Post Conception Opt-Out FOR MEN

[Jagged]

Women aren't supposed to have to try to afford children all on their own; that's where the father -- the other party responsible for the pregnancy -- comes in.

He played, he paid.

They both paid. Her body will never be the same no matter what option she chooses, and her mind and emotions probably won't be, either. That's forever. He pays financially; that's over in 18 years.

Tought darts in both cases.

Once the child is here, it's just that, a child, and the state WILL require that it is supported, and the parties responsible for the creation of that child, the mother *and* the father, will be gone after first to support that child, and the taxpayers second.

Umm... slight correction... parents often pay for more than 18 years. 18 years are merely legal obligations. Not saying that as a bad thing as I still give my kids whatever they need, and fortunately, my wife and I have it to give.

 

[Jagged]

Why do other people have to pay for the woman's decision? Why can't she pay for her own choices?

Because it takes two to make a baby and the guy has to pay for his choices. Duh.

 

[Jagged]

Why do other people have to pay for couples' decisions to have kids they cant afford? Why dont we make them pay for their own choices?

Why do you only call out women?

It's called, "misogyny."

 

[Bodi]

Because it takes two to make a baby and the guy has to pay for his choices. Duh.

She is responsible for 99.8% of the baby making and 100% the decision to have it. So why do taxpayers have to pay as well if it is just those two?

 

[Lursa]

She is responsible for 99.8% of the baby making and 100% the decision to have it.

Now I know why you dont want biology to be part of the debate

So why do taxpayers have to pay as well if it is just those two?

Why should we pay more? It's not an endless well...paying for more kids means others in need will start getting less.

Please explain why taxpayers should pay anything when the parents of the child that knowingly risked creating it are available to do so?

 

[Bodi]

Now I know why you dont want biology to be part of the debate

LOL. Ok. Take the embryo out and stick it in the guy's belly and see how well the kid develops.



/

 

[Bodi]

It's called, "misogyny."

It is always funny , yet sad , to watch people toss out weak insults once they start losing a debate.

Misandrist generally resort to that... Ad Hom Deflections instead of talking things out, asking a question, etc.. LOL

 

[Bodi]

Why do other people have to pay for couples' decisions to have kids they cant afford? Why dont we make them pay for their own choices?

Why do you only call out women?

I don't and you know it... so why lie?

 

[Lursa]

LOL. Ok. Take the embryo out and stick it in the guy's belly and see how well the kid develops.

That's not 'creating.' He's 50% responsible for creation.

She's 100% responsible for "fetal prep."

 

[Lursa]

I don't and you know it... so why lie?

It was in the example about choosing to have a kid when someone couldnt afford it. You refused at least twice to consider couples as well as just women

So...why lie?

 

[Bodi]

That's not 'creating.' He's 50% responsible for creation.

She's 100% responsible for "fetal prep."

Your reading comprehension sucks... or as I view, you lie. Your logic sucks as well. I said "baby making" not responsibility.

It was in the example about choosing to have a kid when someone couldnt afford it. You refused at least twice to consider couples as well as just women

So...why lie?

You lie again. It is getting back to old levels. You know I support women. You know my stance on abortion. You lie and think it is cute. *shrug*

What remains a mystery is the hatred of men.



..

 

[Lursa]

Your reading comprehension sucks... or as I view, you lie. Your logic sucks as well. I said "baby making" not responsibility.

LMAO and I wrote "creating" (making) and "prep"...those are verbs..."responsibility" is a noun.

Tell us again you were a high school teacher?

She is responsible for 99.8% of the baby making and 100% the decision to have it.

That's not 'creating.' He's 50% responsible for creation.

She's 100% responsible for "fetal prep."

You lie again. It is getting back to old levels. You know I support women. You know my stance on abortion. You lie and think it is cute. *shrug*

This was specific to that context, that's what you were quoting. So you are the one lying AGAIN.

And you indeed refused to consider couples when it came to choosing to have kids you cant afford...more than once. Yes or no? I can grab the quotes to prove it, as usual.

What remains a mystery is the hatred of men.

It is a mystery if you hate men.

 

[Bodi]

LMAO and I wrote "creating" (making) and "prep"...those are verbs..."responsibility" is a noun.

Tell us again you were a high school teacher?

LOL. I wasn't even talking to you.

Because it takes two to make a baby and the guy has to pay for his choices. Duh.

She is responsible for 99.8% of the baby making and 100% the decision to have it. So why do taxpayers have to pay as well if it is just those two?

That's not 'creating.' He's 50% responsible for creation.

She's 100% responsible for "fetal prep."

You come in late, make some stupid Red Herring, try to hijack what was actually said and start tossing around insults.

 

[Lursa]

LOL. I wasn't even talking to you.

So what? A "clarification" is always worthwhile And I was only half-serious...wow.

You come in late, make some stupid Red Herring, try to hijack what was actually said and start tossing around insults.

No, I factually clarified that as well...did you dismiss the fact that couples also choose to have kids they cant afford and continue to accuse only women, yes or no? More than once? The quotes are there if you'd like me to post them.

 

[Bodi]

So what? A "clarification" is always worthwhile And I was only half-serious...wow.



No, I factually clarified that as well...did you dismiss the fact that couples also choose to have kids they cant afford

I have repeatedly brought that up and how you are fine with tax payers paying for that... but not for the situation in the OP.

and continue to accuse only women,

Never ever accused only women... actually not sure I ever accused them of anything. Just described the scenario

yes or no? More than once? The quotes are there if you'd like me to post them.

Anyway... just wanted to debunk your two idiotic points here.



.

 

[Lursa]

Read it again, you can get it.

She is responsible for 99.8% of the baby making and 100% the decision to have it. So why do taxpayers have to pay as well if it is just those two?

He's 50% responsible for creation. ("making")

She's 100% responsible for "fetal prep."

Basic biology, the "forbidden argument!" And that is why the non-custodial parent is 50% responsible for, at minimum , 50% financial child support. According to the rights recognized for the child.

Get it?

 

[Lursa]

But the complaint you have is exactly the same. It's hypocritical to only complain about women.

No. It isn't. If there are two people that want a kid in your scenario and there are only one, or none, that want one in my scenario, then they are not exactly the same. How can a persons logic be this bad?

This garbled mess makes no sense, because it's about a choice to have a kid when it's not affordable...and one person can make that decision or a couple can make that decision...how is it selfish and irresponsible for a woman but not a couple? Yet you continually single out only women.

Here you go: The fact is that they're the same because they made a choice to have kid they cant afford...just like the women you are singling out.

 

[Lursa]

And society has to pay for it... but you are fine with that, hence the hypocrisy.

You keep writing that lie, I keep asking you to quote where I've been fine with it...and you just keep lying with no quotes.

So...it seems you are the one lying. Right?

And one example of the proof you are lying

Who says it's ok? But there's no legal way to prevent it (the woman having the kid). Or, please share how? So child support and public assistance are ways society alleviates some of those risks you list. But you already know this.

 

[Lursa]

Another example:

And society has to pay for it... but you are fine with that, hence the hypocrisy.

I am 100% against anyone having a kid that they cant afford. I bring it up in every minimum wage thread, among others. Personally I think that women/couples that have a kid they dont want or cant care for are foolish, if not stupid. I think their lives would be miserable, altho in the end it usually seems to work out ok for parents and kid.

However there is no way there will ever be legalized forced abortion nor laws that successfully end unplanned pregnancy, so I dont bother tilting at that windmill. I acknowledge reality and work from there.

Is there some reason you cant just debate civilly and answer directly? So there's some kind of normal back and forth discussion? This seems pretty basic and to the point:

Why arent you just fighting to end mandatory child support? You cant control her decision to have the kid or not, I know that's what infuriates you, but it's not about her, it's about the child's right to that support from both parents. If the opt out isnt binding, what does it accomplish?​

 

[EnchantedMuggle]

Why do other people have to pay for the woman's decision?

Because once it is born, a child isn't someone's "decision," it is an independent human being and has rights.

Of course, if the father is involved and/or if he can be tracked down to do his part financially, the chances are reduced that other people will have to pay for *the man and the woman's* decisions (the man's to not bother with birth control, the woman to give birth now that she's stuck making a choice). If two people are involved, chances are much lower that "other people" will have to "pay for the woman's decision."

It is only in YOUR proposition that "other people have to pay for the woman's decision." You propose that the man just walk away because "don't wanna," correct? In that case, yes. Chances are MUCH higher that other people will have to chip in. Along with the mother, of course, since approximately 80% of single mothers work outside the home.

Why can't she pay for her own choices?

Because very few people can raise a child financially all on their own. The father would have trouble with that, too. They are both paying for their choices, the man and the woman. Unless the woman tied the man up, drugged him and forced the sperm out of him, they both made decisions that resulted in pregnancy.

And again, she IS "paying" for her choice. The overwhelming majority of single mothers work outside the home, in addition to taking care of their child. However, as I said, it's still hard for one person to support a child. So (God forbid!) that's where *the other responsible party* comes in...before resorting to taxpayers footing the rest of the bill.

Yet when she plays she does not have to pay.

Of course she does. Whatever decision she makes, she will be altered forever. And she can't wait on that decision; it has to happen fast.

They both played. They're both paying.

Inequal treatment under the law.

Equal treatment under the law. The mother and father are the first obligation when it comes to a born child, an independent entity. After that come taxpayers.

It's about the child, not "making one adult pay" or "making things equal." Remember, the adults both had choices.

She played she pays... *shrug*

That's what I said. They both played. They both pay.

Oh, a pity card? LOL

How is it pity to say a woman's body is altered no matter what once pregnancy has occured?

Do you have any understanding of female reproductive biology?

What about his mind and emotions? He is just a wallet, huh?

It is *your* scenario that this hypothetical man does not want his own child. In a different scenario, where the man did want his child, he'd obviously be able to be a father to the child. In fact, either way he has a right to be a father to the child. He IS the father of the child. But since the entire thread is about the father not wanting the child, I'm assuming that *in your scenario* he doesn't want to be a loving, consistent presence in the child's life.

Again, if he does, he has rights.

He is the father.

He isn't any more "just a father" any more than the mother is "just a live-in continuous caretaker."

There is no child at the post-conception, pre-birth part.

However, it is *your* scenario that the woman is choosing to give birth and that this is the "waaah....no fair" part.

If you're talking about a fetus, you're correct, that is not a child.

 

[Bodi]

Because once it is born, a child isn't someone's "decision," it is an independent human being and has rights.

Of course, if the father is involved and/or if he can be tracked down to do his part financially, the chances are reduced that other people will have to pay for *the man and the woman's* decisions (the man's to not bother with birth control, the woman to give birth now that she's stuck making a choice). If two people are involved, chances are much lower that "other people" will have to "pay for the woman's decision."

It is only in YOUR proposition that "other people have to pay for the woman's decision." You propose that the man just walk away because "don't wanna," correct? In that case, yes. Chances are MUCH higher that other people will have to chip in. Along with the mother, of course, since approximately 80% of single mothers work outside the home.



Because very few people can raise a child financially all on their own. The father would have trouble with that, too. They are both paying for their choices, the man and the woman. Unless the woman tied the man up, drugged him and forced the sperm out of him, they both made decisions that resulted in pregnancy.

And again, she IS "paying" for her choice. The overwhelming majority of single mothers work outside the home, in addition to taking care of their child. However, as I said, it's still hard for one person to support a child. So (God forbid!) that's where *the other responsible party* comes in...before resorting to taxpayers footing the rest of the bill.



Of course she does. Whatever decision she makes, she will be altered forever. And she can't wait on that decision; it has to happen fast.

They both played. They're both paying.



Equal treatment under the law. The mother and father are the first obligation when it comes to a born child, an independent entity. After that come taxpayers.

