Post Conception Opt-Out FOR MEN

[Lursa]

Ahh yes, why can't the man get all of the benefits of sex without any of the risk?

This really is it, right here and he admits that 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.

Women can never have sex without risks, there's no escape if she gets pregnant:

--she has a kid​

--she has a miscarriage​

--she has an abortion​

--she dies during pregnancy/childbirth​

And altho less likely, she can die or suffer extreme health harm in the other 3 options. All are painful and costly. A man can escape the risks in all instances but one, and none can kill him.

His entire premise is about "equality" ....it's not equal...it's always in the man's favor.

 

[hecatmoggie]

Why? Under the OP, she made the choice to have the kid knowing it would all be on her.
Now that is more like slavery than anything I have said.

except its nothing like slavery but yeah, other than that ...

WAIT! You are saying that if she gives the baby up for adoption she is done and moves on with her life but he still has to pay for 18 years? LOL

yes, its as fair as I can think of ... we can't force people to be present in the lives of kids .... we can force them to give birth and be financially responsible though.

 

[Bodi]

Ahh yes, all the risk of intercourse is on the woman

It already is... not sure how one can think otherwise, (in places that allow abortion that is)

All the welfare of a child is on the woman

Only in this situation. Most men would want to be with their woman and child.

We own you bitchessss

It is literally the opposite of owning. The woman, in my OP, would have total control over her pregnancy and abortion options.

MAGA!

I am confused, why do you keep saying MAGA?

.

 

[Bodi]

except its nothing like slavery but yeah, other than that ...

It sounded like you were saying that she would have to go through with the pregnancy and give the baby up for adoption... that sounds forced. i.e. Slavery.

yes, its as fair as I can think of ... we can't force people to be present in the lives of kids ....

Why is the default comeback that there is a kid? Read the OP again. She gets pregnant. Inform him. He says no... she can make a choice.

It is all about her and the power she has over her pregnancy. If there is a kid that becomes neglected it was because of her choice.

we can force them to give birth and be financially responsible though.

God, that is horrible. Forced pregnancy? Talk about slavery...

.

 

[ScrambledEggs]

It already is... not sure how one can think otherwise, (in places that allow abortion that is)



Only in this situation. Most men would want to be with their woman and child.



It is literally the opposite of owning. The woman, in my OP, would have total control over her pregnancy and abortion options.



I am confused, why do you keep saying MAGA?

.

I get it. You want men to be able to ejaculate into vaginas, then make tax payers & women carry the entire burden of a potential child that may come from that.

I get it.

And it's retarded.

Good luck.

 

[ScrambledEggs]

OP's premise is that men are really just doing the woman a favor by helping take care of the child, either actively or passively in the form of child support payments.

But once the child is born, the child is its own person, a citizen, and that child needs its own protections for its own welfare until the child is an adult.

It's about the child's welfare. Not the woman's.

 

[Bodi]

I get it. You want men to be able to ejaculate into vaginas, then make tax payers & women carry the entire burden of a potential child that may come from that.

The taxpayer already pays for her choice. She has baby with father, gets married, gets divorce or dad dies, gets government assistance, etc.

Is this a foreign concept?

I get it.

Doesn't look like it.

And it's retarded.

Good luck.

It seems like you want everybody to have to pay for the woman's choice.

.

 

[Bodi]

OP's premise is that men are really just doing the woman a favor by helping take care of the child, either actively or passively in the form of child support payments.

Huh? Lots of men get screwed over that want more time and responsibility. Your premise is, **** those men, because the woman.

But once the child is born, the child is its own person, a citizen, and that child needs its own protections for its own welfare until the child is an adult.

Why is the focus, again, on assuming the woman has the child? Why should everybody have to pay for her choice to have a baby that she can not afford tnad that nobody else wants to have to take care of?

It's about the child's welfare. Not the woman's.

There is no child at this point of the OP. This OP is about post conception opting out... when there is no child. Start there and try again.

.

 

[Lursa]

Huh? Lots of men get screwed over that want more time and responsibility. Your premise is, **** those men, because the woman.

That's old news. Today, the laws are equal and family courts are much more even-handed with custody arrangements, including joint custody. If you believe the laws arent applied equally, keep in mind most judges are male.

Why is the focus, again, on assuming the woman has the child? Why should everybody have to pay for her choice to have a baby that she can not afford tnad that nobody else wants to have to take care of?

Because there is no way the laws will change and you are complaining uselessly. Why are you assuming people "like" this? Maybe we dont like it anymore than that women are the ones stuck bearing the kids...but there's nothing we can do about it. Right?

You just keep flogging it because you're so bitter. Let it go...there wont be any laws forcing women to have abortions. (Are you going to start another thread on society/the govt incentivizing abortions?)

There is no child at this point of the OP. This OP is about post conception opting out... when there is no child. Start there and try again.

Why do you keep posting this ? It doesnt matter...whatever the post conception opt out, contract or law, it wont stop the women from having the kid if she decides to. Yes or no? Any chance you can answer that?

So why "start there" when she can have it anyway? If she decides to have it, there is a child. Just like the man can decide to step back in and be a part of the kid's life anytime he feels like it? No matter what the law, he can still decide to come back and be a father anytime he wants to. Tell me again about how this is unfair to men?

 

[Bodi]

That's old news. Today, the laws are equal and family courts are much more even-handed with custody arrangements, including joint custody. If you believe the laws arent applied equally, keep in mind most judges are male.



Because there is no way the laws will change and you are complaining uselessly. Why are you assuming people "like" this? Maybe we dont like it anymore than that women are the ones stuck bearing the kids...but there's nothing we can do about it. Right?

You just keep flogging it because you're so bitter. Let it go...there wont be any laws forcing women to have abortions. (Are you going to start another thread on society/the govt incentivizing abortions?)



Why do you keep posting this ? It doesnt matter...whatever the post conception opt out, contract or law, it wont stop the women from having the kid if she decides to. Yes or no? Any chance you can answer that?

There is no child at the point of the debate point.

So why "start there" when she can have it anyway? If she decides to have it, there is a child. Just like the man can decide to step back in and be a part of the kid's life anytime he feels like it? No matter what the law, he can still decide to come back and be a father anytime he wants to. Tell me again about how this is unfair to men?

 

[Lursa]

There is no child at the point of the debate point.

How does that matter if the woman can have the kid no matter what the "debate point" is and just eliminate that "point"? Why does the opt out matter if she can still have it and the state will still support the child's statutory right to child support from both parents?

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

I can repost the sources for the child's rights if you like but you already know that no opt out law will supersede that, right?

 

[Bodi]

How does that matter if the woman can have the kid no matter what the "debate point" is and just eliminate that "point"?

You are saying that you support women saying, "just screw it, I am gonna have a kid I can not support and that will live in neglect!"??

Why does the opt out matter if she can still have it and the state will still support the child's statutory right to child support from both parents?

It matters so that when the taxpayers have to pay they know who is responsible...

I can repost the sources for the child's rights if you like but you already know that no opt out law will supersede that, right?

Saving posts to use from 2021. LOL

Weird as hell.


.

 

[Lursa]

You are saying that you support women saying, "just screw it, I am gonna have a kid I can not support and that will live in neglect!"??

I answered this in another post, please go find that instead of avoiding my question by asking another question. Here it is again:

How does that matter if the woman can have the kid no matter what the "debate point" is and just eliminate that "point"? Why does the opt out matter if she can still have it and the state will still support the child's statutory right to child support from both parents?​

It matters so that when the taxpayers have to pay they know who is responsible...

Who says that is important? How will they know? Do they know now...why they're in foster care, why they need food stamps, which parent is raising them, which died, which ran off, why they need welfare, which parent isnt working...when they pay now?

I'd like to read your explanation, otherwise it just sounds like empty spite.

Saving posts to use from 2021. LOL

It's an easy search...are you denying that it is accurate?

Weird as hell.

See, you are hiding again and making it about me. Why cant you answer directly and honestly? I'm being very civil and honest...right?

 

[Bodi]

I answered this in another post, please go find that instead of avoiding my question by asking another question. Here it is again:

How does that matter if the woman can have the kid no matter what the "debate point" is and just eliminate that "point"? Why does the opt out matter if she can still have it and the state will still support the child's statutory right to child support from both parents?​

You just keep ignoring the point that it is because she made her choice with full knowledge.

See, you are hiding again and making it about me. Why cant you answer directly and honestly? I'm being very civil and honest...right?

You keep hiding from my comments and asking new ones of your own.


.

 

[Lursa]

You just keep ignoring the point that it is because she made her choice with full knowledge.

Nope, I just wrote for the 3rd time that I addressed that already. Why do you keep bringing it up instead of responding directly to that in that post?

And why dont you address the fact that it doesnt matter 'what knowledge' she used to make her decision...she still makes whatever decision she wants and no one can stop her including your opt-out law. Right? Yes or no?

And so yeah...there may "be a baby" if she decides to produce one...and your denials of that are meaningless. The laws hold both parents accountable based on the child's rights. Yes or no? I've already quoted you acknowledging that.

The opt-out cannot prevent there being 'a baby' and it cannot remove the legal responsibility of the non-custodial parent for child support. Right? Yes or no? If yes, then what's the point of the opt-out? If no, please explain further. You are welcome to give more details on it...you dont generally continue to this point for anyone to ask.

You keep hiding from my comments and asking new ones of your own.

Which comments didnt I respond to directly? Let's see?

 

[Bodi]

Nope, I just wrote for the 3rd time that I addressed that already. Why do you keep bringing it up instead of responding directly to that in that post?

And why dont you address the fact that it doesnt matter 'what knowledge' she used to make her decision...she still makes whatever decision she wants and no one can stop her including your opt-out law. Right? Yes or no?

And so yeah...there may "be a baby" if she decides to produce one...and your denials of that are meaningless. The laws hold both parents accountable based on the child's rights. Yes or no? I've already quoted you acknowledging that.



Which comments didnt I respond to directly? Let's see?

Society already allows women to have children that they can not afford and that society has to take care of... You ignore that though.

 

[Lursa]

Society already allows women to have children that they can not afford and that society has to take care of... You ignore that though.

I edited the previous post but let me address this. It's a lie that I ignore this, I addressed it elsewhere so is this the 4th time you've brought it up.

But here:

How can society 'not' allow women to have children that "they can not afford and that society has to take care of"? How can society stop them...and I do mean stop, it's your word, stick to it...I dont mean what we all know...that improving socio-economic conditions will help.

How does your opt-out stop this? I clearly pointed out I dont see how it does .

The opt-out cannot prevent there being 'a baby' and it cannot remove the legal responsibility of the non-custodial parent for child support. Right? Yes or no? If yes, then what's the point of the opt-out?

If no, please explain further. You are welcome to give more details on it...you dont generally continue to this point for anyone to ask.

 

[SMTA]

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?

Alimony.

 

[Lursa]

I edited the previous post but let me address this. It's a lie that I ignore this, I addressed it elsewhere so is this the 4th time you've brought it up.

But here:

How can society 'not' allow women to have children that "they can not afford and that society has to take care of"? How can society stop them...and I do mean stop, it's your word, stick to it...I dont mean what we all know...that improving socio-economic conditions will help.

How does your opt-out stop this? I clearly pointed out I dont see how it does .

The opt-out cannot prevent there being 'a baby' and it cannot remove the legal responsibility of the non-custodial parent for child support. Right? Yes or no? If yes, then what's the point of the opt-out?

If no, please explain further. You are welcome to give more details on it...you dont generally continue to this point for anyone to ask.

@Bodi I guess I'll just save this post for next time.

Since you dont want to think about it and intentionally misrepresent anything others write. I've posted several civil reasonable counterpoints to your OP and you wont address them civilly or directly. No wonder people wont think about it seriously...you just crap all over them. Because you know your "idea experiment" when thought out is weak and anti-social and...here's the kicker...you've seen that it truly is not equal as you say...it favors men.

 

[Real blank]

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?

Has something like this happened to you ?

 

[CLAX1911]

except its nothing like slavery but yeah, other than that ...

Well if you can make a choice then requires commitment from someone else through legal Force it may not be slavery per se but why does someone's else's choice cost another person

yes, its as fair as I can think of ... we can't force people to be present in the lives of kids .... we can force them to give birth and be financially responsible though.

Did you ever see that picture of the difference between public housing for women who can't afford to support their kids versus public housing for men who can't afford to support their kids?

 

[CLAX1911]

Ahh yes, all the risk of intercourse is on the woman

And it's also her choice.

All the welfare of a child is on the woman

That is her choice. And she can choose not to have sex or choose contraception or choose her male partners carefully.

We own you bitchessss

MAGA!

 

[Manc Skipper]

Don't you just love OHIO's "Conception begins at erection " law?

Ohio Democratic lawmakers propose 'Conception Begins at Erection Act' • Ohio Capital Journal

A new bill in Ohio would make it a crime for men to ejaculate without intending to have a baby.

ohiocapitaljournal.com

 

[CLAX1911]

Don't you just love OHIO's "Conception begins at erection " law?

Ohio Democratic lawmakers propose 'Conception Begins at Erection Act' • Ohio Capital Journal

A new bill in Ohio would make it a crime for men to ejaculate without intending to have a baby.

ohiocapitaljournal.com

Well it's a troll but it's a dumb one. I love a good troll.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Well it's a troll but it's a dumb one. I love a good troll.

Mississippi are even farther down that putting the responsibility where it belongs road.