The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Father's should have equal rights as women in abortion.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/28/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,044 times Debate No: 37101
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




I am all for the men having equal rights as what to say before there child's life is taken away from them by the women's choice. I know there is a lot of people out there who disagree with this, so the invitation for this debate will be open to anyone.


Men are incapable of having equal rights regarding the termination of pregnancies because they cannot become pregnant.

The idea that a man can have a legal say over a woman's body is the core of the argument. It's a little cold and calculated but there it is.

The flip side is the emotional part of a man learning that his child's life has been terminated without his knowledge, consent or having his concerns addressed.

There is a small paradox at the center of the argument that cannot be legislated or debated in court:

If you're in a relationship with something that discounts your concerns regarding your unborn child, that may not be a legal issue but a personal decision that cannot be undone. While a law that mitigates the damages done by this would be ideal, such a law could not be implemented without having detrimental effects towards women in different situations where the fathers may use such tools to cause harm; case in point: rapists wanting parental rights over children born out of sexual assault.

On the surface the idea has merit and passes the common sense test. The probably comes afterwards when society is allowed to repurpose laws written to protect, into something wielded for their own agenda or ideology. Any law can be implemented with the best intentions but when you're in court in front of someone that has no investment in your life or isn't having a good day, the intentions of the law can be easily dismissed and things can go horribly wrong for anyone involved.

The questions I would pose to the Pro crowd:
How many pregnancies occur in adult women annually due to due rape alone?
Of those, how many are aborted?
Of those aborted, how many are contested by the father?
Of those, how many were married or in a committed/long-term relationship?

To first assert a resolution to a problem, the problem must be measured in order to be framed and understood by all parties. Only then can it be addressed from all sides and a reasonable conclusion can be reached.

To claim that the legalities of a hypothetical situation must fit your opinion, removes the idea that the problem in society needs to be identified.

Yes there are a significant amount of abortions annually in the United States. (In excess of three million is a figure I've heard before but I will have to nail down a supported figure. )

Yes there are a significant amount of rape incidents in this country.

Not all abortions are from rape incidents and not all rape incidents result in pregnancy or even terminated pregnancies.

At the same time, men in relationships with women should not be denied their right of involvement when a child has been conceived. It is a joint decision. But what should happen to a woman that decides on her own to terminate her pregnancy? Prison? Fine?

On the surface it sounds like a good idea but how do you keep the law from being misused?
How do we as society grant legal rights to someone over another persons body that also has legal rights?

In my mind, it becomes a paradox of legalities:
The ideal situation where this law would be implemented in an ideal way, with the ideal people involved wouldn't necessarily occur because those two ideal, reasonable people in a committed relationship wouldn't need a law to intervene. They wouldn't end up in the court room at all. They would decide together, as parents, to either carry the child to term and raise the child or give the child up for adoption. Or they would decide that they are not ready for a child and agree to terminate the pregnancy despite the difficulty and guilt surrounding the implications of their decision.
Debate Round No. 1

Pro There are many father's who disagree with this issue and no they are not rapist. I do understand what you are saying but the law can enforce this and make it strong against bad fathers. There is also things to say against abortion and women's choice with abortion. Abortion does make the woman's body suffer just as much as having a child. Abortion also hurts the father so I think its way better of if the law were to change.


Your spelling, grammar and overall structure of thought is very distracting.

Both of your sources are pure conjecture and unforgivably outdated.

"There are many father's who disagree with this issue and no they are not rapist."
This is a generalization that is incapable of being false. That's like saying "There are many boys that prefer chocolate milk." To say so makes no ground in either direction.

No matter how the law is worded, how definitive or specific the idea or purpose it can still be misused. All laws can be misused.

"Abortion does make the woman's body suffer just as much as having a child."
This is religious, faith-based claim that has no grounding in any study performed to date nor can it be demonstrated by anecdotal evidence. It is used to reduce the physical contrast of the two in order to minimize pregnancy.

You have yet to prove that a loving father, in a committed relationship with a stable person has suffered the loss of a child due to an abortion he was not consulted about.

You have concluded the solution to a problem that you have not proven to exist.

Please provide proof that your solution has a problem to be applied to.
Debate Round No. 2


I'm just trying to say there is a way a father/male were to have a right to choose just as much as the mother/female could. I don't think it matters the timeline of proof I have shown. I read again what you wrote about why not letting men having equal rights.
I disagree with this because all of the court has to do is just as much as they basically do with custody battles. I see no difference.

This was a fun debate I appreciate it and thank my opponent.


ITMind forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by SitaraPorDios 3 years ago
No. The woman has the most right to choose because it is her body affected by the pregnancy.
Posted by elvislives 3 years ago
I agree with you on that a woman's life is just as much as worth fighting for also but if the sex is consensual and the mother just wants nothing to do with that child and the father wants the child why should she have all the say?
Posted by JustinWildman23 3 years ago
My opinion on the topic is, if the pregnancy is caused by a rape, incest, or if the women having the child will kill her, then men should have NO right to if an abortion happens or not. But if it is caused by consensual sex, teen pregnancy because the man or women was lazy in the effort to avoid the pregnancy, or if its just a "scape goat" for the women because she doesn't want to give birth, then the man should have a voice in the matter.
No votes have been placed for this debate.