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

[vegas giants]

I don’t feel you & bodi make a majority.

I don't care about your feelings

 

[Lursa]

I'd argue it is not unequal treatment under the law. When there is a child, both parents have equal rights to the child. Both parents, in the event that the parents are not living together, have the right to petition for a parenting plan giving them majority of time with the child. The court does not, at least in my state, make the determination of which, if either, parent gets majority of time based on the gender of the parent. The parent with less time pays financial support to the parent with more time. This can just as easily obligate a mother who does not want to have the child or is not fit to have the child to pay support as it could obligate a father.

Now there certainly is the difference described in that in jurisdictions where abortion is legal, women can get them and men cannot. But this is not due to unequal treatment under the law, but because of the different biological circumstances in that only one can be pregnant. Unequal treatment under the law would mean that two people in the same or similar circumstances have different legal outcomes. This is not the case. When a child exists, both parents are in a similar situation as a parent to that child. The law treats them equally. When a woman is pregnant, she is not in the same or similar circumstances as the father of that potential child because she is pregnant and he isn't, thus why she can get an abortion and he cannot.

I would argue that the financial burden of the children currently falls correctly on the parents before taxpayers. Children need support. That support needs to come from somewhere. It is better for society in general for the biological parent of that child, whether the father or mother, to be responsible for support before the taxpayers at large.

Any unfairness of this system, in the sense that women in a very real sense do have the option to terminate a pregnancy in some jurisdictions but men do not, is not the result of unequal treatment under the law but biological difference in who can and cannot become pregnant. It is not beneficial for society for the state to step in and correct this biological unfairness by giving a father the right to opt out of support, at the expense of either the child or the taxpayers at large.

altho the OP demands that we dont consider biology in this issue

 

[vegas giants]

altho the OP demands that we dont consider biology in this issue

It's unequal treatment

 

[Lursa]

possible? happens all the time. 10% of men report being raped. some of them underage, like in the cases of Debra Lafave and Mary Kay Letourneau. These can still lead to pregnancy, and you're saying he has to be forced to care for the baby just because she decided to keep it?

I don't think that's very funny. very unequal. If men have to support the child, then why can't women?

Can you cite this happening? A raped man having to pay child support? I'd be against that in any case but the woman would be in prison and the kid in foster care, on the taxpayer's dime already.

 

[jpevans]

I don't care about your feelings

Why, do you think it’s a movement?

 

[Lursa]

Seeing as abortion is the most important thing in the country at the moment, why can't the man also have to the option to get the mother's fetus aborted? Imagine, a biological female convinces me to have unprotected sex with her and gets pregnant. I should have the right to FORCE that woman to get an abortion.

LOL what a lovely sentiment.

A woman has a First Amendment right protecting her religious beliefs. And the man has no rights regarding her pregnancy at all, so he'd have no basis for violating her 1A right which protects her from being forced to have an abortion. What legal foundation are you imagining?

Cops cant even compel suspects to give up blood or urine without their consent...you think there's some legal basis a man could use to force a woman to abort? Let's hear it.

 

[vegas giants]

Why, do you think it’s a movement?

Why do you hate men?

 

[FreeStorm84]

Why do you hate men?

It's always down to that isn't it? You think your critics hate you.

 

[vegas giants]

It's always down to that isn't it? You think your critics hate you.

He went personal. Says i got screwed over in divorce

Actually in my divorce I had joint custody and paid to put my kid thru college


I am past having kids. This is about equality

 

[Lursa]

And perhaps for those “some” the men lied.

Or changed their mind once they saw how expensive a child is.

The least of my concern are dead beats who don’t want to pay child support. They’re at the bottom of the societal barrel in my opinion. Not much to walk around being proud of - “yeah man, I got 3 different women pregnant…they didn’t trap me though…I ain’t paying no child support”

Once again, he just proves that those supporting this just want to manipulate women into having abortions. They feel powerless once the woman gets pregnant and resent the fact that they no longer are in control, are bitter imagining her "power" over them. Small small men.

 

[vegas giants]

Once again, he just proves that those supporting this just want to manipulate women into having abortions. They feel powerless once the woman gets pregnant and resent the fact that they no longer are in control, are bitter imagining her "power" over them. Small small men.

And women then extort men for money

 

[Lursa]

If there's anything that would promote Involuntary Celibacy, it's whipping out a contract & pen in the middle of a passionate embrace.

I know...it would show a lot of women who they were really considering sleeping with. And with that in mind, knowing it would turn off a lot of women...then men wouldnt try it. IMO many feel getting laid is more important.

 

[vegas giants]

I know...it would show a lot of women who they were really considering sleeping with. And with that in mind, knowing it would turn off a lot of women...then men wouldnt try it. IMO many feel getting laid is more important.

Let's test that theory


Make it legal

 

[Lursa]

She should have to take out a loan, like a student loan, to pay society back for her decision to be selfish and have a child that she could not afford.

Why just women? Why not every couple that chooses to have a kid/s they cant afford? Shouldnt they have to take out a loan and pay back the public assistance they received too? If not, why just women?

 

[Lursa]

Sure there is... it is often the man that has to work more and pay more and misses out on equal time with the child that they are essentially paying for on their own. All the work, all the money and very little of the reward. Sounds like a shit deal.

If they want equal time with their kid, why not get joint custody? I think it's a great idea and the family courts encourage it too, the kid is better off with a father in its life.

 

[Lursa]

Because kids are expensive? I'm very grateful that I don't have to deal with the type of men that complain about child support in my personal life. I feel bad for the women that do. They slept with losers.

Many women support children without financial contribution from fathers across the country already. There is more than $113 Billion in outstanding child support floating in the US currently. And that is just from the dead beats that don't pay their child support orders. Millions of other women likely never file for child support because it isn't worth the hassle. Such is life. Thankfully there are countless men who step in to fill the shoes of dead beats...they do not get enough praise.

I know....they just dismiss milking the taxpayers for even more $$, as if we're a well that can never run dry. It means that the kids that need it most may get less. It's disrespectful...heck, we didnt knowingly risk producing that kid...they're moaning about 'unfair' and 'not equal'...well it's that much MORE unfair and unequal for taxpayers to pay when the parents are available to.

Apparently that unfairness and inequality dont matter...just when it's men.

 

[Lursa]

Which is why if women knew they would not get child support for their unilateral decision they might do what is best for all, instead of themselves.

For them...

Absolutely and why shouldnt they? Isnt that what this is about for men?

Except that men can 100% act in their own best interests...dont have sex with her...but men "dont like" that option. Then be held accountable for knowingly taking the risk. You chose.

 

[Lursa]

And most men willingly pay child support.

Which the state/county demands of them. How many would pay if they werent legally compelled? And how much?

I love how you always ignore the fact that there's a reason we have mandated child support in the first place...because men DID walk away. Single men and divorced...could just walk away and did.

Why do you think that would be different now?

 

[Crovax]

dont have sex with her...but men "dont like" that option. Then be held accountable for knowingly taking the risk. You chose.

If women don't want to get pregnant then they shouldn't have sex, right? But women don't like that option.

 

[vegas giants]

Which the state/county demands of them. How many would pay if they werent legally compelled? And how much?

I love how you always ignore the fact that there's a reason we have child support in the first place...because men DID walk away. Single men and divorced...could just walk away and did.

Why do you think that would be different now?

It's extortion

 

[Crovax]

Can you cite this happening? A raped man having to pay child support? I'd be against that in any case but the woman would be in prison and the kid in foster care, on the taxpayer's dime already.

"When Shane Seyer was 12, he was sexually exploited by his 16-year-old babysitter Colleen Hermesmann. She became pregnant with Seyer’s child in 1989 and was charged with statutory rape shortly afterward. Instead of being convicted of rape, Hermesmann was declared a juvenile offender under the non-sexual offense of “contributing to child misconduct.” Seyer was subsequently court-ordered to pay child support."

When Male Rape Victims Are Accountable for Child Support

The best interest of the child is still the court's number one priority.

www.psychologytoday.com

 

[vegas giants]

I know....they just dismiss milking the taxpayers for even more $$, as if we're a well that can never run dry. It means that the kids that need it most may get less. It's disrespectful...heck, we didnt knowingly risk producing that kid...they're moaning about 'unfair' and 'not equal'...well it's that much MORE unfair and unequal for taxpayers to pay when the parents are available to.

Apparently that unfairness and inequality dont matter...just when it's men.

Why not take all of the man's assets.....in the interest of the child

 

[Lursa]

Anyone can see that your argument is to get women to have abortions, so the male can have no responsibility. It's about making women 2nd class citizens.

Calling him out on that obvious manipulation, well done.

 

[Lursa]

"When Shane Seyer was 12, he was sexually exploited by his 16-year-old babysitter Colleen Hermesmann. She became pregnant with Seyer’s child in 1989 and was charged with statutory rape shortly afterward. Instead of being convicted of rape, Hermesmann was declared a juvenile offender under the non-sexual offense of “contributing to child misconduct.” Seyer was subsequently court-ordered to pay child support."

When Male Rape Victims Are Accountable for Child Support

The best interest of the child is still the court's number one priority.

www.psychologytoday.com

God this is even worse because he was a juvenile. So where would he get $ to pay? They stuck the parents?

It's bullshit and so is the decision made on appeal, that he consented. Minors cant consent. That's the law, even in KS, isnt it?

That should be challenged at the federal level, that is BS. Of course a man, even an adult, shouldnt have to pay. As I wrote, the kid is likely already in the foster system since the mother is in jail.

 

[Lursa]

If women don't want to get pregnant then they shouldn't have sex, right? But women don't like that option.

From post 267:

I agree completely. If she doesnt want to risk health damage, death, have a kid, she shouldnt have sex. If she does, then she must accept the consequences that come with it.​

​

The time for women to decide to avoid the consequences...is exactly the same as for men...BEFORE having sex.​

​

OTOH, the consequences are very different...biology determines them (and yet the OP constantly demands we "leave biology out of it" ​

​

If a woman gets pregnant, she cannot escape consequences. There are only 4 options:​

​

--have a baby​

--have a miscarriage​

--have an abortion​

--die during childbirth/pregnancy​

​

All of which are painful and costly and can cause harm or sterility. All can even cause death, tho less likely for the first 3. Men escape consequences in all but one of those cases. But some still cry "unfair!" Not "equal!" ​

​

If a woman doesnt want to pay for the consequences of a pregnancy, then I totally agree...dont have sex. So it's equal, right?​