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.
If you had an abortion should it be up to both people or just the mother?
If you had an abortion should it be up to both of the parents or just the mother. What if the father of the child disapproved of the abortion? What is your opinion?
If the father signs an agreement to take full responsibility of the child because the mother does not want it, then yes, he should have a right to say no to an abortion. But if he just wants her to keep it because he's against abortion, but won't take full responsibility when the mother has made it obvious she does not want to care for a child, then no.
Would you, as a women, if you were pregnant, and wanted an abortion, agreed to have the child, if the man signed an agreement to say that he would help? If there's that sort of restriction on the man, it's likely to lead to a large amount of suppressed feelings, resentment, and lead to a negative environment for the child, not to mention for the two adults.
No. Not help. I would only go through with it if he signed an agreement saying he would take Full care of the child and could prove that he could afford it. Otherwise I'd abort it. I wouldn't want anything to do with it once it's out of me if I didn't want it to begin with.
Oh, sorry, I didn't get how you meant it. That's not unreasonable. But even so, if a man writes the agreement, do you think the woman can decline, and abort?
I would only go through with it if he signed an agreement saying he would take Full care of the child and could prove that he could afford it. Otherwise I'd abort it.
So, being as you, in this hypothetical, set the terms for whether or not the abortion takes place, are you not then making the decision?
I wouldn't be the only one making the decision though. The man would be as well. If he won't agree to take full responsibility then I will, and abort it.
You still have to have birth all the same, and I wonder, at what point are you "forced" to give birth, and at what point are you "complying"? This is a very important factor.
Maybe it's me personally, but I don't think it's fair to FORCE a man to pay child support either. Either way two people chose to have sex. And they since they BOTH had say so in the sex, disregarding rape of course, then they both should have some say so in what happens.
This isn't a black and white issue. But if a woman chose to keep the child when the father didn't want it, then he's forced to pay child support. So I think nine months pregnant and the birth of a child can be given if the man agrees to take full responsibility.
Of course, if he doesn't want to take care of the child, then abortion is always an option as well.
Is this not a scary thought to you? It reduces the woman to an incubator for a kid someone else wants, regardless of her wishes or the consequences to her. How many women would be put through a pregnancy to carry a baby for a man with whom they'd broken up/divorced and no longer wanted anything to do with? How many domestic abuse victims would have to carry the baby of their abuser? It's not an uncommon tactic for abusers to use pregnancy and children to control their victims and it seems like a disproporionate amount of people who would disregard a mother's wants and make her carry a baby would be abusive.
Abortion is a solution to pregnancy, not parenting, and you're proposing a solution to parenting.
But it is not just her child. A man helped her with the making of the child. And I'm born talking aboutbthe man and woman having a relationship after the child is born. The man signs an agreement to take FULL care of the child. After the child OS born the mother never talks to the man again. There's no reason to.
Conception requires two people and both parties should consent because they're both involved in the process.
Incubation only requires one person and the only party who's consent should matter is the one doing the incubating. I said this before and you didn't really answer; even if you have partial ownership of something, you don't own whatever is holding it.
It is just HER body. She has the right of self defense. There is an entity (person or not) that is taking her food without her permission, deforming her body without her permission, and albeit slightly, threatening to kill her.
Oh my, it's just pregnancy... Don't make it a bigger deal than necessary to try and make a point.
Nearly EVERY women goes through, it's not that serius.
Yes it takes food, but it's not it takes work to give it food, except maybe eat more, and that's not that serious.
Deforming her body? A woman's body is MADE for pregnancy, it doesn't deform it, and after the birth it can go right back.
The chances of death during birth in this time of age are slim to none.
And once again, as I've mentioned a few times, a man is forced to give money for child support. For eighteen years. FORCED. No debate about that though.
But it's okay for the guy who wants nothing to do with the child, and would have preferred an abortion, to be forced to have to pay child support for the eighteen years?
I realize that this would be difficult to set up, but it needs to go both ways, women can't just use the "it's my body" argument when they turn around and force the guy to do something if they choose to keep the child, with no say on his part.
I would go further than what you're saying. The existing system of child support and its sexist anti-man abuses needs to be abolished and a new system put into place.
If a woman can stop providing food and shelter for a child at any time even in the womb without any social or legal consequence, a man should be able to as well.
If we're going to force men to "gestate" a child for 18 years, how is it that we are offended at the idea of forcing women to "gestate" a child for 9 months. Since the latter is wrong, the former is also wrong.
It should be up to both. If a woman want s to be 100% in control, she can get artificially inseminated, buy a vibrator, go to town and take the morning after pill.
It-takes-2-to-Tango. Oh yeah, I know..., it's her body, yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah. But it's his paycheck and if she decides to keep it, he has to pay. The current system is a one way street favoring the mother. So we either make it so that she has 100% control over her body and he has 100% control over his paycheck OR they both give up control when they decide to have sex... "just for the fun of it." We have created a society where no one wants to take responsibility for their actions.
What? Are you still reading? WTF? Are you looking for a smiley?
Say I'm a woman, and I had consensual sex with my husband, whom I've been married to for some odd years; and then am pregnant; if I were to find out later along that the birth of this child will kill me, who chooses my fate? God, the president, my husband, my unborn fetus, or myself?
If the pregnancy is fatal to the mother then it should be terminated.
But that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about a "normal" case.
In a "normal" case, if a woman wants to have 100% control over her body..., then..., she should waive ANY and ALL rights to the father's paycheck.
The current situation works like this:
1. If a woman wants unprotected sex and gets pregnant and she wants to keep the child, she keeps it and makes daddy pay, whether he wants the child or not.
2. If a woman wants unprotected sex and gets pregnant and she wants to abort the child, she aborts it, whether daddy wants it or not.
She makes 100% of the decision and daddy has to abide whatever she says. Her decision affects him 100% but he has no say in the matter. That's too much power to the woman.
She gets to decide to have unprotected sex.
She gets to decide to gamble and see if she gets pregnant.
She gets to decide whether or not to keep the child.
She gets to decide if she wants daddy to pay child support.
Daddy has no say in the matter.
I don't want to take away control her body. I want to take away control over his paycheck.
1. If a woman wants unprotected sex and gets pregnant and she wants to keep the child, she keeps it and makes daddy pay, whether he wants the child or not.
If his dick was hard enough for intercourse, he's just as accountable for that child. And if his dick is willing to provide, his ass better back it.
-
2. If a woman wants unprotected sex and gets pregnant and she wants to abort the child, she aborts it, whether daddy wants it or not.
Damn straight, she's the one who has the thing growing inside of her. If you chose to get her pregnant, you chose to live with the consequences, be it paying child support or not having the baby. Ignorance isn't an excuse. It you don't know what a condom is, you probably aren't old enough to have sex.
-
She makes 100% of the decision and daddy has to abide whatever she says. Her decision affects him 100% but he has no say in the matter. That's too much power to the woman.
The moment the man decides to have sex unprotected, he's made all the decisions for himself at that point. Too much power to the women? Hmm, I'm envious of this most powerful woman you speak of whom will forever be judged for having her child (and NOT having her child alike), is treated as spoiled goods or a lesser person, and will have the ultimate responsibility of raising this child. Give her some credit, she does a lot more than her semi-hypothetical male counterpart.
-
She gets to decide to have unprotected sex.
She gets to decide to gamble and see if she gets pregnant.
He gets to decide to have unpotected sex too.
He gets to decide to gamble and see if she gets pregnant too.
-
She gets to decide whether or not to keep the child.
She gets to decide if she wants daddy to pay child support.
Again, she's the one with the fetus developing inside of her actual body; of course it's her decision. And if he is willing to decide to have unprotected sex and gamble for pregnancy, he better be willing to pony up the dough when he's not man enough to take care of the child.
If one or both parties don’t want to have a baby, then maybe they should use contraception to prevent it in the first place.
When irresponsibility is no longer a factor, the chance that an abortion will be needed will be reduced to those diminutive few that actually have an ethical justification to have one performed, those who were raped, could die from giving birth, or fell into the .1% of people who conceive after using birth control for example.
Though it is easy to want to believe that any two people who may be in the position of having a baby together are truly devoted to each other, it is also plain silly to assume that to always be true. As such, it is most definitely their responsibility, as you said, but once again one can't make the assumption that anybody in these situations is acting responsibly. If two responsible people who were devoted to each other were in the position, I believe that they would choose to make the decision together anyway. In any circumstances outside of those, however, two irresponsible people cannot be expected to collaborate to make a responsible decision.
My opinion is based on two consenting adults. If two people had sexual intercourse without any protection then it should be a joint decision. If the woman did not want to have a child then preventative measures could be taken on her part and the same can be said about the male. I understand the woman would carry the child but the pregnancy didn't occur without the sperm. If the woman wants to make the decision on her own on whether or not to become pregnant than she should be more responsible in achieving that. Abortion is necessary in some instances due to rape and potential harm to the woman and child, but it is so often just used like an eraser over and over again. Some young women have multiple abortions because they are being irresponsible and the abortion is just the way out. I respect a woman's right to choose but the sole right to decide is given up when that women does not use some form of birth control.
The fact remains is that it's the responsibility of the female, since it's the female's body that gets pregnant. It's a condition of the female and her responsibility, as we are all responsible for our own bodies.
It's irrelevant where the sperm came from. It's her body and it's her condition, thus her responsibility.
On the same token, a woman should not be able to extort money from the man simply because she had a kid with his sperm.
If the father doesn't want to take care of a baby then he shouldn't have to. An abortion should be up to both people. If the parents are unemployed then they should definitely get an abortion or send the baby off for adoption.
I think the father should at least have some say in the argument. Yes it is the women body and if she doesn't wish to go through with a pregnancy it's her decision. But There's always the possibility of surrogate mothers, if she doesn't want the baby and the father can find someone willing to have the baby that should override the mother's choice of abortion. In this case the woman basically has her abortion yet the baby has a chance and the father gets the child he wanted.
The mothers view is probably the most important one, but I think it's absolutely wrong to ignore the fathers oppinion. For example, if the father wants to keep the child, would it be right to kill it, just because the mother had another oppinion?
+ I'm against abortion. Abortion = Killing an innocent child who cant protect him/herself!
The women is the one who has to have the baby, and the man is able to run away and leave the women stranded. Whilst I hope that all decisions are made with consent from both parties, the womens decision has to take priority.
I feel that reproduction should have a contract (a parody of this is in "The Office").
Without contract, the baby should belong solely to the mother, and this would mean that the father would have no say and will not be required to pay child support. Visitation rights or parental rights can be handled with a contract afterward, but without one I find that a father has no right just because his sperm helped make the child. It came out of her womb and she carried it for 9 months. I find that it belongs to her, she should be able to abort it if she doesn't want to bare responsibility for it. Or, like I said, sign a contract with the father.
This is all to avoid child support and abortion rights. Until we can transition to a point where reproductive contracts are common, the mother should be the sole owner of the child.
As crazy as it sounds (and slightly extreme) I think that's one of the more fair ideas I've heard on this issue. Basically, no one gets what they want, unless otherwise agreed, makes sense.
If I signed a contract promising to get a tattoo in nine months, and then nine months I decide I don't want a tattoo, pretty sure it would be illegal to give me one anyway. You can draft all the contracts you want but I don't think that means you can legally force someone to do or not do certain things, abortion being one of them.
What if the couple signs a contract agreeing that she will get an abortion if she conceives, and she later changes her mind?
If I signed a contract promising to get a tattoo in nine months, and then nine months I decide I don't want a tattoo, pretty sure it would be illegal to give me one anyway.
Truly it would depend on the terms of the contract.
There can be legal repercussions if another's livelihood is at stake. With a tattoo, if all it says on the contract is "i will get a tattoo," you can easily dismiss that.
However, a contract to not abort a baby that you sign with the father can have detrimental consequences if you so choose to abort the baby without justification (health hazard, birth defects, and things maybe brought up in contract, etc).
What if the couple signs a contract agreeing that she will get an abortion if she conceives, and she later changes her mind?
It would truly depend on the contract. If the father wishes to eliminate any liability, he would have no responsibility for the child if the mother decides to go through with the birth. It's not about setting an action in stone, it's about making sure that people don't deceive others over something as serious as a baby.
Can you show me what information you're using to support that? I find it hard to believe someone can be legally obligated to alter, or promise not to alter, their bodies in the future.
Movie stars get sued by movie-makers when they break the terms of their contracts, sometimes for getting too fat or too skinny to play a role, or deciding to go mountain biking on vacation and breaking a limb so they cant shoot. If there's money and a contract involved, you can bet people can and will follow up on it when someone breaks the contract.
I wasn't able to find anything on mandated tattoos, but I think this is an applicable example; someone can be legally held to a contract having to do with the state of their body, even if they want to ignore or change it. And an easy one to find, with the obsessive coverage of movie stars in the media.
I did some 'celebrity breach of contract' searches and didn't bring up anything relevant so I'd be interested to see what specific source you're using.
While that definitely falls within the realm of what I was asking for, it's a case if someone being punished for making a choice with their body, not literally being prevented from making a choice. Unless I'm mistaken, ThePyg's proposition involves a woman being prevented from an abortion because of a contract, not just punished for getting one...which is also problematic.
That's actually not the point. The point is that this is how things SHOULD be. Not how they currently are.
As I've pointed out in the beginning, the woman should have sole possession unless a contract is introduced. Abiding by the contract should be maintained by legality. Currently, I don't know of any grounds for abortion, contracts, and reproduction.
this is what we're debating. States vary in how they enforce reproductive rights. In some states, men do have a say in whether the woman can have an abortion (in other states, parents can have say over a minor getting an abortion).
Whether states enforce contract is unknown to me. however, my position is that a contract should be enforced, otherwise defaulting ownership of the baby to the mother.
If you disagree with this, tell me why. Saying that the law doesn't currently do that is not part of the debate. I wasn't making the claim that how I believe things should be is already how they're done. If so, that would have been my point in the beginning.
Now, clearly you do disagree with my personal beliefs. I'd like to know what, besides questionable legality, makes you against my proposal of contract? What is wrong with a contract? What aspects do you disagree with specifically, if any? Do you believe that a mother should be allowed to break contract whenever she wants? If so, what is the point in a contract? And if you say there is none, what do you propose as an alternative?
The way it was phrased made me think you were basing this off a current legal precedent.
If we're talking about the way things should be, then I don't think it should be illegal to change your mind about what you want to do with your body. Pregnancy is a huge investment and a person's life can quickly and unexpectedly change. People can't always predict how or if a pregnancy will fit into their lives when it happens, and things like illnesses, family deaths, loss of a job, depression, etc., etc., can sap a woman's emotional and financial resources beyond what's required to withstand a pregnancy.
In short, it just sounds like a nightmare to have your body legally co-opted against your will no matter what you thought or said at an earlier time.
In some states, men do have a say in whether the woman can have an abortion
Which states are these? I'm not sure this is correct.
I don't think it should be illegal to change your mind about what you want to do with your body.
It's not about "changing your mind," it's about breaching of contract. Once again, do you believe that a contract should even be used if the woman would just go against it? As I asked, what would the point in a contract be? If none, are you against a contract?
Pregnancy is a huge investment and a person's life can quickly and unexpectedly change.
Terms can be negotiated; we're human beings, not animals.
things like illnesses, family deaths, loss of a job, depression, etc., etc., can sap a woman's emotional and financial resources beyond what's required to withstand a pregnancy.
As stated, terms can be negotiated. Contracts for the longest time can be nulled for many reasons. If a woman signs a contract saying "I can't get an abortion even if I have no way to pay for a child," clearly she hasn't thought at all about the issue. I find that most women are smart enough to know what they want.
it just sounds like a nightmare to have your body legally co-opted against your will no matter what you thought or said at an earlier time
A nightmare towards idiots, sure, but rational, well-thinking people will not contract their body to full use by another. Terms will be negotiated. A contract isn't just signed every time something happens. A contract is made and signed when two mutual parties are serious about an issue and agreement.
It is about changing your mind because in your scenario, that's exactly what would cause problems.
Yes, I am against contracts unless it's void for whatever reasons the owner of the body in question chooses, even if they aren't specifically outlined. I think signing a contract to farm out the future use of your body to someone else is ridiculous and pointless. No amount of legal obligation should transfer ownership of an autonomous adult's body to someone else.
Only idiots would change their minds about giving up control of their body?
No amount of legal obligation should transfer ownership of an autonomous adult's body to someone else.
So I suppose that you're against euthanasia.
As well, it is not about ownership. If you mean the transfer of the livelihood of a fetus to someone else... well, that would be more on topic.
But if you're against contract unless voidable for w/e reason, once again... what would be the point in a contract? Are you suggesting that two consenting adults are not allowed to make decisions for themselves when concerning their own bodies?
Someone choosing death for themselves doesn't in any way violate that statement. This is not even comparable; we are talking about situations where Person A wants to usurp Person B's bodily autonomy, and Person B is against it when it comes time for it to actually happen; if we substitute the administration of death for the usurping of bodily autonomy, it would be called murder, not euthanasia.
As well, it is not about ownership.
'Livelihood of a fetus' - we're talking about contracts that could be drafted and signed years before a fetus even exists, aren't we? What about a man and a woman who sign a contract to get pregnant and have a kid x years, and the man is the one who changes his mind when the time's up? Couldn't he be subject to forced electroejaculation and made responsible for a child he didn't even consent to create? Wouldn't these contracts also obligate a woman to get an abortion if she signed a contract to do so, even if she decided she wanted the baby? There's much more involved in this than the livelihood of the fetus, not to mention the livelihood of a fetus depends on the mother's body and so changes hands depending on who is allowed to own the mother's body.
Removing someone's ability to consistently decide what happens to their own body, and giving it to someone else, is certainly an issue of ownership. You have a degree of control over the things you own, and less or no control over the things you don't own, at the discretion of the person who does own it. Transferring control of one person's body to another person, which is exactly what you're talking about, necessitates a shift in ownership, at least for awhile.
what would be the point in a contract?
I already said I think contracts concerning a person's reproductive future are ridiculous and pointless. People can draft them and sign them to their heart's content but legal ramifications for breaking the terms are a bad idea.
if we substitute the administration of death for the usurping of bodily autonomy, it would be called murder, not euthanasia.
A person in a coma can not speak for themselves. That's like saying a mute woman can't be raped because she can't say no.
Couldn't he be subject to forced electroejaculation and made responsible for a child he didn't even consent to create?
Are you familiar with how contracts work? Breach of contract is subject to compensation, be it physical or monetary. No one can be forced to engage in any act, but if they singed a legal document saying they would, and accepted the benefit of the terms without giving what they said they would, the results are usually handled in court. Either the woman will agree to go along and have they baby or she will submit to monetary compensation or some other settlement. It isn't wrong to demand that deception be tried.
Transferring control of one person's body to another person
Partial. Just like how, as chad pointed out, celebrities sign a contract agreeing to terms on how they will be used. If they breach contract they can't be forced to do what they don't want, but they will have to pay for what they did in some way. Like Michael Phelps when he smoked pot, or Dave Chappelle when he abandoned Comedy Central to go to Africa, or NBC when they fired Conan.
People can draft them and sign them to their heart's content but legal ramifications for breaking the terms are a bad idea.
Then you are not for a contract between consenting adults. You believe that they shouldn't be allowed to hold dear to a contract.
Seriously? You're not able to formulate a distinction between a brain dead person being taken off life support, and rape? I hope this is a red herring that we can just ditch here and I won't actually have to explain this.
The very first question I asked was if these contracts would mean a woman would be prevented from getting a legal abortion. You did not say, 'No, she can get one but will have to pay damages.' You said, 'Yes.' That clearly states a procedure for legally ensuring that the terms of the contract are met, not just exacting punishment if they're not. The latter is weird to me but less objectionable, and if that's what you envisioned, then you did not communicate that.
Disagreeing with the terms of these contract being legally enforced has zero impact on the people who want to write a contract and follow it.
Yes, clearly. You're being dishonest by trying to pretend you didn't say a woman would not be able to get an abortion in these cases. Not 'be allowed, without consequence' - 'be able.' I asked if it was the case that a woman would not be able to get an abortion and you yes, that was the case. If I asked if cars were legally allowed to speed, then asked if cars were actually able to speed, I'd get different answers.
If that's not actually what you meant, fine. But correct yourself instead of acting like it's your audience's problem for not guessing that you meant something different than what you said. There's a reason I made an effort to clarify your stance first.
Would you like me to get on my knees and hail you the queen of "gotcha" arguments?
or better yet, why don't you have me play devil's advocate and say "I believe that women SHOULD be held down and forced to pull a baby out if they signed a contract, even though that's not what a contract means..."
but sure... downvote me (lolocaust) for being childish (haha holocaust).
No, i meant that you must abide by contract, as stated.
Playing around with words just to avoid that you didn't know how contracts work isn't what "adults" do... but maybe you're wanting of me to act like an "adult" has caused me to make an assumption... that you feel that you should do the same.
I realize that's what you meant but that still isn't what you said, sorry. I summarized your position as I understood it and gave you a chance to tell me I wasn't correctly understanding you, and you didn't. You told me I was right in assuming these contracts would render a woman unable to obtain an abortion. Either you admit that's not what you meant, and this ends with me saying that's a bad idea but that I can't currently think of a good reason to make it illegal, or you maintain that's what you meant and we're back to talking about whether or not people can sign away their bodies.
Also, you said yourself we're not operating on how contracts currently work; if we were, pretty sure yours would not be binding and nothing would happen to a violator.
Since that quote was me saying that what you meant and what you said were two different things, and you thanked me for it, sure seems like that's what we're clear on
I think it only makes sense that the mother would have the final say. It's her body. Even if the father would agree to raise the child afterwards, you can't force someone to carry a child and give birth if they don't wish to. Well, you can, but once you start advocating things like that you've stopped debating.
you can't force someone to carry a child and give birth if they don't wish to.
Right, and you can’t force someone to take precautionary measures against unwanted pregnancy either.
The vast majority of cases involves two people making poor decisions regarding preventative birth control. Of course it’s all fun and games until the panic sets in with the looming responsibility of caring for another human, but how easily it all could have been avoided if the couple simply decided to use protection or contraception.
I don't understand your point. You can't force someone to take precautionary measures against unwanted pregnancy... so what? No matter who made what decision, poorly or otherwise it makes no difference. Once pregnant, the woman is the one that has to carry the child and give birth, and forcing a woman to do this against her will is coercion. Do you think that forcing a woman to carry and give birth to a child is okay under any circumstances?
I don't understand your point. You can't force someone to take precautionary measures against unwanted pregnancy... so what?
The significance of this becomes apparent when we step back and look at the fact that the vast majority of abortions are performed after an unwanted pregnancy due to negligence. Certainly if a woman was raped or could possibly die from giving birth they would be justified in their decision to abort, but that’s hardly the case. Even if the couple took the proper measures to prevent pregnancy and happened to fall into that 1% or so that still end up pregnant, I would see it as a justifiable reason to get an abortion. But simply because the couple was irresponsible and ended up pregnant?
My point, Integrity, is that if people were more responsible in their actions, we wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place.
You originally said “you can't force someone to carry a child and give birth if they don't wish to.”
Yea? So what?... unless it’s the small percentage who were actually raped, no one forced the couple to have sex in the first place, no one forced them to not take contraception (unless theyre from a Catholic family, but thats another issue entirely). So the fact that they had a baby is not a mistake, and it should not be a fucking surprise. Sex is the way we reproduce, it just so happens to feel great as well, if you just want the fun without the chance of getting pregnant, rest assured there are numerous ways to do that. If you make the conscious decision to forgo the contraceptive and still want the "fun" part, then you need to take responsibility for that decision you make.
Maybe if people weren’t so detached with their relationship of cause and effect in the world, and forced to take responsibility for the things they directly cause, we would be less concerned with “do overs” or “retribution” and more concerned with our place in the connectivity of everything around us and preventing problems before they even occur. Not saying that no mistake will ever be made if we do that, just that the current system of dealing with most problems after they occur is obviously not working too well.
So do you think women should be forced to carry and give birth to children against their will?
I must insist on the point that it does not matter if people are irresponsible, that is not the issue. What we are debating is what happens once a woman is pregnant and decides that she does not want to go through with the pregnancy (for whatever reasons, good or bad), should she have the right to decide to have an abortion, or should she be forced against her will to have the child?
So do you think women should be forced to carry and give birth to children against their will?
I think a woman and man should be expected to take responsibility for their choices, whatever that entails.
I must insist on the point that it does not matter if people are irresponsible, that is not the issue.
And yet the debate ensues as a direct result of it
What we are debating is what happens once a woman is pregnant and decides that she does not want to go through with the pregnancy (for whatever reasons, good or bad), should she have the right to decide to have an abortion, or should she be forced against her will to have the child?
Again, people ought to be aware of and accept the accountability of their own actions and decisions. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything against their will. Nobody forced a woman to have unprotected sex, and she is not being forced to carry a foetus and give birth.
This debate is not resolved with the constant bickering back and forth between people of whom the abortion does not concern. The decision to have an abortion is up to the people who create the foetus, not religion or law or government. So the only resolution lies in a system that encourages and teaches the importance of the choices we make and the results of those choices as they pertain to the rest of the world. The solution is to make better choices before problems occur, not in enabling people to make poor decisions and then not accept their accountability for those decisions.
The mother is the one who has the baby and who has the abortion. I think everyone agrees that it would be ridiculous to let just the father decide- If the mother had no say and the man got to pick, then he could make her do things, i.e. get an abortion, that she didn't want to do. So why should he get to help at all? If he were pregnant, then he could pick.
If it was mandated for both halves of the parental unit to sign a consent form, what would happen to women who had been raped? Would they have to wait until someone tracked down their rapist, and then only get an abortion if he said they could? And as for women subject to incest or familial rape, who refuse to name their rapist because they are related, would it be fair to refuse them their abortion rights? It is, with out a question, the women's choice, and the women's choice alone.
Just the mother. If she chooses to take the guy's input than fine, and he has every right to have an opinion. One cannot dictate what another does with their body though, and to the third trimester it is her body no matter the relationship status.
Just a clarity request: Perhaps it is an uncertainty issue with your wording. When you said “and to the third trimester it is her body,” did you mean ‘up to and including the third trimester’ or ‘up until, but not including the third trimester?’
At any rate, what is the significance of the third trimester?
Though I do believe that women often have abortions for the wrong reason, and when that occurs it can be very unfair to the men involved, it is undeniably the woman's body that goes through nine months of pain, and the women's heart that breaks when she loses her baby, be it to abortion or adoption, and therefore it should be her choice. Furthermore, oftentimes, in severe cases such as rape, and less severe cases of irresponsibility, the father of the baby may not come forward or even be known. In such cases, getting his consent could prove difficult, don't you think?
The father isn't the one pushing the five pound loveable shitting machine out of his uterus. The Mother is, therefore the mother has all the right to get rid of the child or keep it.
If someone with cancer wants to die despite the viable options of chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery, but their spouse wants them to live, does the spouse have the right to force the treatment of that person?
However, since it would be up to the mother only, then she should NOT be able to keep it and then come back to the man, asking for money, if he didn't want it.
I believe this is ultimately the mother's decision. But, I don't know how to solve this problem. If the woman decides she doesn't want a/the child, she can choose to continue the pregnancy to term and offer the child for adoption, or terminate the pregnancy. Her Choice. But, what is interesting is if she chooses to keep the child the father is on the hook for child support. If she chooses to give the child up for adoption the Father has to sign away his rights. If she chooses abortion, the father has no say. Somehow, this all seems really messed up. Under only one condition does the Father have a choice...and then it is only to terminate his rights to the child. So,
