Post Conception Opt-Out? Good Idea or Bad?

[Lursa]

I am so firmly committed to the idea that choosing to have sex is not consenting to pregnancy (from the abortion arguments) that it would be sheer hypocrisy to hold men to a different standard. I find the appeal to child support obligations unnecessary, but the OP is right in that men do not choose for a woman to have a child, when one or both use contraception but it fails. No more and no less, do women choose to have a child just by choosing to have sex.

Then there's the malicious aspect. Laws that hold people responsible for having protected sex, can simply not be enforced fairly when it's so easy to lie about protection or to sabotage the man's protection.

Or perhaps you expect the man to rush off to the bathroom instead of cuddling after sex, carefully take off his condom and wash it out with bleach? Then put a new condom on in case of later seepage? None of this distrust between sexual partners is necessary, if you just remove the legal incentives to lie or sabotage.

Men DO choose. They know the consequences and to avoid those consequences...or to choose to take the risk...they have to decide BEFORE having sex. Right?

Same for women, but our consequences are different. And we dont determine those consequences, we cant even control most of them. Even our choice can kill us. But we also have to decide BEFORE having sex. He wants "equality," and that certainly is.

What's not 'equal' are the consequences...$$ vs death/severe health harm. And again, it's in men's favor.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Straight from OneNote:

There are many women who just dont believe in abortion. 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.

Well that's a pretty stupid approach to sex and pregnancy. If those women have already had all the kids they plan to, they should get sterilized. And if not, they should use the most reliable method (implants and/or IUD) because the "pain and cost" of an abortion is minimal compared to raising another child.

Willing parents go through a lot, for the satisfaction of raising a child, but some people know it's not for them. More often than not, those people are men.

So why is it so unfair for men to do the same?

Why is it so unfair for men to be forced to take the "you're a parent now" route, which SOME women choose?

Well because it's not their choice, that's why.

They knowingly accept the risk and know they cant tell her what to do. If they sleep with her anyway, then they also should accept that consequence. It's equal. It's not equal outcomes but they knew that going in too.

It's not equal. You're saying that men can be held to a decision made by the woman, but women can't be held to any decision made by the man. That's no kind of equality.

If men dont act in their own best interests and avoid that risk, that's their choice...that is irresponsible. And stupid IMO.

So men should get sterilized, and just roll a dice on whether the operation is reversible, if at some time in the future they meet a woman they want to have kids with?

Here's another option: men pay child support when demanded, but it entitles them to 50% custody of the child. And if the woman has a decent income, she can pay HIM child support for the 50% of the time he's providing the parenting services.

Or we could just have a parenting pension for every individual or couple whose earned income isn't high. Work tests, if any, no more than 15 or 20 hours a week.

 

[Bodi]

I am so firmly committed to the idea that choosing to have sex is not consenting to pregnancy (from the abortion arguments) that it would be sheer hypocrisy to hold men to a different standard. I find the appeal to child support obligations unnecessary, but the OP is right in that men do not choose for a woman to have a child, when one or both use contraception but it fails. No more and no less, do women choose to have a child just by choosing to have sex.

Then there's the malicious aspect. Laws that hold people responsible for having protected sex, can simply not be enforced fairly when it's so easy to lie about protection or to sabotage the man's protection.

Or perhaps you expect the man to rush off to the bathroom instead of cuddling after sex, carefully take off his condom and wash it out with bleach? Then put a new condom on in case of later seepage? None of this distrust between sexual partners is necessary, if you just remove the legal incentives to lie or sabotage.

She posts some of the most manipulative and lying shit regarding this topic. I am fairly sure that she is not capable of understanding better.

 

[Lursa]

Simply don't get a woman pregnant and you have no responsibility for a child to worry about.

But see, what these men really want is to still be able to have sex without consequences. They're used to it, feel entitled to it, they've had that privilege for all history. And some of them are having a hard time dealing with modern technology, the law, and less male privilege.

Women cannot now and never have been able to have sex without consequences...but they're playing the victims here

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Men DO choose. They know the consequences and to avoid those consequences...or to choose to take the risk...they have to decide BEFORE having sex. Right?

Same for women, but our consequences are different. And we dont determine those consequences, we cant even control most of them. Even our choice can kill us. But we also have to decide BEFORE having sex. He wants "equality," and that certainly is.

What's not 'equal' are the consequences...$$ vs death/severe health harm. And again, it's in men's favor.

You want compensation for women, for the damage done to their bodies by pregnancy? Sounds OK. But why should the man who got her pregnant be the only one to pay? Giving birth and raising children is essential work, it's up there with growing food and teaching. It should be paid by the taxpayer.

 

[Bodi]

Well that's a pretty stupid approach to sex and pregnancy.

Says the guy that just told me to be respectful and then turns around and posts disrespectful crap.

Fine.

Don't participate with your hypocrisy. For ****'s sake.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

She posts some of the most manipulative and lying shit regarding this topic. I am fairly sure that she is not capable of understanding better.

We can all be better teachers.

 

[Bodi]

We can all be better teachers.

Then guide her. Dictate to her what she is doing wrong. Remediate this destructive path that she is on but cannot understand.

 

[Bodi]

You want compensation for women, for the damage done to their bodies by pregnancy? Sounds OK. But why should the man who got her pregnant be the only one to pay? Giving birth and raising children is essential work, it's up there with growing food and teaching. It should be paid by the taxpayer.

Wait. Havin a kid that consumes is up there with growing food?

How is giving birth "essentially work"? WTF?

 

[Lursa]

Well that's a pretty stupid approach to sex and pregnancy. If those women have already had all the kids they plan to, they should get sterilized. And if not, they should use the most reliable method (implants and/or IUD) because the "pain and cost" of an abortion is minimal compared to raising another child.

I never said it was anyone's approach to anything. I was detailing the choice. And I'd be all for those things too. But we cant force men or women to have sex or get sterilized. Believe me, I'd be all for it.

Willing parents go through a lot, for the satisfaction of raising a child, but some people know it's not for them. More often than not, those people are men.



Why is it so unfair for men to be forced to take the "you're a parent now" route, which SOME women choose?

Got me, all I know is for both, neither want to choose that. And for 100% certainty, that choice comes for both before they have sex.

Well because it's not their choice, that's why.

They knew the woman had all choices over a pregnancy before, right?

So then in their own best interests, the DID have a choice and made it anyway. Before. Why shouldnt they be held accountable for that choice? The woman is...but her choices for a pregancy are different and that's determined by biology, not her.

It's not equal. You're saying that men can be held to a decision made by the woman, but women can't be held to any decision made by the man. That's no kind of equality.

Yup, but he knew that before. See above. It's perfectly equal for both BEFORE they have sex.

Men have no rights here so the issue of 'equality' is only emotional manipulation by the OP. Some things cant be equal...biology makes some of those things impossible.

Besides it's not really about equal men/women anymore. Legal men (trans) have been pregnant and the same laws apply to them equally. And to their partners.

So again, the 'equality' argument fails.

So men should get sterilized, and just roll a dice on whether the operation is reversible, if at some time in the future they meet a woman they want to have kids with?

Not a bad suggestion. When I was in my 20s I wanted to have my tubes tied but it was an elective surgery so cost way more than a vasectomy. And also, most doctors wont sterilize younger women because of lawsuits...it seems a lot of women regretted the decision and blamed doctors. That's BS IMO.

Here's another option: men pay child support when demanded, but it entitles them to 50% custody of the child. And if the woman has a decent income, she can pay HIM child support for the 50% of the time he's providing the parenting services.

That would be great! I'm all for more actual participation of the father in the kid's life. And that is actually how the law works. I wrote already...the laws apply equally to men and women when there's a child.

Or we could just have a parenting pension for every individual or couple whose earned income isn't high. Work tests, if any, no more than 15 or 20 hours a week.

That's not a US thing.

 

[Lursa]

She posts some of the most manipulative and lying shit regarding this topic. I am fairly sure that she is not capable of understanding better.

Prove it. You havent been able to for several threads and a few years now.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Says the guy that just told me to be respectful and then turns around and posts disrespectful crap.

Fine.

Don't participate with your hypocrisy. For ****'s sake.

You need to calm down. Lursa hypothesised a certain kind of woman who uses protection but is committed against abortion. That is what I was characterizing as a "stupid approach to sex and pregnancy." If that's Lursa's approach then I can't be blamed for not knowing that.

The next paragraph did make me angry though. Because some women have that approach, therefore all men should be held to the same standard. Are men supposed to grill their dates on birth control and abortion? And even if they did, would there be any assurance that the woman is telling the truth?

"Yes John, I'm opposed to abortion for no reason, but if you don't want children and the contraception fails, I would get an early term abortion."

Then it's 16 weeks later and "Oh John, I changed my mind and I'm going to have a baby after all. I'm sure it's yours ..." and it's not even a lie. Women like anyone are allowed to change their minds!

 

[Lursa]

You want compensation for women, for the damage done to their bodies by pregnancy? Sounds OK.

No...where did I even imply that? All I've discussed is risks. Very real risks that are consequences women face.

But why should the man who got her pregnant be the only one to pay? Giving birth and raising children is essential work, it's up there with growing food and teaching. It should be paid by the taxpayer.

Once there is a child, the man has rights to at least partial custody here in the US if they want it. Unless they're a criminal or something but the same applies to women. And then the non-custodial parent pays as well. It can be the man or the woman.

And no, this was a joint decision of 2 people who should pay THEIR share for the kid they CHOSE to risk having. The tax payers are already paying plenty for 400,000 kids in foster care or welfare with no parents, one parent, in jail, too poor, whatever. If it's unfair to make the non-custodial parent pay...how can it possible be 'fair' to make the taxpayers pay when we didnt even create the kid?

 

[Lursa]

Says the guy that just told me to be respectful and then turns around and posts disrespectful crap.

Fine.

Don't participate with your hypocrisy. For ****'s sake.

He posted that to me

Just how triggered are you? You cant even read straight.

 

[Bodi]

You need to calm down

Wait. I am essentially calm here and you state that you are angry and you tell me to calm down.?

. Lursa hypothesised a certain kind of woman who uses protection but is committed against abortion. That is what I was characterizing as a "stupid approach to sex and pregnancy." If that's Lursa's approach then I can't be blamed for not knowing that.

The next paragraph did make me angry though.

Get your shit in order and then we can talk.

Because some women have that approach, therefore all men should be held to the same standard. Are men supposed to grill their dates on birth control and abortion?

Post conception

And even if they did, would there be any assurance that the woman is telling the truth?

POST conception

"Yes John, I'm opposed to abortion for no reason, but if you don't want children and the contraception fails, I would get an early term abortion."

Then it's 16 weeks later and "Oh John, I changed my mind and I'm going to have a baby after all. I'm sure it's yours ..." and it's not even a lie. Women like anyone are allowed to change their minds!

There is a window for her... she then retains ALL control.

 

[Lursa]

There is a window for her... she then retains ALL control.

Yup. And men know this before having sex, yes or no?

Of course the answer is yes. Are you claiming that men dont have the mental capacity or self control to decide rationally whether or not to risk turning that control over to women if they get pregnant? Yes or no? IMO men certainly are capable of acting in their own best interests here...why are you acting like they're weak victims?

Then why do they risk it? And then why do they blame women when WE act in OUR best interests?

Or is it the truth you wont admit: you believe men should still be entitled to sex without consequences? Yes or no?


(And yeah...that 'control' thing really chap some men's hides eh? After millennia of male privilege and control? "When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality seems like oppression.")

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Yup, but he knew that before. See above. It's perfectly equal for both BEFORE they have sex.

And it can stay as equal as biology allows, if we just drop the fool idea of child support.

Men have no rights here so the issue of 'equality' is only emotional manipulation by the OP. Some things cant be equal...biology makes some of those things impossible.

I'm not a misogynist, but things like the bolded above push me that way. I don't have a say in how my own semen is used, because it's not covered by "bodily autonomy"?

Gee thanks. Luckily for me I'm bisexual, so I have other options with zero chance of getting my life hijacked by some girl who swears she'd not interested in parenthood, until she changes her mind.

Besides it's not really about equal men/women anymore. Legal men (trans) have been pregnant and the same laws apply to them equally. And to their partners.

So again, the 'equality' argument fails.

On the contrary. The custodial parent is entitled to child support payments regardless of their gender. I think courts are reluctant to award custody to a man while the baby is still breastfeeding, but after that the man has a chance.

Not a bad suggestion. When I was in my 20s I wanted to have my tubes tied but it was an elective surgery so cost way more than a vasectomy. And also, most doctors wont sterilize younger women because of lawsuits...it seems a lot of women regretted the decision and blamed doctors. That's BS IMO.

You'd think audio or video recording of the preliminary interview would cover them well enough. Maybe people don't like having a doctor's appointment recorded?

That would be great! I'm all for more actual participation of the father in the kid's life. And that is actually how the law works. I wrote already...the laws apply equally to men and women when there's a child.

Actually divided custody isn't great for the child. They tend to get yanked around, and/or spoiled, by parents trying to turn them against the other parent and get full custody. It could even be worse than single parent families.

Really all I'm saying is that getting the law involved, to ENFORCE payments or to ENFORCE custody, is where it all goes wrong. The state should be an entirely benevolent factor in families, and reward good parenting more thoroughly than (regrettably necessary sometimes) intervening to break families up. I read somewhere that half the arguments between married/long-term partners are about money. That's the one thing government can do for families, is give them money.

When it's personal, when it's an individual responsible for paying, it may sometimes force the absent partner (usually the man) back into the family, but in a way that's likely to do more harm than good. He's going to feel entitled, like he's paying the bills even if he pays nothing.

I don't have a lot of experience of long term relationship (2 in fact) but it seems to me that when it's over someone just has to walk away. Still be friends, blah blah, but I don't envy the misery of people who are so dependent that they keep trying and breaking up over and over again. "You can't change people" they say, and if you got pregnant by the wrong guy the last thing you'd want is letting them be an influence on your child. (I have no children btw.) As far as possible the state should make it easy to stay and easy to go. Child support obligations do neither.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Wait. I am essentially calm here and you state that you are angry and you tell me to calm down.?

Get your shit in order and then we can talk.

Post conception

POST conception

There is a window for her... she then retains ALL control.

You mean there is a window for HIM to choose? After that she retains all control; as a pro-choicer I have to agree.

But why the man should be financially punished from one choice of the woman, while being financially untouched by the other choice, is a legal absurdity. It is so contrary to the interests of children, I can only assume it was a law made from nuclear-family traditionalist malice.

Do you support absent parents being forced to pay money to support children they never wanted? Or only if they don't have the massive balls to tell a pregnant woman the bad news six months in advance of the birth?

 

[Lursa]

And it can stay as equal as biology allows, if we just drop the fool idea of child support.

No, child support is a necessity and the state is protecting the interests of the child first and then the taxpayers.

Both parents are held equally responsible and as I've written that doesnt have to be one-sided and all $$.

I'm not a misogynist, but things like the bolded above push me that way. I don't have a say in how my own semen is used, because it's not covered by "bodily autonomy"?

Our US Supreme Court has determined that if you give away your sperm during sex you no longer have any control over it. It's considered 'a gift.'

And again...men know this so...they have a choice in sharing that sperm...dont they? Yes or no?

Gee thanks. Luckily for me I'm bisexual, so I have other options with zero chance of getting my life hijacked by some girl who swears she'd not interested in parenthood, until she changes her mind.

Great

On the contrary. The custodial parent is entitled to child support payments regardless of their gender. I think courts are reluctant to award custody to a man while the baby is still breastfeeding, but after that the man has a chance.

Correct but each adult may petition for custody and if both want it, then there is joint custody. FInancial arrangements are adjusted accordingly.

Please read my previous posts...in the US family courts are favoring men much more equally in terms of custody, which I think is great. And the laws themselves are equal. If the judges dont use them equally...well, most of the judges are still men so what does that say? At least it shows it's not the women's 'fault' as many men wish to blame them.

You'd think audio or video recording of the preliminary interview would cover them well enough. Maybe people don't like having a doctor's appointment recorded?

Irrelevant to the current discussion.

Actually divided custody isn't great for the child. They tend to get yanked around, and/or spoiled, by parents trying to turn them against the other parent and get full custody. It could even be worse than single parent families.

That's debateable. IMO it's better for the kid to have both parents in their lives. But again, that's not really relevant to the discussion.

Really all I'm saying is that getting the law involved, to ENFORCE payments or to ENFORCE custody, is where it all goes wrong. The state should be an entirely benevolent factor in families, and reward good parenting more thoroughly than (regrettably necessary sometimes) intervening to break families up. I read somewhere that half the arguments between married/long-term partners are about money. That's the one thing government can do for families, is give them money.

You'll have to realize things are different here in the US. Aside from that...since neither man nor woman is likely to pay if they dont have to, of course the state has to step in with laws and enforce them.

Your view is very European and many here do not agree with the state just handing over our hard-earned $$ when the available, responsible adults are available to do so.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Post Conception Opt-Out FOR MEN

<snip>
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.

Yeah actually. Paying or not paying a serious amount of money, does have a coercive effect. Whether that is "coercive control" depends on the individuals concerned: if the woman has no high-paying skills that would allow her to work part time which the child is small, and no support from her government, having a child would be a REALLY bad option for her.

Just to mention child care for a moment: babies still breast-feeding should not go to childcare at all, and later, depending on the woman's work options she may be working for negative money when the child-care costs are taken into account. Government policies which require single parents to work are unacceptable, when combined with non-free childcare and an inadequate minimum wage. They're ideological cruelty, and what's worse it's not just the "immoral" single parents who suffer, but their children too.

Your supposed refutation of a straw argument actually fails. Giving the man a decision while the pregnancy can still be aborted, does give him power over the woman's decision. Though the whole problem just goes away if you can just stop assuming that absent parents should be punished with fines.

 

[Individual]

I am so firmly committed to the idea that choosing to have sex is not consenting to pregnancy (from the abortion arguments) that it would be sheer hypocrisy to hold men to a different standard. I find the appeal to child support obligations unnecessary, but the OP is right in that men do not choose for a woman to have a child, when one or both use contraception but it fails. No more and no less, do women choose to have a child just by choosing to have sex.

Then there's the malicious aspect. Laws that hold people responsible for having protected sex, can simply not be enforced fairly when it's so easy to lie about protection or to sabotage the man's protection.

Or perhaps you expect the man to rush off to the bathroom instead of cuddling after sex, carefully take off his condom and wash it out with bleach? Then put a new condom on in case of later seepage? None of this distrust between sexual partners is necessary, if you just remove the legal incentives to lie or sabotage.

If you aren't sure you can trust the woman, don't have sex with her. Problem solved.

 

[Northern Light]

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.

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?

The reality is that most men who want to opt out just do it. The family court stats show that only a small number of women actually seek support, because of the time and legal resources required to do so. The inverse is also problematic. A lot of men who want to be in their children's lives are shut out because the courts tend to rule by default in favor of the mother's custody. This is because of the modern maternal view that children are automatically more bonded an dependent upon the mother, which is farcical in many cases.

I don't think an opt-out agreement is even necessary. Most dads who are shirking responsibility are also low income. No way that single mothers can get water from a stone. And besides finances, no court can force a man to behave like a father if he doesn't want to be one.

Child support laws are mostly to absolve the state of responsibility, at their core. Only in the past few decades have they become proving grounds for activism. Until the 1960's, rulings were mostly against the mothers because the fathers were the ones with the money. In today's age, if the father doesn't support, then the state will have to support the mother and it would really prefer not to. Someone's gotta care for the child financially, ultimately. If the absentee parent can be made to somehow pay (whether the mother or father), then that's great for taxpayers.

But like I said, in reality, most "opt outs" are deadbeats anyway. Any man who would knock up a woman, then run off while claiming her best out is an abortion, is a low life without integrity. A lot of children have been historically conceived this way and the social burden adds up. The family court system is broken but it has tried to find a remedy to this burden via child support laws. I personally think the world is better off for this system, but only slightly better.

My view is that the family court system is a money racket, at least in the western nations. The amount of money it takes out of people, whether they are fighting for access to their children or fighting to prevent themselves from being bled dry, is preposterous.

 

[Individual]

I literally said that women are not forced to have an abortion. At least read the ****ing OP argument.

That is fine. Just don't misrepresent it.

This does not relate to the point of the argument that I brought up AT ALL.

Wanna try again.?

I wouldn't support any law removing or reducing responsibility of the man as it then shifts his responsibility to society, who with exception of the one man has nothing at all to do with the pregnancy.
The whole point seems to be to allow the man the choice to refuse responsibility.
No need to say more.

 

[Individual]

And again, you seem to fail to understand the basic premise of the argument that I have put forth. Jeesh.

It's a nonsensical premise.

 

[Gatsby]

Geez, another thread whining about your ex-wife. This is sad.

- Women currently have a post conception opt out of having and paying for a child that they do not want.

No they don't. If a woman gives birth and the baby isn't put up for adoption, she will have to pay child support even if the baby's father raises it.

If you're talking about abortion, there is no inequality under the law. Just an inequality in human biology. If you get pregnant, I support your right to have an abortion too.

- Men currently do not have a post conception opt out of having and paying for a child that they do not want.

Good. Take care of your kids and don't be a deadbeat.

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.

Correct.

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.

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.

No, those are NOT the same thing. In the first scenario, there is no baby to raise and therefore no need for either parent to pay child support. In the second scenario, there is a baby to raise and therefore both parents need to support it.

Currently men are bound to whatever choice a woman makes post conception. She can walk away, and he cannot walk away. This is unequal.

False. You have exactly the same rights as any woman to abort or keep any baby growing inside of you. And you have exactly the same lack of a right as any woman to walk away from your obligation to support your child if it is born.

Anyway… thoughts?

If you don't want to pay for a kid, then get a vasectomy or wear a condom or don't knock up someone who doesn't share your views on abortion.