Post Conception Opt-Out? Good Idea or Bad?

[vegas giants]

well then you go right ahead and figure out how to make it where a man can carry a child to term....let me know when that occurs and we will talk.

Nope no need for that


A simple contract will suffice

 

[Cope]

Talk about stupid pathetic drivel...they constantly choose to overlook that women do KNOW the risks and KNOW that abortion is an option. And it's also a consequence...painful, costly, can cause infection, infertility, etc.

But in all their dishonesty, they're just mad that they cant control the consequences for the woman. Hell, women cant even control all the consequences...we dont choose miscarriages or death in childbirth...but men still act like they're the victims

This is untrue. Men just want the same ability to change the course of their lives as the women have, post-conception. If you really wanted to make it fair, have men and women share primary custodial care of the child, with no child support exchanged, as the rule, not the exception.

 

[jpevans]

yep, I didn't even bother answering the poll. The man isn't held hostage. A man can decide to be a part of a child's life or not be. Child support isn't an option though. Children need things and that doesn't change regardless of a man's involvement in their life.

Or a mans selfishness.

 

[ClaraD]

Nope no need for that


A simple contract will suffice

that isn't how it works. When you relinquish your swimmies to her, you are consenting.

 

[vegas giants]

that isn't how it works. When you relinquish your swimmies to her, you are consenting.

That needs to change


I am pro choice.....for men and women

 

[vegas giants]

Or a mans selfishness.

Or a womans selfishness

 

[Cope]

No woman with half a dose of common sense would have sex with any “man” who says “I don’t believe I should have financial responsibility for any babies I make”

As a man, with children (3). I would much rather make it fair by granting joint custody as a 50-50 split with no financial support exchanged, as the rule and not the exception in the event of children and divorce.
As far as not wanting a baby at all, I do feel like the father should be given an opt out but if taken they have zero contact or claims to the child, later.
Abortions are a fairly commonplace, painless procedure. Granted, they can sometimes have complications and I do think the father should be on the hook for half the costs of any and all medical procedures and pain that the women suffers, but if he has said that he will not care for the child then it is her responsibility alone, financially as well.

 

[ClaraD]

That needs to change


I am pro choice.....for men and women

how is that not choice? You can snip and then you have no swimmies being released.

 

[vegas giants]

how is that not choice? You can snip and then you have no swimmies being released.

You can tie and no swimmers get in


That can be your choice.


Duh

 

[Irredentist]

As a man, with children (3). I would much rather make it fair by granting joint custody as a 50-50 split with no financial support exchanged, as the rule and not the exception in the event of children and divorce.
As far as not wanting a baby at all, I do feel like the father should be given an opt out but if taken they have zero contact or claims to the child, later.
Abortions are a fairly commonplace, painless procedure. Granted, they can sometimes have complications and I do think the father should be on the hook for half the costs of any and all medical procedures and pain that the women suffers, but if he has said that he will not care for the child then it is her responsibility alone, financially as well.

In cases where both parents actually fight for custody of their child, and both are in a good financial position to provide for that child, then a court will usually award 50/50 custody. Granting full custody to only one parent usually happens only when one party is either unfit or unwilling to be an active parent. If either parent decides not to be actively involved in their child's life, and to surrender custody, then that is their choice, but it doesn't remove their obligation to provide for the child financially.

 

[jpevans]

right now there are factual no equal rights on this topic of legal opt out options after birth
Ill always support EQUAL RIGHTS no matter my feelings, opinions and or whether i agree or not
Ill always support EQUAL RIGHTS no matter anybody elses feelings, opinions and or whether i agree or not
Others are free to be against equal rights and they have the right and freedom to feel that way but not the amount of spin and emotions will change the fact of what their stance is on this topic. Anti-equal rights

There are equal rights involved. This proposed screw the baby out of equal rights to being supported by both biological parents is just some weird attack on a woman's right of choice. A man doesn't have an equal right to wash his hands of his responsibility for his child. His choice was to not get a woman or girl pregnant either by using a birth control method or abstaining from lust.
I still can't understand why this thread is ongoing, with "I know you are but what am I" type arguments.

 

[vegas giants]

There are equal rights involved. This proposed screw the baby out of equal rights to being supported by both biological parents is just some weird attack on a woman's right of choice. A man doesn't have an equal right to wash his hands of his responsibility for his child. His choice was to not get a woman or girl pregnant either by using a birth control method or abstaining from lust.

Thst is the argument used to ban abortion

 

[ClaraD]

This is untrue. Men just want the same ability to change the course of their lives as the women have, post-conception. If you really wanted to make it fair, have men and women share primary custodial care of the child, with no child support exchanged, as the rule, not the exception.

No, they are arguing here not only to not have any financial responsibility; but no parental responsibility as well. That isn't how it works. If the man was half financially and physically responsible, I would agree with you that is equal.

 

[ClaraD]

You can tie and no swimmers get in


That can be your choice.


Duh

um, women don't have to tie and in fact, doctors won't if she has no children.

 

[Cope]

In cases where both parents actually fight for custody of their child, and both are in a good financial position to provide for that child, then a court will usually award 50/50 custody. Granting full custody to only one parent usually happens only when one party is either unfit or unwilling to be an active parent.

I don't know in what world you live in, or how long ago but that is NOT the norm although the trend is heading there.
My kids are 20, 13, and 12 and when I fought for custody over 8 years ago the standard (in fact they call it STANDARD custody agreement) is that the mother gets the primary designation. It is a relic of old, based upon some false idea that the mother is the primary caregiver (and stays home with the kids). It has taken forever to change as that hasn't been the case for decades.

 

[Cope]

um, women don't have to tie and in fact, doctors won't if she has no children.

They will, but it is certainly a fight if under a certain age.

 

[AGENT J]

There are equal rights involved.

right now factually there on none on this topic

This proposed screw the baby out of equal rights to being supported by both biological parents is just some weird attack on a woman's right of choice.

100% factually false, not by me or what i propose, the baby has no such right in this regard RIGHT NOW, if you would like to change that, thats a different topic
also if any nutters in this thread want to ban or lessen abortion rights thats on them and it has nothing to do with me, the topic or the OP as facts and quotes prove I want the opposite

A man doesn't have an equal right to wash his hands of his responsibility for his child.

hence the issue since a woman does
are you for ending her factual legal options? I know im not
if you are not and dont support the OP thats the problem and where the factual hypocrisy and inequality is
cant have it both ways, you either want equal rights on this issue or you dont

His choice was to not get a woman or girl pregnant either by using a birth control method or abstaining from lust.

meanignless to the topic since the woman has the same choice but still has legal opt out options

all you did is prove the facts and the point of the op
right now there are not equal rights on this topic

 

[vegas giants]

um, women don't have to tie and in fact, doctors won't if she has no children.

Same for guys.

You just are not pro choice

 

[vegas giants]

No, they are arguing here not only to not have any financial responsibility; but no parental responsibility as well. That isn't how it works. If the man was half financially and physically responsible, I would agree with you that is equal.

Why cant women wait for a better time?

 

[Irredentist]

I don't know in what world you live in, or how long ago but that is NOT the norm although the trend is heading there.
My kids are 20, 13, and 12 and when I fought for custody over 8 years ago the standard (in fact they call it STANDARD custody agreement) is that the mother gets the primary designation. It is a relic of old, based upon some false idea that the mother is the primary caregiver (and stays home with the kids). It has taken forever to change as that hasn't been the case for decades.

I can't speak for everywhere, but at least where I live, mothers aren't automatically assumed to be the superior parent simply because they are women.

 

[Cope]

I can't speak for everywhere, but at least where I live, mothers aren't automatically assumed to be the superior parent simply because they are women.

In cases of a fight, that might be the case (or at least they have to look at it) but if there is an equal desire, most the times prior to right now, the mother won based on those assumptions from bygone ages.

 

[Doug64]

Abortion is perfectly responsible if you would have to depend on the state for assistance to raise a kid. Or to give it up for adoption when there are ~100,000 other kids waiting to be adopted.

So let's rephrase that to make clear the moral position you are taking. "[Killing your baby] is perfectly responsible if you would have to depend on the state for assistance to raise a kid. Or to give it up for adoption when there are ~100,000 other kids waiting to be adopted." So explain, please, why this is morally acceptable before birth but (I assume you believe) not morally acceptable after birth.

As for the "~100,000 other kids waiting to be adopted," how many of them are newborns? Considering that the last I heard there's a long waiting list for newborn adoptions, I suspect the answer is very, very few.

 

[Bodi]

He made his choice the minute he has sex with a woman

Then so did she... no abortion.

 

[Bodi]

Because they are also responsible for the creation of a child. And the innocent "victim" of the selfishness you want to propose is the child and that is never acceptable.

So it does have to do with reproductive laws?

 

[Bodi]

Then why would you want to give them an opt-out in sharing the protection of their child if/when one is produced?

Are women nurturers?