The Instigator
David090
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Losing
11 Points

Fathers Should Have a Say in Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
David090
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 17,332 times Debate No: 7429
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (6)

 

David090

Pro

For the record: I am not in favor if making abortion illegal. I believe in the right to choose.

I do, however, disagree with the notion of a "woman's right to choose." The last time I checked, it took both a man and a woman to create a child. So where do fathers come into play in this decision?

We should be talking about "parents right to choose."

I'm so sick of the notion that children belong more to the mother than the father. Of course, proponents of this argument attest that it's true until the time comes to provide financial support when suddenly men hear, "Well you're the father, so pay up."

The way I see it there are only two ways to look at this. Either:

A. The father is 50% the parent of the child
B. The child belongs more to one parent than the other

If you believe A, then you can't argue that a father should have no say in the decision of abortion.

If you believe B, then you can't argue that fathers should be required to provide financial support for their children.

Personally, I take the position of A. Fathers are responsible for their children. I will not, however, accept responsibility for a child without also being afforded the same rights and privileges to the child as the mother.

When a woman seeks an abortion she should be required to declare the identity of the father. His written authorization should be obtained before the procedure may be administered.

Should the father decide to not abort the child, then the mother should be required to honor his decision. The mother can always give the child to the father after he/she is born.

In cases where the father is unknown, unavailable, or incapable of providing consent then the mother should be required to sign a legal document attesting to such.

After the abortion is performed, should the biological father learn of what has happened (and he can prove that his consent was undermined by the mother) he should have the right to impose civil liability against the mother.

NOTE: In cases where conception occurs through illegal means (such as rape) I do believe the father's rights should be forfeited as a result of his crime against the mother.

I am leaving this debate open to anyone who would like to accept it. However, my opponent should not be someone who is Pro Life, as that is a completely separate debate.

This debate is purely about extending the right of choice in abortion to fathers.
Tatarize

Con

I thank my opponent for this great debate topic.

The mistake being made here is a pretty easy one and shouldn't take too long to simply point out. We don't allow abortion having anything to do with childbearing. The entire argument is predicated on right to privacy, medical sovereignty and not being forced to take unneeded risks. Further, fathers aren't required to pay for their children because it's his property too... rather he is to pay because it is in the best interests of the child.

During pregnancy the best interests of the mother and her choices about her body are paramount. When a child comes into the picture the best interests of the child are paramount. Abortion isn't about children and child support isn't about men.

So fathers don't come into play in these decisions, because at no point after ejaculation are his concerns the primary concerns.

--

If it were, hypothetically, taken into consideration it would only matter in two specific cases (where the parents agree it is a moot point) so the cases are:

When the father wants the women to have an abortion, and she doesn't want to: If given any weight this is forced abortion and abhorrent.

When the father wants the child, but the women doesn't want to carry the child to term: If given any weight this is forced pregnancy and requiring women to take undue risks with her life because somebody else demands it, which is again abhorrent.

So beyond the entirely wrong idea of why our laws are as they are, one must also find that your suggestion is abhorrent.

--

A. The father is 100% the parent of the child.
B. The child doesn't belong to either parent.

The father doesn't get a say in abortion, because abortion is about a woman's right to make choices about her body.
Fathers should be required to pay financial support (if needed) because that's what the child needs.

--

"Should the father decide to not abort the child, then the mother should be required to honor his decision. The mother can always give the child to the father after he/she is born."

Should the father demand the child be born then the women should be strapped to a gurney so that she doesn't slip off and get an illegal abortion. If she dies due to complications, oh well. -- Forced birthing is abhorrent.

Why should the mother be required to honor his decision? What about her decision? Why is it that she has no right when it comes to making decisions about her body? Your idea is predicated on the idea of equality, but it's really thinly veiled villainy. The father is no more empowered to make personal medical choices about the woman than her preacher or her governor.

--

As nice as this sounds in your head, when you think it through just a smidgen you realize it's absolutely barbaric and unfair.
Debate Round No. 1
David090

Pro

"Fathers don't come into play in these decisions, because at no point after ejaculation are his concerns the primary concerns."

This is the fundamental belief that makes me so angry. So according to my opponent, fathers are no more than sperm donors?

When there is disagreement between parents regarding the abortion, then the result should be to go through with the pregnancy.

NOTE: If the mother has valid medical evidence suggesting that the pregnancy would be a danger to her health then that medical evidence should override a father's decision to have the baby. I'm not saying that a woman should be forced to take unnecessary risks with her own life. However, if the mother and the fetus are both perfectly healthy then there's no reason to not proceed with the pregnancy if it is the father's wish.

>>>>>>>>

"The father doesn't get a say in abortion, because abortion is about a woman's right to make choices about her body."

The father should have a say in abortion because it's his child too. And like any decent parent, fathers who love their children fight for them and their existence. No one contests a mother who wants to have her child.

As a father, I'm not fighting for my child because I view him/her as property, I'm fighting for my child because it's my son or daughter the mother is talking about aborting.

>>>>>>>>

"Fathers should be required to pay financial support (if needed) because that's what the child needs."

I couldn't agree more.

>>>>>>>>

"Should the father demand the child be born then the women should be strapped to a gurney so that she doesn't slip off and get an illegal abortion. If she dies due to complications, oh well."

If the mother slips off and gets an illegal abortion then that was her choice and she should be held liable to the father. If she dies during complications, that's terrible and tragic. My only wish in that situation is that she would've gone through with the pregnancy and given the baby to the father after birth. In that scenario everyone would have won (including the child)

>>>>>>>>

"Your idea is predicated on the idea of equality, but it's really thinly veiled villainy."

Never in a million years would I have thought that a father wanting to take responsibility for his child be considered villainy. This idea makes me very sad.

>>>>>>>>

The point I'm making is that fathers should be granted some say and some recourse in the decision of whether or not to abort. I'm not saying that the father's wishes are absolute and should always be honored. I'm saying he should have a voice that is protected by law.

However, my opponent's disregard for fathers is so typical of how we view men and their relationships with their children.

Personally, if I conceived a child with a woman and she:

1. Didn't tell me she was pregnant
2. Aborted the baby without my knowledge

I'd be furious and devastated. I can't believe that any humane society wouldn't grant me some kind of recourse.
Tatarize

Con

>>fathers are no more than sperm donors?

Fathers are fathers. But, yes, when it comes to forcing a women to have an abortion or to give birth fathers are as moot a point as sperm donors. The guy you had sex with two weeks ago has about as much authority to make medical decisions for you as your butcher. You can't force somebody to make intimate personal decisions about their bodies.

All pregnancy are dangers to the mother's health. They all carry a pronounced risk that is absent if they choose to abort. The question isn't whether or not she can prove a risk, but how many women do you want to kill at the behest of other people?

>>The father should have a say in abortion because it's his child too. No one contests a mother who wants to have her child.

The mother doesn't get to choose to carry the child to term because she's the mother. She gets to carry the child to term because it's her womb, her risks, and her body.

>>I'm fighting for my child because it's my son or daughter the mother is talking about aborting.

I feel for your situation and figure it's bleeding into what is otherwise a reasonable debate. And certainly there seems to be gross inequality but in reality, there's not. You can't force a women to carry a child to term against her will, regardless who provided some DNA to it, anymore than you could force women to be surrogates because you have some embryos left over.

>>If the mother slips off and gets an illegal abortion then that was her choice

So why would she need consent from the person who impregnated her. The fact you're arguing is that it isn't her choice. That she isn't allowed to make such a choice.

>>and she should be held liable to the father.

For what? Children aren't worth money. Is the father going to sue for all the child support he'll never have to pay?

>>Never in a million years would I have thought that a father wanting to take responsibility for his child be considered villainy. This idea makes me very sad.

The problem is the approach your looking at the situation from is critically flawed. THERE'S NO CHILD! Your entire argument is predicated on being a responsible man demands women be turned into forced birthers. Certainly if you want to frame it being a stand up guy, but if you scratch the surface, you quickly realize it's a completely vile suggestion.

>>The point I'm making is that fathers should be granted some say and some recourse in the decision of whether or not to abort. I'm not saying that the father's wishes are absolute and should always be honored. I'm saying he should have a voice that is protected by law.

Without any absolute rights, there are no rights. Men should have some kind of power. They should be able to do something. It isn't their body. You have no rights to other people's body, even if their choices within their rights affect your life. There's no wiggle room there, you either violate people's rights or you don't.

>>However, my opponent's disregard for fathers is so typical of how we view men and their relationships with their children.

Fathers should love their children. They should be the best dads they can be. They should provide and help (mothers should do the same) and do everything in their powers to make their children happy, healthy and safe. The difference however, is there aren't any children. An embryo isn't a baby, it has no personhood. Women, however, are people.

>>I'd be furious and devastated. I can't believe that any humane society wouldn't grant me some kind of recourse.

The problem is that in any humane society there can be no recourse. Anything recourse would trample the woman's right to make choices about her body. This is completely unacceptable.

While a woman is pregnant (and when she's not) her body is hers to do what she will with it. We cannot consider ourselves a humane society and budge on this point at all. The best interests of children demands that those who should be responsible for the child, must be responsible. So, sadly enough, there's no room in a humane society forced births at the behest of men.
Debate Round No. 2
David090

Pro

Tatarize: The guy you had sex with two weeks ago has about as much authority to make medical decisions for you as your butcher.

My butcher isn't carrying my future son or daughter.

Tatarize: All pregnancy are dangers to the mother's health. They all carry a pronounced risk that is absent if they choose to abort.

If all pregnancy really carried that much risk to the mother, then all women would abort and none of us would be here. When you have a healthy woman and a healthy fetus there's nothing to suggest anything other than a smooth pregnancy.

Tatarize: She gets to carry the child to term because it's her womb, her risks, and her body.

Again, this is nothing but blatant disregard for the father. It's almost like you think he doesn't even exist.

Tatarize: I feel for your situation and figure it's bleeding into what is otherwise a reasonable debate.

I need to clarify. I'm not a father who has had his son or daughter aborted by a mother. I'm actually a gay man with no children who has never conceived.

Therefore, my logic is reasonable and free of personal emotional perceptions.

Tatarize: You can't force a women to carry a child to term against her will, regardless who provided some DNA to it.

The notion that fathers are just "sperm and DNA" seems to be paramount to you.

Tatarize: The fact you're arguing is that it isn't her choice.

You're right. It isn't her choice. It's the choice of both parents.

Tatarize: Children aren't worth money. Is the father going to sue for all the child support he'll never have to pay?

It's not about the money. It's about the fact that a man's son or daughter was aborted without his knowledge or consent.

Given that the child would now be dead, what other recourse could the father seek other than money? Some kind of penalty has to be put in place. A simple, "I'm sorry" from the mother won't cut it.

Tatarize: THERE'S NO CHILD! Your entire argument is predicated on being a responsible man demands women be turned into forced birthers.

There is a child. It is a child who was conceived by a mother and father. Any suggestion to the contrary is false.

Tatarize: Fathers should love their children. They should be the best dads they can be. They should provide and help (mothers should do the same) and do everything in their powers to make their children happy, healthy and safe.

Above you state the father is no more than some DNA. Now you're saying the father becomes a person who should be the best dad he can be.

Either you're not firm on your position of fathers being just sperm donors or you're taking the double standard position regarding fathers I refer to in round one.

Tatarize: The difference however, is there aren't any children. An embryo isn't a baby, it has no personhood. Women, however, are people.

Now we're back again to the woman being the only person in the situation. I'd really appreciate it if you would stop flip flopping.

Tatarize: The best interests of children demands that those who should be responsible for the child, must be responsible.

The last I checked the father is responsible for the child and is acting responsibly in wanting to take care of it. I find it sad that there's no room in your definition of a humane society for this.

NOTE: I respectfully request you answer this question in your next argument.

Is the role of the father merely that of sperm donor? Yes or No?
Tatarize

Con

You have no right to make medical decisions for somebody else. Period. Your argument breaks down to, men have DNA and therefore they get to control women's bodies. I'm sorry, but wanting to be a daddy doesn't allow you to deny other people their rights.

All pregnancy is taxing, causes extreme pain, carries enormous risk and is a financial and emotional burden. You are not the proper judge of whether unwilling parties should be forced to have children. This is an axioms of all humane societies. People make their own choices about their own bodies.

Most of your arguments are categorically wrong and are framed in an entirely dishonest way. We aren't talking about children we are talking about whether women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. Men should be good fathers and care for their children, but as far as DNA and sperm is concerned it doesn't give them any special rights to control and make medical decisions for other people.

After a child is born, mothers and fathers are on equal footing and have equal responsibility. As far as the pregnancy go, both the mother and the father have equal rights. As far as women go, they have complete control over their bodies. I'm not discounting men or preventing them from stepping up and being a good father. I am simply pointing out that carrying a pregnancy to term is a monumental task and cannot taken lightly or forced by the whims of other people.

Nobody has rights to children, whether born or unborn. But, everybody has the right to control what does and doesn't happen with their body. You are confusing the latter with the former and shouting "me too". You are wrongly supposing women have rights when it comes to pregnancy that men do not. That isn't so. Women have rights when it comes to their own bodies, just as men have rights when it comes to their own bodies.

------

>>>>Tatarize: She gets to carry the child to term because it's her womb, her risks, and her body.
>>Again, this is nothing but blatant disregard for the father. It's almost like you think he doesn't even exist.

No this is blatant respect for medical sovereignty.

>>I'm actually a gay man with no children who has never conceived. Therefore, my logic is reasonable and free of personal emotional perceptions.

You actually seems a bit misogynistic.

>>The notion that fathers are just "sperm and DNA" seems to be paramount to you.

No. My claim is actually completely different from that. I'm saying that sperm and DNA doesn't give you the right to infringe on the rights of others.

>>You're right. It isn't her choice. It's the choice of both parents.

Without a child, there are no parents.

>>It's not about the money. It's about the fact that a man's son or daughter was aborted without his knowledge or consent.

So emotional distress? You can sue for that. So your argument is that if he's not told he should be allowed to sue. Okay, he can sue. He probably won't win. But, he can sue.

>>There is a child. It is a child who was conceived by a mother and father. Any suggestion to the contrary is false.

No, there is a fetus which must be carried to term. Without that, there's nothing. Children are not conceived, zygotes are conceived and they develop.

>>Above you state the father is no more than some DNA. Now you're saying the father becomes a person who should be the best dad he can be.

No, fathers are much more than DNA. But, DNA doesn't give them rights to women's bodies.

>>The last I checked the father is responsible for the child and is acting responsibly in wanting to take care of it. I find it sad that there's no room in your definition of a humane society for this.

There is nothing but room for that. However, what must be excluded from a humane society is forcing women to carry pregnancies to term just so that men can take care of the resulting baby. That's absolutely vile.

>>Is the role of the father merely that of sperm donor? Yes or No?

No.

But, sperm nor DNA give him the right to control other people.
Debate Round No. 3
David090

Pro

My argument is not about men using DNA to justify controlling a woman's body. It's about requiring women to live up to their responsibility in the situation the same way men are expected.

When a man has sex with a woman he is expected to provide her support (financial, emotional, physical etc.) should conception occur.

When she has sex with him she is accepting the same level of responsibility to him that he is accepting to her. If you don't believe that she has any responsibility to him, then how can you argue that he would have responsibility to her? It makes no sense. It's not as though she got pregnant on her own and some strange man is coming along trying to control what she does with her body.

The fundamental differences I see between your position and mine:

1. You believe that there is no child after conception. I disagree and there are millions of other people who think the same way.

2. You believe it's all about the woman and there are no other people involved in the situation. The fact of the matter is that she is not alone in the situation. There's another person involved. A person she chose to accept into her life in this way.

Perhaps if more women were encouraged to believe this they might feel less alone?

3. You believe in the double standard so often held against men. That belief is that men are only considered to be the father when it's convenient. Fathers are only looked to when they are needed to provide something. The father as another person in the situation with a heart and conscience of his own is of no importance to you whatsoever.

>>>>> Tatarize: Nobody has rights to children, whether born or unborn.

Then why all the custody battles after birth? If no one has rights to a child then there would be no such thing as custody. And remember, I believe there is a child after conception therefore the child being unborn is irrelevant.

>>>>> Tatarize: You actually seems a bit misogynistic.

I find your suggestion that I have a dislike for women to be offensive. I'm not degrading women, I'm merely providing a voice for fathers which all too often goes unheard.

>>>>> Tatarize: He probably won't win. But, he can sue.

If legislation were to pass granting fathers a say in abortion, then he would win.

I asked you, >>Is the role of the father merely that of sperm donor? Yes or No?

You said: No. But, sperm nor DNA give him the right to control other people.

The fact that you added the word "but" further points out that you're in favor of a double standard.

SUMMARY

First, this is the last round of this debate and I want to Thank You for having this conversation with me. I'll look forward to reading your final post and seeing what others on this site have to say on this issue.

Suffice to say, you and I will part ways disagreeing (which is okay)

The only way I can sum up my point of view on this matter is to remind you that when a woman finds herself pregnant, she didn't get there by herself. She's not alone.

Should a woman find herself pregnant by a man who is willing to assist her in all the ways she needs and who would love the baby, is morally wrong on her part.

This to me is more vile and immoral than asking her to carry a baby in her womb for nine months.
Tatarize

Con

As I have repeatedly shown your argument is based on a number of false premises. Ultimately stemming from a complete misunderstanding of the legal and ethical forces at work here. I've attempted to correct this mistakes a number of times. Exposing the flaws in your logic simply makes you to disagree and make the same mistake again.

I suppose posting another errata to your position is proper etiquette.

* Women are required to live up to their responsibility in the same way men are.
* Children are the responsibility of both parents equally. Mothers are equally required to support their children.
* When a man has sex with a women he is expected to provide support should a child result.
* When a women has sex with a man she is expected to provide support should a child result.
* Men don't support women with child support, they support the child.
* Men don't have *any* responsibility to the women they have sex with.
* Women don't have *any* responsibility to the men they have sex with.
* Parents *always* have responsibility to the children they have.
* It is exactly the same, from an ethical standpoint, as some strange man coming along to try and control her body.
* There is no child after conception. There is a child after 9 months of development. If you wanted to outright abolish abortion, then you should have said something and we could have had that debate.
* Millions of other people believe in ghosts too, does that mean ghosts exists?
* When it comes to choices about the the bodies of women, the women are the only people involved.
* If she chooses to involve other people of her own volition, that's perfectly fine.
* Encouraging women to believe that any man she has sex with has domain over her body is abhorrent.
* There is no double standard against men.
* Neither men nor women have any control over a pregnancy.
* Women have control over their bodies.
* It does not hold that because "Women have control over their bodies" that "women have control over a pregnancy" by proxy and therefore "Men should have control over women's bodies".
* Fathers are always required to care for their children.
* Mothers are always required to care for their children.
* Custody battles are decided on the grounds of the best interest of the child.
* Children do not belong to anybody.
* The legal change which occurs at birth is simply that rights to your body are no longer paramount.
* You still have no ownership of children after birth, they just aren't part of another person anymore.
* I didn't say you disliked women. Many misogynists love women.
* You are advocating that men should, by virtue of DNA, have rights to women's bodies.
* Legislation giving men the rights to women's bodies, would be unconstitutional.
* You above advocated that you didn't want to do that, now to support civil suits, you do.
* Men can still sue.
* Fathers are not just sperm donors.
* Nothing gives men the right to control women's bodies.
* Women (typically) don't get pregnant by themselves. However, it is their body and only their body.
* Asking her to carry a pregnancy to term is fine, you can ask her dance a jig. You just don't have the right to make her.

Ultimately however, it comes down to making your case, and you simply haven't done that. You picked your guns and you stuck to them. But, ultimately what seems to be a bit unjust is the only fair way of doing it. Nobody controls pregnancies or children, but everybody controls their own bodies. You are taking the fact that everybody controls their body, which allows one to terminate a pregnancy, to mean that mothers control their pregnancies and children and demanding that men be allowed to do that too. The logic there is critically flawed.

Further, I think it's pretty dishonest of you to start a debate suggesting yourself pro-choice and then suggesting quite directly that you think conception instantly yields child. Am I to understand that if both parents want a child dead they should be allowed to have it killed? I suppose it's a tangential point but exceedingly odd, and I think rather telling. You seem to suggesting that women should be allowed to have abortions but only if men let them. If you wanted to properly debate abortion in a general debate you should have asked, make no mistake about it, that's a prolife stance.

Ultimately I feel I have properly exposed the clear and obvious flaws in my opponents case. Since this debate was introduced as properly pro-choice, I didn't defend abortion as a general practice but rather showed how this position was inconsistent with an acceptable pro-choice stance. The burden was his to defend and he did a poor job of it.

Fathers cannot have a say in abortion because father's aren't pregnant. Everybody has the right to make medical decisions about their bodies. Everybody has a responsibility to support their children. Nobody owns children.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DragonMan 9 months ago
DragonMan
I think the issue is the confusion of when does a foetus be considered a child because many places refuse to do abortions unless it is at medical risk after a certain period of development.
The other problem is the whole idea that it is a mother's right to decide what occurs with her body and that is all well and good but then what happens if the father who had sex, under any circumstance, isn't comfortable with having a child (a very common reason that women use)?
Answer is simple, if the partner doesn't want the child either then it is fine, otherwise the man has to pay for child support. The man had his chance to voice his desire but in today's society a man is considered nothing more than a sperm bank with ATM attachment.
This is the part that is sickening.
Posted by StevenW 1 year ago
StevenW
My opinion on this matter is summed up with one simple question. At what point does the man become a father?
Posted by Aini 3 years ago
Aini
I don't understand how pregnancy's risk was used in the argument but abortion's risk was not. Women can die getting an abortion. Not to mention those women who risk never being able to get pregnant/carry a baby to term again. Many women are crushed when they finally decide to settle down and realize their previous abortion(s) will haunt them forever. I don't feel sorry for them though. I'm sick of women who use abortion as a means of birth control. It's far too risky for that, and if you can keep yourself from becoming pregnant in the first place, then why would you let it happen only to end it through an abortion? If you're going to be so careless as to become pregnant when you're not ready for parenthood, then, in my opinion, you should carry the pregnancy to term. How many other aspects of life come with an easy button? And sure, now you may cry foul on that because I said abortion is risky, but I've seen documentaries with women who have had seven of these procedures within just a few years. This is ridiculous. I'm not pro-life. I just think women (and I am one) are enabled by the law to do so many things which should be illegal. This excessive indulgence is what is disturbing to me.

I had one child because I wanted to and then I used a hormone-free IUD which will last ten years (or less if we prefer) and only requires me to check it once a month after my period. Doesn't that sound a lot more simple and safe than having multiple abortions? It's 99.9% effective and I never feel it.

As for whether or not fathers should have a say in pregnancy vs abortion, damn right they should. Keep in mind that I not only got pregnant when I wanted to but when my boyfriend wanted us to. If he didn't want to have a baby, I would have used the IUD back then and not been selfish in my decision. That's really all it boils down to. Sharing decisions with the person you share a bed with. It's not about where the child will be for the first nine months but who will be there after
Posted by koojo92 3 years ago
koojo92
Okay well than what would you say in my situation. My ex girlfriend is pregnant and she got pregnant just before we broke up. She said this to me we are either putting the kid up for adoption or im getting an abortion. I dont believe in abortions and she knows that, but i dont want to give up my kid either because he/her is apart of me in a way we both made him/her. so she is putting m on the spot and making me suffer telling me either put the kid up for adoption or abort the kid and i have even told her that i would take care of the kid and she wouldnt have to pay a cent and she still wont just have the baby which i dont get cause if i take care of the kid and pay than it would be the same thing as adoption for her. s what do you think?
Posted by Tatarize 5 years ago
Tatarize
"If given any weight this is forced pregnancy and requiring women to take undue risks with her life because somebody else demands it, which is again abhorrent."
--- How come the baby's right to live being taken from he/she is not also considered as abhorrent.

It could be. I'd happily take that argument if you wish. However the initial construct never called for providing the arguments in favor of abortion.
Posted by Tatarize 5 years ago
Tatarize
>>Con could not counter the argument: "It's the child of the father too, not just the mother's." It's like someone coming up to you and killing your to-be-child without your permission, no matter how much you oppose.

It's a child. You have responsibility but you don't own it. If somebody walked up and killed your child to be they are going to be charged with assault on the women they assaulted. If there was no assault they are going to be charged with nothing. -- The counter is implied by a proper understanding of the topic.
Posted by hauki20 5 years ago
hauki20
Who did you agree after the debate - Pro
Conduct - Pro
Spelling and grammar - Tie
Sources - Tie. No sources were offered from either side.
More convinging arguments - Tie

Con could not counter the argument: "It's the child of the father too, not just the mother's." It's like someone coming up to you and killing your to-be-child without your permission, no matter how much you oppose.
Posted by Xie-Xijivuli 5 years ago
Xie-Xijivuli
I don't favor abortion period.
Posted by Colucci 5 years ago
Colucci
why does tatarize claim that "When the father wants the child, but the women doesn't want to carry the child to term: If given any weight this is forced pregnancy and requiring women to take undue risks with her life because somebody else demands it, which is again abhorrent." How come the baby's right to live being taken from he/she is not also considered as abhorrent. The taking of a defenseless baby's life is infinitely more abhorrent than the pain of child labor or the pain of caring for a baby "forced upon a woman!"
Posted by rangersfootballclub 5 years ago
rangersfootballclub
of coruse the father should , unless there is sircumstances e.g rap etc , if these two had sex loving and ntohing was wrong at the time , the women fell pregant , its the mans right to be invovled in this , as it is his child .
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 5 years ago
Tatarize
David090TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by TexasCowboy70 5 years ago
TexasCowboy70
David090TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by philosphical 5 years ago
philosphical
David090TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Vote Placed by hauki20 5 years ago
hauki20
David090TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by NOK_Domination 5 years ago
NOK_Domination
David090TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Colucci 5 years ago
Colucci
David090TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70