Post Conception Opt-Out FOR MEN

[Gordy327]

That's fine. We ban all abortions and hold both of them responsible from the point of conception.

No rational reason to ban abortion or restrict it at all. Some just want it banned out of spite and/or misogyny.

 

[trouble13]

No rational reason to ban abortion or restrict it at all. Some just want it banned out of spite and/or misogyny.

There's no rational reason to force men to pay women to watch a kid they did not want.

 

[maquiscat]

That's fine. You can stick with your disingenuous rhetoric

'Tis your disingenuous rhetoric that I argue against.

and I will continue to be an advocate for a ban on all abortions.

So you are one of those who would force a 12 year old rape victim to give birth before her body is really ready to. Now we know where the disingenuous comes from

It's not worth my time to argue with bad-faith actors.

Pot kettle achromatic.

 

[Gordy327]

There's no rational reason to force men to pay women to watch a kid they did not want.

Yes there is, it's called child welfare. You seem to think men should be allowed to walk away from their kids no strings attached. Both the woman and the child suffer in that case. But its obvious you don't care about that.

 

[trouble13]

'Tis your disingenuous rhetoric that I argue against.



So you are one of those who would force a 12 year old rape victim to give birth before her body is really ready to. Now we know where the disingenuous comes from



Pot kettle achromatic.

I would not force any rape victim to become a parent to a child that occurred from a rape but the law sure does when the rape victim is a male. Once again you find it distasterul for a woman to be treated that way but are fine to treat men like that way.

 

[trouble13]

Yes there is, it's called child welfare. You seem to think men should be allowed to walk away from their kids no strings attached. Both the woman and the child suffer in that case. But its obvious you don't care about that.

Why should men suffer for the consequences of decisions they have no hand in making?

 

[Gordy327]

Why should men suffer for the consequences of decisions they have no hand in making?

They decided to engage in intimacy, leading to the subsequent issues. It seems you want the guys to have no consequences while the woman suffers all the consequences, including for life.

 

[trouble13]

They decided to engage in intimacy, leading to the subsequent issues. It seems you want the guys to have no consequences while the woman suffers all the consequences, including for life.

When she consented to intimacy she also consented to motherhood

 

[Gordy327]

When she consented to intimacy she also consented to motherhood

That doesn't address what I said. You want the guy to get off free and the woman to suffer.

 

[BirdinHand]

There's no rational reason to force men to pay women to watch a kid they did not want.

Sure there is.

The kid can't pay for himself, so someone has to.

Why should I (Joe Taxpayer) pay for a kid you made?

 

[trouble13]

That doesn't address what I said. You want the guy to get off free and the woman to suffer.

You want women to get paid for having sex.

 

[maquiscat]

I would not force any rape victim to become a parent to a child that occurred from a rape but the law sure does when the rape victim is a male. Once again you find it distasterul for a woman to be treated that way but are fine to treat men like that way.

You are actually wrong. I know of the cases where a minor got an adults woman pregnant via her sexual assault on him and still the courts ruled he was on the hook for child support. That is wrong and runs completely against the principle that an adult male who consents to sex is responsible for any offspring. For that matter any male rape victim, adult or minor, should never be on the hook for support unless they declare such. After that however is "no take backs." And the woman rapist should have her parental rights stripped while maintaining her financial responsibility just as it is for males in many states.

Are you willing to publicly conceded that underage pregnancies as well as those where the woman's life is under threat are exceptions for you instead of the "all abortions" you claimed earlier?

 

[maquiscat]

Why should men suffer for the consequences of decisions they have no hand in making?

Assuming consent to the sex, they had every hand in that decision as did the woman.

 

[maquiscat]

When she consented to intimacy she also consented to motherhood

She consented to the risk of pregnancy and to the responsibility of any offspring born, as does he when he engages in sex.

 

[maquiscat]

You want women to get paid for having sex.

She's not getting paid to have sex. If that were a true statement, then the payment would happen whether she got pregnant or not. Try again.

 

[trouble13]

Sure there is.

The kid can't pay for himself, so someone has to.

Why should I (Joe Taxpayer) pay for a kid you made?

Take that up with the woman who decided to be impregnated by a man who inst interested in fathering her child.

How would you feel about women being required to have the mans permission on everything she sounds his money on? I'm guess that would also be a problem for you.

Let's try it another way and you tell me what a father should have when him and the mother disagree on something. The best I can tell it's nothing.

 

[BirdinHand]

Take that up with the woman who decided to be impregnated by a man who inst interested in fathering her child

The government, before it goes to taxpayers - takes it up with both of them.

That’s what child support IS.

How would you feel about women being required to have the mans permission on everything she sounds his money on? I'm guess that would also be a problem for you.

Let's try it another way and you tell me what a father should have when him and the mother disagree on something. The best I can tell it's nothing.

I really don't care what people do inside their own relationships.

And in the case of child support - the government doesn't either. Until either 1. they are ASKED to get involved by someone filing a petition for child support or 2. DECIDE to get involved in a parent files for a form of taxpayer assistance (welfare)

 

[Lursa]

Obviously you were... that was pretty apparent... the point is that the law does not care what a couple agrees to in any number of situations.

Now you are catching on. It's not 'women's fault.' Now when will you recognize that it's laws supporting children's rights to support...laws that must protect those rights...which supersedes what the man or woman want? They're not going to change it for men (or women) that have regrets...they have kids, taxpayers, and society that take precedence...you know, all the people that DIDNT choose to take that risk.

 

[Visbek]

Look, you can call “bullshit” all you like....

Thanks, but I don't need your permission.

how can any person who wants their rights respected lay claim to calling anyone else who simply wants what they perceive as their rights to be respected “bullshit”.

This isn't about "men's rights." It's about giving men an excuse to abandon their responsibilities.

If I get into a car crash that is the fault of both parties, I'm not "demanding my rights" if I refuse to accept my share of the resulting financial responsibilities.

It’s the antithesis of “Golden Rule Ethical Thinking” as you are treating ‘the other” differently than you’d have yourself treated if the situation was reversed.

No, it isn't. In fact, you're doing the opposite here, clearly favoring men in this debate, rather than considering the needs and perspectives of a) the mother, b) the child, c) the state and d) the society at large.

If we followed your logic, then why would we have any punishments at all? When someone commits a murder, are we obligated to take the perspective of the murderer on equal footing with all other party's concerns? Should we not punish murderers on the off chance that if we commit a murder, we wouldn't want to end up in jail?

And as in other situations where you've tried twisting the Golden Rule in this way, threatening me with something that seems like a fair condition isn't actually much of a threat.

You can’t lay claim to the wrongness of men wanting it both ways in other situations; wages, promotion, social presence (power) and then say it’s OK for women to want it both ways in this. It not a fair or ethical position.

lol... what nonsense. Yet again, this isn't women asking for "both ways." It's asking biological fathers to uphold their part of the responsibilities.

Unsurprisingly, you're ignoring the variety of ways that women are already dealing with more than men in this situation. It's not like it is routine for the biological father to pay 100% of the expenses of raising a child. Plus, the woman is going to undergo months of medical treatment, pain, suffering, risk of death, and so on.

my only dog in this hunt is actual equality between the sexes....

And yet, for some strange reason, you're advocating a position that is enormously in favor of men. Hmmmmmm.

 

[Lursa]

Take that up with the woman who decided to be impregnated by a man who inst interested in fathering her child.

How would you feel about women being required to have the mans permission on everything she sounds his money on? I'm guess that would also be a problem for you.

Let's try it another way and you tell me what a father should have when him and the mother disagree on something. The best I can tell it's nothing.

If it's 'his money,' sure why not?

So...if the man knew she had the final decision on the pregnancy...and he doesnt want to pay for a kid...why did he choose to risk it anyway? I mean, I guess he wanted to get laid. Fine, no judgement. But then why shouldnt he be held accountable for that decision?

 

[Lursa]

That's fine. We ban all abortions and hold both of them responsible from the point of conception.

Your posts just reek of bitterness and spite. Not sense or practicality.

 

[Lursa]

There's no rational reason to force men to pay women to watch a kid they did not want.

I guess you dont read well then, since reasons have been posted all thru this and other threads you've posted in. Perhaps your reading comprehension needs some work?

 

[Lursa]

Yes there is, it's called child welfare. You seem to think men should be allowed to walk away from their kids no strings attached. Both the woman and the child suffer in that case. But its obvious you don't care about that.

That should be clear by now. What he cannot fathom tho, is that no one is proposing the woman could/should just walk away from paying child support either. He only sees "They hate men!" "Men are victims!" "Women are mean!"

 

[Lursa]

I would not force any rape victim to become a parent to a child that occurred from a rape but the law sure does when the rape victim is a male. Once again you find it distasterul for a woman to be treated that way but are fine to treat men like that way.

Not this again The only cases you've ever shown were where female teachers had affairs with their minor students. And yes they are held financially responsible and the kid's parents voluntarily take custody of the kid. And in many cases, they form a family unit after she gets out of prison and he's an adult. (I'm not justifying anything here, just writing it as published)

So you really dont have anything to prove that imagined hypocrisy.

 

[Lursa]

Why should men suffer for the consequences of decisions they have no hand in making?

The men were raped? The men (I dont mean minor students having affairs with their teachers) didnt decide to have sex with the woman who ends up pregnant? Please explain.