• 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

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

Our respect for the Constitution outweighs just about everything. (well, I cant really speak for him)
 
Re: It's the ground for the territory

Google Guttmacher and find out reasons why women abort.
Is this the part where your gonna tell me women have valid reasons snd men reasons are not?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
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

The Pfft, is for you and the argument you would give against forced marriage, " Forcing me to get married is just as unfair as forcing me into paying for a child I don"t want." In any case how acceptable you think forced marriage is going to be to conservative males who can't even accept the responsibility of wearing a condom because it spoils their right to the full enjoyment of sex?
 
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
The Pfft, is for you and the argument you would give against forced marriage, " Forcing me to get married is just as unfair as forcing me into paying for a child I don"t want." In any case how acceptable you think forced marriage is going to be to conservative males who can't even accept the responsibility of wearing a condom because it spoils their right to the full enjoyment of sex?

So then T13, If you force people to marry, do men have the right to force their wives to have sex (again?) And I guess that would work both ways right? Wives could demand sex from their husbands even if the husbands didnt want to?

I'd be against it tho...it's a gross violation of bodily sovereignty, at minimum.
 
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.

Of course it has everything to do with supporting the 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.

This thread may not want to talk about child support. But the whole system of laws about support is based on the concept that supporting the child is the object not meting out equality and fairness to men.
 
The Pfft, is for you and the argument you would give against forced marriage, " Forcing me to get married is just as unfair as forcing me into paying for a child I don"t want." In any case how acceptable you think forced marriage is going to be to conservative males who can't even accept the responsibility of wearing a condom because it spoils their right to the full enjoyment of sex?
But its not about fairness to the parents, its about fairness to the tax payer. That's the argument people are making. The solution i suggested puts the tax payers concerns first. Its telling that when the solution is equally inconvenient to both parents the misandrists no loger prioritize the taxpayers burden. Which is why i say its a fake argument.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
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?

A better solution would be to give full custody and support rights to the innocent party in a divorce. And in the case of illegitimate births, only require child support to be paid if the father is offered custody and refuses it. Neither parent should have a right to escape their obligations to the child, much less to kill it.
 
But its not about fairness to the parents, its about fairness to the tax payer. That's the argument people are making. The solution i suggested puts the tax payers concerns first. Its telling that when the solution is equally inconvenient to both parents the misandrists no loger prioritize the taxpayers burden. Which is why i say its a fake argument.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

The original claim is that "it's not fair to men!"

So the counterpoint to that is that if it's not 'fair' to men, it's even less 'fair' to taxpayers who had nothing to do with producing the child.

No one said it could be made completely fair...most of us have argued that *it cannot be fair.*

We're just pointing out the hypocrisy of those that cry 'unfairness' to men but seem to believe it's ok to be unfair to the taxpayers...making us pay for something we had nothing to do with when the responsible parties are available to be held accountable.
 
But its not about fairness to the parents, its about fairness to the tax payer. That's the argument people are making. The solution i suggested puts the tax payers concerns first. Its telling that when the solution is equally inconvenient to both parents the misandrists no loger prioritize the taxpayers burden. Which is why i say its a fake argument.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Well the state didn't put taxpayers first. Their philosophy was the welfare of the child comes before the welfare of the tax payer. They put the child first. Take it up with the courts. Most of us think the courts got it right. You don't. The courts do things I'm not to keen on. You're not the Lone Ranger.
 
Well the state didn't put taxpayers first. Their philosophy was the welfare of the child comes before the welfare of the tax payer. They put the child first. Take it up with the courts. Most of us think the courts got it right. You don't. The courts do things I'm not to keen on. You're not the Lone Ranger.
I dont claim to be the lone ranger. I simply pointed out the absudity of using taxpayers as an excuse to justify treating men poorly. So now that we have dispelled the myth that its about the burden on the taxpayer it leaves us with it is an attempt to control women. An equally absurd argument. Would you like to try arguing that one now?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
I dont claim to be the lone ranger. I simply pointed out the absudity of using taxpayers as an excuse to justify treating men poorly. So now that we have dispelled the myth that its about the burden on the taxpayer it leaves us with it is an attempt to control women. An equally absurd argument. Would you like to try arguing that one now?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Asking both mother and father to support their children is not treating anyone poorly.
 
I dont claim to be the lone ranger. I simply pointed out the absudity of using taxpayers as an excuse to justify treating men poorly. So now that we have dispelled the myth that its about the burden on the taxpayer it leaves us with it is an attempt to control women. An equally absurd argument. Would you like to try arguing that one now?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Nope. Still a fail ^^

This is the real outcome of that argument (post 1109):

The original claim is that "it's not fair to men!"

So the counterpoint to that is that if it's not 'fair' to men, it's even less 'fair' to taxpayers who had nothing to do with producing the child.

No one said it could be made completely fair...most of us have argued that *it cannot be fair.*

We're just pointing out the hypocrisy of those that cry 'unfairness' to men but seem to believe it's ok to be unfair to the taxpayers...making us pay for something we had nothing to do with when the responsible parties are available to be held accountable.
 
This thread may not want to talk about child support. But the whole system of laws about support is based on the concept that supporting the child is the object not meting out equality and fairness to men.

Since there is no child at the point of this argument the notion of supporting the child is irrelevant.
 
Of course it has everything to do with supporting the child.

There is no child the at the Point of this argument so no... it has nothing to do with supporting a child
 
That's your opinion

No, it's an objective fact. 21 years of paying child support is a lot worse than one morning or even a couple of weeks of discomfort.

There are consequences...it seems like it's a competition to you...who suffers more.

No, my point is that women get to choose their consequences. They have options. They can choose the one that impacts them the least. Men don't have that. They must adhere to what the woman decides for the next 21 years of their life. You'd seriously have to be an oppressive, careless thug to think anyone should have the power to make that kind of a decision on someone else's behalf. Then again...feminism.

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)

I despite the pro-choice movement but I'll actually credit them as they've already answered this question quite well (of course, only when it's used to challenge women). Humans have sex because it feels good. Our culture and laws have normalized, or even glorified, unconditional sex. People are going to have it whether you like it or not and it's the government's job to keep up and manage it.

You're also ignoring the fact that many abortions take place between committed couples, even if the man doesn't agree. Are you suggesting that all men should stop sleeping with their girlfriends or wives? It sounds like you just want to make sure men remain powerless.
 
Since there is no child at the point of this argument the notion of supporting the child is irrelevant.

"there is no child"............. so what are you opt-outing of????........bunny rabbits?

"Men to should be able to opt out of bunny rabbit 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 bunny rabbits 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 all those bunny rabbits."#1Bodhisativa


There fixed it for you.
 
No, it's an objective fact. 21 years of paying child support is a lot worse than one morning or even a couple of weeks of discomfort.



No, my point is that women get to choose their consequences. They have options. They can choose the one that impacts them the least. Men don't have that. They must adhere to what the woman decides for the next 21 years of their life. You'd seriously have to be an oppressive, careless thug to think anyone should have the power to make that kind of a decision on someone else's behalf. Then again...feminism.



I despite the pro-choice movement but I'll actually credit them as they've already answered this question quite well (of course, only when it's used to challenge women). Humans have sex because it feels good. Our culture and laws have normalized, or even glorified, unconditional sex. People are going to have it whether you like it or not and it's the government's job to keep up and manage it.

You're also ignoring the fact that many abortions take place between committed couples, even if the man doesn't agree. Are you suggesting that all men should stop sleeping with their girlfriends or wives? It sounds like you just want to make sure men remain powerless.

" People are going to have (sex) whether you like it or not and it's the government's job to keep up and manage it. "Hilarious!!!!!
"I despite (sic) the pro-choice movement." So you want a situation in which women are required to carry a pregnancy full term and produce a child and men are not required to support them.

And were back to 1820
 
Last edited:
So you want a situation in which women are required to carry a pregnancy full term and produce a child

Why does this strawman keep coming up? While I am disagreeing with the OPs premises, nothing about the argument of allowing men to legally opt out of parenthood calls for women to be forced to carry to term OR forced to abort.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
To that I would say if she doesn't want "something in her body" (it's called procreation, by the way) then she should probably abstain.
Since the right of bodily autonomy is not limited to procreation, this is irrelevant. Especially since the argument is that the law is not applied fairly. The law is applied fairly. If something, not limited to a ZEF, is in your body, it is your choice alone as to whether it stays or goes, even if your decision would result in the death of another. That equally applied to men and women. Fact. If a ZEF is created by two people they are both legally responsible for that offspring once it becomes a child, the minimum of which is financial support. Fact. If a ZEF created by two people is gestatated in a third person or artificial womb (since that technology looks to be in or shortly after our lifetime), neither parent can have the ZEF terminated on their sole decision, nor can either parent choose to get out of their legal parental responsibilities. Fact.

The law is applied equally between men and women. For some reason, there is this idea that circumstances that are different should have the same results.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
Asking both mother and father to support their children is not treating anyone poorly.
Allowing women the legal authority to decide if the mans child will live or die without his consent is treating men poorly, no matter how you try to spin it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
No, it's an objective fact. 21 years of paying child support is a lot worse than one morning or even a couple of weeks of discomfort.



No, my point is that women get to choose their consequences. They have options. They can choose the one that impacts them the least. Men don't have that. They must adhere to what the woman decides for the next 21 years of their life. You'd seriously have to be an oppressive, careless thug to think anyone should have the power to make that kind of a decision on someone else's behalf. Then again...feminism.



I despite the pro-choice movement but I'll actually credit them as they've already answered this question quite well (of course, only when it's used to challenge women). Humans have sex because it feels good. Our culture and laws have normalized, or even glorified, unconditional sex. People are going to have it whether you like it or not and it's the government's job to keep up and manage it.

You're also ignoring the fact that many abortions take place between committed couples, even if the man doesn't agree. Are you suggesting that all men should stop sleeping with their girlfriends or wives? It sounds like you just want to make sure men remain powerless.
You make some excellent points in this post.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Allowing women the legal authority to decide if the mans child will live or die without his consent is treating men poorly, no matter how you try to spin it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

@ the point that the pregnant woman has the option of abortion, it's not yet a child. It's a fetus, & it's not viable yet - & so Roe considers it to not yet be a person (in the legal sense), & the woman can choose to abort. Freely elected abortions take place early in the pregnancy.

Roe isn't likely to be overturned. These issues - pregnancy, abortion, & contested child care & maintenance - will have to be resolved in some other way. The law is not perfectly satisfactory to all the parties, & in this case, I don't think it can ever be. Medical technology may advance enough to resolve some of these issues, but that's decades away.
 
@ the point that the pregnant woman has the option of abortion, it's not yet a child. It's a fetus, & it's not viable yet - & so Roe considers it to not yet be a person (in the legal sense), & the woman can choose to abort. Freely elected abortions take place early in the pregnancy.

Roe isn't likely to be overturned. These issues - pregnancy, abortion, & contested child care & maintenance - will have to be resolved in some other way. The law is not perfectly satisfactory to all the parties, & in this case, I don't think it can ever be. Medical technology may advance enough to resolve some of these issues, but that's decades away.

I agree that the law can never be completely satisifactory to all parties but it can be improved from where it currently sits. Im probably the most prochoice person on this board to the point that while i dont agree with late term abortions i believe they should be legal. What i disagree with is hoding men accountable for decissions made by someone else. That is something that can be fixed without any new technology. Give men a choice and that provides some measure of balance between the people involved. Currently the law places men in a defenseless position based on their gender. Its discrimatory and something the law isnt suppose to do.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Denied, for good & sufficient reason

I agree that the law can never be completely satisifactory to all parties but it can be improved from where it currently sits. Im probably the most prochoice person on this board to the point that while i dont agree with late term abortions i believe they should be legal. What i disagree with is hoding men accountable for decissions made by someone else. That is something that can be fixed without any new technology. Give men a choice and that provides some measure of balance between the people involved. Currently the law places men in a defenseless position based on their gender. Its discrimatory and something the law isnt suppose to do.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

accountable for decissions made by someone else Exactly. The man & woman in question conceive a fetus, which will become a baby, & entitled to care & maintenance. If the mother & father wash their hands of the child - who will care for it, into its majority? Society will step in as a last resort, & temporarily. The man & woman decided (barring various crimes) to risk the pregnancy. They took the risk, they should bear the consequences.

Men are not "in a defenseless position based on their gender. Its discrimatory" Men took the risk, & the position was based on their behavior, not their gender. If the courts tend to pursue the man for child support & maintenance, that's merely historical - the man was traditionally understood to be the breadwinner of the family. That is changing, as the courts recognize that some women earn more than their biological partner. That was a kind of discrimination, but it was based on fact - & it will evolve, it is evolving now.
 
Back
Top Bottom