Post Conception Opt-Out FOR MEN

[weaver2]

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?

Here's the difference between a woman's opt out and the legal contracts, laws, hocus-pocus and hypocrisy of all of the male opt-out schemes.
When a woman opts out of a pregnancy with an abortion she ends all responsibility for everyone: the state's responsibility, the male's responsibility and the woman's responsibility. There is no child. There is no responsibility.

In all this terrible unfairness to men all the legal opt out paper in the world doesn't change the fact that no matter the scheme there is still a child that has to be cared for, fed, clothed, educated, cherished and supported. The only way a male can opt out is kill the child. Even animals don't kill their own offspring.

The men that are the most bitchy about the unfairness of women having a post sex opt out that men don't have are usually the men that post longest and loudest about women's immorality and lack of responsibility. They are probably part of the 55% of men that refuse to use a condom.

 

[Lursa]

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.

Truth. The taxpayers arent an endless well...the more paid out for kids that have parents means less for the kids who have no one. Their needs being met diminish before budgets do.

 

[Individual]

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.

Perhaps a law making it a felony for a man who has insufficient income or wealth to support a child to have sex would resolve the issue?

 

[Bodi]

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.a

Comment devoid of facts or evidence...

HE, cannot become pregnant.

Wow. Another person who thinks stating the obvious is some ground breaking gotchya argument. LOL

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

Irrelevant. She has a post conception opt-out legally and he does not. That is sexism. That is unequal treatment under the law.

I see no disparity,

Wo what? It is there.

 

[Jagged]

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?

Sorry, but I believe once the child is born, the best interest of the child outweighs the selfishness of the father who got the woman pregnant.

 

[Bodi]

Here's the difference between a woman's opt out and the legal contracts, laws, hocus-pocus and hypocrisy of all of the male opt-out schemes.
When a woman opts out of a pregnancy with an abortion she ends all responsibility for everyone: the state's responsibility, the male's responsibility and the woman's responsibility. There is no child. There is no responsibility.

There is no child in the scenario that I presented.

In all this terrible unfairness to men all the legal opt out paper in the world doesn't change the fact that no matter the scheme there is still a child that has to be cared for, fed, clothed, educated, cherished and supported. The only way a male can opt out is kill the child. Even animals don't kill their own offspring.

The men that are the most bitchy about the unfairness of women having a post sex opt out that men don't have are usually the men that post longest and loudest about women's immorality and lack of responsibility. They are probably part of the 55% of men that refuse to use a condom.

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]

Sorry, but I believe once the child is born,

There is no child in the scenario that I presented.

the best interest of the child outweighs the selfishness of the father who got the woman pregnant.

But apparently you see no selfishness in a woman having a child that she can not care for properly?

That is the really disgusting thing... supporting a person that knows that a child is born into abuse, poverty and neglect. LoL

But that doesn't even cause you to bat an eye... does it?

 

[trouble13]

A law created because of necessity.

What necessity is there?

 

[Lursa]

There is no child in the scenario that I presented.
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.

You always write that. You drive these continual complaints by screaming over and over, "there is no child!"

But since the man cannot control whether or not there is a kid, in any of your scenarios, that wail is useless...there is/will be a child if the woman decides there is and THAT is what you're going on and on about, for years. How do you not get this simple aspect of your deadbeat escape threads?

 

[Jagged]

There is no child in the scenario that I presented.

Sure there was. Unless you think an aborted baby is put up for adoption.

But apparently you see no selfishness in a woman having a child that she can not care for properly?

That is the really disgusting thing... supporting a person that knows that a child is born into abuse, poverty and neglect. LoL

But that doesn't even cause you to bat an eye... does it?

Being too poor to sufficiently take care of a child financially is not selfish if you're giving what you can. "Opting out" to give nothing is selfish.

 

[Lursa]

But apparently you see no selfishness in a woman having a child that she can not care for properly?

It's not about the women. We cant do anything about her, we cant force or coerce her into having an abortion. So just because we're not rending our garments over their "characters," doesnt mean we approve. It means it's not worth the discussion.

The fact that you do focus on the women just reinforces how much these opt-out threads are about insulting the women...and not about some "equality."

That is the really disgusting thing... supporting a person that knows that a child is born into abuse, poverty and neglect. LoL

You're so dishonest, you just ignore over and over where everyone else here (except @trouble13) shows exactly how much they are focused on the kids...not focusing on the woman. You are the one trying to find "an out" for one of the producers of those kids...not us.

 

[Jagged]

You always write that. You drive these continual complaints by screaming over and over, "there is no child!"

But since the man cannot control whether or not there is a kid, in any of your scenarios, that wail is useless...there is/will be a child if the woman decides there is and THAT is what you're going on and on about, for years. How do you not get this simple aspect of your deadbeat escape threads?

Well there won't always be a child if the woman decides so. Men do have options. Not having sex without a condom, pulling out, BJ or anal sex.

 

[Individual]

What necessity is there?

Those who think like this thread creator.

 

[Lursa]

Sure there was. Unless you think an aborted baby is put up for adoption.


Being too poor to sufficiently take care of a child financially is not selfish if you're giving what you can. "Opting out" to give nothing is selfish.

He started an entire thread once complaining about women who cant afford kids having them. It basically implied the govt and society should be incentivizing them to abort. It amounted to a eugenics thread. I'll see if I can find it. https://debatepolitics.com/threads/the-elephant-in-the-room.516623/

 

[Jagged]

He started an entire thread once complaining about women who cant afford kids having them. It basically implied the govt and society should be incentivizing them to abort. It amounted to a eugenics thread. I'll see if I can find it. https://debatepolitics.com/threads/the-elephant-in-the-room.516623/

Thanks. I've heard this debate before. I don't know about @Bodi, but the motivator of others I've read, they simply were anti-abortion and frustrated because there was nothing they could do about it.

 

[trouble13]

Those who think like this thread creator.

Your not making sense. You said a law is needed to satisfy a necessity but your not stating what that necessity is.

I would agree that tje law when it was created it did satisfy a need but that need no longer exists. Why not change the law?

 

[Lursa]

Thanks. I've heard this debate before. I don't know about @Bodi, but the motivator of others I've read, they simply were anti-abortion and frustrated because there was nothing they could do about it.

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

 

[Individual]

Your not making sense. You said a law is needed to satisfy a necessity but your not stating what that necessity is.

I would agree that tje law when it was created it did satisfy a need but that need no longer exists. Why not change the law?

How would you like the law to be worded?

 

[trouble13]

How would you like the law to be worded?

I don't see a need for any law. You are the one arguing that one is needed.

 

[Bodi]

Thanks. I've heard this debate before. I don't know about @Bodi, but the motivator of others I've read, they simply were anti-abortion and frustrated because there was nothing they could do about it.

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

 

[Individual]

I don't see a need for any law. You are the one arguing that one is needed.

There IS a law, as claimed in and by the post I responded to, which I agree was created out of necessity as are most laws.

 

[trouble13]

There IS a law, as claimed in and by the post I responded to, which I agree was created out of necessity as are most laws.

We are right back where we started. Have a good night.

 

[Gatsby]

Support your damn kids.

 

[Individual]

We are right back where we started. Have a good night.

We remain where we need to be.
It's about 1430 here.

 

[Individual]

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

Obviously, and I am pro-choice.