Post Conception Opt-Out? Good Idea or Bad?

[Bodi]

Opinion noted and dismissed

For years Lursa and her team have bandied about misrepresenting the argument and lying. I would think that it would get old being so dishonest.

 

[ClaraD]

If there is no child, as they keep saying, perhaps they should clarify what it is they want to opt-out of.
Any and all consequential responsibilities resulting from sex?
Bad idea!

Yep, I wonder how they'd opt out of HIV or herpes?

 

[Lursa]

For years Lursa and her team have bandied about misrepresenting the argument and lying. I would think that it would get old being so dishonest.

Any day you want to point out where I lied, quote it. And the unanswered questions in post 2691 make it crystal clear that you're the one misrepresenting your selfish scenario.

And cutting and pasting counter-arguments for others to consider is quite easy.

I never said it was a good idea... I said that the law, currently, is unequal with regards to a post-conception opt out of parenthood. That is just a fact.

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

(laws dont supersede the child's rights either)

There are many women who just dont believe in abortion. And are protected by the First Amendment. They use birth control, it fails...they are willing to accept having a kid. That's not irresponsible. That's accepting a consequence. As is a painful, costly abortion. Or miscarriage, or death…all possible consequences but there's no escape…she'll be suffering at least one if not more.​

Holy crap... somebody actually addressed the issue honestly.

 

[Bodi]

Yep, I wonder how they'd opt out of HIV or herpes?

... and that is the level of logic being applied against my premise!! LOL

 

[Bodi]

If there is no child, as they keep saying, perhaps they should clarify what it is they want to opt-out of.
Any and all consequential responsibilities resulting from sex?
Bad idea!

Child as you guys keeping using it is one born that needs to be supported.

If you have to start resorting to lies and misdirection then you have lost...

 

[Lursa]

Child as you guys keeping using it is one born that needs to be supported.

If you have to start resorting to lies and misdirection then you have lost...

How does the 'opt-out' stop her from having the kid? (It doesnt, it isnt meant to.)

Then explain how a law allowing the man to avoid his obligations to that child will supersede the child's statutory right to support? LOL, and explain why a state would pass a law so detrimental to kids, taxpayers, and society? (Besides the fact that the child has a right to that support.)

 

[Individual]

Child as you guys keeping using it is one born that needs to be supported.

If you have to start resorting to lies and misdirection then you have lost...

Is it not the possibility of having a responsibility to share providing support of a child should the Woman NOT choose to have an abortion that you are wanting to have a "Post Conception Opt-Out"?

You are the one resorting to lies and misdirection. At least be honest about what it is you want an Opt-Out from.

 

[Bodi]

How does the 'opt-out' stop her from having the kid? (It doesnt, it isnt meant to.)

Correct. At that point she can have the kid and support it herself if she so chooses. She has all the power over her body and her choice.

Then explain how a law allowing the man to avoid his obligations to that child will supersede the child's statutory right to support?

He has no obligations. She chose to have that child knowing he was not going to be supporting it.

LOL, and explain why a state would pass a law so detrimental to kids, taxpayers, and society? (Besides the fact that the child has a right to that support.)

The child has a right to be supported. It never says who. She chose to have a child he would not support. She chose to have a child that she could knowingly not care for properly. If she is responsible she will abort that pregnancy. If she is selfish then she can get family to help or she can take out a loan from the bank like millions of people do for cars or houses.

 

[Bodi]

Is it not the possibility of having a responsibility to share providing support of a child should the Woman NOT choose to have an abortion that you are wanting to have a "Post Conception Opt-Out"?

If she chose to have the child post conception opt out of the man then she chose to have the child without his support. Not a difficult concept.

You are the one resorting to lies and misdirection. At least be honest about what it is you want an Opt-Out from.

Equal rights.

 

[Bodi]

Yep, I wonder how they'd opt out of HIV or herpes?

Red Herring.

That is a logical fallacy... because I am confident that you did not know that.

 

[Lursa]

Correct. At that point she can have the kid and support it herself if she so chooses. She has all the power over her body and her choice.

He has no obligations. She chose to have that child knowing he was not going to be supporting it.

The child has a right to be supported. It never says who. She chose to have a child he would not support. She chose to have a child that she could knowingly not care for properly. If she is responsible she will abort that pregnancy. If she is selfish then she can get family to help or she can take out a loan from the bank like millions of people do for cars or houses.

Post 4 is clear. Both parents are obligated to contribute to the child's support. And it doesnt matter that he 'opted out.'

IF she has that kid, the kid's rights supersede anything previously established by the parents.

Your post reminds me of a child or a dog with selective hearing. It's all there in writing in post 4...your fantasy law (would never be passed anyway) would not supersede the child's rights. You continue to ignore this, for thousands of posts. So odd...I guess you really really cannot grasp that your 'proposal' is socially and legally unjustifiable...and a failure.

Why would the state ever pass such a law, which would effectively remove child support laws "for men only?" That's not equal, lol. Why would the state choose to render child support null and void for men?

 

[Individual]

If she chose to have the child post conception opt out of the man then she chose to have the child without his support. Not a difficult concept.

Equal rights.

