Post Conception Opt-Out? Good Idea or Bad?

[Gatsby]

It seems many are trying to conflate a biological argument with a legal one.

From what I can tell and from knowing the poster, the argument he is raising is a legal question not a biological one. Other people are obscuring the question he asks by injecting biology as some sort of rationalization to not address his question.

He is framing this as a legal inequality where no such inequality actually exists. Both men and women have exactly the same rights to abort a baby growing inside their own bodies. The fact that men are biologically incapable of exercising this right is not a problem that needs to be corrected by the legal system, it's just how human biology works.

The truth is there isn't any good reason why the law can not be changed in a way that liberates men.

Yes there is. The good reason is that the child has needs which trump the man's desire to be "liberated" from his child.

Allowing the male partner the option of opting out of fatherhood has no effect on a woman's biology.

In fact there really is no reason to even consider the woman's position at all. It's not because she is unimportant but because her position is unimportant to the males position. It's up to him to decide what is in his best interest, just as it's in the mothers best interest to decide what's best for her.

Does what's best for the child factor into this at any point?

 

[Bodi]

What a dishonest poster... scum sucking, pretty much.

 

[trouble13]

He is framing this as a legal inequality where no such inequality actually exists. Both men and women have exactly the same rights to abort a baby growing inside their own bodies. The fact that men are biologically incapable of exercising this right is not a problem that needs to be corrected by the legal system, it's just how human biology works.

Yes there is. The good reason is that the child has needs which trump the man's desire to be "liberated" from his child.

Does what's best for the child factor into this at any point?

No the child's interest does not factor into it. That is a carnard. If it was more than that a woman's legal right to abort would be greatly restricted.

 

[Gatsby]

No the child's interest does not factor into it. That is a carnard.

OK then. We clearly have different priorities and moral values, so there's not much else to say.

 

[trouble13]

OK then. We clearly have different priorities and moral values, so there's not much else to say.

I am simply pointing out that the current system puts the females priorities above all else not the child's. That renders your argument moot.

 

[Lursa]

Not at all. They did not want to be dads prior to conception.

But, as they knew was possible when they had sex, they ended up 'dads' when the kid was born.

Do you call women that abort "deadbeat" or something negative post conception or do you say they have a right to change their mind and abort?

Sure, of course...if the father has primary custody and she's not paying up and/or disappears.

As for women who abort, there's no kid to be a 'deadbeat' about...no costs or $$$ are involved. That's one of the stupider things you've presented.

 

[Lursa]

Why? Why does the woman's choice outweigh the mans choice?

The physical risks are all hers. And the man knows this BEFORE he decides to have sex. So then if he CHOOSES to thake the risk...why shouldnt he be held accountable?

And why do you never ever answer this, eh?

 

[Lursa]

I am simply pointing out that the current system puts the females priorities above all else not the child's. That renders your argument moot.

That's completely wrong. See post 4...neither of their 'priorities' matter if there is a child because it's the child's rights that will be upheld. Have you read post 4? Did you understand it?

And men know that there's a risk of pregnancy and that the woman gets to decide about the pregnancy...the physical risks are all on her.

And if there IS a child then the state upholds, protects the child's rights AND also protects the taxpayers from additional burden since both parents are available to pay for a child that they knowingly risked creating.

So odd, more *crickets?* LOL that's not much of a discussion. I prove you wrong and you accept it?

 

[Individual]

Why? Why does the woman's choice outweigh the mans choice?

I understand that there are biological factors and all that... but this argument is about legal factors.

If she chooses to have the child why should he be forced to pay for her choice?

As do I

Why? Why should he not choose and she abort if she can not handle it?

If that is the argument then they should not be having sex in the first place and only sleeeping with ment that they are married to.

It doesn't outweigh the woman's choice, his choice ended when he did not abort depositing his sperm, placing her in control of any further choice.
Legally they become equally responsible for support of a child they shared the production of.
Simply because he did not take appropriate action to prevent making her have to make a choice.
At least we can agree on that.
So you would like the man to be free to choose not to provide support of the child, and would hold the Woman totally financially responsible for either choice, to keep or abort the pregnancy. That's what you call equality?
That's not a bad idea for both men and women.

 

[Lursa]

No the child's interest does not factor into it. That is a carnard. If it was more than that a woman's legal right to abort would be greatly restricted.

There is no child involved in an abortion and of course the unborn has 'no interests' to consider. For anyone. That's been settled, separately, by SCOTUS because it's clearly addressed in the Const. See the 14th A.

It has nothing to do with this discussion. In this discussion, there is a child, with rights that supersede the choices of the man and the woman who created it. Did you not read post 4? If you had, maybe you'd write something a bit more accurate and focused.

You are starting to look rather foolish here...no rebuttals at all? That's a failure in a discussion.

 

[Lursa]

It doesn't outweigh the woman's choice, his choice ended when he did not abort depositing his sperm, placing her in control of any further choice.

Oh that is perfect.

Legally they become equally responsible for support of a child they shared the production of.
Simply because he did not take appropriate action to prevent making her have to make a choice.

Agreed.

 

[HK.227]

Post Conception Opt-Out FOR MEN

<snip>

Anyway… thoughts?

Uncertain.
It would depend on how it impacted society in various ways, and whether that impact was significant enough to overrule the individual right to not care about one's biological offspring.
In the same ballpark as the draft, certain taxes, prohibition of various substances, and not letting people walk around nude in public.

 

[BirdinHand]

The most disgusting part of this entire topic is that the men arguing against paying child support only see the role of father as financial.

Note that nowhere have they even once mentioned being an ACTUAL father and being a part of the child’s life.

Nope - it is just about $$$.

No wonder we have so many kids in crisis in the US.

How many other men think it is appropriate to “opt out” of a CHILD’s life simply because they didn’t want a child? They wanted sex. They cared not if sex made a baby…that’s not what they wanted. They only wanted that orgasm.


This has been eye opening and has shown just how COMPLETELY selfish and immature some “men” are.

Might as well have said: “Who cares what happens to the kid - I didn’t want it. I just wanted an orgasm. I got what I wanted. The kid isn’t my problem.”

 

[jpevans]

So you think that women are not smart enough to understand a contract?

Don't be a dick, I didn't say that.

 

[jpevans]

I know women who have used the morning after pill. Not pleasant but not a nightmare.

And you still never answer why the man has to stay on the hook but the woman doesn’t. Excuses, but not anything that would be some kind of parity.

It sounds for all the world like punishing men today for the misdeeds of their ancestors. Giving them a taste of somebody else’s medicine.

I see zero moral difference between a woman who chooses to wait for a better time and a man who feels the same. Nor why there should be one.

Men have plenty of options, vasectomie, rubbers, celibacy, Mary Palm.

 

[jpevans]

No. The man won’t have the kid instead and make her pay whether she wants the kid or not. She gets to opt out of the entire thing. He does not. Simple as that.

Pro life is only about ending a woman's right to chose, not the little bundle of joy that results? It is as simple as that. Cold shit.

 

[AGENT J]

Welp 800+ posts in and nothing changed for me because the facts still remain the same and facts are all that matter

My specific stance is I would like to see equal rights for this issue since its currently factually not equal regarding the OP topic of legal rights and opt out options.
Both parties should have post-birth opt-out options

do I think it will happen in my lifetime? nope
will i be taking to the street for this cause? nope lol

but that will always be my stance as long as its factually unequal because Ill always side with equal rights regardless of my own or anybody else's personal feelings and opinions.

 

[jpevans]

So you think that women are not smart enough to understand a contract?

How many woman do you think are stupid enough to sign such a pre**** document? A document that would disavow financial responsibility for any resulting human being to the sperm donor. I'm sure that just the idea of assured single motherhood would get her all hot.

 

[jpevans]

31 pages of this? Imagine if the attention and effort devoted to this was instead applied to an important contemporary issue?

Funding for Social Security retirement and disability funds and immigration reform come to mind. Confronting and reducing the
fabrication of problems based on lies used as excuse to pass legislation to remedy problems that do not exist, voter fraud and
"IRS discrimination against conservative groups" are a pair of whoppers that come to mind.

How 'bout celebrity bitch slaps?

 

[vegas giants]

This topic is "demeaning" to women but you are ok with that? The woman has a new life inside her and she has every right to decide whether the time is right for her to have a child without pressure from the father. You act like it is a business proposition and men always have the upper hand in business.

You think very little of women

 

[vegas giants]

The most disgusting part of this entire topic is that the men arguing against paying child support only see the role of father as financial.

Note that nowhere have they even once mentioned being an ACTUAL father and being a part of the child’s life.

Nope - it is just about $$$.

No wonder we have so many kids in crisis in the US.

How many other men think it is appropriate to “opt out” of a CHILD’s life simply because they didn’t want a child? They wanted sex. They cared not if sex made a baby…that’s not what they wanted. They only wanted that orgasm.


This has been eye opening and has shown just how COMPLETELY selfish and immature some “men” are.

Might as well have said: “Who cares what happens to the kid - I didn’t want it. I just wanted an orgasm. I got what I wanted. The kid isn’t my problem.”

I guess every woman before an abortion says

Who cares what happens to the kid - I didn’t want it. I just wanted an orgasm. I got what I wanted. The kid isn’t my problem.”

 

[jpevans]

Women get to opt out. Why not men?

Abortion is a medical procedure & I doubt that many woman take it lightly. By opt out, what you're saying is not sharing financial responsibility, 1st words, 1st steps, birthdays, throwing a ball, dance recitals etc.

 

[vegas giants]

Abortion is a medical procedure & I doubt that many woman take it lightly. By opt out, what you're saying is not sharing financial responsibility, 1st words, 1st steps, birthdays, throwing a ball, dance recitals etc.

Yep. That's what the woman gets

 

[jpevans]

Women do not get to "opt out" in the sense that you are talking about allowing men to opt out. You have exactly the same rights to abort a fetus growing inside you as a woman does. And neither you nor a woman have any right to "opt out" of paying for your children after they are born, unless you agree to put it up for adoption.

If there's an inequality with your access to abortion, take it up with human biology, not the law.

 

[jpevans]

There are consequences. Never said there weren’t. But what consequences are hers to decide. He gets no such choice. Apparently because men suck and deserve whatever they get.

Do you know any men who have been raked over the coals by family court in favor of the worst mom you’ve ever seen because she is female? I have.

I fail to see the moral difference between men chaining women to them through impregnation and women chaining men to them through getting pregnant. It’s exploitive either way. Overcompensation for the past visited on the present.

Aren’t we supposed to all be equal in the eyes of the law? We clearly aren’t in this case.

I think you're making that case.