• 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
Which by definition means wealthy.

Unless of course you include such things as universal health, housing and education for all the people.
It does?


Maybe in your world.....not in reality
 
You keep saying wealthy


Are you talking to someone else?
No, I am pointing out to you that creating some imaginary point of wealth where people are allowed to then have children is a form of eugenics.

And for these americans it is especially a laughable solution to a problem. The land of the freest of the free but only if you have the money to afford it.
 
No, I am pointing out to you that creating some imaginary point of wealth where people are allowed to then have children is a form of eugenics.

And for these americans it is especially a laughable solution to a problem. The land of the freest of the free but only if you have the money to afford it.
I never said allowed. Any woman who wants to give birth can


You keep making things up
 
It does?


Maybe in your world.....not in reality
In order for a single woman to raise a child with no support from the male that helped make the child and without government support (which most government programs mandate child support for the father to qualify) she would need to be an above average income earner. And have a tidy little nest egg for “just in case”.

So yes, you are advocating a certain level of wealth to be able to have a child.
 
The argument of support is not related to the rights of the parent, but the Child. The Child has the right of support from both parents. The State has an interest in this as otherwise it has to support the Child.

Bingo. The needs of Children limit the freedom of Parents.
 
In order for a single woman to raise a child with no support from the male that helped make the child and without government support (which most government programs mandate child support for the father to qualify) sue would need to be an above average income earner.

So yes, you are advocating a certain level of wealth to be able to have a child.
I am absolutely recommending that


But if the woman wants to do it in poverty she can do that too
 
In your world people like you are arguing to have the poor steralised
Where as in reality people like me live in a country that does support those welfare systems.
They are?


In your world all men are killed


Come on dude. Lol
 
I am absolutely recommending that


But if the woman wants to do it in poverty she can do that too
Society disagrees and demands that the biological father be held accountable for at minimal, providing some financial support.
 
I never said allowed. Any woman who wants to give birth can


You keep making things up
This is called swapping horses mid stream. Either you can argue that any women should have the right to give birth or only those who can afford a child ( the wealthy) should be able to breed. But not turn around half way through and decide now that any woman can give birth, even the poor.
 
This is called swapping horses mid stream. Either you can argue that any women should have the right to give birth or only those who can afford a child ( the wealthy) should be able to breed. But not turn around half way through and decide now that any woman can give birth, even the poor.
Every woman should have the right to give birth


When have I ever said otherwise?
 
Society disagrees and demands that the biological father be held accountable for at minimal, providing some financial support.
Society is often wrong


History is full of examples
 
That point where you said people should not have children until they can afford them. Or do you think only men are capable of being poor.
Well THEY SHOULDN'T.



THEY CAN IF THEY WANT.....BUT THEY SHOULDN'T
 
Well THEY SHOULDN'T.



THEY CAN IF THEY WANT.....BUT THEY SHOULDN'T
So when should they considering that under a capitalist system there will always be poor people. We either create a welfare support system or simply steralise the poor. Or in your case do nothing and hope the poor are more sensible and caring about others that the average american.
 
So when should they considering that under a capitalist system there will always be poor people. We either create a welfare support system or simply steralise the poor. Or in your case do nothing and hope the poor are more sensible and caring about others that the average american.
I support a welfare support system


Always have
 
That is the most laughable excuse yet for why men should not be held responsible for their own actions.

Go back to biology 101 class and try to stay awake for whole birds and bees lecture this time.
It illustrates the absurdity of the pro-abortion justification for killing babies. They aren't really babies until they are born, right? If that's true it also stands to reason that babies do not belong to men since the only contribution men make is some biological fluid.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom