• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Post Conception Opt-Out FOR MEN

The biology means the mother is pregnant while the father isn't. No law could balance that fundamental difference and the practical consequence of it.

We aren't talking the biological differences. We are talking financial obligations after the fact. Women give financial reasons as the number one reason for abortion. Just asking men get the same option.
 
I'm not the one who is talking about the safe haven laws (with exception to the one post directed to another person, not you)

Ha, ok. Yeah, I'm not the one insisting that dead women or women without custody MUST know about the single father giving up the offspring. Nor are you. Good point.

I answered. Men make poor, stupid, and foolish choices and get women pregnant.
And should they be held accountable for making those choices, when they know the woman has control over her choices if she gets pregnant? Afterall, they could have said no. So could she...but she didnt...BUt she also didnt force him to sleep with her.



MasksSMx2 - Copy.jpg
 
Sexist: The law that says a man must be financially obligated to a woman's choice. Single motherhood is the new "trapping a man into marriage" routine - just without the marriage. What does that say about "modern" women that wasn't said about the man trapping women of times past? Women give financial reasons as the number one reason they have abortions. Money. Money. Money. She gets to opt out of the financial obligation of a child - so should the man. That isn't about abortion - it's about equality. You'd think a woman in such a precarious state of financial destitution wouldn't ever get near the risk of an unintended pregnancy.

As for holding men exclusively accountable? Because it's okay to slam men for making poor, stupid, and foolish choices? Is that what you want to hear? Equality can't be bantered around and parsed out to suit one side or the other when the mood fits and still be called "equal". Women choose money over their baby for their poor, stupid, and foolish choices - men should be allowed to do the same. I agree, any man who would have casual sex with a woman these days is stupid - just because of the nature of today's "modern" woman and the duplicity of her beliefs.

Equality is holding both parties equally responsible. She has an opt out choice where her lifestyle and finances can go on unimpeded. So unless you're willing to say no abortions**** and both parties are equally responsible to their offspring - you can't give her an opt out and not a man and call it equal - but then - it's power. not equality. that is desired in the first place. Your unwillingness to even consider that side is a clear indication power is the only consideration. Giving men the same choice would remove her safety net to reckless behavior. That can only be a good thing since it should result in a decrease in pregnancies that would have otherwise resulted in abortions. Minimal unintended pregnancies is a good thing and why I support men's right to choose.

And yes, women have 100% of the power to determine is sex is going to happen in the first place - regardless of how poor, stupid, and foolish a man may be in his sexual choices - hers still trumps his choice. This makes her choices more poor, more stupid, and more foolish than his. With all that power should come some level of responsibility for allowing the sexual contact to continue. She only has to say "no" to any advance a man may make. Otherwise, it's a crime.

If it's okay to slam men for listening to their little head then women can be equally slammed for listening to their nether regions too and using men as human vibrators to quell those region's desires.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over and over - how things are in the hear and now and how that should be abided by at all costs of inequality to men. This thread is supposed to be for talking about making significant changes to the status quo. What do you think will happen if men are given the same choice as women? Do you believe men won't step up to the plate and not make the choice to sever any obligation? If so, Why are women saying "yes" to sex with such men? Are they really only capable of making only poor, stupid, and foolish choices in the men they bed?

****When I say no abortions that doesn't include medical reasons. Abortion is a valid medical procedure that can and does save lives. Medical decisions are made on a daily basis where one person is let so that that another - or more - may live. Unfortunately abortion has been usurped into popular culture as a secondary birth control. Just like reconstructive surgery - a valid medical procedure - was usurped into pop culture to become "plastic" surgery. Abortion is just as plastic and, like actual plastic, it leaves a residue that will never decompose as it pollutes our culture forever.

Holding men accountable financially gives women a safety net. Ever consider that average people don't need safety nets? Safety nets are for people who like to engage in dangerous activities - not the Joe and Jane Schoms who have their feet on the ground. You don't need a safety net unless your life is a circus.
I think you are quite safe from getting any woman, modern or old fashioned, pregnant.
 
Ha, ok. Yeah, I'm not the one insisting that dead women or women without custody MUST know about the single father giving up the offspring. Nor are you. Good point.


And should they be held accountable for making those choices, when they know the woman has control over her choices if she gets pregnant? Afterall, they could have said no. So could she...but she didnt...BUt she also didnt force him to sleep with her.



View attachment 67351327

You're confused, I'm not the one talking about safe haven laws.

But, de facto, women should be held even more accountable for those choices - without her choice to proceed with sex - he doesn't get to make the mistake in the first place. So can we agree they were both stupid? So why make him pay financially for his stupidity when she has the choice not to pay for hers?
 
I think you are quite safe from getting any woman, modern or old fashioned, pregnant.

True, but, as a woman, I'm ashamed for how women behave. It really makes us look bad to have so many always the 'victim" of those wiley ol' men with the ability to coheres women into sex she wouldn't otherwise have and then blame them for her choices.
 
1400+ posts


FACTS
1.) the topic is legal equality
2.) biology is 100% meaningless to the topic of legal equality
3.) legal equality is not based on coercion
4.) legal equality regarding parental rights and legal opt-out options currently does not exist
5.) control over pregnancy/giving birth is 100% meaningless to the topic of legal equality, nobody wants that changed
6.) risks/consequences of pregnancy/birth is 100% meaningless to the topic of legal equality
7.) safe haven laws require the mother permission or a type of condition and are not equal
8.) if you support safe haven laws and or the mother giving up the child for adoption without the fathers consent and you do not support op-out laws for the father that is hypocritical

If anybody disagrees feel free to factually prove otherwise thanks
 
Single fathers can use Safe Haven laws. They have. The point is, the laws apply to both and it's equal. Lying about that is useless. The link I posted even said so.
I am sorry did not see the link and I am not disputing that either parent can use safe heaven laws. My doubt is the use of such laws by either parent without the consent of the other. I am sorry if I did not make that clear.
 
We aren't talking the biological differences. We are talking financial obligations after the fact. Women give financial reasons as the number one reason for abortion. Just asking men get the same option.
There aren't just financial obligations involved. The rights and responsibilities of biological parents are much deeper and wider than that and you can't just split some off.

An abortion isn't just an opt-out, it is a medical procedure. As I keep saying, no law could give the man the same option because the man isn't pregnant. You can argue for the man to have an opt-out of his responsibilities but you can't call that equality.
 
thanks for further proving the facts that it cant be down without the mother.
False.

From the following:




Who May Leave a Baby at a Safe Haven

In most States with safe haven laws, either parent may surrender his or her baby to a safe haven. In four States and Puerto Rico, only the mother may relinquish her infant.5 Idaho specifies that only a custodial parent
may surrender an infant. In the District of Columbia, an infant may be relinquished only by a custodial parent who is a resident of the District. In approximately 11 States, an agent of the parent (someone who has the parent’s approval) may take a baby to a safe haven for a parent.6 In California, Kansas, and New York, if the person relinquishing the infant is someone other than a parent, he or she must have legal custody of the child.
 
False.

From the following:




Who May Leave a Baby at a Safe Haven

In most States with safe haven laws, either parent may surrender his or her baby to a safe haven. In four States and Puerto Rico, only the mother may relinquish her infant.5 Idaho specifies that only a custodial parent
may surrender an infant. In the District of Columbia, an infant may be relinquished only by a custodial parent who is a resident of the District. In approximately 11 States, an agent of the parent (someone who has the parent’s approval) may take a baby to a safe haven for a parent.6 In California, Kansas, and New York, if the person relinquishing the infant is someone other than a parent, he or she must have legal custody of the child.
100% true
everything you just posted further proves the fact it cant be done without the mother or a condition involving her 🤷‍♂️
 
Wear a condom or get a vasectomy?

Or just take responsibility for sowing your seeds of your loins.
You missed the point !
What if A Man could Force a Woman to abort or keep a baby, then could force her to pay for the baby and not be able to see the Baby?

Would you call that Fair and Equal Treatment of the Law? ....

To your point :
For Women would you also say, Get Tubal ligation or just be responsible for sowing your seed! ... ?
 
Lets see if we can break down the facts to make it more clear

1.) baby is born, the father doesn't know
mother can take the baby to a safe haven location
nothing else is needed


2.)baby is born
for the father or anybody else to take the child to a safe haven location

the mother must give them the child/permission
die within a certain amount of time granting somebody else custody (safe haven typically have 30 day or less limits)
custody must be stripped from the mother
etc etc

there's no way to do it without the mothers permission or a condition involving her
 
Of course it can.
Feel free to describe a law that would place a pregnant mother and biological father in exactly equal circumstances with the same legal options. What you describe in the OP doesn't do that.
 
100% true
everything you just posted further proves the fact it cant be done without the mother or a condition involving her 🤷‍♂️

There would be no safe haven laws without a mother as there’s would not be a born child.

But women die during childbirth. Infants are given up to birth fathers or guardians shortly after birth.

Either parent , the father or the mother can give an infant up in 46 states according to safe haven laws in those states.

From the safe Haven link:

Who May Leave a Baby at a Safe Haven

In most States with safe haven laws, either parent may surrender his or her baby to a safe haven.

*Notice it says his or her baby.

It does NOT say their baby,
 
Last edited:
There would be no safe have n laws without a mother as there’s would not be a born child.

But women die during childbirth. Infants are given up to birth fathers or guardians shortly after birth.

Either parent the father or the mother can give an infant up in 46 states according to safe haven laws in those states.

From the safe Haven link:

Who May Leave a Baby at a Safe Haven

In most States with safe haven laws, either parent may surrender his or her baby to a safe haven.

*Notice it says his or her baby.

It does NOT say their baby,

again nothing you posted changes the fact that it cant be done without the mother or a condition of her it just further proves that fact

maybe this will help

1.) baby is born, the father doesn't know
mother can take the baby to a safe haven location
nothing else is needed the mother did it all by herself


2.)baby is born
for the father or anybody else to take the child to a safe haven location

IF
the mother must give them the child/permission
the mother dies within a certain amount of time granting somebody else custody (safe haven typically have 30 day or less limits)
the mother is stripped of custody
etc etc

there's no way to do it without the mother's permission or a condition involving her. I dont know how else to explain this fact
 
Feel free to describe a law that would place a pregnant mother and biological father in exactly equal circumstances with the same legal options. What you describe in the OP doesn't do that.
The only "exact circumstances" that need to be required are that the baby has been conceived and that neither of them want to be a parent and that both have an ability to not be a parent. The OP fully meets this and as such the solution is relevant and realistic.
 
You missed the point !
What if A Man could Force a Woman to abort or keep a baby, then could force her to pay for the baby and not be able to see the Baby?

Would you call that Fair and Equal Treatment of the Law? ....

To your point :
For Women would you also say, Get Tubal ligation or just be responsible for sowing your seed! ... ?
You seem upset by my post. Oh, well.
(BTW, women produce eggs.)
 
You're confused, I'm not the one talking about safe haven laws.

Yes, that's what that meant, are you not even reading clearly anymore: Ha, ok. Yeah, I'm not the one insisting that dead women or women without custody MUST know about the single father giving up the offspring. Nor are you. Good point.
But, de facto, women should be held even more accountable for those choices - without her choice to proceed with sex - he doesn't get to make the mistake in the first place. So can we agree they were both stupid? So why make him pay financially for his stupidity when she has the choice not to pay for hers?
Why more accountable? Again, he doesnt have to sleep with her. She cant get pregnant if he doenst CHOOSE to take that risk. Without him asking her, SHE doenst get to have sex. Sorry, you're not making any point here.

And she pays consequences for her decision (death, miscarriage, a kid, an abortion)...I'm sorry you feel that someone else has the right to tell her which ones. He knows his consequence is financial...if he doenst want that consequence...he should not ask that woman to have sex.

Why should he avoid consequences when she cant? She pays for her 'stupidity' one way or another. Why shouldnt he?



MasksSMx2 - Copy.jpg
 
True, but, as a woman, I'm ashamed for how women behave. It really makes us look bad to have so many always the 'victim" of those wiley ol' men with the ability to coheres women into sex she wouldn't otherwise have and then blame them for her choices.
I've posted similarly before, I feel the same way somewhat...I cant imagine being careless about birth control. For 13 yrs we had A LOT of sex but we were committed to not having kids and never once had sex without bc. I cant believe women can be that careless or just not care. But they are and men know it and are capable of protecting themselves, even if it means not having sex with that woman. Complaining about something that cannot be controlled is useless. The complaints arent going to change human nature.



MasksSMx2 - Copy.webp
 
There would be no safe haven laws without a mother as there’s would not be a born child.

But women die during childbirth. Infants are given up to birth fathers or guardians shortly after birth.

Either parent , the father or the mother can give an infant up in 46 states according to safe haven laws in those states.

From the safe Haven link:

Who May Leave a Baby at a Safe Haven

In most States with safe haven laws, either parent may surrender his or her baby to a safe haven.

*Notice it says his or her baby.

It does NOT say their baby,
I know...it's ludicrous...his statements of "fact" are garbage. Factually a man could give up a kid if the mother is dead. Factually he could do so if he had custody and did it behind her back (just like they're saying women can do).

Imagine a dad who's wife is a drug addict and mostly lives on the streets. If he cant care for the child, he can take it and use the Safe Haven law so it will get proper care....and the mother knows nothing and is not involved.

AJ's use of 'fact' is fast and loose and not always founded in reality.



MasksSMx2 - Copy.jpg
 
I know...it's ludicrous...his statements of "fact" are garbage. Factually a man could give up a kid if the mother is dead. Factually he could do so if he had custody and did it behind her back (just like they're saying women can do).

Imagine a dad who's wife is a drug addict and mostly lives on the streets. If he cant care for the child, he can take it and use the Safe Haven law so it will get proper care....and the mother knows nothing and is not involved.

AJ's use of 'fact' is fast and loose and not always founded in reality.
Thanks for proving me factually right again!!!

EVERYTHING you just listed would require the mother's permission or a condition of the mother LMAO
facts win and your lies get destroyed again, wow that was too easy!

Disagree? prove otherwise, you won't cause you cant
😂 🍿
 
wow, that's totally wrong. She cannot escape consequences if she gets pregnant. that is 100% fact. The bolded sentence proves it. Edit: and remember, she knows all this before having sex. She knows the options/conseq.

So the choices are ALL consequences...and some arent even a choice. Actions dont exclude consequences when consequences are the only action/choice there is.

IF you keep going down that logic path, then every choice is a consequence of something else, thus having sex is a consequence of something. But I don't buy that. Options are options, not consequences. Same with choices. What choices or options are available might be considered a consequence of something, but the choice made is not a consequence. The choice made produces consequences.
 
IF you keep going down that logic path, then every choice is a consequence of something else, thus having sex is a consequence of something. But I don't buy that. Options are options, not consequences. Same with choices. What choices or options are available might be considered a consequence of something, but the choice made is not a consequence. The choice made produces consequences.
I'm sticking specifically with this topic. Since she MUST pick an option...or suffer one, like miscarriage or death...then here every single option is unpleasant, all can be harmful or kill...and all are real consequences.

Whatever she chooses is a consequence. There is no avoidance of consequence.



MasksSMx2 - Copy.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom