Male Post-Conception Opt Out

[Mr Person]

Can't get pregnant without biology.

#Mary
#MeToo

 

[Bodi]

Reality always counts. You are merely restating the conclusion that you want: men pay no price for getting a woman pregnant unless they choose to, while women pay the price unless they abort.

If they both chose to have sex then why do you say that HE got her pregnant and not they got pregnant together... talk about dishonest.

2. "she chose to have sex... not to have a baby": same answer. The loading is dishonest. They both chose to have sex, and both knew that doing so created the possibility of pregnancy. Fare more so if they were not using birth control.

3. "he chose to have sex and that means he chose to have a baby (if she so chooses)". Nope. Dishonest again. They both chose to have sex, and both knew that doing so created the possibility of pregnancy.

Dude, C'mon... I can't even take your post seriously. She chose to have sex, not to have a baby" is a saying/argument that is repeated over and over for decades in these debates... and the same with #3. Don't blame me about any dishonesty...

1. "Pro-bondage": loading your terms only weakens your claim to having an "argument." Announcing that my disagreement with you means I want "bondage" signals to me that you realize the shaky ground upon which you stand; the, shall I say, emotional rather than logical ground.

Adding emotional verbiage does not weaken logic... sorry... that is not accurate at all. You could differentiate though...

 

[Bodi]

Men and woman pay child support.

this debate is not about child support.

 

[year2late]

You also overlook "safe haven" laws. A woman can legally abandon a baby at the fire stations in many jurisdictions with no consideration for the father.

Safe Haven laws: Things you didn't know about surrendering a newborn

According to this article, safe haven laws are not just for mothers.

 

[Bodi]

Can't get pregnant without biology.

This argument is not about getting pregnant... You need to differentiate between biology and the law.

Safe Haven laws: Things you didn't know about surrendering a newborn

According to this article, safe haven laws are not just for mothers.

Correct. Walter White did just that in Albuquerque a few years ago.

 

[year2late]

this debate is not about child support.

Sure it is.

 

[SDET]

Why do you suppose most men don't mitigate their risk in this area? A marriage can fall apart at any time when a man least expects it. Why any father of minor children would live in California is beyond me.

Sure it is.

 

[year2late]

Why do you suppose most men don't mitigate their risk in this area? A marriage can fall apart at any time when a man least expects it. Why any father of minor children would live in California is beyond me.

Why do you think men do not take advantage of this?

 

[Mr Person]

Reality always counts. You are merely restating the conclusion that you want: men pay no price for getting a woman pregnant unless they choose to, while women pay the price unless they abort.





1. "Pro-bondage": loading your terms only weakens your claim to having an "argument." Announcing that my disagreement with you means I want "bondage" signals to me that you realize the shaky ground upon which you stand; the, shall I say, emotional rather than logical ground.

2. "she chose to have sex... not to have a baby": same answer. The loading is dishonest. They both chose to have sex, and both knew that doing so created the possibility of pregnancy. Fare more so if they were not using birth control.

3. "he chose to have sex and that means he chose to have a baby (if she so chooses)": Nope. Dishonest again. They both chose to have sex, and both knew that doing so created the possibility of pregnancy. The decision on risk-bearing is made pre-conception. Why should the consequences not attach then? Why should they only attach after the fact, once the parties see the result of their having decided to take a risk?

Trouble is, the thing grows in a woman's body. A woman veto'ing a pregnancy makes decision to remove something that cannot exist outside her body from that body. A 'potential' life. A man doing the same would mean either compelling an abortion or excusing himself from the risks of the decision he made. That is of course why your entire position relies on placing the goalpost post-conception.

But we both know that is not the right place for it to stand: a pair does not make the decision about whether to take a risk of getting pregnant after having vaginal sex. They make that decision before having sex. Relatedly, they make a decision of whether/what protection to use to reduce the risk. You want things to be measured in hindsight, after the male sees where the dice landed.

Nope

If they both chose to have sex then why do you say that HE got her pregnant and not they got pregnant together... talk about dishonest.

Dude, C'mon... I can't even take your post seriously. She chose to have sex, not to have a baby" is a saying/argument that is repeated over and over for decades in these debates... and the same with #3. Don't blame me about any dishonesty...

Adding emotional verbiage does not weaken logic... sorry... that is not accurate at all. You could differentiate though...

Well, if it's going to be post-chopping and quote-trimming on top of the absurdity....

:roll:

Fortunately, neither of us have to take this seriously, since your desire is going nowhere (for good and obvious reasons).

 

[Chomsky]

That’s how abortion works

??

I'm at a loss to understand your point, or how it derived from my statement.

 

[SDET]

I don't know, but it's annoying to see to no end. I would hope to see married men with families pouring into Texas and Georgia for this very reason. The exodus isn't nearly strong enough.

Why do you think men do not take advantage of this?

 

[Bodi]

Well, if it's going to be post-chopping and quote-trimming on top of the absurdity....

:roll:

Fortunately, neither of us have to take this seriously, since your desire is going nowhere (for good and obvious reasons).

Why is it fortunate that there are unequal rights between men and women?

What is obvious and good about a man being forced into involuntary servitude, being forced to pay for her choice?

...and I did not quote trim... I addressed the relevant points in your posts. That is known as effective communication, to most people.

 

[Chomsky]

Sure it is cut and dried... she can abort a child that she can not care for. That is moral, responsible and right. All I see people keep deferring to is to give her all the power and all the choice after conception and he is held in bondage to her choice. Not equity. Not equality.

You can't assume the bolded! :doh

Are you saying you want to force her to abort her child? What if she wants to keep it?

 

[Crovax]

??

I'm at a loss to understand your point, or how it derived from my statement.

I’m not sure here but it’s seems that you are being intentionally dense.

 

[Bodi]

You can't assume the bolded! :doh

I don't assume anything about it... she CAN abort a child that she can not care for

Are you saying you want to force her to abort her child?

I am pro-choice...

What if she wants to keep it?

Then she can do it without the man's money... if she can not do so then keeping a child that she can not care for is extremely selfish and the sign of an unfit mother...

 

[Crovax]

You can't assume the bolded! :doh

Are you saying you want to force her to abort her child? What if she wants to keep it?

He’s saying that if the woman wants to keep the child but the man doesn’t want it he should be able to opt out of all parental rights and obligations

 

[Chomsky]

Ideally, the decision would be based on what is best for both parents. However, should the mother decide to keep the child, both father and mother are required to support it financially. That doesn't seem particularly unfair to me. What WOULD be unfair is the child not receiving sufficient support because one parent wanted to abrogate responsibility. You can argue that fathers should have more say. But it isn't the childs fault that they don't, and they shouldn't be punished for it by having their finances cut.

That's the problem with his logic. He's conflating two independent concepts, here: The act of conception, and the carrying of the resultant baby.

 

[weaver2]

Men to should be able to opt out of Child Support if they do not want to be a father (legally). The woman can use her legal Constitutional right to birth control if she does not want to or can not support the child on her own. (Of course there are some exceptions).

(From Family FindLaw)

Currently, there is no right to a "financial abortion," or to opt out of fatherhood. In one well-publicized case, a father in Michigan objected to child support payments when his ex-partner gave birth after knowing he did not want children. The court rejected his argument that, since a woman may avoid motherhood through abortion, the man had a right to disclaim responsibility for a child born against his wishes. The court saw the question not as one of the father's interests versus the mother's, but of the child's right to parental support. Once a child is born, the parents were responsible for its support and education.


Private Agreements Between Partners
A father may be able to come to agreement with his pregnant partner outside of the court system if he would like her to keep the baby. If a prospective mother seeks to abort a pregnancy against a father's wishes, an attorney may be able to draft an agreement where the father agrees to pay the costs of pregnancy and obtain full custody after birth.

Similarly, if a father doesn't wish to be fully responsible for child support, informal child support agreements between parents are possible. Research shows that a small but significant percentage of custodial parents have informal agreements not involving court orders.

 

[Chomsky]

He’s saying that if the woman wants to keep the child but the man doesn’t want it he should be able to opt out of all parental rights and obligations

Yes. Exactly. It's a nonsensical argument.

He also seems to believe his partner's becoming pregnant can be fully predetermined. Which is erroneous.

 

[year2late]

That’s how abortion works

Abortion is a woman opting out of the biological process of pregnancy.

I was healthy before my pregnancy. I ended up abruptly having several major complications as well as major surgery as a result of my pregnancy. If I did not have good medical and social resources I would have been on dialysis or dead.

Pregnancy is a risk. Especially for those that are under resourced.

If she gives birth both are responsible for that child. Unless both agree to adoption or safe haven is used.

Safe haven is for both parents from what I have read. If some jurisdictions do not have this for men, that is for the people of those states to change the law.

Safe Haven laws: Things you didn't know about surrendering a newborn


Personally I am ok with "opting out" with a few exceptions. Before sex, a man has to have a signed agreement that he will not support or be part of that potential child's life and if the child of that union enters into the welfare system, before any public funds are used - both parents are supporting as much as possible.

 

[Bodi]

(From Family FindLaw)

Currently, there is no right to a "financial abortion," or to opt out of fatherhood. In one well-publicized case, a father in Michigan objected to child support payments when his ex-partner gave birth after knowing he did not want children. The court rejected his argument that, since a woman may avoid motherhood through abortion, the man had a right to disclaim responsibility for a child born against his wishes. The court saw the question not as one of the father's interests versus the mother's, but of the child's right to parental support. Once a child is born, the parents were responsible for its support and education.


Private Agreements Between Partners
A father may be able to come to agreement with his pregnant partner outside of the court system if he would like her to keep the baby. If a prospective mother seeks to abort a pregnancy against a father's wishes, an attorney may be able to draft an agreement where the father agrees to pay the costs of pregnancy and obtain full custody after birth.

Similarly, if a father doesn't wish to be fully responsible for child support, informal child support agreements between parents are possible. Research shows that a small but significant percentage of custodial parents have informal agreements not involving court orders.

Yes... I know about that case. That is why I framed the argument differently... better and more accurate.

A post-conception opt out instead of one about child support. He argued about it after the child was born.

 

[Bodi]

Personally I am ok with "opting out" with a few exceptions. Before sex, a man has to have a signed agreement that he will not support or be part of that potential child's life and if the child of that union enters into the welfare system, before any public funds are used - both parents are supporting as much as possible.

That is a good compromise... I would counter that public funds need to be more difficult to obtain in that case then... it is too easy to get on welfare and those that do get welfare do not have to do much to show that they could get off it or obtain a job, etc.

 

[Mr Person]

Why is it fortunate that there are unequal rights between men and women?

What is obvious and good about a man being forced into involuntary servitude, being forced to pay for her choice?

...and I did not quote trim... I addressed the relevant points in your posts. That is known as effective communication, to most people.

:roll:

You cut out the meat of the argument. Go back and address it if you're serious, man. I'm not fighting peripheral word games.

The bottom line is that for anything you have said to work, you have to move the line from pre- to post-conception. Yet you don't have anything like a solid reason for doing that. I have a reason for not: the duty of dealing with of consequences should trail back to the point in time at which it was decided to accept the risk of those consequences. That's the "pre-". You want the duty of dealing with the consequences to be determined by how the participants in a thing felt after the consequences of whose risk they accepted materialized.

But you don't want it because it makes sense. You want it because it's the only way you can have this lopsided thing where the woman has to decide whether or not to abort, and the male can simply walk no matter what.



Now, you might point out that there is an inherent assumption here. Namely, the only thing that could possibly balance that scale is whether or not the decision to abort has weight. I don't want to get roped into a whole "abortion is bad thing", but I have to cede that. Yes, even though I fully believe a fetus is only 'potential life' until viable and thus not on par with the woman's control over her body, it isn't nothing either. The decision to abort is serious. I don't know anyone who hasn't taken that decision seriously and made it.

You really are not weighing something against nothing. Biology determines who bears what burden. The woman and man together: protection, what/how much/etc. The woman: abort or not. The man: vaginal sex or not.





If you still feel this is somehow lopsided based on the values you (choose to?) assign to each of those, then I again point you to biology and the inherent unfairness of life. It's her body until the fetus is viable, then it is not her body unless having the kid has X% of killing her. Your choice was made when you held the unwrapped condom in your hand. So was hers (after all, she can't just dump the kid on you, can she?).

 

[weaver2]

Yes... I know about that case. That is why I framed the argument differently... better and more accurate.

A post-conception opt out instead of one about child support. He argued about it after the child was born.

The same argument is applicable before or after birth.

 

[Bodi]

:roll:

You cut out the meat of the argument. Go back and address it if you're serious, man. I'm not fighting peripheral word games.

The bottom line is that for anything you have said to work, you have to move the line from pre- to post-conception. Yet you don't have anything like a solid reason for doing that. I have a reason for not: the duty of dealing with of consequences should trail back to the point in time at which it was decided to accept the risk of those consequences. That's the "pre-". You want the duty of dealing with the consequences to be determined by how the participants in a thing felt after the consequences of whose risk they accepted materialized.

But you don't want it because it makes sense. You want it because it's the only way you can have this lopsided thing where the woman has to decide whether or not to abort, and the male can simply walk no matter what.



Now, you might point out that there is an inherent assumption here. Namely, the only thing that could possibly balance that scale is whether or not the decision to abort has weight. I don't want to get roped into a whole "abortion is bad thing", but I have to cede that. Yes, even though I fully believe a fetus is only 'potential life' until viable and thus not on par with the woman's control over her body, it isn't nothing either. The decision to abort is serious. I don't know anyone who hasn't taken that decision seriously and made it.

You really are not weighing something against nothing. Biology determines who bears what burden. The woman and man together: protection, what/how much/etc. The woman: abort or not. The man: vaginal sex or not.





If you still feel this is somehow lopsided based on the values you (choose to?) assign to each of those, then I again point you to biology and the inherent unfairness of life. It's her body until the fetus is viable, then it is not her body unless having the kid has X% of killing her. Your choice was made when you held the unwrapped condom in your hand. So was hers (after all, she can't just dump the kid on you, can she?).

I didn't move any line... I addressed the argument at the only time that the line matters... post-conception.

Pre-conception is irrelevant as there is no fetus. After the baby passes viability it is ridiculous to argue that the man should be allowed an out and obviously post-birth the whole argument is moot.

So like it or not, it is this lopsided thing where the woman has to decide whether or not to abort, and the male can simply walk no matter what.