Post Conception Opt-Out? Good Idea or Bad?

[roguenuke]

Because they believe they might be able to get support from him at some point


Let's encourage healthier families

Then they wouldn't sign your contract if they truly believed that because they would know better.

 

[vegas giants]

Then they wouldn't sign your contract if they truly believed that because they would know better.

If they sign the contract and get pregnant they are more likely to get an abortion

 

[AGENT J]

What's unfair about treating men and women the same?

banning abortion would not do that in any single way whateves and its pure vile dishonesty to claim it would
it would treat women as lessers . . nothing more than human incubators and 2nd class citizens

again no thanks, theres a reason the vast majority of first world countries with governments based on rights and freedoms have laws that lean prochoice and that reason is because women have equal, human, civil and legal rights

 

[roguenuke]

If they sign the contract and get pregnant they are more likely to get an abortion

They're not going to sign the contract though, that's the point. They wouldn't risk that they couldn't get financial support if that is the difference for them between having an abortion or not in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. For the vast majority of women, that would not be a risk worth taking, especially if that is their only factor considered in getting an abortion.

Women have more options. Even unattractive women have better options than that.

 

[vegas giants]

They're not going to sign the contract though, that's the point. They wouldn't risk that they couldn't get financial support if that is the difference for them between having an abortion or not in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. For the vast majority of women, that would not be a risk worth taking, especially if that is their only factor considered in getting an abortion.

Even better. Then the man knows upfront what he is getting into

Informed choice is always better

 

[trouble13]

Not physically it doesn't. That is a completely separate, emotional effect that only happens if he knows about the baby.

I'm glad you brought up "if he knows about the baby" explain how it's fair that the woman has no legal obligation to inform the father that she is having his baby and can show up 18 years later and demand back child support for a child that was unknown to him? That's not fair to the father, the child, or the fathers side of the family. Missed time with your child is something that can never be replaced.

 

[Lursa]

The premise of this contract is based on extortion, "if you want to have sex with me, be in a relationship with me, you have to agree that I give up all financial responsibility to any resulting children". The only way that this could ever reasonably work is if this was a man that a woman was having an affair with and she had no intention of giving up that already established, committed relationship. That is the only scenario where this would be likely to be mutually beneficial. <---and this I'd be fine with honestly, but only if the other person, SO of the woman signed on as well, agreeing to take responsibility.

Exactly. Some men are so used to being entitled to sex without consequences that they cannot grasp the fact that now they need to be more responsible for their own best interests instead of being angry at women and blaming us when WE do what's in our best interests.

Men are no longer entitled to sex without consequences...women never have been and still are not. That's now 'equal.' And that's what some posters here say they want.

After millennia of male privilege and control, "When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality seems like oppression."

 

[vegas giants]

Exactly. Some men are so used to being entitled to sex without consequences that they cannot grasp the fact that now they need to be more responsible for their own best interests instead of being angry at women and blaming us when WE do what's in our best interests.

Men are no longer entitled to sex without consequences...women never have been and still are not. That's now 'equal.' And that's what some posters here say they want.

After millennia of male privilege and control, "When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality seems like oppression."

Men have never had sex without consequences

 

[roguenuke]

Even better. Then the man knows upfront what he is getting into

Informed choice is always better

Except he really isn't going to know that. The vast majority of women are not going to sign his contract. And none are going to be willing to risk being left in a long term relationship with that sort of contract. So he's going to basically be left with fewer options in relationships. It isn't going to be anywhere close to the majority, so no significant affect on the unwanted births rate.

 

[roguenuke]

Men have never had sex without consequences

Pregnancy is a consequence from the moment it happens. Even if the woman chooses to end that pregnancy, her life is still affected by it, she still had consequences.

But men have been able to walk away without anywhere close to the same consequences of sex that women can and do face, much more often.

 

[trouble13]

Doesn't matter. Her risk during pregnancy will always be above the risk of pregnancy to a man, the father. That has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with biology. So it is automatically an unequal situation.

I have already illustrated why that is a false premise. The law isn't structured to only protect a woman's health nor is it structured toward the best interests of the child.

The law protects the woman's convenience at the expense of everyone else involved. The law is demonstrably unfair, and there isn't any good reason for the disparity. It is misandry, plain and simple.

 

[Lursa]

I'm glad you brought up "if he knows about the baby" explain how it's fair that the woman has no legal obligation to inform the father that she is having his baby and can show up 18 years later and demand back child support for a child that was unknown to him? That's not fair to the father, the child, or the fathers side of the family. Missed time with your child is something that can never be replaced.

People treat each other like shit in relationships all the time for a million reasons. What kind of govt oversight do you need here? Do you think it's appropriate for the govt to be legislating relationship behavior? Let's keep that to a minimum, eh?

Dont sleep with miserable people...good advice for either sex.

 

[vegas giants]

Except he really isn't going to know that. The vast majority of women are not going to sign his contract. And none are going to be willing to risk being left in a long term relationship with that sort of contract. So he's going to basically be left with fewer options in relationships. It isn't going to be anywhere close to the majority, so no significant affect on the unwanted births rate.

You do not speak for women


If he is wealthy and women like being taken out to fancy dinners in fancy cars at fancy resorts he will always have to fight women off with a stick


That is reality

 

[trouble13]

If you do that why not have mandatory sterilization of the male that participated in the pregnancy? You don't honestly believe that all males that father children participate in raising the child do you?

Why do you want to punish men for having sex?

 

[vegas giants]

Pregnancy is a consequence from the moment it happens. Even if the woman chooses to end that pregnancy, her life is still affected by it, she still had consequences.

But men have been able to walk away without anywhere close to the same consequences of sex that women can and do face, much more often.

So is the man if he truly wanted that child


He is affected forever

 

[roguenuke]

I have already illustrated why that is a false premise. The law isn't structured to only protect a woman's health nor is it structured toward the best interests of the child.

The law protects the woman's convenience at the expense of everyone else involved. The law is demonstrably unfair, and there isn't any good reason for the disparity. It is misandry, plain and simple.

No you haven't just by claiming it is so.

The law regarding abortions is based around ending a pregnancy, not opting out of parenthood. That law is not unfair given the nature of pregnancy on a woman. The woman is at risk, not the man. The woman's risk of all sorts of negative health problems and even death from a pregnancy are real. A man has none of these risks.

 

[vegas giants]

No you haven't just by claiming it is so.

The law regarding abortions is based around ending a pregnancy, not opting out of parenthood. That law is not unfair given the nature of pregnancy on a woman. The woman is at risk, not the man. The woman's risk of all sorts of negative health problems and even death from a pregnancy are real. A man has none of these risks.

It achieves both purposes

 

[roguenuke]

So is the man if he truly wanted that child


He is affected forever

Except if he truly wanted any child, then he would be working to build a relationship with a woman, get to know her, make sure their goals when it came to children matched, and then have children with her. He most certainly would not be making her sign an agreement that he had no responsibility towards that child.

 

[Lursa]

Pregnancy is a consequence from the moment it happens. Even if the woman chooses to end that pregnancy, her life is still affected by it, she still had consequences.

But men have been able to walk away without anywhere close to the same consequences of sex that women can and do face, much more often.

Wow, now he's even lying. Men have been entitled to sex without consequences since for...ever (we're not discussing STDs) here. There was no way to prove paternity. They usually could just walk away.

Now they have to adapt to the fact that DNA tests can prove it, and other tech can help track them down to pay up. And some resent the hell out of women because of...technology Of course it's not the men's fault, they have no responsibility for their part

It would be better if they stayed involved in their kids' lives and didnt just see it as a financial burden. Better for society, the kid, for all.

 

[trouble13]

It's better to never be born at all than to be born to parents that don't want you.

What makes you think you have the right to decide that for other people.

John Lennon would of never been born had his parents thought the way you do.

 

[roguenuke]

It achieves both purposes

The purpose is to end the pregnancy. Getting out of parenting that one child is a side effect of that purpose.

 

[vegas giants]

Except if he truly wanted any child, then he would be working to build a relationship with a woman, get to know her, make sure their goals when it came to children matched, and then have children with her. He most certainly would not be making her sign an agreement that he had no responsibility towards that child.

My point is men do not have sex without consequences

And if she doesnt want a child why not sign the contract?

 

[vegas giants]

The purpose is to end the pregnancy. Getting out of parenting that one child is a side effect of that purpose.

It achieves both purposes

 

[iguanaman]

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?

Sadly your opinion leaves out the possible child. Doesn't he/she have the right to support from both parents? If a father decides to give up his rights what difference does that make? He is still equally responsible for the child isn't he? Procreation is a privilege and it should cost something.

 

[roguenuke]

What makes you think you have the right to decide that for other people.

John Lennon would of never been born had his parents thought the way you do.

And neither would Hitler or Putin or so many other bad people if we want to go there.