• 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!

Should men have a right to damage fetus with substances and other ways?

Should a man have a right to damage fetus with substances and in other ways?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 33.3%
  • No

    Votes: 6 66.7%

  • Total voters
    9
Of course it matters if your claims have any validity to them.



As others keep pointing out it's a faulty comparison, because the discussion doesn't merely concern a woman behaving in a manner that will affect her eggs, but her embryo.


See, if you're going to draw an analogy to something, those things need to be similar





But your entire premise makes no sense and is seemingly devoid of scientific backing.

You seem to be saying that once the egg is fertilized that neither the male or his sperm bears any responsibilty in the embryos develoment? Is that right?

Men's sperm is responsible for a lot more miscarriages, birth defects and childhood cancers than most men would care to admit....and its not just genetic...it's exposure to toxics or what they consume that can also damage sperm. Some men want to put all the responsibility and blame on women for birth defects when in fact men can also be the blame. Here's some scientific backing.....

Research on Birth Defects Shifts to Flaws in Sperm - New York Times

Men and Birth Defects - What Men Can Do To Prevent Birth Defects - Parenting.com

Father's Jobs That Cause Birth Defects | Men's Health News


So if knowing that alcohol, drugs and/or cigarettes can damage the sperm which in turn can cause birth defects, should men be held punitively responsible for a miscarriage or a birth defect if they did drugs or drank and smoked excessively prior to conception and the woman didn't? A yes or no answer will suffice.
 
As I said to Removable, it's one thing to say his sperm is damaged and another to prove he caused it by his actions.
There seems to be plenty of evidence that toxins and chemicals can damage the sperm which in turn can cause miscarriages and birth defects. So in knowing this do you think men have the right to consume drugs, alcohol and smoke cigarettes that are known to cause birth defects and then impregnant a woman?
 
You seem to be saying that once the egg is fertilized that neither the male or his sperm bears any responsibilty in the embryos develoment? Is that right?

No, that isn't what I wrote. I wrote that a woman ingesting things that are known to cause *developmental issues* *while pregnant* is not the same as engaging in behavior that may damage an unfertilized sex cell.

this is because egg and sperm =/= fertilized egg



Here's some scientific backing.....

Popular news articles tend to be notoriously bad translating scientific research. You'll notice how the NYT articles often uses words like "may", "seem", possibly linked", , could, etc. These are very important words that indicate no clear link is actually established in the research, only that these are hypothesis that are currently being pursued in research.

And goes on to state "But epidemiological studies cannot prove cause and effect, said Dr. John Peters, an epidemiologist at the University of Southern California. In real life, people are exposed sporadically to combinations of substances that might interact, he said. A child can encounter toxic chemicals by contact with the father's clothing."
 
There seems to be plenty of evidence that toxins and chemicals can damage the sperm which in turn can cause miscarriages and birth defects. So in knowing this do you think men have the right to consume drugs, alcohol and smoke cigarettes that are known to cause birth defects and then impregnant a woman?

Is your job putting your future children at risk? New research finds a link between your job and birth defects in children, according to a study in Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

Researchers interviewed 10,000 mothers who gave birth to children with birth defects and 4,000 who had healthy children asking about medications, exposure to chemicals, and other lifestyle choices. The findings? A link between father’s professions—three months before conception to the first month of pregnancy—and specific types of birth defects.

This isn't the same as what you are claiming. A link to occupation is not the same as a causative relationship to defects in sperm, or even those defects leading to anything you listed above.
 
No, that isn't what I wrote. I wrote that a woman ingesting things that are known to cause *developmental issues* *while pregnant* is not the same as engaging in behavior that may damage an unfertilized sex cell.

this is because egg and sperm =/= fertilized egg
You will note that in the OP and thread title that the sperm has already fertilized the egg so your arguement is ruled out. I think the OP wants you to decide if men have right to impregnate women knowing they might have damaged sperm that could cause miscarriages, birth defects or childhood illnesses?


Popular news articles tend to be notoriously bad translating scientific research. You'll notice how the NYT articles often uses words like "may", "seem", possibly linked", , could, etc. These are very important words that indicate no clear link is actually established in the research, only that these are hypothesis that are currently being pursued in research.

And goes on to state "But epidemiological studies cannot prove cause and effect, said Dr. John Peters, an epidemiologist at the University of Southern California. In real life, people are exposed sporadically to combinations of substances that might interact, he said. A child can encounter toxic chemicals by contact with the father's clothing."
The NYT article was from 1991 and the research was just beginning so thats why they correctly used words like "may", "seem", "possibly linked" etc. to show there is enough evidence to make the hypothesis. But that was over twenty years ago and as you can imagine since then research from all over the country has discovered more conclusive evidence that exposure to toxins whether at jobs or from lifestyle can damage sperm which can cause miscarriage, birth defects, and even childhood cancer as evidenced in the other two articles and more if you care to google it.
 
Many substances damage male sperm DNA that can lead to birth defects. The list includes many drugs, steroids, cancer drugs, prescription drugs, illegal drugs, and caffeine. X-rays damage male sperm DNA. So can handling pesticides. Should laws be passed to prohibit men from and punish men for using substances or undertaking actions that may damage a fetus if the man is sexually active and has not had a vasectomy?

Has there been anything on a woman's activities prior to getting pregnant that someone wants to punish her for in regards to what happens to the eggs? I have seen discussions/debates on what happens to the ZEF, but not the egg. Otherwise you are engaging in a false equivalency.
 
This isn't the same as what you are claiming. A link to occupation is not the same as a causative relationship to defects in sperm, or even those defects leading to anything you listed above.
It is a little more than just a causal link if the professions of 10,000 fathers expose them to lead or bug sprays or other toxin and chemicals that damaged their sperm and they all have children with birth defects and the 4,000 fathers that weren't exposed all had healthy children. In fact, it is "highly probable" which is the term the government uses to say the evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory.
 
So then explain all of those men who smoke, drink or do drugs who have perfectly healthy offspring?

Oh yeah, and all of those men who don't smoke, drink or do drugs who have children WITH birth defects?
 
You will note that in the OP and thread title that the sperm has already fertilized the egg so your arguement is ruled out.

How does that even make sense to you? He is specifically speaking to acts and behaviors that effect the sperm prior to fertilization, and that will eventually "be used" to fertilize a female egg.


I think the OP wants you to decide if men have right to impregnate women knowing they might have damaged sperm that could cause miscarriages, birth defects or childhood illnesses?

Actually he was attempting to equivocate something that effects sex cells to those that effect a fertilized embryo. Being that he's attempting to respond to a thread discussing the free-range a mother should be allowed in behavior that will damage her embryo


The NYT article was from 1991 and the research was just beginning

Ok, do you have something more recent and conclusive, then?


so thats why they correctly used words like "may", "seem", "possibly linked" etc. to show there is enough evidence to make the hypothesis. But that was over twenty years ago and as you can imagine since then research from all over the country has discovered more conclusive evidence

Why would I assume they discovered conclusive evidence?

that exposure to toxins whether at jobs or from lifestyle can damage sperm which can cause miscarriage, birth defects, and even childhood cancer as evidenced in the other two articles and more if you care to google it.

actually the men's health article talks about a relationship between work place and specific health conditions. With exposure and effectpossibly being any number of things

and goes on to state " And while researchers ***have not yet definitively found what causes these*** defects, ***they can speculate***. "
 
It is a little more than just a causal link if the professions of 10,000 fathers expose them to lead or bug sprays or other toxin and chemicals that damaged their sperm and they all have children with birth defects and the 4,000 fathers that weren't exposed all had healthy children.


You need to read your own citations: The article makes clear the "damaged sperm" theory is speculation. They only know that a relationship exists between specific work places and particular birth defects. The specifics of which they do not know yet


In fact, it is "highly probable" which is the term the government uses to say the evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory.

lol, what are you even talking about?
 
Last edited:
So then explain all of those men who smoke, drink or do drugs who have perfectly healthy offspring?
How do you know their offspring are "perfectly healthy"?

Oh yeah, and all of those men who don't smoke, drink or do drugs who have children WITH birth defects?
Then they could have been exposed to toxins and chemicals where they work such as lead, insect sprays, chemicals, etc. Or it could be genetics which doesn't explain all the millions of birth defects that aren't. The point is men are just as responsible for birth defects as women are and both sexes need to be aware of what they put in their bodies or what they're exposed to before, during and after conception if they want to reduce the risk of birth defects in their offspring.
 
How do you know their offspring are "perfectly healthy"?

Then they could have been exposed to toxins and chemicals where they work such as lead, insect sprays, chemicals, etc. Or it could be genetics which doesn't explain all the millions of birth defects that aren't. The point is men are just as responsible for birth defects as women are and both sexes need to be aware of what they put in their bodies or what they're exposed to before, during and after conception if they want to reduce the risk of birth defects in their offspring.

My father was an alcoholic and started drinking when he was a teenager. As far as I'm aware, I'm perfectly healthy, I'm hardly ever sick, and I have no birth defects. :shrug:

I agree with your point, but I'm arguing the science. Dr. Chuckles is right in that it's just a theory. There are too many other complicating factors involved to point to one particular cause.
 
My father was an alcoholic and started drinking when he was a teenager. As far as I'm aware, I'm perfectly healthy, I'm hardly ever sick, and I have no birth defects. :shrug:

I agree with your point, but I'm arguing the science.
Antedotal evidence isn't very scientific because it can't always be observed by others.

Dr. Chuckles is right in that it's just a theory.
Science is just a theory....but the theories have to be supported by factual observable evidence. For example, gravity is just a theory but the observable factual evidence such as Newton dropping an apple off the leaning tower of Pisa supports the theory of gravity.

There are too many other complicating factors involved to point to one particular cause.
Thats true but science seems to be able to narrow it down to a few factors through the process of elimination. This is what they do when couples go to fertility clinics to find out why they can't concieve.
 
Joko, I agree...and we must be on the same wave length...I just made this argument in another thread of a similar title.

My question was: Should men be prosecuted for ejaculating damaged sperm into a woman, which was the result of men abusing drugs?

And I pointed out...as you have that there are a lot of everyday environmental things that can damage the DNA in sperm.

And as you've indicated...there is a lot of information about damaged DNA in sperm, which can cause birth defects and fetal death in the womb.

But as you've noticed...women are the sole target of condemnation regarding conception issues...and nobody wants to place the same kind of scrutiny on men for possible crimes against fetuses.

And I've come to the conclusion that we have a nation full of moral fascists who are instigating an inquisition against women's rights.

Oh, and one final point. Should government force men to regularly have their sperm tested in ensure that they aren't capable of co-conceiving children with serious birth defects...or causing fetuses to die in the womb?

Thanks for creating this topic. I think it's an important consideration.

Actually, if it could be shown that the damage was from abuse of drugs, alcohol or any other recreational activity... I would say yes. I see nothing as being so horrible as to bring a child into this world who is damaged due to your own selfish behaviors. I can envision a crime being recognized out of a combination of actions: 1. Doing drugs or alcohol. 2. Getting someone pregnant with sperm tainted by drugs or alcohol.

However, for the time being, the damaged child cannot be definitively shown to have been caused by the actions in question, and might have been due to other factors. So, for now, no legal remedy to this situation is possible. But just because it cannot be separated from these other things doesn't mean men get a pass. I think men should feel abject shame if there really is a significant risk, here, and they end up with a child who is disabled. If that is fascism, then bring on more fascism!!
 
Science is just a theory....but the theories have to be supported by factual observable evidence. For example, gravity is just a theory but the observable factual evidence such as Newton dropping an apple off the leaning tower of Pisa supports the theory of gravity.

You have absolutely no idea what you are speaking of, do you?
 
Of course it matters if your claims have any validity to them.

As others keep pointing out it's a faulty comparison, because the discussion doesn't merely concern a woman behaving in a manner that will affect her eggs, but her embryo.

See, if you're going to draw an analogy to something, those things need to be similar


But your entire premise makes no sense and is seemingly devoid of scientific backing.

That's odd, DC...the premise makes no sense to YOU...interesting. Gosh, haven't we been here before...a dozen or so times before?

The only premise regarding this thread is simple. You know it is.

I wasn't making comparisons.

I made a claim that was related to the OP.

And that claim is that IT IS POSSIBLE for a man to be negligently and criminally responsible for a fetus to incur serious birth defects or even death in the womb.

How can such a thing happen? A man, through self-destructive behaviors such as drug addict, can cause damage or a mutation to his sperm. It is possible that when such a man ejaculates damaged or mutated sperm into a woman...joins with an ovum...creates a conception...the ensuing fetus can...because of his damaged sperm...have a serious birth defect or cause fetal death in the womb.

You came into this thread with a nonsensical post in which you injected a silly comment about electric blankets and cell phones, yadda, yadda , yadda...which was clearly intended to make fun of the premise of this thread. Now, you'll deny it and that's okay, but fret not...you were in good company of a few others who did the same.

But, as so often the case, you just can't bring yourself to engage in reasonably discussion about this topic like with so many other topics. Frequently you make the claims that a thread has no validity or lacks logic, reason, or facts. But the real reason behind your claims is that so many posters just can't break through the core of your analytical genius, which allows you to join in on thread discussions in a civil, amicable way.

The OP isn't about mad scientist research that is impossible . It is a topic that, as far as I know, has never been introduced into the Abortion forum.

The responses by those who jumped in...speak for themselves. Like so many issues related to abortion there are those who must make a mockery out of discussions that have legitimate reasons to bring into various topics into threads to exchange opinions.

So...thank you DC...for your predictable and usual need to build a stage to for you to imply posters aren't meeting your discussion standards...therefore their opinions aren't relevant, a broken premise, not logical...yadda, yadda, yadda.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The intent of my posts in this thread (and others) is to opine: Men have never been held to the same scrutiny or accountability as women when it comes to co-conception issues. Men have the capability to cause a fetus to have birth defects or even death...and never are subjected to investigation or consequences. Most all women who conceive are immediately subjected to medical inspection. If something goes awry during a pregnancy, the fetus is observably defected or dead, if a woman is even suspected of having a lifestyle, which possibly causes injury to a fetus...she is subjected to investigations and possibly goes to jail.

We have a nation full of moral fascists...who make a commitment to infringe on the liberties, self-determination, and equal protection under the law...of every single woman in our country. They live in delusional fantasies...which tells them that a conception is holy, inspired by, if not directly created by a supernatural entity for the purpose of constructing a biological vessel to store away an already created supernatural being, which most refer to as a soul.

Women are held to outrageous moral standards...because moral fascists charge women with the total responsibility to bring to birth a biological vessel regardless of a woman's personal desire (or medical reasons, or assault) to do so or not do so...based on nothing more than than a belief...no empirical evidence...but simply a belief. Just because women is born with the environment to allow a conception to occur and develop... is not any other living beings right or business to demand that a woman forcefully remain pregnant to full-term.

There is observable, statistical evidence, which moral fascists repeatedly ignore, which is all around them. 7 billion people exist today....and billions before us all. Not all of the abortions combined have caused damage to the populations...or proliferations of populations. That's a verifiable fact. And in many societies...while they want to force births...they don't want to be responsible for births once arrived. Despite the evidence moral fascists are quick to condemn women if they don't walk the moral line that is devised in their minds...and will call them killers, murders...and even want to imprison women for them wanting to control their own reproduction roles. Why aren't men held to the same standards of women? Simple. They don't have a uterus. Yet, it is possible that men can also negligently and criminally cause damage and death to a fetus in the womb.

Moral fascists' message is simple: "We will push our beliefs and will on women with all of the collective and political might that we can until they become submissive." After all, a woman's submissiveness is an ancient part of their beliefs. Women are born with the original sin of being the culprits of engaging in irresponsible sex, which they never take considerations of a possible conception. Men...never bear that perception about them...ever.

Most men will never surrender to the reality that they are always an equally responsible party to a conception, which they possibly can, and in every likelihood have, caused injury or death to their own conception.

Men will legislatively make sure that they are never subjected to the moral standards that women are...nor the legal consequences that women have shoved on them by every moral fascist in our governments and many churches.

We are either witness to a serious flaw in human evolution...or a significantly imperfect supernatural ****up that isn't all what it claims itself to be.

There is an aggressive assault on women's rights...as I type this post. I hope women everywhere stand up...and reject this moralistic insanity and work to rid themselves of these people in our governments or in places of authority.
 
That's odd, DC...the premise makes no sense to YOU...interesting. Gosh, haven't we been here before...a dozen or so times before?

The only premise regarding this thread is simple. You know it is.

I wasn't making comparisons.

I made a claim that was related to the OP.

And that claim is that IT IS POSSIBLE for a man to be negligently and criminally responsible for a fetus to incur serious birth defects or even death in the womb.

How can such a thing happen? A man, through self-destructive behaviors such as drug addict, can cause damage or a mutation to his sperm. It is possible that when such a man ejaculates damaged or mutated sperm into a woman...joins with an ovum...creates a conception...the ensuing fetus can...because of his damaged sperm...have a serious birth defect or cause fetal death in the womb.

You came into this thread with a nonsensical post in which you injected a silly comment about electric blankets and cell phones, yadda, yadda , yadda...which was clearly intended to make fun of the premise of this thread. Now, you'll deny it and that's okay, but fret not...you were in good company of a few others who did the same.

But, as so often the case, you just can't bring yourself to engage in reasonably discussion about this topic like with so many other topics. Frequently you make the claims that a thread has no validity or lacks logic, reason, or facts. But the real reason behind your claims is that so many posters just can't break through the core of your analytical genius, which allows you to join in on thread discussions in a civil, amicable way.

The OP isn't about mad scientist research that is impossible . It is a topic that, as far as I know, has never been introduced into the Abortion forum.

The responses by those who jumped in...speak for themselves. Like so many issues related to abortion there are those who must make a mockery out of discussions that have legitimate reasons to bring into various topics into threads to exchange opinions.

So...thank you DC...for your predictable and usual need to build a stage to for you to imply posters aren't meeting your discussion standards...therefore their opinions aren't relevant, a broken premise, not logical...yadda, yadda, yadda.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The intent of my posts in this thread (and others) is to opine: Men have never been held to the same scrutiny or accountability as women when it comes to co-conception issues. Men have the capability to cause a fetus to have birth defects or even death...and never are subjected to investigation or consequences. Most all women who conceive are immediately subjected to medical inspection. If something goes awry during a pregnancy, the fetus is observably defected or dead, if a woman is even suspected of having a lifestyle, which possibly causes injury to a fetus...she is subjected to investigations and possibly goes to jail.

We have a nation full of moral fascists...who make a commitment to infringe on the liberties, self-determination, and equal protection under the law...of every single woman in our country. They live in delusional fantasies...which tells them that a conception is holy, inspired by, if not directly created by a supernatural entity for the purpose of constructing a biological vessel to store away an already created supernatural being, which most refer to as a soul.

Women are held to outrageous moral standards...because moral fascists charge women with the total responsibility to bring to birth a biological vessel regardless of a woman's personal desire (or medical reasons, or assault) to do so or not do so...based on nothing more than than a belief...no empirical evidence...but simply a belief. Just because women is born with the environment to allow a conception to occur and develop... is not any other living beings right or business to demand that a woman forcefully remain pregnant to full-term.

There is observable, statistical evidence, which moral fascists repeatedly ignore, which is all around them. 7 billion people exist today....and billions before us all. Not all of the abortions combined have caused damage to the populations...or proliferations of populations. That's a verifiable fact. And in many societies...while they want to force births...they don't want to be responsible for births once arrived. Despite the evidence moral fascists are quick to condemn women if they don't walk the moral line that is devised in their minds...and will call them killers, murders...and even want to imprison women for them wanting to control their own reproduction roles. Why aren't men held to the same standards of women? Simple. They don't have a uterus. Yet, it is possible that men can also negligently and criminally cause damage and death to a fetus in the womb.

Moral fascists' message is simple: "We will push our beliefs and will on women with all of the collective and political might that we can until they become submissive." After all, a woman's submissiveness is an ancient part of their beliefs. Women are born with the original sin of being the culprits of engaging in irresponsible sex, which they never take considerations of a possible conception. Men...never bear that perception about them...ever.

Most men will never surrender to the reality that they are always an equally responsible party to a conception, which they possibly can, and in every likelihood have, caused injury or death to their own conception.

Men will legislatively make sure that they are never subjected to the moral standards that women are...nor the legal consequences that women have shoved on them by every moral fascist in our governments and many churches.

We are either witness to a serious flaw in human evolution...or a significantly imperfect supernatural ****up that isn't all what it claims itself to be.

There is an aggressive assault on women's rights...as I type this post. I hope women everywhere stand up...and reject this moralistic insanity and work to rid themselves of these people in our governments or in places of authority.

You keep saying stuff like this without responding to actual points. Let me try to make this simple. If I say requiring genetic testing regardless of whether it's on the man or woman, for the purpose of jailing the one who could pass on some disability is patently ridiculous, how am I being inconsistent? If you're saying all men should be tested even prior to conception yet women shouldn't have to be, you're the one being inconsistent. Why is that so hard to understand? Try to respond to what I've actually said rather than going on some tangent.
 
Last edited:
You keep saying stuff like this without responding to actual points. Let me try to make this simple. If I say requiring genetic testing regardless of whether it's on the man or woman, for the purpose of jailing the one who could pass on some disability is patently ridiculous, how am I being inconsistent? If you're saying all men should be tested even prior to conception yet women shouldn't have to be, you're the one being inconsistent. Why is that so hard to understand? Try to respond to what I've actually said rather than going on some tangent.

What's so hard for you to understand...that your previous posts...aren't related to my previous posts. You accused me of somehow making claims about your position related to coffee, chemo, and x-rays. I didn't engage you to debate anything related to such. Therefore, I don't really care "what you actually said".
 
What's so hard for you to understand...that your previous posts...aren't related to my previous posts. You accused me of somehow making claims about your position related to coffee, chemo, and x-rays. I didn't engage you to debate anything related to such. Therefore, I don't really care "what you actually said".

Caffeine, chemo and x-rays were all mentioned in the OP that you so enthusiastically agreed with. No matter, failed thread is obviously failed.
 
Caffeine, chemo and x-rays were all mentioned in the OP that you so enthusiastically agreed with. No matter, failed thread is obviously failed.

Well, X...I disagree with the direct relationship between your post and mine. And as far as this being a "failed thread" is a matter of opinion, of which I also disagree.

Thank goodness we live in a place where each of us can participate in making our opinions known. You and I are on opposite sides of opinions regarding abortion...which will remain to be controversial and provocative.

I will always stand by my opinion that there is a huge disparity in moral standards between men and women...and especially regarding rights, which pertains to reproductive rights for women.

I have no doubt that you'll stand by your opinions. So, the only thing either of us can hope for...is making each of our opinions known in the most civil way possible.

Thanks..
 
You have absolutely no idea what you are speaking of, do you?
Actually, I do know what I'm speaking of and thanks to your fallacious comment it's now quite obvious that you don't.


"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]...read...
Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Back
Top Bottom