Post Conception Opt-Out FOR MEN

[vegas giants]

That's the dumbest, most dishonest post. The men who opt out know that the taxpayers will get stuck with their lack of accountability and so just expect sex without consequences and now are all upset because they no longer have that privilege...which women have never had.

And you are the one, over and over, that demonstrates that men are not capable of making good decisions in their own best interests. I mean, if they could...why wouldnt they avoid needing the opt-out to begin with? See, you wont answer that. You just believe that men should be allowed to have sex without reproductive consequences...which women cannot. It's not remotely equal now...it's in men's favor.



View attachment 67352652

An opt out does not give men sex without reproductive consequences. That is flat out wrong

 

[Lursa]

In all fifty states, once a child is born, the rights of the child supersede the parents, so the status quo is not likely to change; however, with abuse, abandonment and neglect being recurring themes for many unplanned children, what exactly is forced parenthood granting them the rights to?

 

[vegas giants]

Yes we need to change the law

 

[Bodi]

Prove it. Post quotes where I lied.

OK.


Ready?

And your respect is meaningless...who wants respect from men that want to run away from their kids and their responsibilities...and fights to justify it?

There it is right there... in the very next line.

THAT, is how much you lie.

And I dont take notes, I copy and paste stuff into OneNote..

Cutting and pasting IS a form of note-taking when online or when in a lecture. It takes higher education to understand something like that though.

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/maai3/copypaste.pdf

Your 'argument' fails again and Vegas even admitted it a few pages back. Your 'idea' allows men to opt-out of supporting their kids financially while enabling them to spend time with their kids later, be a father as much as they want. That's the kind of bullshit you are selling here.

Here come the lies and out of context crap. There is no child to support at the point of the situation that I am describing.

 

[weaver2]

Cutting and pasting IS a form of note-taking when online or when in a lecture. It takes higher education to understand something like that though.

I think I owe you an apology. I had no idea you had reached such a high educational level. It was silly of me to think I could engage in discussing any topic with someone that had mastered cutting and pasting.

 

[Bodi]

I think I owe you an apology. I had no idea you had reached such a high educational level. It was silly of me to think I could engage in discussing any topic with someone that had mastered cutting and pasting.

I assume that you think this is clever... but it was Lursa that is doing the cutting and pasting note-taking.

It is a fact that I have a higher education level than you though. LOL

 

[Lursa]

OK.
Ready?

There it is right there... in the very next line.

THAT, is how much you lie.

It's not a blanket statement...it specifies exactly which men. If you disagree, you debate it, you dont sulk and call people liars.

Cutting and pasting IS a form of note-taking when online or when in a lecture. It takes higher education to understand something like that though.

Heh, what it takes is barely any effort...and that's the point.

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/maai3/copypaste.pdf

Here come the lies and out of context crap. There is no child to support at the point of the situation that I am describing.

Thank you. Once again you admit that the motive behind the opt-out is to manipulate the woman into aborting...and that's why "the point of the situation you are describing" is all about getting her to make sure there's no child.

That's perfect. Go ahead, pretend that's a lie. Your own words just clarified it for me.

 

[Lursa]

I think I owe you an apology. I had no idea you had reached such a high educational level. It was silly of me to think I could engage in discussing any topic with someone that had mastered cutting and pasting.

 

[soylentgreen]

But the reality is the mother is not

safe haven laws and her ability to give the child up for adoption make that so.
thats what the whole issue is and where the legally supported discrimination and inequality is

Are you in favor of removing those things? (im not)

I do not see how that is an issue. If she gives it up for adoption he also is free from any obligation as well as the adopting parents take full responsibility.
No discrimination in that.

 

[screenwriter]

It's not a blanket statement...it specifies exactly which men. If you disagree, you debate it, you dont sulk and call people liars.




Heh, what it takes is barely any effort...and that's the point.


Thank you. Once again you admit that the motive behind the opt-out is to manipulate the woman into aborting...and that's why "the point of the situation you are describing" is all about getting her to make sure there's no child.

That's perfect. Go ahead, pretend that's a lie. Your own words just clarified it for me.




View attachment 67352696

You keep saying men have the choice of not getting a woman pregnant by not sticking it in her - leaving the women the hapless victims who have not bodily control over becoming pregnant whatsoever.

You say the opt-out would manipulate women into having abortions. Could it be, instead, the result is that she has to have a more cognizant choice of sex partners? Is that too oppressive to women?

It can't be both ways. If he has the obligation to keep it in his pants to prevent pregnancy then she has an equal obligation to keep hers in her panties - equal.

The number one reason women give for having an abortion is financial - not her health or anything else - financial. It should be that men have the same right to sever financial ties to their offspring if they so choose. Afraid they won't choose to step up and support their offspring? Then go back to keeping it in the panties until you know the quality of man you're schtupping in the first place.

Can't be both ways. Either you want equality with men or you don't. Of course this is legal equality not physical equality. No amount of surgery or laws will ever make them physically the same - and opt out doesn't attempt to do that. Its only purpose is financial equality.

 

[soylentgreen]

For the 50th time.....


Let's change the law to specifically allow these contracts

What based on your link of swedish libertarians who want to make contracts for necrophilia and incest. Do you even have a clue about what that idea is based on or did you just read a title and make some bad assumptions. Or are you basing it on that part about an idiot of a professor who does not know what a parent or father is and thinks that that is what men are being asked to do when in fact it is not.

So far all you have to back you is a laughable link that is easily refuted.

 

[Lursa]

You keep saying men have the choice of not getting a woman pregnant by not sticking it in her - leaving the women the hapless victims who have not bodily control over becoming pregnant whatsoever.

I've never ever even implied the red so you are starting with a blatant lie. (nor have I ever phrased anything as crass as in your first sentence.)

The rest is TL;dr. Scanning it, it looks like all your old crap not even re-wrapped in a new package. You've failed here over and over and the evidence is you starting out with a total lie.

 

[soylentgreen]

All parents. Apologies... I did not read that clearly. Fair enough.

I agree with that, obviously, but this is a hypothetical as well, about trying to create equality post conception. Because right now, she is not held to that same standard.

The standard is not the same though. If she becomes a parent then she takes on the main burden of raising a child. While all that is asked from him is a percentage of his income.

 

[soylentgreen]

There is no child to support at the point of the situation that I am describing.

You are describing post conception. Meaning there is a fetus in existence. But there is no law that satates a male must start support by taxation prior to birth. so at that stage both man and women are equal as far as money is concerned . But not equal as in the woman is carrying a pregnancy while the man is no different.

 

[screenwriter]

I've never ever even implied the red so you are starting with a blatant lie. (nor have I ever phrased anything as crass as in your first sentence.)

The rest is TL;dr. Scanning it, it looks like all your old crap not even re-wrapped in a new package. You've failed here over and over and the evidence is you starting out with a total lie.




View attachment 67352705

Then you agree women should keep it in their panties until they know the quality of man they are going to f**k - sounds like we agree at least on that one.

 

[Lursa]

Then you agree women should keep it in their panties until they know the quality of man they are going to f**k - sounds like we agree at least on that one.

Dont lie...that's not debating. Your failures are not my problem but you cant hide them with lies. And again, your crassness is nothing I'd agree with or want to be associated with. You can lounge in the sewer on your own.

 

[Bodi]

You are describing post conception. Meaning there is a fetus in existence.

Which is not born meaning it can be aborted if she can not support it.

But there is no law that satates a male must start support by taxation prior to birth. so at that stage both man and women are equal as far as money is concerned .

That is the point....

But not equal as in the woman is carrying a pregnancy while the man is no different.

That is why she faces a choice should he opt-out.

The standard is not the same though. If she becomes a parent then she takes on the main burden of raising a child. While all that is asked from him is a percentage of his income.

Literally nothing is the same... except things like the speed of light or gravity... That is not an argument.

 

[VanceMack]

who wants respect from men that want to run away from their kids and their responsibilities...and fights to justify it?

Thats HILARIOUS!. You champion the slaughter of unborn babies because women find them inconvenient yet shit yourself at the prospect of men finding them inconvenient.

****ing comical, in a sick, tragic, inhuman way.

 

[Lursa]

Thats HILARIOUS!. You champion the slaughter of unborn babies because women find them inconvenient yet shit yourself at the prospect of men finding them inconvenient.

****ing comical, in a sick, tragic, inhuman way.

Hey guess what? This fits here too! Gotta love cut and paste.

We get it...you have an emotionally-motivated bumper sticker for an answer to this issue and that's all. You have no counter arguments, just your feelings. So...vent away.​

​

No way to refute the facts eh? Just 'na huh.'​

​

Are you under the impression that others cant read the facts? Silly! Or that you cant prove them wrong?​

​

Obviously I dont feel guilty about women who need abortions making the best decisions for their lives and those she is responsible for and responsible to. Your hysteria only shows how desperate you are. Disturbingly so, the way you insist on visualizing it...inaccurately but apparently it satisfies something dark inside you.​

​

 

[VanceMack]

Pro slaughter crowd: "Women should be able to kill their babies if they are inconvenient!" (applause!)
also Pro Slaughter crowd: "Men want to not be financially responsible for babies they find inconvenient. MONSTERS!!!"

 

[Bodi]

It's not a blanket statement...it specifies exactly which men. If you disagree, you debate it, you dont sulk and call people liars.




Heh, what it takes is barely any effort...and that's the point.


Thank you. Once again you admit that the motive behind the opt-out is to manipulate the woman into aborting...and that's why "the point of the situation you are describing" is all about getting her to make sure there's no child.

That's perfect. Go ahead, pretend that's a lie. Your own words just clarified it for me.




View attachment 67352696

You and I know the past lies that you have made and how you just ignore it and cast aspersions. I give you a chance every year or so and you continue to lie, take things out of context and try to be clever and cute in a mocking attempt.. Nothing has changed and this is probably it.

 

[VanceMack]

Hey guess what? This fits here too! Gotta love cut and paste.

We get it...you have an emotionally-motivated bumper sticker for an answer to this issue and that's all. You have no counter arguments, just your feelings. So...vent away.​

​

No way to refute the facts eh? Just 'na huh.'​

​

Are you under the impression that others cant read the facts? Silly! Or that you cant prove them wrong?​

​

Obviously I dont feel guilty about women who need abortions making the best decisions for their lives and those she is responsible for and responsible to. Your hysteria only shows how desperate you are. Disturbingly so, the way you insist on visualizing it...inaccurately but apparently it satisfies something dark inside you.​

View attachment 67352717

​

Its not a statement of feeling...its a statement of fact and absolutely a discussion of ideas. The pro slaughter crowd is all for women 'opting out' of babies they find inconvenient and defend their right to kill the inconvenient unborn child. What was posited in the OP is the EXACT SAME THING...where men are concerned...except of course it doesn't involve slaughtering an unborn child...just exercising their right to not care for an inconvenient baby. The fact that you champion the slaughter of babies in the name of convenience but shit yourself over men exercising their right to not support a baby financially that they find inconvenient speaks volumes of you.

 

[screenwriter]

Dont lie...that's not debating. Your failures are not my problem but you cant hide them with lies. And again, your crassness is nothing I'd agree with or want to be associated with. You can lounge in the sewer on your own.



View attachment 67352714

My failures? I've never been pregnant without the intention of being pregnant. I've never been with a man that I didn't know intimately before I knew him intimately.
You call that failure?

I get that you think success is when women are able to go about doing whoever they want whenever they want. You want to fluff it up and call it "lovemaking" instead of the f**king that it really is. So, who's really crass? The one who calls it for what it is or the one who goes about doing it without even knowing the person she allows inside her?

 

[Lursa]

You and I know the past lies that you have made and how you just ignore it and cast aspersions. I give you a chance every year or so and you continue to lie, take things out of context and try to be clever and cute in a mocking attempt.. Nothing has changed and this is probably it.

And yet, you've never produced a single lie I've posted.

Your argument fails and it fails on many levels and you dont ever challenge those posts...you pretend they dont exist. But they stand unchallenged for everyone to read.

Good for you...the counter arguments are posted here and will be posted in your future attempts. Let me know when you come up with a law the creates a man's right (hint: laws dont create rights) enabling the violation of the child's rights, which have been posted here many times.

And also, dont forget to explain how your opt-out idea is fair or equal when it would relieve men of all financial burden but still enable men to be involved in their kids lives.

 

[Lursa]

Its not a statement of feeling...its a statement of fact and absolutely a discussion of ideas. The pro slaughter crowd is all for women 'opting out' of babies they find inconvenient and defend their right to kill the inconvenient unborn child. What was posited in the OP is the EXACT SAME THING...where men are concerned...except of course it doesn't involve slaughtering an unborn child...just exercising their right to not care for an inconvenient baby. The fact that you champion the slaughter of babies in the name of convenience but shit yourself over men exercising their right to not support a baby financially that they find inconvenient speaks volumes of you.

No, it's not. You and your bumper sticker arent accurate...just emotional.

And if you were capable of reading without being blinded by your emotions, you'd see several different arguments that dismantle the 'opt out.' But you arent, so... Why do you continue to come here and bleed your bumper sticker all over?

You can lie about my position all you want...you can repeat it and I can post showing it's a lie:

We get it...you have an emotionally-motivated bumper sticker for an answer to this issue and that's all. You have no counter arguments, just your feelings. So...vent away.​

​

No way to refute the facts eh? Just 'na huh.'​

​

Are you under the impression that others cant read the facts? Silly! Or that you cant prove them wrong?​

​

Obviously I dont feel guilty about women who need abortions making the best decisions for their lives and those she is responsible for and responsible to. Your hysteria only shows how desperate you are. Disturbingly so, the way you insist on visualizing it...inaccurately but apparently it satisfies something dark inside you.​