Male Opt Out

[year2late]

There is no child in my scenario.

STRAW MAN!!!

Well, in the real world, if a man and woman get together, they may be responsible for a child after about 9 months.

 

[year2late]

Says you and the law... that is SUBJECTIVE and can change.

It is more likely that better birth control for men will become accessible and available to give men real control over their reproductive choices.

But go ahead a push for the opt out after conception thing...fight the good fight.

But frankly....every time I hear the "opt out thing"....but it loses the rest of us who would just like to see a more realistic child support/custody structure.

 

[vegas giants]

It is more likely that better birth control for men will become accessible and available to give men real control over their reproductive choices.

But go ahead a push for the opt out after conception thing...fight the good fight.

But frankly....every time I hear the "opt out thing"....but it loses the rest of us who would just like to see a more realistic child support/custody structure.

It hasn't seem to lost you. you have been debating this issue for days. I think you are starting to see the logic in it. Others will too. Civil rights takes time

 

[Bodi]

Well, in the real world, if a man and woman get together, they may be responsible for a child after about 9 months.

Straw Man again... and in the real world without laws forcing a man he could just walk away. This debate is about those laws regardless of your refusal to address them.

 

[year2late]

Straw Man again... and in the real world without laws forcing a man he could just walk away. This debate is about those laws regardless of your refusal to address them.

And I have made it clear I agree with the laws and why

 

[Doppelgangirl]

As long as he gets a post conception opt out like she does... that is fine.

Hey Bodhi! :2wave:

I 100% agree with you. Choice should apply to potential fathers, as well.

People can be stupid, life happens.

I would never say a man has a right to demand a woman remain pregnant. There's just a biological factor there, that burden really is on her. Literally.

Ultimately, once a pregnancy is seen thru to term, and there's literally *now* a 3rd person involved... I don't know how to balance that sheet. We're pretty stingy on domestic benefits here, to our own detriment. But if everyone agreed to allocate a % of taxes (?) as a general rule, I think that could work.

Just a thought.

 

[Lursa]

And as a taxpayer, I want both parents tapped before government funds are accessed.

I agree with opt out to an extent. I think the opt out should be prior to sex. After conception, the physiological risk is 100 percent hers. So a little heads up would be nice,:lol:

I am 100 percent on board with making child support and custody more realistic.

Exactly, and they continually willfully ignore that the taxpayers are not a bottomless pit of $ and that others in need would go without. OR the taxpayers would be unfairly taxed more.

But forcing the taxpayers to pay for kids when the *parents are available and wholly responsible for producing that kid* is a huge failure of the govt to represent the taxpayers....it's not an endless well...for every dollar spent on kids that have parents available, the kids needing social services, foster care, etc...will get less.

So that wouldnt be fair to kids, taxpayers, OR those also in need. It's even more sickening when people just casually think, fine, just let the taxpayers pay more...when those same people are outraged when we claim the same about the actual responsible parties.

All the whining on behalf of the parties responsible for producing the kid...well, I feel just as strongly that it's completely unjust to force MORE on taxpayers. We didnt produce those kids and others in need get less.

And think about it: if you gave men the option to opt out...they would, almost all. And so its not just a few kids...it's most.

And there's also no way to stop men from contacting their kids, before or after age 18 to develop a relationship with them. Not really. And how wrong would it be to stop them? To deny a kid their father? So men would still have it both ways.

Yeah...there's nothing unfair, unjust, or unequal here at all.

 

[Lursa]

Your lack of grasping the Constitutional implications and individual state statutory obligation will keep you restrained from connecting all of the legal dots involved. And I’m not saying this in a condescending way.

For 50 years Men’s Rights Groups have failed to initiate changes in the inequalities that exists. You’re denying that the constitutional obstacles that clearly exist are a reality. The very same obstacles that are legal walls that these groups continue to butt their heads against.

But thanks for your opinions. I don’t see where there’s anything left to discuss between us.

In the business deal, the taxpayer doesnt get stuck with the bill when one party *opts out.* And the parties BOTH decide before initiating the business deal...which is just what we're describing for both men and women: if you DECIDE to have sex, you both have to deal with the consequences after. If there's not 'opt-out' option in place, then you dont have sex (Unless willing to accept the risk).

 

[vegas giants]

In the business deal, the taxpayer doesnt get stuck with the bill when one party *opts out.* And the parties BOTH decide before initiating the business deal...which is just what we're describing for both men and women: if you DECIDE to have sex, you both have to deal with the consequences after. If there's not 'opt-out' option in place, then you dont have sex (Unless willing to accept the risk).

Except one party gets a choice post conception that the other party does not get. There is a legal remedy which relieves both parties of financial responsibility. She can take it or she assumes responsibility

 

[ecofarm]

In the business deal, the taxpayer doesnt get stuck with the bill when one party *opts out.*

How could someone be pro "opt-out" and pro personal responsibility and anti socialism. Some want welfare for irresponsible men, regardless of financial status, and they're right wing. Bizarre.

 

[Lursa]

Bull. ****. "Poor little me" idiocy, because "I didn't use birth control, so she can just suffer the agony of either abortion or birth, but the male can just walk away with "I sign an opt out, she suffers the physical/emotional agony , and I (the male) wipe my hands of the entire thing, physical and emotional, because, haha, I'm a man so tough ****, lady".

You want responsibility for ALL PARTIES, except the male who did not use birth control, who does not accept any responsibility for the pregnancy that could not happened without his consensual behavior... in other words, it's all HER FAULT and you want her to suffer the physical, financial and emotional pain while you sign a "contract" that says you are not responsible for any sperm that you may have ejaculated into the womb of willing female, who was probably a gold-digging slut. :lol:

Utterly ridiculous. I hope your daughters don't google this crap from you. I implore you to be a supportive father, not a vindictive ex who never wanted responsibility for his children and resents them intruding on his life. All I can say at this point, is what the hell is wrong with you?? I know you care for your daughters. How could you disrespect and demoralize them in such a public way, purely out of vengeance toward their mother??

Grow the fuck up. You have two beautiful and talented daughters. Be a father to them. They need you.

It comes down to a sea-change.

For...ever, men have been able to have sex without consequences. It's an entitlement taken for granted and yet it's deeply ingrained in their psyches. So many cannot even conceive of avoiding sex to avoid consequences (as women have always had to and has affected our psyches as well). Men refuse to confront a reality of not being able to have sex without consequences.

This debate isnt about 'equal', it's about men resenting that now, women have a safer, legal option and they feel that it gives women power or control over them...and they dont like it.

And yet...it's state-imposed with the best interests of the child and society foremost... not women.

 

[vegas giants]

How someone could be pro "opt-out" and pro personal responsibility and anti socialism. Some want welfare for irresponsible men and they're right wing. Bizarre.

And for irresponsible women

 

[vegas giants]

It comes down to a sea-change.

For...ever, men have been able to have sex without consequences. It's an entitlement and yet it's deeply ingrained in their psyches. So many cannot even conceive of avoiding sex to avoid consequences (as women have always had to and has affected our psyches as well). Men refuse to confront a reality of not being able to have sex without consequences.

This debate isnt about 'equal', it's about men resenting that now, women have a safer, legal option and they feel that it gives women power or control over them...and they dont like it.

And yet...it's state-imposed with the best interests of the child and society foremost... not women.

The best interests are two parents that want a child or a single parent that can afford to have a kid. If that is not met there is a legal remedy. This is best for everyone. This is pro choice

 

[ecofarm]

And for irresponsible women

Just put the bill on taxpayers. If it feels good, do it in the street. No repercussions. Don't worry. Screw everyone you want and we'll pick up the bill. And this is coming from fiscal conservatives? Wow. Amazing how pretending to be a victim can turn someone's beliefs upside down.

 

[Lursa]

I've come close a couple of times to mentioning this but held off -- waiting until someone else brought it up. It's incredibly embarrassing to me as a woman to know that other women do this, yet, I have known these types of women since I just a young girl. What they do should shame them to their very core, because it gives all women a bad name. It makes women appear to be needy, dishonest and deceptive.

Whisper, a website that allows members to share secrets is a repository of admissions from women who have tricked boyfriends/husbands. Scrolling down through these will make you nauseous.
https://www.babygaga.com/15-whisper-confessions-of-women-who-tricked-their-partner-into-pregnancy/

Sadly, these women have no self-esteem, and the current laws not only protect them, but encourage a whole new generation of females to pull the same trick.

Meh, how is that different than men refusing to wear a condom and promising to marry a woman if she gets pregnant? Or the men that put holes in their condoms to impregnate a woman to control her (like to keep her from going away to college is one example I know of )?

Both sexes have the ability to lie and cheat with respect to sex.

It's no excuse and it's not relevant to this discussion. These arent crimes (that I'm aware of ) and all adults know that other adults can lie and be assholes. We just often ignore it or are tricked.

People should seriously consider who they boff. Period. If you dont, ALL are aware of a myriad of potential consequences and risks.

 

[Lursa]

How do traffic accidents relate to abortion?

This topic has nothing to do with abortion. It has to do with the law. By your own words...it's about options for men, not women.

He offered some relevant examples.

 

[vegas giants]

Just put the bill on taxpayers. If it feels good, do it in the street. No repercussions. Don't worry. Screw everyone you want and we'll pick up the bill. And this is coming from fiscal conservatives? Wow. Amazing how pretending to be a victim can turn someone's beliefs upside down.

The woman has a legal remedy. If she wishes to make the irresponsible choice and bring a child into the world that she can not afford then that is her choice. Of course if she is eligible for benefits she should get them. But that is irresponsible of her. She has a better choice for her and for him

 

[Lursa]

Hello, I just briefly scanned the first few posts so apologies if this post is redundant:

In my humble opinion, I feel that, if the woman gets to be the only person deciding whether to have a baby or not, then in this case she should bear the full cost of raising the resultant child, OR, the man also gets a say in whether the woman will have a child or not, in which case he will have to pay for half. Women should not be able to have their cake and eat it too, is my feeling.

Thanks for being another person that sees this issue as being all about women having the power to be 'unfair' to men. And Bod liked it too, but I know that's how he sees it.

Well done.

Btw, the state made the law and enforces it...not women. And it's in the best interests of the child and society. And the taxpayers. Not women. The law applies THE SAME to women. (If it's not applied that way, that's a judge's fault and most of them are men.)

 

[ecofarm]

The woman has a legal remedy. If she wishes to make the irresponsible choice and bring a child into the world that she can not afford then that is her choice. Of course if she is eligible for benefits she should get them. But that is irresponsible of her. She has a better choice for her and for him

It's only irresponsible if she's not committed to being a good mother. If she's holding up her end of the bargain, it's the cheapest and best way to deal with the situation (presuming she doesn't want an abortion).

 

[vegas giants]

It's only irresponsible if she's not committed to being a good mother. If she's holding up her end of the bargain, it's the cheapest and best way to deal with the situation (presuming she doesn't want an abortion).

No if she wants a child and he does not there is a legal remedy. She can have an abortion or give it up for adoption. She wants something she can not afford. She can always have a child with someone who wants one. She is being irresponsible and not doing what will be in the best interest of the child.

 

[Lursa]

When you get a chance, I would love to see some information from social service sites that speak to paying taxpayers back.

Is it the full cost? Is it an amount that would be a reasonable substitution for child support? (for example $100/month to DSS when he makes $1800/month)If it is full cost - that is messed up. If it is reasonable to his income, and this is just in lieu of child support...I do not have much issue with it

Both my parents worked for DSS (department of social services) over three decades a piece. So it is of great interest to me. They both left before DNA could pin down biodad.

But again, my guess is that this is levied on the non custodial parent because the custodial parent is already making attempts at supporting herself (assuming the woman has custody)and the child.

And good luck with some state bureaucracy overseeing and enforcing that documentation and its changes as the occur all the time. Just more bureaucracy, more taxpayer $$.

And it's nothing more than men objecting to handing over the $ to the mother and resenting and imaginging that she's spending it on clothes and bars and 'fun' for herself and not the kid. You know what....if you dont like that (and it is wrong) you were an idiot to sleep with that kind of person. It doesnt say much for you either.

But IRL, that's not what most women are doing with the $. They are trying to provide the best life they can for their family...just like a man would if he had custody.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Thanks for being another person that sees this issue as being all about women having the power to be 'unfair' to men. And Bod liked it too, but I know that's how he sees it.

Well done.

Btw, the state made the law and enforces it...not women. And it's in the best interests of the child and society. And the taxpayers. Not women. The law applies THE SAME to women. (If it's not applied that way, that's a judge's fault and most of them are men.)

I've still not seen anyone adequately address the current reality that non-custodial parents -- the vast majority men -- are the only members of society expected to reimburse the welfare system. Why is that? I mean, it clearly is in taxpayers' interest to have families coming off welfare pay back their food stamps, right? But instead we offer those services to all who qualify because we recognize that having baseline needs met is ultimately beneficial to society as a whole. But yet we have states criminalizing fathers who can't reimburse taxpayers. Why can't struggling fathers get help, too? I see no good reason not to extend welfare services to non-custodial parents.

 

[vegas giants]

Thanks for being another person that sees this issue as being all about women having the power to be 'unfair' to men. And Bod liked it too, but I know that's how he sees it.

Well done.

Btw, the state made the law and enforces it...not women. And it's in the best interests of the child and society. And the taxpayers. Not women. The law applies THE SAME to women. (If it's not applied that way, that's a judge's fault and most of them are men.)

The best interests of the child is someone that can afford to have a child.

 

[Lursa]

Until there is change there will be no justice...

*justice for the taxpayers!* *justice for the taxpayers!* *justice for the taxpayers!*

*We didnt contribute, dont take our loot!*

 

[vegas giants]

*justice for the taxpayers!* *justice for the taxpayers!* *justice for the taxpayers!*

*We didnt contribute, dont take our loot!*

Then have an abortion. Problem solved