Post Conception Opt-Out FOR MEN

[Luce]

Gotchya. I agree. But if the proposal passed for some reason, none of those listed consequences would exist.

You're correct.

And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

 

[Luce]

Progress about lies! Please...quote the lies. Do it! Prove you're right and I'm lying.



You have yet to do so and only hide from my arguments instead of addressing them honestly and directly.

That chain he's been yanking? Let go of it.

 

[Lursa]

Gotchya. I agree. But if the proposal passed for some reason, none of those listed consequences would exist.

Yes they would because the woman could still end up having the kid. So the kid would still do without. The taxpayers may still be on the hook. How do you blindly not realize this?

Not all women believe in abortion, they have religious or other reasons why they wouldnt have one. And if they have the kid then they accept those consequences.

 

[Lursa]

That chain he's been yanking? Let go of it.

Good advice.

He wants to complain that I'm lying so he can avoid how his opt-out fails...he needs the validation but cant get it defending his scheme.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

If you gave direct answers to my questions, you wouldnt be 'talking past me.'

{sigh}

You can give direct answers and still talk past each other.

It happens most frequently when passions are high. One or both involved feel quite strongly on the matter. Then, even if they share a common language one might as well be talking French and the other Klingon.

 

[Lursa]

{sigh}

You can give direct answers and still talk past each other.

It happens most frequently when passions are high. One or both involved feel quite strongly on the matter. Then, even if they share a common language one might as well be talking French and the other Klingon.

My passions arent "high." My responses here are all cut and paste for years. Nothing's changed.

Oh...except I did get momentarily hopeful that the OP would quote where I've lied...he's been saying that for years...without quoting where. That could be exciting.

 

[Anagram]

That sounds like you have a problem with abortion then...



That is why I framed the argument the way I did... so that it is about legal equality of choice and not abortion.

Equality of choice is nice. But equality of choice cannot be the only factor to consider in a decision like this. You have to consider the effects.

In this case, the effects are negative. This proposal inarguably provides a financial incentive for a parent to choose not to be in their child's life. It is a severely negative effect for a parent not to be in a child's life, especially when it appears to be voluntary. That feeling of rejection can be extremely damaging to the child. It is bad enough that this happens at all, but the government should not be incentivizing it to happen more.

There are also the financial effects I have already discussed. Better for costs to fall on the biological parent than to society as a whole or for the child to be undersupported.

Therefore, while I do acknowledge that there is not an equality of choice. But the negative effects of the proposal far, far outweigh, in my opinion, the positive effect of restoring that equality. It cannot be looked at in a vacuum.

This has nothing to do with abortion. If abortion is legal this should not be an option. If abortion is illegal this should not be an option. And if we ever reach the point where doctors can keep a fetus alive outside the womb after an abortion and the father wants to keep the child, I will be advocating for the mother to be on the hook for support too rather than allowing her to have an opt-out.

The child, if it is going to exist, is always the top priority.

 

[Lursa]

Equality of choice is nice. But equality of choice cannot be the only factor to consider in a decision like this. You have to consider the effects.

In this case, the effects are negative. This proposal inarguably provides a financial incentive for a parent to choose not to be in their child's life. It is a severely negative effect for a parent not to be in a child's life, especially when it appears to be voluntary. That feeling of rejection can be extremely damaging to the child. It is bad enough that this happens at all, but the government should not be incentivizing it to happen more.

There are also the financial effects I have already discussed. Better for costs to fall on the biological parent than to society as a whole or for the child to be undersupported.

Therefore, while I do acknowledge that there is not an equality of choice. But the negative effects of the proposal far, far outweigh, in my opinion, the positive effect of restoring that equality. It cannot be looked at in a vacuum.

This has nothing to do with abortion. If abortion is legal this should not be an option. If abortion is illegal this should not be an option. And if we ever reach the point where doctors can keep a fetus alive outside the womb after an abortion and the father wants to keep the child, I will be advocating for the mother to be on the hook for support too rather than allowing her to have an opt-out.

The child, if it is going to exist, is always the top priority.

Agreed. He wants a change in a law that society recognized a need for decades ago. That need hasnt changed. And it doesnt benefit anyone but the guy who wants to shirk any accountability. Why would the state change the law if there's no benefits? Not to kids, taxpayers, or society?

 

[Bodi]

@Luce...wait for it..."because there is no baby!"

There is no baby.

Does an abortion kill a baby?

If the "baby" is aborted, is there a baby?

LOL

Proving you wrong is so easy... now come your lies.

Because you choose to ignore that there are consequences...

Where have I said there are no conseequences... that is stupid, or another Lie. There are consequences to every action.

for the convenience of your "opt out." Yet there are, no matter how many times you try to hide from it in your posts.

Hide! LOL

.

 

[Bodi]

{sigh}

Welcome to my last ten years "talking" to @Lursa

You can give direct answers and still talk past each other.

It happens most frequently when passions are high. One or both involved feel quite strongly on the matter. Then, even if they share a common language one might as well be talking French and the other Klingon.

 

[Bodi]

Equality of choice is nice. But equality of choice cannot be the only factor to consider in a decision like this. You have to consider the effects.

In this case, the effects are negative.

For whom? They might be extremely positive.

This proposal inarguably provides a financial incentive for a parent to choose not to be in their child's life. It is a severely negative effect for a parent not to be in a child's life,

There already is an incentive for the mother... she can kill her child.

especially when it appears to be voluntary. That feeling of rejection can be extremely damaging to the child. It is bad enough that this happens at all, but the government should not be incentivizing it to happen more.

There are also the financial effects I have already discussed. Better for costs to fall on the biological parent than to society as a whole or for the child to be undersupported.

Therefore, while I do acknowledge that there is not an equality of choice. But the negative effects of the proposal far, far outweigh, in my opinion, the positive effect of restoring that equality. It cannot be looked at in a vacuum.

This has nothing to do with abortion. If abortion is legal this should not be an option. If abortion is illegal this should not be an option. And if we ever reach the point where doctors can keep a fetus alive outside the womb after an abortion and the father wants to keep the child, I will be advocating for the mother to be on the hook for support too rather than allowing her to have an opt-out.

The child, if it is going to exist, is always the top priority.

There is no child at the point of this argument.

 

[Bodi]

Progress about lies! Please...quote the lies. Do it! Prove you're right and I'm lying.

I have. For years and years I did. You either don't understand or you are, again, lying.

Either way I tired of it years ago.

You have yet to do so and only hide from my arguments instead of addressing them honestly and directly.

HIDE!!

 

[Bodi]

That chain he's been yanking? Let go of it.

She can't. That is what makes it so funny!

 

[Anagram]

For whom? They might be extremely positive.

On average, I expect the effects of this proposal on whatever amount of children end up existing after having their biological father choose this opt-out provision will be negative.

There already is an incentive for the mother... she can kill her child.

If the mother has an abortion, then there is no child, as you seem to understand with the quote below. Therefore, there is no child that needs to be supported by someone and no child to experience feelings of a parent rejecting them.

There is no child at the point of this argument.

There will be some children who end up born because mothers do not abort. It is not going to be zero. Maybe it is because they believe abortion is murder. Maybe it is because they believe they can care for the child on their own or that they will change the father's mind. Maybe they are wrong. Maybe they are right. You can put 100% of the blame of those children existing on the mother if you want to, it doesn't change how I see your proposal. Because it does not matter whose fault it is. What matters is what is best for the child, who is completely innocent in this scenario.

It is better for children both physically and mentally to be adequately support financially and not to have their biological parents walk out on them. We will never achieve a world where no children has to deal with those issues. Parents will reject their children. Parents will do what they can to avoid paying support. I see it frequently in my line of work. But just because that stuff will still happen, does not mean that the government should provide a financial incentive for it to happen more often. And that is what your proposal does.

 

[Lursa]

Gotchya. I agree. But if the proposal passed for some reason, none of those listed consequences would exist.

Another fail for you, since this is fact, that you ignore Because despite having an "opt out law", nothing stops her from from having the kid anyway.

Yes they would because the woman could still end up having the kid. So the kid would still do without. The taxpayers may still be on the hook. How do you blindly not realize this?

Not all women believe in abortion, they have religious or other reasons why they wouldnt have one. And if they have the kid then they accept those consequences.

So...where's the lie? Quote me lying? Put up or...?

There is no baby.

Does an abortion kill a baby?

If the "baby" is aborted, is there a baby?

LOL

Proving you wrong is so easy... now come your lies.

So...where's the lie? She can have the baby no matter what the "opt out law" says. I just proved you wrong. Again.

Now...Quote me lying? Put up or...?

Where have I said there are no conseequences... that is stupid, or another Lie. There are consequences to every action.

Gotchya. I agree. But if the proposal passed for some reason, none of those listed consequences would exist.

Hide! LOL

Yes you still are hiding. You just completely failed here...and still have not quoted a single lie. Nor managed to refute a single counterargument to your opt out scheme.

 

[Lursa]

She can't. That is what makes it so funny!

How many times have you posted your failed, pathetic opt out scheme? That's what's funny...and sad.

All I do is cut and paste my answers...nothing new. Even now you cant dispute anything I've written head on...you just attack me ...

So I happily do challenge it every single time you post that trash...easy peasy, "love forum bookmarks", and show your failure each time. You made up rights (what men's rights? Ever gonna answer? Women dont have a right to abortion...remember?) and crap all over the concept of equality with a scheme that benefits no one but selfish men. Hold your head high!

 

[Bodi]

On average, I expect the effects of this proposal on whatever amount of children end up existing after having their biological father choose this opt-out provision will be negative.

If the mother has an abortion, then there is no child, as you seem to understand with the quote below. Therefore, there is no child that needs to be supported by someone and no child to experience feelings of a parent rejecting them.

There will be some children who end up born because mothers do not abort. It is not going to be zero. Maybe it is because they believe abortion is murder. Maybe it is because they believe they can care for the child on their own or that they will change the father's mind. Maybe they are wrong. Maybe they are right. You can put 100% of the blame of those children existing on the mother if you want to, it doesn't change how I see your proposal. Because it does not matter whose fault it is. What matters is what is best for the child, who is completely innocent in this scenario.

It is better for children both physically and mentally to be adequately support financially and not to have their biological parents walk out on them. We will never achieve a world where no children has to deal with those issues. Parents will reject their children. Parents will do what they can to avoid paying support. I see it frequently in my line of work. But just because that stuff will still happen, does not mean that the government should provide a financial incentive for it to happen more often. And that is what your proposal does.

Good comment.

 

[Lursa]

I have. For years and years I did. You either don't understand or you are, again, lying.

Either way I tired of it years ago.

Dont lie, you never did or you'd have quoted it and been happy to gloat and prove me wrong.

HIDE!!

You're welcome to do so again...that's what you end up doing, right? My bookmarks wont go anywhere...nor pointing out that you post lies.

 

[Lursa]

Good comment.

It is a good comment. He points out the manipulative purpose of the opt out idea to try and convince women not to have the kid, and also points out that some women will still have the kid anyway...so sometimes "there IS a baby!" and there are consequences that fall on the kids, taxpayers, and society. The opt out ONLY benefits the selfish male. So your denials are just dishonest.

 

[Lursa]

Welcome to my last ten years "talking" to @Lursa

Wow, you've been parading your shameful opt out scheme for 10 yrs? And failing all that time and still at it?

 

[Bodi]

Another fail for you, since this is fact, that you ignore Because despite having an "opt out law", nothing stops her from from having the kid anyway.

Right. Then she made the decision to have a kid on her own. If she can not care for it then there should be a consequence, correct? Just like any other parent that neglects their child.

So...where's the lie? Quote me lying? Put up or...?

Asked and Answered.

So...where's the lie? She can have the baby no matter what the "opt out law" says. I just proved you wrong. Again.

That did not prove me wrong.

It does prove that you do not understand the argument though... even though you have spent tons of time on it for over ten years. LOL

Now...Quote me lying? Put up or...?








Yes you still are hiding. You just completely failed here...and still have not quoted a single lie. Nor managed to refute a single counterargument to your opt out scheme.

hiding

 

[Bodi]

How many times have you posted your failed, pathetic opt out scheme? That's what's funny...and sad.

It has not failed. It has achieved the desired result almost every time.

All I do is cut and paste my answers...nothing new. Even now you cant dispute anything I've written head on...you just attack me ...

Lie

So I happily do challenge it every single time you post that trash...easy peasy, "love forum bookmarks", and show your failure each time. You made up rights (what men's rights? Ever gonna answer? Women dont have a right to abortion...remember?) and crap all over the concept of equality with a scheme that benefits no one but selfish men.

Another Lie.

 

[Bodi]

Dont lie, you never did or you'd have quoted it and been happy to gloat and prove me wrong.

Lie

You're welcome to do so again...that's what you end up doing, right? My bookmarks wont go anywhere...nor pointing out that you post lies.

Why waste my time... you clearly are in over your head here.

It is a good comment. He points out the manipulative purpose of the opt out idea to try and convince women not to have the kid, and also points out that some women will still have the kid anyway...so sometimes "there IS a baby!" and there are consequences that fall on the kids, taxpayers, and society. The opt out ONLY benefits the selfish male. So your denials are just dishonest.

There is no baby... anything else is a Lie!

.

 

[Bodi]

Wow, you've been parading your shameful opt out scheme for 10 yrs? And failing all that time and still at it?

Just more stupid comments... there is nothing shameful and you have refuted nothing.

I did fall into the trap of giving your posts attention though.

 

[Lursa]

Right. Then she made the decision to have a kid on her own. If she can not care for it then there should be a consequence, correct? Just like any other parent that neglects their child.

Thank you. So...the opt out does cause consequences for kids, taxpayers, and society. Thank you, that's all you had to acknowledge.

And whatever the law, the man is still neglecting their child too and chose to hand over those decisions. Because they knew the law cant force her to have an abortion.

Asked and Answered.

Nope...not a single quote of me lying. So...you're lying...in front of God and everybody...you realize that we could see it if you posted the quotes, right?

That did not prove me wrong.

Of course it does...the opt out DOES have consequences. You just acknowledge it above...you just ONCE AGAIN...attempt to divert all responsibility from the man. The man "and you" KNOW she can still have it..."consequences engaged." Wow, you really do have an obvious M.O.

It does prove that you do not understand the argument though... even though you have spent tons of time on it for over ten years. LOL

Sure I do. "Let men have sex without consequences." It's right there in your OP. Shall I repost your quote? So you can see how it's done so you can quote my phantom "lies?"

hiding

What am I hiding from? Come on, use your words?