Male Post-Conception Opt Out

[Chomsky]

The point is a man shouldn't be beholden to a woman's decision and that's how it is right now.

No man is "beholden" to a women, "decision" or not. A man is responsible for the children he conceives! That responsibility is not to the women, but is to the child. Geez, you guys are twisting this all over the place!

 

[CLAX1911]

No man is "beholden" to a women, "decision" or not.

that's discrimination on the basis of sex.

A man is responsible for the children he conceives!

I'm not talking about children I'm talking about a fetus. a man should be allowed to abort is fatherhood duties while it's a fetus if a woman can. Otherwise a woman has more rights than a man does.

That responsibility is not to the women, but is to the child. Geez, you guys are twisting this all over the place!

When it is in the womb it isn't a child. If you can abort it it isn't a child.

A woman can opt to slay her child in the will but a man has no decision whatsoever. That isn't all over the place that is logically consistent point of view you say it's all over the place because you can't argue against it without being inconsistent.

 

[Bodi]

Yes, he is. You're fooling no one on that point.

If he Opts Out he is not evading responsibility just like she is not if she aborts...

And again, the point is that sometimes rights are in conflict. When that happens, there is no way to satisfy everyone. In this case, the autonomy of women is more important than the right of men to walk away from their responsibilities. (And yes, you do sometimes have that right. Not always, but sometimes.)

The woman has complete autonomy... I am not sure why you keep ignoring that fact.

She has total control over her decision... total control over her body... total control over her reproductive rights.

Bodi - men have "no control" over this situation.

Please.

They don't have total control. They don't make the final decision. However, they can still have an influence over the decision. Given the myriad possible combinations of relationships involved, it would be silly to say that the men categorically have no influence.

Kinda a Straw Man mixed with a Red Herring... I said No Control. He doesn't have any control. She has total control. Fact.

And again, if that's the case, then he can try to influence the woman's choice.

That was not the point. The point is she can Opt Out after conception.

:roll:

Drop the scare quotes. And not everything has to be dictated by law.

What are "scare quotes"?

Yes, it can also include men deliberately choosing to refuse their responsibility for caring for the child.

This discussion is not about Child Support.

My comment has nothing to do with your personal life. You've made your priorities in this matter clear, by obviously siding with dissolute men in this discussion, and not even thinking about the overall consequences -- including the social harm that would result from raising so many children with fewer resources.

*sigh*

I have thought about the consequences and I have only talked about choices, control, biology and the law... not about siding with dissolute men. So yeah, you are making it about me.

 

[Bodi]

The female cannot opt out of parental responsibility. That's a fallacy.

If you mean she decides to have an abortion.. she still undergoes responsibility. She risks medical complications (depending on method etc).. and she has various other costs.

A woman is not a parent until their is a person born...

 

[Bodi]

A man is being held responsible for his decision pure and simple. He can not have an abortion as he does not get pregnant, it is not a decision he can make. It is biology not discrimination.

The 'he can abort if he gets pregnant" attempt to dismiss the actual argument is so ****ing weak...

 

[Bodi]

I am disinterested in 'fairness'. I am interested in a stable economic environment for babies and kids. I would be fine with this proposal if Dad can find a second source of income to replace his. Mom is one responsible and stable source. He is a second. He can opt out, if he can find someone else to opt in, because kids need two such sources and I would prefer taxpayers not be either.

Kids do not need two sources... they need enough to properly support them. That can come from one, two or more than two sources.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

The 'he can abort if he gets pregnant" attempt to dismiss the actual argument is so ****ing weak...

It refutes the idea that a man is being discriminated against because he can not end a pregnancy.

 

[Bodi]

Women have no more rights than men do, unless you try to conflate two separate things. Both men and women have bodily autonomy, which mean that they can choose to allow, refuse, or even withdraw permission for the use of their body and its resources up to the point the use has occurred. The right of a woman to have the ZEF removed and no longer using her body's resources is the same as yours to keep a kidney even when refusal would result in the potential recipient's death. If the ZEF is not in her body, such as in the use of a surrogate, she has no right to "opt out" since it does not impact upon her bodily autonomy rights.

Both men and women are responsible for any born child that they created. Neither has the right to simply give that up.

The problem comes from conflating a consequence of one right as a right in and of itself.



Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

That is an attempt to be clever and avoid the real issue that a man loses his right to self-determination if she so chooses it.

 

[Bodi]

Do you or don't you favor laws allowing men to spread their seed far and wide without any financial responsibility for their offspring?

Counter argument is do you or do you not favor women sleeping around and, at times, even tricking men so that they can get pregnant and then screw the **** out of the guy for 18 years?

 

[btthegreat]

Kids do not need two sources... they need enough to properly support them. That can come from one, two or more than two sources.

considering how few can be adequately provided for, on the kinds of income and buying power of in our jobs, these days, I think your point is pretty mute. When a single parent works there is a real hole in that economy because someone else has to provide care and wants money to do so, and we long ago stopped providing income levels that allowed for even one member of a married couple to stay at home.

If you don't want to pay child support, then just find someone else who will so that the taxpayer is less likely too. Your issue of 'fairness' should not be visited on the child or me. Coitus can cost a lot of money and I know that I did not get any enjoyment out of your experience two or twelve years ago.

 

[Bodi]

Well..they did have a say in a child be born by deciding to have sex with a woman.

Women's entire argument to make and keep abortion legal is that consent to sex is not consent to be a parent.

Your post here just illustrates a double standard. :shrug:

 

[Bodi]

A man is responsible for the children he conceives! That responsibility is not to the women, but is to the child. Geez, you guys are twisting this all over the place!

No. You are, actually. Here is how...

No man is "beholden" to a women, "decision" or not.

If a man impregnates a woman and does not want to be a parent or pay child support and she wants to have the baby and needs child support... is the man forced by the government to pay child support due to her decision?

 

[Bodi]

It refutes the idea that a man is being discriminated against because he can not end a pregnancy.

The argument is and never has been about a man trying to end a pregnancy... that is why it is a weak diversion attempt.

 

[southwest88]

Re: & now for a word from our founders

Originally Posted by southwest88
Nope, didn't say that. I noted that in all the history of men being favored by family/birth law (& why not? They wrote all the laws, once women were purged from positions of authority.) there was no record, TMK, of men protesting the inequity.

end quote/

Your using that to justify current inequities in the law.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

No, I think it's ironic. Women had to suffer ejection from authority, denial of formal education, denial of entry to professions, being treated as tokens to cement family/national ties, loss/negation of citizenship, loss of franchise, inability to hold real property, inability to bring suit, & a thousand & one additional insults & injuries for ages. & yet a man's toe is pinched, & he threatens to take his ball & go home.

You'll excuse me if I don't see any parity in these sets of conditions. The inequities in law you see are biological. So either work to remedy/change the biological facts, or work to change the law. (I think it's much more feasible to rework the biological facts, myself; but it will take decades of hard work & resources.)

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

The argument is and never has been about a man trying to end a pregnancy... that is why it is a weak diversion attempt.

But it is

When a woman ends a pregnancy, their is no baby at the end of tunnel so to speak. There is no baby whose rights become paramount over the mother and father.

When you suggest for the man to be able to end any financial responsibilities, (ie Male Abortion) at the end of the tunnel their is a baby. That baby has rights once it is born, that are paramount over the mother and father

There are two HUGE biological differences

1. Women do get pregnant, and men do not.

2. When women have an abortion, no baby is eventually born. If men were to "abort" their parental status, a baby would still be born

 

[Bodi]

considering how few can be adequately provided for, on the kinds of income and buying power of in our jobs, these days, I think your point is pretty mute. When a single parent works there is a real hole in that economy because someone else has to provide care and wants money to do so, and we long ago stopped providing income levels that allowed for even one member of a married couple to stay at home.

If you don't want to pay child support, then just find someone else who will so that the taxpayer is less likely too. Your issue of 'fairness' should not be visited on the child or me. Coitus can cost a lot of money and I know that I did not get any enjoyment out of your experience two or twelve years ago.

You have it backwards... The issue is visited on the people by the woman...

 

[Bodi]

Re: & now for a word from our founders

Originally Posted by southwest88
Nope, didn't say that. I noted that in all the history of men being favored by family/birth law (& why not? They wrote all the laws, once women were purged from positions of authority.) there was no record, TMK, of men protesting the inequity.

end quote/



No, I think it's ironic. Women had to suffer ejection from authority, denial of formal education, denial of entry to professions, being treated as tokens to cement family/national ties, loss/negation of citizenship, loss of franchise, inability to hold real property, inability to bring suit, & a thousand & one additional insults & injuries for ages. & yet a man's toe is pinched, & he threatens to take his ball & go home.

Are women in America facing any of those problems today? No? Then you have no point.

 

[Bodi]

But it is

When a woman ends a pregnancy, their is no baby at the end of tunnel so to speak. There is no baby whose rights become paramount over the mother and father.

When you suggest for the man to be able to end any financial responsibilities, (ie Male Abortion) at the end of the tunnel their is a baby. That baby has rights once it is born, that are paramount over the mother and father

There are two HUGE biological differences

1. Women do get pregnant, and men do not.

2. When women have an abortion, no baby is eventually born. If men were to "abort" their parental status, a baby would still be born

...not if she was responsible, there wouldn't.

 

[trouble13]

Re: & now for a word from our founders

Originally Posted by southwest88
Nope, didn't say that. I noted that in all the history of men being favored by family/birth law (& why not? They wrote all the laws, once women were purged from positions of authority.) there was no record, TMK, of men protesting the inequity.

end quote/



No, I think it's ironic. Women had to suffer ejection from authority, denial of formal education, denial of entry to professions, being treated as tokens to cement family/national ties, loss/negation of citizenship, loss of franchise, inability to hold real property, inability to bring suit, & a thousand & one additional insults & injuries for ages. & yet a man's toe is pinched, & he threatens to take his ball & go home.

You'll excuse me if I don't see any parity in these sets of conditions. The inequities in law you see are biological. So either work to remedy/change the biological facts, or work to change the law. (I think it's much more feasible to rework the biological facts, myself; but it will take decades of hard work & resources.)

Your lack of respect toward and your attempts to shame them is blatantly obvious. What it is not is impressing me in the least bit nor is it persuasive. The number of men not coming to the table where a bad deal is being offered to them is growing. What women are learning is that the less men interested in being fathers or providers, the more of the burden they get the privilege of shouldering on their own.

The real irony in this is the groups that promote male abuse are feeling the negative effects of men opting out. Women cant find suitable mates. The gov cant tsx working age males that are not working or contributing to SS which only sustains itself by having a population growth from one generation to the next. Even the prolife crowd who claims they believe in promoting strong family values are not getting what they want either. Everyone is paying the price of men being on strike.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[btthegreat]

You have it backwards... The issue is visited on the people by the woman...

It is visited on us by people who will not pay to support their own kids. If Dad is one of those people, then Dad visits this problem on us and the child.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

...not if she was responsible, there wouldn't.

It takes two to tango in the process of someone getting pregnant (well not always with sperm donors being around)

 

[Bodi]

It is visited on us by people who will not pay to support their own kids. If Dad is one of those people, then Dad visits this problem on us and the child.

Not really... it is visited on society by the one person that wants to have a baby that can not be properly supported... but has it anyway.

That is the woman.

 

[Bodi]

It takes two to tango in the process of someone getting pregnant (well not always with sperm donors being around)

Only one person has total control on whether a baby will be born or not... and that is the woman.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Re: & now for a word from our founders

Your lack of respect toward and your attempts to shame them is blatantly obvious. What it is not is impressing me in the least bit nor is it persuasive. The number of men not coming to the table where a bad deal is being offered to them is growing. What women are learning is that the less men interested in being fathers or providers, the more of the burden they get the privilege of shouldering on their own.

The real irony in this is the groups that promote male abuse are feeling the negative effects of men opting out. Women cant find suitable mates. The gov cant tsx working age males that are not working or contributing to SS which only sustains itself by having a population growth from one generation to the next. Even the prolife crowd who claims they believe in promoting strong family values are not getting what they want either. Everyone is paying the price of men being on strike.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Men going on strike?

So men are going on strike against woman, which then the men go to their parents basement and play video games all day long while complaining that they cant get laid to other men on strike who cant get laid?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Only one person has total control on whether a baby will be born or not... and that is the woman.

Now why is that?

Biology. They are the ones that get pregnant,