• 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

Re: Denied, for good & sufficient reason

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.
Its evolving or devolving? Im not sure which. Its most like doing both at the same time. Yes its true women are advancing in the workplace and that is evolution but men on the other hand are dropping out to protect themselves from the current discrimatory practices. Its a snowballing trend that people began noticing for at least 20 years and each passing year it grows. The longer its ignored the larger the problem becomes.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
There is no child the at the Point of this argument so no... it has nothing to do with supporting a child

I am well aware of the fact that you have constructed an argument that limits other facts. .
 
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 woman suffers 100 percent of the physiological risk of pregnancy. Of course it is fair that she decide whether to continue the pregnancy.

I have suffered the consequences. Very healthy to having several life threatening conditions. If I had crap insurance and crap access to a thoughtful experienced OBGYN …..I would either be on dialysis or dead. On top of that I needed surgery with the risks of general anesthesia to deliver my son.

Every pregnancy carries risk. I had the medical, social, financial resources to assure I had the best chance of a positive outcome. I was out of work nearly 6 months due to complications.
 
The woman suffers 100 percent of the physiological risk of pregnancy. Of course it is fair that she decide whether to continue the pregnancy.

I have suffered the consequences. Very healthy to having several life threatening conditions. If I had crap insurance and crap access to a thoughtful experienced OBGYN …..I would either be on dialysis or dead. On top of that I needed surgery with the risks of general anesthesia to deliver my son.

Every pregnancy carries risk. I had the medical, social, financial resources to assure I had the best chance of a positive outcome. I was out of work nearly 6 months due to complications.
You say this as if it justifies forcing men to father children they didnt want but it doesn't. The law has adressed your issue by legalizing abortions. The law has done the opposite for those men i mentioned. It punishes them.

Let me make this simpler
Can a parfectly healthy woman experiencing a typically normal pregnancy not showing any signs of danger to herself or her baby elect to abort for the purpose of not wanting to take on all the responsibilities associated with being a parent, yes or no?
Until men are offered the choice to also choose to not take that responsibility or uou remove womens right to make that choice for that purpose, the law is gender bias and discamatory.

Men and womens anatomical differences is not an adequate justification for it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
You say this as if it justifies forcing men to father children they didnt want but it doesn't. The law has adressed your issue by legalizing abortions. The law has done the opposite for those men i mentioned. It punishes them.

Let me make this simpler
Can a parfectly healthy woman experiencing a typically normal pregnancy not showing any signs of danger to herself or her baby elect to abort for the purpose of not wanting to take on all the responsibilities associated with being a parent, yes or no?
Until men are offered the choice to also choose to not take that responsibility or uou remove womens right to make that choice for that purpose, the law is gender bias and discamatory.

Men and womens anatomical differences is not an adequate justification for it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

You are all over the place.

I was responding to your statement about men not having control over the pregnancy itself.

If my doctor had not been as experienced, he probably would have missed my signs. And by that time abortion may have been too late to save my kidneys (or my life)

It is so easy for you to make simplistic proclamations, yet you have no real insight into pregnancy related health issues.

And you make a false statement in your first statement. Men are not forced to father their children. A father shows up after birth and takes an active role in that child's life. His loss if he chooses not to be a father. What we are speaking to is a potentially legal obligation to support your children financially.

I get it. You feel it is not fair that she get to decide the fate of the pregnancy. Well she experiences 100 percent of the effects of pregnancy and abortion. Bodily autonomy. Stomp your feet all you want, but you have bodily autonomy and so does she.

I get that there are inequities in the system....I think that is wrong and fleecing non custodial parents is not the answer. Having them contribute (especially before taxpayers may be forced to pick up the slack) is not wrong.

A person that does not wish to risk the consequences of unintended pregnancy should do their best to mitigate those risks. Contraception is not foolproof. So BOTH people need to use contraception regardless of what the other person is using. Some loss in friction because of a condom vs unintended fatherhood it would be up to the man to decide which he cares most about not risking.
 
Thankfully, in some countries all it takes to get out of paying child support is to bribe the judge.

You are all over the place.

I was responding to your statement about men not having control over the pregnancy itself.

If my doctor had not been as experienced, he probably would have missed my signs. And by that time abortion may have been too late to save my kidneys (or my life)

It is so easy for you to make simplistic proclamations, yet you have no real insight into pregnancy related health issues.

And you make a false statement in your first statement. Men are not forced to father their children. A father shows up after birth and takes an active role in that child's life. His loss if he chooses not to be a father. What we are speaking to is a potentially legal obligation to support your children financially.

