Post Conception Opt-Out FOR MEN

[Lursa]

Some things never change... you arguing how it is now instead of why a change is impossible is a classic.

Not at all...I'm asking you what they need to change? Be specific...it's your argument...so what do they change? YOU said it yourself.

You keep arguing about the way things are... you do not argue why they can not change.

Well there cant be change if we dont know what needs to be changed, right? So far, you've been clear that your opt-out only works if there's no child. Great...men can opt out all they want when "there's no child."

But the opt-out does not:
a) keep her from having the kid
b) supersede the child's right requiring both parents to pay child support (post 399)

Enact the opt-out ...so then what needs to be changed? How, what needs to be done so things "are not the way they are?" And if you say I'm lying...prove it.

 

[Bodi]

Not at all...I'm asking you what they need to change? Be specific...it's your argument...so what do they change? YOU said it yourself.



Well there cant be change if we dont know what needs to be changed, right? So far, you've been clear that your opt-out only works if there's no child. Great...men can opt out all they want when "there's no child."

But the opt-out does not:
a) keep her from having the kid
b) supersede the child's right requiring both parents to pay child support (post 399)

Enact the opt-out ...so then what needs to be changed? How, what needs to be done so things "are not the way they are?" And if you say I'm lying...prove it.

It just never ends!

 

[Lursa]

It just never ends!

You completely failing to support this selfish idea? Of course not, and it hasnt changed in all these years.

I dont mind posting each time to show exactly how it fails. You are just retreating.

Enjoy! " "

But the opt-out does not:
a) keep her from having the kid
b) supersede the child's right requiring both parents to pay child support (post 399)

Enact the opt-out ...so then what needs to be changed? What needs to be done so things "are not the way they are?" Be specific. And if you say I'm lying...prove it.

 

[Bodi]

You completely failing to support this selfish idea? Of course not, and it hasnt changed in all these years.

I dont mind posting each time to show exactly how it fails. You are just retreating.

Enjoy! " "

But the opt-out does not:
a) keep her from having the kid
b) supersede the child's right requiring both parents to pay child support (post 399)

Enact the opt-out ...so then what needs to be changed? What needs to be done so things "are not the way they are?" Be specific. And if you say I'm lying...prove it.

Asked and answered... for 50 times or so. LOL

 

[Lursa]

You completely failing to support this selfish idea? Of course not, and it hasnt changed in all these years.

I dont mind posting each time to show exactly how it fails. You are just retreating.

Enjoy! " "

Asked and answered... for 50 times or so. LOL

How many sentences can it be? Please restate it or quote the post. Surely you can articulate it briefly.

 

[Bodi]

How many sentences can it be? Please restate it or quote the post. Surely you can articulate it briefly.

 

[Lursa]

No worries, I'll have a nice wrap up for you

 

[Bodi]

No worries, I'll have a nice wrap up for you

Finally... she realizes that her lies will no longer be entertained!!

 

[Lursa]

You keep arguing about the way things are... you do not argue why they can not change.

Law for opt-out passed. "There's no child" and man walks away, no strings attached. (Of course the man can do that anytime anyway, right? )

Here's "the way things are". The opt-out does not:

a) keep her from having the kid
b) supersede the child's right requiring both parents to pay child support (post 399)

But! What if "there IS a child?" What can we change to enable to him avoid "strings?"

Do we:​

a) change the laws so a man can force a woman to have an abortion?​

--or--​

b) reduce the child's rights to support from both parents?​

What should be changed and please provide some type of legal justification, since you have been exceedingly clear that this is a LEGAL issue. Please argue how they can be changed?

 

[Lursa]

Finally... she realizes that her lies will no longer be entertained!!

Any day you can post the lies, feel free to prove it. Quote 'em. Put up or...?

In any case, my wrap up in post 559...which adheres to ALL your "demands" ... makes things pretty clear and can tide us over until the next time you attempt to sell your "opt out"

 

[Bodi]

Law for opt-out passed. "There's no child" and man walks away, no strings attached. (Of course the man can do that anytime anyway, right? )

Here's "the way things are". The opt-out does not:

a) keep her from having the kid
b) supersede the child's right requiring both parents to pay child support (post 399)

But! What if "there IS a child?" What can we change to enable to him avoid "strings?"

Do we:​

a) change the laws so a man can force a woman to have an abortion?​

--or--​

b) reduce the child's rights to support from both parents?​

What should be changed and please provide some type of legal justification, since you have been exceedingly clear that this is a LEGAL issue. Please argue how they can be changed?

There is no "right to support from both parents".

You just won't stop posting lies!!

 

[Lursa]

There is no "right to support from both parents".

You just won't stop posting lies!!

Why do you lie? It's clearly written out from multiple sources in post 399. Go there and refute it with your own sources.

Put up or...? " "

And btw, after being asked for years...what rights are the man giving up?

the man has to pay and gave up all his rights

 

[Bodi]

Why do you lie? It's clearly written out from multiple sources in post 399. Go there and refute it with your own sources.

Put up or...? " "

And btw, after being asked for years...what rights are the man giving up?

The same Right/Privilege that she can give up. But you can't refute that!! LOL

There are no "rights from both parents". Anybody that says otherwise is lying.

 

[Lursa]

There are no "rights from both parents". Anybody that says otherwise is lying.

Why do you lie? It's clearly written out from multiple sources in post 399. Go there and refute it with your own sources.

Put up or...? " "

And btw, after being asked for years...what rights are the man giving up?

the man has to pay and gave up all his rights

 

[Bodi]

There is no "right to support from both parents". Nothing you said proves it based off of any sort of evidence because that statement is a misunderstanding of the requirement of "support" for the child... Stop lying.

 

[Lursa]

There is no "right to support from both parents". Nothing you said proves it based off of any sort of evidence. Stop lying.

Why do you lie? It's clearly written out from multiple sources in post 399. Go there and refute it with your own sources.

Put up or...? " "

And btw, after being asked for years...what rights are the man giving up?

… the man has to pay and gave up all his rights

 

[Bodi]

If there was a Right to support from both parents then all parents would be paying child support and many are not. Many mothers and fathers do not pay child support. Grandparents and Aunties and Uncles raise their kids. Kids are adopted. Kids are raised in orphanages. There is no "right to support from both parents". It is literally a stupid thing to even suggest. But, when you are not lying, you are generally posting stupid shit.

 

[ScrambledEggs]

Damn, ya'll still debating this?

 

[Bodi]

Damn, ya'll still debating this?

It isn't much of a debate.

 

[Lursa]

If there was a Right to support from both parents then all parents would be paying child support and many are not. Many mothers and fathers do not pay child support. Grandparents and Aunties and Uncles raise their kids. Kids are adopted. Kids are raised in orphanages. There is no "right to support from both parents". It is literally a stupid thing to even suggest. But, when you are not lying, you are generally posting stupid shit.

That's cool if the parents consent to those situations. A parent can hand off the kid to relatives and the kid STILL has the right to support from the non-custodial parent. Or both parents. So that's unsourced and facile and wrong. Unless it's an adoption.

The non-custodial parent cannot force the other parent to put the kid up for adoption or in foster care, so that doesnt work for your opt-out. ANOTHER fail.

Your post is "literally a stupid thing to even" write. You want "legal equality." You cant even provide legal reasoning or legal means.

Why do you lie? It's clearly written out from multiple sources in post 399. Go there and refute it with your own sources.

Put up or...? " "

And btw, after being asked for years...what rights are the man giving up?

… the man has to pay and gave up all his rights

 

[Bodi]

That's cool if the parents consent to those situations. A parent can hand off the kid to relatives and the kid STILL has the right to support from the non-custodial parent. Or both parents. So that's unsourced and facile and wrong. Unless it's an adoption.

The non-custodial parent cannot force the other parent to put the kid up for adoption or in foster care, so that doesnt work for your opt-out. ANOTHER fail.

Your post is "literally a stupid thing to even" write. You want "legal equality." You cant even provide legal reasoning or legal means.

I give up. I tied though... You will never understand.

 

[Lursa]

I give up. I tied though... You will never understand.

You're just lying so you can hide for another year or so. You didnt prove I was wrong, you didnt prove I lied. I gave you sources and you wanted to argue for change...you provided zero legal change to argue for.

(But believe me, I do understand...exactly what's behind your opt-out scheme. No wonder you cant follow thru on any legal changes that would enable it.)

Why do you lie? It's clearly written out from multiple sources in post 399. Go there and refute it with your own sources.

Put up or...? " "

And btw, after being asked for years...what rights are the man giving up?

… the man has to pay and gave up all his rights

 

[Lursa]

You keep arguing about the way things are... you do not argue why they can not change.

Law for opt-out passed. "There's no child" and man walks away, no strings attached. (Of course the man can do that anytime anyway, right? )

Here's "the way things are". The opt-out does not:

a) keep her from having the kid​

b) supersede the child's right requiring both parents to pay child support (post 399)​

But! What if "there IS a child?" What can we change legally to enable to him avoid "strings?"

Do we:

a) change the laws so a man can force a woman to have an abortion?​

--or--​

b) reduce protections for the child's rights?​

What should be changed, legally, and please provide some type of legal justification, since you have been exceedingly clear that this is a LEGAL issue? Please argue what can be changed? (This is your own demand )

""

 

[Bodi]

Law for opt-out passed. "There's no child" and man walks away, no strings attached. (Of course the man can do that anytime anyway, right? )

Here's "the way things are". The opt-out does not:

a) keep her from having the kid​

b) supersede the child's right requiring both parents to pay child support (post 399)​

But! What if "there IS a child?" What can we change legally to enable to him avoid "strings?"

Do we:

a) change the laws so a man can force a woman to have an abortion?​

--or--​

b) reduce protections for the child's rights?​

What should be changed, legally, and please provide some type of legal justification, since you have been exceedingly clear that this is a LEGAL issue? Please argue what can be changed? (This is your own demand )

""

I know that you think that you have a case... but I have already, repeatedly, shown that there is no child's right to be supported by both parents, or either parent, for that matter... yet you persist in ignoring that. or.... lying. And now you are copying me. LOL

 

[Lursa]

I know that you think that you have a case... but I have already, repeatedly, shown that there is no child's right to be supported by both parents, or either parent, for that matter... yet you persist in ignoring that. or.... lying. And now you are copying me. LOL

Let see it? Post, quote, law, link, sources?

You refuse to directly address where I produced all of those things: post 399

So, why are you lying about it? I also refuted your latest attempt in post 570 where you also provided no legal foundation or citations.

cuz it's so weird you're failing so badly and posting flowers. I find it interesting. And I like flowers