Resolved: The Father Should Not Have Say In an Abortion

1) The woman is the host body and therefore should have more then half the sayIn this argument the pro completely misinterprets my arguments and insinuates that im arguing that one's sovereignty can be bought and that only dads can financially support the child, which isnt even close to what I was arguing. My arguments were that the father sacrifices just as much as the mother does when deciding to have a child which entitles both sides to have an equal say in deciding whether to keep it or not. Pro completely ignored my argument stating that being the host body only entitles the woman to her 50% of the say in the decision and did not justify why being the host is enough reason to let women have a vast majority of the decision making process, and instead goes on a rant of asking irrelevant questions. My argument here is that the father sacrifices plenty when it comes down to raising a child, and that therefore he should have his 50% of the say in making the decision. The woman being the host and also making sacrifices justifies her having the other 50% of the say in choosing whether or not to keep it or abort, but it does not justify taking away any of the fathers say in the decision. 2) "A .0006% difference isnt irrelevant, so the argument still is in the woman's favor."In this argument the pro is trying to argue that contributing .0006% more genetic material is enough to justify women having more then 50% of the say in deciding to abort or not, but this is hair splitting if ive ever seen it. 0.0006% is statistically zero and focuses on just one set of chromosomes where the male is naturally at a disadvantage, while completely overlooking the fact that the male and female donate the exact same number and the exact same quantity of genetic material in all the other 22 non-sexual related chromosomes to an embryo. So to summarize, this whole argument is structured entirely on arbitrary measurements that the pro has cherry picked to somehow minimize the impact that the father has in the creation of the child in support of his own arguments. Overall this is nothing more then just an attempt to split hairs in order to somehow justify that the woman should have more say in deciding to abort or not over a male. 3) Relinquishment of the sperm argumentIn this argument the pro does not dispute that the man is not relinquishing his sperm and instead falls back onto the arbitrary argument that since its her body shes allowed to do whatever she wants with it because no legally binding agreement was made. If the woman still retains her right to change her mind as no legally binding agreement was made beforehand, then why does the man suddenly not have the same right? He also didnt enter a legally binding agreement and is still responsible and liable for his role in making the child, yet apparently his rights get taken away when the woman gets to keep hers.... "Even a bank has the right to refuse service, so how does this argument justify removing the woman's right to refuse service?"Because banks have clear cut and justifiable reasons to refuse to go through with a mutual agreement. The woman's excuse for refusing has not yet been justified since you danced around my question asking why being the host ignores any and all sacrifices the male also makes... Being the host only justifies the woman having her decision be taken into account because it is an argument that shows that men shouldnt have all the say. It is not an argument for why the man shouldnt have any or equal say in the same matters at all though, which is what Ive been arguing. 4) Middle ground for couples deadlocked in choosing to abort or not. After providing numerous cases and possibilities that couples can choose from if they cant decide whether to abort or not, the pro tries to justify all of them as unfavorable to the mother by assuming in every case that the mother is the one who wants to abort while the father is the one who wants to keep it. This argument was to show that there are alternatives that couples can take if they cannot reach an agreement to abort or not. In each scenario the one who gets their way is always the pro-life one since in all circumstances an abortion is not immediately brought about. Both the mother and the father could be taking up the pro-life position which means that under all of the scenarios I listed, both parents could be the ones who dont win while the unborn child is raised. It just depends on which side they are taking regarding the abortion, not on the sex of the parent. 5) The Pro and I agree the child is not any one parents property. "Con claims the Father's financial contribution gives him the other 50% say, but this argument requires further development to be compelling."I listed a couple of contributions the father makes to the raising of the child off the top of my head, you only chose to focus on the ones that are financial related and claim that was my entire argument. Its my position that the father is entitled to his 50% because he is responsible for half of the genetic material that led to the baby in the first place and also has to sacifice plenty to raise the unborn child. both parents sacrifice a lot out of their own lives regarding the child so both of them should have equal say in deciding whether it should be kept or not, the logic is as simple as that. http://www.webmd.com...http://www.webmd.com..."Con asserts that carrying the child only gets the mother 50% of the say. Why? By what line of logic can we conclude that the right to decide what happens with and within your own body only accounts for half of the say in what happens with and within your own body? << To acknowledge what this line of reasoning actually states is to realize its absurdity."That isnt my line of reasoning though..... Ive stated that being the host justifies the woman for having her half of the say in deciding whether to abort a child or not, but also that it doesnt give her all of the say because deciding to abort or not is a decision that involves more then just the woman here. Im just asking why the father isnt allowed to have 50% of the say in choosing to abort or not, but the pro's responses are only reasons for why the mother should have her 50% of the say which isnt answering the question. 6) Dropped argumentsThe Pro claims that I dropped two arguments he presented in alternate scenarios and chose not to respond. I didnt respond to them because both alternative scenarios were built around the pretense that women shouldnt have any say at all in deciding to abort or not, which is not where my stance is.... The first alternative scenario was asking why should a man force a woman to have an abortion if she doesnt want one and is the host. The second alternative scenario asks why a man should force a woman to have an abortion when he willingly relinquished ownership of his sperm to make the baby in the first place.Both scenarios were worded to sound like the man was forcing the women to abort against her will and that the woman had no say in the matter at all, not that the man was just opting for an abortion when the woman was not as detailed in the original scenarios.... Women should have their half of the say in deciding whether to abort or not, but the alternative scenarios were structured in a way where it implied that I would be arguing that I was against women having any say in choosing to abort or not, which is not what my stance was, and which is why I didnt respond to those scenarios. I apologize for not clearing that up before Id draw out a conclusion but im just about out of characters. Back to you Pro.