Male Opt Out Part II

[ecofarm]

Biglawn is on the line. Bodi is doing God's work. Everyone back off.






:mrgreen:

 

[Lursa]

If the laws were fair she would know that he had an opt out prior to sex as well and she would then be able to make a choice that best suits her... and MOST IMPORTANTLY.. the child.

I find that almost all of these arguments that want to make the man a slave to the woman are selfish ones about what the woman wants and not what is best for the child. Hypocrisy.

We do know that. Now...and it doesnt matter either way. THere's no laws that can affect our decision to have the kid or not. And she will still make the decision that best suits her.

But I see by this statement that you want to use this 'male opt out' to manipulate women's decisions. To influence, even coerce, women into having abortions...the only resort men have left because they know there is no force of law to 'make' women have abortions and the laws do require that both parents contribute to the welfare of the child. And the latter is equal and certainly seems fair to me.

If adults choose to have sex, BOTH are equally subject to the risks that a pregnancy brings. Women cannot escape those consequences...ever. Every single pregnancy carries consequences for a woman no matter what she chooses. So of course it's fair that men be held accountable as well.

 

[AGENT J]

I'll just add that to the OP.

SOunds like a sound idea because that example was never even touched. Your last thread was so successful at pointing out whats wrong with the system all people could dishonestly do is make up strarwmen after strawmen and try to re-frame your OP as somethign else and it failed every time.

Things like what a women goes through because of pregnancy and birth etc. . . .NONE of that matters to the topic in any honest and logical way. And what they CLAIM they FEEL is best for the child when it was proven otherwise.....all that has nothing to do with it :shrug: It matters not one bit to making it legally just, fair and equal.

Those few people will try it again im sure and completely fail again LOL

 

[Lursa]

I find that almost all of these arguments that want to make the man a slave to the woman are selfish ones about what the woman wants and not what is best for the child. Hypocrisy.

Thoughts?

How is deciding to have a child instead of an abortion selfish? How is it 'not what's best for the child?'

The hypocrisy is knowing you may create a child, taking that risk anyway, and then not contributing to it's welfare after it's born.

 

[Lursa]

This is an addition to the last one...

I see zero that is new in it.

 

[Lursa]

women have every right to take all the child support they need

Apparently men are victims that cannot gain custody or get joint custody and get the woman more involved in the financial side.

They are victims that should not have to pay up after they gamble. LOL, that goes over so well in Las Vegas.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) But I see by this statement that you want to use this 'male opt out' to manipulate women's decisions. To influence, even coerce, women into having abortions...the only resort men have left because they know there is no force of law to 'make' women have abortions and the laws do require that both parents contribute to the welfare of the child. And the latter is equal and certainly seems fair to me.

2.) If adults choose to have sex, BOTH are equally subject to the risks that a pregnancy brings. Women cannot escape those consequences...ever. Every single pregnancy carries consequences for a woman no matter what she chooses. So of course it's fair that men be held accountable as well.

LAMO i called this perfectly

1.) you tried this lie last time it failed, was proven wrong and was mocked for pages and pages

2.) you also tried this failed strawman last time too. It completely failed everytime because of how dishonest and meaningless it is. We get it, you WANT his point to matter but its meaningless to the topic.... it has nothing to do with the topic. We cant change nature nor does anybody want to. the topic is legal rights, fairness and equality. Right now its unequal and unfair.

DO you have anything on that topic?

 

[OlNate]

I've got it all copied and saved in OneNote. It's doomed. Again.

Git 'im!! :lol:

 

[Lursa]

So you think that women can have kids against men's wishes and then just screw them over for money?

It's the state's decision...not women's.

And it's on behalf of the child...and the taxpayers.

But of course, you know all that :mrgreen:

Let me know when you can explain how it's "more" fair for taxpayers to have to pay for the guy's kid, instead of him? Or her....hey, I'm all about equal here. If he get's custody, then she pays. Works for me. Either way, it's up to the parents FIRST to take responsibility for their actions and not stick the taxpayers.

 

[OlNate]

Biglawn is on the line. Bodi is doing God's work. Everyone back off.






:mrgreen:

:lamo

 

[AGENT J]

Apparently men are victims that cannot gain custody or get joint custody and get the woman more involved in the financial side.

They are victims that should not have to pay up after they gamble. LOL, that goes over so well in Las Vegas.

who said that? oh thats right . . NOBODY another completely failed and made up strawman that has nothign to do with the topic

 

[Lursa]

so your argument is that women are virtuous every time they get pregnant and that men that don't want a kid are not real men?

this can't honestly be the post of a person that thought about this topic at all...

What does virtue have to do with this?

It's a legal matter. And BOTH adults involved know the law.

Laws dont control people's virtue or morality. Women are not committing any crimes deciding not to abort when they have a kid And the state is completely entitled to see to the welfare of the kid by holding both parents responsible.

What is immoral (IMO) would be the state NOT going after the parents for financial and custodial support and dropping it on the taxpayers.

 

[Bodi]

the only fail was you bein given a rational response and you just then dismissed it. troll tactic

I missed it then... what was the rational response that answered the OP's argument because I thought that I restated your positions pretty good.

 

[Lursa]

This is turning into a Red Herring... the topic is about the man having post conception rights... not whether or not she gets pregnant. What you are saying is that once she gets pregnant he, should she want it, is her involuntary servant for 18 years of money. Condemn breaks. **** him. She lies about BC. **** him. Seriously? That is your argument?

There's no reason for such a right. If you dont want 18 years of involuntary servitude, men and women can both completely, 100% avoid it.

If you choose to risk that servitude, then you pay the consequences.

Are you saying that men and women are not capable of making good decisions in their own best interests? Please answer, yes or no?

And are you once again pretending that men are entitled to sex without consequences, just because 'they always have been?' (Sadly, that has never ever been the case for women) So hey! That means it's EQUAL now!

 

[Bodi]

We do know that. Now...and it doesnt matter either way. THere's no laws that can affect our decision to have the kid or not. And she will still make the decision that best suits her.

But I see by this statement that you want to use this 'male opt out' to manipulate women's decisions. To influence, even coerce, women into having abortions...the only resort men have left because they know there is no force of law to 'make' women have abortions and the laws do require that both parents contribute to the welfare of the child. And the latter is equal and certainly seems fair to me.

If adults choose to have sex, BOTH are equally subject to the risks that a pregnancy brings. Women cannot escape those consequences...ever. Every single pregnancy carries consequences for a woman no matter what she chooses. So of course it's fair that men be held accountable as well.

You still misuse the term manipulate... that means we ain't got nothin' to talk about because you begin and end with idiotic posts...

 

[Bodi]

SOunds like a sound idea because that example was never even touched. Your last thread was so successful at pointing out whats wrong with the system all people could dishonestly do is make up strarwmen after strawmen and try to re-frame your OP as somethign else and it failed every time.

Things like what a women goes through because of pregnancy and birth etc. . . .NONE of that matters to the topic in any honest and logical way. And what they CLAIM they FEEL is best for the child when it was proven otherwise.....all that has nothing to do with it :shrug: It matters not one bit to making it legally just, fair and equal.

Those few people will try it again im sure and completely fail again LOL

I am always shocked at how dishonest people are about this topic. If they just said, "**** the guy, I don't care about it being fair to him" I could kinda respect that but they don't do that... they keep whining and twisting things so that htey feel better about screwing him over. Just look at Lursa... some of the worst twisting and lying posts I have ever read.

 

[Bodi]

Git 'im!! :lol:

If she is going to pull out her cut and pasted fail from last time and use it again it will remain... wait for it... a fail.

 

[biglawnmower]

I missed it then... what was the rational response that answered the OP's argument because I thought that I restated your positions pretty good.

my position is that no one would be in the position of needing child support if they understood that the woman was not on birth control.

what youre sayin is that some men are so stupid they dont ask?

if you dont ask if shes on birth control AND/or you hook up without a condom...you earned that kid

 

[Lursa]

You still misuse the term manipulate... that means we ain't got nothin' to talk about because you begin and end with idiotic posts...

LOLOLOL

I'll keep writing and copying and pasting. I even still have the posts where I had to post the dictionary definition for 'manipulate' for you :lamo

You want men to be able to opt out so that women know they cant use the kid to 'keep a guy.' It's manipulative plain and simple. :mrgreen:

 

[Lursa]

my position is that no one would be in the position of needing child support if they understood that the woman was not on birth control.

what youre sayin is that some men are so stupid they dont ask?

if you dont ask if shes on birth control AND/or you hook up without a condom...you earned that kid

I know! The way they end up trying to justify this stupid idea really makes men look stupid too. Weak, victims, unable to make good decisions in their own best interests, choosing sex over their own wellbeing or future. :doh

 

[Bodi]

my position is that no one would be in the position of needing child support if they understood that the woman was not on birth control.

what youre sayin is that some men are so stupid they dont ask?

if you dont ask if shes on birth control AND/or you hook up without a condom...you earned that kid

Again, you are saying that no matter the reason, if she gets pregnant... **** him. He has to pay for her choice. He has no rights. Correct?

 

[Lursa]

I am always shocked at how dishonest people are about this topic. If they just said, "**** the guy, I don't care about it being fair to him" I could kinda respect that but they don't do that... they keep whining and twisting things so that htey feel better about screwing him over. Just look at Lursa... some of the worst twisting and lying posts I have ever read.

It's not fair. I've never said it was. It would suck and I have male friends stuck with it, it's crappy.

I have said it cant be fair. But if you are going to scream about fair, how do you justify the taxpayers being stuck paying for other people's kids when those people KNOWINGLY took the risk and created the kids? That's so much more unfair.

So you cant use 'fair' as any kind of justification here.

Next try?

 

[Bodi]

I know! The way they end up trying to justify this stupid idea really makes men look stupid too. Weak, victims, unable to make good decisions in their own best interests, choosing sex over their own wellbeing or future. :doh

Yes... we know. **** him. **** the man. No matter what, she gets all the say and the law will force him to pay for her choice. We know what you think... bye. Run along now.

 

[Bodi]

It's not fair. I've never said it was. It would suck and I have male friends stuck with it, it's crappy.

I have said it cant be fair. But if you are going to scream about fair, how do you justify the taxpayers being stuck paying for other people's kids when those people KNOWINGLY took the risk and created the kids? That's so much more unfair.

So you cant use 'fair' as any kind of justification here.

Next try?

:2wave:

 

[AGENT J]

I am always shocked at how dishonest people are about this topic. they keep whining and twisting things so that htey feel better about screwing him over.

im not shocked.. this is very emotional for some people, so honesty and logic will mostly be overwritten by pure triggered outrage and false claims.

Its because your claims represent reality and its a reality people are simply ok with and dont care about rights and equality on this specific issue.
It reminds me of the religious extremists. They get upset when things change because of rights and equality simply because they were doing it unfair before they want to continue and will make up any reason to all while ignoring rights and or equality.

Ill stick by my example of how things should work all day long cause its logical, fair and legally equal. No one could argue against it without making somethign up. But i also realize things will probably NEVER reflect my example in my life time. any change will be small and its just somethign we currently accept. Righing wrongs takes time :shrug: