Post Conception Opt-Out FOR MEN

[Lursa]

You have misunderstood or misrepresented the argument from the get go... Misandry? Probably.

Sure, when it's been the misogyny and selfishness and bitterness of the opt-out on display all these years.

I note you continue to make it about me and not the argument...that you still cannot dispute the counter arguments I and others have provided directly.

You still cannot articulate clearly where "we've all gone wrong"

The argument is clear. The fact that you cant even support it honestly is also clear.

It's been disputed on many levels and all you do is scream "liar! or "it's not about that!" (see: biology). And then when the law negates it... you cry foul. I showed you the man could opt-out and still choose to be a father again anytime he chose...you cry foul.

Just admit this has zero to do with equality. On any terms. Biological, financial, moral, social, legal.

It's about men being able to have sex with no consequences, which women never have been able to and still cannot.

And you've never explained what "right" it is either. All you do is crap all over the concept of equality with a selfish proposal to let men walk away from risks they knowingly took, a proposal that harms kids, taxpayers, and society.

 

[Bodi]

Sure, when it's been the misogyny and selfishness and bitterness of the opt-out on display all these years.

I note you continue to make it about me and not the argument...that you still cannot dispute the counter arguments I and others have provided directly.

Wrong again. It is you that does not understand the argument. LOL

You still cannot articulate clearly where "we've all gone wrong"

Sure have.... many times...

And you've never explained what "right" it is either.

Wrong.

All you do is crap all over the concept of equality

Wrong

with a selfish proposal to let men walk away from risks they knowingly took,

Wrong

a proposal that harms kids, taxpayers, and society.

Wrong

 

[Lursa]

Wrong again. It is you that does not understand the argument. LOL

Sure have.... many times...

Wrong.

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

Yeah as usual, your argument amounts to "na huh" and zero substance. So just a quick re-tread, as a reminder:

Sure, when it's been the misogyny and selfishness and bitterness of the opt-out on display all these years.

I note you continue to make it about me and not the argument...that you still cannot dispute the counter arguments I and others have provided directly.

You still cannot articulate clearly where "we've all gone wrong"

And you've never explained what "right" it is either. All you do is crap all over the concept of equality with a selfish proposal to let men walk away from risks they knowingly took, a proposal that harms kids, taxpayers, and society.

The argument is clear. The fact that you cant even support it honestly is also clear.

It's been disputed on many levels and all you do is scream "liar! or "it's not about that!" (see: biology). And then when "the law" negates it... you cry foul. I showed you the man could opt-out and still choose to be a father again anytime he chose...you cry foul.

Just admit this has zero to do with equality. On any terms. Biological, financial, moral, social, legal.

It's about men being able to have sex with no consequences , which women never have been able to and still cannot.

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.

 

[Bodi]

Yeah as usual, your argument amounts to "na huh" and zero substance. So just a quick re-tread, as a reminder:

WRONG!!

What is funny is watching you repost the same thing over and over affirming that you don't even understand the argument... then there are your lies.

 

[Lursa]

WRONG!!

What is funny is watching you repost the same thing over and over affirming that you don't even understand the argument... then there are your lies.

Any day you can prove any of that, I'll be here. Otherwise, these facts and reiterations will live on, unchallenged. Would love you to challenge them directly altho obviously you've already failed with your "NO BIOLOGY, ONLY LAW!" wails, as pointed out. Fact.

The argument is clear. The fact that you cant even support it honestly is also clear.

It's been disputed on many levels and all you do is scream "liar! or "it's not about that!" (see: biology). And then when "the law" negates it... you cry foul. I showed you the man could opt-out and still choose to be a father again anytime he chose...you cry foul.

Just admit this has zero to do with equality. On any terms. Biological, financial, moral, social, legal.

It's about men being able to have sex with no consequences, which women never have been able to and still cannot.

You still cannot articulate clearly where "we've all gone wrong"

And you've never explained what "right" it is either. All you do is crap all over the concept of equality with a selfish proposal to let men walk away from risks they knowingly took, a proposal that harms kids, taxpayers, and society.

