• 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 said:
that is irrleevant...
Click to expand...

No, it is not. You're talking about "legal inequality." But suddenly it's irrelevant that a man could "legally opt out" of his own responsibility toward raising his child...yet "hey! Here I am" waltz back in whenever it's convenient for him?

Nah.

Bodi said:
besides the woman can take off and have the kid and NEVER tell the dad or the kid who the dad was...
Click to expand...

In which case he never had to pay a dime, right? Your hypothetical guy wanted to legally "opt out" of his responsibility to the child and walk away forever...remember? Hmm.

However, if he would have wanted to father the child had he known it existed, and she willfully and knowingly kept the child from him, he has a hell of a legal case at his disposal. And she's a shit, BTW. But yeah, I would fully expect that man to sue, at the very least. He is the child's father. He had, and has, rights.

Bodi said:
you really don't want to try and use this as some kind of point because it just makes these women look like Trash
Click to expand...

Who cares who's trash? Once there's a child, it has rights, and two people are responsible before taxpayers are. And BTW, you want an "opt out" so men can rawdog it and wander away and you're calling the women trash? How does that work?
Bodi said:
So you hate men... got it.
Click to expand...

LOL. This from Mr. "My bitch wife!" and "men should be able to use women rawdog, walk away, and hey, by the way, these women are trash."
 
EnchantedMuggle said:
No, it is not. You're talking about "legal inequality." But suddenly it's irrelevant that a man could "legally opt out" of his own responsibility toward raising his child...yet "hey! Here I am" waltz back in whenever it's convenient for him?
Click to expand...


It is about the legal inequality POST CONCEPTION and PRE BIRTH.

Like I said you are missing the point. Not gonna read anything past this misunderstanding of yours.


,
 
EnchantedMuggle said:
OL. This from Mr. "My bitch wife!" and "men should be able to use women rawdog, walk away, and hey, by the way, these women are trash."
Click to expand...

I actually did read the rest and what a joke... anger. hatred. That is all you have apparently. You toss out trash and that is all you will get in return.
 
Bodi said:
It is about the legal inequality POST CONCEPTION and PRE BIRTH.

Like I said you are missing the point. Not gonna read anything past this misunderstanding of yours.


,
Click to expand...

He had his chance to 100% avoid having a child.

You are deliberately skirting this point, and I'm not sure why.
 
Bodi said:
I actually did read the rest and what a joke... anger. hatred. That is all you have apparently. You toss out trash and that is all you will get in return.
Click to expand...

For a crusade (apparently a 10-year one so far?) that will leave children poor and praying every night their Dad will come visit them and slowly just becoming cynical, while encouraging men to be as irresponsible as possible?

I don't know about hatred but yeah, there's definitely a healthy dash of utter disgust in there.

Shouldn't there be?

You're aware that these kids are human beings, right?

No?

Did someone say hatred and trash?
 

It is a debate topic... not some personal crusade. Ever take a debate class in high school. I had to represent Yemen in a Security Council debate at the MUN once. If you don't want to debate then don't. Leave the personal bullshit out of it. If you want to debate then do so within the parameters. Not that hard.
 

I am debating, point by point. You are answering by not addressing my points and instead taking each post and making one sweeping statement, each of which is starting to get more and more emotional. "You're nothing but hate and anger!! You just hate men! Blah blah."

Ever take a debate class?
 
Bodi said:
You kinda missed the whole point about legal inequality at the specific point of post-conception opt-out.
Click to expand...

If the post-conception opt out isnt legally binding, what does it accomplish? How does it accomplish "legal equality?"
 
EnchantedMuggle said:
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."
Click to expand...
Bodi said:
that is irrleevant...
Click to expand...

How so? Please explain beyond "na huh". Surely you know with all your Yemeni debate experience...that's not "debate."

Because it means that men do get to choose...in your scheme they get to walk away and then, when and if they want to be fathers, they just walk right back in. They get to do that, right? Yes or no? Whether the woman likes it or not? Yes or no?

Gee whiz, look who's back in control...men. So, where's the inequality?

Bodi said:
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
Click to expand...

Then I guess the guy doesnt have to worry about the post-conception opt-out if she skips...right? So this makes no sense, it's just an attempt at trying to keep presenting men as victims.
 
Last edited:
Bodi said:
It is about the legal inequality POST CONCEPTION and PRE BIRTH.
Click to expand...

Again...what's the purpose of the post-conception/pre-birth opt out if it's not legally binding?

If the opt out isnt legally binding, how does it achieve legal equality?
 
Last edited:
EnchantedMuggle said:
He had his chance to 100% avoid having a child.

You are deliberately skirting this point, and I'm not sure why.
Click to expand...

Because then he doesnt get to have sex. He wants sex with no consequences.

Unlike women, for whom that's not possible, not now, not in the past. But he refuses to acknowledge that inequality...he carefully demands that we leave out the realities of biology...it's ok for women to be victims of the physical consequences of sex as long as men arent victims of the financial (legal) consequences of sex.
 

He puts it all on the women because women have the final decision on whether or not to have the kid. So "it's all our fault." And he said you hated men?

Forget the kid, who's not at fault at all...as long as the guy can badmouth the woman that HE deliberately risked sleeping with, knowing she had that choice. Cuz...he wanted to get laid.
 

I was calmly telling you that you were missing the point about legal inequality post-conception and pre-birth... and what is ironic is it has been you that has been ramping up the emotion and insults. I merely tried to reflect them back a bit so you would see that it is silly and a waste of time and, hopefully stop. But here you are again insulting and now, copying me about debate.. *shrug*
 

You were calmly crying that am nothing but full of hat and anger and that I just hate men, noted.

Meanwhile, you have successfully avoided answering the majority of my points. Nice job.
 
EnchantedMuggle said:
You were calmly crying that am nothing but full of hat and anger and that I just hate men, noted.

Meanwhile, you have successfully avoided answering the majority of my points. Nice job.
Click to expand...

Sounds great.
 
Jagged said:
Hence why women have an option which men don't.
Click to expand...

I understand. Women should have that right...

What is still not being addressed is why she can force him to pay for her decision, post-conception and pre-birth.

The State already pays tons for people's decisions, and you seem fine with that.
 
Bodi said:
I understand. Women should have that right...

What is still not being addressed is why she can force him to pay for her decision, post-conception and pre-birth.

The State already pays tons for people's decisions, and you seem fine with that.
Click to expand...
Because he's the father, duh.
 
Jagged said:
Because he's the father, duh.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean he has to pay... same for her. Neither have to pay, in fact. Try again without the Biological Fallacy.
 
Bodi said:
That doesn't mean he has to pay... same for her. Neither have to pay, in fact. Try again without the Biological Fallacy.
Click to expand...
If the baby is born, they are both responsible. Although if they both agree, they can put the baby up for adoption.
 
Jagged said:
If the baby is born, they are both responsible. Although if they both agree, they can put the baby up for adoption.
Click to expand...

So, what I said is correct. Neither parent has to pay. Correct?
 
Lursa said:
According to the laws supporting a child's right to both parents providing financial support, no, you're not correct.
Click to expand...

So the parents can't let the grandparents pay for and raise the kids? Happens all the time.

The Grandparents that have to raise their grandchildren

www.lifetimeincome.co.nz



Thought so. I am correct. Sorry.


Lursa said:
If the opt out isnt legally binding, how does it achieve legal equality?
Click to expand...

It would be legally binding... that is the whole point and why biology is irrelevant.

Tootles.. .
 
Jagged said:
It's a post-conception opt out. You said men don't have that.
Click to expand...

You said they can put it up for adoption... that means the parents do not have to be responsible/pay for, the kid.

Just admit I am correct instead of this retreat thing you are attempting. FFS.


.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…