• 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

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
133,671
Reaction score
31,264
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
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... or are in the process of getting it back.

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:
  1. Man and woman have sex.
    1. Woman gets pregnant.
      1. Woman has options:
        1. Woman never informs man of pregnancy and aborts
        2. Woman never informs man of pregnancy and has child but never gets financial help from him
        3. Woman informs man of pregnancy and wants no financial support as they have some sort of joint custody
        4. Woman informs many of pregnancy and wants financials support from the man
At this point the man has options:
  1. Man agrees to pay and has some sort of custody
  2. Man agrees to pay and has no role in the child’s life
  3. 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:
  1. Woman has an abortion
  2. Woman gives the baby up for adoption
  3. 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?


4605634.jpg
 
The reason for the disparity IS because of biology.

It must be removed from the discussion because the OP says so...not because of reality. :rolleyes:

That reality is inconvenient to his "argument." You'll note he's qualified everything he can possibly think of and will end up not accepting anything anyone comes up with because he's narrowed his "window" so extremely...the accusations will always be..."that's not the argument!"
 
The Male opt out exists preconception.
Post ejaculation the choice has been given to the Woman to make.
Actions can have consequences. The same is true for inaction.

I am glad I typical have sex to the point of ejaculation and not beyond.

MAGA.
 
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... or are in the process of getting it back.

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:
  1. Man and woman have sex.
    1. Woman gets pregnant.
      1. Woman has options:
        1. Woman never informs man of pregnancy and aborts
        2. Woman never informs man of pregnancy and has child but never gets financial help from him
        3. Woman informs man of pregnancy and wants no financial support as they have some sort of joint custody
        4. Woman informs many of pregnancy and wants financials support from the man
At this point the man has options:
  1. Man agrees to pay and has some sort of custody
  2. Man agrees to pay and has no role in the child’s life
  3. 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:
  1. Woman has an abortion
  2. Woman gives the baby up for adoption
  3. 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?

This ⬆️ entire argument is pure hypocrisy because the father can be the father again anytime he chooses. Previously posted ;):

The man can decide anytime after the birth to be involved in the kid's life, or the kid can contact him, and he can just pick up anytime, anywhere he wants. Yeah, he'll have to start paying support but he still get's to be a dad IF he wants. HIS CHOICE.
No court will stop that...because all agree that it's best for the kid to have the father involved in their lives. (I do too). Some states even let rapists apply for visitation, even custody, when they're released...they're certainly not going to stop non-criminals from being in their kids' lives.​
The courts always allow contact, visitation, etc...parents fight to stop that all the time and lose...unless there's a history of abuse. Again, it's about what's best for the kid. No contract will supersede the kid's best interests on this to cut one parent out.​
Men will get out of all the responsibilities AND still get to be a father when they feel like it. Does that sound "equal"?

The OP post is one heck of a lot of self-righteous typing (again 😄). For nada. To rend your garments :rolleyes: The father can "opt back in" anytime he chooses. Cue: "But that's not the argument!" Because your argument is a giant, anti-society, COERCIVE misogynistic mess.
 
Last edited:
The difference between a woman getting an abortion and a man having a post-conception opt out is that in one scenario there is no child and in the other, there is.

Personally I believe it is better for society for both parents to be required to contribute to that child’s wellbeing before taxpayers do as while the fathers do not have as much control as the woman, they have infinitely more than the taxpayers.

The most I would maybe agree to would be child support not being necessary if you give up your parental rights and the other parent earns and maintains an income above a certain threshold.

But the child comes first. It’s not about fairness between the mother and father, both of whom have some degree of responsibility whereas the child has literally none for existing.
 
The difference between a woman getting an abortion and a man having a post-conception opt out is that in one scenario there is no child and in the other, there is.

Personally I believe it is better for society for both parents to be required to contribute to that child’s wellbeing before taxpayers do as while the fathers do not have as much control as the woman, they have infinitely more than the taxpayers.

The most I would maybe agree to would be child support not being necessary if you give up your parental rights and the other parent earns and maintains an income above a certain threshold.

But the child comes first. It’s not about fairness between the mother and father, both of whom have some degree of responsibility whereas the child has literally none for existing.

And the child has rights that are completely separate from the parents. That take priority. Once there's a kid...it doesnt really matter what the parents said or contracted or decided before.

There are reasons society instituted child support to begin with. Those reasons havent disappeared. The child's interests come first, THEN the taxpayers who get stuck with the bill and have no responsibility for the creation of that kid...and then there are the 2 people that knowingly risked creating that kid...who else should be held responsible, at minimum, financially?
 
Some men still believe that they are entitled to sex without consequences. And they do so to their own detriment but it's still their choice to risk it.

Women have never been able to have sex without consequences and still cannot. Now, due to laws and modern tech, neither can men....that is EQUAL...and some of them are having a very hard time adapting to the realities of life today.

And now some are demanding a 'legal' way to get out of the consequences of that decision. It makes men look weak and unable to look out for their own best interests...when in reality, they are 100% in control of this. Of themselves. right? Men choose to hand their reproductive status over to women...that's their decision. And then that "control" really pisses them off.
 
The Male opt out exists preconception.

Legally, she has a post conception opt-out and and he does not. That was the point of the whole OP that you apparently just ignored.

Post ejaculation the choice has been given to the Woman to make.

Again, that is in the OP. She has 100% control over her pregnancy and he has none.

Actions can have consequences. The same is true for inaction.

Yet you ignore the disparity.
 