Yeah...cherry picking only where you want legal aspects discussed and then when you want biology to matter. You did note my use of the word "hypocrisy" earlier, right?

Well, as usual, I'll ask you to quote the lie and as you've been doing for years...you'll fail to do so OTOH, I can easily post where you've demanded the discussion completely ignore biology for all these years. Some examples are right here in this thread.

 

[Bodi]

Any day you can prove any of that,

Done and Dusted... years ago. LOL

I'll be here. Otherwise, these facts and reiterations will live on, unchallenged. Would love you to challenge them directly altho obviously you've already failed with your "NO BIOLOGY, ONLY LAW!" wails, as pointed out. Fact.

There is no child!!


.

 

[Lursa]

Done and Dusted... years ago. LOL

Prove it! Your "na huhs" are all countered right above...do you think other readers are blind? ""

There is no child!!

Oh yeah! Another one that you cant hold your end up on. Thanks for giving me another opening to repost it here:

There will be a child when and if she decides here will be...yes or no? Can an opt-out law stop her from having it? Yes or no?​

​

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? ​

--and--

What inequality? If there's a pregnancy, neither can opt out of consequences. That's equal. You cannot equalize 'biology' so you telling us to ignore it for the convenience of your argument is meaningless. The physical consequences dont go away if you snap your fingers. She's held accountable for her decision to have sex. Avoiding financial consequences doesnt make all her physical consequences "equal."​

​

The opt-out cannot prevent the baby from being born 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.​

​

Here's the truth...you've seen that it truly is not equal...it favors men.​

--and--

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?​

​

Hey Bodi, please give some direct answers! Tell me you see here that it all really does favor men (I wont hold my breath but I have demonstrated it )

 

[Bodi]

Prove it! Your "na huhs" are all countered right above...do you think other readers are blind? ""



Oh yeah! Another one that you cant hold your end up on. Thanks for giving me another opening to repost it here:

There will be a child when and if she decides here will be...yes or no? Can an opt-out law stop her from having it? Yes or no?​

​

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? ​

--and--

What inequality? If there's a pregnancy, neither can opt out of consequences. That's equal. You cannot equalize 'biology' so you telling us to ignore it for the convenience of your argument is meaningless. The physical consequences dont go away if you snap your fingers. She's held accountable for her decision to have sex. Avoiding financial consequences doesnt make all her physical consequences "equal."​

​

The opt-out cannot prevent the baby from being born 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.​

​

Here's the truth...you've seen that it truly is not equal...it favors men.​

--and--

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?​

​

Hey Bodi, please give some direct answers! Tell me you see here that it all really does favor men (I wont hold my breath but I have demonstrated it )

Oh, I learned long ago to ignore your silly requests that have been
answered a bunch of times and your misrepresentations of the
argument with your lies and accusations... LOL... good try though!!







.

 

[Lursa]

Oh, I learned long ago to ignore your stupid denials and misrepresentations of the argument with your lies... LOL... good try though!!

"I learned long ago" that you have to do so because you cannot refute where I've proven your opt-out would be the opposite of "legal equality for men."

Not sure why you believe that wailing "lies!" "there's no baby!" "it's not about biology!" "your stupid denials and misrepresentations" means squat when I post actual substance and counter arguments. Posted in good faith...unlike yours. I'm here for the debate, you are here "to win" and air your grievances.

People can read both, you know that right? They see you never directly quote any lies or directly counter any of my arguments. There's no good faith "back and forth" discussion from you. It's been 10 years and you've made no progress and all my old responses are still posted there to cut and paste anytime you bring it up.

 

[Lursa]

Hey @Bodi! over here!

I have a new question. Why not just a "pre-conception" opt out law? I mean, I know there's no pregnancy yet, but that's the risk he wants to avoid, right? That he wants to opt out of? A kid? They both agree to it, just like the post-conception one?

 

[Lursa]

Hey @Bodi! over here!

I have a new question. Why not just a "pre-conception" opt out law? I mean, I know there's no pregnancy yet, but that's the risk he wants to avoid, right? That he wants to opt out of? A kid? They both agree to it, just like the post-conception one?

Oops, my bad...she doesnt have to agree to the post-conception one.

 

[Bodi]

"I learned long ago" that you have to do so because you cannot refute where I've proven your opt-out would be the opposite of "legal equality for men."

Not sure why you believe that wailing "lies!" "there's no baby!" "it's not about biology!" "your stupid denials and misrepresentations" means squat when I post actual substance and counter arguments. Posted in good faith...unlike yours. I'm here for the debate, you are here "to win" and air your grievances.

People can read both, you know that right? They see you never directly quote any lies or directly counter any of my arguments. There's no good faith "back and forth" discussion from you. It's been 10 years and you've made no progress and all my old responses are still posted there to cut and paste anytime you bring it up.

Done and Dusted. Proved it easily.

 

[Jagged]

Done and Dusted. Proved it easily.

You ignoring the post-conception option the man has of fleeing?

 

[lwf]

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?

It's unequal only because males cannot get pregnant. Therefore, any pregnancy rights cannot apply to males. The inequality does not come from the law, but rather from mother nature, or God, or what-have-you.

The man does have the option to walk away from and not provide any support at all to a woman that he got pregnant. However, neither the man nor the woman have the option to walk away from a child they brought into this world that needs care.

The law is equal. While it is unequivocally unfair that men cannot also get pregnant, you can't make this fair by exempting a man from responsibility to care for a child he is responsible for creating solely because he is a man and upset that he can't get pregnant. It is not my responsibility as a taxpayer to care for your child. It is your and the other biological parent's responsibility.

 

[Jagged]

It's unequal only because males cannot get pregnant. Therefore, any pregnancy rights to not apply to males. The inequality does not come from the law, but rather from mother nature, or God, or what-have-you.

The man does have the option to walk away from and not provide any support at all to a woman that he got pregnant. However, neither the man nor the woman have the option to walk away from a child they brought into this world that needs care.

The law is equal. While it is unequivocally unfair that men cannot also get pregnant, you can't make this fair by exempting a man from responsibility to care for a child he is responsible for creating solely because he is a man and upset that he can't get pregnant. It is not my responsibility to care for your child. It is your responsibility.

The OP wants lawmakers to make unconscionable laws to compensate for the inequalities in biology, while at the same time, he doesn't want biology, which is inextricably entangled, to be part of the equation.

 

[Lursa]

Done and Dusted. Proved it easily.

...you cannot refute where I've proven your opt-out would be the opposite of "legal equality for men."

Not sure why you believe that wailing "lies!" "there's no baby!" "it's not about biology!" "your stupid denials and misrepresentations" means squat when I post actual substance and counter arguments. Posted in good faith...unlike yours. I'm here for the debate, you are here "to win" and air your grievances.

People can read both, you know that right? They see you never directly quote any lies or directly counter any of my arguments. There's no good faith "back and forth" discussion from you. It's been 10 years and you've made no progress and all my old responses are still posted there to cut and paste anytime you bring it up.

 

[Lursa]

The OP wants lawmakers to make unconscionable laws to compensate for the inequalities in biology, while at the same time, he doesn't want biology, which is inextricably entangled, to be part of the equation.

 

[Bodi]

You ignoring the post-conception option the man has of fleeing?

Huh?

 

[Bodi]

It's unequal only because males cannot get pregnant. Therefore, any pregnancy rights cannot apply to males. The inequality does not come from the law,

The OP lays out that the argument is 100% about the law and legal inequality and men not being able to get pregnant is irrelevant.

but rather from mother nature, or God, or what-have-you.

The man does have the option to walk away from and not provide any support at all to a woman that he got pregnant. However, neither the man nor the woman have the option to walk away from a child they brought into this world that needs care.

That has nothing to do with the OP

The law is equal.

Not post-conception it isn't.

While it is unequivocally unfair that men cannot also get pregnant, you can't make this fair by exempting a man from responsibility to care for a child

That is why she would have to make an important decision, because she would, at that point, would be her decision and it all would be her responsibility.

he is responsible for creating solely because he is a man and upset that he can't get pregnant. It is not my responsibility as a taxpayer to care for your child.

Taxpayers, you, pay for other people's kids already... so that is a bunk argument.

It is your and the other biological parent's responsibility.

I assume you mean "your" in the plural sense?

 

[Lursa]

Taxpayers, you, pay for other people's kids already... so that is a bunk argument.

Why should we pay more? It's not an endless well...paying for more kids means others in need will start getting less.

Please explain why taxpayers should pay anything when the parents of the child that knowingly risked creating it are available to do so?


(Not to mention that a child has a statutory right to be supported by both parents and that right would not be altered by an "opt-out" law.)

 

[Bodi]

Why should we pay more? It's not an endless well...paying for more kids means others in need will start getting less.

Please explain why taxpayers should pay anything when the parents of the child that knowingly risked creating it are available to do so?

They shouldn't have to already... but they are.

(Not to mention that a child has a statutory right to be supported by both parents and that right would not be altered by an "opt-out" law.)

WRONG!! LOL... That is incorrect. A child has the right to be supported... there is nothing about it being both parents.



'

 

[Lursa]

Not post-conception it isn't.

Of course it is. Because "there is no baby!" Remember?

So then what's not equal if there's no baby? The man has no responsibilities, costs, etc. (It's your game...I'm playing by your rules.)

At this point, I dont know why you dont just propose a Post-birth opt-out because then there's actually something for the man to be concerned with. In a lot of cases, she'd get an abortion and he'd be free as a breeze. So since the post-conception "law" doesnt prevent her from having the kid...why not just go for proposing a Post-birth opt-out?

This is new territory, right?

 

[Lursa]

They shouldn't have to already... but they are.

That's not any justification for them having to pay more when the responsible parties are available.

How do you justify that? Again, the other kids with no safety net, no parents, end up with less in the end.

 

[Lursa]

WRONG!! LOL... That is incorrect. A child has the right to be supported... there is nothing about it being both parents.

In the US? Oh yes, both parents. And I have posted this for you before, so why do you deny it? If available, they do. Unless legally adopted, etc.

​

Child Support is a statutory right that actually "belongs" to the child. Neither the egg donor nor the sperm donor can "contract out" of their liability under the laws that grant the statutory right to child support.​

​

So anything 'pre-conception' or 'pre-birth' is useless...if there's a child, their statutory right supersedes the contract or law.​

​

"No matter what situation gives rise to the need for child support, it might help to think of the legal right to child support as being possessed by a child (which it technically is), for his or her proper care and upbringing, regardless of who actually receives child support payments.​

​

The fact that the custodial parent has a high income does not itself justify deviation from the guidelines, because under the law children have the right to benefit from both parents' incomes."​

​

Child Support Basics - FindLaw​

www.findlaw.com​

--and--

A child’s right to receive parental support is inherent and cannot be waived by either party. Regardless of the parents’ relationship with one another (whether married, divorced, separated, or never married), as long as paternity has been established, both parents are on the hook for child support. Regardless of any arrangement—such as “trading” spousal support for child support—both parents still have a legal obligation to support the child.​

Can You Waive Child Support? | Law Office of Heath L. Baker​

Can you waive child support in Riverside? If you want an experienced family law attorney on your side, contact Heath Baker Law. Call us for a FREE consult!​

heathbakerlaw.com​

--and--

States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to secure the recovery of maintenance for the child from the parents or other persons having financial responsibility for the child, both within the State Party and from abroad. In particular, where the person having financial responsibility for the child lives in a State different from that of the child, States Parties shall promote the accession to international agreements or the conclusion of such agreements, as well as the making of other appropriate arrangements. link​

​

I dont know how many times this all needs to be posted for you but please stop posting otherwise. Do you acknowledge this now? The child has a right to financial support from both parents. If you disagree, please source legal information saying otherwise.

 

[Jagged]

Huh?

Is this so complicated? You said women have a post-conception option but men don't. That's not true. Men can flee.