Post Conception Opt-Out FOR MEN

[maquiscat]

it is not just a discussion of equality of rights. It is also a discussion of responsibility. Women cannot opt out they must make a decision and be responsible for their actions. While these men are asking for the exact opposite. The right to opt out by not being responsible for their own actions.

Which still leaves BC as a red herring. Use of BC is irrelevant here because the BC can fail. The situation being discusses is post conception, whether that conception happened because the man was an idiot and didn't wear a condom, or because he was smart but the condom still failed.

 

[maquiscat]

True...the choices wont ever be truly equal because the woman is the only one that can actually choose to butcher the baby if they find it inconvenient. And the OP isnt suggesting taking that right from the woman...merely sharing responsibility...or lack thereof. Its rather hypocritical to claim that a woman that wants to kill her unborn child can do so, by her own choice, and that the man 1- has no say and 2- should be held accountable...ESPECIALLY when the pro slaughter crowd demands NO accountability from women.

I think the premise offered in the OP is fair.

All this is still working on false premise. We get equal rights, not equal choices or equal results. The results of a right being exercised is not a right in and of itself. It is only a happenstance of the situation that allowed the right to be exercised. A woman does not have the right to terminate her genetic offspring post conception pre birth. If that were her right, then she would be allowed to terminate her genetic offspring even when it was gestating inside the womb of a surrogate via IVF. Do you claim that she has that right?

Or if we want to go and look at the issue of removing the financial responsibility, then the equal right of doing so would allow a woman to remove her financial responsibility to the offspring without having to get an abortion. Do you claim that she has this right?

The OP's premise is based upon an earlier false premise and is error carried forward. If indeed the woman had either of the two above rights, then I would say that the father would have equal rights to either force the woman into an abortion in the first case (equal to the woman forcing the surrogate into an abortion) or to remove the financial responsibility as the woman can in the second case. But since neither right exist for the woman, it cannot exist for the man either.

Women DO act for convenience in their decision to slaughter 800,000 unborn children every year in the US alone. Oh sure...there are a handful every year that are a bi-product of incest...another handful that are the result of rapes, and some with legit concerns over the life of the mother in the birthing process. But its silly and just plain a lie to presume that the extreme vast majority of women that choose to abort do so because the baby is an inconvenience.

Define "inconvenience". Are you claiming that if a woman wants to have an abortion so as not to risk one of the many possible physical consequences, such as diabetes or even death, that it is only convenience? You are the one who threw out the number. Can you back that up?

That statement isnt a judgment...its a fact. All the OP is suggesting is that men should have the same role in the decision making process as women and all of a sudden you are shitting yourself. Men CANT force adoptions...women CAN...so men should have the option to opt out of the childs care if the woman refuses his choice to abort.

No women can't. If the father is known then he has to sign off on the adoption as well. If he won't then it doesn't happen. Now that is not to say that woman can't go against the law and not mention the father in order to get an adoption done, but that doesn't mean that she is allowed to do it. That would be a parallel to the man still having the financial responsibility to the child and being a deadbeat father.

 

[vegas giants]

They have repeatedly. Even the Topeka case showed that.

There has been no law established for the courts to examine. Current law is insufficient

 

[vegas giants]

A man can say that at any time. Nothing stops a man from walking out of a marriage and children and never coming back. Divorces happen all the time, dead beat fathers are quite common.

However the male is still bound by the responsibility of his own actions. A child he helped to bring into this world is a responsibility he should not be able to ignore.

And again, no one is asking the man to be a father . That word belongs only to men who want to raise their children not to people like you who want to abandon a child and have no responsibility for.

Why is it that a woman can not make a decision preconception and be held to it post conception?



No one can answer that

 

[maquiscat]

Why is it that a woman can not make a decision preconception and be held to it post conception?

No one can answer that

We have repeatedly. Your failure to accept the answer is not on us. She has that ability for things that are her's to give. What you are asking for is akin to my making a contract to sell your car. Why shouldn't I be held to that contract and have the car delivered to the buyer? Preconception, post conception, it doesn't matter. The rights are the child's rights. She is not the one to absolve you of them, anymore that you can absolve her of them.

Reverse the situation a bit. Child is born and you get custody, because you and her agree and sign a contract that states you have custody and she does not have to pay child support. If it goes no further, you'll get away with it. But if you end up seeking help from the state, they will go after her for the child support because you didn't have the authority to absolve her of that. The responsibility wasn't towards you. Any responsibility towards you, you are allowed to dismiss. But the responsibility is towards the child, and only the child or the state can solve you of that responsibility, and by the time the child is old enough to enter into such a contract, they have aged beyond your responsibility.

 

[vegas giants]

We have repeatedly. Your failure to accept the answer is not on us. She has that ability for things that are her's to give. What you are asking for is akin to my making a contract to sell your car. Why shouldn't I be held to that contract and have the car delivered to the buyer? Preconception, post conception, it doesn't matter. The rights are the child's rights. She is not the one to absolve you of them, anymore that you can absolve her of them.

Reverse the situation a bit. Child is born and you get custody, because you and her agree and sign a contract that states you have custody and she does not have to pay child support. If it goes no further, you'll get away with it. But if you end up seeking help from the state, they will go after her for the child support because you didn't have the authority to absolve her of that. The responsibility wasn't towards you. Any responsibility towards you, you are allowed to dismiss. But the responsibility is towards the child, and only the child or the state can solve you of that responsibility, and by the time the child is old enough to enter into such a contract, they have aged beyond your responsibility.

There is no child when the contract is made. Even if there is one parents sign child rights away all the time in medical, dental and educational contracts. Also the woman can do it in surrogacy cases


I have told you this before but you just dont like the answer

 

[minnie616]

I often agree with you regarding a woman's right to choose.

But it is also far too easy for a woman to opt out of using birth control in this "my body, my choice" argument.

There are also a class of women who intentionally get pregnant to either entrap men into marriage and support, or failing in that, just to get child support.

On the other hand, we do have men who lie about their intentions too.

Regardless, the point is that as easy as it is to get pregnant, it is much easier to insist on birth control...including "morning after" methods.

Meanwhile, if the woman wanted a child, IMO she should make sure the man is tied to her before she has unprotected sex, and is already willing to get married...if she refuses to insist on "protection."

Blaming any man (with the exception of factual rapists) for an unplanned birth seems a bit "biased" IMO.

My body , my choice is a cop out.

Roe was about a right to privacy regarding a medical procedure.

Men also have a right to privacy about medical procedures.

States have a right to ban or have restrictions on medical procedures that are unsafe for their citizens.

When states first started banning abortions most abortions were unsafe for the woman.( the citizen)

By 1973 pregnancy and childbirth were more dangerous for a woman than an abortion that takes place before viability.

Therefore, Roe ruled that states could no longer ban abortions before viability as unsafe.

 

[weaver2]

Women DO act for convenience in their decision to slaughter 800,000 unborn children every year in the US alone. Oh sure...there are a handful every year that are a bi-product of incest...another handful that are the result of rapes, and some with legit concerns over the life of the mother in the birthing process. But its silly and just plain a lie to presume that the extreme vast majority of women that choose to abort do so because the baby is an inconvenience.

That statement isnt a judgment...its a fact. All the OP is suggesting is that men should have the same role in the decision making process as women and all of a sudden you are shitting yourself. Men CANT force adoptions...women CAN...so men should have the option to opt out of the childs care if the woman refuses his choice to abort.

Selfish little men with their tiresome accusations and ridiculous demands that the world be arranged to suit their inability to act like responsible grown-up men.

 

[maquiscat]

There is no child when the contract is made. Even if there is one parents sign child rights away all the time in medical, dental and educational contracts. Also the woman can do it in surrogacy cases


I have told you this before but you just dont like the answer

That is false. Parents do not sign away any rights in the name of their child. What right are you claiming gets signed away? I remembered you tried some medical thing saying that the child couldn't sue. But a child does not have a right to sue at that young age. You might also be mistaking signed acknowledgments as contracts, which they are not.

As to surrogacy, which woman are you talking about and under what conditions? In traditional surrogacy the surrogate is the genetic mother (via artificial insemination otherwise it's not legally valid), but she transfers her parental right to the woman who is to be the legal mother. With IVF surrogacy, the woman who is gestating the ZEF is neither the legal nor the genetic mother's. So, present it for both situations. Which woman is supposedly signing away any right for the offspring?

 

[danielpalos]

This is it in a nutshell

Post Conception Opt-Out FOR MEN

This argument is not about biology. This argument is about the law. The issue is currently unequal under the law. This discriminates against men and forces men to pay for a choice that the woman makes.

Women currently have a post conception opt out of having and paying for a child that they do not want.
Men currently do not have a post conception opt out of having and paying for a child that they do not want.

Right now, women have all of the power over their pregnancy, and that is how it should be. They can have the child or not have the child. That is how it should be.

Women should be able to have sex, get pregnant and walk away from parenthood and from paying for a child they do not want (abort the child) if they want to, and they have this right.
Men should be able to have sex, get a woman pregnant and walk away from parenthood and from paying for a child they do not want if they want to, but they have not this right.

Currently men are bound to whatever choice a woman makes post conception. She can walk away, and he cannot walk away. This is unequal.

What many have proposed is essentially the following:

Man and woman have sex.
Woman gets pregnant.
Woman has options:

Woman never informs man of pregnancy and aborts
Woman never informs man of pregnancy and has child but never gets financial help from him
Woman informs man of pregnancy and wants no financial support as they have some sort of joint custody
Woman informs many of pregnancy and wants financials support from the man

At this point the man has options:

Man agrees to pay and has some sort of custody
Man agrees to pay and has no role in the child’s life
Man does not agree to pay for anything and wants nothing to do with her or the child

If he chooses option 3 then the woman has options again:

Woman has an abortion
Woman gives the baby up for adoption
Woman has the child and pays for it herself

It is pretty simple.

As always, we will see posts from people that make the claim that if the man has options that the woman is being controlled. That is not the case. She has all the power over her body and pregnancy. At no time does the man have any power to have her abort or to not abort.

We might see people conflate the argument… insisting that biology and law can not be separated. That is utterly ridiculous. This is about post conception. She is already pregnant.

We might see the worst type of debate… the man has to pay and gave up all his rights once he came even though she did not give up her rights.

Anyway… thoughts?

Upgrade vasectomies so that they can be easily reversible.

 

[minnie616]

If a woman used birth control responsibly she would not need a abortion


She can drop a pill....and not be late for her tennis lesson

No artificial birth control is fail proof not even surgical sterilization.

Plan B is only 82 percent effective.

That means that out of 100 ferticle couples who use Plan B for contraception 18 of the women will become pregnant within a years time.

 

[vegas giants]

No artificial birth control is fail proof not even surgical sterilization.

The reason we need a Male financial abortion like a woman needs a medical abortion

 

[vegas giants]

That is false. Parents do not sign away any rights in the name of their child. What right are you claiming gets signed away? I remembered you tried some medical thing saying that the child couldn't sue. But a child does not have a right to sue at that young age. You might also be mistaking signed acknowledgments as contracts, which they are not.

As to surrogacy, which woman are you talking about and under what conditions? In traditional surrogacy the surrogate is the genetic mother (via artificial insemination otherwise it's not legally valid), but she transfers her parental right to the woman who is to be the legal mother. With IVF surrogacy, the woman who is gestating the ZEF is neither the legal nor the genetic mother's. So, present it for both situations. Which woman is supposedly signing away any right for the offspring?

Again you play with semantics. Men want to transfer financial responsibility to the woman if she chooses the child


Pass the law and lets see what the court says

 

[maquiscat]

Again you play with semantics. Men want to transfer financial responsibility to the woman if she chooses the child


Pass the law and lets see what the court says

 

[vegas giants]

View attachment 67352546

If all you have is a meme I accept your concession

 

[VanceMack]

Selfish little men with their tiresome accusations and ridiculous demands that the world be arranged to suit their inability to act like responsible grown-up men.

And still you persist. You shit yourself at the thought of women having to be responsible AND shit yourself at the prospect of men having the same 'right'.

Speaks volumes of you.

 

[VanceMack]

All this is still working on false premise. We get equal rights, not equal choices or equal results. The results of a right being exercised is not a right in and of itself. It is only a happenstance of the situation that allowed the right to be exercised. A woman does not have the right to terminate her genetic offspring post conception pre birth. If that were her right, then she would be allowed to terminate her genetic offspring even when it was gestating inside the womb of a surrogate via IVF. Do you claim that she has that right?

Or if we want to go and look at the issue of removing the financial responsibility, then the equal right of doing so would allow a woman to remove her financial responsibility to the offspring without having to get an abortion. Do you claim that she has this right?

The OP's premise is based upon an earlier false premise and is error carried forward. If indeed the woman had either of the two above rights, then I would say that the father would have equal rights to either force the woman into an abortion in the first case (equal to the woman forcing the surrogate into an abortion) or to remove the financial responsibility as the woman can in the second case. But since neither right exist for the woman, it cannot exist for the man either.



Define "inconvenience". Are you claiming that if a woman wants to have an abortion so as not to risk one of the many possible physical consequences, such as diabetes or even death, that it is only convenience? You are the one who threw out the number. Can you back that up?



No women can't. If the father is known then he has to sign off on the adoption as well. If he won't then it doesn't happen. Now that is not to say that woman can't go against the law and not mention the father in order to get an adoption done, but that doesn't mean that she is allowed to do it. That would be a parallel to the man still having the financial responsibility to the child and being a deadbeat father.

Spell check must have got me. My intended comment was that Men CANT force ABORTIONS...women CAN...so men should have the option to opt out of the childs care if the woman refuses his choice to abort.

As to the rest of your comments...this comes down to the same argument made by people in support of pro abortion...that women should always have the right to kill their baby, and so men should ALWAYS have the right to choose to abort their responsibilities if the woman refuses their request that they abort the child. Fair is fair. Why would people be adamant that women have the right to choose to keep OR choose to kill, while men do not have the same rights?

 

[weaver2]

And still you persist. You shit yourself at the thought of women having to be responsible AND shit yourself at the prospect of men having the same 'right'.

Speaks volumes of you.

Your language speaks for you.

 

[Captain Adverse]

My body , my choice is a cop out.

Roe was about a right to privacy regarding a medical procedure.

Men also have a right to privacy about medical procedures.

States have a right to ban or have restrictions on medical procedures that are unsafe for their citizens.

When states first started banning abortions most abortions were unsafe for the woman.( the citizen)

By 1973 pregnancy and childbirth were more dangerous for a woman than an abortion that takes place before viability.

Therefore, Roe ruled that states could no longer ban abortions before viability as unsafe.

My response was in keeping with the OP's discussion about "opt-out" rights.

In the main it seems that ONLY women have the right to make the choice about something that will thereafter affect BOTH parties.

It is a cop-out to state that a few minutes of mutually agreed "pleasure" must bind both parties to the result solely based on the choice of one party, the woman.

We agree that the woman, under the Roe v. Wade restrictions, has absolute choice to control her body and abort.

It therefore seems unreasonable to bind the man when the only choice he had was agreeing to that "few minutes of pleasure."

After that, even when he may have used protection showing there was no intent, he still has NO choice at all apparently.

 

[soylentgreen]

Women DO act for convenience in their decision to slaughter 800,000 unborn children every year in the US alone. Oh sure...there are a handful every year that are a bi-product of incest...another handful that are the result of rapes, and some with legit concerns over the life of the mother in the birthing process. But its silly and just plain a lie to presume that the extreme vast majority of women that choose to abort do so because the baby is an inconvenience.

That statement isnt a judgment...its a fact. All the OP is suggesting is that men should have the same role in the decision making process as women and all of a sudden you are shitting yourself. Men CANT force adoptions...women CAN...so men should have the option to opt out of the childs care if the woman refuses his choice to abort.

Of course the fetus is an inconvenience. Otherwise why abort. In doing so the woman is not opting out but instead making a sensible decision about what is practical for her life. To say it is simply a convenience ignores the fact that a woman has to make decisions about the life she wants to live. All you are doing is pretending that she is choosing an easy path by insisting it is just a matter of convenience and ignoring any reasons of being a responsible person and making a responsible choice.

Your statements are a judgment by the fact that you use emotive words such as baby when in fact no babies are ever aborted as it is a contradiction in terms as a baby is the name for a child after birth not before. As well as your use of the word butcher which is no where near an accurate description of an abortion. Just a word that you use to create an emotion.
And of course your insistance that men should be able to decide what a woman can or cannot do is just another example of the misogynism that is rife through the anti abortion side.

 

[VanceMack]

Of course the fetus is an inconvenience. Otherwise why abort. In doing so the woman is not opting out but instead making a sensible decision about what is practical for her life. To say it is simply a convenience ignores the fact that a woman has to make decisions about the life she wants to live. All you are doing is pretending that she is choosing an easy path by insisting it is just a matter of convenience and ignoring any reasons of being a responsible person and making a responsible choice. Your statements are a judgment by the fact that you use emotive words such as baby when in fact no babies are ever aborted it is a contradiction in terms as a baby is the name for a child after birth not before. As well as your use of the word butcher which is no where near an accurate description of an abortion. Just a word that you use to create an emotion.
And of course your insistance that men should be able to decide what a woman can or cannot do is just another example of the misogynism that is rife through the anti abortion side.

Dont lie. I never suggested the man should be able to force the woman to kill the baby.

And so since the woman has the right to kill the baby because it is inconvenient, the man should also have the right to terminate his connection to the mother and baby if she refuses his request to terminate. We both agree she should have the right to kill the baby and that he shouldnt have the right to force her to kill the baby...but in the name of equality, he should have the right to terminate his responsibility.

 

[soylentgreen]

Which still leaves BC as a red herring. Use of BC is irrelevant here because the BC can fail. The situation being discusses is post conception, whether that conception happened because the man was an idiot and didn't wear a condom, or because he was smart but the condom still failed.

If the argument stayed on that one subject you would have a point. But what we do have is the anti abortion crowd using the old trick of having one argument defeated they move to another and when that is also defeated they move back to the first argument as if it had never been rebutted. Trying to keep them on the one subject is akin to herding cats.

 

[soylentgreen]

Why is it that a woman can not make a decision preconception and be held to it post conception?



No one can answer that

That is nothing more than your personal opinion. The reason it cannot be answered is because it should be simply dismissed as a bad faith question of no real worth.

What possible information can you bring to give any credibility to your question?

 

[Unbeknownst]

It's very simple. Take abortion out of the equation for a moment, because it doesn't matter at all.

Child support is about the CHILD, not the parents. If a child exists (i.e. was not aborted,) someone has to pay for it. You've got two options:
1. The innocent taxpayer or
2. The two people who decided to have sex knowing that there is always a risk of pregnancy.

Who should pay for it? I think the answer, regardless of gender, is pretty clear.

 

[soylentgreen]

Dont lie. I never suggested the man should be able to force the woman to kill the baby.

And so since the woman has the right to kill the baby because it is inconvenient, the man should also have the right to terminate his connection to the mother and baby if she refuses his request to terminate. We both agree she should have the right to kill the baby and that he shouldnt have the right to force her to kill the baby...but in the name of equality, he should have the right to terminate his responsibility.

I did not say force. I said you think men should have the right to make the decision for women.

What is being asked of men is that they take responsibility for their own actions, not what a women decides. If as you falsely describe it so as to create an emotional plea that a woman has a right to decide what happens to her body then the man should also be held accountable for his own actions which were to play a part in getting a woman pregnant. Not just turn around and say he had no part in her decision and therefor should not be held accountable.