• 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.

Should Men Have a Say?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If those things were true, I might care, but they're not.

Awesome rebuttal. "Those aren't true because I say they aren't. Nah nah nah." Wow, I'm impressed.
Child support isn't specific to men.

Well no ****, Sherlock. That isn't my point.

If I thought you actually cared, I might feel sorry for you.
But your only proffered solutions to the alleged problem seem to be that women, collectively, should be forbidden by law to abort, or that men should have input into whether or not specific women abort.

Your reading comprehension sucks. I do not think men should have the right to tell a woman to abort.

And those ideas would do nothing to mitigate this problem that you claim exists. They'd just hurt women. They'd reduce women to subhuman status in the eyes of the law.

This is idiotic - you really think giving a man even half as many rights in the matter 'reduces women to subhuman status'? Pass the glue. You're clearly done.

They wouldn't help you any, though, because- by your own reckoning- they'd just result in even more unwanted children being born, and even more men having to pay even more money.

Actually, if men had the ability to recuse themselves of financial obligations, we would see far less unwanted children because less women would choose to either (a) have promiscuous, unprotected sex or (b) carry the child to term.

So your rants seem akin to a person born with facial deformities whining that it's not fair that the government won't pass a law forcing others to disfigure their faces as well. it's not fair, it's not fair, it's NOT FAIR!!

I really have no sympathy for this. I find it tedious and childish.

Awww, you're so cute when you're stupid.

Men and women have the choice whether to have or not to have sex. I think it's as just as it can be.

Putting your fingers in your ears and repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't mean you win. It means you're stupid.

For at least the 4th time, women can:

  • Take an OTC abortifacient
  • Abort
  • Adopt
Men can:

  • Pay child support or go to jail

Hip hip hooray for equality in the modern justice system!

There are many things that can be considered unjust, but once there's a human life all parties involved in the creation become responsible.

Says the pro-choicer. :2wave:

The woman has the choice cause her body and judgment are involved.

Last time I checked, it ain't just her body at stake. There's the actual child [screw him/her in the name of "a woman's right to choose" anyway] and the man's paycheck.

It's her body one way or the other. Abort or not, it's still her body going through the process. The man has zero involvement.

18 years of paychecks != zero involvement.

Sure they do. They can not have sex.

Awesome, so men - if they don't want kids - must be celibate but women can be sluts and use quack docs to rip the fetus to pieces. Got it, thanks.

No, it's not fair. It's not fair that men can pee standing up either.

Get over it.

Sure they can, it just makes a mess. Quit crying and lift the seat like a good 'thenthitive' progrethive.
 
A child doesn't exist until it is born. Then both parents are responsible for it.

A pregnancy is not a child. A man has no say whatsoever if a pregnancy can continue or not, regardless of his interest in it. He has no right to prevent one, or force one.

The fact that this gives a woman an extra chance to prevent a child from being born while a man can't is unfair, but that's too bad.
 
Awesome, so men - if they don't want kids - must be celibate but women can be sluts and use quack docs to rip the fetus to pieces. Got it, thanks.

Abortion is an entirely different issue. You can be pro-choice and believe in parental responsibility, or pro-life and not, or any combination thereof. But they aren't the same.
 
But your entire premise is wrong. Of course the fact that only women can abort is based on biology.

Reading comprehension fail.

I never said anything about only women being able to abort. What I said was:

The fact that women have a longer time than men to get out of the obligation of being a parent has nothing whatsoever to do with biology, and everything to do with the law.

This is a true statement. Men are every bit as capable (biologically speaking) of choosing not to become a father as women are of choosing not to be a mother. I outlined several scenarios in which a man could make that choice.

The difference between the situation for men and women is that women's options for choosing not to become mothers are legal and men's options for choosing not to become fathers are not.

Unless you believe that men should have the right to force women to abort?

No, I don't believe that men should be allowed to force women to abort. They should not be able to make a choice about whether a woman should be a mother any more than a woman should be able to make a choice about whether a man will be a father.

What I'm saying is that as a society, in order to make things fair, we should legalize a man's biological ability to walk away from the woman he impregnated and leave her to fend for herself. That way both men and women can legally choose not to be a parent in a manner that they are biologically capable of.
 
So, he's responsible for his sperm swimming up her vagina. Big whoop. That doesn't mean he needs to pay for the rest of his life for ****ing the wrong woman.

Yes. It does. Because it's not the child's fault.

It's really stunning how people on this thread think children are just things to be tossed aside if they aren't wanted. It's quite sad.
 
The fact that this gives a woman an extra chance to prevent a child from being born while a man can't is unfair, but that's too bad.

Do you have no better debate tactics to fall back on than this worthless cop-out?

Pathetic.
 
Yes. It does. Because it's not the child's fault.

It's really stunning how people on this thread think children are just things to be tossed aside if they aren't wanted. It's quite sad.

Why should the child's rights automatically trump the father's?
 
Reading comprehension fail.

I never said anything about only women being able to abort. What I said was:



This is a true statement. Men are every bit as capable (biologically speaking) of choosing not to become a father as women are of choosing not to be a mother. I outlined several scenarios in which a man could make that choice.

The difference between the situation for men and women is that women's options for choosing not to become mothers are legal and men's options for choosing not to become fathers are not.

Yes - and that's because of biology. Women get two chances, men get one. One is plenty.

No, I don't believe that men should be allowed to force women to abort. They should not be able to make a choice about whether a woman should be a mother any more than a woman should be able to make a choice about whether a man will be a father.

She doesn't make that choice, he does. She can't force him to be a father, only choose not to veto his choice.

What I'm saying is that as a society, in order to make things fair, we should legalize a man's biological ability to walk away from the woman he impregnated and leave her to fend for herself. That way both men and women can legally choose not to be a parent in a manner that they are biologically capable of.

The answer is no. You cannot abandon your children, even if a woman has a second chance to prevent them from being born and choose not to do so. Life's not fair. Deal with responsibility.
 
Yes. It does. Because it's not the child's fault.

It's really stunning how people on this thread think children are just things to be tossed aside if they aren't wanted. It's quite sad.

They are. It's called adoption. At least that's better than them being cared for by parents who resent their very existence.

I notice you completely ignored the rest of my post. Why would that be?
 
Why should the child's rights automatically trump the father's?

Because it's a child.

Seriously, guys, what planet are you from? You all think children are trash to be thrown out.

I used to laugh at the rightwingers who said sex is used irresponsibly these days and people treat children like dirt, but maybe they are on to something. This is quite stunning.
 
No, its the woman's fault, and thus her responsibility.

It is both the fathers and the womans fault and thus their shared responsibility to care the any child born


Unless the woman had an immaculate conception of course then she should sue the church for child support

The mother and father can agree to give the child up for adoption

If one tries the other can petition to take the child as their own, and force the other to pay child support
 
Yes - and that's because of biology. Women get two chances, men get one. One is plenty.

Wow, you really don't get it do you. It has nothing to do with biology. A man gets 2 choices as well. He could always just put a bullet in the woman's head and then he's not a father. The only difference is that that isn't legal.

She doesn't make that choice, he does. She can't force him to be a father, only choose not to veto his choice.

There's no practical difference.

The answer is no. You cannot abandon your children, even if a woman has a second chance to prevent them from being born and choose not to do so. Life's not fair. Deal with responsibility.

Do you have no better debate tactics to fall back on than this worthless cop-out?

Pathetic.

I suppose you've answered this question haven't you. The answer is a resounding NO.
 
It is both the fathers and the womans fault and thus their shared responsibility to care the any child born


Unless the woman had an immaculate conception of course then she should sue the church for child support

The mother and father can agree to give the child up for adoption

If one tries the other can petition to take the child as their own, and force the other to pay child support

So you believe that if a man donates to a sperm bank, that he is financially responsible for any children that result from his seed?
 
Because it's a child.

Seriously, guys, what planet are you from? You all think children are trash to be thrown out.
I used to laugh at the rightwingers who said sex is used irresponsibly these days and people treat children like dirt, but maybe they are on to something. This is quite stunning.

Thats actually funy as hell.

"You all think children are trash to be thrown out."

And you think that right up until it pops out of the hosts belly its so much worthles tissue to be slaughtered at the hosts whim...
 
So you believe that if a man donates to a sperm bank, that he is financially responsible for any children that result from his seed?

Sperm bank no

Also if a man and a woman make contract pre sex that she wants a baby, but absolutely no involvement from the man including financial support he should be free and clear


A normal everyday sex act that results in a baby being born, though is the result of two people making a decision that can result in pregnancy. You have sex in this case you accept the possibility of a baby being born, and the resultant obligations owed to it
 
Thats actually funy as hell.

"You all think children are trash to be thrown out."

And you think that right up until it pops out of the hosts belly its so much worthles tissue to be slaughtered at the hosts whim...

Did I say that? No. You have no idea what my views on abortion are.

If you want to talk about abortion, we can talk about it. It's an entirely different issue though.
 
Do you have no better debate tactics to fall back on than this worthless cop-out?

Pathetic.

It's not a cop-out. It's reality, and it comes with responsibility. Refusing to deal with it is the cop out.
 
They are. It's called adoption. At least that's better than them being cared for by parents who resent their very existence.

Fine, put them up for adoption. I don't oppose adoption.

I notice you completely ignored the rest of my post. Why would that be?

Because we still haven't settled the central premises behind all this.
 
No, its the woman's fault, and thus her responsibility.

So you DO think a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion.
 
Wow, you really don't get it do you. It has nothing to do with biology. A man gets 2 choices as well. He could always just put a bullet in the woman's head and then he's not a father. The only difference is that that isn't legal.

Yes. If you can find a legal way for a man to end a pregnancy - that doesn't infringe on the woman's rights - go ahead. Until then, BIOLOGY is your problem. Women get pregnant, men don't. That's biology. There's no biological way for a man to end a pregnancy without harming the woman, and that's naturally illegal. So go in your lab and work on it. If you can find a way for men to get pregnant instead, or whatever, I'm all for it.
 
Sperm bank no

Also if a man and a woman make contract pre sex that she wants a baby, but absolutely no involvement from the man including financial support he should be free and clear

Why not a sperm bank? Is the fathers obligation not derived from his gentic contribution to the spawn?

A normal everyday sex act that results in a baby being born, though is the result of two people making a decision that can result in pregnancy. You have sex in this case you accept the possibility of a baby being born, and the resultant obligations owed to it

Sure, it can result in pregnancy, but that doesn't mean it results in a birth. If it results in pregnancy then the parents need to decide whether they are going to keep the kid and become parents or not.

If the guy doesn't want to be a parent, then the girl can choose to be a parent on her own, abort or give it up for adoption. In any event, when the guy says he doesn't want it, and abortion is still an option, then he is nothing more than a sperm donor at that point.

If the girl wants to use his sperm to create a baby for herself, that is fine, but since she is the only one choosing to have a baby, she should be the only one shouldering the responsibility for said baby.
 
So you believe that if a man donates to a sperm bank, that he is financially responsible for any children that result from his seed?

You tried this one before.

You simply sign away your obligations - and your rights - to a child when you donate.

Hey, there's a solution! Make the woman sign a contract that she won't seek child support if she gets pregnant! Like a pre-nup - call it a pre-****.

A few women might go for this. Those who know they don't want a child and would have an abortion for instance. Most will laugh you out of their bedroom.

I'm totally serious, even if most women won't believe it.

So ladies on this thread, would you sign such a document?
 
Yes. If you can find a legal way for a man to end a pregnancy - that doesn't infringe on the woman's rights - go ahead. Until then, BIOLOGY is your problem. Women get pregnant, men don't. That's biology. There's no biological way for a man to end a pregnancy without harming the woman, and that's naturally illegal. So go in your lab and work on it. If you can find a way for men to get pregnant instead, or whatever, I'm all for it.

You still don't get it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with allowing men to end a woman's pregnancy. It has nothing whatsoever to do with women being the ones that get pregnant. It is about the ability to choose whether or not you are going to be a parent after you've gotten pregnant (or impregnated someone).

Both men and women are biologically equipped to make this choice (women by aborting the pregnancy or abandoning the child, men by aborting the pregnancy, abandoning the child, or killing the woman). The only difference is that as a society we have said that a woman's methods of doing so are okay and a man's are not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom