• 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
Bodi said:
And there are women that get pregnant in order to hold on to a man because of many reasons... including money.
Click to expand...

And there are men that put pinholes in condoms to get their girlfriends pregnant so that they cant leave them. For example, go away to college (that's the example I remember the most).

The govt isnt there to solve your relationship problems. Humans can be shitty people...that's not news. Again, you portray men as victims. Men can 100% protect themselves from involuntary fatherhood. But...they still believe they're entitled to sex without consequences and in that, they are harming themselves.

Because they're not anymore. Women arent and never have been...you moan over and over about "equality" and now it almost is...but it still favors men.
 
Bodi said:
No it isn't. If it was necessary then society would be DEMANDING that poor unwed single mothers on welfare not have a child.
Click to expand...

Society would be demanding forced abortion? Forced sterilization? You have some imagination. Again, you are going all out for an imaginary right for deadbeats with zero consideration for actual rights. Again, hold your head up proudly!
 
MrNiceGuy said:
When the child is born, there is. When the child is in utero, the putative father has no obligation to support it. It eats food (through the mother), yet the father doesn't have to pay for the portion used to support the developing entity, and the father has no obligation to pay any part of the medical bills, insurance premiums, copays, etc., associated with the developing entity.

When the child is born, then the child's right to support arises. Since there is no child in utero, then how can the non-existent child's right to child support be waived? A right has to exist in order for it to be waived.
Click to expand...

He chooses to ignore that no matter what paper she signs, there's no way to stop the woman from having the kid. Not legally, not practically.

But this opt-out idea is a Hail Mary, manipulation to convince the woman she should abort if she wants to have a relationship with him.
 
trouble13 said:
Sperm is an ingredient needed to create a baby but it can not create a baby without a woman. It's entirely up to her if it becomes a baby or not. If she decides to be pregnant, the outcome of that decision is her sole responsibility.
Click to expand...
That is true, but does nothing to mitigate the fact that the male is still responsible for his own actions.
 
Bodi said:
Your whole argument here is emotional tripe. Use the word father, dad, dude or sperm donator. No difference. In almost every category the women is making a bad, selfish decision.
Click to expand...
Of course there is a difference . A father /dad is a male who is actually there to help raise a child while the others are simply another name for a male or someone who has nothing to do with raising a child.

But well noted that you do not use these alternatives but instead use the word father so as to try to pretend you actually have more input than just a sperm donar.
 
soylentgreen said:
Of course there is a difference . A father /dad is a male who is actually there to help raise a child while the others are simply another name for a male or someone who has nothing to do with raising a child.

But well noted that you do not use these alternatives but instead use the word father so as to try to pretend you actually have more input than just a sperm donar.
Click to expand...
I think your posts are actually getting more stupid and irrelevant as we go...
 
soylentgreen said:
Why? Pointing out you are wrong once again harms no one. Where as his belief in a right to interfere in other peoples decisions does..
Click to expand...
Because it is no concern of yours.
 
soylentgreen said:
Except of course when a couple actually decide to have a baby. then sex has a purpose other than recreational.
Click to expand...
It becomes work for you then... the business of making a baby?

Not me... it is still an activity I do for enjoyment. Lots of enjoyment.
 
soylentgreen said:
Well you would as it must be embarrassing for you to have your debates so easily squashed.
Click to expand...
Out of the people with even the most remote chance of doing that... you are not.

You posts are little tangents of stupidity in between debating people that have an actual chance.
 
Bodi said:
It becomes work for you then... the business of making a baby?

Not me... it is still an activity I do for enjoyment. Lots of enjoyment.
Click to expand...
Vegas is being a bit vague in his debate. Sex for recreation and sex for procreation are the same activity just the intent is different.
 
Bodi said:
Out of the people with even the most remote chance of doing that... you are not.

You posts are little tangents of stupidity in between debating people that have an actual chance.
Click to expand...
How is it off tangent to point out that once again your trying the same old argument of men should not be held responsible for their own actions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom