• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

What about a MAN'S right to choose?

Zebulon

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
OK, I got one for you.

A man and a woman have consentual sex. She gets pregnant. He doesn't want the child. Too bad. The woman can do what she wants, even if it means this poor guy has to pay child support for 18 years, or get thrown in jail.

A man and a woman have consentual sex. She gets pregnant. He wants the baby, she doesn't. Too bad. The woman can do what she wants, even if it means killing this guy's child against his wishes.

Doesn't exactly seem fair on either front, does it?

And yes, I've heard the argument about the guy should use birth control. But, if he doesn't, he gives up all rights to everything?

Why should it only be a WOMAN'S right to choose?
 

blogger31

Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
199
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I think there has been a thread started on this subject already.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Yes there is, and it was quite popular, I suggest you check it out.
 

Zebulon

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
My apologies! I'll go run off to rant in that one... :mrgreen:
 

clearview

Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Zebulon said:
OK, I got one for you.

A man and a woman have consentual sex. She gets pregnant. He doesn't want the child. Too bad. The woman can do what she wants, even if it means this poor guy has to pay child support for 18 years, or get thrown in jail.
Some would argue that since a man chooses to have sex, he should know the risks and know he is taking his chances, so he can choose not to have sex. Historically, many men chose to run and hide, so the cause of your burden is other men. Also, women are under the same rules if daddy gets to keep the baby, so there are plenty of poor moms out there as well -- I know some personally.

I was in a clinic once and ended up chatting with a woman who was there to have an abortion. She wasn't happy. She wasn't looking forward to it. In fact, she did want to keep the baby, but her man did not. She was there alone.


A man and a woman have consentual sex. She gets pregnant. He wants the baby, she doesn't. Too bad. The woman can do what she wants, even if it means killing this guy's child against his wishes.
When a man is able to carry a child to term inside his own body with the full responsibility of this new life, then a man can choose. As it is, some psychologist say that because a man is not able to do this, he always has some doubt the child is even his, which makes it easier for him to walk away.

Doesn't exactly seem fair on either front, does it?
Nope, it may not seem fair, but life isn't fair. It isn't fair that women are paid less than men because women can have babies either, but that's the excuse, and that's the way it is -- for now. There is unfairness in this world, and it's up to us to change it.

And yes, I've heard the argument about the guy should use birth control. But, if he doesn't, he gives up all rights to everything?
Two people have sex, two people should use birth control. Hopefully, these two people have something special, and they can work together to do what needs to be done for the child. But, history has proven it's pretty much a woman's burden, and I'd rather not put something like that in the hands of anyone else anyway. Hey, you can leave any time you want. If more guys had stepped up to the plate, maybe this wouldn't be so much of an issue. Unfortunately, it's the men who run out on their responsibilities who have you paying the price for it.

Why should it only be a WOMAN'S right to choose?
Unless mother and child can get a guarantee you won't ditch them and leave them with nothing, then it should ultimately remain HER choice. There are men's and father's advocate groups out there I would advise you to look into. They have made a difference in changing child support laws in some states.

Whatever happens should happen for the benefit of the child, not the mother or the father. That is the difference in knowing you are ready to be a parent... when it stops being about you, about any burden or hardship you may suffer, about sacrifices you may have to make, or unfairness you may have to endure, and is solely about the child.
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
158
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Zebulon said:
OK, I got one for you.

A man and a woman have consentual sex. She gets pregnant. He doesn't want the child. Too bad. The woman can do what she wants, even if it means this poor guy has to pay child support for 18 years, or get thrown in jail.

A man and a woman have consentual sex. She gets pregnant. He wants the baby, she doesn't. Too bad. The woman can do what she wants, even if it means killing this guy's child against his wishes.

Doesn't exactly seem fair on either front, does it?

And yes, I've heard the argument about the guy should use birth control. But, if he doesn't, he gives up all rights to everything?

Why should it only be a WOMAN'S right to choose?

Men should talk to their sexual partners BEFORE they have sex with them about issues like this.
 

ElGringo17

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
246
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Men should talk to their sexual partners BEFORE they have sex with them about issues like this.[/qoute]

Notice how the RadFems are further dictating more responsibilities to men, as if we must march to their tune?

I have a better idea to the RadFem nazis......maybe the man AND the woman should talk to eachother..but since this ignores human nature...
 

Busta

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ProChoiceDanielle said:
Men should talk to their sexual partners BEFORE they have sex with them about issues like this.
Men should marry their sexual partners BEFORE they have sex with them to avoid issues like this.

Ya know....in a way the playing field is pretty level.
If a well meaning Man gets a flaky girl pregnant, she murders their child.
If a well meaning Woman gets pregnant by a flaky boy, he takes off and doesn't support them.

Sounds like the well meaning Men and Women are fine people.
Apparently it's flaky girls and boys who are the problem.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Busta said:
Men should marry their sexual partners BEFORE they have sex with them to avoid issues like this.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Wait, you were serious?

In case you hadn't noticed, it's the 21st century. Regardless if people should wait for marriage before sex, they don't. It ain't gonna happen.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Busta said:
Yes. I am aware.
I stand for what is right despite certain failer.
Who decides it's "right", might I ask? You?

By the way, it's "failure". Like your wife's 5 different varieties of birth control pills.
 

Busta

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
God decided what is right.
Since American legal authority is founded on God's divine authority our State and Federal laws should reflect God's'a laws.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Busta said:
God decided what is right.
Since American legal authority is founded on God's divine authority our State and Federal laws should reflect God's'a laws.
Been speaking to the Almighty on the phone, have you?

Um. God decided I should be a billionaire. Give me your money.
 

Busta

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yes, American law is directly based on the Constitution. The Constitution's legitimacy and authority is based on the Declaration of Independence. The Power behind the Declaration of Independence are the rights of the The People.
The Declaration of Independence tell us where those rights came from...

"...that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..."

This means that any right that you have was given to you by God.

"And for the support of this deceleration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence,...."

This means that Gods authority and God's kingdom are the foundation of authority of the deceleration of independence; without which there is no U.S.A.

If I build a basement, the support for that basement is the ground.
If I build a house on that basement, you could argue that the house's foundation is the basement, not the ground.
If I build a second story on that house, you could argue that the second story is supported by the first story or the basement, and not the ground.
But when the ground is eroded away, the whole house falls down.

I am not advocating for a theocracy. So-many people are quick to jump to that conclusion. Clearly there must be a separation between official religion and law. What I am advocating for is that we do not loose or deny the fact that God gave each individual their rights. Those God given rights are what grounds this country's legitimacy and authority.

The First Amendment prevents Congress from passing laws giving a church official legal authority.
The First Amendment does not stop the privet citizen from using their faith to influence law.

If people continue to erode God out from under this country, eventually the whole thing will fall down.
 

Busta

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You did not understand the points that you disagreed with.

By acknowledging the words "their creator" we establish the existence of personal faith, not organized religion.

You need to understand that the Christian God is the same God as the Jewish God and the Muslim God. There is only one God, not a seporet god for each religion.

"religion and morality are not synonymous"

That is exactly correct. Morality does not come from religion nor faith in God. Morality comes directly from God, rather you have faith or a religon or not. Nether faith nor religion are required in order to express morality.
Your personal faith and/or religion merely influences your understanding of that morality.

"The first amendment does prevent anyone from using religion to create law."

In respect to passing laws; the first amendment only applies to Congress. Theoretically, the President could issue an Executive Order or a court could make a ruling that would abridge the separation of church and state.
I am not advocating this, just pointing it out.

It is important to keep religion and faith seprorated in thought. When I say faith, I mean faith and not religion.

God is no more in the government then the ground is in the house. I said that God was the foundation for our government, not a participant in it.

"...as long as he's in the hearts, minds, and actions on the people"

That is the faith that I spoke of that a privet citizen can use to influence law. Personal faith, not organized religion.
 

Busta

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Jah claims to be the messiah that was prophesied in the Bible. He could be compared with Jesus or Mohammed as being a profit. If Jah's claims were tue then he would be what is referred to as "the Eternal Spirit" where as God, him self, is the "Eternal Being". Jah would have come from God just as Jesus did, but would not be God Himself.

So Jah would not be the one credited with the nondenominational words "their creator" in the Declaration of Independence.

Vishnu is thought as the preserver of the universe, not the soul of the universe. This role is more like guardian ship of creation rather than being the creator, so Vishnu would not be referenced at all by the Declaration of independence.

Officially referencing God establishes the existence of The People's personal faith in God with out establishing a national religion or church.

Congress can abridge faith and state. This is how we got "In God We Trust" on our money.
Congress can abridge religion and State. This is how the Congress opens it's sessions with a prayer and priests can legally officiate a wedding.

Congress is bound only agents abridging church and state. Churches can not hold legal authority, though their patrons can.

"The thing is God is the foundation of our government in an abstract way. Like, in saying it in the context "We are here because of God's good grace, and our government exists now because of God's good grace, then it's founded on God", I agree, but in the context "We were founded on God, we are a christian nation", I can't say that I agree at all."

We are almost in sync on this one.
The authority of God that supports this country is an abstract, yet quantifiable divine law. It is abstract in that God is not sitting in Congress literally telling us what He want's. It is Quantifiable through many ancient texts and scientific observations of the natural order which tell us what those Divine laws are.

The term "God" is a generic term to refer to the soul of the universe. If our Founding Fathers were completely the same as they were, with an exception to having spoken Hebrew, then the term "YAWA" would mean nothing different then today's "God". The same is true for if they spoke Arabic. Allah means the same thing as God, there is just a language difference.

Calling America a Christian Nation would be a grose misrepresentation.
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
158
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Busta said:
Men should marry their sexual partners BEFORE they have sex with them to avoid issues like this.

Ya know....in a way the playing field is pretty level.
If a well meaning Man gets a flaky girl pregnant, she murders their child.
If a well meaning Woman gets pregnant by a flaky boy, he takes off and doesn't support them.

Sounds like the well meaning Men and Women are fine people.
Apparently it's flaky girls and boys who are the problem.
You can do that if you would like, but that is your choice. I would not marry someone before knowing if we were sexually compatable. Sex is a large part of a relationship and marriage.
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
158
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Busta said:
Yes. I am aware.
I stand for what is right despite certain failer.
Coming from someone who had sex before marriage. Dont we call that a hypocrite?
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
158
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Busta said:
God decided what is right.
Since American legal authority is founded on God's divine authority our State and Federal laws should reflect God's'a laws.
And for those who do not believe in god?
 

Busta

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
0
Location
From somewhere, deep below the Earth...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Posted by ProChoiceDanielle:
"I would not marry someone before knowing if we were sexually compatible. Sex is a large part of a relationship and marriage."

I agree that sex is a large part of marriage.
Our disagreement falls on the fact that promiscuous grade school and high school students, as well as people of all ages who take part in 'casual sex', are not seriously engaged to each other before having sex.

I see no problem with a seriously engaged couple having sex before they are married.

"Coming from someone who had sex before marriage. Don't we call that a hypocrite?"

As I've said before: Learning from your mistakes does not make you a hypocrite. It makes you smarter than you were.

"And for those who do not believe in god?"

All people are equal.
 
Top Bottom