Post Conception Opt-Out FOR MEN

[phoenix2020]

I think men should take responsibility for their choices and if they are unwilling, I am glad we have a system in place to hold these deadbeat dads accountable through child support payments.

 

[Individual]

He's not anti-abortion...and he says these threads arent about abortion, yet he posts it in the Abortion sub-forum every time. He'd get more people's participation if he posted it elsewhere...I've told him

Pro-irresponsible is what I'd call it.
My advice would be to NOT opt-in to something you cannot lawfully opt-out of.

 

[weaver2]

I see that you tried to make that personal. When you are able to post without getting so emotion that you case about insults, let me know.

Bodi that's not personal. Those are facts. The posters who have the most to say about women's morality and responsibility are the same ones that get their knickers all knotted up over this post sex opt out issue and no matter how many times the biology is explained they say things like (and this is a composite quote, crude language and all) "It's just not fair, a woman gets to slut around then opt out of any responsibility for a child she didn't want but she can make a man pay for a child he didn't want if she decides to keep the child". And it is a researched fact that 55% of sexually active males refuse to use a condom.

 

[Jagged]

I am pro-Abortion. What other idiotic "assumptions" do you have?

I'm not really sure how you think I assumed anything about you? What do you think, "I don't know about Bodi," means?

 

[Bodi]

Bodi that's not personal. Those are facts.

Naw, it an attempt to make it personal because those people can not just stick to the facts/plan/idea of the OP.

The posters who have the most to say about women's morality and responsibility are the same ones that get their knickers all knotted up over this post sex opt out issue and no matter how many times the biology is explained they say things like (and this is a composite quote, crude language and all) "It's just not fair, a woman gets to slut around then opt out of any responsibility for a child she didn't want but she can make a man pay for a child he didn't want if she decides to keep the child".

See, you are the one talking bad about women. A woman gets and opt out and a man should get an opt out of parenthood as well.

And it is a researched fact that 55% of sexually active males refuse to use a condom.

I am not sure what you are implying. That women are being raped and did not consent to sex with these what? Degenerates? Scum Bags? Sexists? Men.

 

[Bodi]

I'm not really sure how you think I assumed anything about you? What do you think, "I don't know about Bodi," means?

You think that having a child that will be brought into neglect is not selfish?

Being too poor to sufficiently take care of a child financially is not selfish if you're giving
what you can.

but opting out, especially when the mother can take care of the child on her own, is selfish?

"Opting out" to give nothing is selfish.

 

[weaver2]

Naw, it an attempt to make it personal because those people can not just stick to the facts/plan/idea of the OP.
See, you are the one talking bad about women. A woman gets and opt out and a man should get an opt out of parenthood as well.
I am not sure what you are implying. That women are being raped and did not consent to sex with these what? Degenerates? Scum Bags? Sexists? Men.

You think that having a child that will be brought into neglect is not selfish?
but opting out, especially when the mother can take care of the child on her own, is selfish?

Well, this is a pretty disappointing response.

 

[BirdinHand]

This again?

Post Conception Opt-Out? Good Idea or Bad?

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...

debatepolitics.com

 

[Bodi]

Well, this is a pretty disappointing response.

How so?

 

[Bodi]

This again?

Post Conception Opt-Out? Good Idea or Bad?

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...

debatepolitics.com

There are newer people here now that might want to weigh in on this matter.

 

[Lursa]

There are newer people here now that might want to weigh in on this matter.

I clearly disputed your entire premise in post 6...why didnt you address it? I specifically addressed this:

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.

Yet you ignored my post...why is that? All your other 'stuff' in the OP is useless if it's not discriminatory against men. Post 6 clearly shows it's not. Dont be mad that your whole meticulously crafted premise fails..."effort" isnt debate.

And what rights are men being forced to give up? Be specific please.

… the man has to pay and gave up all his rights once he came even though she did not give up her rights.

 

[HonestJoe]

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.

You can't just ignore the biology though. The legal differences between men and women in these circumstances is ultimately because of the key biological differences.

- 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.

The purpose of abortion isn't opting out of paying for the child though (adoption could achieve that). It is about not being pregnant or giving birth, but obviously the man doesn't need that "right" in the first place.

I like to explain the situations around this topic in this way;

There are three classes of people involved in a pregnancy. The biological mother, the biological father and the pregnant person. In principle, the mother and the father have exactly the same sets of rights and responsibilities while the pregnant person has a very different set of rights and responsibilities.

With natural pregnancies, the mother and the pregnant person will be the same individual though, so they will have the combined rights and responsibilities of both classes. The father obviously only has the rights and responsibilities of the biological parent. In the case of surrogacy though, where a fertilised egg is implanted in a second woman to carry to term, the biological mother isn't the pregnant person. In that situation the mother and the father have exactly the same rights and responsibilities, with the surrogate taking on the rights and responsibilities of the pregnant person (plus some distinct ones as a surrogate).

This accounts for the differences in the legal situation in the natural pregnancies without the law being unequal. And it is ultimately about biology, whether you like it or not.

 

[Bodi]

You can't just ignore the biology though. The legal differences between men and women in these circumstances is ultimately because of the key biological differences.

It isn't ignoring it... it simply is not relevant, as the OP point out.

The purpose of abortion isn't opting out of paying for the child though (adoption could achieve that). It is about not being pregnant or giving birth, but obviously the man doesn't need that "right" in the first place.

It doesn't matter what the reason is:

She has an Opt-out
He does not have an opt-out

That is not equality under the law.

I like to explain the situations around this topic in this way;

There are three classes of people involved in a pregnancy. The biological mother, the biological father and the pregnant person. In principle, the mother and the father have exactly the same sets of rights and responsibilities while the pregnant person has a very different set of rights and responsibilities.

With natural pregnancies, the mother and the pregnant person will be the same individual though, so they will have the combined rights and responsibilities of both classes. The father obviously only has the rights and responsibilities of the biological parent. In the case of surrogacy though, where a fertilised egg is implanted in a second woman to carry to term, the biological mother isn't the pregnant person. In that situation the mother and the father have exactly the same rights and responsibilities, with the surrogate taking on the rights and responsibilities of the pregnant person (plus some distinct ones as a surrogate).

This accounts for the differences in the legal situation in the natural pregnancies without the law being unequal. And it is ultimately about biology, whether you like it or not.

The argument presented in the OP has nothing to do with surrogates. Consequently this is just a Straw Man diversion.

 

[DCCougar]

Anyway… thoughts?

Is this a joke?

 

[Bodi]

Is this a joke?

I was hoping for thoughts about the argument presented in the OP...

 

[HonestJoe]

It isn't ignoring it... it simply is not relevant, as the OP point out.

It is relevant though, and you unilaterally declaring that it isn't doesn't change anything. In the matter of pregnancy, men and women are undeniably in different practical circumstances due to the obvious biological differences. The is the direct reason that their circumstances under the law will be, has to be, different.

The argument presented in the OP has nothing to do with surrogates. Consequently this is just a Straw Man diversion.

It wasn't a strawman, it was an abstract explanation of reality. The legal difference isn't because of them being male or female, it's because one of them is pregnant. If a biological man could somehow become pregnant, he would have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as a pregnant woman.

 

[CLAX1911]

The reason for the disparity IS because of biology.

No it's because of law. Biology doesn't let women have abortions that's law. Abortions are actually interrupting biology.

 

[Blue Dog]

“If you have a d***, you need to shut the f*** up on this one. Seriously! This is theirs; the right to choose is their unequivocal right. Not only do I believe they have the right to choose, I believe that they shouldn’t have to consult anybody, except for a physician, about how they exercise that right.”

“Gentlemen, that is fair. And ladies, to be fair to us, I also believe that if you decide to have the baby, a man should not have to pay. That’s fair. If you can kill this motherf***er, I can at least abandon him. It’s my money, my choice. And if I’m wrong, then perhaps we’re wrong. So figure that sh-t out for yourselves.”

Dave Chapelle

 

[OlNate]

There are newer people here now that might want to weigh in on this matter.

Lol... looking to recruit more bitter dudes to the deadbeat club? Hehe

The only scenario that I'd support a male "opt out" would be if it could be proven that the man's sperm had been taken unknowingly or without his consent.

Outside of that, the reason women can choose to abort is because the birth process takes place entirely in her body, as does an abortion. It's not disparity because parity is impossible.

Sorry, bud, a deadbeat is still a deadbeat. As a man I would never support this - probably because as a man I know what we'd do with this... at least, those among us that would even want this.

Maybe just, you know, be careful where you leave your deposits, and stop trying to control women so much. Putting them in a position where they must abort for financial reasons isn't all that different from telling them they can't abort.

 

[BirdinHand]

I see we are calling another meeting of the bitter deadbeat club to order.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I fully support men's right to abortion

So they have the same right to undergo a surgical procedure to end their pregnancy as a woman.

Nothing is more fair than that

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I fully support men's right to abortion

So they have the same right to undergo a surgical procedure to end their pregnancy as a woman.

Nothing is more fair than that

By allowing men to have the surgical procedure to have an abortion, men are provided the same opt out that women have, the one bodhi is seeking.

 

[weaver2]

She has an Opt-out
He does not have an opt-out
That is not equality under the law.

She has a brain and can opt out of a pregnancy she knows she cannot support.

He does not have a brain so there is no way he could possibly know that using a condom gives him an opt out

This is called biological inequality.

 

[The Mark]

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?

There are currently a bunch of different options before and during the point you started with.
It is in those options that the man makes their decision, currently.

 

[Lursa]

It is relevant though, and you unilaterally declaring that it isn't doesn't change anything. In the matter of pregnancy, men and women are undeniably in different practical circumstances due to the obvious biological differences. The is the direct reason that their circumstances under the law will be, has to be, different.

It wasn't a strawman, it was an abstract explanation of reality. The legal difference isn't because of them being male or female, it's because one of them is pregnant. If a biological man could somehow become pregnant, he would have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as a pregnant woman.

I have brought the bold up before. And nowadays, we have "legal" men that are pregnant. So it is about reproductive status (biology ).

This is just another attempted workaround allowing men to still have sex without consequences. He even says so in his OP

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.

I have also asked what "right" he's discussing, but he never answers

For the record, women have never been able to have sex without consequences and still cannot. Seems "equal" to me...and that is the overall complaint of his OP.