Post Conception Opt-Out? Good Idea or Bad?

[Gatsby]

I am fully pro choice abortion.

Then your previous accusation that there is some hypocrisy with supporting abortion while also thinking that the wellbeing of the child is important was not made in good faith. Because you don't believe that yourself.

I'm more concerned about the child having its parents care for them, than about how men supposedly deserve equal opportunities to abandon their kid.

 

[What if...?]

It's not fair, no one, including me, ever said it was. It cannot be 'fair,' biology determines that. Who ever said that life is fair? That's not a very adult expectation, and since the child is the main focus here (you'd understand better if you ever read post 4)...being 'fair' to men isnt the priority. Esp. since it's not possible.

OTOH, that brings up these questions you refuse to answer:

If it's so unfair...​

Why does the man choose to risk her having that decision? So when she makes the best decision in her own best interests, why is he blaming her? He didnt make the best decision in his own best interests...that's not her fault. BUT! He could...why doesnt he?​

​

No one forces men to have sex, do they? Are you claiming that men are not capable of making decisions, before sex, in their own best interests? Are men really so incompetent? Such victims? I dont think so, you seem to.​

Is there some reason you continue to refuse to answer these?

And again. She gets to decide after she, yes she, chose to have sex.

I know for a fact you would be enraged if is said the slut should have the kid because she wouldn’t be in her predicament if she kept her legs closed. But you declare all men sluts if they even ask why they don’t get to choose.

 

[vegas giants]

Then your previous accusation that there is some hypocrisy with supporting abortion while also thinking that the wellbeing of the child is important was not made in good faith. Because you don't believe that yourself.

I'm more concerned about the child having its parents care for them, than about how men supposedly deserve equal opportunities to abandon their kid.

And you are not pro choice


You only want choice for women


That is sexist

 

[Lursa]

No. The whole responsibility. At that time or maybe never. Abortion gave to women…

Choice.

And please don’t say he could have kept it in his pants. She could have kept her pants on. Her choice point is after conception not prior to the act itself.

If she didnt want to risk consequences of a pregnancy, of course she should have 'kept her pants on.' So if she does get pregnant...she pays. An abortion is costly, painful procedure that can lead to infection, infertility, even rarely death.

Just because you dont like that she can choose that consequence doesnt mean she escapes consequences. You just dont like that men cant control her choice...and yet...men KNOW this before sex, right? So why should they be pissed at her? Why shouldnt they be held accountable for their consequence?

 

[Lursa]

And again. She gets to decide after she, yes she, chose to have sex.

I know for a fact you would be enraged if is said the slut should have the kid because she wouldn’t be in her predicament if she kept her legs closed. But you declare all men sluts if they even ask why they don’t get to choose.

If it's so unfair...
Why does the man choose to risk her having that decision? So when she makes the best decision in her own best interests, why is he blaming her? He didnt make the best decision in his own best interests...that's not her fault. BUT! He could...why doesnt he?
No one forces men to have sex, do they? Are you claiming that men are not capable of making decisions, before sex, in their own best interests? Are men really so incompetent? Such victims? I dont think so, you seem to.

Is there some reason you continue to refuse to answer these?

 

[vegas giants]

If she didnt want to risk consequences of a pregnancy, of course she should have 'kept her pants on.' So if she does get pregnant...she pays. An abortion is costly, painful procedure that can lead to infection, infertility, even rarely death.

Just because you dont like that she can choose that consequence doesnt mean she escapes consequences. You just dont like that men cant control her choice...and yet...men KNOW this before sex, right? So why should they be pissed at her? Why shouldnt they be held accountable for their consequence?

She takes a pill


Dont be dramatic

 

[What if...?]

Then your previous accusation that there is some hypocrisy with supporting abortion while also thinking that the wellbeing of the child is important was not made in good faith. Because you don't believe that yourself.

I'm more concerned about the child having its parents care for them, than about how men supposedly deserve equal opportunities to abandon their kid.

It’s not a child when the decision would be made any more than it is when a woman makes it.

 

[Gatsby]

It’s not a child when the decision would be made any more than it is when a woman makes it.

Am I misunderstanding what you are trying to say, or is your contention that newborn babies are not children who have needs recognized by the legal system?

 

[vegas giants]

Am I misunderstanding what you are trying to say, or is your contention that newborn babies are not children who have needs recognized by the legal system?

It's a fetus when the decision is made


Are you saying a fetus is a child?

 

[Gatsby]

It's a fetus when the decision is made

Are you saying a fetus is a child?

No. Do whatever you want with a fetus, I don't care. But if you have a born child, they have needs. And both parents should be supporting the child to the best of their ability, rather than looking for ways to pull one over on one another.

 

[Lursa]

Can we make her have the kid and the father raise it and she can be on the child support train?

Of course not. That would violate many of women's Const rights. A man has zero rights involved here.

Why do you think that child support is 'a thing' to begin with?

Because men "opted out" all the time and walked away. Now that's basically illegal. Now it applies to women too if they choose to walk away from their child.

So, you'd like to ignore women's Const rights and kid's statutory rights (which you havent even bothered to read and learn post 4.)

All for something men could have prevented...and does not benefit kids or society in any way. Yeah, it's going to happen

No. Of course not. But the opposite is the case right now.

Plus, there are good men who wanted children the woman chose to abort. Just because she didn’t wanna. Which I am ok with.

What I’m not ok with is the black/white position that presumes a lot of shit that DOES NOT apply to all or even most men. And pretend doesn’t exist in some women.

As I’ve said, it’s weird. I haven’t had a response from any of you that addresses my points. Just canned responses. Like talking to a trumpie, to be honest. Accusations of positions I don’t hold. Refusal to engage, just certainty that I have alterior motives because I’m an asshole man and we all want all the ***** we can get and no responsibilities. It is as offensive as it is inaccurate.

I've addressed all your points, you just dont like the answers.

And it's kind of hypocritical from you, since you refuse to answer these:

If it's so unfair...​

Why does the man choose to risk her having that decision? So when she makes the best decision in her own best interests, why is he blaming her? He didnt make the best decision in his own best interests...that's not her fault. BUT! He could...why doesnt he?​

No one forces men to have sex, do they? Are you claiming that men are not capable of making decisions, before sex, in their own best interests? Are men really so incompetent? Such victims? I dont think so, you seem to.​

 

[What if...?]

If it's so unfair...
Why does the man choose to risk her having that decision? So when she makes the best decision in her own best interests, why is he blaming her? He didnt make the best decision in his own best interests...that's not her fault. BUT! He could...why doesnt he?
No one forces men to have sex, do they? Are you claiming that men are not capable of making decisions, before sex, in their own best interests? Are men really so incompetent? Such victims? I dont think so, you seem to.

Is there some reason you continue to refuse to answer these?

She gets to choose after she gets laid.

He does not get to choose after he gets laid.

They both got laid.

The life of one remains what they choose it to be.

The life of the other is also what she chooses it to be. Both of the others, actually.

 

[vegas giants]

No. Do whatever you want with a fetus, I don't care. But if you have a born child, they have needs. And both parents should be supporting them to the best of their ability.

Why cant a woman make the best decision for the child and wait to have it when she can afford it or with someone who wants it?


Why do we support this selfish decision?


Why dont we put children first?

 

[vegas giants]

Of course not. That would violate many of women's Const rights. A man has zero rights involved here.

Why do you think that child support is 'a thing' to begin with?

Because men "opted out" all the time and walked away. Now that's basically illegal. Now it applies to women too if they choose to walk away from their child.

So, you'd like to ignore women's Const rights and kid's statutory rights (which you havent even bothered to read and learn post 4.)

All for something men could have prevented...and does not benefit kids or society in any way. Yeah, it's going to happen



I've addressed all your points, you just dont like the answers.

And it's kind of hypocritical from you, since you refuse to answer these:

If it's so unfair...​

Why does the man choose to risk her having that decision? So when she makes the best decision in her own best interests, why is he blaming her? He didnt make the best decision in his own best interests...that's not her fault. BUT! He could...why doesnt he?​

No one forces men to have sex, do they? Are you claiming that men are not capable of making decisions, before sex, in their own best interests? Are men really so incompetent? Such victims? I dont think so, you seem to.​

No one forces women to have sex, do they? Are you claiming that women are not capable of making decisions, before sex, in their own best interests? Are women really so incompetent? Such victims? I dont think so, you seem to.

 

[Doug64]

Women are allowed to avoid responsibility for the life they create.


They can get an abortion

Yes, I am aware that in the West we have taken the unconscionable legal position that mother can kill their babies, so long as it happens early enough. But that is what the law is, not what it should be.

Are you saying that the woman should be forced to remain pregnant (denied an abortion)?

You know that's a separate issue right?

Yes, I am saying that women should accept the responsibility they are willing to risk, just like the men. And no, it is not a separate issue—in both cases, the adults are being held responsible for the life they’ve created.

Now you want to force a couple to unnecessarily produce a child ONLY to add it to the current pool of 100,000 unwanted other kids in the US available for adoption? (And that's not the number in foster care, that # is 400,000.)

If the child has been conceived, the decision whether to “unnecessarily produce a child” has already been made. And when it comes to adoption, for babies there’s a waiting list, you can’t compare them to orphaned teenagers.

That's unconscionable on so many levels. The use of force on women, the violation of bodily autonomy, but also, the cruelty to the kids already hoping and waiting for families, each one has less chance each time another infant is added to that giant pool.

Still think your idea is so great?

Is preventing parents from abusing or killing children that have managed to be born also “use of force”? And what about the bodily autonomy of the babies? Do they count for nothing?

 

[Gatsby]

She gets to choose after she gets laid.

He does not get to choose after he gets laid.

They both got laid.

And if she's taking a piss, she can make a game-time decision to also drop a deuce in the toilet. Whereas if I'm taking a piss at a urinal, I can't. Different physiologies allow for different sets of decisions. That isn't a problem that the legal system needs to fix.

 

[vegas giants]

And if she's taking a piss, she can make a game-time decision to also drop a deuce in the toilet. Whereas if I'm taking a piss at a urinal, I can't. Different physiologies allow for different sets of decisions. That isn't a problem that the legal system needs to fix.

Yes it does

 

[Lursa]

Yes, and it used to be against the law to help slaves escape. Things change. Those laws were largely written before abortion was legal and the issue which is the point of the thread really wasn’t one. Usually there was a child born. Makes sense to make the ones who made it take care of it.

But now we have abortion. Which frees women from the tyranny of the womb. Let’s her choose when to have a child or to have a child at all. Free to be the best person she can be. Live her best life.

Yay! Seriously. With all my heart.

Men however, absolutely not free from the tyranny of the womb. Just the opposite tyrant, backed by the state and the pro choice crowd, evidently.

He got laid. End of story.

He has no choices after that. They will be made by others. And he will be forced to comply. He will not get to decide to wait until he’s better prepared to care for a child or be a better father. Or not be a father at all. His path is set and his burden applied. And he’ll be whipped smartly if he suffers from the mishaps the surprise father often themselves in and misses a payment to fix the car he uses to get payments. They might even take the license he needs to operate the vehicle that he uses to get those payments for missing payments.

What a wonderful life!

Almost as bad as it was for women not too long ago.

All that and you didnt even address my post. Here, try again:

--the child has rights recognized by the state that supersede any such contract (as Bodh concedes already) and there's no public interest to deny the child's rights thru new law, since it harms kids and taxpayers. Post 4.​

​

--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.​

So much for their 'pretend noble, self-righteous struggle for 'equality.' As the saying goes, "They get to have their cake and eat it too."

They refuse to address that, of course, but it is hard to refute, lol.

 

[Gatsby]

Why cant a woman make the best decision for the child and wait to have it when she can afford it or with someone who wants it?

Maybe she should have. Maybe the man should have made better decisions too. Doesn't give anyone the right to abandon your kid.

Why dont we put children first?

Supporting children means ACTUAL financial support. Not supporting parents to argue about whose fault it is, and how they can supposedly have equal opportunities to behave like shitty people toward each other and their child.

 

[Lursa]

This argument about letting men "opt out" of raising their kids is framed as a question of equality, and it fundamentally views abortion as a way for women to pull one over on men. And the proposed "opt out" as a way for men to level the playing field and pull one over on women. What is lost in this view is any concern at all for the wellbeing of the child.

See my post 964 and you'll see it proven there's no such noble quest for 'equality' here.

 

[Gatsby]

Yes it does

Well by all means, go campaign for the Forcing Women To Pee Standing Up Act of 2022, so that it's all equal. I wish you the best of luck in your righteous crusade.

 

[What if...?]

Am I misunderstanding what you are trying to say, or is your contention that newborn babies are not children who have needs recognized by the legal system?

It is not a child before viability according to all pro choice folks.

It’s just a clump of cells.

They have no rights. So when he found out she was pregnant they’re not talking about a child at that point. There is no responsibility towards those cells by either gene contributor.

The incubator then gets full possession of the clump of cells, which she legally may do with as she pleases with zero input from the other contributor of genes.

So it would seem to me that when she obtained full “custody” of the cell clump after Roe V Wade she should have also obtained full responsibility of it.

At this point she can terminate it against his wishes. Or keep it against his wishes. The contents of her womb are hers, etc.

Then magically when it pops out he gets… full responsibility. And partial custody. And a court system legally biased against him to enforce that responsibility.

Ain’t equality grand.

 

[Lursa]

I'm going to need some citations on that. I have never heard of a case where a woman has been able to take the baby away from a father (except for reasons of abuse/neglect) not to raise it herself, but to put it up for adoption.

And it's also equal because in most states, men can use those same options. And do.

 

[What if...?]

All that and you didnt even address my post. Here, try again:

--the child has rights recognized by the state that supersede any such contract (as Bodh concedes already) and there's no public interest to deny the child's rights thru new law, since it harms kids and taxpayers. Post 4.​

​

--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.​

So much for their 'pretend noble, self-righteous struggle for 'equality.' As the saying goes, "They get to have their cake and eat it too."

They refuse to address that, of course, but it is hard to refute, lol.

I’m sure I reminded you that it was illegal for women to get abortion at one time and you thought that law was bullshit. Actually I used a different example.

But you get the idea. Oh yeah, illegal to help slaves escape. Is that one you agree with or not?

 

[Gatsby]

It is not a child before viability according to all pro choice folks.

Whenever someone starts off like this, I automatically tune out and assume that everything that follows is in bad faith. Because in your very first sentence you've basically told me that this isn't a view you actually believe.

If you are actually against abortion, maybe reducing abortion should take precedence over owning the libs? And if you don't have a problem with abortion, then there is no need to tack on the passive-aggressive "according to all pro choice folks."