• 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 Post-Conception Opt Out

weaver2 said:
If a woman has an abortion (abandons) the fetus. That is the end of support for the fetus. If a man abandons the same fetus, the child has lost that man's support for the rest of it's life. That's the difference between a woman refusing responsibility and the male refusing responsibility.
Click to expand...
Yes thats absolutely true. I would not argue otherwise.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
I see what bodi suggested as a decent compromise. If an accidental pregnancy occurs the woman can chose to abort same as now and a man would have the right to be notified that he is going to be a father and given a window of time to abdicate his rights as the father if he so chooses. I think thwts reasonable.

The truth is its never gonna be completely fair to everyone. The child its certainly unfair to because they have no say in the decissions made. It cant be helped but its not fair. Its also unfair to the male who wants to be a father but his oartner decides to abort. Its unfair to the women who want their childs father to be part of the childs life but he does not want that. You cant make everyone happy. Its just an improvement to the current laws.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I see the attempt to solve the problem, but I can't say I support it.

But anyway, thanks for the convo. This thread has ended-up being one of the most thought provoking I've had since I've been here. But, I'm outta' here for now. Take care.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Men to should be able to opt out of Child Support if they do not want to be a father (legally). The woman can use her legal Constitutional 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).

This would give men the same rights as women... having a post-conception Opt Out of being a parent and not caring for the child.

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 don't 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 woman legally has a choice post-conception.
The man legally has not choice post-conception...

THE LAW forces his monetary contribution on the man for the woman's choice. This is a legal argument, not a biological one. Laws can change.

Without the law he could just walk away. This is about Potentially Changing Child Support Laws to attain EQUAL RIGHTS.

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?
Click to expand...

Yes of course if we are looking to make it equal as far as the law is concerned that is the best way.
CUrrently legally its unequal so this would help that.


The woman should be required to notify the man in a certain time frame. Since RvW is 24 weeks lets say, the man has to be notified in the first 12 weeks and then he has to make an official decision to keep or negate his parental rights.
If he negates them, thats that. Theres no getting them back unless the mother elects to give them back or extreme circumstance. Death/abuse.

This also allows the woman time to base her decision if she is keeping the pregnancy or not based on that information.

If he decides he does NOT want to negate his rights then everything stays the same as now

the woman may abort if she wants
she may not abort but give up her rights
they both may decide to give up the child for adoption
etc

Its the only way to do it if one is interested in legal equality.
 
trouble13 said:
Am i to understand that you believe abortion should not be a legal option for women?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I begrudgingly fall on the side of keeping abortion legal because all evidence suggests that criminalizing it doesn't reduce its incidence. But do I consider abortion murder? Absolutely, 100%.

Having said this, reading these articles about the movement to extend "opt out" rights to the father--which is frankly the logical and inevitable consequence of granting such rights to the mother--is chilling my blood. Hence I can't say with certainty I'm not a damned fool for tolerating legality.
 
COTO said:
I begrudgingly fall on the side of keeping abortion legal because all evidence suggests that criminalizing it doesn't reduce its incidence. But do I consider abortion murder? Absolutely, 100%.

Having said this, reading these articles about the movement to extend "opt out" rights to the father--which is frankly the logical and inevitable consequence of granting such rights to the mother--is chilling my blood. Hence I can't say with certainty I'm not a damned fool for tolerating legality.
Click to expand...

/// I ........keeping abortion 'legal' /// <----> /// I consider abortion 'murder' /// Considering murder is 'illegal' per the laws of the land, how do you rectify your stance(s) on abortion ?. It appears, based on your own words, you want 'murder' to 'remain legal.'
 
COTO said:
I begrudgingly fall on the side of keeping abortion legal because all evidence suggests that criminalizing it doesn't reduce its incidence. But do I consider abortion murder? Absolutely, 100%.

Having said this, reading these articles about the movement to extend "opt out" rights to the father--which is frankly the logical and inevitable consequence of granting such rights to the mother--is chilling my blood. Hence I can't say with certainty I'm not a damned fool for tolerating legality.
Click to expand...
I can respect where you're coming from on that. I think the idea of a man opting out is consistent with the prochoice position and the idea that a man has an obligation to take the responsibility for the life he created is consistent with the prolife position.

I personally am not married to either. I can live with law being either or but i would like the law to be principally consistent in how it treats men and women. Treat them as alike as reasonably possible.

Pardon the pun but the reality is that this is a hard baby to split. There is no one size fits all answer.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
AGENT J said:
Yes of course if we are looking to make it equal as far as the law is concerned that is the best way.
CUrrently legally its unequal so this would help that.


The woman should be required to notify the man in a certain time frame. Since RvW is 24 weeks lets say, the man has to be notified in the first 12 weeks and then he has to make an official decision to keep or negate his parental rights.
If he negates them, thats that. Theres no getting them back unless the mother elects to give them back or extreme circumstance. Death/abuse.

This also allows the woman time to base her decision if she is keeping the pregnancy or not based on that information.

If he decides he does NOT want to negate his rights then everything stays the same as now

the woman may abort if she wants
she may not abort but give up her rights
they both may decide to give up the child for adoption
etc

Its the only way to do it if one is interested in legal equality.
Click to expand...
Its not the only way but its probably the most palatable way.

Another option is to take away abortion rights. Then both parents are legally stuck being parents whether they want to or not.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Logician Man said:
/// I ........keeping abortion 'legal' /// <----> /// I consider abortion 'murder' /// Considering murder is 'illegal' per the laws of the land, how do you rectify your stance(s) on abortion ?. It appears, based on your own words, you want 'murder' to 'remain legal.'
Click to expand...
I understand you believe abortion is immoral and i respect that feel that way but calling it murder is inaccurate. Abortions are legal so they are not murder. Murder is a legal term.

When someone carries out a death sentence the executioner is not a murder. When a solider kills someone in combat they are not murders, etc...

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
I understand you believe abortion is immoral and i respect that feel that way but calling it murder is inaccurate. Abortions are legal so they are not murder. Murder is a legal term.

When someone carries out a death sentence the executioner is not a murder. When a solider kills someone in combat they are not murders, etc...

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You must have me confused with someone else. I'm pro-choice and have never claimed, nor believe, abortion is immoral. Neither have I ever referred to abortion as murder. That would be intellectually dishonest and silly.
 
Logician Man said:
You must have me confused with someone else. I'm pro-choice and have never claimed, nor believe, abortion is immoral. Neither have I ever referred to abortion as murder. That would be intellectually dishonest and silly.
Click to expand...
Whst was post 155 about?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Whst was post 155 about?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The words between the slashes belong to COTO ( post 154 ). I was asking how he rectified keeping abortion 'legal' when he claims abortion is 'murder', which, obviously, is 'illegal'.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Men to should be able to opt out of Child Support if they do not want to be a father (legally). The woman can use her legal Constitutional 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).

This would give men the same rights as women... having a post-conception Opt Out of being a parent and not caring for the child.

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 don't 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 woman legally has a choice post-conception.
The man legally has not choice post-conception...

THE LAW forces his monetary contribution on the man for the woman's choice. This is a legal argument, not a biological one. Laws can change.

Without the law he could just walk away. This is about Potentially Changing Child Support Laws to attain EQUAL RIGHTS.

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?
Click to expand...

Isn't this thread almost an exact duplicate of at least two others you started a while back?


At any rate, I do agree.

I think a man should have a no-strings attached, opt-out option as long as the women can still safely and legally have an abortion.
Most especially if the woman is still very early-on in the pregnancy.


I do NOT believe he should be able to opt-out days, or even weeks before the baby is born.
No third trimester opt-outs.


It's got to be very early in the pregnancy. Before viability would be my preference.

Also, my thoughts above only stand for non-married couples.

For a married couple - I'd have to think about that a LOT more.
If the wife wants to keep the child I don't see how a husband could opt-out.

Two single people hook up and accidentally conceive, then yes - the man should have a one-time option to walk away (assuming the pregnancy is prior to viability).
 
Logician Man said:
/// I ........keeping abortion 'legal' /// <----> /// I consider abortion 'murder' /// Considering murder is 'illegal' per the laws of the land, how do you rectify your stance(s) on abortion ?. It appears, based on your own words, you want 'murder' to 'remain legal.'
Click to expand...
I want as few children in the womb to die as possible.

Statistics indicate that criminalization of abortion in the early 20th Century didn't reduce its incidence in the US. Clinics apparently operated with impunity in most places, and women found alternative means in the few jurisdictions that took enforcement seriously.

What good are man's laws if they have no effect on society's behaviour or on people's hearts and minds?

With the practice legalized, expectant mothers can at least approach ministers, parenting groups, and advocacy groups like "Save the Storks" without fear of legal repercussions. The more exposed to the light the pregnancy becomes, the more real the baby becomes to the mother, and the less likely she is to kill it. Another statistical reality.

As I say, I might be proved a damned fool for tolerating legality as time marches on. It's not without risks. Not only does legality bolster the Orwellian argument that abortion is "healthcare", it's now being used as a pretext for Western governments to suppress dissent to this argument. For example, France has outlawed websites that "deliberately mislead, intimidate and/or exert psychological or moral pressure to discourage recourse to abortion." There are similar pressures in other Western nations.

This thread highlights another risk: that abortion can just as easily be construed as a fundamental "opt out" right for the father as it can for the mother. After all, if there's nothing inherently morally wrong with abortion, its utility to spare one or both parents from a lifetime of responsibility is undeniable. It's inevitable that unwilling fathers would start demanding the same "opt out" rights as unwilling mothers. I wasn't aware this particular political movement is as far advanced as it is.

Hence perhaps time will prove me a fool for arguing the ends justify the means when it comes to legalization. Anyone who tells you the slippery slope isn't real or has a defined "bottom" is no scholar of human nature.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Men to should be able to opt out of Child Support if they do not want to be a father (legally). The woman can use her legal Constitutional 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).

This would give men the same rights as women... having a post-conception Opt Out of being a parent and not caring for the child.

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 don't 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 woman legally has a choice post-conception.
The man legally has not choice post-conception...

THE LAW forces his monetary contribution on the man for the woman's choice. This is a legal argument, not a biological one. Laws can change.

Without the law he could just walk away. This is about Potentially Changing Child Support Laws to attain EQUAL RIGHTS.

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?
Click to expand...

You do have a point. I think things may open up after birth.

At birth, the man could say "I'm not taking care of it, put it up for adoption". If the woman can legally give up the child for adoption, then the man should be able to as well.

Otherwise, we are looking at newborns as the 'property' of the mother.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Men to should be able to opt out of Child Support if they do not want to be a father (legally). The woman can use her legal Constitutional 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).

This would give men the same rights as women... having a post-conception Opt Out of being a parent and not caring for the child.

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 don't 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 woman legally has a choice post-conception.
The man legally has not choice post-conception...

THE LAW forces his monetary contribution on the man for the woman's choice. This is a legal argument, not a biological one. Laws can change.

Without the law he could just walk away. This is about Potentially Changing Child Support Laws to attain EQUAL RIGHTS.

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?
Click to expand...

160+ in only 14 hours. Pretty impressive.

False equivalency.

Child support is a post birth issue. Once the child is born, both parents are equally legally obligated for the care of the child. Furthermore the biological mother has no more of a right per se of terminating the ZEF. This is illustrated by the fact that if a surrogate is used, the biological mother can no longer decide she does not want to or can not support the child post birth. She is obligated unless she can convince the surrogate to abort. Similarly the biological mother's rights are not violated should the surrogate decide, or the biological father convince her, to have an abortion.

Now if medical technology and knowledge ever gets to the point where artificial wombs are reliable tech (as reliable as any of our life support tech goes) AND the process by which we extract the ZEF is the same for both transfer and abortion (and I am using this term contextually only here), then the situation of her ending the pregnancy while he can still have his offspring occurs. In such a case she would also be obligated for child support.

The bodily autonomy issues does create a false sense of the woman having a choice not to be obligated to the offspring. But in reality it is a natural consequence of a separate issue, and cannot be applied universally, whereas the bodily autonomy issue can.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
Rexedgar said:
If you think you might want to “opt out,” don’t put it in!
Click to expand...
Playing devil's advocate, why isn't it said to the woman, "If you think you might want to 'opt out' don't let it in!"?

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
Bodhisattva said:
I have addressed that neatly though...

- The decision to give birth

Once she finds out she is pregnant she informs him. He makes his choice thus allowing her all of the power and control over her own body and choice to remain pregnant or to abort.
Click to expand...

Now this brings up the inequality on the other side. Per your hypothetical, if she want the offspring, and he doesn't, he get the option to legally opt out and she gets to opt in. But what happens if he wants the offspring and she doesn't. She can opt out, but he cannot opt in. How do you propose to address that inequality since this thought experiment is about addressing the inequality between men and women?

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
Irredentist said:
You seem to be assuming that the male will pay child support. But in many cases this money is never collected even when the court orders that it be.
Click to expand...

This part is irrelevant, at least to the topic at hand. The father remains obligated regardless of whether he is meeting that obligation or not. The placing of the obligation and the enforcement of it are two separate things. This thread is about the placement of obligation.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
Rexedgar said:
I stumbled into this forum by accident; isn’t this a reoccurring topic for you?
Click to expand...

at least 1 a year or more it is. same blown up argument every time.
 
Logician Man said:
The words between the slashes belong to COTO ( post 154 ). I was asking how he rectified keeping abortion 'legal' when he claims abortion is 'murder', which, obviously, is 'illegal'.
Click to expand...
Oh ok i missunderstood

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
COTO said:
Child support is the father's burden.

At the heart of the pro-choice argument is that conceiving a child does not legally confer parental responsibilities upon the parents. Ergo, the father never legally consents to having the child. A legal contract--such as child support--can't be entered into without the consent of the parties bound by the contract. To deny the father the ability to opt out of the contract when he has no legal standing to negotiate the terms of that contract, or (especially) to remediate by legal means the burden the contract places on him (i.e. getting rid of the child) is to deny him consent. It could be compared to government-sanctioned slavery.
Click to expand...

When you agree to have a sex with someone you consent to all responsibilities involved with that action. that would include the possibility of pregnancy. this goes for both sides. so there is a legal agreement made that both parties accept and are responsible for the outcome of sleeping with each other. The reason that this is in place for the very reason that you list here.
that if a man gets a woman pregnant that he not the state is responsible for the child's welfare. The system that Bodhi is referring to was already in place and it was an utter disaster.

child support is nothing more than you taking care of a child that you had a hand in creating. That it is not society that is responsible for taking care of it but you.
if you don't want child support then don't have a child. it is pretty simple.

In a world where conceiving a child was the implicit acceptance of the parental contract, and the life of the child was paramount, this made perfect sense. But we no longer live in such a world--or so pro-choice advocates tell us.
Click to expand...

Yet it is. when you have a child with someone you accepted all the responsibility of said child. you agreed to the risks when you slept with that person.

Again, I don't advocate such a change in the law because I'm one of those dinosaurs who believes conceiving a child is the implicit acceptance of the parental contract, and the life of the child is paramount.
Click to expand...

Good because it is. even if you want nothing to do with the child (which is wrong in my opinion) at least financially that person is responsible for it.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Reality only counts when those arguing he should be forced to pay for something that he did not agree to, want it to be relevant.

Reality is he can move away and not pay anything should he so choose.
Click to expand...

Not really. States have contracts with each other so if there is a child support order in place his new state can enforce it so that she gets her money.


In fact, I did argue as to why the line is where I put it. I stated that pro-male bondage advocates argue that "she chose to have sex... not to have a baby" arguers argue that while at the same time argue that "he chose to have sex and that means he chose to have a baby (if she so chooses)" That is why it is post-conception.
Click to expand...

it doesn't matter why she chose to have sex or him. both people accept the responsibility of the risks when you have sex (unless it is anal).
i highly suggest that if men don't want to have a kid or be worried about child support but want to have sex that they find a woman that really likes
anal. then no risks or a lot of lowered risks.

facts are just facts.

there are risks with sex and both parties agree to the risks before they engage. if men don't like the risks then they should probably walk away.
 
ludin said:
Not really. States have contracts with each other so if there is a child support order in place his new state can enforce it so that she gets her money.




it doesn't matter why she chose to have sex or him. both people accept the responsibility of the risks when you have sex (unless it is anal).
i highly suggest that if men don't want to have a kid or be worried about child support but want to have sex that they find a woman that really likes
anal. then no risks or a lot of lowered risks.

facts are just facts.

there are risks with sex and both parties agree to the risks before they engage. if men don't like the risks then they should probably walk away.
Click to expand...
Men are walking away, congratulations on achieving your goal. Women get to be left alone.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Bodhisattva said:
Men to should be able to opt out of Child Support if they do not want to be a father (legally). The woman can use her legal Constitutional 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).
Click to expand...


If you cause a traffic accident that injures another human being the government can force you to compensate the victim of that accident monetarily. However, if the person has lost a lot of blood and needs a transfusion the government cannot force you against your will to donate your blood to save their life.

Now most people would happily donate their blood not wanting to be responsible for an innocent person's death, but the government cannot force that upon you. Your body belongs to you and only you. It cannot be traded, sold or owned by anyone else. Ever. Not even the government. Your money though? That's an entirely different story. Without the Federal government there would be no real concept of money, wealth or property. You couldn't realistically obtain any of these things without a government to back them. As a result, the government, society and the people can force you to pay for your mistakes monetarily, but they cannot force you to undergo any type of medical procedure or bodily transformation that you have not consented to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom