• 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

If they created that tangent then they can leave the thread as well... as it is the OP is the topic of the thread...

You don't control the thread and who can't participate in it. Sorry Little Emperor.
 
Its funny how they tell men if you dont like the consequences of sex to keep it in your pants but if tell women if they dont like the consequences of sex, keep your legs crossed. They somehow view that as crossing a line.

What's actually funny is that you and Boddhi can't address the simple biological realities that have been set out before you by conscientious posters in this thread.

The reality - once again for the dumb, deaf and blind - is that when women are pregnant, they get two choices. They can abort or keep it. If they abort, well, it's done. If they keep it, then it needs to be supported. The government has a vested interest in the safety and wellbeing of children, even if it's often inadequate. Nonetheless, financial support has to come from somewhere... and it primarily comes from the two parents.

Saying that a man should opt out because a woman can have an abortion isn't reality. The legal and social consequences don't play out the same way, as has already been explained to you.

What's happening here, essentially, is that men are complaining that women can get out of it but they can't, and they are coming at it from an anti-feminist point of view... i.e. look at how many rights women have earned, yet men have none? But it's not about rights, it's about biology.

Men need to be extra careful where they put their sperm because once a pregnancy happens, they don't have control. I mean, they can ask the woman to get an abortion, but she doesn't have to. This doesn't make her manipulative, despite misogynist suggestions to the contrary in this thread.

Honestly, every time this topic comes up when Boddhi posts it, it never looks like anything more than men just trying to shirk responsibility. I'm not seeing any real arguments of consequence that would justify men getting an opt out.

Yes, women AND men should both close their legs, but accidental pregnancies happen, and when they do, men will naturally have less choice than women. You can't create an affirmative law that gives men an artificial "abort" option because they don't carry the pregnancy, and doing so would be coercing women to get abortions, which is unethical.

I dunno... this argument keeps going in circles and the male entitlement is really intense. Fortunately, the government doesn't care what MRAs think and they are a minority in their grievances. I would much rather talk about family court reform because that's really what this topic is about.

Parents can't opt out of financially supporting children they create. That's wrong. It will always be wrong. Children deserve care. You can't create life and totally wash your hands of it.

Jeeze, is there no sense of honor left in the 21st century?
 
Last edited:
All men who become pregnant have the right to abort. The fact that men cannot become pregnant being made irrelevant by you, they still have the right.

I have always found that one of the most stupid attempts to make a point, in almost the history of the world... :roll:
 
What's actually funny is that you and Boddhi can't address the simple biological realities that have been set out before you by conscientious posters in this thread.

The reality - once again for the dumb, deaf and blind - is that when women are pregnant, they get two choices. They can abort or keep it. If they abort, well, it's done. If they keep it, then it needs to be supported. The government has a vested interest in the safety and wellbeing of children, even if it's often inadequate. Nonetheless, financial support has to come from somewhere... and it primarily comes from the two parents.

Saying that a man should opt out because a woman can have an abortion isn't reality. The legal and social consequences don't play out the same way, as has already been explained to you.

What's happening here, essentially, is that men are complaining that women can get out of it but they can't, and they are coming at it from an anti-feminist point of view... i.e. look at how many rights women have earned, yet men have none? But it's not about rights, it's about biology.

Men need to be extra careful where they put their sperm because once a pregnancy happens, they don't have control. I mean, they can ask the woman to get an abortion, but she doesn't have to. This doesn't make her manipulative, despite misogynist suggestions to the contrary in this thread.

Honestly, every time this topic comes up when Boddhi posts it, it never looks like anything more than men just trying to shirk responsibility. I'm not seeing any real arguments of consequence that would justify men getting an opt out.

Yes, women AND men should both close their legs, but accidental pregnancies happen, and when they do, men will naturally have less choice than women. You can't create an affirmative law that gives men an artificial "abort" option because they don't carry the pregnancy, and doing so would be coercing women to get abortions, which is unethical.

I dunno... this argument keeps going in circles and the male entitlement is really intense. Fortunately, the government doesn't care what MRAs think and they are a minority in their grievances. I would much rather talk about family court reform because that's really what this topic is about.

Parents can't opt out of financially supporting children they create. That's wrong. It will always be wrong. Children deserve care. You can't create life and totally wash your hands of it.

Jeeze, is there no sense of honor left in the 21st century?

:applaud:applaud:applaud
 
Re: It's the ground for the territory

Oh, oh! Spit take!

In the arena of abortion, family law, child support & maintenance, & all that goes with that - of course we're going to be talking about biology. It's unavoidable.

If she aborts or nothing has nothing to do with a legal decision for him or for her to Opt Out of parenting...

It just doesn't, no matter how much some of you insist that it does...
 
Nice that you consistently try to circumvent legitimate reasons for both parents supporting their child.

This thread has nothing to do with supporting a child no matter how much you think that it does... not to mention the fact that there is no child when discussing post conception choices.
 
Re: It's the ground for the territory

If she aborts or nothing has nothing to do with a legal decision for him or for her to Opt Out of parenting...

It just doesn't, no matter how much some of you insist that it does...

Please explain then why you continually post this same OP over and over again in the Abortion sub-forum?

In the future, why not post it in the Law and Order forum where it fits better? It might even get you a wider audience for your ridiculous proposal.
 
Re: It's the ground for the territory

The problem i have with the biological argument is that the law does not limit abortions to medicsl purposes. The woman is free to abort for selfish reasons not pertaining to her safety. For instance if a woman wants to abort to svoid contact with an abusive man in her life the law views that as acceptable but if a msn want no part of a child because it will tie him into a commitment with an abusive woman, the law says no can do. Its a bad deal for men and they are walking away from it and its harming society and women.


So, men are denied doing something that a woman is allowed to do: abort responsibility for a child they conceived. And men perceive that as no fair. Here's the list of things men decided women weren't allowed to do even though they were perfectly capable of doing them:

Work jobs That were "hazardous to their morals"(bars, pool halls, bowling alleys but working in a brothel was not considered hazardous)
Vote
Use Birth Control
Keep their own money
Keep citizenship if married to a non-citizen
Work while pregnant
Run for office.
Have their own name on their passport
Sue for sexual harassment
Enlist in the army
Get divorced
A job in a building with no women’s bathroom
Serve on a jury
Work a night shift
Run the Boston Marathon
Box in the Olympics
Refuse sex to their husbands
Smoke in public
Wear wear certain article of clothing
Get a credit card without hassel
Get a business loan without a male co-signer
Watch the certain Olympic games
Serve in combat
Open a bank account without male permission until 1974!!!!!!
Plead a case even if they were accredited lawyers
Have job held open during maternity leave.
Attend military academy
Become an astronaut
Run heavy machinery, vehicles, trains, planes
Become a doctor and so many other professions
Get an abortion
Education at Ivy League schools

Interestingly enough, prior to 1880 women were “allowed” to have sex at age 10 or 12 in most states except Deleware where the the age of “consent” was 7 years old. Even today there are 13 states with no minimum age for marriage. Additionally, working in a brothel was not considered a hazard to women's morals. Until 1919 men walked out of marriages with all the wealth of the family including what the woman brought into the marriage and the house. Pregnancy outside of marriage was the fault of the woman, in even though women's contraception was illegal.

You are complaining, about one right denied to you, to the people that have spent 2000 years being denied rights by men.
 
Why don't you stop wasting your time trying to gatekeep the thread and simply respond to some of the points I've made? A lot of which are actually relevant to your OP.

Instead you choose to squander time in a puerile effort to dismiss my contributions, which only make you look lazy and petulant.

You have made some version of this topic probably dozens of times on DP already. Stop acting like this is so nuanced. :shrug:

Like you did with Crusader here?

You're obviously incapable of following a train of thought without deferring to hyperpartisan non-sense about your perceived enemies in feminism and the ideological left.

Yet you can't even argue against the basic points I've set out, many of which are logically consistent even if you disagree with them.

Shame. I won't waste anymore time on you.

Man, at least I was polite... look at you though.

You don't control the thread and who can't participate in it. Sorry Little Emperor.

You shall be banished if you dare challenge my Rule...
 
Re: It's the ground for the territory

The problem i have with the biological argument is that the law does not limit abortions to medicsl purposes. The woman is free to abort for selfish reasons not pertaining to her safety. For instance if a woman wants to abort to svoid contact with an abusive man in her life the law views that as acceptable but if a msn want no part of a child because it will tie him into a commitment with an abusive woman, the law says no can do. Its a bad deal for men and they are walking away from it and its harming society and women.

Ir's interesting that the men complaining here about not being allowed to opt-out post conception, all, in total, think women get abortions for selfish reasons if risk of death is not the reason. Extensive research by Guttmacher Institute lists a lot of different reasons for abortion. Selfishness or didn't care about the potential child is not one of them. But men's reasons for opt-out are: "not ready for fatherhood" and "can't afford a child right now".
 
What's actually funny is that you and Boddhi can't address the simple biological realities that have been set out before you by conscientious posters in this thread.

The reality - once again for the dumb, deaf and blind - is that when women are pregnant, they get two choices. They can abort or keep it. If they abort, well, it's done. If they keep it, then it needs to be supported. The government has a vested interest in the safety and wellbeing of children, even if it's often inadequate. Nonetheless, financial support has to come from somewhere... and it primarily comes from the two parents.

Saying that a man should opt out because a woman can have an abortion isn't reality. The legal and social consequences don't play out the same way, as has already been explained to you.

What's happening here, essentially, is that men are complaining that women can get out of it but they can't, and they are coming at it from an anti-feminist point of view... i.e. look at how many rights women have earned, yet men have none? But it's not about rights, it's about biology.

Men need to be extra careful where they put their sperm because once a pregnancy happens, they don't have control. I mean, they can ask the woman to get an abortion, but she doesn't have to. This doesn't make her manipulative, despite misogynist suggestions to the contrary in this thread.

Honestly, every time this topic comes up when Boddhi posts it, it never looks like anything more than men just trying to shirk responsibility. I'm not seeing any real arguments of consequence that would justify men getting an opt out.

Yes, women AND men should both close their legs, but accidental pregnancies happen, and when they do, men will naturally have less choice than women. You can't create an affirmative law that gives men an artificial "abort" option because they don't carry the pregnancy, and doing so would be coercing women to get abortions, which is unethical.

I dunno... this argument keeps going in circles and the male entitlement is really intense. Fortunately, the government doesn't care what MRAs think and they are a minority in their grievances. I would much rather talk about family court reform because that's really what this topic is about.

Parents can't opt out of financially supporting children they create. That's wrong. It will always be wrong. Children deserve care. You can't create life and totally wash your hands of it.

Jeeze, is there no sense of honor left in the 21st century?
Even in your post you acknowledge women have 2 choices, thats 2 more choices than men get. People on your side of the debate attempt to justify that disparity based on our biological differences. There is truth in that our anatomical differences dictates that men and womens choices differ but it does not justify putting men into a position of having no choices.

The message being sent to men is that it is there responsibility to make the womens choices as least burdensome as possible for them. Our anatomical differences also does not explain why the law allows a woman to abort based on nothing but her own selfish desires but the law does not reciprocate that same logic to men.

The argument your making might have merit if abortions were limited to only circumstances that were medically necessary but thats not the case. Abortions are an elective procedure.

When i ask the question why shouldnt men also have the same freedom to choose not to be a parent within a reasonable window of time between post-conception and pre-birth, I typically get 2 answers.

1. Its not fair to women and its an attempt to control them.

2. Its a burden on taxpayers. They should not have to finacially support a mens mistakes

Niether of those reasons hold up to scrutiny. Forcing men to be obligated to make womens choices is misandry. Men and women are obligated to themselves.

If taxpayers dont like providing welfare to children they could write laws that hold both parents equally accountable. Dont grant divorces to couples with children and make unmarried couples married in the eyes of the law as soon as a child is born. Force them to be families until their children reach the age of majority. Then the taxpayer is off the hook.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Re: It's the ground for the territory

So, men are denied doing something that a woman is allowed to do: abort responsibility for a child they conceived. And men perceive that as no fair. Here's the list of things men decided women weren't allowed to do even though they were perfectly capable of doing them:

Work jobs That were "hazardous to their morals"(bars, pool halls, bowling alleys but working in a brothel was not considered hazardous)
Vote
Use Birth Control
Keep their own money
Keep citizenship if married to a non-citizen
Work while pregnant
Run for office.
Have their own name on their passport
Sue for sexual harassment
Enlist in the army
Get divorced
A job in a building with no women’s bathroom
Serve on a jury
Work a night shift
Run the Boston Marathon
Box in the Olympics
Refuse sex to their husbands
Smoke in public
Wear wear certain article of clothing
Get a credit card without hassel
Get a business loan without a male co-signer
Watch the certain Olympic games
Serve in combat
Open a bank account without male permission until 1974!!!!!!
Plead a case even if they were accredited lawyers
Have job held open during maternity leave.
Attend military academy
Become an astronaut
Run heavy machinery, vehicles, trains, planes
Become a doctor and so many other professions
Get an abortion
Education at Ivy League schools

Interestingly enough, prior to 1880 women were “allowed” to have sex at age 10 or 12 in most states except Deleware where the the age of “consent” was 7 years old. Even today there are 13 states with no minimum age for marriage. Additionally, working in a brothel was not considered a hazard to women's morals. Until 1919 men walked out of marriages with all the wealth of the family including what the woman brought into the marriage and the house. Pregnancy outside of marriage was the fault of the woman, in even though women's contraception was illegal.

You are complaining, about one right denied to you, to the people that have spent 2000 years being denied rights by men.
Yes women faced prejuidices in the past and they all got overturned eventually. Thats who we gtow as a society. What you seem to be suggesting is that men deserve to be treated because of those past inequalities. Thats vindictive. Laws are supposed to be objective and fair. You seam to want revenge.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Re: It's the ground for the territory

So, men are denied doing something that a woman is allowed to do: abort responsibility for a child they conceived. And men perceive that as no fair. Here's the list of things men decided women weren't allowed to do even though they were perfectly capable of doing them:

Work jobs That were "hazardous to their morals"(bars, pool halls, bowling alleys but working in a brothel was not considered hazardous)
Vote
Use Birth Control
Keep their own money
Keep citizenship if married to a non-citizen
Work while pregnant
Run for office.
Have their own name on their passport
Sue for sexual harassment
Enlist in the army
Get divorced
A job in a building with no women’s bathroom
Serve on a jury
Work a night shift
Run the Boston Marathon
Box in the Olympics
Refuse sex to their husbands
Smoke in public
Wear wear certain article of clothing
Get a credit card without hassel
Get a business loan without a male co-signer
Watch the certain Olympic games
Serve in combat
Open a bank account without male permission until 1974!!!!!!
Plead a case even if they were accredited lawyers
Have job held open during maternity leave.
Attend military academy
Become an astronaut
Run heavy machinery, vehicles, trains, planes
Become a doctor and so many other professions
Get an abortion
Education at Ivy League schools

Interestingly enough, prior to 1880 women were “allowed” to have sex at age 10 or 12 in most states except Deleware where the the age of “consent” was 7 years old. Even today there are 13 states with no minimum age for marriage. Additionally, working in a brothel was not considered a hazard to women's morals. Until 1919 men walked out of marriages with all the wealth of the family including what the woman brought into the marriage and the house. Pregnancy outside of marriage was the fault of the woman, in even though women's contraception was illegal.

You are complaining, about one right denied to you, to the people that have spent 2000 years being denied rights by men.

So women were treated unfairly in the past so men deserve to be treated unfairly now? That is you argument?
 
Re: It's the ground for the territory

Ir's interesting that the men complaining here about not being allowed to opt-out post conception, all, in total, think women get abortions for selfish reasons if risk of death is not the reason. Extensive research by Guttmacher Institute lists a lot of different reasons for abortion. Selfishness or didn't care about the potential child is not one of them. But men's reasons for opt-out are: "not ready for fatherhood" and "can't afford a child right now".

Which men think that women get abortions for selfish reasons?
 
Re: It's the ground for the territory

Ir's interesting that the men complaining here about not being allowed to opt-out post conception, all, in total, think women get abortions for selfish reasons if risk of death is not the reason. Extensive research by Guttmacher Institute lists a lot of different reasons for abortion. Selfishness or didn't care about the potential child is not one of them. But men's reasons for opt-out are: "not ready for fatherhood" and "can't afford a child right now".
I said the law allows women to get abortions for selfish purposes. I dont pretend to know what every womans motives are.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Even in your post you acknowledge women have 2 choices, thats 2 more choices than men get. People on your side of the debate attempt to justify that disparity based on our biological differences. There is truth in that our anatomical differences dictates that men and womens choices differ but it does not justify putting men into a position of having no choices.

The message being sent to men is that it is there responsibility to make the womens choices as least burdensome as possible for them. Our anatomical differences also does not explain why the law allows a woman to abort based on nothing but her own selfish desires but the law does not reciprocate that same logic to men.

The argument your making might have merit if abortions were limited to only circumstances that were medically necessary but thats not the case. Abortions are an elective procedure.

When i ask the question why shouldnt men also have the same freedom to choose not to be a parent within a reasonable window of time between post-conception and pre-birth, I typically get 2 answers.

1. Its not fair to women and its an attempt to control them.

2. Its a burden on taxpayers. They should not have to finacially support a mens mistakes

Niether of those reasons hold up to scrutiny. Forcing men to be obligated to make womens choices is misandry. Men and women are obligated to themselves.

If taxpayers dont like providing welfare to children they could write laws that hold both parents equally accountable. Dont grant divorces to couples with children and make unmarried couples married in the eyes of the law as soon as a child is born. Force them to be families until their children reach the age of majority. Then the taxpayer is off the hook.

If taxpayers dont like providing welfare to children they could write laws that hold both parents equally accountable. Dont grant divorces to couples with children and make unmarried couples married in the eyes of the law as soon as a child is born. Force them to be families until their children reach the age of majority. Then the taxpayer is off the hook.

Forced marriage? Pfft. You'd use the same argument: the woman had a choice I don't have and now I'm being forced unfairly to do something I don't want to do.
You want to opt out and the law won't let you. Tough, that's the way laws often are; they require or prevent you from doing something others are allowed to do and you aren't.
Most kids are capable of driving a car when they are 11. In farming communities a lot of them are driving complicated farm machinery. The law says they can't have a drivers license until they are 15 or 16. Most teens are physically capable of sex and marriage. The law says they can't get married until they are 16 and only then with their parents consent.
Farmers don't have to pay gasoline tax; you do.
Most women were physically capable of flying fighter planes in battle during WWII. They were forbidden to do so.

The history of women in flight and medicine is interesting in a discussion of denial of rights. In the early years of flight women participated equally with men. There were many women pilots barnstorming during the 20s and 30s. They had amazing piloting skills. Suddenly with WWII they were banned from flying planes in battle. Later after the war the ban on women flying continued and they were prevented from commercial piloting. The same thing happened in the field of medicine. Women were better healers than men and were on their way to becoming the dominate practitioners in the field. In the late 19th century men established schools of medicine and women were banned from them. The AMA was instituted to keep medicine all male.

So yeah, you could opt-out. The law says you can't. Suck it up. Women have been sucking it up for centuries.
 
Last edited:
There are consequences...pain, possible infertility, lost time from work, $$$, other health issues, even death.

There is nothing pleasant about having an abortion or most other medical procedures.

She didnt get 'exactly what she wanted' because she didnt want to be pregnant in the first place.

You once again have failed to make that argument.

Sorry, but a little bit of morning sickness and having to swallow a pill or be given a few drugs, while definitely uncomfortable for some, is nowhere near as bad as being forced with a financial obligation for the next 21 years. Not even close. What you're doing now is basically looking for any mild inconvenience that can be caused by pregnancy and using it to justify why life is so hard for women. Nonsense. This is on the level of saying that eating has consequences...you could bite your tongue, your teeth gradually deteriorate, your breathe smells bad etc etc. Those aren't consequences, they're mild inconveniences which are outweighed tenfold by the benefit they bring on. It's the same for abortion. Getting one might be uncomfortable but it's saving women from a much, much, much more uncomfortable situation.
 
Re: It's the ground for the territory

If she aborts or nothing has nothing to do with a legal decision for him or for her to Opt Out of parenting...

It just doesn't, no matter how much some of you insist that it does...

The moment you're talking about a legal decision, you're discussing what happens in a polity that's fairly well organized. The same for when you hit parenting. When you get both together, making sure that children are properly cared for & brought up is a prime responsibility for a polity.

The only modern society I can recall offhand that took direct control of childcare & upbringing was the late USSR. They formally considered that all citizens belonged to the state, & acted on it. They may have done great things for their infants & children - I'd have to look into it more. But the USSR is gone, & the subject seems kinda academic @ this remove.

In any event, in the here & now, the US government is not going to shoulder all the costs & responsibilities of child care & maintenance for all US babies/infants/children, & certainly not for 17 years or until those children reach the age of their majority. It never has, & I don't expect it ever will; because it cuts against the grain of the majority moral feeling that the parents are the first line of child care & maintenance.

It's not going to happen, & you might as well retire this topic, because the trends are running sharply against any such major social/legal reform being undertaken anytime soon, given the fiscal & economic constraints we're in & the uncertain economic forecasts for the near-term future. & certainly as long as the GOP dominates the Executive Branch, the Senate, & Trump is nominating more socially conservative judges to the federal Judiciary, you can kiss any likelihood of change there in family law - goodbye.
 
Re: It's the ground for the territory

Yes women faced prejuidices in the past and they all got overturned eventually. Thats who we gtow as a society. What you seem to be suggesting is that men deserve to be treated because of those past inequalities. Thats vindictive. Laws are supposed to be objective and fair. You seam to want revenge.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Not vindictive in the least. Just saying the law isn't necessarily "fair". It always gives someone something over someone else. Making the tax laws better for corporations denies a tax break for the middle class. Giving corporations a license to manufacture whisky takes away the right of farmers to profit from making extra grain into whisky. Every license excludes those that are unlicensed.

What's interesting is that men don't seem to want to talk about why the law was the instituted in the first place and what would probably happen if the law were repealed.
 
Sorry, but a little bit of morning sickness and having to swallow a pill or be given a few drugs, while definitely uncomfortable for some, is nowhere near as bad as being forced with a financial obligation for the next 21 years. Not even close. What you're doing now is basically looking for any mild inconvenience that can be caused by pregnancy and using it to justify why life is so hard for women. Nonsense. This is on the level of saying that eating has consequences...you could bite your tongue, your teeth gradually deteriorate, your breathe smells bad etc etc. Those aren't consequences, they're mild inconveniences which are outweighed tenfold by the benefit they bring on. It's the same for abortion. Getting one might be uncomfortable but it's saving women from a much, much, much more uncomfortable situation.

That's your opinion and again...you have no idea what the health consequences would actually be. It's not like anyone who plans a medical procedure expects...or can avoid...complications. Same with miscarriages. And it's not up to you. There are consequences...it seems like it's a competition to you...who suffers more.

If men dont want to 'suffer' child support...they have 100% ability to avoid it. And they are aware of this. So...why do they put themselves in that position? And since they do consciously make that decision knowing the consequences...why should they be able to avoid them? (Again...women cannot)
 
Re: It's the ground for the territory

Not vindictive in the least. Just saying the law isn't necessarily "fair". It always gives someone something over someone else. Making the tax laws better for corporations denies a tax break for the middle class. Giving corporations a license to manufacture whisky takes away the right of farmers to profit from making extra grain into whisky. Every license excludes those that are unlicensed.

What's interesting is that men don't seem to want to talk about why the law was the instituted in the first place and what would probably happen if the law were repealed.
I keep bringing the bold up...it gets ignored pretty much.
 
Re: It's the ground for the territory

The moment you're talking about a legal decision, you're discussing what happens in a polity that's fairly well organized. The same for when you hit parenting. When you get both together, making sure that children are properly cared for & brought up is a prime responsibility for a polity.

The only modern society I can recall offhand that took direct control of childcare & upbringing was the late USSR. They formally considered that all citizens belonged to the state, & acted on it. They may have done great things for their infants & children - I'd have to look into it more. But the USSR is gone, & the subject seems kinda academic @ this remove.

In any event, in the here & now, the US government is not going to shoulder all the costs & responsibilities of child care & maintenance for all US babies/infants/children, & certainly not for 17 years or until those children reach the age of their majority. It never has, & I don't expect it ever will; because it cuts against the grain of the majority moral feeling that the parents are the first line of child care & maintenance.

It's not going to happen, & you might as well retire this topic, because the trends are running sharply against any such major social/legal reform being undertaken anytime soon, given the fiscal & economic constraints we're in & the uncertain economic forecasts for the near-term future. & certainly as long as the GOP dominates the Executive Branch, the Senate, & Trump is nominating more socially conservative judges to the federal Judiciary, you can kiss any likelihood of change there in family law - goodbye.

This topic and debate serve their purpose perfectly...
 
Re: It's the ground for the territory

I said the law allows women to get abortions for selfish purposes. I dont pretend to know what every womans motives are.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Google Guttmacher and find out reasons why women abort.
 
Re: It's the ground for the territory

This topic and debate serve their purpose perfectly...

Perhaps the venting brings you some peace but it's hard to imagine that it outweighs the humiliation the dismantling of your silly proposal brings you each time.
 
Forced marriage? Pfft. You'd use the same argument: the woman had a choice I don't have and now I'm being forced unfairly to do something I don't want to do.
You want to opt out and the law won't let you. Tough, that's the way laws often are; they require or prevent you from doing something others are allowed to do and you aren't.
Most kids are capable of driving a car when they are 11. In farming communities a lot of them are driving complicated farm machinery. The law says they can't have a drivers license until they are 15 or 16. Most teens are physically capable of sex and marriage. The law says they can't get married until they are 16 and only then with their parents consent.
Farmers don't have to pay gasoline tax; you do.
Most women were physically capable of flying fighter planes in battle during WWII. They were forbidden to do so.

The history of women in flight and medicine is interesting in a discussion of denial of rights. In the early years of flight women participated equally with men. There were many women pilots barnstorming during the 20s and 30s. They had amazing piloting skills. Suddenly with WWII they were banned from flying planes in battle. Later after the war the ban on women flying continued and they were prevented from commercial piloting. The same thing happened in the field of medicine. Women were better healers than men and were on their way to becoming the dominate practitioners in the field. In the late 19th century men established schools of medicine and women were banned from them. The AMA was instituted to keep medicine all male.

So yeah, you could opt-out. The law says you can't. Suck it up. Women have been sucking it up for centuries.
The fact that you pfft the idea of forced marriages shows that this concern for the taxpayer at best is ancillary. Dont use taxayers to excuse misandry

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom