Total Posts:115|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should guys have a say in...

Ashley17
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 4:08:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Should guys have a say in whether or not their spouse should keep the baby or not. Meaning if the father wants to keep the baby but his spouse does not, should he be able to have a word to "no" I want this baby. Should there be a law allowing guys to keep their baby? whether the Mother likes it or not. Please give your reasoning and please elaborate, Thank You!
Ashley Bruneus
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 4:27:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Should they have a say? Sure.
Should they be able to disagree with the final decision? Probably not.

Of course abortion/childrearing in and of itself is not the end of everything. There's always divorce...
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 4:29:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 4:27:47 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Should they have a say? Sure.
Should they be able to disagree with the final decision? Probably not.

Of course abortion/childrearing in and of itself is not the end of everything. There's always divorce...

Ick. I don't care too much for all that divorce nonsense.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 4:32:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 4:08:44 PM, Ashley17 wrote:
Should guys have a say in whether or not their spouse should keep the baby or not. Meaning if the father wants to keep the baby but his spouse does not, should he be able to have a word to "no" I want this baby. Should there be a law allowing guys to keep their baby? whether the Mother likes it or not. Please give your reasoning and please elaborate, Thank You!

Wow, you certainly like to start up controversial threads Ash.

When my daughter was conceived, her mum and me had already split up and were not in a stable relationship. She was close to aborting her but I managed to talk her out of it.

This was not my right however as it was merely my seed rather than my own body involved. I think the father's feelings should certainly be considered but it is ultimately a woman's choice.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 4:32:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
To answer your question,

No, I don't think guys should have a say in the final decision. They don't own the women's body and they don't own the fetus. Women should have the same rights as men, which means men don't make decisions about a woman's body, and vice-versa.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 4:40:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 4:32:53 PM, Nags wrote:
To answer your question,

No, I don't think guys should have a say in the final decision. They don't own the women's body and they don't own the fetus. Women should have the same rights as men, which means men don't make decisions about a woman's body, and vice-versa.

Personally, I think that it's somewhat like this: Assuming it's a stable couple, and the woman got pregnant, and she didn't want it, then the couple shouldn't have been having sex. Furthermore, (ideally speaking) a couple should think of themselves as a man and a woman, but as a single unit; ergo, I think the decision should be weighted evenly, as far as a legal perspective is concerned; ultimately, abortion is not only a decision about "a woman's body", but it's a decision about the couple's future, ergo, it needs to be the couple's decision, especially since, as two equal people in a couple, they both have equal rights within their relationship; that, and, I don't count a body as personal property. :P
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 4:44:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 4:32:11 PM, feverish wrote:

This was not my right however as it was merely my seed rather than my own body involved. I think the father's feelings should certainly be considered but it is ultimately a woman's choice.

...and that's the thread.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 4:49:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 4:40:16 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Personally, I think that it's somewhat like this: Assuming it's a stable couple, and the woman got pregnant, and she didn't want it, then the couple shouldn't have been having sex.

Focussing on the should or shouldn't have aspects does not solve the situation when it arises but if you are just saying that both have a responsibility then I agree.

Furthermore, (ideally speaking) a couple should think of themselves as a man and a woman, but as a single unit; ergo, I think the decision should be weighted evenly, as far as a legal perspective is concerned; ultimately, abortion is not only a decision about "a woman's body", but it's a decision about the couple's future, ergo, it needs to be the couple's decision, especially since, as two equal people in a couple, they both have equal rights within their relationship; that, and, I don't count a body as personal property. :P

So if your body is not your property you would have no problem with other people using it as they see fit?
Ashley17
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 4:49:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 4:32:11 PM, feverish wrote:
At 9/8/2009 4:08:44 PM, Ashley17 wrote:
Should guys have a say in whether or not their spouse should keep the baby or not. Meaning if the father wants to keep the baby but his spouse does not, should he be able to have a word to "no" I want this baby. Should there be a law allowing guys to keep their baby? whether the Mother likes it or not. Please give your reasoning and please elaborate, Thank You!

Wow, you certainly like to start up controversial threads Ash.

When my daughter was conceived, her mum and me had already split up and were not in a stable relationship. She was close to aborting her but I managed to talk her out of it.

This was not my right however as it was merely my seed rather than my own body involved. I think the father's feelings should certainly be considered but it is ultimately a woman's choice.

I agree 100%
Ashley Bruneus
SemperFi2MyGuy
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 4:50:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
In theory I would love to see this:

1. Bringing in a signed form from the father when she gets an abortion stating that he agrees to the abortion.
2. She does not bring in signed form, but can still get an abortion. She canever, be sued in civil court by the father for wrongful death.

In practice I can't see it working.
But I just find it BS that a woman can kill a man's baby without consequence.
But a woman can have a baby, when the man wants it aborted, and stick him with child support.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 4:50:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I think the following say should be present--

Though a woman should be able to overrule the father's preference for abortion, said father should be released from any financial responsibility for the progeny if he does register such preference.

Obviously, if the situations are reversed, no such concern is present.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
SemperFi2MyGuy
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 4:51:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 4:50:03 PM, SemperFi2MyGuy wrote:
In theory I would love to see this:

1. Bringing in a signed form from the father when she gets an abortion stating that he agrees to the abortion.
2. She does not bring in signed form, but can still get an abortion. She canever, be sued in civil court by the father for wrongful death.

In practice I can't see it working.
But I just find it BS that a woman can kill a man's baby without consequence.
But a woman can have a baby, when the man wants it aborted, and stick him with child support.

I meant to write can however not canever
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 4:54:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
But I just find it BS that a woman can kill a man's baby without consequence.
First, there is no baby.

Second, it's not his. Even the sperm, he willingly surrendered into her control (he did not surrender his money similarly).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 4:56:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 4:49:34 PM, feverish wrote:
At 9/8/2009 4:40:16 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Personally, I think that it's somewhat like this: Assuming it's a stable couple, and the woman got pregnant, and she didn't want it, then the couple shouldn't have been having sex.

Focussing on the should or shouldn't have aspects does not solve the situation when it arises but if you are just saying that both have a responsibility then I agree.

That's what I meant; is that, in my mind, at least, there is a responsibility not to have sex unless a couple wants a child.


Furthermore, (ideally speaking) a couple should think of themselves as a man and a woman, but as a single unit; ergo, I think the decision should be weighted evenly, as far as a legal perspective is concerned; ultimately, abortion is not only a decision about "a woman's body", but it's a decision about the couple's future, ergo, it needs to be the couple's decision, especially since, as two equal people in a couple, they both have equal rights within their relationship; that, and, I don't count a body as personal property. :P

So if your body is not your property you would have no problem with other people using it as they see fit?

It's not another person's property, either; I don't like the idea of a body being considered 'property' period.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 4:59:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 4:56:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
It's not another person's property, either; I don't like the idea of a body being considered 'property' period.

There's a difference between a parasite (fetus) and a body.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 5:01:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I don't like the idea of a body being considered 'property' period.
A body not being considered property-- means it's use is unrestricted. Consistent failure to consider it property entails a legalization of rape.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 5:03:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 4:59:19 PM, Nags wrote:
At 9/8/2009 4:56:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
It's not another person's property, either; I don't like the idea of a body being considered 'property' period.

There's a difference between a parasite (fetus) and a body.

A semantic difference perhaps; I'm not pro-life, don't get me wrong; however, if something is parasitic, it is 'technically' alive; and I personally would be quite pissed if I were aborted because my parents made a mistake; also, we accept infants and young children to be parasitic, as well, since they are dependent on their parents; however, I would never say that my son was my property.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 5:05:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 5:01:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I don't like the idea of a body being considered 'property' period.
A body not being considered property-- means it's use is unrestricted. Consistent failure to consider it property entails a legalization of rape.

Just because we don't consider a person's body to be some kind of property doesn't mean that we're opening it up to public use.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 5:14:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 4:56:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

That's what I meant; is that, in my mind, at least, there is a responsibility not to have sex unless a couple wants a child.

So if a couple wants only one child, they should have sex once and if fertilisation occurs never have sex again?

I think the vast majority of sex is conducted for reasons other than child rearing.

What are your views on contraception and sterilisation?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 5:20:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 5:14:03 PM, feverish wrote:
At 9/8/2009 4:56:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

That's what I meant; is that, in my mind, at least, there is a responsibility not to have sex unless a couple wants a child.

So if a couple wants only one child, they should have sex once and if fertilisation occurs never have sex again?

Realistically, that's not how it works, but something along those lines. That's a question that I've been trying to answer for myself, as a matter of fact.


I think the vast majority of sex is conducted for reasons other than child rearing.

Unfortunately.


What are your views on contraception and sterilisation?

I'm not too big on contraceptives, generally speaking; I'm sure you could dream up a hypothetical where I would have to agree with their use, though.

As far as sterilization, I don't really think you'd like my views on that too much. :P
SemperFi2MyGuy
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 5:20:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 5:03:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 9/8/2009 4:59:19 PM, Nags wrote:
At 9/8/2009 4:56:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
It's not another person's property, either; I don't like the idea of a body being considered 'property' period.

There's a difference between a parasite (fetus) and a body.

A semantic difference perhaps; I'm not pro-life, don't get me wrong; however, if something is parasitic, it is 'technically' alive; and I personally would be quite pissed if I were aborted because my parents made a mistake; also, we accept infants and young children to be parasitic, as well, since they are dependent on their parents; however, I would never say that my son was my property.

Babies would especially be parasite since theystill depend on the mother for food.

At 9/8/2009 4:54:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
But I just find it BS that a woman can kill a man's baby without consequence.
First, there is no baby.

Second, it's not his. Even the sperm, he willingly surrendered into her control (he did not surrender his money similarly).

I guess that would be a different topic.
But I agree with you on money.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 5:25:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 5:20:27 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 9/8/2009 5:14:03 PM, feverish wrote:
At 9/8/2009 4:56:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

That's what I meant; is that, in my mind, at least, there is a responsibility not to have sex unless a couple wants a child.

So if a couple wants only one child, they should have sex once and if fertilisation occurs never have sex again?

Realistically, that's not how it works, but something along those lines. That's a question that I've been trying to answer for myself, as a matter of fact.


I think the vast majority of sex is conducted for reasons other than child rearing.

Unfortunately.


What are your views on contraception and sterilisation?

I'm not too big on contraceptives, generally speaking; I'm sure you could dream up a hypothetical where I would have to agree with their use, though.

As far as sterilization, I don't really think you'd like my views on that too much. :P

Sorry if I seem interrogatory (spelling? real word?) but what is the problem with sex for pleasure? Especially if it is within a loving relationship?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 5:25:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 5:20:49 PM, SemperFi2MyGuy wrote:
At 9/8/2009 5:03:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 9/8/2009 4:59:19 PM, Nags wrote:
At 9/8/2009 4:56:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
It's not another person's property, either; I don't like the idea of a body being considered 'property' period.

There's a difference between a parasite (fetus) and a body.

A semantic difference perhaps; I'm not pro-life, don't get me wrong; however, if something is parasitic, it is 'technically' alive; and I personally would be quite pissed if I were aborted because my parents made a mistake; also, we accept infants and young children to be parasitic, as well, since they are dependent on their parents; however, I would never say that my son was my property.

Babies would especially be parasite since theystill depend on the mother for food.

That's basically what I just said; but the word 'parasite' has a lot of negative stigma to it, which makes the argument seem more legitimate (at least it seems so in my mind).


At 9/8/2009 4:54:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
But I just find it BS that a woman can kill a man's baby without consequence.
First, there is no baby.

Second, it's not his. Even the sperm, he willingly surrendered into her control (he did not surrender his money similarly).

I guess that would be a different topic.
But I agree with you on money.

It could be argued that, because he surrendered the sperm, he tacitly accepted the consequences of doing so; perhaps not well-argued, but argued nonetheless.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 5:29:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 5:25:02 PM, feverish wrote:
At 9/8/2009 5:20:27 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 9/8/2009 5:14:03 PM, feverish wrote:
At 9/8/2009 4:56:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

That's what I meant; is that, in my mind, at least, there is a responsibility not to have sex unless a couple wants a child.

So if a couple wants only one child, they should have sex once and if fertilisation occurs never have sex again?

Realistically, that's not how it works, but something along those lines. That's a question that I've been trying to answer for myself, as a matter of fact.


I think the vast majority of sex is conducted for reasons other than child rearing.

Unfortunately.


What are your views on contraception and sterilisation?

I'm not too big on contraceptives, generally speaking; I'm sure you could dream up a hypothetical where I would have to agree with their use, though.

As far as sterilization, I don't really think you'd like my views on that too much. :P

Sorry if I seem interrogatory (spelling? real word?) but what is the problem with sex for pleasure? Especially if it is within a loving relationship?

Firefox tells me that interrogatory is a real word; thus, you're good. :)

The way I see it, sex is only pleasurable because humans need the extra push to procreate; whereas many animals do it from instinct, that just isn't enough for us; so, I somewhat believe that sex for pleasure is kind of a perversion of its purpose. I'm not saying that people who have sex for pleasure makes people absolutely terrible; like I said, this is a question that I'm still working over in my mind.

Also, I think that using sex as a means to pleasure encourages people to act far more recklessly, as they believe they can merely pleasure themselves with no real consequences; STDs have helped that mindset, but people often abort pregnancies because they just wanted sex with no strings attached.

It's not a complete answer, I realize; but, as I said, it's a thought in progress.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 5:39:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Thanks Cody for the honest response, interesting stuff.

I agree with your sentiments that sex is treated as trivial and as harmless fun in modern society. It should only be entered into responsibly (although irresponsible sex may seem more fun at the time!)

Between consenting adults it can be a very positive thing in itself and enrich one's life. You should definitely try it some time before making up your mind.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 5:42:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 5:29:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I somewhat believe that sex for pleasure is kind of a perversion of its purpose.

Congrats, you just slapped every single field of art in the face XD

Culinary Arts, Visual arts, Music, Poetry, all of these things are ways in which we abuse our senses beyond what their evolved purpose is, purely to take advantage of the pleasure spike associated with it.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 5:43:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 5:39:33 PM, feverish wrote:
Thanks Cody for the honest response, interesting stuff.

Thank you.


I agree with your sentiments that sex is treated as trivial and as harmless fun in modern society. It should only be entered into responsibly (although irresponsible sex may seem more fun at the time!)

It may seem like more fun; but, fun is hardly a full justification for anything! :)


Between consenting adults it can be a very positive thing in itself and enrich one's life. You should definitely try it some time before making up your mind.

Well, I have, apart from that 'consenting adults' part; but, age of consent in most states, including Oklahoma, is only 16; and let me say, many people who enter into sexual intimacy tend to view it as more of a reckless recreational activity and something of a social necessity (to put it mildly), instead of treating it as a procreative tool.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2009 5:46:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/8/2009 5:42:12 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 9/8/2009 5:29:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I somewhat believe that sex for pleasure is kind of a perversion of its purpose.

Congrats, you just slapped every single field of art in the face XD

Culinary Arts, Visual arts, Music, Poetry, all of these things are ways in which we abuse our senses beyond what their evolved purpose is, purely to take advantage of the pleasure spike associated with it.

See, I see a difference between cultured activity (which serves its created purpose, as a source of enrichment for the senses and for the mind) and sexual activity, which is naturally intended as a procreative tool, but has been taken 'out of context' for nothing more than pleasure, which is a perversion of its purpose; arts = enrichment, sex for pure pleasure = perversion of purpose.

Though, I'm glad that I got to slap so many different things in the face.