The Instigator
FreeThinker39
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
fnarkchang
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Philosophy and logic: Abortion rights equality

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: 10/9/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 536 times Debate No: 38722
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

FreeThinker39

Pro

If the law remains that the decision of whether or not to abort a pregnancy belongs solely to the woman, then it is reasonable and just that child support payments should be made optional for fathers.
fnarkchang

Con

If the father was not responsible enough to have protected sex or pull out during emission and since said actions are mainly controlled by the father, he is already then morally obligated to the child if the woman were to get pregnant. Also, since pregnancy affects the mother in a manner much more severely than it does to the father, it would then be logical and reasonable to say that the mother's opinion whether or not to proceed with deliverance would be more valued than the father's. Lastly, if you do agree that moral obligation to the child already lies with the father choosing to emit inside the mother, would it not than be a moral crime if the father decided to just bail out of the whole situation?
Debate Round No. 1
FreeThinker39

Pro

Thank you for the challenge, good luck to you.

To preface; I believe in, and this stance operates under, the notion that all human beings have the sovereign right to decisions regarding their own body.

Firstly, the points you bring up have relevance, but in my opinion lack in scope. The circumstances you listed surely happen, but do so along with an infinite number of other possible scenarios. Every case is different, with responsibility falling differently depending on the circumstances. Blanket regulations cannot be built on "what-ifs" that don't apply to every situation they cover. Thus, determining which party is directly responsible for the conception is arbitrary, and should be irrelevant to the way the regulations are built.
So then, we must take the situation at face value, with no biased blame attached to either party. The pregnant woman has the right to choice over her own body. She has the option to choose whether she wants to be a parent or not. The father has absolutely no say in the decision to abort or not to abort, as consistently held by the courts. Another way of putting it:

""the courts have properly determined that a man should neither be able to force a woman to have an abortion nor to prevent her from having one, should she so choose. Justice therefore dictates that if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support " autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice." - Karen Decrow, former President, National Organization for Women

Logically, I liken this point to a historical principle that sparked our nation: "Taxation Without Representation". The colonists were fed up with being forced to pay taxes by the British government when they had no say in the matters related to that tax money. This was such an appalling infringement of rights that it helped lead to the American Revolution. While not a perfect comparison, I believe it serves as a precedent. It is unjust to hold a person financially responsible for a decision they did not make, nor have the power to.
fnarkchang

Con

You're correct in the point that there can be exceptions, such as a broken condom or even rape, but generally, more often than not, when a woman gets pregnant it is either through a planned conceptual intercourse or in a situation where the male, who is in control, decides to emit inside the female. You see, these aren't just "what-if" situations valued equivalently to other "what-if" situations, which I agree that blanket regulations wouldn't be the wisest. These are general situations as opposed to exceptions, which in case, I believe regulations should revolve around what usually and generally happens, and the general case is that the male usually has control of where he decides to emit, and thus has more control of the conception of a child more so than the mother.
Historically and biologically, men are superior as opposed to women(This isn't what I believe, this is what I have observed through research). Men have been granted more opportunities, physically are more capable, and are the predominant choice in the workforce. Thus, to see that equality should be given to women would be of altruism, however, to see that equality should be given in favor of men when men are already predominant would be of self-indulgence, thus, I believe it would be of good that society would require of men to contribute to the nourishment of their child, not only on their behalf, but also on the behalf of this society and its next generation.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by FreeThinker39 3 years ago
FreeThinker39
Very well debated sir, thank you for your challenge.
No votes have been placed for this debate.