There is no post conception opt-out for the man, nor should there be.
The mans rights and/or responsibilities depend upon the choice made by the Woman post conception.
His action/inaction resulting in conception terminated his choices, leaving him only with possible consequences.
Men don't become equally pregnant, only equally responsible for the result.

 

[Bodi]

There is no post conception opt-out for the man, nor should there be.
The mans rights and/or responsibilities depend upon the choice made by the Woman post conception.
His action/inaction resulting in conception terminated his choices, leaving him only with possible consequences.
Men don't become equally pregnant, only equally responsible for the result.

You just say that.

You don't state why a man paying for a woman's choice to not abort a child she can not support is logical, objective, Equal under the law or fair.

 

[ClaraD]

You just say that.

You don't state why a man paying for a woman's choice to not abort a child she can not support is logical, objective, Equal under the law or fair.

Did the child get a choice?

 

[Bodi]

Did the child get a choice?

Are you suggesting that the child should get a choice, one that might contradict the mother's choice?

 

[Lursa]

You just say that.

You don't state why a man paying for a woman's choice to not abort a child she can not support is logical, objective, Equal under the law or fair.

You dont state the justification for your invented version of "equal." And we can demonstrate that there is none by the fact that you cant answer this:

Post 4 is clear. Both parents are obligated to contribute to the child's support. And it doesnt matter that he 'opted out.'​

​

IF she has that kid, the kid's rights supersede anything previously established by the parents.​

​

Your post reminds me of a child or a dog with selective hearing. It's all there in writing in post 4...your fantasy law (would never be passed anyway) would not supersede the child's rights. You continue to ignore this, for thousands of posts. So odd...I guess you really really cannot grasp that your 'proposal' is socially and legally unjustifiable...and a failure.​

​

Why would the state ever pass such a law, which would effectively remove child support laws "for men only?" That's not equal, lol. Why would the state choose to render child support null and void for men?​

 

[Lursa]

You just say that.

You don't state why a man paying for a woman's choice to not abort a child she can not support is logical, objective, Equal under the law or fair.

You also cant explain away this, which proves it's not remotely "equal."

Nothing will keep the father from contacting the kid (or the kid from contacting the father) further down the line. And he can still be involved in the kid's life. No court will stop that...because all agree that it's best for the kid to have the father involved in their lives. (I do too). Some states even let rapists apply for custody when they're released...they're certainly not going to stop non-criminals from being in their kids' lives.​

Men will get out of all the responsibilities AND still get to be a father when they feel like it.​

Now please explain how that is "equal?"

 

[Bodi]

Some concepts that others do not understand truly illuminate how stupid those people are....

 

[Lursa]

Some concepts that others do not understand truly illuminate how stupid those people are....

Any day you can quote and prove it, let us know

A cowardly post not even quoting a reference is solid evidence in my favor

 

[Lursa]

Some concepts that others do not understand truly illuminate how stupid those people are....

Ah, and let's not forget this:

I never said it was a good idea... I said that the law, currently, is unequal with regards to a post-conception opt out of parenthood. That is just a fact.

This is also a fact, which you refuse to address:

Why would the state ever pass such a law, which would effectively remove child support laws "for men only?" That's not equal, lol. Why would the state choose to render child support null and void for men?

 

[Individual]

You just say that.

You don't state why a man paying for a woman's choice to not abort a child she can not support is logical, objective, Equal under the law or fair.

Abortion is a Woman's option, not a necessity. The man has no options remaining once conception has taken place. His only options were preconception.
Only the Woman becomes pregnant. What you're asking for is the option to be legally void of any responsibility should the Woman NOT choose an abortion, which he is equally responsible for allowing to occur.

A man shoots his gun into the air each day causing no harm, but one day the falling bullet lands on someone causing them injury or death. Should the man who shot the gun be held responsible, or the person who was hit by the falling bullet be held solely responsible for putting themself in the path of the bullet?

 

[jpevans]

You just say that.

You don't state why a man paying for a woman's choice to not abort a child she can not support is logical, objective, Equal under the law or fair.

The fact is, it doesn't matter if the woman is a millionaire, the man is still duty bound by Law to contribute to the child's upkeep.

 

[ClaraD]

Are you suggesting that the child should get a choice, one that might contradict the mother's choice?

of course, I would say the child's choice is far more important than the mother or father's choice here about if they deserve to have both parents support them.

 

[Bodi]

The fact is, it doesn't matter if the woman is a millionaire, the man is still duty bound by Law to contribute to the child's upkeep.

Naw. The Court only takes money if the other parent requests it.

 

[Bodi]

Abortion is a Woman's option, not a necessity. The man has no options remaining once conception has taken place. His only options were preconception.
Only the Woman becomes pregnant. What you're asking for is the option to be legally void of any responsibility should the Woman NOT choose an abortion, which he is equally responsible for allowing to occur.

A man shoots his gun into the air each day causing no harm, but one day the falling bullet lands on someone causing them injury or death. Should the man who shot the gun be held responsible, or the person who was hit by the falling bullet be held solely responsible for putting themself in the path of the bullet?

The person hit. They knew some idiot was shooting shotgun shells in to the air and walked out, willingly, into an active shooting range anyway.

Would you blame a NASCA driver for hitting some idiot that ran out onto the track during the Daytona 500?