I get it. You feel it is not fair that she get to decide the fate of the pregnancy. Well she experiences 100 percent of the effects of pregnancy and abortion. Bodily autonomy. Stomp your feet all you want, but you have bodily autonomy and so does she.

I get that there are inequities in the system....I think that is wrong and fleecing non custodial parents is not the answer. Having them contribute (especially before taxpayers may be forced to pick up the slack) is not wrong.

A person that does not wish to risk the consequences of unintended pregnancy should do their best to mitigate those risks. Contraception is not foolproof. So BOTH people need to use contraception regardless of what the other person is using. Some loss in friction because of a condom vs unintended fatherhood it would be up to the man to decide which he cares most about not risking.
 
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.
.
Disgustingly and unrealistically minimized as presented and completely subjective.
 
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.

Yes, men do have options, They are just different because of biology. Men can decide to protect themselves...right? Yes or no? Do men have a choice in avoiding unwanted parenthood? Yes or no?

If the consequences of that choice are different, that's biology, not women taking advantage of men. It's women looking out for their own best interests...which is ***the exact same thing you are demanding for men.*** Dont be a hypocrite. If men deserve to do that, then so do women. But again...it's biology that makes the difference.

Let's see if you go along with this, if you want "fair" and "equal." Woman agrees not to abort child if man equally shares in HER consequences for pregnancy and childbirth. If she misses days of work and loses a promotion...so does he. If her kidneys are destroyed during pregnancy, so are his, medically induced. If she dies during childbirth, he's put to death.

All fair and equal....shall we institute a law that demands that? Why not? It would be 'equal.'
 
Thankfully, in some countries all it takes to get out of paying child support is to bribe the judge.

You seem proud of parent avoiding supporting their children
 
Yes, men do have options, They are just different because of biology. Men can decide to protect themselves...right? Yes or no? Do men have a choice in avoiding unwanted parenthood? Yes or no?

If the consequences of that choice are different, that's biology, not women taking advantage of men. It's women looking out for their own best interests...which is ***the exact same thing you are demanding for men.*** Dont be a hypocrite. If men deserve to do that, then so do women. But again...it's biology that makes the difference.

Let's see if you go along with this, if you want "fair" and "equal." Woman agrees not to abort child if man equally shares in HER consequences for pregnancy and childbirth. If she misses days of work and loses a promotion...so does he. If her kidneys are destroyed during pregnancy, so are his, medically induced. If she dies during childbirth, he's put to death.

All fair and equal....shall we institute a law that demands that? Why not? It would be 'equal.'

But the loss of friction is criminal I tell you....criminal!:lamo
 
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.
Not ignoring anything. I've mentioned couples a few times, and you didnt even acknowledge it. Like where I wrote that couples and single men also can apply for assistance and get it, just like women.

Men know this in any relationship but once in relationships, couples usually decide these things together. Once a man and woman decide to have a kid...it all goes back to family court...none of those laws ...which apply equally to men and women today...are affected by this silly opt-out BS.
 
" 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

Inorite? Sex is wonderful and people are 100% entitled to enjoy it, responsibly one hopes.

But historically...that's not something any govt or tyrant can control. (Some poster's wishful thinking aside.)
 
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

If the man doesnt like that, he didnt have to have sex with her and give her that control...now did he?

Again...are you denying that the man doesnt have 100% control over this?

Of course he does. And so then why shouldnt he be held responsible for his decision, just like she is? (yes yes, we know you dont like that biology offers her 'different' options.)
 
One exception is where children are not the dominion of either parent, but rather the state. That is why child support is minimal in Cuba and often not even pursued. The state is responsible, but also in absolute control. I'm not saying that this is best, but pointing out an exception to your premise.

Inorite? Sex is wonderful and people are 100% entitled to enjoy it, responsibly one hopes.

But historically...that's not something any govt or tyrant can control. (Some poster's wishful thinking aside.)
 
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

Men do decide, it's a lie, pure victimization to write otherwise.

You just dont like WHEN men have to decide. Because you believe that men are still entitled to sex without consequences. Which women are not and never have been.

Now it's equal, yet you act like men are victims of their own lack of self control. Can men make a decision here in their own best interests or not? Yes or no?
 
One exception is where children are not the dominion of either parent, but rather the state. That is why child support is minimal in Cuba and often not even pursued. The state is responsible, but also in absolute control. I'm not saying that this is best, but pointing out an exception to your premise.

Completely irrelevant to the topic.
 
It's actually quite relevant. He would get the "opt out" that he seeks.

Oh for God's sake. We're discussing America.

Feel free to start a thread if you want America to adopt that system of child care. Maybe he'll jump at it.
 
You are all over the place.

I was responding to your statement about men not having control over the pregnancy itself.

If my doctor had not been as experienced, he probably would have missed my signs. And by that time abortion may have been too late to save my kidneys (or my life)

It is so easy for you to make simplistic proclamations, yet you have no real insight into pregnancy related health issues.

And you make a false statement in your first statement. Men are not forced to father their children. A father shows up after birth and takes an active role in that child's life. His loss if he chooses not to be a father. What we are speaking to is a potentially legal obligation to support your children financially.

I get it. You feel it is not fair that she get to decide the fate of the pregnancy. Well she experiences 100 percent of the effects of pregnancy and abortion. Bodily autonomy. Stomp your feet all you want, but you have bodily autonomy and so does she.

I get that there are inequities in the system....I think that is wrong and fleecing non custodial parents is not the answer. Having them contribute (especially before taxpayers may be forced to pick up the slack) is not wrong.

A person that does not wish to risk the consequences of unintended pregnancy should do their best to mitigate those risks. Contraception is not foolproof. So BOTH people need to use contraception regardless of what the other person is using. Some loss in friction because of a condom vs unintended fatherhood it would be up to the man to decide which he cares most about not risking.
I have been anything but all over the place. I've been very consistent in my belief the law should allow men to be just as selfish as women. Everything i have posted is consisted to that basic principle. Whether its by giving men more freedom which is my preference or restrict some of womens current liberities. Both of which put the scales closer in balance.

The difference between me snd you is that i have no desire to restrict.womens choices while you advocate for s system that restricts mens choices. Bringing up biological diffrences only serve to obfuscate what is a legal question.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
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

It's not a strawman. A lot of the men (and I use the term loosely)that are advocating male opt-out are also advocates for restricting abortion.
 
.......the law should allow men to be just as selfish as women. Everything i have posted is consisted to that basic principle. Whether its by giving men more freedom which is my preference or restrict some of womens current liberities. Both of which put the scales closer in balance.

.........i have no desire to restrict.womens choices ............. Bringing up biological diffrences only serve to obfuscate what is a legal question.

So, which is it?.......... "restrict women current liberties(sic)" or "no desire to restrict womens (sic) choices"
 
"there is no child"............. so what are you opt-outing of????........bunny rabbits?




There fixed it for you.

You think that there is a child at post-conception to when she knows that she is pregnant?
 
I am well aware of the fact that you have constructed an argument that limits other facts. .

When a person knows how to debate they will never lose...
 
It's not a strawman. A lot of the men (and I use the term loosely)that are advocating male opt-out are also advocates for restricting abortion.

A lot of men that advocate male opt-out are also Democrat... are you going to now start talking about politics?

...that means, yes, it was a Straw Man
 
........the law should allow men to be just as selfish as women. Everything i have posted is consisted to that basic principle. Whether its by giving men more freedom which is my preference or restrict some of womens current liberities. Both of which put the scales closer in balance.

The difference between me snd you is that i have no desire to restrict.womens choices while you advocate for s system that restricts mens choices. Bringing up biological diffrences only serve to obfuscate what is a legal question.

Selfishness: no culture strives for a basic principle or morality of selfishness. Asking that the law legalize selfishness is as socially immature as the 2year old grabbing a toy away from another chid. The cultural expectation is that parents will help a child learn not to be selfish. There is no social expectation that the government will pass laws legalizing selfishness. It is traditionally and historically considered one of the 7 deadly sins. Churches preach against it. All religions exhort their members to be generous. Demanding equal selfishness as a right is not something that is going to find any support.

Biology: Legal equality is impossible because the biology is not the same. It's the biological difference that creates the so called inequality. Biology makes the discussion more complicated but it doesn't obfuscate. Biology will be part of the discussion.

Alternatives: There are only two ways correct this so called inequality. Both solutions have undesirable out comes for the country.
1. Men can opt-out and deny support to a child he fathered. This solution allows men to walk away from losing any money to children or women increasing poverty and inequality significantly. In adequate nutrition handicaps children in many mental and physical ways and makes movement out of poverty very unlikely. No country prospers with a huge population of poor children.
2. Women can be denied abortion except where there is risk of death, rape or incest. This won't stop abortions. The middle class and wealthy women will have access to doctors that will perform abortions. That means about 1,200,000 more unwanted children every year Most of whom will grow up and stay in poverty. Again national poverty increases and women have been denied a chance to control their own futures.

Satisfying the selfishness of men so they can enjoy equal selfishness of women by decreasing national prosperity, increasing poverty, increasing the number of unwanted children and denying women control over their lives is hardly are not a desirable solution.

Is there another option?
 
Back
Top Bottom