Post Conception Opt-Out FOR MEN

[Lursa]

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

I'm now kind of unsure why it matters if it's post-conception? I thought I was used to all the angles but...why not pre-conception or at birth?

If it's supposed to be a law, and it's post-conception, the woman doesnt even have to tell the man she's pregnant and then he has no chance to opt out.

 

[Bodi]

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

Maybe you should read the OP and make informed posts instead of this ignorant flippant crap. Sound good?

 

[Bodi]

I'm now kind of unsure

Of course... that has been evident for years.

why it matters if it's post-conception? I thought I was used to all the angles but...why not pre-conception or at birth?

At Pre-Conception there is no baby to abort.
At birth the situation is known as: Post-Conception.

Maybe another ten years and you will start understanding the argument.

If it's supposed to be a law, and it's post-conception, the woman doesnt even have to tell the man she's pregnant and then he has no chance to opt out.

Not according to the OP. If she does not inform him she would be stuck... and what a shitty person she would be as well. And you want this shitty lying sack to be a mother? LOL



.

 

[Lursa]

At Pre-Conception there is no baby to abort.
At birth the situation is known as: Post-Conception.

Right, "there is no baby!" That's what you keep pounding on.

So why not initiate this then? "There's no baby" post-conception/pre-birth either, right? I thought that was the deal...the opt-out says he tells her his intentions after she's pregnant but before there's a baby.

Is it now just "post birth?" If so, why not just say so? If there's a miscarriage or abortion, the whole thing doesnt matter if it's just "post-conception" right? Women know their options dont they? A conversation between them seems normal...but why does it matter if she can still do what she needs to do? How does the opt-out matter?

The blue text really needs clarification for me, please.

Maybe another ten years and you will start understanding the argument.

Please...explain. See above. The floor is yours, will you use it constructively?

Not according to the OP. If she does not inform him she would be stuck...

We know because of the superseding laws protecting the statutory rights of the child (see post 399), it doesnt matter. Remember I kept posting this and you kept ignoring it? If she decides to have it, your "opt-out law" wont matter. Right? It does not supersede the rights of the child, right?

It also doesnt prevent him from contacting the kid/the kid contacting him and being a father if he decides to be later. He gets to choose that, right?

and what a shitty person she would be as well. And you want this shitty lying sack to be a mother? LOL

No more than the shitty guy that walks away from a kid he knowingly risked creating, knowing the woman could still have it.

 

[Bodi]

Right, "there is no baby!" That's what you keep pounding on.

You will never understand, apparently.

So why not initiate this then? "There's no baby" post-conception/pre-birth either, right? I thought that was the deal...the opt-out says he tells her his intentions after she's pregnant but before there's a baby.

Are you trying to twist it or are you really this lost? LOL

A baby or child is when it is born. Forget it... LOL. Go back and read it again. And again... and again. Maybe you will understand eventually.

No more than the shitty guy that walks away from a kid he knowingly risked creating, knowing the woman could still have it.

Sure. Fine.

 

[Lursa]

Are you trying to twist it or are you really this lost? LOL

I dont get it. Honestly. You hammered "there is no baby!" into us for years. So why does this discussion need to be 'after' conception then? Shouldnt they do so BEFORE they take the risk? So that things are perfectly clear?

Why didnt you address my blue text directly? That's the sticking point.

A baby or child is when it is born. Forget it... LOL. Go back and read it again. And again... and again. Maybe you will understand eventually.

I do understand the reality of the law. And you havent explained how your opt-out actually gets men out of paying when the opt-out still cant prevent the kid being born and the child's rights supersede opting-out...right? Yes or no?

Why wont you address that? Or this:

It also doesnt prevent him from contacting the kid/the kid contacting him and being a father if he decides to be later. He gets to choose that, right?

I guess I just dont understand why you arent promoting a law that just allows non-custodial parents to walk away from child support? Why does it need to be before the birth? Again, the women know their options. And that the state will still demand the non-custodial parent pay.

 

[Bodi]

I dont get it. Honestly. You hammered "there is no baby!" into us for years. So why does this discussion need to be 'after' conception then? Shouldnt they do so BEFORE they take the risk? So that things are perfectly clear?

If you don't get that you always talk about there being a baby to care for, meaning if she has the baby there is a baby... but at the point of the post-conception opt-out there is no baby, she is just pregnant... meaning nobody is on the line yet, then I can't help you. Good luck.

Why didnt you address my blue text directly? That's the sticking point.



I do understand the reality of the law. And you havent explained how your opt-out actually gets men out of paying when the opt-out still cant prevent the kid being born and the child's rights supersede opting-out...right? Yes or no?

Why wont you address that? Or this:

It also doesnt prevent him from contacting the kid/the kid contacting him and being a father if he decides to be later. He gets to choose that, right?

I guess I just dont understand why you arent promoting a law that just allows non-custodial parents to walk away from child support? Why does it need to be before the birth? Again, the women know their options. And that the state will still demand the non-custodial parent pay.

Because I am tired of holding you by the hand trying to help you navigate between your
misunderstanding and your bias... while everything is riddled with lies. *shrug*



.

 

[Lursa]

If you don't get that you always talk about there being a baby to care for, meaning if she has the baby there is a baby... but at the point of the post-conception opt-out there is no baby, she is just pregnant... meaning nobody is on the line yet, then I can't help you. Good luck.

But factually...she still has all the choices, right? Whatever 'he' chooses, she also still gets to choose.

So even if she accepts or agrees to it...no law can force her to abort or keep it, right? So what is the point of the opt-out? If the law (child's rights) will still hold the non-custodial parent accountable if she has it?

I dont remember years ago when this started but seriously...why are you not just promoting opting out of child support and bringing an argument for that?

Because I am tired of holding you by the hand trying to help you navigate between your
misunderstanding and your bias... while everything is riddled with lies. *shrug*

I really dont get it anymore. Your opt out doesnt make it equal because:

It also doesnt prevent him from contacting the kid/the kid contacting him and being a father if he decides to be later. He gets to choose that, right?

 

[Bodi]

But factually...she still has all the choices, right? Whatever 'he' chooses, she also still gets to choose.

So even if she accepts or agrees to it...no law can force her to abort or keep it, right? So what is the point of the opt-out? If the law (child's rights) will still hold the non-custodial parent accountable if she has it?

I dont remember years ago when this started but seriously...why are you not just promoting opting out of child support and bringing an argument for that?



I really dont get it anymore. Your opt out doesnt make it equal because:

It also doesnt prevent him from contacting the kid/the kid contacting him and being a father if he decides to be later. He gets to choose that, right?

It was written clearly, in English and explained 50+ times... good luck from this point.

,

 

[Gatsby]

If you don't get that you always talk about there being a baby to care for, meaning if she has the baby there is a baby... but at the point of the post-conception opt-out there is no baby, she is just pregnant... meaning nobody is on the line yet, then I can't help you. Good luck.




Because I am tired of holding you by the hand trying to help you navigate between your
misunderstanding and your bias... while everything is riddled with lies. *shrug*



.

Raise your damn kids.

 

[lwf]

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.



That has nothing to do with the OP

Of course it does. It is your OP. And your argument is flawed for the reasons stated.

Not post-conception it isn't.

Yes, it is. If a man were able to get pregnant, he would have the final say in whether or not he removes the fetus from his body. No one else gets a say in that. If he chose not to, then he MUST provide for the child, along with the mother. She would get no post-conception opt out in that scenario, and no one should get a government-enforced post-birth opt out. If one parent wants to absolve the other of responsibility for their own child, that's fine. But don't apply for government assistance if the other parent is alive and not contributing. If you do, the government should find the non-contributing parent and force them to pay child support.

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.

It is her decision, and it is her responsibility. Women don't get to bring a baby into the world and then decide to not support it, outside of legal adoption. And neither do men.

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

I want to pay less for other people's kids. Your suggestion would have me paying more.

 

[Jagged]

Maybe you should read the OP and make informed posts instead of this ignorant flippant crap. Sound good?

<laughing>

So if you ignore the post-conception option men have, then they have no options?

 

[Jagged]

Of course... that has been evident for years.



At Pre-Conception there is no baby to abort.
At birth the situation is known as: Post-Conception.

Maybe another ten years and you will start understanding the argument.



Not according to the OP. If she does not inform him she would be stuck... and what a shitty person she would be as well. And you want this shitty lying sack to be a mother? LOL



.

Wanting him to share in the responsibility of parenthood makes her a shitty mother? You can't even contain your misogyny, can you?

 

[Bodi]

Raise your damn kids.

You raise yours damn kids...

 

[Bodi]

<laughing>

So if you ignore the post-conception option men have, then they have no options?

Never even once uttered such a stupid thing... but you went straight there anyway.

 

[Bodi]

Wanting him to share in the responsibility of parenthood makes her a shitty mother? You can't even contain your misogyny, can you?

Not telling him he was a father was the shitty thing in that situation... like I said... start reading better. FFS.

 

[Jagged]

Never even once uttered such a stupid thing... but you went straight there anyway.

Sure you did. I gave you an example of a post-conception option for men to avoid taking financial responsibility for their own offspring, and you still maintained men have no options.

Reading is fundamental. Try harder.

 

[Bodi]

Sure you did. I gave you an example of a post-conception option for men to avoid taking financial responsibility for their own offspring, and you still maintained men have no options.

Reading is fundamental. Try harder.

Within the context of the OP. Dude, you are way out of your depth... or this is some really shitty Trolling.

 

[Jagged]

Not telling him he was a father was the shitty thing in that situation... like I said... start reading better. FFS.

<laughing>

Yeah, shitty thing to do to the dad, not the child. So again I ask, how does that make her a shitty mother?

 

[Jagged]

Within the context of the OP. Dude, you are way out of your depth... or this is some really shitty Trolling.

Your OP is flawed, so of course, you blame me. <smh>

Your OP claims the dad has no post-conception option like the mother does. That's the flaw in your OP... he does. I gave you one.

 

[Bodi]

Your OP is flawed, so of course, you blame me. <smh>

Your OP claims the dad has no post-conception option like the mother does. That's the flaw in your OP... he does. I gave you one.

I never said that he has "no post-conception option like the mother does".

<laughing>

Yeah, shitty thing to do to the dad, not the child. So again I ask, how does that make her a shitty mother?

I imagine you could think of it if you tried... but then again, maybe not. Your reasoning hasn't been too impressive so far.


.

 

[Lursa]

If you don't get that you always talk about there being a baby to care for, meaning if she has the baby there is a baby... but at the point of the post-conception opt-out there is no baby, she is just pregnant... meaning nobody is on the line yet, then I can't help you. Good luck.

This is a good faith effort to understand it. Because factually...she still has all the choices, right? Whatever "he" chooses, she also still gets to choose.

So even if she accepts or agrees to it...no law can force her to abort or keep it, right? So what is the point of the opt-out? If the law (child's rights) will still hold the non-custodial parent accountable if she has it?

I dont remember years ago when this started but seriously...why are you not just promoting opting out of child support and bringing an argument for that? What is the purpose of this option for men before the kid is born? Esp. if it's not binding?

What, different from a law not being bound to child support, is the post-conception opt out supposed to accomplish?

 

[Jagged]

I never said that he has "no post-conception option like the mother does".



I imagine you could think of it if you tried... but then again, maybe not. Your reasoning hasn't been too impressive so far.


.

<laughing>

Now everyone sees not even you knows what you're talking about. Here you are saying what you now deny saying...

- 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.

 

[Bodi]

<laughing>

Now everyone sees not even you knows what you're talking about. Here you are saying what you now deny saying...

That has a context. The OP. That states a legal post-conception opt-out.

The issue is currently unequal under the law. This discriminates against men and forces men to pay for a choice that the woman makes.

Legally, she has a post conception opt-out and and he does not. That was the point of the whole OP that you apparently just ignored.

You are trying really hard, and that is really special. Good job!


.

 

[Jagged]

That has a context. The OP. That states a legal post-conception opt-out.





You are trying really hard, and that is really special. Good job!


.

So you're back to saying women have a post-conception opt out option where men don't, after denying you said that, after saying that?