The difference between a woman getting an abortion and a man having a post-conception opt out is that in one scenario there is no child and in the other, there is.

If she cn not care for a child then she should make the responsible choice and not have one.


Personally I believe it is better for society for both parents to be required to contribute to that child’s wellbeing before taxpayers do as while the fathers do not have as much control as the woman, they have infinitely more than the taxpayers.

The most I would maybe agree to would be child support not being necessary if you give up your parental rights and the other parent earns and maintains an income above a certain threshold.

But the child comes first.

There is no child at the point of this discussion's argument

It’s not about fairness between the mother and father, both of whom have some degree of responsibility whereas the child has literally none for existing.

There is no child and she can make a responsible decision and not have a child that will be born intro neglect.
 
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.

Anyway… thoughts?

My "thoughts" are that you are admitting to this ⬇️ and dont even realize it. Did you miss it? ;)

Some men still believe that they are entitled to sex without consequences. And they do so to their own detriment but it's still their choice to risk it.

Women have never been able to have sex without consequences and still cannot. Now, due to laws and modern tech, neither can men....that is EQUAL...and some of them are having a very hard time adapting to the realities of life today.

Pretty sure that men not realizing it is why so many decide to take the risk...but blaming the woman for their decision to take that risk is not very mature. (The very nature of this attempt at manufactured "equality" seems only like spite. )
 
Last edited:
If she cn not care for a child then she should make the responsible choice and not have one.




There is no child at the point of this discussion's argument



There is no child and she can make a responsible decision and not have a child that will be born intro neglect.
Maybe she shouldn’t. But if she does, then there is a child. And at that point if she doesn’t make enough then it’s either the child being under supported or it’s the taxpayers stepping in. And I would rather have the other parent bare responsibility before either of those things.
 
Maybe she shouldn’t. But if she does, then there is a child. And at that point if she doesn’t make enough then it’s either the child being under supported or it’s the taxpayers stepping in. And I would rather have the other parent bare responsibility before either of those things.

The taxpayers are already paying for poor people to have children. Not only that, taxpayers are seemingly fine allowing a woman to have a kid born into certain neglect and poverty, drug abuse, poor education, etc. Taxpayers are fine with women choosing that... but if a guy wants to opt-out then that is a no-no?
 
The taxpayers are already paying for poor people to have children. Not only that, taxpayers are seemingly fine allowing a woman to have a kid born into certain neglect and poverty, drug abuse, poor education, etc. Taxpayers are fine with women choosing that... but if a guy wants to opt-out then that is a no-no?
It id generally better for society for children to have sufficient support to maximize the chances of them being productive members of society. I would rather that support come from their biological parents first before having the taxpayers responsible.

Taxpayers aren’t “fine” with anything above. But in those scenarios the parents are also responsible for providing support before taxpayers are.
 
I think it's telling how upset women are about losing the option that men have always been denied. 🤷‍♂️
So after the father opt-out are you alright with the taxpayer stepping in with benefits the child would otherwise not receive if the father paid child support?
 
So after the father opt-out are you alright with the taxpayer stepping in with benefits the child would otherwise not receive if the father paid child support?
The gov already does that. 🤷‍♂️
 
They do it less than they would do if there is no child support. So you’re fine with the increase?
I'm not fine with men being used by the gov so the gov can provide funding for things they wanted funded. Whether that funding should be provided is a completely different topic. The topic here is responsibility. Men should not be held responsible for choices that are solely made by women.

Women don't want men controlling their bodies. I respect that. Men don't women controlling their wallet and women are not OK with respecting that.
 
I'm not fine with men being used by the gov so the gov can provide funding for things they wanted funded. Whether that funding should be provided is a completely different topic. The topic here is responsibility. Men should not be held responsible for choices that are solely made by women.

Women don't want men controlling their bodies. I respect that. Men don't women controlling their wallet and women are not OK with respecting that.
This topic is inextricably linked to the topic of whether the funding should be provided.

If you give men a post-conception opt-out then you are supporting one of either two things.

Either you are supporting in increase in taxpayer funds going to benefits for families of children with low incomes or you are supporting reducing the benefits that go to families of children in such situations.

Personally, I can’t support either. The fathers are more responsible than the taxpayers. And I don’t think reducing benefits is the answer either with the increased likelihood of significantly impoverished children to end up involved in crime or otherwise less productive in society.
 
This topic is inextricably linked to the topic of whether the funding should be provided.

If you give men a post-conception opt-out then you are supporting one of either two things.

Either you are supporting in increase in taxpayer funds going to benefits for families of children with low incomes or you are supporting reducing the benefits that go to families of children in such situations.

Personally, I can’t support either. The fathers are more responsible than the taxpayers. And I don’t think reducing benefits is the answer either with the increased likelihood of significantly impoverished children to end up involved in crime or otherwise less productive in society.
You are inviting men into women's wombs.
 
Legally, she has a post conception opt-out and and he does not. That was the point of the whole OP that you apparently just ignored.

To a degree, that's true, except in States where pre-birth abortion laws exist. What you're calling a point is nothing more than an irrational complaint.

Again, that is in the OP. She has 100% control over her pregnancy and he has none.

HE, cannot become pregnant. They BOTH had 100% control over their own action/inaction which resulted in Her conception IF She was not being raped.

Yet you ignore the disparity.
I see no disparity, simply the inability to exercise control when/while the ability to do so exists, and then complain about the possible consequences.
 
Back
Top Bottom