• 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

Crusader13 said:
OK fine, let me rephrase.

Being able to have sex naturally, the way it was intended for maximum pleasure and enjoyment, without having to rely on their partner to determine the next 21 years of their life.

Women have that luxury. Men don't.

End of discussion.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense.
 
weaver2 said:
All of the laws you mention above were unconstitutional and discriminatory for not good scientific, moral or philosophical reason. The were simply laws to prevent some people from enjoying the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.


I'm curious, exactly what are men being held back from doing in the 21st century? Jobs? No. Higher pay? No? Education? No. Running for office? No. Voting? No, Owning property? No. Saving money? No. Buying a home? No. Writing? No, Thinking? No. So what freedom is being denied because you have to pay child support for the family you started.
Click to expand...
How can you say that the man started the family when he has no say in if a baby is born or not?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Crusader13 said:
Therefore I demand that we have more laws in place to protect men from these things, even if those laws aren't completely convenient for women, too bad! They don't know what it's like to get hit in the balls so they don't get a say. You want to decide which of these consequences a man suffers by telling him how, when, where, and with whom he has sex, just so he can engage in an everyday normal activity without taking on a burden for the next 21 years. You're a man hater. EEEERRRKKKK!!
Click to expand...

Nobody is telling men how, when, where and with whom they can have sex. Nobody. And you can protect yourself from those situations the same way you protect yourself from conceiving a child. The locus of decision making is before you have sex not after something happens to you medically of socially.

When you say things like:
too bad a law isn't completely convenient for women
women art telling men when, how, with whom to have sex
women are holding men back
what gives women the right to tell a man what he can or can't do with his penis?
women don't want men to hav the same rights and freedoms

I have to surmise that the hater is not women.
 
Lursa said:
You have not provided any reasons why the courts would decide that child support laws should be undermined.

The child support laws, btw, are written to apply equally to both genders too...those *have been updated* to hold non-custodial mothers accountable.

But you wrote nothing that shows why the courts would consider undermining, pretty much gutting, the system of child support. The need is still there. So, please do so...explain why the courts would do so?
Click to expand...

:doh

Because society has changed. Men have changed. Women got to enact changes in the law which stopped them from having to conform to social standards on their role in the family, men should be able to do the same thing.

What specifically has changed? Those laws were made while women were still heavily reliant on men for support. This is no longer the case. The gender pay gap has been busted as we see plenty of women work in whatever field they want...fields which they previously didn't have access to. Women are earning more money today than ever before. They have more career freedom than ever before. There are more state-welfare programs to support women than ever before.

Men, meanwhile, have been dropping out of school at higher rates than ever before. They've been dying at work at a higher rate than ever before. They've become homeless at a higher rate than ever before. They're committing suicide at a higher rate than ever before. In lieu of men having their own unique challenges and burdens in the current year, and in lieu of women having more support and freedom to provide for themselves as ever before, men should no longer be legally forced to live a certain way just so they can give money to women. Women can take care of themselves and the stats show men are struggling to take care of themselves. The laws should be changed to give us more freedom in the way we live our lives. Please respect this.

If women can't support a family on their own, they will need to factor that into their decision when to keep or abort the baby.
 
Crusader13 said:
OK fine, let me rephrase.

Being able to have sex naturally, the way it was intended for maximum pleasure and enjoyment, without having to rely on their partner to determine the next 21 years of their life.

Women have that luxury. Men don't.

End of discussion.
Click to expand...

Women have never had that luxury. I gave you the list of 4 and only 4 outcomes if there is a pregnancy. All are consequences.

All thru history, that has been a fact for women, and it still is. However men in the past were almost always able to escape the consequences of a pregnancy. And apparently that mindset of entitlement continues today when finally, it's no longer true. You apparently still feel that men are entitled to sex without consequences...even tho women are not and never have been.

I really hope you arent making any arguments based on equality....cuz it's still sure stacked in men's favor.
 
Crusader13 said:
:doh

Because society has changed. Men have changed. Women got to enact changes in the law which stopped them from having to conform to social standards on their role in the family, men should be able to do the same thing.

What specifically has changed? Those laws were made while women were still heavily reliant on men for support. This is no longer the case. The gender pay gap has been busted as we see plenty of women work in whatever field they want...fields which they previously didn't have access to. Women are earning more money today than ever before. They have more career freedom than ever before. There are more state-welfare programs to support women than ever before.

Men, meanwhile, have been dropping out of school at higher rates than ever before. They've been dying at work at a higher rate than ever before. They've become homeless at a higher rate than ever before. They're committing suicide at a higher rate than ever before. In lieu of men having their own unique challenges and burdens in the current year, and in lieu of women having more support and freedom to provide for themselves as ever before, men should no longer be legally forced to live a certain way just so they can give money to women. Women can take care of themselves and the stats show men are struggling to take care of themselves. The laws should be changed to give us more freedom in the way we live our lives. Please respect this.

If women can't support a family on their own, they will need to factor that into their decision when to keep or abort the baby.
Click to expand...

*sigh* You basically repeated yourself. I tried to guide you in a more direct manner. Try again?

Lursa said:
You have not provided any reasons why the courts would decide that child support laws should be undermined.

The child support laws, btw, are written to apply equally to both genders too...those *have been updated* to hold non-custodial mothers accountable.

But you wrote nothing that shows why the courts would consider undermining, pretty much gutting, the system of child support. The need is still there. So, please do so...explain why the courts would do so?

*snicker* men never wanted to pay child support. Or women. Why do you think they made the laws? :roll: Why do you think they were created to begin with? Because men (mostly only men back then) werent voluntarily upholding their obligations. Er, and it's never been socially acceptable for parents to not take responsibility for their families. :roll: LOL, what 'principle' are you thinking of, specifically?
Click to expand...

You just posted a bunch of emotional stuff, nothing of a legal foundation for the courts to consider. And alot of it's BS too. If you believe there are so many loser men, then they really really shouldnt be risking sex if they cant pay the consequences if they get a woman pregnant. Just being a loser doesnt mean you get a 'get out of jail free' card. It means you work and play within your means.
 
calamity said:
That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

It does. You just refuse to accept it because it threatens your fairy-tale.

Condoms limit friction, feeling, and the overall enjoyment of sex for men. In other words, they suck the fun out of having sex.

Women get to have sex the fun way with maximum enjoyment while not having to worry about their partner deciding the next 21 years of their life. Men don't have that privilege.
 
trouble13 said:
Why cant you offer women a legal ultimatum. The law offers men legal ultimatums. What gives women immunity?


Absolutely not and that has been discussed in this thread. The only thing being proposed is that men are given a small time window that would allow them to legally opt out of responsibility for an unwanted child.


Using your logic why not make each parent finacially responsible for 50% of the costs to raise their child and if they cant produce evidence that they can both meet that obligation before the child is born. Require the woman to abort. That would protect the taxpayers that you're so concerned about.


That sounds good in a debate but the courts have already determined that if a child is produced from a woman raping a man or if a woman collects.a mans sperm and artifically inseminates herself, in both cases he is legally responsible. A mans consent is not required at the time of conception.


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

Nobody is saying women should have legal immunity. We're talking about the creation of discriminatory affirmative laws here.

Your entire plan is flawed, immoral and will never come to pass because it all hinges on entrapping women into having abortions by financially compromising them.

Men are not going to be able to get out of paying for their children. It's nobody's fault that women have reproductive control over whether or not children are born. The male opt-out is a response to women having elective abortions, like a sort of punishment, and it's puerile. It's tit for tat: "Ok, if you can kill my child, then I can decide not to take care of it." But the whole premise is based on the ignorant notion that women are just gallivanting around having abortions, when really it's an extremely difficult situation emotionally and morally to have one.

An abortion is a medical procedure with real risks. Many women become infertile for life after uterine damage from abortions. On occasion, women die from abortions. You can't leverage them with threats of financial destitution just because you don't want to take responsibility.

It's not actually about women. It's about children. You're focusing on trying to correct a natural reproductive power imbalance between men and women, when really it's about how society takes care of its children.

No father's right will ever trump a child's welfare. Tax payers are not responsible for your biological creation, you are... whether it was accidental, you were coerced, or whatever... the child exists and has to be cared for. The State's #1 concern is with the rearing of children. It's the basis of marriage contracts, family courts, all of it... it's about children, and not men having temper tantrums because they can't stop women from having babies that the men themselves took part in creating.
 
Lursa said:
Women have never had that luxury. I gave you the list of 4 and only 4 outcomes if there is a pregnancy. All are consequences.

All thru history, that has been a fact for women, and it still is. However men in the past were almost always able to escape the consequences of a pregnancy. And apparently that mindset of entitlement continues today when finally, it's no longer true. You apparently still feel that men are entitled to sex without consequences...even tho women are not and never have been.

I really hope you arent making any arguments based on equality....cuz it's still sure stacked in men's favor.
Click to expand...

The problem is, you're referring to having a baby as a consequence, but it's not. A woman doesn't have to give birth if she doesn't want to.

If she decides that she wants a baby, having a baby isn't a consequence - it's a reward.

If a woman wants to have an abortion, getting an abortion isn't a consequence - it's a reward.

The effect of a miscarriage is not exclusive to women. That's a man's child in there too which he can emotionally effect him just as much as it effects the women. They've both lost a child.

Your argument sucks.
 
trouble13 said:
How can you say that the man started the family when he has no say in if a baby is born or not?

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


So, when a child is conceived the sperm came in the mail from Amazon wrapped in a plain brown paper package not from you. You were just enjoying sex "naturally, the way it was intended for maximum pleasure and enjoyment". (without condoms, right). And nobody could possibly ask you to be responsible for anything especially not for child support. It just wouldn't be fair, because obviously it wasn't your sperm. . And to hell with the slut that somehow got pregnant. it wasn't your fault that you were enjoying sex "naturally" the way You and God intended it to be. LOL.
 
maquiscat said:
First, pregnancy also carries real medical. I have no doubt that Lursa will bring that up, if she hasn't already. According to some, more risk than an abortion. I am not sure I buy that. Different risks to be sure, but I'm not sure we can objectively say one is more or less risky than the other.
That said, this paragraph is either a strawman or a red herring, since the OP's premise does nothing to remove a woman's right to an abortion.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct that pregnancy carries risk. Case and point, women have a right to evaluate and mitigate risks to their own bodies as they see fit.

It's not a strawman, you are simply not understanding. A big part of this male-opt out notion revolves around giving a woman "enough time" so she can decide if she wants an abortion or not, in lieu of knowing that she won't have support from the father. That is effectively leveraging her to have an abortion if she does not want to live a post-partum life of destitution. In other words, it focuses solely on the woman... either as punishment, an attempt to correct a natural reproductive power imbalance, etc. (I am seeing multiple motivations here, some of them sinister.)

It's not a woman's fault that she has a uterus and that that is the default location of a pregnancy. It's not a matter of her saying "Haha I have all the power!", it's more like, "****, the baby is in here, what am I going to do?"

maquiscat said:
Out of curiosity would you allow for a man to divest himself of parental responsibilities if he was the male victim of a female rapist? Or if it was shown that she aquired semen from him against his wishes, such as getting a used condom of his that he used on another woman?
Click to expand...

I won't be drawn into a hypothetical scenario, especially one so rare as to be practically irrelevant.

By the way, semen doesn't work that way. Sperm are extremely fragile. They die rather fast outside of the body, on contact with anything that isn't the vaginal wall. Chemical or temperature change kills them within minutes. So the whole myth of fetching a used condom from the garbage and using it for insemination is another urban legend perpetuated by the same MRA fanatics who don't have a leg to stand on.

I feel that the underlying issue here is actually to do more with needed reforms in the family courts, and with the rot that lies at the heart of the modern relationship between men and women. So much objectification, so little transparent and honest communication, so little integrity. People are getting more and more stupid with each passing year. The whole opt-out discussion, and the abortion debate itself, are the most downstream consequence of an utterly corrupt and dysfunctional relationship between the men and women in society.

There is so much broken trust that men are turning to nanny government now to try and leverage women into having abortions so that they don't have to pay child support as a consequence for a sexual act that they willingly took part in. Maybe this is my Christian upbringing talking, but sex carries responsibility. You should know better. This is the year 2019, most men get a basic sex education, which includes pertinent knowledge that no amount of "safe sex" is a 100% guarantee against pregnancy. Biology is what it is. Women gestate the offspring and have more power of choice over what to do with it. Men have very little agency once their sperm is given... and I don't think twisting the arm of the legal / family court system is the way to correct that.

It doesn't seem moral because it doesn't coincide with the natural balance of reproductive power. You can't give men the same choice to opt out that women have because it doesn't play out the same way. It will cause suffering to women and children and is actually another form of imposing anti-choice, not much different than banning abortions. If a woman is poor enough, then she is going to be cornered into getting an abortion if the father financially abandons her.

The opt-out proposition is inequitable.
 
Crusader13 said:
It does. You just refuse to accept it because it threatens your fairy-tale.

Condoms limit friction, feeling, and the overall enjoyment of sex for men. In other words, they suck the fun out of having sex.

Women get to have sex the fun way with maximum enjoyment while not having to worry about their partner deciding the next 21 years of their life. Men don't have that privilege.
Click to expand...

So, finally we get to the real issue.. All of the pleasure and none of the responsibility.

Basically birth control is the responsibility, totally, of the woman so a man can enjoy sex "naturally" and if something happens the guy without the condom isn't responsible. His only responsibility is to enjoy sex "naturally".

OMG
 
Crusader13 said:
The problem is, you're referring to having a baby as a consequence, but it's not. A woman doesn't have to give birth if she doesn't want to.

If she decides that she wants a baby, having a baby isn't a consequence - it's a reward.

If a woman wants to have an abortion, getting an abortion isn't a consequence - it's a reward.

The effect of a miscarriage is not exclusive to women. That's a man's child in there too which he can emotionally effect him just as much as it effects the women. They've both lost a child.

Your argument sucks.
Click to expand...

Those are ALL consequences. Having a kid you dont want is a consequence. Dying is a consequence. Permanent disability from an infection from a miscarriage is a consequence!

How blinded by bias are you, jeebus?

And we're talking about people *that didnt plan or want a child* since that's what the OP is about, so the emotional stuff isnt even listed.

The point is, if there's a pregnancy, the woman will suffer at least one of those consequences...she cannot escape it. The fact that you dont like that men cant control our consequences is just too bad. It's not your body or your health.

Of course you dont like my argument...but it is solid. You have yet to refute it.
 
weaver2 said:
So, finally we get to the real issue.. All of the pleasure and none of the responsibility.

Basically birth control is the responsibility, totally, of the woman so a man can enjoy sex "naturally" and if something happens the guy without the condom isn't responsible. His only responsibility is to enjoy sex "naturally".

OMG
Click to expand...

:applaud:applaud
 
Crusader13 said:
Face it, you want your cake and to eat it too, and can't stand men having the same level of choice as you do. It's amazing how you somehow turn into an overly-compassionate advocate for women to be able to do whatever they want without any compulsion for responsibility, yet when it's a man you suddenly think they can grow money from a tree and should have to share that with women else never have sex again.
Click to expand...

Men CAN'T have the same choice that women do because they DON'T HAVE UTERUSES. How hard is this to understand? The context of fatherhood and motherhood are not the same thing. Not in nature, not biologically. You will never be faced with the same dilemma by virtue of anatomy. Complain to God... He made it this way, and not women!

It's gross how you characterize women as money grubbing gold diggers, when it's about child care. Are men this divorced from reality that they think they can stir their dick and then cry because they don't have control over where the child gestates? Speaking of having your cake and eating it too...!

This isn't about women being allowed to have accidental pregnancies but men not. It's about natural law and natural consequences.

The laws will never change to allow male opt-out as long as women are the ones carrying the children. Your argument perfectly demonstrates how MRAs and their allies frame this as being about selfish women who want all the rights to spread their legs and then enslave men, when really it's about the State allocating care for children. A woman doesn't have to undergo the risk of an abortion if she doesn't want to, and especially not because the man doesn't want the government deciding that he should pay for his sexual act rather than tax payers.

FYI the system is already fair because mothers who abandon get equally hammered by the courts to pay up. Tax payers should not foot the bill for someone else's children!

Until you smarten up and realize the reasons why family laws and family courts are structured the way they are, your argument will continue to come across as whiny, spoiled, entitled and petulant. Which is exactly what it is.

Only in the 21st century would men actually try complaining to government that women have too much reproductive power. This is hardly a progressive revelation.
 
Northern Light said:
Nobody is saying women should have legal immunity. We're talking about the creation of discriminatory affirmative laws here.

Your entire plan is flawed, immoral and will never come to pass because it all hinges on entrapping women into having abortions by financially compromising them.

Men are not going to be able to get out of paying for their children. It's nobody's fault that women have reproductive control over whether or not children are born. The male opt-out is a response to women having elective abortions, like a sort of punishment, and it's puerile. It's tit for tat: "Ok, if you can kill my child, then I can decide not to take care of it." But the whole premise is based on the ignorant notion that women are just gallivanting around having abortions, when really it's an extremely difficult situation emotionally and morally to have one.

An abortion is a medical procedure with real risks. Many women become infertile for life after uterine damage from abortions. On occasion, women die from abortions. You can't leverage them with threats of financial destitution just because you don't want to take responsibility.

It's not actually about women. It's about children. You're focusing on trying to correct a natural reproductive power imbalance between men and women, when really it's about how society takes care of its children.

No father's right will ever trump a child's welfare. Tax payers are not responsible for your biological creation, you are... whether it was accidental, you were coerced, or whatever... the child exists and has to be cared for. The State's #1 concern is with the rearing of children. It's the basis of marriage contracts, family courts, all of it... it's about children, and not men having temper tantrums because they can't stop women from having babies that the men themselves took part in creating.
Click to expand...
I agree that the majority of women dont make their choice lightly. Abortions and pregnancies are both dangerous.

I disagree that giving men a small window of opprotunity to opt out is motivated by mens desire to punish women. Its true the women face physical risks that men do not but you are discounting the serious consequences that men need to weigh out. Fathering a child is a life changing moment. Theres nothing immoral about giving men an opportunity to not be part of something they are unequipped to handle.

Lastly you cover how its about the welfare of the child. Lets examine that. If its really about child welfare why not make laws that criminalize pregnancy outside of marriage or compel fathers snd mothers to marry. Why grant divorces to people who have children? If its really about the childs welfare why not force people to become families and not allow them to break up.

You can tell yourself its about child welfare but its really not. That argument is a convenient excuse to justify treating men with a bias.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
weaver2 said:
So, when a child is conceived the sperm came in the mail from Amazon wrapped in a plain brown paper package not from you. You were just enjoying sex "naturally, the way it was intended for maximum pleasure and enjoyment". (without condoms, right). And nobody could possibly ask you to be responsible for anything especially not for child support. It just wouldn't be fair, because obviously it wasn't your sperm. . And to hell with the slut that somehow got pregnant. it wasn't your fault that you were enjoying sex "naturally" the way You and God intended it to be. LOL.
Click to expand...
Thats not what im saying and you damn well know it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
I agree that the majority of women dont make their choice lightly. Abortions and pregnancies are both dangerous.

I disagree that giving men a small window of opprotunity to opt out is motivated by mens desire to punish women. Its true the women face physical risks that men do not but you are discounting the serious consequences that men need to weigh out. Fathering a child is a life changing moment. Theres nothing immoral about giving men an opportunity to not be part of something they are unequipped to handle.

Lastly you cover how its about the welfare of the child. Lets examine that. If its really about child welfare why not make laws that criminalize pregnancy outside of marriage or compel fathers snd mothers to marry. Why grant divorces to people who have children? If its really about the childs welfare why not force people to become families and not allow them to break up.

You can tell yourself its about child welfare but its really not. That argument is a convenient excuse to justify treating men with a bias.

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

You can't criminalize pregnancy unless you want the government to engage in population control. Do you?

Your proposals are all draconian and about criminalizing a woman's position or behavior. Nope, never going to happen.

Your argument about enforced marriage is a strawman because nuclear families are not the only kinds of successful families.

Let me make this simple for you. The argument that a woman shouldn't have spread her legs if she didn't want a child goes EQUAL for the man. The problem is that there is a biological imbalance in power that favours the woman's reproductive control. You can't touch this natural right... you can't modify it, coerce her, force her. Her choice is her choice and you just have to deal with it.

The government is concerned with money. In case you haven't noticed, nobody can force a father to be an actual parent. But a woman on welfare is a tax payer's responsibility, and we can very much make a father pay instead... and he should... just like a mother should pay if the father is the one with custody. This is how family courts operate.

Do you understand? This is about CHILDREN. The father AND mother are responsible. They will be sought first. They will be held to account first. You don't get to shirk that, no matter what your backstory is for how your sperm met that egg. Somehow your dick went inside, and it resulted in a child.

Is the state of sex education in the U.S. this horrendous?

I'm not "telling myself" anything. The male opt-out is a fantasy invented by the MRAs who feel wronged by women. They have made the entire argument about men vs. women... how to get even with women, how to take back power from women, how to get even with those darned feminists. But the family courts don't give a crap about your infantile griping. They want to know that children are cared for equitably and with justice.

Coercing a woman into having an abortion because the father wants to get off scott free from making a child is not justice. It is horrendous.

Don't have sex if you don't want a baby. Women have more choices once they're pregnant. Men have none. You can't invent any new ones without compromising the rights of women and the welfare of children. Get over it.
 
Northern Light said:
Women have all the reproductive power and control. Nature made it that way, and men hate them for it. That's why we see threads like this one, where men try to logic their way out of taking responsibility for children. It's why men have tried desperately to control and subjugate women for centuries. The fact is, abortions carry real medical risk. You can't give women a legal ultimatum where they have to choose between a life of severe hardship as a single mother vs. undergoing a medical procedure that carries risk to her person. That's not a fair choice. Abortions are about her choice, not about a man leveraging her with "no guarantees".

The reverse is also true... men who say they'll stick around and form a family, but then take off after it's too late for an abortion. Should they get to opt out too?

This topic is absurd. Children matter more than men who complain that their sperm turned into offspring. Either the two parents responsible pay for the child, or the tax payer does. I'm not footing the bill for your creation. It's your responsibility. If you don't want to do any actual parenting, fine... but human economy is a real thing and we should not have to allocate resources on your behalf.

Men need to get over the fact that women have disproportionate power over reproduction. One way they can do that is by protecting themselves from becoming fathers when they don't want to be, by controlling where their sperm does or doesn't go.
Click to expand...

This argument literally has nothing to do with who has the power over reproduction. Every man who is posted in this thread admits and wants women to have all the power over there reproduction. We want them to have 100% control over whether they are bought or whether they keep the child. They have that power nobody is taking it away get over it and deal with the actual issue instead of all this stupid Straw Man bull****.
 
trouble13 said:
Thats not what im saying and you damn well know it.

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

See how they start using the word s*** and things like that to try to shame people who are arguing the merits of law well all they can do is make appeals to emotion
 
Northern Light said:
You can't criminalize pregnancy unless you want the government to engage in population control. Do you?

Your proposals are all draconian and about criminalizing a woman's position or behavior. Nope, never going to happen.

Your argument about enforced marriage is a strawman because nuclear families are not the only kinds of successful families.

Let me make this simple for you. The argument that a woman shouldn't have spread her legs if she didn't want a child goes EQUAL for the man. The problem is that there is a biological imbalance in power that favours the woman's reproductive control. You can't touch this natural right... you can't modify it, coerce her, force her. Her choice is her choice and you just have to deal with it.

The government is concerned with money. In case you haven't noticed, nobody can force a father to be an actual parent. But a woman on welfare is a tax payer's responsibility, and we can very much make a father pay instead... and he should... just like a mother should pay if the father is the one with custody. This is how family courts operate.

Do you understand? This is about CHILDREN. The father AND mother are responsible. They will be sought first. They will be held to account first. You don't get to shirk that, no matter what your backstory is for how your sperm met that egg. Somehow your dick went inside, and it resulted in a child.

Is the state of sex education in the U.S. this horrendous?

I'm not "telling myself" anything. The male opt-out is a fantasy invented by the MRAs who feel wronged by women. They have made the entire argument about men vs. women... how to get even with women, how to take back power from women, how to get even with those darned feminists. But the family courts don't give a crap about your infantile griping. They want to know that children are cared for equitably and with justice.

Coercing a woman into having an abortion because the father wants to get off scott free from making a child is not justice. It is horrendous.

Don't have sex if you don't want a baby. Women have more choices once they're pregnant. Men have none. You can't invent any new ones without compromising the rights of women and the welfare of children. Get over it.
Click to expand...
If the courts are concerned about the childs welfare why is there no mechanism in place to ensure child support payments are being spent on the child?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Crusader13 said:
Face it, you want your cake and to eat it too, and can't stand men having the same level of choice as you do. [/qoute]

That really boils it all down in a nutshell.
Click to expand...
 
Bodhisattva said:
See how they start using the word s*** and things like that to try to shame people who are arguing the merits of law well all they can do is make appeals to emotion
Click to expand...
Im used to the bigoted arguments and attacks. I think ive heard just about all of them lol

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
ecofarm said:
That's dead-beat BS. It's not about women "telling you what to do" (do take a bath occasionally, though). It's about society holding people responsible for their actions.
Click to expand...

If Society actually cares about the welfare of the child they would have some sort of system in place to make sure that the mother spend the money on the child or that the money is spent on the Child by government oversight. As it is right now the mother can spend the money on anything she wants and I know this first hand and it doesn't have to b on child support.
 
Bodhisattva said:
If Society actually cares about the welfare of the child they would have some sort of system in place to make sure that the mother spend the money on the child or that the money is spent on the Child by government oversight. As it is right now the mother can spend the money on anything she wants and I know this first hand and it doesn't have to b on child support.
Click to expand...
Thats why i call it what it is Mommy Support

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom