• 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.
Lursa said:
You just reiterated my position incorrectly, again.

And it's not applicable universally...you want it to be, but it's not.

Taxpayers are stuck paying for the wellbeing of the child. But there's no reason we should be the first ones at that table. That's what both parents are for. Dont like it, dont produce a kid. If you do, sue for joint or full custody and establish some equity you think is being denied.

You see taxpayers as a bottomless pit...ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Or have an abortion
 
Lursa said:
Their produce, their problem.

A problem they had a choice to avoid. And why should I repeat that I dont care about their pain (either sex)...*I* shouldnt pay for their kid if they are available. I am already paying for millions of others without available parents. If you want to do that, go right ahead and make some donations. Why arent you doing that now? Are you? Are you paying into some fund to go ONLY to men that you believe are struggling to pay child support? How about that as a solution? A private foundation.

Are those answers no? Oh well, then dont bother me when I dont want to spend more of my hard earned money on kids other people produced.

And it applies to both sexes and I dont care who pays those consequences. Has nothing to do with 'dads' only.

I said earlier, men have options: dont risk pregnancy, get joint custody, get full custody.

(And btw, I do donate to PP for birth control, abortion, etc)
Click to expand...

I'm an advocate for child support reform. I

Then we have a fundamental philosophical disagreement that can't be ironed out. As a liberal, I believe the state should use it's resources to help those who demonstrate need for it. I believe that welfare is proper to aid those in hard times. I support universal health care. i support progressive taxation. I believe in using state resources to care for orphaned and abandoned children. I believe in individual rights, including privacy and body autonomy (including abortion). And I believe these programs should be available to all, regardless of sex or race. Obviously, you disagree.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
I'm an advocate for child support reform. I

Then we have a fundamental philosophical disagreement that can't be ironed out. As a liberal, I believe the state should use it's resources to help those who demonstrate need for it. I believe that welfare is proper to aid those in hard times. I support universal health care. i support progressive taxation. I believe in using state resources to care for orphaned and abandoned children. I believe in individual rights, including privacy and body autonomy (including abortion). And I believe these programs should be available to all, regardless of sex or race. Obviously, you disagree.
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
And think about it: if you gave men the option to opt out...they would, almost all. And so its not just a few kids...it's most.

And there's also no way to stop men from contacting their kids, before or after age 18 to develop a relationship with them. Not really. And how wrong would it be to stop them? To deny a kid their father? So men would still have it both ways.

Yeah...there's nothing unfair, unjust, or unequal here at all.
Click to expand...

Apparently screwing over the taxpayers in order to avoid consequences is something men feel strongly about fighting for. I say, "go for it!" Hold your heads up and be proud. But at least you cant say it's not equal...because child support laws are. Not my fault if more men wont fight for joint or full custody.
 
Lursa said:
You just reiterated my position incorrectly, again.

And it's not applicable universally...you want it to be, but it's not.

Taxpayers are stuck paying for the wellbeing of the child. But there's no reason we should be the first ones at that table. That's what both parents are for. Dont like it, dont produce a kid. If you do, sue for joint or full custody and establish some equity you think is being denied.

You see taxpayers as a bottomless pit...ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Should poor families pay back taxpayers for food stamps? Should single moms pay back tuition assistance after graduating? Should sick people pay back Medicaid after they get better?
 
Lursa said:
Apparently screwing over the taxpayers in order to avoid consequences is something men feel strongly about fighting for. I say, "go for it!" Hold your heads up and be proud. But at least you cant say it's not equal...because child support laws are. Not my fault if more men wont fight for joint or full custody.
Click to expand...

Then women should stop screwing over tax payers
 
Lursa said:
Apparently screwing over the taxpayers in order to avoid consequences is something men feel strongly about fighting for. I say, "go for it!" Hold your heads up and be proud. But at least you cant say it's not equal...because child support laws are. Not my fault if more men wont fight for joint or full custody.
Click to expand...

Most men would not opt out. You have a very low opinion of men. That's the fundamental sexism hiding under your arguments.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Should poor families pay back taxpayers for food stamps? Should single moms pay back tuition assistance after graduating? Should sick people pay back Medicaid after they get better?
Click to expand...

I think there is a difference between being poor and unable to support and refusing to support when you have resources.

People who are truly poor - no payback should be required.

People who refuse to support - well that is another situation.

What I would fight for is a more fair child support structure and fairer custody arrangements.
 
year2late said:
I think there is a difference between being poor and unable to support and refusing to support when you have resources.

People who are truly poor - no payback should be required.

People who refuse to support - well that is another situation.

What I would fight for is a more fair child support structure and fairer custody arrangements.
Click to expand...

And a opt out post conception for both parties
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Should poor families pay back taxpayers for food stamps? Should single moms pay back tuition assistance after graduating? Should sick people pay back Medicaid after they get better?
Click to expand...

Again...no direct causal relationship. I have answered all this. You dont like the answers, I get it.

You think it's fine for taxpayers to pay for a parent's responsibilities when they are available...I get it.

I think it's wrong.

You can attempt to make them parallel all you want...they still arent. So stop repeating yourself. You have not *made* that argument, it failed.
 
year2late said:
I think there is a difference between being poor and unable to support and refusing to support when you have resources.

People who are truly poor - no payback should be required.

People who refuse to support - well that is another situation.

What I would fight for is a more fair child support structure and fairer custody arrangements.
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with this.
 
year2late said:
I think there is a difference between being poor and unable to support and refusing to support when you have resources.

People who are truly poor - no payback should be required.

People who refuse to support - well that is another situation.

What I would fight for is a more fair child support structure and fairer custody arrangements.
Click to expand...

It's utterly ridiculous, the attempts to make those things 'the same.'

I'm all for fairer custody arrangements...I saw no guys here demanding that in discussions on 'equity' when I mentioned it.(Altho other men and women have regarding family law in general)

And they arent because they dont want that either...they want off the hook, period.
 
Lursa said:
Again...no direct causal relationship. I have answered all this. You dont like the answers, I get it.

You think it's fine for taxpayers to pay for a parent's responsibilities when they are available...I get it.

I think it's wrong.

You can attempt to make them parallel all you want...they still arent. So stop repeating yourself. You have not *made* that argument, it failed.
Click to expand...

There is no child if there is an opt out
 
GhostlyJoe said:
I'm not sure why that would matter in terms of this argument. We're arguing for reform of the current laws. Why is that SC relevant. Women who are morally against abortion can still legally choose to have one.
Click to expand...

Because the most predominate argument by men today is directly related to the notion that since women have the "legal option" to abort prior to viability, then men should have the "legal option" to opt out of financial responsibility prior to viability.

Most women who support Roe v Wade won't have an abortion due to their moral objection to them personally having an abortion except in cases where their life is in jeopardy, their long-term health could be at stake, in cases of rape, and incest. But because of the aforementioned reasons that women who won't have an abortion on demand for reasons other that those posted, they understand the necessity for abortion being legal.

Several of men have stated that if a woman won't have an abortion because of their moral beliefs then they shouldn't have sex. That's code for - they should keep their legs closed.
 
Removable Mind said:
Because the most predominate argument by men today is directly related to the notion that since women have the "legal option" to abort prior to viability, then men should have the "legal option" to opt out of financial responsibility prior to viability.

Most women who support Roe v Wade won't have an abortion due to their moral objection to them personally having an abortion except in cases where their life is in jeopardy, their long-term health could be at stake, in cases of rape, and incest. But because of the aforementioned reasons that women who won't have an abortion on demand for reasons other that those posted, they understand the necessity for abortion being legal.

Several of men have stated that if a woman won't have an abortion because of their moral beliefs then they shouldn't have sex. That's code for - they should keep their legs closed.
Click to expand...

They are welcome to give up the child for adoption
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Most men would not opt out. You have a very low opinion of men. That's the fundamental sexism hiding under your arguments.
Click to expand...

No, I do not. You and the others keep implying that men are incapable of making a good choice in having sex and avoiding consequences...I keep saying that of course, they can.

and of course they'd opt out if they could. Look at history and tell me differently...it's not like it hasnt 'been tried before.' We do have historical data about men getting women pregnant out of wedlock. :doh

And it's not sexist because I'd guess that women would do the same if their were comparable circumstances.
 
Lursa said:
Again...no direct causal relationship. I have answered all this. You dont like the answers, I get it.

You think it's fine for taxpayers to pay for a parent's responsibilities when they are available...I get it.

I think it's wrong.

You can attempt to make them parallel all you want...they still arent. So stop repeating yourself. You have not *made* that argument, it failed.
Click to expand...

Having sex is not a direct causal relationship to a child needing food assistance!

And I haven't even got to my point about single moms with means. Taxpayers are irrelevant to child support payments in those scenarios, but there is still the issue of the long-term transfer of wealth beyond basic needs (such as my example about the mortgage).
 
vegas giants said:
There is no child if there is an opt out
Click to expand...

There is no mandatory or lawful reason to force women into having an abortion prior to viability. So those women who don't or won't have an abortion for whatever reason, there is an embryo or early stage fetus that will be allowed to develop beyond viability. So yes...there could be a child if it's different stage live until it's born,
 
Lursa said:
No, I do not. You and the others keep implying that men are incapable of making a good choice in having sex and avoiding consequences...I keep saying that of course, they can.

and of course they'd opt out if they could. Look at history and tell me differently...it's not like it hasnt 'been tried before.' We do have historical data about men getting women pregnant out of wedlock. :doh
Click to expand...

We have long history of men working long, hard hours to support their families, descending into coal mines so they can feed and house their children, going to war to protect their communities, etc., etc. Most men are not running away from responsibility and they never have!
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Having sex is not a direct causal relationship to a child needing food assistance!

And I haven't even got to my point about single moms with means. Taxpayers are irrelevant to child support payments in those scenarios, but there is still the issue of the long-term transfer of wealth beyond basic needs (such as my example about the mortgage).
Click to expand...

The SC doesn't care. The State governments don't care how a child came into being or who contributed DNA for a conception to begin and a birth of a child results
 
Removable Mind said:
There is no mandatory or lawful reason to force women into having an abortion prior to viability. So those women who don't or won't have an abortion for whatever reason, there is an embryo or early stage fetus that will be allowed to develop beyond viability. So yes...there could be a child if it's different stage live until it's born,
Click to expand...

The woman is free to make any decision she wishes. And then take responsibility for that decision
 
Removable Mind said:
The SC doesn't care. The State governments don't care how a child came into being or who contributed DNA for a conception to begin and a birth of a child results
Click to expand...

They should care
 
vegas giants said:
They are welcome to give up the child for adoption
Click to expand...

Only about 1 percent will take that LEGAL OPTION. There's 10s of thousands of children who are wards of the state waiting to be adopted. Again, if a women doesn't want to take that option there is no legal mandate to force them to.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Having sex is not a direct causal relationship to a child needing food assistance!

And I haven't even got to my point about single moms with means. Taxpayers are irrelevant to child support payments in those scenarios, but there is still the issue of the long-term transfer of wealth beyond basic needs (such as my example about the mortgage).
Click to expand...

Producing a kid that needs it is.

And if men dont like it (mother has means or not)...they can apply for joint or full custody. But the state and society has an interest in the best possible raising of that child and financial resources enable that.

If you dont like it...do not give a woman the opportunity to have a kid with you. WHY is that not possible? Why is that unacceptable as an option for you? Direct questions.

Again, you make men seem stupid and pathetic as if they are incapable of protecting themselves.
 
Removable Mind said:
Only about 1 percent will take that LEGAL OPTION. There's 10s of thousands of children who are wards of the state waiting to be adopted. Again, if a women doesn't want to take that option there is no legal mandate to force them to.
Click to expand...

And they are not forced to if men are given an opt out
 
GhostlyJoe said:
We have long history of men working long, hard hours to support their families, descending into coal mines so they can feed and house their children, going to war to protect their communities, etc., etc. Most men are not running away from responsibility and they never have!
Click to expand...

Those are married men. And plenty abandoned their families as well.

But dont lie, historically men ran from pregnant women like deer from a brushfire.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom