CreateDebate


Debate Info

56
62
Both Mother
Debate Score:118
Arguments:92
Total Votes:122
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Both (32)
 
 Mother (45)

Debate Creator

Chico(69) pic



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? 

Both

Side Score: 56
VS.

Mother

Side Score: 62
8 points

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.

Side: Both
BenWalters(1513) Clarified
3 points

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.

Side: Both
Saurbaby(5579) Clarified
2 points

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.

Side: Both
zombee(1026) Disputed
2 points

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.

Side: Mother
Saurbaby(5579) Disputed
2 points

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.

Side: Both
2 points

Agreed. I totally support your argument .

Side: Both
Mushuukyou(30) Disputed
2 points

Sorry, that would never fly in reality.

It's her body and it will always be her choice, whether he wants the child or not.

Your idea is not feasible in the least. We can't command her to do things with her body.

Side: Mother
Saurbaby(5579) Disputed
2 points

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.

Side: Both

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?

Side: Both
Akulakhan(2985) Disputed
2 points

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?

Side: Mother

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.

Side: Mother
3 points

It takes two to tango.

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.

Side: Both
2 points

I believe it is both the parents responsibility to make the decision on

whether to have an abortion or not. If one were to wish for such a thing

he/she should consult with the other partner. They have devoted themselves

to each other and should decide together

Side: Both
CorkeyJoy(5) Disputed
3 points

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.

Side: Mother
2 points

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.

Sinncere

Side: Both
Mushuukyou(30) Disputed
3 points

Irrelevant how it was conceived (condom or not).

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.

Side: Mother
2 points

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.

Side: Both
2 points

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.

Side: Both
1 point

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!

Side: Both
1 point

Yes it shoulde, its sexist if you don't. Because a man can want children to

Side: Both
3 points

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.

Side: Mother
3 points

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.

Side: Mother
2 points

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.

Side: Mother
zombee(1026) Clarified
1 point

Would this mean a mother would not be able to get an abortion if she signed a contract agreeing not to get one?

Side: Both
1 point

Would this mean a mother would not be able to get an abortion if she signed a contract agreeing not to get one?

Yes.

Side: Mother
2 points

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.

Side: Mother
Coldfire(1014) Clarified
1 point

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.

Side: Both
Integrity(73) Disputed
2 points

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?

Side: Mother
2 points

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.

Side: Mother
1 point

I thimk it should be up to the mom because it could have been forced so they should abort them because they diddnt want them

Side: Mother
1 point

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.

Side: Mother
Coldfire(1014) Clarified
1 point

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?

Side: Both
1 point

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?

Side: Mother
1 point

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.

Side: Mother
Cobrax30(22) Disputed
1 point

True, but he should be allowed out of the child support if he doesn't want to be a father.

Side: Both

It should be up to the mother, no doubt.

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?

Side: Mother
1 point

What if a woman gets pregnant and does not want an abortion because she is prolife? That is my concern.

Side: Mother
Chico(69) Clarified
1 point

If she is prolife then you could put the child up for adoption. A family member could take of the child.

Side: Both
1 point

It should be up to the mother.

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.

Side: Mother
1 point

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,

Mom----------Dad

Keep----------No Choice - Responsible

Adopt---------Choice to give up child

Abort---------No choice to give up child

Why wouldn't the father have more choice?

Side: Mother

Until a man understands the pain of pregnancy and the pain of terminating it... it will always be the mother's choice.

Side: Mother
1 point

Just the mother. The father's body is not affected by the pregnancy. :)

Side: Mother

What the father deposited in the mother is a gift and she gets to make the decision what to do with his gift.

Side: Mother
0 points

I trust the mother will choose to allow the father a part in the choice if she loves him and not allow him a choice if she does not love him.

Side: Mother