It's about the child, not "making one adult pay" or "making things equal." Remember, the adults both had choices.



That's what I said. They both played. They both pay.



How is it pity to say a woman's body is altered no matter what once pregnancy has occured?

Do you have any understanding of female reproductive biology?



It is *your* scenario that this hypothetical man does not want his own child. In a different scenario, where the man did want his child, he'd obviously be able to be a father to the child. In fact, either way he has a right to be a father to the child. He IS the father of the child. But since the entire thread is about the father not wanting the child, I'm assuming that *in your scenario* he doesn't want to be a loving, consistent presence in the child's life.

Again, if he does, he has rights.

He is the father.

He isn't any more "just a father" any more than the mother is "just a live-in continuous caretaker."



However, it is *your* scenario that the woman is choosing to give birth and that this is the "waaah....no fair" part.

If you're talking about a fetus, you're correct, that is not a child.

You kinda missed the whole point about legal inequality at the specific point of post-conception opt-out..



..

 

[EnchantedMuggle]

You kinda missed the whole point about legally inequality at that specific point of post-conception opt-out...

No, I think you did.

Biology is involved, and ownership of one's body.

He had 100% choice in whether or not to father a child.

She does too.

Once pregnancy has occured, it would DEFINITELY be legal inequality if he could force her into an abortion she didn't want, or force her into giving birth if she didn't want that. The same as if she could force him into a medical condition or procedure.

And *once there is a child the child has rights. It doesn't mean jack shit that the dude doesn't feel like helping support it.* It is THE CHILD who has rights, and those responsible for the child's creation that are responsible for its upbringing.

As for a "post conception opt-out," he can still waltz into the child's life at any time, so again...what was that about legal inequality?

What you're really proposing is a "rawdog pump 'n dump"policy, in legal terms.

No. LOL. Unless you really DO want to pay, and pay, and pay for hundreds of thousands of MORE children, since men would be pumping and dumping even more than they do now.. I mean you can't see how this would work out?

 

[Bodi]

No, I think you did.

sure thing. I have only debated this issue for a decade... LOL

Biology is involved, and ownership of one's body.

Again, it is about legal inequality... something you are completely missing.

He had 100% choice in whether or not to father a child.

Again, you are missing the point. She has the power to opt-out post-conception but he does not. That is legal inequality under the law.

 

[EnchantedMuggle]

sure thing. I have only debated this issue for a decade... LOL




Again, it is about legal inequality... something you are completely missing.




Again, you are missing the point. She has the power to opt-out post-conception but he does not. That is legal inequality under the law.

No, the legal inequality in your scenario would be that the man could "opt out," have zero responsibility, yet waltz back into the child's life "whenever."

And you're missing the point of your Rawdog Pump 'n Dump Just For Men policy. Why ever bother using BC at all anymore? No more of those terrible, awful condoms. (They reduce sensation, waaaah!) And guess what that would mean to you and me? Thousands...and thousands...and thousands of more children to help pay for.

That's what you want?

And all so men can get their Q-tips wet and walk away? It is THIS big a deal to ensure guys can remain 100% irresponsible and maybe impregnate a different woman every single night if they feel like it, then sign a paper and do it all over again?

Nah, LOL. States with enough on their backs as far as figuring out how to feed kids don't want that, and you can bet taxpayers don't want it, either.

"But it's unequal! Waaah." LOL tough darts. The man had plenty of choice. He literally had 100% choice not to become a father. He abdicated that choice.

Now everybody pays the piper. That's just the reality. And it will start with the *father*...and obviously the mother, who the majority of the time is already doing her share by being a working mother.

 

[Bodi]

No, the legal inequality in your scenario would be that the man could "opt out," have zero responsibility, yet waltz back into the child's life "whenever."

that is irrleevant... besides the woman can take off and have the kid and NEVER tell the dad or the kid who the dad was... you really don't want to try and use this as some kind of point because it just makes these women look like Trash

And you're missing the point of your Rawdog Pump 'n Dump Just For Men policy.

So you hate men... got it.