• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Post Conception Opt-Out? Good Idea or Bad?

Should women be allowed to hold men hostage to their choice or should a man be able to legally opt o


  • Total voters
    37
Status
Not open for further replies.

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
122,662
Reaction score
27,418
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
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?
 
I said other, simply because I need to hear the pluses and minuses of each decision before I'd have a decent opinion.
Very interesting questions though. I would tend to go with what the woman says but still..????
 
A quick summary:

In Bodh's opt out proposal, to be signed before sex (some other poster may be going with the 'after sex' version), and BEFORE the birth, the man gets to opt out of all financial responsibility for any kids that come from 'their union.' (Because of abortion, women can 'opt out' of motherhood and "it's not fair!!!" that men cant opt out of fatherhood.) Except that:

--the woman has to sign it too. If she doesnt and he still decides to have sex with her, then what? Or, they go without 🤷

That'll sure signal what a keeper he is from the start tho, lol. It wont be so funny if she does get knocked up.

--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.

--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.


--it's basically a last-ditch effort to manipulate women into having abortions, because they're "informing her upfront that they will not be around to pay for the kid" since they know that they cant directly demand women get abortions. (this is where he'll claim I'm lying)

@Bodhisattva Did I miss anything?
 
Last edited:
People should note that there is no distinction between male and female here...this applies to both equally.
Child Support is, a statutory right that actually belongs to the child. Neither the egg donor nor the sperm donor can "contract out" of their liability under the laws that grant the statutory right to child support. (This isnt my explanation)​
So anything 'pre-conception' or 'pre-birth' is useless...if there's a child, their statutory right supersedes some 'contract.'​

--and--

It means the fantasy opt-out hinges on the child's rights...and once there is a child, the opt-out contract cannot supersede that right. Laws arent going to override it, there's zero benefit to society, it harms kids and tax payers for starters.
The fact that the custodial parent has a high income does not itself justify deviation from the guidelines, because under the law children have the right to benefit from both parents' incomes."​


https://www.findlaw.com/family/child-support/child-support-basics.html

Cannot waive child support

A child’s right to receive parental support is inherent and cannot be waived by either party. Regardless of the parents’ relationship with one another (whether married, divorced, separated, or never married), as long as paternity has been established, both parents are on the hook for child support. Regardless of any arrangement—such as “trading” spousal support for child support—both parents still have a legal obligation to support the child.​
The Issue With Waiving Child Support
The issue of waiving child support payments came up in Marriage of Ayo (1987), which further established the parents’ obligation to pay child support. In this case, the court established that the legal obligation to pay child support is much more than a normal debt; it goes beyond a simple “good-faith” obligation to pay and therefore cannot be overruled by the individual parties. (If they could be overruled, that would mean that California law and the ruling of the courts could be thwarted by a simple provision in a contract, i.e. parenting plan.)​
An Agreement To Waive
An agreement to waive child support cannot be legally binding, and in fact, it could have a negative effect on your family law case. For example, say John and Denise are getting a divorce and have a 5-year-old son together. Denise says she will waive her right to child support if John does not seek custody of their son. John agrees, but the judge finds out about the arrangement and takes it as evidence that John is trying to get out of his legal obligations as a father. Now John’s agreement with Denise—which would not have held up in court anyway—is useless and has become a liability in his divorce arguments.​

And @Bodhisattva already recognizes this:

Bodh comment that reinforces it:

That has happened and been thrown out by the Judge. Pre-birth contracts are irrelevant compared to the interest of the child.

From <https://debatepolitics.com/threads/post-conception-opt-out-for-men.458324/page-22>
 
Last edited:
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.

And blah blah blah about how you'd inform men, give them opportunity (or not) to propose co-parenting, get the whole thing done before the pregnancy is too advanced ... why even bother?

Abolish child support. Replace it with a generous early childhood pension, and a part pension for parents (one or two) of school age children. And we're done.
 
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.

Oh well. Then I guess he should remember that and choose better when he decides to have sex with her. He knows this risk before having sex...should he not be held accountable?

If there is a pregnancy, she is held accountable...she cannot avoid consequences.

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.

Women have a right to abortion, to terminate a pregnancy. It is not in any way related to having or raising a child at all. You are conflating 2 very different things.

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.

Who says? This is now about a child. Why do you think there are child support laws? The woman is bound to the same obligations as the man.

What you are demanding is that men should be able to have sex without consequences. That's no longer the deal, due to technology and laws. It was never possible for women in the past and it still isnt.

If a woman gets pregnant, she cannot escape consequences.

--she has a kid
--she has a miscarriage
--she has an abortion
--she dies during pregnancy/childbirth.

And she can die or suffer dangerous health consequences from the 1st 3 too. Men *may* face financial consequences...and they also *may* get out of it. But for women, we pay consequences. It's rather disturbing that some men feel that they should also be able to influence the consequences women face. They're mad because the woman can choose one's they object to. 🤷

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

Correct. Men know this before having sex. Are you claiming that men are not capable of choosing not to have sex with a particular woman? That men are not capable of acting in their own best interests? If so, you have a very low opinion of men.
 
If the man doesn't share responsibility in the support of the child leaving the woman to request and receive financial support, then the man should be sought and made responsible for repayment of the taxpayers dollars received by the woman.
A birth certificate should be signed by BOTH the father and mother showing they assume responsibility for the child, and if the father is unknown the DNA of the child should be taken in case a need arises to locate the father.
A woman who wants to become pregnant cannot force a man to make her pregnant, so the male has a preconception opt-out which eliminates the need of a post conception opt-out.
 
And blah blah blah
And blah blah blah about what a stupid counter argument.

Blah blah blah... like a grade school debate. LOL
about how you'd inform men, give them opportunity (or not) to propose co-parenting, get the whole thing done before the pregnancy is too advanced ... why even bother?
Is talking too advanced a concept? It already happens so I am confused why you are making it sound difficult.
Abolish child support.
OK. Bold.
Replace it with a generous early childhood pension, and a part pension for parents (one or two) of school age children. And we're done.
No idea what you are talking about. Taxpayers set up a retirement account for kids not even born yet?
 
If the man doesn't share responsibility in the support of the child leaving the woman to request and receive financial support, then the man should be sought and made responsible for repayment of the taxpayers dollars received by the woman.
Why? Shouldn't the woman have aborted a child that she could not support without taxpayer help?

This is the point of the argument that so many, like you apparently, just can not grasp.
A birth certificate should be signed by BOTH the father and mother showing they assume responsibility for the child, and if the father is unknown the DNA of the child should be taken in case a need arises to locate the father.
Again missing the point of the topic.
A woman who wants to become pregnant cannot force a man to make her pregnant, so the male has a preconception opt-out which eliminates the need of a post conception opt-out.
Again... totally missing the point of a post conception opt out and equality. For ****'s sake. It is almost like many of you try to sound ridiculous.
 
People should note that there is no distinction between male and female here...this applies to both equally.
Child Support is, a statutory right that actually belongs to the child. Neither the egg donor nor the sperm donor can "contract out" of their liability under the laws that grant the statutory right to child support. (This isnt my explanation)​
So anything 'pre-conception' or 'pre-birth' is useless...if there's a child, their statutory right supersedes some 'contract.'​

--and--

It means the fantasy opt-out hinges on the child's rights...and once there is a child, the opt-out contract cannot supersede that right. Laws arent going to override it, there's zero benefit to society, it harms kids and tax payers for starters.
The fact that the custodial parent has a high income does not itself justify deviation from the guidelines, because under the law children have the right to benefit from both parents' incomes."​


https://www.findlaw.com/family/child-support/child-support-basics.html

Cannot waive child support

A child’s right to receive parental support is inherent and cannot be waived by either party. Regardless of the parents’ relationship with one another (whether married, divorced, separated, or never married), as long as paternity has been established, both parents are on the hook for child support. Regardless of any arrangement—such as “trading” spousal support for child support—both parents still have a legal obligation to support the child.​
The Issue With Waiving Child Support
The issue of waiving child support payments came up in Marriage of Ayo (1987), which further established the parents’ obligation to pay child support. In this case, the court established that the legal obligation to pay child support is much more than a normal debt; it goes beyond a simple “good-faith” obligation to pay and therefore cannot be overruled by the individual parties. (If they could be overruled, that would mean that California law and the ruling of the courts could be thwarted by a simple provision in a contract, i.e. parenting plan.)​
An Agreement To Waive
An agreement to waive child support cannot be legally binding, and in fact, it could have a negative effect on your family law case. For example, say John and Denise are getting a divorce and have a 5-year-old son together. Denise says she will waive her right to child support if John does not seek custody of their son. John agrees, but the judge finds out about the arrangement and takes it as evidence that John is trying to get out of his legal obligations as a father. Now John’s agreement with Denise—which would not have held up in court anyway—is useless and has become a liability in his divorce arguments.​

And @Bodhisattva already recognizes this:

Bodh comment that reinforces it:

That has happened and been thrown out by the Judge. Pre-birth contracts are irrelevant compared to the interest of the child.

From <https://debatepolitics.com/threads/post-conception-opt-out-for-men.458324/page-22>
More lying stupid bullshit ...

One and only time I point out how ****ing stupid your posts are.
 
Last edited:
If the man doesn't share responsibility in the support of the child leaving the woman to request and receive financial support, then the man should be sought and made responsible for repayment of the taxpayers dollars received by the woman.

Except why? That individual man is only the cause of a child being born in a strictly biological sense.

Pregnant women should have the option of keeping the pregnancy and raising a child (or another child) without fear she will have to live in poverty. Children raised in poverty don't do so well, and this is a far stronger factor than whether the child has one, or two, parents.

So at least you've put a firewall between the single parent and the absent parent: the taxpayer provides whether or not the absent parent is able to or willing to. Your proposal is at least better than "absent parent pays or goes to jail" but it's still making demands of men for something that was not their choice.

I justify pensions thus: the born child is a member of society, but one who is very dependent on one or more parents for "parenting services". All of society benefits if that child grows up physically and mentally healthy, and so the taxpayer should support the parent (or parents if their combined income is not enough.)

Trying to make men pay for "their" child they never wanted anything to do with, causes all kind of strife. Quite a few women choose not to even apply for child support from any individual, as they anticipate it will be used as leverage for a man they don't trust, to get visiting rights with the child.

A birth certificate should be signed by BOTH the father and mother showing they assume responsibility for the child, and if the father is unknown the DNA of the child should be taken in case a need arises to locate the father.
A woman who wants to become pregnant cannot force a man to make her pregnant,

Yeah? You think having a gun held to your head will make your boner go away? Regardless of whatever else the woman is doing?

A woman determined to get good money from a rich man, can also lie about her own contraception and/or sabotage his condoms (or pick them out of the trash.) You seem to be laboring under the impression that women can't rape men, and should be trusted in matters of sex even more than in matters generally.

so the male has a preconception opt-out which eliminates the need of a post conception opt-out.

"Pre-conception opt-out" is either total sterilization, or total abstinance from sex with women. Seriously, isn't my way better?

Leave the decision to the woman, and if the man really thinks he's up for living in the same house with a new baby then fine, after 3 years or so it gets easier to bear. If he can't hack it though, even with partial pension support, then he walks away with nothing: no family to call his own, no pension, no visiting rights. But he CAN walk away, and that's essential for the child to grow up in a peaceful home. Single parent families are not optimal, that's true, but they are definitely better than families where the parents argue bitterly, threaten each other or the child, or worst of all are violent. Men just walking away, without a child support penalty, is the lesser evil.
 
More lying stupid bullshit from the lying stupid bullshit (or stupid ****ing ignorant) section of the peanut gallery.

One and only time I point out how ****ing stupid your posts are.

If you can't treat Lursa with respect despite your disagreements, then just ignore him/her.

I won't be participating further in the thread otherwise.
 
Oh well. Then I guess he should remember that and choose better when he decides to have sex with her. He knows this risk before having sex...should he not be held accountable?

If there is a pregnancy, she is held accountable...she cannot avoid consequences.



Women have a right to abortion, to terminate a pregnancy. It is not in any way related to having or raising a child at all. You are conflating 2 very different things.



Who says? This is now about a child. Why do you think there are child support laws? The woman is bound to the same obligations as the man.

What you are demanding is that men should be able to have sex without consequences. That's no longer the deal, due to technology and laws. It was never possible for women in the past and it still isnt.

If a woman gets pregnant, she cannot escape consequences.

--she has a kid
--she has a miscarriage
--she has an abortion
--she dies during pregnancy/childbirth.

And she can die or suffer dangerous health consequences from the 1st 3 too. Men *may* face financial consequences...and they also *may* get out of it. But for women, we pay consequences. It's rather disturbing that some men feel that they should also be able to influence the consequences women face. They're mad because the woman can choose one's they object to. 🤷



Correct. Men know this before having sex. Are you claiming that men are not capable of choosing not to have sex with a particular woman? That men are not capable of acting in their own best interests? If so, you have a very low opinion of men.
Basically, poor choices have consequences. Laws are often made necessary to hold people responsible for their choices and actions.
 
If you can't treat Lursa with respect despite your disagreements, then just ignore him/her.

I won't be participating further in the thread otherwise.
That was the one and only... please, participate. Although I am not sure why you care about Lursa so much even though she treats me with disrespect.

*shrug*
 
Currently men are bound to whatever choice a woman makes post conception. She can walk away, and he cannot walk away. This is unequal.
It is unequal, for women. Because women cannot have sex without risking consequences while, under your "scheme" men still could, like they have for...ever.

It's completely equal for both before they decide to have sex. That is the point where it's equal. Then if they decide to have sex, they both should be willing to face the consequences of that decision...right? Isnt that the normal course of things in life? If you go to Vegas and take a risk...arent you required to 'pay up?' Can you explain why men shouldnt accept the consequences of their decisions...women must, we cant escape consequences. (see post 6)

So it seems equal if BOTH have to pay the consequences for their decisions, right?

Or...are you demanding that men should still be entitled to sex without consequences, the way they have been for...ever? Because women arent and never have been. That sure as heck isnt EQUAL. :(
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.

It is pretty simple. If either custodial parent is allowed to walk away from their financial obligations, then the child does with less and the tax payers have to pay for someone else's CONSCIOUS decision to take that risk. We already do for hundreds of thousands of kids with one or no parents. It's not in society's best interests to have the child do with less and to burden the taxpayers more.

What justification is there to burden taxpayers? We didnt decide to take that risk.


Why do you think we have child support laws in the first place? Because men walked away all the time. All the time. What has changed that you think the state legislatures would decide differently now?
At no time does the man have any power to have her abort or to not abort.

And that's what gets you and many other men. You no longer have control, you're furious the woman has what you see as 'power' over you. And yet every single man in that position knowingly CHOSE to take that risk. Do you realize how pathetic that makes men sound? Unable to avoid sex in their own best interests? I give men a lot more credit than that.

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.

There are no 'adult' rights even involved here so there's no 'equal rights'...that's emotionally manipulative BS. There's no societal or practical reason to let either adult involved out of their obligations. It harms the kid and society.
Anyway… thoughts?

Sure. The laws regarding the child are equal. And today's family courts are much more open to father's having custody, more custody, joint custody, etc. And women have to pay support. I think that's great. It's getting better every year however if there is resistance, remember...most judges are still men. So blaming women for this stuff is just more bitterness.

There is a time for both adults to avoid consequences that IS equal. And it's before they decide to have sex. That is equal.

Does anyone want to make the argument that men are still entitled to sex without consequences? That would be interesting...and now outdated due to technology and our legal system. But that is what the OP really is saying. (The OP has accused me of lying on this and yet I'm just using the English language properly.)
 
More lying stupid bullshit from the lying stupid bullshit (or stupid ****ing ignorant) section of the peanut gallery.

One and only time I point out how ****ing stupid your posts are.
LOL That's ok. My arguments will still refute yours and you wont be able to counter them...and as always, going all the way back to 2018...yours will fail. You cant even address the actual legal foundations and kid's rights that I post that destroy your idea.

Look how triggered you are, it's pretty clear how invested you are in this stupid opt-out idea and how bitter you are. Your posts leak selfish anger at every turn.

And thank God for OneNote...all I need to do is cut and paste everything again.
 
Why? Shouldn't the woman have aborted a child that she could not support without taxpayer help?

This is the point of the argument that so many, like you apparently, just can not grasp.

Again missing the point of the topic.

Again... totally missing the point of a post conception opt out and equality. For ****'s sake. It is almost like many of you try to sound ridiculous.
Though that might have been a better choice, no that is not a valid reason to force a woman to have an abortion.
While I recognize the point of your argument, I disagree with it.
Simply don't get a woman pregnant and you have no responsibility for a child to worry about.
 
Post Conception Opt-Out FOR MEN

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

And here the rubber meets the road. The 'opt-out' is merely the last ditch effort for men to emotionally manipulate women into getting abortions.

They know that legally, they have no way to 'make' her do anything so they have to resort to manipulation. They tell the woman that they'll walk away if she keeps the baby. And they want to use the threat of the 'opt out' to enable them to walk away.

Just like men have done since the beginning of time. Why do you think we have child support to begin with? Why would they get rid of that now, do you think most men or women would just pay what's required?

It's not fair. I'm not gloating over this. But as a taxpayer, why should I be paying for someone's kid when both parents are available...and they knowingly took the risk to create the kid and knew the consequences? Since when is life fair? But if men think it's not fair for them, then it's surely as hell not fair for the taxpayers and that's just pure hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
Except why? That individual man is only the cause of a child being born in a strictly biological sense.

Pregnant women should have the option of keeping the pregnancy and raising a child (or another child) without fear she will have to live in poverty. Children raised in poverty don't do so well, and this is a far stronger factor than whether the child has one, or two, parents.

So at least you've put a firewall between the single parent and the absent parent: the taxpayer provides whether or not the absent parent is able to or willing to. Your proposal is at least better than "absent parent pays or goes to jail" but it's still making demands of men for something that was not their choice.

I justify pensions thus: the born child is a member of society, but one who is very dependent on one or more parents for "parenting services". All of society benefits if that child grows up physically and mentally healthy, and so the taxpayer should support the parent (or parents if their combined income is not enough.)

Trying to make men pay for "their" child they never wanted anything to do with, causes all kind of strife. Quite a few women choose not to even apply for child support from any individual, as they anticipate it will be used as leverage for a man they don't trust, to get visiting rights with the child.



Yeah? You think having a gun held to your head will make your boner go away? Regardless of whatever else the woman is doing?

A woman determined to get good money from a rich man, can also lie about her own contraception and/or sabotage his condoms (or pick them out of the trash.) You seem to be laboring under the impression that women can't rape men, and should be trusted in matters of sex even more than in matters generally.



"Pre-conception opt-out" is either total sterilization, or total abstinance from sex with women. Seriously, isn't my way better?

Leave the decision to the woman, and if the man really thinks he's up for living in the same house with a new baby then fine, after 3 years or so it gets easier to bear. If he can't hack it though, even with partial pension support, then he walks away with nothing: no family to call his own, no pension, no visiting rights. But he CAN walk away, and that's essential for the child to grow up in a peaceful home. Single parent families are not optimal, that's true, but they are definitely better than families where the parents argue bitterly, threaten each other or the child, or worst of all are violent. Men just walking away, without a child support penalty, is the lesser evil.
I didn't suggest the child should be raised in poverty, or that the woman should be denied government assistance, simple that the father should be brought to bear some responsibility, if at all possible in the present or future.
Criminal acts should result in criminal prosecution.
Pre-conception opt-out can be many different things aside from the two you mention.
Maybe it would help to know the woman better before having sex.
 
Though that might have been a better choice, no that is not a valid reason to force a woman to have an abortion.
While I recognize the point of your argument, I disagree with it.
Simply don't get a woman pregnant and you have no responsibility for a child to worry about.

It's not about force tho. Men know they cant force women to abort. So the opt-out is designed as an attempt to emotionally manipulate women into having one.

The OP has admitted this in the past, he's said it's to influence women's decisions.
 
Why? Shouldn't the woman have aborted a child that she could not support without taxpayer help?

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.

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

If men dont act in their own best interests and avoid that risk, that's their choice...that is irresponsible. And stupid IMO.
 
That was the one and only... please, participate. Although I am not sure why you care about Lursa so much even though she treats me with disrespect.

*shrug*

I've been answering your posts mostly respectfully, but of course I called it where you would start immediately calling me a liar...with zero foundation.
 
Basically, poor choices have consequences. Laws are often made necessary to hold people responsible for their choices and actions.

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.
 
Though that might have been a better choice, no that is not a valid reason to force a woman to have an abortion.
I literally said that women are not forced to have an abortion. At least read the ****ing OP argument.
While I recognize the point of your argument, I disagree with it.
That is fine. Just don't misrepresent it.
Simply don't get a woman pregnant and you have no responsibility for a child to worry about.
This does not relate to the point of the argument that I brought up AT ALL.

Wanna try again.?
 
Basically, poor choices have consequences. Laws are often made necessary to hold people responsible for their choices and actions.
And again, you seem to fail to understand the basic premise of the argument that I have put forth. Jeesh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom