• 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

BirdinHand said:
And that is completely different than a post conception opt out.

You really are not good at this, are you?
Click to expand...
You don't understand precedent. Precedent regards similar cases....not exact cases

What was precedent for roe before roe? Lol


Man you are getting crushed.
 
vegas giants said:
You don't understand precedent. Precedent regards similar cases....not exact cases

What was precedent for roe before roe? Lol


Man you are getting crushed.
Click to expand...
Again, demonstrates you don't know what precedent means.
 
vegas giants said:
Opinion noted and dismissed
Click to expand...
Thank you for admitting that you don't know what precedent means.


A contract PRIOR to conception is not the same as a post-conception opt-out.

Not even "similar"

There is no precedent.
 
BirdinHand said:
Thank you for admitting that you don't know what precedent means.


A contract PRIOR to conception is not the same as a post-conception opt-out.

Not even "similar"

There is no precedent.
Click to expand...
Thank you for admitting that you support financial abortion


A contract PRIOR to conception is the same as a post-conception opt-out.


There is clear precedent.
 
vegas giants said:
A contract PRIOR to conception is the same as a post-conception opt-out.
Click to expand...
No, they are not.

There is a WILD difference between the two.

No one with two functioning brain cells and a modicum of legal understanding or grasp on the English language would claim they are.

For the same reason, you sign waivers BEFORE undergoing a medical procedure or BEFORE going whitewater rafting, jumping out of an airplane, going on a speed boat, renting a car, etc.

PRIOR vs. AFTER are very different things.
 
BirdinHand said:
No, they are not.

There is a WILD difference between the two.

No one with two functioning brain cells and a modicum of legal understanding would claim they are.
Click to expand...
Your opinion is noted and dismissed

Pass the laws and let the court decide
 
BirdinHand said:
And yet…here you are…advocating for MORE deadbeats.


That’s definitely something to rally behind as a “cause”


Be loud and proud!


“I want MORE deadbeats! F*ck those kids”
Click to expand...

More $$$ from the taxpayers! Everyone will vote for it! :rolleyes:
 
BirdinHand said:
Can you imagine the type of “man” one must be to WANT to shirk responsibility for your kid?

“Yeah, I got 4 women pregnant - but I had financial abortions. I don’t have to pay anything for them”


Would there be competition to brag about who managed to NOT pay the most?

This is the stuff incels have wet dreams over or something, I swear it is.
Click to expand...

So of course there's no reason for society, or the justice system, to repeal the child's right to support from both parents. Why do they think they instituted child support in the first place? Did that reason change? It's to try and stop men from abandoning their kids. From just walking away. It's to protect the kid and the taxpayers.

To do so harms kids, women, taxpayers, and society. Who would it help? Potential deadbeats. What would it do? Create more deadbeats.
 
BirdinHand said:
Then you just decided to take a swipe at poor women, why?

This topic has zero to do with women.

It’s about allowing MEN to decide they will pay zero towards children they create.
Click to expand...

Not all women believe in abortion. Some are pro-life. Did the guy bother to find out before deciding to risk having sex with her? So the emotional manipulation has even less chance of working.
 
Gordy327 said:
Not even a little. Abortion is not legally defined or equated with murder. Neither does any state have legal repercussions for women who have an abortion.
Click to expand...

Again, some people in this thread seemed to have missed Dobbs, which overturned a woman's right to abortion.
 
BirdinHand said:
Cool.

We just emptied the family court system.

No more custody and child support cases will ever be heard again.


Screw the best interest of the child crap, right?

It’s all about the Benjamins baby!
Click to expand...

So now he's advocating for either parent taking their child and disappearing? Uh huh. Yeah, they're really taking the moral High Road here.
 
Lursa said:
Again, some people in this thread seemed to have missed Dobbs, which overturned a woman's right to abortion.
Click to expand...
And since women are prevented from having an abortion in certain states, then guys cannot complain if she has a child. She effectively has no choice.
 
Gordy327 said:
And since women are prevented from having an abortion in certain states, then guys cannot complain if she has a child. She effectively has no choice.
Click to expand...
Travel is permitted. She is not a prisoner
 
Lursa said:
So now he's advocating for either parent taking their child and disappearing? Uh huh. Yeah, they're really taking the moral High Road here.
Click to expand...
You're just making things up now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom