• 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

Were any of those women forced to become mothers agaist their will of were they offered a choice after they became pregnant?

Thats the difference that some on this board dont understand. Most of us agree that in instances when consensual intercourse happens both are equally responsible for that. Where there is contention is that a woman has the legal authority to end a pregnancy for the reason of not feeling prepared to be a mother. Men are not given that option. Men are told their choices were over the moment they ejaculated.

If the law was interested in treating the parents as coequals it would either not allow women to abort without a sufficent medical reason or it would allow men to opt out of parenthood based on him deciding for himself he isnt sufficiently prepared to become a father to that child.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

So in consensual intercourse, both are responsible?

Cool. I agree. If a child is born both are responsible for the support of that child.
 
Tens of millions of men seem to have a great time with condoms. :2wave:

I would think the possibility of unintentionally impregnating a woman would suck the fun out of sex.....
No offense to you but im completely over people reacting to posts they have not read.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
So in consensual intercourse, both are responsible?

Cool. I agree. If a child is born both are responsible for the support of that child.
Cool i guess you also agree that it should be illegal for wimen to have svortions outside of medical emergencies

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Cool i guess you also agree that it should be illegal for wimen to have svortions outside of medical emergencies

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Both are responsible if a child is born. Sometimes a child is not born.

You still like to try to control women, dontchya.
 
No offense to you but im completely over people reacting to posts they have not read.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I not only read it, I quoted it directly in my response in a quote box.

What is your problem?
 
Both are responsible if a child is born. Sometimes a child is not born.

You still like to try to control women, dontchya.
Not as much as you like to control men

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Cool i guess you also agree that it should be illegal for wimen to have svortions outside of medical emergencies

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Er...since she referred to a 'born' child, not sure how you arrived at your comment?
 
Totally agree. I've never written otherwise...I have consistently written here that women must pay their consequences if they get pregnant...and that it's impossible for them to escape those consequences.

:confused: You're still not getting it. Here is the definition of a consequence:


noun
a result or effect, typically one that is unwelcome or unpleasant.


If a woman gets pregnant and wants to have an abortion, then having an abortion is not a consequence. In this case, the woman has gotten exactly what she wanted. She was able to avoid the responsibility of having a child. You can't claim that getting what you wanted is a consequence.

On the other side, if a woman gets pregnant and wants to have a child, giving birth to a child is not a consequence. She's getting what she wanted. She's happy.

Regarding miscarriages - there is no evidence to suggest that women are the only ones who suffer due to a miscarriage, or even that they suffer more than their partners. Losing a child is traumatic for anyone and it's very possible that the man could end up being more emotionally affected than the woman. A miscarriage is not an exclusive consequence for a woman.

The only real and exclusive consequence in your argument is the risk of death. Granted - women are objectively the biggest victims in that outcome.

However, the point you're missing is that women get to choose what happens to their life after conception. If they want the baby, they get the baby. They're happy. If they want to get rid of the baby, they can get rid of the baby. They're happy. They have choices. Men do not. You're basically limiting the freedom of poor men to have sex because they'll be entrapped into paying child support for the next 21 years if the woman gets pregnant. That's not fair. Poor women get to enjoy sex with peace of mind knowing there is a way out of parenthood. Poor men do not have that luxury and you are not willing to give it to them.
 
At the same time that a woman's right occurs. When it's in their own body. How you can't grasp this simple basic concept is baffling. What is in the body is irrelevant to the right.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

Don't give me that right/left crap, when a child is conceived it is as much his as it is hers. How you can't grasp this simple basic concept is baffling.
 
Don't give me that right/left crap, when a child is conceived it is as much his as it is hers. How you can't grasp this simple basic concept is baffling.

Not when it's conceived. If that was true, the male would have the very same right to abort, or not abort as the female.. Clearly, according to the laws of the land, that isn't the case. ( see: Roe vs Wade )
 
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?
You're just passing the bill on to the taxpayer. Why should I have to pay your child support? You made it, you pay for it. If you don't like it then keep your dick in your pants.

/thread
 
You're just passing the bill on to the taxpayer. Why should I have to pay your child support? You made it, you pay for it. If you don't like it then keep your dick in your pants.

/thread

You can say the exact same thing to women who get abortions. Why couldn't they just keep the legs closed? They will proceed to have an abortion by a clinic that receives federal funding - that's your tax dollars. You seem to be OK with that. Funny how you're willing to pay for women's sexual irresponsibility but not a man's. Shameful, shameful discrimination.
 
You can say the exact same thing to women who get abortions. Why couldn't they just keep the legs closed? They will proceed to have an abortion by a clinic that receives federal funding - that's your tax dollars. You seem to be OK with that. Funny how you're willing to pay for women's sexual irresponsibility but not a man's. Shameful, shameful discrimination.
I am ok with paying for abortions, yes.

When the woman 'opts out' there's no child to be raised. That's the critical difference.
 
Don't give me that right/left crap, when a child is conceived it is as much his as it is hers. How you can't grasp this simple basic concept is baffling.
Show me where I denied that. But it he's.no relevance to my point. If there is something in her body she does not want there, she has the right to have it removed regardless of the results to that which is removed or how it got there. If there is something in his body he does not want there, he has the right to have it removed regardless of the results to that which is removed or how it got there. This is the simple basic concept that seems to be baffling you and yours. Similarly, if there is something in your body you don't want to have removed, you cannot be forced to have it removed, even if it would result in your death (cancer) or another's death (kidney for transplant). This is bodily autonomy.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
I am ok with paying for abortions, yes.

When the woman 'opts out' there's no child to be raised. That's the critical difference.

Err, there's no child to be raised when the man opts out either. If you've been following the thread, it's about giving men the right to opt out of parenthood at the time of conception, before the child even exists. In the words of feminists, the man is simply walking away from "a parasite, a cluster of cells no different to snot".

But thanks for admitting you're happy to pay for women's sexual irresponsibility but not men's. That's blatant sexism - the world has no need for that way of thinking.
 
Last edited:
You can say the exact same thing to women who get abortions. Why couldn't they just keep the legs closed? They will proceed to have an abortion by a clinic that receives federal funding - that's your tax dollars. You seem to be OK with that. Funny how you're willing to pay for women's sexual irresponsibility but not a man's. Shameful, shameful discrimination.
That's a strawman. There are many pro choice people who do not think abortion clinics should receive tax derived funds, or that they have to show those funds are not used for abortion, since many of those clinics offer other legit services as well. Supporting a woman's right to chose does not automatically equate to supporting the tax derived funding of that right. I support the right to bear arms. By your logic presented I also want, or at least am fine with, tax money being used to purchase arms for people for private use.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
That's a strawman. There are many pro choice people who do not think abortion clinics should receive tax derived funds, or that they have to show those funds are not used for abortion, since many of those clinics offer other legit services as well. Supporting a woman's right to chose does not automatically equate to supporting the tax derived funding of that right. I support the right to bear arms. By your logic presented I also want, or at least am fine with, tax money being used to purchase arms for people for private use.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

Abortion is not up for debate here. I was responding to Wayne Jr saying that he doesn't think tax dollar should be spent on giving men a way out of parenthood yet he's seemingly fine with tax dollars being spent to give women a way out of parenthood. It's a double standard. In your analogy, it would be like saying you're OK with tax money being used to buy firearms for women, but not for men.
 
Err, there's no child to be raised when the man opts out either.
If it's born, then yes, there is a child to be raised. Your position is irrational.
 
Abortion is not up for debate here. I was responding to Wayne Jr saying that he doesn't think tax dollar should be spent on giving men a way out of parenthood yet he's seemingly fine with tax dollars being spent to give women a way out of parenthood. It's a double standard. In your analogy, it would be like saying you're OK with tax money being used to buy firearms for women, but not for men.

Women get pregnant, men don't. Take your objection up with nature.
 
Abortion is not up for debate here. I was responding to Wayne Jr saying that he doesn't think tax dollar should be spent on giving men a way out of parenthood yet he's seemingly fine with tax dollars being spent to give women a way out of parenthood. It's a double standard. In your analogy, it would be like saying you're OK with tax money being used to buy firearms for women, but not for men.

If a man gets pregnant, desires an abortion, but can't afford one, then I am happy to have my tax dollars pay for it.

If a man gets pregnant, wants to have the baby, but the bio-mother wants to walk away, I do not support her desire to pass on the costs of her child to me.

The problem with your position is that men don't get pregnant. Take that up with nature, I didn't design the species.
 
If it's born, then yes, there is a child to be raised. Your position is irrational.

No, the only thing that matters is whether or not there is a child at the time of the decision. You can't charge a woman for murder 9 months after an abortion just because the child would have been a legal human by then. That's absurd.

Abortion is literally the act of ending a life but women are not liable for it because the life being ended is not considered a legal human at the time of the act. There's no reason for men to be stripped of the same privilige. They're walking away from a cluster of cells. If the woman decides to keep that cluster of cells, what it turns into afterwards is her own responsibility.

You can't retrospectively change the pretense after the decision had already been made. That's not how the world works.
 
No, the only thing that matters is whether or not there is a child at the time of the decision.
The only thing that matters is if a new legal person is created by those decisions.
 
Which post of mine did i say this?

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.

Men no longer want to be held to some outdated standard based on social principles from decades ago.

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.

men (have a) right to liberate themselves from predatory behaviors.

You're right you did not make all of the above comments: I saw the 13 and didn't look at the rest of the name. Here are the posts attributed correctly.

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. Crusader13. #907

Men no longer want to be held to some outdated standard based on social principles from decades ago. Crusader 13 #895

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. Crusader 13 #904



My apologies for misquoting. However, you express the same attitude and refusal to acknowledge any responsibility for a child you conceived.

men (have a) right to liberate themselves from predatory behaviors. Trouble 13. #874
 
Last edited:
It's not about individuals

You can say the exact same thing to women who get abortions. Why couldn't they just keep the legs closed? They will proceed to have an abortion by a clinic that receives federal funding - that's your tax dollars. You seem to be OK with that. Funny how you're willing to pay for women's sexual irresponsibility but not a man's. Shameful, shameful discrimination.

It's not discrimination, it's a straight-up math/econ calculation. An abortion is a one-time expense (in terms of dollars), maybe some counseling leading up to & afterwards - a few hundred dollars is the figure I see, looking around on the Internet. As opposed to raising a child:

"According to a 2017 report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the average cost of raising a child from birth through age 17 is $233,610. If that made your heart skip a beat, take a deep breath before you read on. Incorporating inflation costs, it will be more like $284,570." See The Cost of Raising a Child in 2018 - SmartAsset

US government & taxpayers generally will not support taking over child support completely, except as a last resort; & even then, the intent is to place the child in a permanent situation - preferably with a family. As a policy matter, the amounts involved in abortion versus child maintenance to age 17 don't leave government a lot of choice. & politically, the widespread support needed to sustain government-guaranteed child maintenance for all - simply isn't there.
 
Back
Top Bottom