Male Post-Conception Opt Out

[year2late]

I dont deny that pregnancy can pose a health risk to women. Womens health isnt what we are discussing. Some people are trying to conflate the issue of allowing men to opt out of fatherhood prebirth with womens health. If i got you pregnant and opted out of fatherhood that would have no bearing on the health risks of the pregnancy.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Whether you take an active role in your child's life is up to you.

But you may be legally obligated to support it.

As a taxpayer, I want both parents paying before that child is able to access public welfare.

 

[trouble13]

First off we are talking legality, not biology.

Secondly, the woman can only terminate the ZEF if it is in her body. It can still be biologically hers, but if it isn't in her body, she can't terminate it. Thus her right is not one of the ZEF termination. The ZEF termination is the result of a different right, not a right in and of itself. The right of bodily autonomy, which is the one exercised, does not differentiate what is in the body for the person to excise. You have as much of a right to expell a ZEF out of your body, as a woman does to expell a ZEF out of her body. The woman has no legal option to relieve herself of future liability of a child of hers that is not in her body. And yes it is possible. I have repeatedly provided the examples.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

Your going into impossible extremes tking about a man has the same legsl right to do something thats medically impossible. If thats the hill you want to rest your laurels on so be it. If your happy with the law great. The men who are not will keep continue disengsging and advising younger men to do the same. Pretty soon it wont be a debate because there wont be any zefs fates to argue over.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

You are under the misimpression that the ones that are withdrawing are the assholes.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

It's what the women think of them that actually matters...if they are assholes or not.

 

[Lursa]

I really do wish that you would stop listing those as options. She cannot choose to have a miscarriage, nor can she choose to die due to the pregnancy/childbirth. Well outside of her choice of what life-saving actions she will accept but that is separate from the pregnancy/childbirth related injury. In reality she has only two pre birth options. End the pregnancy or attempt to take it to term.

That being said, based on what the OP posted, she loses no rights and no options. All four of those possibilities still exist for the woman. Nothing changes for her.

Mind you he is wrong on his premises. The laws are equal, unless you falsely conflate two different things as he has done. If somehow a man gets pregnant, the laws would allow him to get an abortion and not need the other parent's permission.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

I agree that 'options' implies choice...I'll choose differently in the future. It's a list of the consequences.

And she loses no rights...but can lose her life, her health, her future, etc.

He however, loses no rights in any case either.

 

[maquiscat]

Your going into impossible extremes tking about a man has the same legsl right to do something thats medically impossible. If thats the hill you want to rest your laurels on so be it. If your happy with the law great. The men who are not will keep continue disengsging and advising younger men to do the same. Pretty soon it wont be a debate because there wont be any zefs fates to argue over.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

What is it from that post that is medically impossible?

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

It feels like your policy will encourage women to have abortions. Before this happens, we need to wipe away all the state laws that restrict abortions to allow women to have abortions freely. I'd also make abortions and paternity tests free to make this process as smooth as possible. We should also make both male and female birth control and plan B free and easily available to prevent these situations from occurring.

That's the idea, the "hope". To encourage women to have abortions so that the men dont have to pay child support.

Good post.

 

[Lursa]

No, what he's saying is that women already have a choice to opt out. Why can't a man have a choice to opt out? It seems fair to me. A man should be able to say it's not the right time for him to be a father, and he can't afford it, so he's out. Then the woman decides whatever she wants. This is how it should be handled, assuming everybody has equal rights.

YOu've seen all this before.

Because if the parties actually responsible arent held accountable, then the taxpayers are. And we didnt create the kid, so why should we pay even more when we're already paying for the kids who have no parents, or are in foster care, etc etc etc?

Why shouldnt both be held accountable for a risk they knowingly took?

 

[Lursa]

I get it you have a low opinion of men and therefor you think it entitles the law to abuse men. Youve been clear on that throughout the discussion. I dont share your views which i have also been clear about. I respect mens right to greely choose if they want to be fathers or not.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

If you feel that child support laws 'abuse' men...how do you justify the abuse of the taxpayers, to whom the $$$ support would then fall to? We didnt knowingly take a risk that could lead to child support...why should we pay even more than we already do?

Please explain how, if it's 'abuse' for men, how it's not 'abuse' of the taxpayers? If Bod's ridiculous opt-out were allowed, then almost ALL men would do so and leave the women on their own. (We're discussing couples that arent in committed relationships) That would be hundreds of thousands of cases...all adding up for the taxpayers.

Why do you think they created laws for child support to begin with? :doh

 

[maquiscat]

I agree that 'options' implies choice...I'll choose differently in the future. It's a list of the consequences.

And she loses no rights...but can lose her life, her health, her future, etc.

He however, loses no rights in any case either.

Their premise is that the man is already missing a right. And quite honestly, the OP is at least running logically from that premise, flawed as it is, which is more than I can say for those with arguments that run all over the place. So any argument talking about a loss of a woman's right as response to the OP premise is a strawman. Her risk and possible consequences are the same regardless of whether the man gets an "opt out" or not.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

I would argued that the laws as written are unfair and they are slso applied unequally. Both are ptoblems that need correcting.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

The laws are equal as written and if you dont like how they are applied...figure out why the mostly male judges are not applying them equally. But dont blame either of those things on women.

 

[Lursa]

Their premise is that the man is already missing a right. And quite honestly, the OP is at least running logically from that premise, flawed as it is, which is more than I can say for those with arguments that run all over the place. So any argument talking about a loss of a woman's right as response to the OP premise is a strawman. Her risk and possible consequences are the same regardless of whether the man gets an "opt out" or not.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

True about her risks and consequences, but the point is...she must accept that when she has sex.

And here we have men, knowingly taking a risk, knowing it might lead to pregnancy, who THEN want to escape consequences if there is a pregnancy.

That is the difference.

Men have every opportunity to avoid involuntary parenthood...they just dont like 'when' they have to make that choice.

 

[Waddy]

YOu've seen all this before.

Because if the parties actually responsible arent held accountable, then the taxpayers are. And we didnt create the kid, so why should we pay even more when we're already paying for the kids who have no parents, or are in foster care, etc etc etc?

Why shouldnt both be held accountable for a risk they knowingly took?

How is the woman being held accountable? First, she gets to decide if she has the baby or not, and she can have it even if she can't afford it and knows she and the baby will forever be on welfare. She has the power to force a man to support the child, and failing that depend on the taxpayer for support. How is this being "accountable"?

She has choices. In an equal society soon after conception a man should be able to say he doesn't want to support a child. Opt out. Have a choice. Then she can decide if she wants to raise the child on her own, or decide not to. This way both man and woman has a choice. Nobody is forced to do anything.

 

[trouble13]

What is it from that post that is medically impossible?

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

You have pointed out a fee times that if the male were pregnant the law would be applied as unfairly to the woman as it is to the man therefore you argue the law is equal. Unless im missunderstanding something?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

How is the woman being held accountable? First, she gets to decide if she has the baby or not, and she can have it even if she can't afford it and knows she and the baby will forever be on welfare. She has the power to force a man to support the child, and failing that depend on the taxpayer for support. How is this being "accountable"?

She has choices. In an equal society soon after conception a man should be able to say he doesn't want to support a child. Opt out. Have a choice. Then she can decide if she wants to raise the child on her own, or decide not to. This way both man and woman has a choice. Nobody is forced to do anything.

From post 581:

No woman who gets pregnant can escape consequences:

Of course. I have always acknowledged that.

And if she get's pregnant, she cannot escape consequences...while men can.

She has only 4 outcomes:

--have a kid
--have a miscarriage
--have an abortion
--die during pregnancy/childbirth

And she may die or suffer severe health damage during the first 3 too. Men get out of consequences in all but the first.

If people dont 'like' that biology determines her choices are different, that's too bad...it doesnt change reality.

If people dont like that they cant *decide* which consequences they can force on women...that's too bad too.

But no woman that gets pregnant escapes consequences. Most men do.​

She is held accountable...other people just dont get to decide how for their own convenience or beliefs.

And of course the opt-out is ridiculous and 'not fair'....it's not fair to the taxpayers who would end up paying even more. Why should the taxpayers pay when both parties knowingly took that risk?

And why do you think we have child support laws to begin with? If most men were willing to be held accountable for their choice to have sex, they wouldnt have had to create those laws in the first place :doh

What on earth do you think would compel the courts to reverse this? :roll: The need, and the laws on behalf of the child and the taxpayers, have not "disappeared."

 

[Lursa]

You have pointed out a fee times that if the male were pregnant the law would be applied as unfairly to the woman as it is to the man therefore you argue the law is equal. Unless im missunderstanding something?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

No...the law would be applied 'as fairly/equally.'

And I think that's exactly right.

 

[trouble13]

If you feel that child support laws 'abuse' men...how do you justify the abuse of the taxpayers, to whom the $$$ support would then fall to? We didnt knowingly take a risk that could lead to child support...why should we pay even more than we already do?

Please explain how, if it's 'abuse' for men, how it's not 'abuse' of the taxpayers? If Bod's ridiculous opt-out were allowed, then almost ALL men would do so and leave the women on their own. (We're discussing couples that arent in committed relationships) That would be hundreds of thousands of cases...all adding up for the taxpayers.

Why do you think they created laws for child support to begin with? :doh

Lursa ive heard all these arguments from you before. Its clear that you know the laws are lopsided and you like them that way. You think its fair to hold men accountable with the only garunteed alternative for them to avoid the situation is castration. You probably do not feel the consequences of your attitude if your past the age of being able to birth but the younger generations of women who do want to be mothers are finding it difficult to find men interested in that too. The message to men hs been sent loud an clear to men, if you dont want to risk being put into servitude avoid women. Im sure future generations will look fondly on what they inherited from people like yourself.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

Lursa ive heard all these arguments from you before. Its clear that you know the laws are lopsided and you like them that way. You think its fair to hold men accountable with the only garunteed alternative for them to avoid the situation is castration. You probably do not feel the consequences of your attitude if your past the age of being able to birth but the younger generations of women who do want to be mothers are finding it difficult to find men interested in that too. The message to men hs been sent loud an clear to men, if you dont want to risk being put into servitude avoid women. Im sure future generations will look fondly on what they inherited from people like yourself.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

The laws are equal as applied to any child. There is no law that makes what you want 'equal.' If you have a solution that doesnt penalize the child or the taxpayers, I'm all 'ears.'

You have gone into hyperbole mode to invent a 'position' for me that does not exist but only serves your failure to support your own perspective.

And I've seen no data to support your claim that women are having problems finding men, if they choose to. So can that BS. It's silly. And what do you care? If women go without a man...why do you care?

Any man that believes women are out to dominate and abuse them, any men that are grasping at victimization to excuse their failures with women...well, women are better off without them.

 

[Lursa]

Lursa ive heard all these arguments from you before.

Btw, I've never seen anyone describe child support as 'abuse' before, so you havent seen that response before.

And I notice you avoided answering my direct question like the plague. Why is that?

Try again?

If you feel that child support laws 'abuse' men...how do you justify the abuse of the taxpayers, to whom the $$$ support would then fall to? We didnt knowingly take a risk that could lead to child support...why should we pay even more than we already do?

Please explain how, if it's 'abuse' for men, how it's not 'abuse' of the taxpayers?

 

[trouble13]

The laws are equal as written and if you dont like how they are applied...figure out why the mostly male judges are not applying them equally. But dont blame either of those things on women.

I dont need to figure anything out. Those male judges exist within misandrist culture that permits women to behave selfishly but not men. Its not that complicated. It may of worked out in past generations for the mysandrists but future generations of men are increasingly becoming aware of the toxicity of the bigotry directed at them and they are tsking more defensive approaches to how the live.
Men dont envy men with a pretty wife at their side anymore. Now we think they are nuts for placing themselves in such a vulnerable position. Men dont view being in a committed relationship as a socially desirable thing anymore.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

No...the law would be applied 'as fairly/equally.'

And I think that's exactly right.

I know you do


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

I dont need to figure anything out. Those male judges exist within misandrist culture that permits women to behave selfishly but not men. Its not that complicated. It may of worked out in past generations for the mysandrists but future generations of men are increasingly becoming aware of the toxicity of the bigotry directed at them and they are tsking more defensive approaches to how the live.
Men dont envy men with a pretty wife at their side anymore. Now we think they are nuts for placing themselves in such a vulnerable position. Men dont view being in a committed relationship as a socially desirable thing anymore.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

So how are you blaming women and people like me that believe that the laws should be applied equally? (I bolded your silly, unsupported, convenient statement tho. But it's not remotely valid without some sources.)

And who cares what some men consider? Again, how are women not better off without such men?

 

[Lursa]

Lursa ive heard all these arguments from you before. Its clear that you know the laws are lopsided and you like them that way.

Never got an answer to this one either:

Why do you think they created laws for child support to begin with? :doh

 

[Waddy]

From post 581:

No woman who gets pregnant can escape consequences:

Of course. I have always acknowledged that.

And if she get's pregnant, she cannot escape consequences...while men can.

She has only 4 outcomes:

--have a kid
--have a miscarriage
--have an abortion
--die during pregnancy/childbirth

And she may die or suffer severe health damage during the first 3 too. Men get out of consequences in all but the first.

If people dont 'like' that biology determines her choices are different, that's too bad...it doesnt change reality.

If people dont like that they cant *decide* which consequences they can force on women...that's too bad too.

But no woman that gets pregnant escapes consequences. Most men do.​

She is held accountable...other people just dont get to decide how for their own convenience or beliefs.

And of course the opt-out is ridiculous and 'not fair'....it's not fair to the taxpayers who would end up paying even more. Why should the taxpayers pay when both parties knowingly took that risk?

And why do you think we have child support laws to begin with? If most men were willing to be held accountable for their choice to have sex, they wouldnt have had to create those laws in the first place :doh

What on earth do you think would compel the courts to reverse this? :roll: The need, and the laws on behalf of the child and the taxpayers, have not "disappeared."

Consequences and accountability are two different things. Men should have the choice to opt out. Then women can make their decision. Simple and fair.

 

[Lursa]

Consequences and accountability are two different things. Men should have the choice to opt out. Then women can make their decision. Simple and fair.

No they're not. Not as applied here. As I wrote, you just dont like that biology has determined different consequences/accountability for women and that others have no control over which a woman deals with.

And it's not remotely simple and fair if the taxpayers have to take up their slack.

Your response is the discussion equivalent of 'na huh!'

 

[trouble13]

The laws are equal as applied to any child. There is no law that makes what you want 'equal.' If you have a solution that doesnt penalize the child or the taxpayers, I'm all 'ears.'

You have gone into hyperbole mode to invent a 'position' for me that does not exist but only serves your failure to support your own perspective.

And I've seen no data to support your claim that women are having problems finding men, if they choose to. So can that BS. It's silly. And what do you care? If women go without a man...why do you care?

Any man that believes women are out to dominate and abuse them, any men that are grasping at victimization to excuse their failures with women...well, women are better off without them.

If you have not seen any data its because your not looking. Theres plenty out there. Heres one link that im guessing you will ignore.

Is a Shortage of Desirable Men to Blame for Fewer Marriages? | Psychology Today

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk