Post Conception Opt-Out FOR MEN

[Jagged]

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.

I didn't say that was wrong, although only about 1% go that route. Still, it a post-conception opt out for men you claim men don't have.

 

[Lursa]

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

*sigh* It's a New Zealand program. Anyway, let's stick with the realities:

"Lets" the grandparents raise them. What happens if the grandparents dont agree? Oh, then the parents are still legally responsible (in the US).

No one ever said that the parents, in agreement, couldnt give up their kids to adoption either. That's also a legal option, just like the one you named. Your opt out is about men opting out. They cant do either of those things (family care/adoption) without the consent of the woman. Right?

The Grandparents that have to raise their grandchildren

www.lifetimeincome.co.nz

Thought so. I am correct. Sorry.

Wow, seriously that's such a solid failure, I dont know why you posted it.

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

How is the post-conception/pre-birth opt out legally binding if the woman still has the kid anyway and the law enforces the child's right to child support from both parents? If she has it, can he still legally walk away without paying? Yes or no? And please explain.

 

[Bodi]

I didn't say that was wrong,

You didn't acknowledge that it is correct.

Still, it a post-conception opt out for men you claim men don't have.

They don't.


,

 

[Jagged]

You didn't acknowledge that it is correct.



They don't.

Of course they do. We just discussed it... adoption.

 

[Bodi]

Of course they do. We just discussed it... adoption.

Not if she does not allow it... obviously the point is that he does not have a legal option of opting out like she does. He can only opt-out if she agrees. That is not legal equality.

 

[Jagged]

Not if she does not allow it... obviously the point is that he does not have a legal option of opting out like she does. He can only opt-out if she agrees. That is not legal equality.

So? It's still an opt out. About 1% in the U.S. do that. That includes fathers who opt out post-conception, which you falsely stated men don't have. And that's the second option. The other is just going away.

 

[Bodi]

So? It's still an opt out. About 1% in the U.S. do that. That includes fathers who opt out post-conception, which you falsely stated men don't have. And that's the second option. The other is just going away.

Legal. Men do not have a legal opt out unless the woman aborts or lets him off...

 

[Lursa]

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

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?

 

[Bodi]

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

It is made binding... there is no reason why it can't be.

If the opt out isnt legally binding, how does it achieve legal equality?

I know. Lots of white people wanted to keep things legally unequal for black people as well...



.

 

[Lursa]

It is made binding... there is no reason why it can't be.

Yes there is...the rights of the child are completely separate (post 399) and you know that. I've sourced it for you. The 'binding agreement' does not supersede that. Creating an "opt out" law or agreement does not supersede the child's rights, you've posted that you know that .

That has happened and been thrown out by the Judge. Pre-birth contracts are irrelevant compared to the interest of the child.

""

I know. Lots of white people wanted to keep things legally unequal for black people as well...

Since it's not legally binding...how can it bring legal equality? (Stop avoiding it and answer please.)

 

[Bodi]

Yes there is...the rights of the child are completely separate (post 399) and you know that. I've sourced it for you. The 'binding agreement' does not supersede that. Creating an "opt out" law or agreement does not supersede the child's rights, you've posted that you know that .


""



Since it's not legally binding...how can it bring legal equality? (Stop avoiding it and answer please.)

Damn Uppity Blacks wanting equality!!

You keep arguing about the way things are... you do not argue why they can not change. For those reasons, I'm Out.

 

[Lursa]

Damn Uppity Blacks wanting equality!!

You keep arguing about the way things are... you do not argue why they can not change. For those reasons, I'm Out.

I've asked you this: do you think they should change the rights of children (post 399)? Because that's what's needed. Otherwise your "opt out" isnt "change," it's not possible, you admit it. So...do you support changing the rights that protect children and why would society do that? Why did our society recognize such rights for children to begin with and what has changed that would justify changing those rights? Those rights hold both parents responsible for supporting the child at least financially. Right now, those rights protect children, then taxpayers, and benefit society in general. Show me how you argue why they can change?

It's completely separate from some kind of "legal equality for men" that you are going on about, but it prevents it. First things first...Please address that .

 

[Bodi]

I've asked you this: do you think they should change the rights of children (post 399)? Because that's what's needed. Otherwise your "opt out" isnt "change," it's not possible, you admit it. So...do you support changing the rights that protect children

For ****'s sake... there is no child. She is still pregnant. Why you keep lying about this is just comical. LOL

Until you address the actual argument your posts will be treated as lies... like they have been for the last 5 years.

and why would society do that? Why did our society recognize such rights for children to begin with and what has changed that would justify changing those rights? Those rights hold both parents responsible for supporting the child at least financially. Right now, those rights protect children, then taxpayers, and benefit society in general. Show me how you argue why they can change?

It's completely separate from some kind of "legal equality for men" that you are going on about, but it prevents it. First things first...Please address that .

 

[Lursa]

For ****'s sake... there is no child. She is still pregnant. Why you keep lying about this is just comical. LOL

Until you address the actual argument your posts will be treated as lies... like they have been for the last 5 years.

We've been thru this, right here in this thread, why do you pretend otherwise?

You cant control her decision to have the kid or not. There opt-out is not binding. The opt-out cant stop her from having the kid, yes or no?​

​

So...what's the purpose of the post-conception/pre-birth opt out if it's not legally binding and she has the kid anyway? Then the child's rights supersede all of this. Yes or no?​

​

If the opt out isnt legally binding, how does it achieve legal equality?​

 

[Bodi]

We've been thru this, right here in this thread, why do you pretend otherwise?

You cant control her decision to have the kid or not. There opt-out is not binding. The opt-out cant stop her from having the kid, yes or no?​

​

So...what's the purpose of the post-conception/pre-birth opt out if it's not legally binding and she has the kid anyway? Then the child's rights supersede all of this. Yes or no?​

​

If the opt out isnt legally binding, how does it achieve legal equality?​

LOL

 

[Lursa]

LOL

Why cant you address it directly? I am. I am clearly addressing that there is no child. However you cant explain how it matters if she can just choose to have it anyway? How are you or the state "enforcing" the post-conception/pre-birth opt-out?

So a law or agreement for that opt out isnt binding, yes or no?

You said you wanted to discuss how to change that...please...explain how?

 

[Bodi]

Why cant you address it directly?

LOL

I am. I am clearly addressing that there is no child.

That is the argument. There is no child. If she has a child later that is a different argument.

However you cant explain how it matters if she can just choose to have it anyway?

That is already clear. She can choose to have it or abort it. The decision and control is 100% hers.

How are you or the state "enforcing" the post-conception/pre-birth opt-out?

Makes no sense...

So a law or agreement for that opt out isnt binding, yes or no?

It would be... for the ****ing thousandth time..

You said you wanted to discuss how to change that...please...explain how?

Already did... done and dusted.



/

 

[Lursa]

That is the argument. There is no child. If she has a child later that is a different argument.

That is already clear. She can choose to have it or abort it. The decision and control is 100% hers.

OK, so what's the "argument" then? For the opt-out?

You want a law or agreement that the man can walk away after she's pregnant and before the birth with no strings attached. "There's no child." Yes or no?

So...what's the argument? I'm fine with a guy doing that. No problem at all.

 

[Bodi]

OK, so what's the "argument" then? For the opt-out?

You want a law or agreement that the man can walk away after she's pregnant and before the birth with no strings attached. "There's no child." Yes or no?

So...what's the argument? I'm fine with a guy doing that. No problem at all.

So, you agree with the argument. You could have just said that 8 years ago and saved yourself a lot of stupid posts. For ****'s sake.

 

[Lursa]

So, you agree with the argument. You could have just said that 8 years ago and saved yourself a lot of stupid posts. For ****'s sake.

I'm fine with a guy leaving a relationship anytime, no strings attached. Or a woman. (Well, unless they're married...then it must be legally ended.)

But the opt-out does not:
a) keep her from having the kid
b) stop the state from requiring both parents to pay child support for a kid they produce

Yes or no? Please explain either way. What "change" do you want (that you mentioned in earlier post)?

 

[Bodi]

I'm fine with a guy leaving a relationship anytime, no strings attached. Or a woman. (Well, unless they're married...then it must be legally ended.)

But the opt-out does not:
a) keep her from having the kid
b) stop the state from requiring both parents to pay child support for a kid they produce

You said no strings attached. B is a string. The debate is over.




0

 

[Lursa]

You said no strings attached. B is a string. The debate is over.

"B" is completely separate from your opt-out. Your opt-out doesnt change "other" rights or laws. Just like your opt-out cant force a woman to have an abortion. Right?

But that's what needs to be changed then, right? You have admitted it's the child's right to support from both parents and judges will ignore any prior agreement.

So...the debate can be over and your argument fails...other laws protecting the child's rights supersede your opt-out and you refuse to explain what change you expect there and how to justify it.

Your opt-out fails because you cant articulate the "change" needed and how to justify removing those child's and taxpayer protections.

Do you admit failure or do you have an argument for the change you mentioned earlier?

 

[Bodi]

You have admitted it's the child's right to support from both parents

Lies... take it easy.

 

[Lursa]

Lies... take it easy.

Well it's clearly cited...so it seems you are lying. Or refer to the citations and refute them with your own?

Otherwise, it's just another time you cry "lies!" with zero proof.

Btw, here's the quote I referred to that you seem to consider a lie:

That has happened and been thrown out by the Judge. Pre-birth contracts are irrelevant compared to the interest of the child.

 

[Bodi]

Well it's clearly cited...so it seems you are lying. Or refer to the citations and refute them with your own?

Otherwise, it's just another time you cry "lies!" with zero proof.

Btw, here's the quote I referred to that you seem to consider a lie:

Some things never change... you arguing how it is now instead of why a change is impossible is a classic.