• 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!

Male Opt Out

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
122,663
Reaction score
27,421
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Men need to be able to opt out of Child Support if they do not want to be a father (legally). The woman can use her legal Constitutiinal right to birth control if she does not want to or can not support the child on her own. (Of course there are some exceptions).

She informs him of pregnancy. He makes hos choice. She retains 100% bodily autonomy and then makes her choice to abort or not.

There will be some exceptions obviously...

This argument is about POST CONCEPTION OPTIONS.

AFTER CONCEPTION.

Please dont be one of the many that will show up and say... "golly darnit he had his choice when he came... or... he has no choice"

THE LAW forces his monetary contribution. Laws can change.

Without the law he could just walk away. This is about CHANGING THE CHILD SUPPORT LAWS.

Because people will undoubtedly try to insult me personally... dead beat and what not... I am pro choice. I have equal care of my kids. This is a hypothetical argument about creating fairness of post conception choices for men.

Yes. Practice safe sex and use birth control...

Thoughts?
 
Men need to be able to opt out of Child Support if they do not want to be a father (legally). The woman can use her legal Constitutiinal right to birth control if she does not want to or can not support the child on her own. (Of course there are some exceptions).

She informs him of pregnancy. He makes hos choice. She retains 100% bodily autonomy and then makes her choice to abort or not.

There will be some exceptions obviously...

This argument is about POST CONCEPTION OPTIONS.

AFTER CONCEPTION.

Please dont be one of the many that will show up and say... "golly darnit he had his choice when he came... or... he has no choice"

THE LAW forces his monetary contribution. Laws can change.

Without the law he could just walk away. This is about CHANGING THE CHILD SUPPORT LAWS.

Because people will undoubtedly try to insult me personally... dead beat and what not... I am pro choice. I have equal care of my kids. This is a hypothetical argument about creating fairness of post conception choices for men.

Yes. Practice safe sex and use birth control...

Thoughts?

I agree with you, but we've argued this ad nauseam. Thankfully, things are moving a fairer direction (Ohio, for example, is seriously considering reform in this area).
 
Men need to be able to opt out of Child Support if they do not want to be a father (legally). The woman can use her legal Constitutiinal right to birth control if she does not want to or can not support the child on her own. (Of course there are some exceptions).

She informs him of pregnancy. He makes hos choice. She retains 100% bodily autonomy and then makes her choice to abort or not.

There will be some exceptions obviously...

This argument is about POST CONCEPTION OPTIONS.

AFTER CONCEPTION.

Please dont be one of the many that will show up and say... "golly darnit he had his choice when he came... or... he has no choice"

THE LAW forces his monetary contribution. Laws can change.

Without the law he could just walk away. This is about CHANGING THE CHILD SUPPORT LAWS.

Because people will undoubtedly try to insult me personally... dead beat and what not... I am pro choice. I have equal care of my kids. This is a hypothetical argument about creating fairness of post conception choices for men.

Yes. Practice safe sex and use birth control...

Thoughts?
You got it a bit backwards.

1. She finds out she is pregnant.

2. She decides if she should tell anyone or have an abortion.

3. If not choosing an abortion, she either tells someone or not, chooses to inform daddy or not

4. If she changes her mind, regardless of #3, and wants to either keep it or abort it, still her choice.

5. Baby is born:
....a) she chooses whether to keep it or adopt it out
....b) she chooses whether to tell someone one or not
....c) she informs baby baddy and asks for money

6. Baby daddy gets to finally make a choice: Pay or walk away.
 
You got it a bit backwards.

1. She finds out she is pregnant.

2. She decides if she should tell anyone or have an abortion.

3. If not abortions she tells someone or not

4. IF she changes her mind and wants to either keep it or abort, still her choice.

5. Baby is born:
....a) she chooses whether to keep it or adopt it out
....b) she chooses whether to tell someone one or not
....c) she informs baby baddy and asks for money

6. Baby daddy gets to finally make a choice: Pay or walk away.

As long as he gets a post conception opt out like she does... that is fine.
 
Men need to be able to opt out of Child Support if they do not want to be a father (legally). The woman can use her legal Constitutiinal right to birth control if she does not want to or can not support the child on her own. (Of course there are some exceptions).

She informs him of pregnancy. He makes hos choice. She retains 100% bodily autonomy and then makes her choice to abort or not.

There will be some exceptions obviously...

This argument is about POST CONCEPTION OPTIONS.

AFTER CONCEPTION.

Please dont be one of the many that will show up and say... "golly darnit he had his choice when he came... or... he has no choice"

THE LAW forces his monetary contribution. Laws can change.

Without the law he could just walk away. This is about CHANGING THE CHILD SUPPORT LAWS.

Because people will undoubtedly try to insult me personally... dead beat and what not... I am pro choice. I have equal care of my kids. This is a hypothetical argument about creating fairness of post conception choices for men.

Yes. Practice safe sex and use birth control...

Thoughts?

Yep been saying the same thing for years and so do many many others. Ill just qoute myself from another thread

Ill say the same thing I say everytime this topic comes up

Currently the parental laws are unfair, unrest and unequal.

How it should work for BOTH parties is like this.

Since the woman has the right to abort I like using the abortion time frame of 24 weeks because its logical.
Start with the woman

Once the woman is pregnant she has the right to abort, if she is aborting, thats that

If she is not aborting or not sure she has to notify the father by at the latest by the 16 week mark, in return the man must decided if he wants to keep or negate his rights by the 20 week mark still giving the woman time to abort

She can now:
choose to negate her rights, giving the child up for adoption/the state. (If the father wants custody and did not choose to negate his rights he of course has first choice)
choose to keep her rights and custody can be agreed upon or arbitrated in court with the father

For the man
He must be notified by the 16 week mark, if he is not then of course the enforced time frame response of 20 weeks is now void and he gets at least 4 weeks after notification to decide.

he can now:
choose to negate his rights, giving the child up for adoption/the state. (or the mother keeps custody if she wanted it)
choose to keep his rights and custody can be agreed upon or arbitrated in court with the father

if either part negates said rights they are negated for good unless the party with custody chooses to make it otherwise or extreme circumstances. Death, abuse etc.

Under this system its about as equal as it gets, both parties get to choose to keep or negate their parental rights and nothing is forced

basic common sense fairness equality and probably generate the best environment.
 
"Kill my responsibility or be financially ruined"

Back to the stone ages.
 
Men need to be able to opt out of Child Support if they do not want to be a father (legally). The woman can use her legal Constitutiinal right to birth control if she does not want to or can not support the child on her own. (Of course there are some exceptions).

She informs him of pregnancy. He makes hos choice. She retains 100% bodily autonomy and then makes her choice to abort or not.

There will be some exceptions obviously...

This argument is about POST CONCEPTION OPTIONS.

AFTER CONCEPTION.

Please dont be one of the many that will show up and say... "golly darnit he had his choice when he came... or... he has no choice"

THE LAW forces his monetary contribution. Laws can change.

Without the law he could just walk away. This is about CHANGING THE CHILD SUPPORT LAWS.

Because people will undoubtedly try to insult me personally... dead beat and what not... I am pro choice. I have equal care of my kids. This is a hypothetical argument about creating fairness of post conception choices for men.

Yes. Practice safe sex and use birth control...

Thoughts?

The law is not meant to guarantee equal outcomes. Just equal rights and equal responsibilities

Both parents are responsible for providing for their offspring
 
Men need to be able to opt out of Child Support if they do not want to be a father (legally). The woman can use her legal Constitutiinal right to birth control if she does not want to or can not support the child on her own. (Of course there are some exceptions).

She informs him of pregnancy. He makes hos choice. She retains 100% bodily autonomy and then makes her choice to abort or not.

There will be some exceptions obviously...

This argument is about POST CONCEPTION OPTIONS.

AFTER CONCEPTION.

Please dont be one of the many that will show up and say... "golly darnit he had his choice when he came... or... he has no choice"

THE LAW forces his monetary contribution. Laws can change.

Without the law he could just walk away. This is about CHANGING THE CHILD SUPPORT LAWS.

Because people will undoubtedly try to insult me personally... dead beat and what not... I am pro choice. I have equal care of my kids. This is a hypothetical argument about creating fairness of post conception choices for men.

Yes. Practice safe sex and use birth control...

Thoughts?

What makes you think there is anything new to add here that wasnt covered in Renae's thread this week?

There is no way to make it equal under the law *if* the law remains that the govt has zero say in a woman's right to choose.

What is your solution that would make it apply equally to men but not inequally to all the taxpayers that would end up having to assist in the support of that child?

Because there is nothing equal, just, or fair about making the child or the taxpayers suffer because of decisions knowingly made and chosen by the 2 parties directly responsible for that kid ?

Is it your claim that it would be more 'equal' to force those responsibilities on taxpayers? If so, then I object, as a taxpayer, to the exact same inequity that you are describing for men, with the same amount of outrage.

The taxpayers deserve to opt out when the parents are available.
 
Last edited:
Men need to be able to opt out of Child Support if they do not want to be a father (legally). The woman can use her legal Constitutiinal right to birth control if she does not want to or can not support the child on her own. (Of course there are some exceptions).

She informs him of pregnancy. He makes hos choice. She retains 100% bodily autonomy and then makes her choice to abort or not.

There will be some exceptions obviously...

This argument is about POST CONCEPTION OPTIONS.

AFTER CONCEPTION.

Please dont be one of the many that will show up and say... "golly darnit he had his choice when he came... or... he has no choice"

THE LAW forces his monetary contribution. Laws can change.

Without the law he could just walk away. This is about CHANGING THE CHILD SUPPORT LAWS.

Because people will undoubtedly try to insult me personally... dead beat and what not... I am pro choice. I have equal care of my kids. This is a hypothetical argument about creating fairness of post conception choices for men.

Yes. Practice safe sex and use birth control...

Thoughts?



This is why you were equipped with thumbs!
 
What makes you think there is anything new to add here that wasnt covered in Renae's thread this week?

There is no way to make it equal under the law *if* the law remains that the govt has zero say in a woman's right to choose.

What is your solution that would make it apply equally to men but not inequally to all the taxpayers that would end up having to assist in the support of that child?

Because there is nothing equal, just, or fair about making the child or the taxpayers suffer because of decisions knowingly made and chosen by the 2 parties directly responsible for that kid ?

Is it your claim that it would be more 'equal' to force those responsibilities on taxpayers? If so, then I object, as a taxpayer, to the exact same inequity that you are describing for men, with the same amount of outrage.

The taxpayers deserve to opt out when the parents are available.

Then end welfare -- that's the opt out. Don't prioritize taxpayer rights over individual rights. As I've argued before, it's in the taxpayers' best interest to force a poor, single woman to abort. We put the woman's rights above the taxpayers' for a very good reason. Men's rights should come first, too.
 
Last edited:
The law is not meant to guarantee equal outcomes. Just equal rights and equal responsibilities

Both parents are responsible for providing for their offspring

That's where the breakdown lies.
 
Then end welfare -- that's the opt out. Quite prioritizing taxpayer rights over individual rights. As I've argued before, it's in the taxpayers' best interest to force a poor, single woman to abort. We put the woman's rights about the taxpayers' for a very good reason. Men's rights should come first, too.

So no poor single dad's get child support or welfare?

Anyway, the taxpayers have no say over a woman's Constitutional right to abort either.

And plenty of us have complained against entitlement programs. They arent going anywhere. But it appears..and this isnt an accusation, it's implied directly in your post, that you think it would be better for the kids to suffer rather than make the responsible parents pay...simply by removing their safety nets.
 
So no poor single dad's get child support or welfare?

Anyway, the taxpayers have no say over a woman's Constitutional right to abort either.

And plenty of us have complained against entitlement programs. They arent going anywhere. But it appears..and this isnt an accusation, it's implied directly in your post, that you think it would be better for the kids to suffer rather than make the responsible parents pay...simply by removing their safety nets.

Well that's not my preferred solution. I personally support welfare programs. As to the single dads -- the fact is that only 30% of custodials are dads, and only 30% of them get support payments. Moms overwhelmingly are the recipients of child support. But, really, that's irrelevant to our dispute here. My basic argument is that individual rights come first -- moms, dads, kids, etc. before taxpayers or society at large.
 
Well that's not my preferred solution. I personally support welfare programs. As to the single dads -- the fact is that only 30% of custodials are dads, and only 30% of them get support payments. Moms overwhelmingly are the recipients of child support. But, really, that's irrelevant to our dispute here. My basic argument is that individual rights come first -- moms, dads, kids, etc. before taxpayers or society at large.

I'm all for men requesting and getting custody or joint custody and spending more time in their kids' lives.

And the courts are recognizing this more and more.

That has nothing to do with the law, it has to do with the individual judges who decide...and are mostly men.

The law is designed to be equal.

But forcing the taxpayers to pay for kids when the *parents are available and wholly responsible for producing that kid* is a huge failure of the govt to represent the taxpayers....it's not an endless well...for every dollar spent on kids that have parents available, the kids needing social services, foster care, etc...will get less.

So that wouldnt be fair to kids, taxpayers, OR those also in need. It's even more sickening when people just casually think, fine, just let the taxpayers pay more...when those same people are outraged when we claim the same about the actual responsible parties.
 
Last edited:
Without the law he could just walk away. This is about CHANGING THE CHILD SUPPORT LAWS.

AFAIK, child support laws apply equally to men and women. Neither can opt out...it's either custody, joint custody, or child support.

The law is equal, if it's not applied equally, that is the fault of the courts...with mostly male judges.

If the law is not equal in some states or counties, then I believe they should be.

And if a woman has a baby and wants to opt out thru adoption, the laws should be changed to make her inform the father first. (they dont in all states). And if he chooses custody, then he has the right to child support from her.

Again: the law can and is AFAIK, be equal for both sexes for child support.
 
What makes you think there is anything new to add here that wasnt covered in Renae's thread this week?

There is no way to make it equal under the law *if* the law remains that the govt has zero say in a woman's right to choose.

What is your solution that would make it apply equally to men but not inequally to all the taxpayers that would end up having to assist in the support of that child?

Because there is nothing equal, just, or fair about making the child or the taxpayers suffer because of decisions knowingly made and chosen by the 2 parties directly responsible for that kid ?

Is it your claim that it would be more 'equal' to force those responsibilities on taxpayers? If so, then I object, as a taxpayer, to the exact same inequity that you are describing for men, with the same amount of outrage.

The taxpayers deserve to opt out when the parents are available.

Taxpayers argument is a pretty meaningless one and basically nil since taxes go to 1000s of things that people dont like.
Taxes are ALREADY going to kids and new families and needy families (moms dads, guardians and kids)
Are you against ALL of that or just a possible increase in it? If its the later that seems pretty hypocritical and or illogical.

What bodi and i and many others have suggested is actually VERY equal even for the tax payers because THEY TO would get the benefit if they choose it. EVERYBODY would have their taxes go to this issue (just like now_ so yes its is equal.

Looking at it in any other light is nothing new and a failed argument. Its the same meaningless argument when people talk about taxes for the many many things they dont use, transportation, roads, parks. health care, education and infrastructure of all types etc etc. Many people ask why their taxes go to things they dont use or dont want. thats simply how taxes work.

If you have a sustainable solution to fix the tax issue im all for it.Please present it if you do. If we had a tax system that could achieve everything it needs while letting people op in and out based on their own personal feelings id be very interested in it.
 
Then end welfare -- that's the opt out. Don't prioritize taxpayer rights over individual rights. As I've argued before, it's in the taxpayers' best interest to force a poor, single woman to abort. We put the woman's rights above the taxpayers' for a very good reason. Men's rights should come first, too.

I agree completely, although if she doesn't abort, I feel as though society owes a slight debt to the underage American citizen who might otherwise perish or be malnourished.

I've always felt that men deserve to be able to opt-out of fatherhood (post-conception) just as women are able to opt out. I also believe that by allowing the biological fathers to opt out (within a specified time frame), that the biological mothers will be more likely to abort, knowing they won't be able to depend on the father's child support. And that's really the best of all possible solutions.

And yes, the taxpayers might be on the hook occasionally, but I think it's a necessary price to pay in order to allow both sexes to have post-conception opt-out rights.
 
What bodi and i and many others have suggested is actually VERY equal even for the tax payers because THEY TO would get the benefit if they choose it. EVERYBODY would have their taxes go to this issue (just like now_ so yes its is equal.

I'm not sure it would be a significant increase to taxpayers. I've heard too many stories from single mothers that seem to feel trapping the former boyfriend in 18 years of child support gives the woman some sort of "victory" over the man. But, if a pregnant woman knows that she cannot punish the man, nor can she tie him to her for 18 years, via child support, I think a big majority of those women would choose to abort.

Of course, some women just really want to have a raise the child, and I think that's admirable, but not when the man doesn't have a choice. And, I mean a post-conception choice. Both should obviously take precautions during sex.

So, we may see a slight increase in welfare programs, but I don't really think it'd be substantial. Considering that the biological father rarely pays enough support to put the woman and children in a nice home, nice clothes, healthy food, etc., the woman is often on welfare of some type anyway. The reduction in unwanted births I think would come very close to offsetting the taxpayer burden.

But, even if the taxpayers do pay more -- I think it's a valid expenditure in order to ensure equal rights (post-conception) for both.
 
I agree completely, although if she doesn't abort, I feel as though society owes a slight debt to the underage American citizen who might otherwise perish or be malnourished.

I've always felt that men deserve to be able to opt-out of fatherhood (post-conception) just as women are able to opt out. I also believe that by allowing the biological fathers to opt out (within a specified time frame), that the biological mothers will be more likely to abort, knowing they won't be able to depend on the father's child support. And that's really the best of all possible solutions.

And yes, the taxpayers might be on the hook occasionally, but I think it's a necessary price to pay in order to allow both sexes to have post-conception opt-out rights.

I agree and the reality is nothign really changes. Right now taxpayer money already goes to children and a mix of families in need. What this changes is when and how that is determined. So for tax payers nothing really changes, before this money went to needed children and families, after this the same will continue.
 
1.) I'm not sure it would be a significant increase to taxpayers. I've heard too many stories from single mothers that seem to feel trapping the former boyfriend in 18 years of child support gives the woman some sort of "victory" over the man. But, if a pregnant woman knows that she cannot punish the man, nor can she tie him to her for 18 years, via child support, I think a big majority of those women would choose to abort.

2.) Of course, some women just really want to have a raise the child, and I think that's admirable, but not when the man doesn't have a choice. And, I mean a post-conception choice. Both should obviously take precautions during sex.

3.) So, we may see a slight increase in welfare programs, but I don't really think it'd be substantial. Considering that the biological father rarely pays enough support to put the woman and children in a nice home, nice clothes, healthy food, etc., the woman is often on welfare of some type anyway. The reduction in unwanted births I think would come very close to offsetting the taxpayer burden.

4.) But, even if the taxpayers do pay more -- I think it's a valid expenditure in order to ensure equal rights (post-conception) for both.

1.) I agree 100% I actually dont think we'd see a significant increase in moneys or abortions. An increase possibly but anything monumental is doubtful and in abortions I think the tread will continue to get lower and lower like it has been.
2.) absolutely
3.) I also agree here too but IMO all those programs need revamped anyway and like you suggest I think it will all offset eachother.
4.) well thats 4 for 4 :)
 
Men need to be able to opt out of Child Support if they do not want to be a father (legally).
Why do men (or women) need that ability? I can understand it be considered desirable but I think the word "need" pushes the argument a significant step further which I think requires independent justification.

This is a hypothetical argument about creating fairness of post conception choices for men.
The circumstances aren't ever fair or equal and it is literally impossible to manufacture equality or fairness in the consequences. Your argument effectively presents the idea that ticking a box and signing a form is equivalent to opting for a serious invasive clinical procedure. That's never going to be the case, however much we'd like to work out a nice neat conclusion that works for everyone.
 
Why do men (or women) need that ability? I can understand it be considered desirable but I think the word "need" pushes the argument a significant step further which I think requires independent justification.

The circumstances aren't ever fair or equal and it is literally impossible to manufacture equality or fairness in the consequences. Your argument effectively presents the idea that ticking a box and signing a form is equivalent to opting for a serious invasive clinical procedure. That's never going to be the case, however much we'd like to work out a nice neat conclusion that works for everyone.

I agree that we could never make it 100% equal, but we can make it a lot more equal, and that should be our goal. Perhaps we could require the man to pay for the abortion. Of course, he'd never experience the same physical event, but in that way he'd bear that initial cost of the abortion, while the woman would undergo the physical experience. But, that's a very small price for both to pay to keep from having an 18 year financial and emotional commitment.

We also cannot make it completely fair if the woman wants to abort but the man doesn't, but, in that situation, the woman really has to have the final say. At least we can get closer to fair by letting the man opt-out. I think that's probably the best we can do.
 
Men need to be able to opt out of Child Support if they do not want to be a father (legally). The woman can use her legal Constitutiinal right to birth control if she does not want to or can not support the child on her own. (Of course there are some exceptions).

She informs him of pregnancy. He makes hos choice. She retains 100% bodily autonomy and then makes her choice to abort or not.

There will be some exceptions obviously...

This argument is about POST CONCEPTION OPTIONS.

AFTER CONCEPTION.

Please dont be one of the many that will show up and say... "golly darnit he had his choice when he came... or... he has no choice"

THE LAW forces his monetary contribution. Laws can change.

Without the law he could just walk away. This is about CHANGING THE CHILD SUPPORT LAWS.

Because people will undoubtedly try to insult me personally... dead beat and what not... I am pro choice. I have equal care of my kids. This is a hypothetical argument about creating fairness of post conception choices for men.

Yes. Practice safe sex and use birth control...

Thoughts?

Yeah, nonsense.

How about men using pre-birth control?

If men do not want to become fathers then either not have sex, or use birth control. To then claim that men should be able to opt out of paying child support is just nonsensical IMHO.
 
The law is not meant to guarantee equal outcomes. Just equal rights and equal responsibilities

Both parents are responsible for providing for their offspring

That ignores the topic argument...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom