CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
A woman should abort immediately when notified by father or forfeit child suppor
A woman should notify the father as soon as she becomes pregnant. If he does not want to be a father, he can request an abortion within the legal abortion period. The woman must comply or forfeit child support. Plain, simple straight forward.
It makes sense this way. Both should have a say in this case, not just one...BOTH!!! If she decideds to keep the child the whole thing is on her and he should not have to have a part in paying child support or anything else if he doesn't wish to or cannot.
Yes it is so sad all these girls or even stupid women have the babies to keep a man...Trust me i know three women who have tried that w/afriend of mine....DOES NOT WORK...Women and Men should have equal rights in an unplanned pregnancy and since a woman can't b forced to have an abortion relinquishing all rites to said child is only fair....
It is traditional in western society for children to be taken care of by one or both parents. In families where children live with one or both of their parents, the childcare role may also be taken on by the extended family. In the absence of one or both parents and the extended family willing to care for the children, orphanages are a way of providing for children's care, housing, and schooling.
Supporting Evidence:
test king
(www.real-testking.com)
Lets go ahead and b honest people r going to have Sex have since the beginning of time. These days our teenagers r doing it more frequently than most parents like to admit and the laws seem to only protect the girls. Now we all no teenagers make mistakes and bad decisions and because the girl might decide that she does/doesn't want to keep the baby the boys r made to leave their life n her hands. ..Doesn't seem fair.Although we all no they shouldn't b even having sex half of what mist teenagers think and do they shouldn't b . I believe n pro choice for both parties at stake if the teenager girl decides to ruin any future she might have the teenage boy should b given the choice as well. If the girl wanted to abort the boy would have no say so the choice path should go both ways...What happened to equal rights for all..
If a woman gets pregnant and decides to keep the child, she will be responsible not only for that child's financial development, but for its emotional and physical and spiritual wellbeing, education, social development...all the responsibilities of parenting. Yet, she is only half the "parents."
A child has a right to parental support. Not the child's mother - the CHILD. What you are suggesting penalizes children by condemning them to partial support, which often means poverty and the state dole.
A woman has a right to bodily integrity. Not a fetus - a woman. What you are suggesting robs women of a fundamental and federally-protected liberty right.
Those two things are totally different rights with totally different interests at stake. And BOTH those rights are more important by far than a man's privilege of sex without consequences.
What's next - if she doesn't agree to have sex, he gets to rape her? If she doesn't agree to hand over her income, he can steal it?
How's this instead: if a woman wants to get pregnant, she should be able to FORCE a man to give her his sperm.
If the father makes it clear that he does not want a baby and that he has no desire to provide child support the mother has the option of raising the child on her own or not having the child until she can provide for the child. The alternative is to force the father to pay child support; to take away his right to chose; to give the woman total control.
The alternative takes away all responsibility for a woman's action away from her. This is done by making sure that the negative consequences for her actions are minimized.
If she has unprotected sex and gets pregnant and she doesn't want the child... no worries, have an abortion at the expense of anyone who may want the child and at the expense of the child. The negative consequences for her irresponsible action are minimized.
If she wants a child but can't afford it... no worries, trick a man into having unprotected sex with you and then force him to pay child support. Again, the negative consequences for her irresponsible action are minimized.
It may not be fair, but it's the price you pay for not having a baby factory inside of you.
It's equally unfair for a man to be able to "opt out" of financial responsibility simply by asking for an abortion. And the single mother who has the child anyway and lacks support from the man will then turn where for financial assistance? The government. So we will all pay or the man who f*cked her without a condom can pay. I choose the stupid man who chose not to wear a condom.
How about placing some responsibility on the woman, like having her say, "No sex until you wear a condom." If she doesn't have the necessary financial assistance to provide for the child then she doesn't get to keep it. She either aborts it or puts it up for adoption.
Where does the notion come from that a woman can have as many children as she wants, under any circumstance (say, single), and force either the father or the state to pay for her decision?
Why is everyone acting as though women have no say in sex? Why is it so hard to understand that women have choices and they make decisions? Her choices are to have protected or unprotected sex. Once she makes that choice, she's bound by the consequences.
If the choice was taken away from because she was raped, then her choices are to keep or abort. Once she makes that choice, she's bound by the consequences. In other words, if she decides to keep the baby and she cannot secure financial aid from the rapist then she's responsible for raising that child (not the state) or putting it up for adoption. If she makes a bad choice she is still bound by her decision.
Why is it that no matter what decision a woman makes, the rest of us (the state or the father) has to support that choice and suffer the consequences?
Both man and woman are responsible for having safe sex. But a man who doesn't want a child sure as hell better make sure he is wrapped before getting into bed.
If she doesn't have the necessary financial assistance to provide for the child then she doesn't get to keep it. She either aborts it or puts it up for adoption. WHAT!?!? This is the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen you make. First, you can't force an abortion, period. It's a moral issue that only the mother can decide for herself. Secondly, there are between one and two hundred thousand children waiting for adoption right now. It is ludicrous to suggest that we should force women to add to that number. Furthermore, what happens to the mother who doesn't want to give up her child, is forced to by the state, and then stalks the adoptive parents should the child be lucky enough to get them?
FURTHERMORE, would you suggest we remove from care all children from parents who can no longer financially support them, rather than provide welfare assistance?
Women have choices that have more severe consequences than those of men. Men have financial consequences, women must RAISE the children in addition to providing for them.
Why is it that no matter what decision a man makes, you support a way for him to be absolved of the consequences?
Abortion is a moral issue that only the mother can decide for herself.
What?!?!? The government is always trying to push moral issues down our throats. Have you heard, "it's for the children" or "It's for the planet" or "it's for the poor."
But anyway, you're right. I misspoke so let me clarify what I meant.
If she doesn't have the necessary financial assistance to provide for the child then she doesn't get to keep it and force someone else to pay for her decision. She either aborts it, puts it up for adoption or raises the child on her own.
As far as welfare assistance. My goal is not to eliminate welfare assistance my goal is to reduce it by placing a little more responsibility on the people. Any woman who is raising a child and is doing fine and then suddenly finds herself in a financial mess, should get welfare assistance but if she's already in a financial mess, then she doesn't get to add to that mess by bringing a child into this world and forcing us to pay even more money to support her decision to screw things up even more.
If a man gets a woman pregnant and they decide to keep the child, he's financially responsible.
But aside from that. Your coming to the table with the preconceived notion that father's are a bunch of dead beats. Do you know how hard it has been for me to get to see my children half of the time? I want to see them and they put all kinds of obstacles in my way. It has gotten to the point where mom can take the kids to a baby sitter even though I'm available and willing to be with the kids. And I'm a professional! I'm not a drug addict! I have always paid child support! The kids love me and love to be with me! But mom ALWAYS gets the final say and that's supposed to be fair! Well screw that.
You just fundamentally misunderstand who has a "right" to child support. NEITHER PARENT HAS A RIGHT TO CHILD SUPPORT. The CHILD has a right to the support of both its parents. That has nothing to do with mom's choices or dad's choices. That right belongs to the CHILD.
The right belongs to the child once both parents decide to keep it. If one parent doesn't want the fetus then the parents must decide what to do about the fetus. Here are their options:
1. Abort
2. Adoption
3. Full custody to the parent who wants the fetus.
How about placing SOME responsibility on the MAN, like having him PUT A CONDOM OVER HIS OWN DANG BITS, instead of "blaming" the woman for his failure to do so?
How about not discriminating against the poor by forcibly removing their children from them, although they be perfectly fit parents, and not thereby making those children 100% dependent on State support instead of just partially dependent?
Why are you acting like MEN have no say in sex? Why is it so hard for men to accept responsibility?
It take two to tango baby. I say they both should share in that responsibility. I'm not blaming the woman for anything. I never said children should be removed from poor households and make them wards of the state. Quite the contrary, I want people to take care of their own kids.
Indeed, they both should share in that responsibility. And if it results in the birth of a child, they should both be responsible for its upbringing - not just financially, but socially and developmentally. So with that in mind, we shouldn't stop at child support - the father should also be legally required to shoulder his parenting responsibilities!
WHAT ABOUT THE HOLE SHE PUT IN THE CONDOM????? THIS HAPPENS EVERY DAY AND IS ENTRAPMENT. WHEN A WOMEN WANTS A BABY SHE CAN GO AND GET PREGNANT BY ANYONE. HER RIGHT TO CHOOSE SHOULD BE CHALLENGED!! WHO IS THE DADDY?? CAN SHE SLEEP WITH MANY MEN, AND PICK WHO SHE CHOOSES?? NO!!!
ONCE AGAIN!!THE MALE ALSO HAVE SAY. DID YOU EVER HEAR OF A CRAZY WOMENT PUTTING A HOLE IN THE CONDEM. I HAVE. THIS IS THE TRUTH. I HAVE WORKED IN FAMILY COURT. THE MALE SHOULD WALK AWAY. DONT USE GOD AS A WEAPON EITHER. JUST BECAUSE A FEMALE CANNOT GET ANOTHER MAN UNLESS SHE IS PROSITUTING, AND WANTS TO USE ONE JERK OF A GUY. THEN PUTS THE HOLE IN THE CONDEM. I TELL THE MALES RUN FOR YOUR LIFE. THIS GIRL IS NUTS. IM WATCHING A CASE NOW.
I agree, it is her body. BUT, why does the woman have the right to kill the man's child but not the other way around?
Why does the fetus have no rights? At what point does it deserve rights? If it doesn't deserve the right to live then why should I pay for medicaid for ultrasounds or prenatal checkups. If it lives great, if not... it was never a human anyway?
Bodily Integrity should apply to ALL parties involved. Not just the woman. A father has rights too, only we choose to ignore them until we want something from him.
Why can't the man choose to abort? It is her body, but it is his baby. If she chooses an abortion, he has no say in the matter of her killing his CHILD. Why can't he then ask for the same thing?
1) under the law, it is not a "child" until and unless it is born;
2) it's not his body.
Bodily integrity DOES apply to both parties involved. Neither person gets to do anything to the other person's body without consent. Both may do as they please with their own bodies, subject to any relevant restrictions of the law.
When does the fetus get "rights"? Under our jurisprudence, not until it is viable, at the earliest. States can regulate or ban the abortion of a viable fetus. Until that point, it has no possible right of bodily integrity because it cannot survive independently of another person's body.
Why can't the man choose to abort? Because at no point is the fetus dependent on his body for its survival.
Why does your tax money pay for pregnancy-related medical needs but not abortion-related medical needs? Because your State chose to set it up that way. They aren't required to pay for either one.
That's fine, we can change the law. Or how about this, we give the women every right imaginable and take away every right imaginable from the man Does that make you happy?
You haven't been able to point out one single right that has been "taken away" from men. Instead, you're whining about our failure to create a whole bunch of NEW rights for men to offset the minimal gains in rights that have been made by women, in order to thereby restore women to the position of chattel while men reign supreme over everything. And to that I say, bollocks.
The right to his sperm and his DNA. The right to his financial future.
If the man doesn't want the child and the mother gives birth, he has lost the rights to his sperm and his DNA. If she then turns around and forces him to pay child support for 18 years for a child he didn't want, then you're taking away his right to his financial future.
If a woman has an abortion, she has not lost any rights to her body. She has only lost the rights to the fetus. It is the fetus that she forfeits. This doesn't revert women back to the status of chattel and it doesn't make men supreme over everything. What a bunch of crap!
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. here's what I'm saying:
"Women, you are not the only custodian of the fetus. It takes two people to make a fetus, it takes to people to decide to keep the fetus. This is not about a woman's body, it's about a fetus and the right to that fetus."
Well, under the law, that's not what it's about. And I agree with the position taken by the law. The fetus has few, if any, rights until it is born. The man has some rights over his body, the woman has some rights over her body, and the State has some rights in safeguarding the lives and health of its citizens and of a viable fetus.
Women are the only custodians of the fetus. If you want the man to be the custodian of the fetus, put it in his body. Then, by all means, let him decide whether to abort.
But until you have a fetus capable of surviving WITHOUT a woman's body, then yes, this is about a woman's body.
He has the right to his sperm and his DNA. He chose to deposit them in somebody else's womb. That may carry financial consequences. That's his choice, and he made it. Case closed.
Seriously, why is it that you want to absolve men of every consequence of their own actions? What a bunch of crap!
Because women are treated like brainless children (that are not capable of making sound decisions) every time we make a law that protects them against their bad decisions and penalizes somebody else (men).
This is not about putting women in a position of chattel, so you can save the whiny "I'm a victim" speech for something else. This is simply about equality, right now men have no now say in birth rights and that is a problem. If a women were to get pregnant then she can pretty much hold the man hostage to child support. If a women is to have the right to avoid having the child then the man should also have that right, it's a pretty simple concept.
And if you are wondering why I downvoted all your posts it is because you did the same on all the other posts simply because you disagree and not because it was a bad arguement.
And you are starting to sound like a raging sexist. Please save your perjorative terms for the locker room.
Indeed, this is simply about equality. Men have a level of bodily autonomy and integrity under the law that women have not really been legally permitted to enjoy.
And actually, you downvoted my posts well before I downvoted anything on this debate forum.
And how have women not been able to legally enjoy control over their body? The laws are sexist in their favor, so to say that they do not get the better end of the deal is truly an ignorant thing to say.
I downvoted one post... and that's because it was full of crap, the other downvotes did not come until after you went of your downvote spree.
You haven't argued for equality. You called me a feminazi, accused me of whining, downvoted my posts, went on a rant about how being held to a minimum standard of child support carrying with it only a fraction of the responsibilities imposed on the woman somehow deprives you of your "equality" and asserted that your "equality" would be better served by giving you rights to control the body of another adult human being. You have, in other words, basically just spouted a geyser of crap. Perhaps we should call you "Old Crapful."
Then how come two girls can get in a fight with A being pregnant and B not. B will get in trouble for endangering a CHILD's life. how if it's not human??
At the same time, a nanny or a au-pairs, are not always the best method of childcare. It confines the child into a world of their own. It keeps them from interacting with other child alot of the times. As mention the caregivers do not need licenses or background checks so there is no way of telling if a person is really qualified or has a criminal background. These things should be taken in consideration when making a choice.
Absolutely.....I dont claim child support. I firmly believe no ifs or buts that if two people concieve a child, then both parents are responsible for raising that child ..but if the father requests that the mother have an abortion and the mother declines then she should bare ALL responsibilities for that child.
"Tremendous advancements have been made in the field of contraception, yet countless males are still being trapped into marriage and/or fatherhood, and the repercussions are vast. Historically, females never wanted to be pregnant out of wedlock, so men have naively continued to hand the issue of birth control over to their partners. While it's the responsibility of both parties to insure against conception, males are easily seduced and infinitely more vulnerable to getting entrapped than they believe--particularly when their voiced concerns/queries are met with assurances that, “it’s safe.” Think this won't happen to you? Think again!
Women with agendas to have children give men no say in this matter, and are often looking for a ‘free ride’ in terms of financial support. They could harbor significant abandonment wounds from childhood that cause them to frantically grasp at opportunities for emotional security, so having a man’s baby insures that he cannot sever all ties with her, if he needs to leave. But ask yourself this; would an emotionally sound female want to keep a guy around, knowing he doesn't want to be there? Conception doesn’t “just happen,” and with very few exceptions (such as rape) I’ve always believed that if a woman is clear about not wanting to conceive or mother a child, she won’t. Ambivalence is too often the cause of unwanted and 'unplanned' pregnancies--but tragically, the children of these mishaps suffer most, as they're the unwitting victims of unstable relational dynamics that began long before they were born.
Any woman (straight or gay) who yearns to have a baby and is equipped to provide a loving/stable home for this child, may adopt or use the services of a fertility doctor or clinic. My point is, this is a conscious adult choice, which entails accepting full financial and emotional responsibility for this decision. But when a couple's faced with an unintended pregnancy and they disagree about keeping it, neither should be forced to pay the terrible, life-altering price for this occurrence! Inequities may always exist between females and males in every society--but in my view, this one's the most hideous. Until our legal system mandates that women are equally financially responsible for these "accidents," men will continue to be brutalized by governing bodies that persistently ignore this travesty. Furthermore, if we sanction a woman's "right to choose," how is it even remotely fair that a man's denied this same liberty?"
I can't help but wonder, if we gave those fathers the first right of refusal to choose primary custodial care, (in other words if she chooses to have an unplanned baby) then the father is given the first right to become the primary caregiver over the mother and she were required to pay child support to him, how many of those women would actually choose to risk a pregnancy?
It's only fair. A man can't tell a woman that she must give birth to a baby if she doesn't want it and that he'll take care of it so he should be allowed to request an abortion instead of being held financially responsible for 18 years for a child he doesn't want.
The three main types of child care options for most American working families include in-home care, family care, and child care centers. Many American working families are two-job households, and this means that childcare is often delegated to childminders or crèches on a full-time or part-time basis.
What's really required are jobs with flexible work hours. One parent can drop the kids off and the other one can pick them up. Or, if they can work from home like.... ;)
I never thought about it this way but it does seem fair.
I am against abortion but if the mother (not technically because liberals think it isn't a baby so....)/ chick decides to remove (kill) the clump of cells (baby) the father can't sue her for damages.
I think fathers who are want out should either be able to force abortion or be released of all paternal (not a father because it isn't baby) duties.
Makes sense, if we are to live in a world of equality then a man should be able to choose not to be a father seeing how a woman can choose not to be a mother.
Well would help the men to have alittle choice but its like with anything women are #1 in america next to blacks we gotta spare there feelings and men are all dogs....
Another possibility would be to abort only those fetuses that have been determined to be liberal because conservative fetuses would be against abortion. ;)
OMG!!!!!!!!!!! If you are indecent enough to have intercourse with someone and not accept responsibility for your actions then you should be neutered, or have to pay a fine. When someone is pregnant at least from what I've heard they develop an emotional attachment, and I for one do not think what the guy says should necessarily be the OK. It takes the whole thinking of a man's world to another place. Besides since when does the man get to make the decision of if they would like "their lady" to have the baby...It's in her...This is wigity wigity wack!!! Child support is necessary and in order.
So what you're saying is that if a woman leads her lover to believe that she's using a contraceptive and tricks him into having unprotected sex in order to conceive a child and extort child support from him, then that's OK.
Could you sound any more stupid? Seriously? So you are telling me that some girl can tell you she's on birth control and you are just ok with taking her word on it! Wow...even if she is telling the truth, since when has any birth control been 100%? Even condoms aren't 100% ....nor are vasectomies and even sometimes women who have their tubes tied can still get pregnant. I some how doubt any female is going to be dumb enough to believe that if she "tricks" some "poor pitiful unsuspecting" man into getting her pregnant that he will surely do the right thing automatically stay with her and magically love her...or are you suggesting that she is some how going to become rich or even remotely finsncially more stable from his paying child support!!! Well obviously based on your argument, there are idiots out there...so I guess some of those idiots might be dumb enough to believe your theory. Damn this was the dumbest thing u have ever seen
Have you never watched a talk show? Have you never talked to a teen mom? there reason is ALWAYS because they thought a baby would make him stay. Women choose to be a mommy or not so why can't a man?
