Male Post-Conception Opt Out

[Peter King]

That is far more equal than forcing a man to pay for a woman's choice... he gets no choice but in my scenario... she gets a choice.

She gets a choice because it is her body and her medical decision. Men have the same right to make medical decisions about their body during the pregnancy.

His choice ended when she got pregnant by him. He has no right to refuse his financial duties to the child.

Oh bull****. If you are gonna pull out the bull**** misogyny card we can just stop talking to each other right now.

OK, here is a non-misogonistic solution, she has the child and hands it over to him and she pays him to look after the child. And I cannot help it that your idea is very bad for women and even more horrible for the child.

 

[Peter King]

The unborn have no rights...

I was talking about a child, not a ZEF/unborn.

 

[maquiscat]

Re: Bad definitions

The problem is that the courts have shown a reluctancy to awarding primary custody to men. In tesponse to this men have not been as eager to take on more work for greater pay knowing that the state is going to seize it from them.

This is going to depend upon the state. When my 4 kids went to live with my aunt and uncle, both my then wife and soon to be ex were assessed for child support. While my amount never went down as the children aged out, neither did the amount increase as my pay did. And I called in to report the increase for the first few years, until they told me it was not going to change up or down. So this isn't a universal deterrent.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

There is no imbalance really. Women have the right to make medical decisions about their body. Men do not get pregnant but also have the right to make medical decisions about their body. There is no imbalance, both have equal rights to their own body.

This is about when a child comes from a pregnancy between 2 people, both have equal responsibility towards that child. So there really is no imbalance.

I did use the phrase supposed imbalance. Overall I think we're on the same page. But a lot of folks are making strawman arguments of her abortion rights and what they are and the OP is not proposing anything that negates those rights.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

Well, I disagree, giving men the right to disavow any financial responsibility creates a situation in women who would not want to have an abortion but also cannot by themselves pay for that child, well that gives them a lot of options which all are bad. One of them is being semi forced into having an abortion after all because the man is a rotten individual IMO.

And I disagree with you views about my points 2 and 3.

Plenty of women get state aid, whether or not the father is known. So financial is not a pressure to abort. Not to mention adoption is an option if they don't want to abort. Presence or lack of a father, financially speaking, isn't going to influence abortion over adoption.



Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

If you are forced due to the financial situation to give up a child, well than it is not her free choice. Also there is more between heaven and earth than the law.

Just because you feel forced to do something, it doesn't mean you are. You are talking about something that is a subjective view and that can have no place in law.

And it almost never is advantageous for a child that was given up for adoption. Many children have a lot of trouble with the notion of being adopted.

It could be advantageous to the mother. Whether it is advantageous to the child is another matter and not universal. A child is certainly at more of an advantage with a potential for good parents instead of known abusive bio parents. But for the purposes of this thread we are talking about the parents and their responsibilities.

And I never said it hindered her ability to make a choice, it can force her to make choices she does not really want to make. That is the issue.

No more so than any other potential influence. If he is a known abuser, and looks forward to the child, she may still feel forced to abort rather than chance the courts giving the father access. But she still isn't actually forced.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

That is nonsense of course, if a man refuses to pay his way for his child, she has just a few choices and one of them is an abortion against her wishes.

Yeah, tell me who is going to pay for that child? The government? The mother who cannot afford to pay for it alone? The magic money fairies?

Her choices don't change. Every choice that is there for a man who would pay is there for a man who won't pay. She might not make the same decision in the two cases, or she might. But no one is forcing her in either direction. That is a factual statement. Even in the case of a parent who tells their pregnant 18 yo (we'll keep it among the adults) still living at home, either abort or we kick you out, still gets to choose to abort or not.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Re: Bad definitions

This is going to depend upon the state. When my 4 kids went to live with my aunt and uncle, both my then wife and soon to be ex were assessed for child support. While my amount never went down as the children aged out, neither did the amount increase as my pay did. And I called in to report the increase for the first few years, until they told me it was not going to change up or down. So this isn't a universal deterrent.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

Ive never heard of that but i will take your word for it. I do know when there is a change in income in states that do sllow adjustments it requires a judges order.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

They should have the right to opt out if the woman obstructs visitation or perpetrates child alienation. Feminism is all about women escaping accountability.

They have legal recourse if the woman stops them from legally-demanded visitation, etc.

and your last sentence is just another whine about some imagined men's victimization. Hard to respect such abdication of individual self-determination in the face of equal behavior from women.

 

[SDET]

I will explain that to you: The women's rights market is saturated, even with untold Federal dollars. As a men's rights advocate, I'm getting in on the ground floor of a great opportunity.

They have legal recourse if the woman stops them from legally-demanded visitation, etc.

and your last sentence is just another whine about some imagined men's victimization. Hard to respect such abdication of individual self-determination in the face of equal behavior from women.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Bad definitions

Nice try, but you're dodging the question by hiding behind legal lingo. This isn't a legal debate. Whether or not you agree that a fetus has rights is irrelevant. The fact is that abortion strips a fetus away from the chance to be born and enjoy life. It ends a human heartbeat and destroys a life - whether that life is recognised by the law is irrelevant. It's still unfair on the child who loses their chance to live life.

So in one instance you're happy to let the child die if it suits female parent, but when it comes down to the convenience of the male parent, your attitude does a complete 180 and turns into "tough luck, that child deserves to be treated fairly so pay up!"

That's the definition of a double standard.

??? The entire OP is about legal standards, equality, and rights :doh

 

[Lursa]

Women have all the reproductive power and control. Nature made it that way, and men hate them for it. That's why we see threads like this one, where men try to logic their way out of taking responsibility for children. It's why men have tried desperately to control and subjugate women for centuries. The fact is, abortions carry real medical risk. You can't give women a legal ultimatum where they have to choose between a life of severe hardship as a single mother vs. undergoing a medical procedure that carries risk to her person. That's not a fair choice. Abortions are about her choice, not about a man leveraging her with "no guarantees".

The reverse is also true... men who say they'll stick around and form a family, but then take off after it's too late for an abortion. Should they get to opt out too?

This topic is absurd. Children matter more than men who complain that their sperm turned into offspring. Either the two parents responsible pay for the child, or the tax payer does. I'm not footing the bill for your creation. It's your responsibility. If you don't want to do any actual parenting, fine... but human economy is a real thing and we should not have to allocate resources on your behalf.

Men need to get over the fact that women have disproportionate power over reproduction. One way they can do that is by protecting themselves from becoming fathers when they don't want to be, by controlling where their sperm does or doesn't go.

:applaud:applaud

Excellent post. And myself and others have written the bold many times and it is completely rejected out-of-hand. Because men still believe that they are entitled to sex without consequences. That is no longer reality...and some men are having a tough time adapting.

Men do have ALL the power they need to avoid unwanted parenthood, yet some refuse to consider this because it means they'd probably have less sex. They are willing to risk sex...and then want to avoid the consequences of that decision....but heaven forbid they dont have sex! :roll:

Men are no longer entitled to sex without consequences, yet women are not, have never been.

Now, it seems 100% equal to me.

 

[Lursa]

Right the woman made the choice for both her and the man but you assign blame onto the male for taxpayers burden of providing wepfare when he had 0 choice on the matter

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Nope...the man knows very well that she has all the power over that decision BEFORE he has sex. Are you claiming men are incapable of controlling themselves and cannot make a good decision in their own interests?

 

[Lursa]

Logic point. A donation implies that the giver is no longer responsible for the item donated, and that the receiver is fully responsible.

Thus, logically, a man is no longer responsible for what results from the woman's use of the sperm.

Keep in mind what my position has been over the course of this topic. I am countering only this specific argument here.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

So then women should be able to withhold children from men that they do produce? Never let them see them? In divorces, breakups, etc?

 

[SDET]

Sex has been the bait to get financial resources out of men. Now the game is to get the financial resources without giving the sex. It other words, you're leaving the engine off that train. More and more men are getting wise the the Western women's game of Three Card Monte and not putting their money down.

:applaud:applaud

Excellent post. And myself and others have written the bold many times and it is completely rejected out-of-hand. Because men still believe that they are entitled to sex without consequences. That is no longer reality...and some men are having a tough time adapting.

Men do have ALL the power they need to avoid unwanted parenthood, yet some refuse to consider this because it means they'd probably have less sex. They are willing to risk sex...and then want to avoid the consequences of that decision....but heaven forbid they dont have sex! :roll:

Men are no longer entitled to sex without consequences, yet women are not, have never been.

Now, it seems 100% equal to me.

 

[Lursa]

My oh my theres a lot to unwrap here.
You start off by dismissing men being victimized because by your estimation t does not happen frequently enough for it to matter to you.

That all by itself is more than a little bit offensive but you continue in the next sentence by expressing your outrage that women are forced to allow men who they had nonconsensual sex with to have relationships with their children. I might be empathetic to that position if the courts were not awarding custody and support to women who rape men or use their sperm without consent. A n injustice which you shrugged off in your first sentence.

Then you whine about a few rights that men who are not worthy in your eyes do get. You end your post with a smug and flippant bit of misandry expressing your belief that men need sex more than women. The implication being that women hold a superior position of power because they csn leverage men through sex. Which is total horsecrap, both men and women enjoy sex and its not as important to men as you seem to think it is. Have fun clinging to that stereotype.

The viewpoint you expressed is shallow, ignorant, and bigoted. A decent humam being would take some self relection time to reevaluate things. I hope you are a decent person.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Do you have an argument?

Your example is about a crime. I have no problem if the courts decide to prevent them from being held liable for child support. None whatsoever. I also disagree with laws that force divorced men to pay child support for kids that they didnt father (the wife had the kid by another man, "father" didnt know). I'm all for such laws being reversed.

But normal sex and reproduction and child support? They're all regular activities and common. And everyone knows how they work. If men risk pregnancy just to have sex...then they may win or lose in that gamble. But they certainly are aware of the risk and the state will rightfully hold them accountable.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Mazel tov!

That's determined by biology, not law. The law cant make it 'equal,' if it could, then men would also get pregnant.

Since men KNOW they cant decide 'after' the act...please explain why they cant protect themselves and decide before they have sex with the woman? They have 100% control over that...to avoid unwanted parenthood. Why dont they do what's in their own best interests? Are you claiming men are incapable of protecting themselves?

Theres a certain level of insincerity in what you're posting. You say men know the consequences and they should weigh them out, which many are doing, but you also operate off the stereotype that men are slaves to their libidos. You're telling men they should make a choice that you dont believe they are capable of making as a means to justify you defense of misandrist laws. I can see why people have called you dishonest in this thread.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

No, dont lie. I'm asking YOU if you believe that about men and their libidos. And I see you dont answer.

Nowhere am I insincere, you are just trying to use that to undermine my post. And nowhere do I claim that men cant control themselves. I write that I believe 100% that they are. I'm asking YOU *why* they dont exercise that control to protect themselves from unwanted fatherhood.

Can you answer now?

 

[SDET]

Re: Mazel tov!

I will answer: A vasectomy is a life changing decision. It's interesting that the left fights for the sexual freedom for everybody except heterosexual men.

No, dont lie. I'm asking YOU if you believe that about men and their libidos. And I see you dont answer.

Nowhere am I insincere, you are just trying to use that to undermine my post. And nowhere do I claim that men cant control themselves. I write that I believe 100% that they are. I'm asking YOU *why* they dont exercise that control to protect themselves from unwanted fatherhood.

Can you answer now?

 

[Lursa]

I will explain that to you: The women's rights market is saturated, even with untold Federal dollars. As a men's rights advocate, I'm getting in on the ground floor of a great opportunity.

Please give examples, sourced, of the bold. It makes no sense to me.

 

[Lursa]

Sex has been the bait to get financial resources out of men. Now the game is to get the financial resources without giving the sex. It other words, you're leaving the engine off that train. More and more men are getting wise the the Western women's game of Three Card Monte and not putting their money down.

We've been over this. How stupid are you implying men are? If men are that stupid, instead of developing healthy, respectful relationships, that's their problem.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Mazel tov!

I will answer: A vasectomy is a life changing decision. It's interesting that the left fights for the sexual freedom for everybody except heterosexual men.

That's not an answer. If it was, this wouldnt even be the topic of an OP. It's a solution that not nearly enough men take.

This is the actual question:

I'm asking YOU *why* they dont exercise that control to protect themselves from unwanted fatherhood?

What is your answer? Obviously, vasectomy is NOT, not for most men.

 

[trouble13]

Nope...the man knows very well that she has all the power over that decision BEFORE he has sex. Are you claiming men are incapable of controlling themselves and cannot make a good decision in their own interests?

You all better hope both Ginsburg and Breyer can outlast Trump because if he gets 2 more seats on the bench there is a strong possibility that the prolife crowd will get abortions massively restricted and if that happens and people like yourself are whining about women loosing their rights. I will be sure to return the same condescending smug response to you. Women know the laws regarding abortions before they have sex therefore they need to STFU about it not being fair.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Do you have an argument?

Your example is about a crime. I have no problem if the courts decide to prevent them from being held liable for child support. None whatsoever. I also disagree with laws that force divorced men to pay child support for kids that they didnt father (the wife had the kid by another man, "father" didnt know). I'm all for such laws being reversed.

But normal sex and reproduction and child support? They're all regular activities and common. And everyone knows how they work. If men risk pregnancy just to have sex...then they may win or lose in that gamble. But they certainly are aware of the risk and the state will rightfully hold them accountable.

Thats somewhat reasonable and if the courts made those type of distinctions i would have less objections to the current laws but thats not the case.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[SDET]

Obviously, it would mean an extensive list of women's rights advocacy organizations and resources. You're asking me to count grains of sand on a beach. Men's rights is an area in need. Women are "covered" when it comes to finding advocates.

Please give examples, sourced, of the bold. It makes no sense to me.

 

[maquiscat]

Re: Bad definitions

Ive never heard of that but i will take your word for it. I do know when there is a change in income in states that do sllow adjustments it requires a judges order.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

In some cases it requires someone saying something, like the giver wanting to give less, or the receiver wanting more. It doesn't always work like they want, since that usually starts a full review of both parents.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk