Post Conception Opt-Out FOR MEN

[Bodi]

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?

Work on your game for a while... it is either rusty or it is weak. Either way it is boring.

 

[Jagged]

Work on your game for a while... it is either rusty or it is weak. Either way it is boring.

Why do you blame me because you can't keep track of what you say?

 

[Lursa]

Why do you blame me because you can't keep track of what you say?

He refuses to explain and clarify and blames everyone else. I think he must post this regularly to vent because he really does refuse to examine and debate it. He gets mad and abusive.

@Bodi...since you wont debate it in good faith, why not just blog it?

 

[Bodi]

Why do you blame me because you can't keep track of what you say?

I had one of the best Tortilla Soups ever yesterday, in Wellington of all places. Fricking good.

 

[Bodi]

He refuses to explain and clarify and blames everyone else. I think he must post this regularly to vent because he really does refuse to examine and debate it. He gets mad and abusive.

@Bodi...since you wont debate it in good faith, why not just blog it?

Figures you would latch onto a person as dishonest as @Jagged



.

 

[Lursa]

Figures you would latch onto a person as dishonest as @Jagged

Hey, what if I promise only to respond to you...will you discuss in good faith and answer my questions?

 

[Bodi]

Your feelings hurt? Hey, what if I promise only to respond to you...will you discuss in good faith and answer my questions?

Already do, always have...

I was telling @Jagged about this amazing Tortilla Soup I had the other day. Just amazing!

 

[Lursa]

Already do, always have...

Why lie so blatantly in your own OP...right now it looks utterly ridiculous, as it always ends up. Why not prove me wrong? At the moment, I'm at a crossroads considering new territory...and you wont respond in good faith.

...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?​

 

[Bodi]

Why lie so blatantly in your own OP...right now it looks utterly ridiculous, as it always ends up. Why not prove me wrong?

Done that sooooo many times... but you never understand it.

At the moment, I'm at a crossroads considering new territory...and you wont respond in good faith.

No idea what that means.... probably some set-up to garner more attention.



.

 

[Lursa]

Done that sooooo many times... but you never understand it.
No idea what that means.... probably some set-up to garner more attention.

You've posted such falsehoods many times in this thread. It would be easier if you'd just respond in good faith. I prefer to post substance and if you cannot challenge it, explain otherwise, then fine. Others can still see how your OP fails or can question 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?​

 

[Bodi]

You've posted such falsehoods many times in this thread. It would be easier if you'd just respond in good faith. I prefer to post substance and if you cannot challenge it, explain otherwise, then fine. Others can still see how your OP fails or can question it.

Hmmmm... Ever heard the story of the kid who cried wolf? That one seems really suitable at the moment.

 

[Lursa]

Hmmmm... Ever heard the story of the kid who cried wolf? That one seems really suitable at the moment.

Any day you want to prove me wrong ...besides, all people have to do is look back at your posts. Or you could move forward:

...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?​

 

[Bodi]

Any day you want to prove me wrong ...besides, all people have to do is look back at your posts.

Or you could move forward:

I have....

...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?​

 

[Lursa]

I have....

Rinse, repeat

OK!

...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?​

 

[Bodi]

Rinse, repeat

OK!

...Because factually...she still has all the choices, right? Whatever "he" chooses, she also still gets to choose.​

And then it is on her. She made the choice. And there is already a precedent where society pays for adults and children, many precedents.

 

[Lursa]

And then it is on her. She made the choice. And there is already a precedent where society pays for adults and children, many precedents.

That doesnt have any affect on the actual rights of the child tho...that's not a matter of just changing a law to let guys walk away. That's a legal and societal matter that requires legal and social justification. There's a reason why society created child support to begin with, right? What has changed?** The child has a right to support from both parents...what men's rights are being violated?

If you have relevant precedents, what are some examples? They'd have to justify demanding the taxpayers pay for the choices of 2 available parents who knowingly risked creating the child tho. Right? Or be justified in some way? Such as?



**what changed is now that child support laws apply equally to both men and women. And family courts are applying them more equally as well )

 

[Bodi]

That doesnt have any affect on the actual rights of the child tho...that's not a matter of just changing a law to let guys walk away. That's a legal and societal matter that requires legal and social justification. There's a reason why society created child support to begin with, right? What has changed?** The child has a right to support from both parents...what men's rights are being violated?

If you have relevant precedents, what are some examples? They'd have to justify demanding the taxpayers pay for the choices of 2 available parents who knowingly risked creating the child tho. Right? Or be justified in some way? Such as?



**what changed is now that child support laws apply equally to both men and women. And family courts are applying them more equally as well )

That is fine...

 

[EnchantedMuggle]

The Male opt out exists preconception.
Post ejaculation the choice has been given to the Woman to make.
Actions can have consequences. The same is true for inaction.

This.

When an "oopsie" happens, everybody pays.

Biology dictates exactly when and how, but everybody pays.

Sure, the woman has "choices" post-conception v. men's choices pre, to wit: have an abortion and be fine with it and be in pain and bleed a lot; have an abortion and feel like a horrific murderer and be in pain and bleed a lot; go through nine months of pregnancy while still working, living her life, etc. and then just hand the baby over to someone else, apparently expected to have zero feelings whatsoever about that (much less for the entire rest of her life as many women seem to); go through the pregnancy, give birth and keep the child.

Apparently, if she chooses that last option over the other apparently super-easy choices (walk in the park!), at least if one listens to the many astoundingly tone-deaf responses on this board, she's to be punished by watching her child suffer, and by her suffering being exhausted working constantly to keep the child alive, while barely having time to spend with the child b/c she's working -- but she deserves that punishment because waaaah. That wasn't the man's decision.

WTF. No.

Child support laws are there for a reason. They're there because *the child* needs to be supported and *both* parents are "to blame" for the pregnancy and *they are the parents* and *they are the first avenue* the law will go after to pay for the child unless it has been given up for adoption. Period.

This isn't about the man and waaah, waaah, he wanted to get his tip moistened and then walk away and no fair, he didn't get to "decide" that the woman would go to a clinic, lie down and have a tiny razor blade on a metal stick scrape out the contents of one of her internal organs. TOUGH DARTS, everyone. *The law will protect the child first*, and the parents are responsible; too bad so sad.

 

[EnchantedMuggle]

If she cn not care for a child then she should make the responsible choice and not have one.

If he can not pay for a child then he should make the responsible choice and not have sex.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

Let's be realistic, nobody has been responsible in this scenario. But she's the one who is expected to instantly transform into a mature, levelheaded,, "responsible" individual and march herself right down to the abortion clinic...while he wanders off because hey, all he wanted was to dampen his q-tip, no fair?

Nah.

They were *both* irresponsible. Now she is forced into a decision...and soon. That's plenty of growing up for her in just a few short weeks. He doesn't have to grow up at all. But he DOES have to be the first go-to for money toward raising the child HE was 50% a part of making.

Why shouldn't he be, along with her, obviously? Do you think you should be? A total stranger? And me and a whole bunch of other strangers? The law doesn't think so, not as the first source. We will help raise those children financially only after the dad ditches and can't be found to get the child support, or lies about being unemployed and makes his money under the table. Until then, "responsible" decision-makers or not, *the parents* will be assumed the source for supporting the child *they both* produced. Any other route is just ridiculous.

 

[Bodi]

This.

When an "oopsie" happens, everybody pays.

Biology dictates exactly when and how, but everybody pays.

Sure, the woman has "choices" post-conception v. men's choices pre, to wit: have an abortion and be fine with it and be in pain and bleed a lot; have an abortion and feel like a horrific murderer and be in pain and bleed a lot; go through nine months of pregnancy while still working, living her life, etc. and then just hand the baby over to someone else, apparently expected to have zero feelings whatsoever about that (much less for the entire rest of her life as many women seem to); go through the pregnancy, give birth and keep the child.

Apparently, if she chooses that last option over the other apparently super-easy choices (walk in the park!), at least if one listens to the many astoundingly tone-deaf responses on this board, she's to be punished by watching her child suffer, and by her suffering being exhausted working constantly to keep the child alive, while barely having time to spend with the child b/c she's working -- but she deserves that punishment because waaaah. That wasn't the man's decision.

WTF. No.

Child support laws are there for a reason. They're there because *the child* needs to be supported and *both* parents are "to blame" for the pregnancy and *they are the parents* and *they are the first avenue* the law will go after to pay for the child unless it has been given up for adoption. Period.

This isn't about the man and waaah, waaah, he wanted to get his tip moistened and then walk away and no fair, he didn't get to "decide" that the woman would go to a clinic, lie down and have a tiny razor blade on a metal stick scrape out the contents of one of her internal organs. TOUGH DARTS, everyone. *The law will protect the child first*, and the parents are responsible; too bad so sad.

Women having children that they can not afford and that will end up in drug and gang infested communities, with abuse and poor education and and and... but that is okay and society has to pay for that

 

[Lursa]

Women having children that they can not afford and that will end up in drug and gang infested communities, with abuse and poor education and and and... but that is okay and society has to pay for that

Who says it's ok? But there's no legal way to prevent it. Or, please share how? So child support and public assistance are ways society alleviates some of those risks you list. But you already know this.

And society has to pay for couples that choose to have kids they cant afford too. How is that different?

The point here is, care for the kid by the responsible parties *who are available to do so* and not putting more of a burden on the taxpayers. Why should we pay more? What is your justification for that? It cant just be..."well we already do, what's a bunch more?" just to let the non-custodial parent walk away.

 

[Jagged]

Women having children that they can not afford and that will end up in drug and gang infested communities, with abuse and poor education and and and... but that is okay and society has to pay for that

Yet more reasons why dad's can't opt out of their parental responsibilities. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Bodi]

Yet more reasons why dad's can't opt out of their parental responsibilities. Thanks for pointing that out.

You meant more reasons why the woman should abort... and I agree.

 

[Jagged]

You meant more reasons why the woman should abort... and I agree.

Nope, not what I meant. Not sure how your brain even reached that conclusion based on what I wrote?

 

[Bodi]

Nope, not what I meant.

Abort the child to protect it from abuse... that is a good thing.

Not sure how your brain even reached that conclusion based on what I wrote?

How can you not even know that that is what you meant?


.