appearance of others??? I don't know but you can!
 
talloulou said:
Tom Leykis......gross. He occasionally says some very truthful things but it's so wrapped up in his general objectivity of women that the wisdom gets lost. Plus he is so judgemental when it comes to what a woman should look like that I expected him to be hot. How could you be sooo ugly and so judgemental with the physical appearance of others??? I don't know but you can!
He's a big fat hypocrite, that's how.
When your a hypocrite you can say and do what ever you want regardless of what you tell others to do.
It's the most blissfull of ignorances.
 
vergiss said:
Wait, so a man needn't have responsibility forced upon him, but the woman does?


I could not help but commenting on this again after looking back and seeing it. THIS is funny!

So, a man and woman meet in a bar, go home, and have consentual sex. the woman gets pregnant - decides the guy has no right to even know about it let alone any choice in the matter, and cuts him out of the pictureby having an abortion.

Twist the scenario a little: Husband and wife have consentual sex, the wife decides the husband has no right to know about the baby or any right to having a say in the matter (choice), so she cuts him out of the picture and has the abortion.

So far we have 2 cases of the woman wanting the man to have NO PART/NO choice/NO say in the matter of whether to keep the baby or not. The person above calls this, I guess, havig the responsibility forced upon them because the woman CHOOSES to deny the other 2 parties (man and baby) a right to have a say and makes the decision for all 3.

NOW, this same person insists on the SAME couple meeting at a bar, going to one's home, having consentual sex, the woman getting pregnant, then taking the responsibility of choice upon herself once again for all concerned parties by deciding she will keep the baby and forcing the man, who may not and never did want the baby, to pay child support for the next 18 years or so, whether he wants to or not. A woman can just abort a child she does not want, shirking the very responsibility that a woman demands of a man should SHE decide she wants to keep it!

ALL the choices seem to be in the woman's hands while the man (and baby) have NONE. So WHO is forcing WHO here to do anything!

I believe a man should step up and take responsibility, but this BS attitude is one I can not stand! For women, don't mean to sound sourse or un-caring, but if you don't want to risk getting pregnant, abstain or use protection - don't be irresponsible and then use abortion like a post-sex contraceptive. If you do have unprotected sex, do not climb up on this soapbox Vergiss did and declare that this 'responsibility was FORCED upon you'. That is a lie because you had a choice before you did the deed!
 
easyt65 said:
I believe a man should step up and take responsibility, but this BS attitude is one I can not stand! For women, don't mean to sound sourse or un-caring, but if you don't want to risk getting pregnant, abstain or use protection - don't be irresponsible and then use abortion like a post-sex contraceptive. If you do have unprotected sex, do not climb up on this soapbox Vergiss did and declare that this 'responsibility was FORCED upon you'. That is a lie because you had a choice before you did the deed!

:agree :agree :agree :agree
 
easyt65 said:
Twist the scenario a little: Husband and wife have consensual sex, the wife decides the husband has no right to know about the baby or any right to having a say in the matter (choice), so she cuts him out of the picture and has the abortion.

Since she is, until the child is born, the only person capable of being responsible for the child's well-being, I don't think the issue of whether or not she is married changes the morality of her actions-- except for her assumed loyalty to her husband, whose wishes she should take into account.

I do not think her moral obligation to her husband or to their marriage is strong enough to override her right to decide whether or not she will carry the child.

easyt65 said:
NOW, this same person insists on the SAME couple meeting at a bar, going to one's home, having consensual sex, the woman getting pregnant, then taking the responsibility of choice upon herself once again for all concerned parties by deciding she will keep the baby and forcing the man, who may not and never did want the baby, to pay child support for the next 18 years or so, whether he wants to or not.

I agree that this is logically inconsistent-- and I'd argue that it is also morally intolerable.

If the father wishes to have any parental rights in regard to her children-- whether they are sired by him or not-- he should have to reach an agreement with her, either by registering a custody agreement or by marrying her.

If the mother wishes to impose any parental responsibilities upon the father, she should have to reach an agreement with him, either by registering a custody agreement or by marrying him.

Obviously, divorce would not invalidate these agreements; you can divorce your spouse, but not your children. A divorced spouse should still have full parental rights and responsibilities concerning his or her children-- unless the courts have found otherwise, with cause.

easyt65 said:
I believe a man should step up and take responsibility, but this BS attitude is one I can not stand!

I agree.

easyt65 said:
That is a lie because you had a choice before you did the deed!

Consent to sex is still not the same as consent to pregnancy; nor is consent to childbirth consent to parenthood.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
I do not think her moral obligation to her husband or to their marriage is strong enough to override her right to decide whether or not she will carry the child. If the father wishes to have any parental rights in regard to her children-- whether they are sired by him or not-- he should have to reach an agreement with her, either by registering a custody agreement or by marrying her.

In regards to having any say so in child birth within a marriage, I believe that marrying the woman IS an agreement and makes that decision of whether to have a child or not BOTH the husband and wife's decision.

In regards to a woman having sole decision-making authority on whether to carry the child or to abort the child, I have often wondered if it is 'smart' to make legislation declaring only SHE gets to have any say. The reason I am thinking along this line in this case is my concern of the emotional and psychological stae of the woman/girl having to make that decision alone. When a girl/woman finds out she is pregnant, she is suddenly faced with a life-altering, monumental decision and change. She is faced with the idea of not only going through 9 months of carrying the child, not only the changes in her life and future, not only the implications/changes that will affect the husband/father, but also the idea of carrying and caring for another tiny human being for the rest of her life. Those are some pretty heavy ideas/decisions to chew on. These sudden realities/choices are flying through her head, her emotions are off the chart trying to sort through it all, the hormones are flying....and we are telling a woman in the midst of all this that it is up to her to make a sound, responsible, well-grounded decision ALONE? I am not saying that ALL women go psycho and are incapable of making a logical, SANE decision, but that HAS to be incredibly difficult.

From personal experience, I have talked to several women who have had abortions who have said they wished they hadn't kept them a secret, had confided in the father, had confided in their parents (mother, for a few), had someone to talk to and help them through, and even 1 or two who have said they made the wrong decision and wished they could go back and change that decision.

Going from 1 extreme to the other, to jump back to the point about 'Who is forcing Who', I also have known 2 seperate guys over the years who were entrapped by girls (I say girls because in both cases the girls were immature but wanted their respective guy as their husband) who got pregnant in order to get the guys to marry them. Granted, the guys could have walked away and probably been forced by the courts to pay child support for the rest of their days, but they stepped up and did the 'right' thing by marrying the girls and taking care of the kids. In each case, the guy had no intention or desire to get the girl pregnant....but were still stupid enough NOT to use protection - which was their only real choice in the process. Once the girls were pregnant, they pretty much started forcing their will on the guys - the desire to get married. In the marriage that did not work, the guy (thought he) was too young, his whole life ahead of him, and did not want to be a father. Yes, he could have changed that by wearing protection, but he did not - once the girl was pregnant, his choices pretty much ended. Even if he had walked away, the girl could have FORCED him to become financially responsible for the child.

Therein lies the problem - it is the WOMAN who holds all the rights to having any say (a choice) in all 3 (THREE - mother, father, and baby) lives once she becomes pregnant.

I also have a problem with the courts and assigning guardianship of children to one parent or another in a divorce, which is majorly in the woman's favor. I know a buddy in the military whose ex began fooling around on him and doing drugs while he was away. He came home to catch her in an affair, having the guy in their home/bed with the kids there in the house, and strung out on drugs. They got a divorce, but the female judge awarded the kids to the mother (citing a maternal connection and stronger need for a 'mother's love' :shock: ) as well as alimony and child support. EXCUSE ME?! :doh But THAT is best left for some other thread, different topic!
 
easyt65 said:
In regards to having any say so in child birth within a marriage, I believe that marrying the woman IS an agreement...

That makes sense. However, if a husband and wife disagree on this matter, what happens? Whose authority is overridden? Can the woman file for divorce to regain sole authority?

That's the problem; you cannot give two people the authority to make a single decision-- because if they disagree, one of their decisions will be overridden.

easyt65 said:
In regards to a woman having sole decision-making authority on whether to carry the child or to abort the child, I have often wondered if it is 'smart' to make legislation declaring only SHE gets to have any say.

You don't have to write any such legislation; you need only refrain from writing any legislation that gives anyone else authority to override her decision. She would then be free to seek any counsel she feels is appropriate.

easyt65 said:
I also have a problem with the courts and assigning guardianship of children to one parent or another in a divorce, which is majorly in the woman's favor.

You don't want to get me started on the family courts, either. Back in '92, a judge left me in the custody of a sexual predator because my mother didn't have a job.

One of these days, I'm going to get a copy of that decree and frame it on my wall. Has a couple real beauties, as far as moral reasoning is concerned.
 
easyt65 said:
They got a divorce, but the female judge awarded the kids to the mother (citing a maternal connection and stronger need for a 'mother's love' :shock: ) as well as alimony and child support. EXCUSE ME?! :doh But THAT is best left for some other thread, different topic!
Do you know the name of this judge?
Legally establishing precedents like "a maternal connection and stronger need for a 'mother's love' " speaks against gay-marriage.
I would like to know this judge's stance on gay-marriage.
 
Jerry said:
That reminds me.......steen......
Regarding my claim about a global religion being Luciferian, anyone interested in exactly who and what luciferianism is, would be well informed should they listen to the interview of Aaron Donahue from Feb. 26th. on Coast-to-Coast-AM.

This guy is the real deal. No hocus-pocus psy-b.s.
A must listen for every Jew, Christian, Muslim and Hindu.
But how is that related to a global religion?

P.S., steen,
The lie about how man came to be?....."Donahue believes Lucifer is the "father of the human race" -- an entity that genetically manipulated mankind from primates."

Remember that next time you want to insist that I.D. is only a Christian creation. Christians are, obviously, very against this guy and Luciferianism, yet he espouses I.D. Donahue has scientific evidence lined up to back up his claims, though all that he has released so far are his winning lottery numbers.
OK. Agreed. I will reword to "religious." (And there are Muslim creationists as well. One was pulled into the KS hearings).

It is because of people like this why people like me are acclimating ourselves to being insulted by people like you for not believing scientific proofs. These scientific proofs will appear to be irrefutable. Yet people like me will not accept them, while people like you are at risk.
Huh? At risk? You are not making sense.
 
From the article:


"The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose."

I absolutely 100% agree and yet if they were to fix this injustice either men would be able to force women into having abortions or men would be able to just "opt out", which I'm sure they would do in droves, placing a whole bunch more people on welfare!

That's why both men and women must take responsibilty for their sexual actions. Opting out is irresponsible, selfish, and cowardly. At some point you just have to pay the piper and deal with the consequences of your actions.

And if you think it's unfair to women because they have to carry the baby...tough. When a couple wants a child the women carries the baby and considers it a privilege!
 
Last edited:
talloulou said:
From the article:


"The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose."

I absolutely 100% agree and yet if they were to fix this injustice either men would be able to force women into having abortions or men would be able to just "opt out", which I'm sure they would do in droves, placing a whole bunch more people on welfare!

That's why both men and women must take responsibilty for their sexual actions. Opting out is irresponsible, selfish, and cowardly. At some point you just have to pay the piper and deal with the consequences of your actions.

And if you think it's unfair to women because they have to carry the baby...tough. When a couple wants a child the women carries the baby and considers it a privilege!

Right on Tally. Good on you!
 
talloulou said:
I absolutely 100% agree and yet if they were to fix this injustice either men would be able to force women into having abortions or men would be able to just "opt out", which I'm sure they would do in droves, placing a whole bunch more people on welfare!
SO instead, you oppose abortions which then ALSO results in more people on welfare. That is plain dumb and illogical.

That's why both men and women must take responsibilty for their sexual actions. Opting out is irresponsible, selfish, and cowardly.
Why? If you have to opportunity to evade an unwanted outcome, why shouldn't you be given that chance? What is it with you fundie punitive types who delight in others suffering?

At some point you just have to pay the piper and deal with the consequences of your actions.
yes, have an abortion.

And if you think it's unfair to women because they have to carry the baby...tough. When a couple wants a child the women carries the baby and considers it a privilege!
And if they don't, then she doesn't. What significance did that lame argument have?
 
Back
Top Bottom