THE WOMEN SHOULD HAVE AN OPERATION TO TAKE HER EGGS AWAY. WHY SHOULD HE BE RESPONSIBLE. IF HAVE A GIRL TOTALLY INTO DRUGS THE COURTS SHOULD FORCE ABORTION. I AM A CATHOLIC, FOR ABORTION. ROE VS WADE. SCREW RELIGION., THIS KID CAN BE BORN ADDICTED. ONE ARM, NO FINGERS. WHO ARE YOU TO SAY ITS THE MANS FAULT. I AM A WOMEN, THAT IS WATCHING A POOR YOUNG MALE, THINKING ITS HIS CHILD. THIS GIRL HAS SEX WITH DAD. WHOS THE DADDY???
So men have no rights? Men have no choice? And why can a woman abort and take away all her consequences but a man can't do the same. A woman can abort simply because she's not ready to parent a child but the man has no choice as to parent or not. It takes 2 so maybe that woman shouldn't have opened her legs!!
ABORTION?? I AM CATHOIC, AND I BELIEVE IN A WOMENS RIGHTTO CHOOSE. I ALSO THINK THE MALE SHOULD HAVE THE SAME RIGHS. A BABY IS NOT ALIVE FROM THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION. THAT IS YOUR RELIGIOUS OPINION. NOT REALITY
ROE VS . WADE. PUT RELIGION ASIDE. THAT IS YOUR OPINION. THIS DAY AND AGE, THERE ARE SO MANY DRUG ADDICTS. THESE WOMEN NEED MONNEY FOR THEIRR HABIT. SAD, BUT TRUE. THEY DO NOT DESERVE A CHILLD. THERE ARE SO MANY WOMEN WHO CANT HAVE CHILDREN. THIS IS SAD. THEY DESERVE TO HAVE THE EGGS OF THE ADDICT. NOW PUT THE DRUG CHILD ON INNOCENT PEOPLE. ABORTIONN IS THE ONLY WAY TO STOP THIS POOR EGG INTO BECOMINNG A PERSON. THIS EGG WILL ALSO WANT DRUGS DOWN THE ROAD
It takes two to make a child. Abortion is two much of a tetchy issue to pressurize a woman like that. Whilst on paper the argument makes sense abortion is emotionally traumatic and can be medically dangerous. I am pro choice. But it should remain just that, a choice. A woman who is passionately against abortion should not be financially pressurized into having one by the man who got her pregnant.
Also for the sake of argument, who is paying for this abortion, what about rapists or men who clearly have more than enough money to pay for the child i.e bill gates, Mitt Romney.
"A woman who is passionately against abortion should not be financially pressurized into having one by the man who got her pregnant."
According to this only man makes a baby women just birth it...Get real they both did the dirty and they both conceived a child...they both should have the choice of parenting and supporting.
Some people say that whenever a woman sleeps with a man, she should accept pregnancy as a consequence- so according to them the male should accept supporting a child as a consequence too.
If women are going to force men to support an unwanted child, then men should be able to force women to deliver a child that is wanted by the father ;)
Dispute! Sure- would you rather be tortured or pay money? Men have no right to that as childbirth can be fatal. handing over cash isn't, especially if the guy in question has alot of money.
Oh please..., obviously if the mother's life is in danger but how often does that happen? I mean, really. All she has to do is have a C-Section. The hyperbole is outstanding. Bitching over 9 months but the guy is not allowed to complain about 18 years. A guy has unprotected sex and he's expected to pay but a woman has unprotected sex and there are absolutely NO consequences. The Hypocrisy!!! ;)
Some are saying the woman should keep her legs closed and some are saying the men should keep their pants zipped if they dont want to suffer the consequences. Well, both statements are true. But unfortunately that isnt likely to happen. If you drink, it is YOUR responsibility to not drink and drive, and if you choose to do so anyway, KNOWING what the possible consequences could be, then you must pay the consequences if and/or when something happens. Same with pregnancy. Both parties KNOW the possible consequences, so if they choose to play anyway, YOU pay the consequences. Period!