• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

[W:1721] [W:2837] Post Conception Opt-Out FOR MEN

Hold Man Hostage?


  • Total voters
    31
Becuz you imply bio daddy has no control over his impulses and is victimized either by his own sexual nature or the seductive power of the woman.
Nope. We are discussing the post conception choice. She gets one he does not.

If she makes a horrible selfish choice she brings a kid intonthe world she cant afford who won't have a father


And you support that
 
A guy in Michigan actually raise this exact issue in his child support dispute with his girlfriend. He knocked up his girlfriend, whom he had been dating for a few months. Early on they used condoms, but toward the end, they didn't (very common - when pressed, most everyone, women included, hate condoms), and he testified "she said she was on the pill." They broke up, she had the baby. She is pro-Life, and he knew that, as they had different ideas about that.

Apparently, this kind of claim has been raised in other courts and "been rejected by every court that has considered siilar matters." The US district Court found the argument frivolous and socked him with costs and attorney fees for bringing the claim.




See also N.E. v. Hedges - https://casetext.com/case/ne-v-hedges#p834
It is the landmark case for this issue.


Clearly a change in the law is needed
 
Or if the mom does the same thing


How many times shall we go over it?
sure, they both have the opportunity to prevent pregnancy. Once again, their business, nobody else's. They should support their children.
 
sure, they both have the opportunity to prevent pregnancy. Once again, their business, nobody else's. They should support their children.
They should do a lot of things. But they don't. If we are going by should then she should not have a kid in this situation
 
It is the landmark case for this issue.


Clearly a change in the law is needed
Frivolous is a pretty strong word. They let a lot of novel and good faith arguments that are strange and push the limits. This issue raised in the Dubay v Wells case was "frivolous." It was also found wholly without merit in the Hedges case in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

You want a change in the law, and certainly, even the constitution can be changed - the legislature can create a law that gives parents the right unilaterally opt out. Yes. But the question that your side doesn't answer is - "why?" Why should any of us vote for that? You want a way to knock women up and then decide arbitrarily and for your own purposes whether you care for the child you created - the reason you give is because you think it's not "fair" that women can physically abort (at least to some extent during pregnancy), and so to be "fair" you think that means that you should be able to abandon a child once it is born.

Given your reasons, I for one would vote no on that if it was a referendum. And, if my congressman was going to vote on it, I'd strongly urge him or her to vote no. Mainly that's because "hey she could have aborted the child and I can't, so it's her decision and therefore her 100% financial responsibility" is not a very persuasive argument (to me).

There we have it.
 
Frivolous is a pretty strong word. They let a lot of novel and good faith arguments that are strange and push the limits. This issue raised in the Dubay v Wells case was "frivolous." It was also found wholly without merit in the Hedges case in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

You want a change in the law, and certainly, even the constitution can be changed - the legislature can create a law that gives parents the right unilaterally opt out. Yes. But the question that your side doesn't answer is - "why?" Why should any of us vote for that? You want a way to knock women up and then decide arbitrarily and for your own purposes whether you care for the child you created - the reason you give is because you think it's not "fair" that women can physically abort (at least to some extent during pregnancy), and so to be "fair" you think that means that you should be able to abandon a child once it is born.

Given your reasons, I for one would vote no on that if it was a referendum. And, if my congressman was going to vote on it, I'd strongly urge him or her to vote no. Mainly that's because "hey she could have aborted the child and I can't, so it's her decision and therefore her 100% financial responsibility" is not a very persuasive argument (to me).

There we have it.
I want to create a system that encourages better outcomes for men women and children


Particularly children
 
They should do a lot of things. But they don't. If we are going by should then she should not have a kid in this situation
What is "this" situation? The OP refers to any mother having any baby. There is no specific "situation" that this opt out would apply to. The OP says it would be for ANY pregnancy. The OP doesn't even, as I recall, distinguish between married couples and paternity suits. Presumably, if wifey becomes pregnant, and hubby says "oh, no, not again! three kids is enough! I'm done! I'm opting out of this one!" - the same arguments you make now would apply to that specific situation too. Or, would you support the idea that hubbies do not have equal rights to wifeys, but girlfriends and boyfriends have equal rights? How do you address that?

So, when you say "this" situation, what is the situation to which you refer? Poverty stricken women? How poor?
 
What is "this" situation? The OP refers to any mother having any baby. There is no specific "situation" that this opt out would apply to. The OP says it would be for ANY pregnancy. The OP doesn't even, as I recall, distinguish between married couples and paternity suits. Presumably, if wifey becomes pregnant, and hubby says "oh, no, not again! three kids is enough! I'm done! I'm opting out of this one!" - the same arguments you make now would apply to that specific situation too. Or, would you support the idea that hubbies do not have equal rights to wifeys, but girlfriends and boyfriends have equal rights? How do you address that?

So, when you say "this" situation, what is the situation to which you refer? Poverty stricken women? How poor?
A man and a woman agree prior to sex that neither wants to be a parent. They recognize they are ill prepared for this responsibility because they are immature and not financially stable.

She gets pregnant and says I am having the kid


In THAT situation is the woman making a incredibly selfish decision?
 
Don't answer my question
I can say "She shouldn't have sex.. but failing that.. she should use birth control.. but failing that.. she should get an abortion.. but failing that..."
I could go on. Unless you want to be (or want someone else to be) a Dictator and FORCE women to abstain from sex.. or.. abort a pregnancy if they can't afford to feed little Harper.. These questions are moot.
 
I want to create a system that encourages better outcomes for men women and children


Particularly children
Well, your proposed system, which would let a husband or long term cohabitant "opt out" of having to support a child doesn't really help anyone. Your proposed scenario would allow dads who are dads to 2 kids with a woman (maybe the relationship was great for many years), and then third bun gets in the oven and now the relationship has soured, and well, here ya go, opt out! - So, he's in with 2 of his kids, and out with the third. **** that third child, right? Mom was a **** who had the last clear chance to kill it, and she chose not to kill it, so **** it, no support for her (support to the other two, yes, but not her), and of course, dad will go to school functions for child one and two, but child three, nope, dad won't show up for that. And, when child three wants daddy to help her with a cold or sore throat, or to make taking medicine a little easier, or to snuggle, or play catch or to read a book, or make it all better when one of her little friends does something crummy, etc etc etc -- the first 2 get the dad, the third one, **** her, mommy will deal with it, because that bitch should have aborted her.

Sounds very...... empathetic, caring, kind, liberal, conservative, moderate, progressive? From what milieu does that proposal arise? What is the fundamental philosophy behind this?
 
Well, your proposed system, which would let a husband or long term cohabitant "opt out" of having to support a child doesn't really help anyone. Your proposed scenario would allow dads who are dads to 2 kids with a woman (maybe the relationship was great for many years), and then third bun gets in the oven and now the relationship has soured, and well, here ya go, opt out! - So, he's in with 2 of his kids, and out with the third. **** that third child, right? Mom was a **** who had the last clear chance to kill it, and she chose not to kill it, so **** it, no support for her (support to the other two, yes, but not her), and of course, dad will go to school functions for child one and two, but child three, nope, dad won't show up for that. And, when child three wants daddy to help her with a cold or sore throat, or to make taking medicine a little easier, or to snuggle, or play catch or to read a book, or make it all better when one of her little friends does something crummy, etc etc etc -- the first 2 get the dad, the third one, **** her, mommy will deal with it, because that bitch should have aborted her.

Sounds very...... empathetic, caring, kind, liberal, conservative, moderate, progressive? From what milieu does that proposal arise? What is the fundamental philosophy behind this?
I want to encourage people who WANT to be parents....not women looking for a payday
 
I can say "She shouldn't have sex.. but failing that.. she should use birth control.. but failing that.. she should get an abortion.. but failing that..."
I could go on. Unless you want to be (or want someone else to be) a Dictator and FORCE women to abstain from sex.. or.. abort a pregnancy if they can't afford to feed little Harper.. These questions are moot.
They are the only questions
 
They are the only questions
And any answer provided will not stop poor women from chossing to give birth.. unless, as I said, you want Mr Dictator to FORCE women to abstain from sex.. or.. abort the pregnancy if she's poor.
 
And any answer provided will not stop poor women from chossing to give birth.. unless, as I said, you want Mr Dictator to FORCE women to abstain from sex.. or.. abort the pregnancy if she's poor.
No I don't. Sorry
 
No I don't. Sorry
Then why would my or anyone elses answer to that question matter? Are you thinking that every poor woman considering intercourse is watching this thread and will stop themselves from having sex if I answer the question the way you want???
 
Then why would my or anyone elses answer to that question matter? Are you thinking that every poor woman considering intercourse is watching this thread and will stop themselves from having sex if I answer the question the way you want???
I don't want to force anyone. I want you encourage better decisions for kids
 
I want you encourage better decisions for kids
Ok. I encourage everyone to make better decisions.. for the kids..
There.
In the meantime.. absentee bio daddys should support the kids they helped make.
 
Because the rest of your post was either a lie or so stupid that it was kinda alarming.

That post is a mess... how about a quote.
Do not pretend such laziness. I gave you the post and quoted your words. Now you try and pretend they are not.
This is why you will always fail at this kind of argument. You plead that men will do the right thing but here you are desperately telling out right lies. Cannot even face your own words , no wonder you have not the courage to stand and accept your own actions.
 
Ok. I encourage everyone to make better decisions.. for the kids..
There.
In the meantime.. absentee bio daddys should support the kids they helped make.
Mother's SHOULD not bring kids into the world they can't afford
 
Oh please.

And no man ever has expected that buying dinner entitled him to sexual favors. Nope. Never, right?

You know who doesn’t cry and whine in these situations? Actual grown, mature men who enjoy the company of women and have respect for them and understand that eventually, it all “comes out in the wash”.



As I said somewhere else - insecurity and jealousy. That’s what this all boils down to.
What it boils down is control over someone without their consent. Women think they are entitled to demand assistance with choices they made, from men who had no say in the process.
 
You can say that a million times more if you want.. and absentee bio daddys should STILL support the kids they helped make.
OK I will

Mother's should not bring kids into the world they can't afford
 
Mother's should not bring kids into the world they can't afford
And I agree with you on that.. meet me half way and agree with me on this.. absentee bio daddys should STILL support the kids they helped make.
 
Back
Top Bottom