Post Conception Opt-Out FOR MEN

[donhughesmusic]

Round and round and round those wheels go. You burn up tons of energy and get nowhere fast.

I've been very specific.

She, and only she, is allowed to choose if he is a father or not once the pregnancy is established. She is allowed to opt out of being a mother or not once the pregnancy is established. He doesn't get that same choice once the pregnancy is established.

He and she knew equally before the pregnancy. We aren't talking about pre pregnancy so please stop spinning those wheels in that same mud puddle. That one song note of your is really off the mark so let it go.

Subsequent to that he is not allowed the same choice to absolve himself of the pregnancy that she has. So, no, he doesn't get to choose fatherhood or not as she gets to choose motherhood or not. It's not that hard to understand that that isn't equal. Make it equal. Why are you so afraid?

You are so adamite that women are at the sexual mercy of the men (something from the dark ages) when it is 100% the other way around - no sex is going to happen without her 100% consent. Why do you hold him, and only him, accountable?

Wrong, no sex is going to happen without THEIR 100% consent.

 

[Lursa]

Round and round and round those wheels go. You burn up tons of energy and get nowhere fast.

I've been very specific.

She, and only she, is allowed to choose if he is a father or not once the pregnancy is established. She is allowed to opt out of being a mother or not once the pregnancy is established. He doesn't get that same choice once the pregnancy is established.

So what? He knows that and so when he has sex with her, HE CHOSE that risk. She cant make him a father if he doesnt grant his consent to sleep with her.

So he can 100% avoid fatherhood. Why go 'round and round? These are the facts...

He and she knew equally before the pregnancy. We aren't talking about pre pregnancy so please stop spinning those wheels in that same mud puddle. That one song note of your is really off the mark so let it go.

So then you do believe that men should be entitled to sex without reproductive consequences...that's a yes.

Why? Women arent. Women have never been and still are not.

So what you want isnt equal...you want men to have more 'rights' than women...a 'right' to sex without consequences.

Again, that's not equal.

Subsequent to that he is not allowed the same choice to absolve himself of the pregnancy that she has. So, no, he doesn't get to choose fatherhood or not as she gets to choose motherhood or not. It's not that hard to understand that that isn't equal. Make it equal. Why are you so afraid?

Both of them must decide *before* having sex if they are willing to risk the consequences of a pregnancy. That is equal.

He can 100% protect himself from fatherhood.

You are so adamite that women are at the sexual mercy of the men (something from the dark ages) when it is 100% the other way around - no sex is going to happen without her 100% consent. Why do you hold him, and only him, accountable?

The word is 'adamant' I believe, if that's what you meant and you are completely lying here about me and my 'point'. This has nothing to do with the woman...it's about what the state demands of men or a non-custodial parent if there is a child.

Because as has been written and sourced, the opt out is a failure because the child's rights will always supersede it. Not the woman's rights, not the woman at all. It is up to the state. The state makes laws, not women. The state's responsibility is to protect the child's rights...and then those of the tax payers.

If you need to lie to try and win your argument...you've already lost.

 

[Lursa]

You're saying women are entitled to sex with no consequences and men aren't - and you're all angry that I suggest men should be permitted the same?

Why are you lying again? Abortion is a consequence. And apparently you believe that others, like men, should now also be able to choose her consequences too?

She cant escape consequences if there's a pregnancy...there's only 4 and not all are even her choice:

--she has a kid
--she has a miscarriage
--she has an abortion
--she dies during pregnancy/childbirth

All are painful and cost $$$. All can cause permanent health damage or even death, altho less likely. Those are consequences.

So obviously, women are not entitled to sex without consequences...never have been, never will be.

Men OTOH, avoid consequences in ALL but one of those and their health and lives are never in jeopardy. Again, it's not remotely fair or equal and it's stacked in MEN'S favor. Deny this...please...explain it if you disagree.

This thread if for only talking about financial consequences not biological ones. Please stay with only that and stop bemoaning the biological difference between women and men. We get it - they are different.

Men can 100% avoid financial consequences and avoid fatherhood. Yes or no? Yes

Women can 100% avoid financial consequences and avoid motherhood. Yes or no? Yes

It's 100% equal...*unless* you continue to insist that men are entitled to sex without consequences...which women are not. And so then it's not fair or equal...(all women's consequences involve $$$...she can even be permanently disabled from each consequence...and it's not predictable...so there's no way to know. Again...if you dismiss this for women that's very disrespectful...it's about our lives and health and health problems have financial costs.)

No law will EVER change the biological differences between men and women and it sucks that women have to have a physical component to achieve the absolution of their financial obligation to an offspring. C'est la vie.

That's right. But the affects on women shouldnt be minimized when those harmful affects can change a woman's life forever and cannot be predicted.

Hmmm, you'd think, knowing that. it would make women far more cautions than just using men in lieu of vibrators and risking pregnancy. But, women want their sexual outlet that involves doing a man - so be it.

Again...there's no figuring it out. And it's useless for you to complain about it over and over. No one has any control over women OR men's choices re: sex. It's not an argument...it's a whiny observation.

Why are you so scared to give men this same choice women have?

What a stupid statement. Why would I be scared? It's not fair and it's harmful to society. It harms the child and it harms the taxpayers. Good lord, what a pathetic, stupid conclusion you've resorted to...because you have failed to demonstrate your POV is right.

 

[maquiscat]

But it is human. That's really all that matters. But stop co-opting the thread and start a new one if you wish to discuss that.

Since you were the one who brought up the human question that would be you that co-opted in that direction. I've been on topic the whole time. You simply don't want to acknowledge all aspects of the topic.

 

[Scrabaholic]

There is a difference between what the douche's responsibilities are and whether he lives up to them. The fact that he run out on his responsibilities doesn't negate the fact that he had them. We aren't talking about whether rights and responsibilities get enforced, just whether they exist, are equal between men and women and what they actually are.

Yes, but I was responding to someone going on about women picking losers to have sex with.

 

[Scrabaholic]

This sounds like a case of the "human vibrator" thing I was talking about - using a man as a tool instead of using a tool that won't result in pregnancy to achieve the big O. To me that speaks volumes of the nature of the character of both the woman and the man. Of course it isn't PC to questions a woman's character - only the man's character is allowed to be questioned. Good thing what you choose to do with your life isn't embedded in your DNA and you are free to choose your life from this day forward - regardless of what happened to you in the past and the solid footing you were denied. Build your own solid footing.

They were in a relationship. How was she to know he'd do that? Not that she isn't a ****, but you can't blame her for what HE did.

 

[maquiscat]

Round and round and round those wheels go. You burn up tons of energy and get nowhere fast.

Pot, kettle, achromatic

I've been very specific.

And wrong and misconstruing.

She, and only she, is allowed to choose if he is a father or not once the pregnancy is established. She is allowed to opt out of being a mother or not once the pregnancy is established. He doesn't get that same choice once the pregnancy is established.

If she had that right then she could do it whether the ZEF was in her or not. You are still misconstruing the result of a right as a right itself. That is your false premise.

That one song note of your is really off the mark so let it go.

Pot, kettle, achromatic.

You are so adamite that women are at the sexual mercy of the men (something from the dark ages) when it is 100% the other way around - no sex is going to happen without her 100% consent. Why do you hold him, and only him, accountable?

Every time you say this, you imply that it is only her consent that matters and that his consent doesn't matter.

 

[screenwriter]

They were in a relationship. How was she to know he'd do that? Not that she isn't a ****, but you can't blame her for what HE did.

Feel free then to follow your upbringing and make the same mistakes they both made - you're calibrated for that to be your "normal". You're free to do that too.

 

[screenwriter]

Pot, kettle, achromatic



And wrong and misconstruing.



If she had that right then she could do it whether the ZEF was in her or not. You are still misconstruing the result of a right as a right itself. That is your false premise.



Pot, kettle, achromatic.


Every time you say this, you imply that it is only her consent that matters and that his consent doesn't matter.

It is only her consent that matters - otherwise it is a crime of rape and that's an entirely different subject. I get it, you wish for women to be absolved of any poor decision/choice they make and want to make sure they have an opt out. I'm sure putting that position out there to women lubricates the spokes for your wheel to turn.

 

[screenwriter]

Since you were the one who brought up the human question that would be you that co-opted in that direction. I've been on topic the whole time. You simply don't want to acknowledge all aspects of the topic.

So, why not give men an opt out? That is the topic in a nutshell.

 

[screenwriter]

Why are you lying again? Abortion is a consequence. And apparently you believe that others, like men, should now also be able to choose her consequences too?

She cant escape consequences if there's a pregnancy...there's only 4 and not all are even her choice:

--she has a kid
--she has a miscarriage
--she has an abortion
--she dies during pregnancy/childbirth

All are painful and cost $$$. All can cause permanent health damage or even death, altho less likely. Those are consequences.

So obviously, women are not entitled to sex without consequences...never have been, never will be.

Men OTOH, avoid consequences in ALL but one of those and their health and lives are never in jeopardy. Again, it's not remotely fair or equal and it's stacked in MEN'S favor. Deny this...please...explain it if you disagree.




Men can 100% avoid financial consequences and avoid fatherhood. Yes or no? Yes

Women can 100% avoid financial consequences and avoid motherhood. Yes or no? Yes

It's 100% equal...*unless* you continue to insist that men are entitled to sex without consequences...which women are not. And so then it's not fair or equal...(all women's consequences involve $$$...she can even be permanently disabled from each consequence...and it's not predictable...so there's no way to know. Again...if you dismiss this for women that's very disrespectful...it's about our lives and health and health problems have financial costs.)




That's right. But the affects on women shouldnt be minimized when those harmful affects can change a woman's life forever and cannot be predicted.



Again...there's no figuring it out. And it's useless for you to complain about it over and over. No one has any control over women OR men's choices re: sex. It's not an argument...it's a whiny observation.

What a stupid statement. Why would I be scared? It's not fair and it's harmful to society. It harms the child and it harms the taxpayers. Good lord, what a pathetic, stupid conclusion you've resorted to...because you have failed to demonstrate your POV is right.




View attachment 67351553

Why is it not "fair"? Society doesn't give a flying fiddle about the baby - that's already been proven. Trillions have been spent on social programs with no complaints.

 

[screenwriter]

So what? He knows that and so when he has sex with her, HE CHOSE that risk. She cant make him a father if he doesnt grant his consent to sleep with her.

So he can 100% avoid fatherhood. Why go 'round and round? These are the facts...



So then you do believe that men should be entitled to sex without reproductive consequences...that's a yes.

Why? Women arent. Women have never been and still are not.

So what you want isnt equal...you want men to have more 'rights' than women...a 'right' to sex without consequences.

Again, that's not equal.




Both of them must decide *before* having sex if they are willing to risk the consequences of a pregnancy. That is equal.

He can 100% protect himself from fatherhood.


The word is 'adamant' I believe, if that's what you meant and you are completely lying here about me and my 'point'. This has nothing to do with the woman...it's about what the state demands of men or a non-custodial parent if there is a child.

Because as has been written and sourced, the opt out is a failure because the child's rights will always supersede it. Not the woman's rights, not the woman at all. It is up to the state. The state makes laws, not women. The state's responsibility is to protect the child's rights...and then those of the tax payers.

If you need to lie to try and win your argument...you've already lost.



View attachment 67351552

What a rant.

 

[soylentgreen]

Scotus disagreed with you legal opinion

I was not offering a legal opinion. I was pointing to how abortion should be seen despite what a rigged and biased scotus might think.

 

[soylentgreen]

As you said, they want it both ways. They "say" they want equality with men - until they don't want equality with men. When a woman can say with a straight face that women shouldn't be denied a sexual pleasure but once she partakes of that pleasure with the wrong man then she should get to walk away free but not him.

How does she get to walk away free and he does not? If she chooses abortion he is free as well. If she chooses to have a child then the man is being held responsible for his actions in creating that child, not her decision to keep a child. And if she decides to keep a child then she faces the major burden of raising the child while he suffers only a small percentage of his wages being taken .

 

[Lursa]

It is only her consent that matters - otherwise it is a crime of rape and that's an entirely different subject.

Explain that. If he doesnt consent to have sex with her...they dont have sex. She doesnt get to have sex.

I get it, you wish for women to be absolved of any poor decision/choice they make and want to make sure they have an opt out. I'm sure putting that position out there to women lubricates the spokes for your wheel to turn.

More irrelevant judgement. Nobody cares...it has nothing to do with the facts of this issue.

 

[vegas giants]

How does she get to walk away free and he does not? If she chooses abortion he is free as well. If she chooses to have a child then the man is being held responsible for his actions in creating that child, not her decision to keep a child. And if she decides to keep a child then she faces the major burden of raising the child while he suffers only a small percentage of his wages being taken .

She gets a choice post conception


He does not

 

[Lursa]

So, why not give men an opt out? That is the topic in a nutshell.

The child has rights...did you read that here, did you understand it? That's why.

And if you need more, then it has to do with the best interests of the child, the taxpayer, and society.

Why cant taxpayers 'opt out?' We didnt knowingly risk creating a kid. We're not responsible at all. Why should we pay for HIS choice? If there's a kid, SHE has to pay too. Not only with $ but with her time and effort and attention.

He made the choice to take that risk...why shouldnt he be held accountable for that choice? And dont spin around the woman not being accountable again...she is held accountable one way or another...you just dont seem to like that she has a choice of those consequences.

 

[soylentgreen]

She gets a choice post conception


He does not

No, he is being held responsible for his actions, not her decisions.

And you failed to answer the question. How does she get to walk away free and he does not?

 

[Lursa]

What a rant.

Ran out of any valid arguments eh? You've just been complaining about the same things over and over without a valid argument for ages anyway. Cool, without any real challenging counter argument...my post stands.

 

[Lursa]

Why is it not "fair"? Society doesn't give a flying fiddle about the baby - that's already been proven. Trillions have been spent on social programs with no complaints.

WHy does how society 'feels' about a baby make any difference? Please explain.

I explained why it's not fair...if you dont understand, please clarify your question.

 

[vegas giants]

No, he is being held responsible for his actions, not her decisions.

And you failed to answer the question. How does she get to walk away free and he does not?

She can take a pill....and not miss her tennis lesson

 

[screenwriter]

Ran out of any valid arguments eh? You've just been complaining about the same things over and over without a valid argument for ages anyway. Cool, without any real challenging counter argument...my post stands.



View attachment 67351633

 

[soylentgreen]

She can take a pill....and not miss her tennis lesson

And again you fail to answer the question. If she takes a pill and plays tennis he is also free to join her. But if she chooses to have a child then he should be held responsible for his actions not her choice.

 

[screenwriter]

No, he is being held responsible for his actions, not her decisions.

And you failed to answer the question. How does she get to walk away free and he does not?

Her actions were the same as his. She gets to walk away.

 

[screenwriter]

She gets a choice post conception


He does not

I think it's just really too difficult for them to understand. Pity.