• 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 the man have any say in whether a woman aborts or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
DashingAmerican said:
Using that same definition, a lot of the women seeking abortions are dead beat parents too.
Click to expand...

Ooohhh.... touche'.

Not only dead beat, but killers too. (just had to toss that in).
 
Bodhisattva said:
DUDE! The dads that I am talking about ARE NOT TRYING TO AVOID PAYING. I am saying that they shouldn't have to pay. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT DEAD BEAT DADS. If you don't admit this I am just going to have to right you off talking to you as a loss.
Click to expand...

DUDE!! If they are arguing that the law should be changed, then they ARE TRYING TO AVOID PAYING. I am saying they should and do have to pay. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT DEAD BEAT DADS. If you don't admit this, I am just going to have to write off talking to you as a loss.

Laws are based on common law and the constitution. You have no basis in either for your position. All you have is your subjective sense or right and wrong.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Yes, they can trick a man into having sex, get pregnant, not inform the man and then after 18 years get him for back child support with the full backing of the Court even though the man didn't know he was a father for any of that time. It is a very special right that they have, in fact. ;)
Click to expand...

So now the man is "tricked" into having sex, huh? If a man allows himself to be "tricked" (exactly how is this done?) into having sex, he is just as responsible as a man who allows himself to "tricked" into signing a contract with onerous requirements. It's called "personal responsibility"
 
sangha said:
And none of those laws make it illegal to simply tell a lie. They all require more than a lie.
Click to expand...

Sure they do, and there are others too. They can't lie about there business practices as well as terms and conditions. It really is pretty simple.

And as I said, laws are not based simply on what an individual (or the majority of individuals) think is fair. And the USA is ripe with laws being overturned for being unconstitutional, as the law you are proposing is.
Click to expand...

Show how it is unconstitutional then... as it stands now, your opnion means very little.

It is unreasonable and illogical to argue the legality of a law on the basis that people break other laws.
Click to expand...

I am not doing that...

The fact that people murder doesn't make the laws against murder unfair.
Click to expand...

Agreed...

The fact that some people illegally buy and sell children does not make thier "ownership" of those children legal.
Click to expand...

Own is a verb. It means more than legal ownership.

Are you next going to say that because someone has killed someone intentionally and gotten away with it, it is unfair to punish those who get caught?
Click to expand...

My analogy was correct and you are ignoring it. Saying that people don't own people because it is illegal is the same as saying that people don't kill people because it is illegal.

I am also killing you in this debate and consequently own you due to your lack of ability in proving that I am wrong about any of this. All you have is opinionated supposition.
 
sangha said:
Wrong. No one has any responsibility for supporting a fetus.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Completely wrong. A woman cannot legally abort/kill her baby a week before it is due.
 
sangha said:
So now the man is "tricked" into having sex, huh? If a man allows himself to be "tricked" (exactly how is this done?) into having sex, he is just as responsible as a man who allows himself to "tricked" into signing a contract with onerous requirements. It's called "personal responsibility"
Click to expand...

It is illegal to enter into a contract when not of sound mind, and being drunk constitutes that. And that has always been my stance. Try avoiding the arrogant attitude, it wreaks of being pathetic.
 
sangha said:
Wrong. No one has any responsibility for supporting a fetus.
Click to expand...

You are ignoring the dead beat part and showing signs of being dishonest. Battery is about to go, so I might just be "gone" which is probably a good thing. Come up with some better stuff and I'll get back to you tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
Graffias said:
I made this point in another thread, but I will recap. Though I am not anti-abortion, I believe it is extremely unjust that a woman is allowed to make a unilateral decision as to whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. Though the woman carries the fetus in her body for nine months, it is the man's fetus every bit as much as it is hers.

Men are completely powerless after a woman becomes pregnant. If the woman doesn't want to become a mother, but the man has the ability and desire to raise the child by himself, the woman can still go ahead and have the abortion without his approval. If the man doesn't want to become a parent and the woman decides she wants to give birth and knows she won't have the means to support the child alone, she can basically force the man into fatherhood and years of child support.

Even if a man is not physically invested in the birth of a child, there is often a great emotional investment. And also there is a great financial investment that he may have to make if the child is born. So considering these facts, shouldn't what he wants matter as much as what she wants?
Click to expand...

If you don't marry her first, you gave her your consent to kill your child, because if you're not married there was never any expressed or implied intent to start a family.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Sure they do, and there are others too. They can't lie about there business practices as well as terms and conditions. It really is pretty simple.
Click to expand...

You see. It takes more than just a lie. In order to be a crime, the lie must lead to a "material benefit" to the liar.



Show how it is unconstitutional then... as it stands now, your opnion means very little.
Click to expand...

I already have. No one can have their responsibilities absolved because someone else will not waive their constitutional right to refuse a medical procedure.


Own is a verb. It means more than legal ownership.
Click to expand...

We are talking about the law. The legal definition is the one that applies.


My analogy was correct and you are ignoring it. Saying that people don't own people because it is illegal is the same as saying that people don't kill people because it is illegal.
Click to expand...

No, it's not the same. People don't own people under the law, and that is a fact. No court would recognize the ownership of another person.

We are not debating your sense of fairness. You are entitled to think whatever you want is fair and unfair, and if you say you think something is unfair, I'm not going to argue that "Yes, you do think it is unfair". That would be silly

IOW, we are not arguing about your subjective opinion. We are arguing about what is legally justifiable under the constitution.

I am also killing you in this debate and consequently own you due to your lack of ability in proving that I am wrong about any of this. All you have is opinionated supposition
Click to expand...

Your inability to provide any legal evidence or doctrine to support your position, and that you only have your own sense of fairness to support your position, shows that it is you who only has opinionated supposition
 
Last edited:
MistressNomad said:
No. Period. It is her body, her health, her life. No. A man should not have any say whatsoever in whether a woman can abort. Of course, it is ideal if a couple can talk it out and come to an agreement. But if not, the decision defaults completely and without reservation to the woman.
Click to expand...

It would be unfortunate if such a woman found that her brakes didn't work one day.

MistressNomad said:
However, I also believe the man should be allowed to walk away if he doesn't want a child and the woman decides she does. Since the man has no say in whether she keeps it or not (as it should be) he should get a choice about how to react to her decision. Also, if it is a woman's right to have total control over the decision of whether or not to abort, she must also accept total responsibility for evaluating the feasibility of that decision.
Click to expand...

My entire family, including myself directly, are suffering the consequences of men walking away just as you described. I have to personally help my nieces cope with their father's abandonment. And yes, they have clinically diagnosed problems as a result.

Such men are only worth one bullet.
 
Bodhisattva said:
It is illegal to enter into a contract when not of sound mind, and being drunk constitutes that. And that has always been my stance. Try avoiding the arrogant attitude, it wreaks of being pathetic.
Click to expand...

wrong. When a man is so drunk that he doesn't understand that sex can lead to pregnancy, he is too drunk to have enough "ink" in his "pen" to "sign" that contract.
 
Bodhisattva said:
You are ignoring the dead beat part and showing signs of being dishonest. Battery is about to go, so I might just be "gone" which is probably a good thing. Come up with some better stuff and I'll get back to you tomorrow.
Click to expand...

You have been reduced to posting personal attacks; a sure sign that you're not winning
 
sangha said:
wrong. When a man is so drunk that he doesn't understand that sex can lead to pregnancy, he is too drunk to have enough "ink" in his "pen" to "sign" that contract.
Click to expand...

Alcohol inhibits the parts of the brain which govern the concept of long-term consequences for actions, which actually explains allot about alcoholic behavior.
 
Jerry said:
If you don't marry her first, you gave her your consent to kill your child, because if you're not married there was never any expressed or implied intent to start a family.
Click to expand...

You can't give consent for another persons' medical procedure unless they sign a medical proxy. And having sex with someone is implied intent to start a family, under the law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom