• 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

Bodhisattva said:
What do you mean? Currently, if the woman chooses to keep the child the man is liable. That is why the woman's actions matter.

Seems pretty obvious too...
Click to expand...

No no...you continually blame women as being selfish and irresponsible but that wont change if men have the opt-out. Right?

So why do you keep bringing up? our "actions"? We know that your "proposal" means men wont have to pay child support. It has nothing to do with what women decide.

If it's all about equality...why keep bringing up how women behave? Our options wont change.
 
Bodhisattva said:
It is all in how one frames the argument. I don't actually think that woman are selfishly abusing children by not aborting just as I don't think that men are dead beats "copping out" for not wanting to be forced into paying for a child that they don't want. You are the one displaying man hating bigotry... I am merely arguing points and in this case I am making a point to hopefully illustrate to people, like you, who are trying to turn this into a blame game instead of one about options and equality post conception.
.
Click to expand...

If I blame anyone, I blame men and women equally. I have little respect for people who have kids knowing they cant afford them and will need public assistance, period. And I have no respect for a man or a woman, as non-custodial parent, that doesnt pay child support.

But stop lying...the current laws apply equally to (legally-recognized) men and women regarding opting out before parenthood. It destroys your entire premise so you wont admit it, but it's true...the law is equal.

You are just mad now because, in reality, it means that non-pregnant men cant opt-out of parenthood...so, care to change your proposal? This should be interesting. Good luck keeping biology out of this one.
 
Last edited:
AGENT J said:
Of course
also who makes that subjective decision, maybe thats how YOU see it. Millions feel that abortion was the responsible thing to do and were driven to do so by thier own morals :shrug:
Click to expand...
My point is that the law makes that allowance to women but not to men. Im trying to illustrate the disparity in the law that some are either incapable of seeing or refusing to acknowledge as unequal.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
trouble13 said:
My point is that the law makes that allowance to women but not to men. Im trying to illustrate the disparity in the law that some are either incapable of seeing or refusing to acknowledge as unequal.

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

The law does make that allowance for pregnant men. And there are now legally-recognized men that gestate.

The law is equal.
 
Lursa said:
The OP has demanded we not use any biological factors in the discussion.

Legally-recognized men do gestate and give birth. They have the same *equal* right to opt-out of parenthood as women.

The law is equal.

And child support is not public assistance but people do have their wages garnished to pay alimony and any other money's owed. People dont "owe" pubilc assistance, however people do owe alimony, debt payments, child support, etc. Child support is not reimbursement for welfare...it is a completely different thing.
Click to expand...

Biology is certainly relevant in abortion discussions -- it inexorably invovles a woman's control of her own body. But child support is an entirely social construct. There is nothing that biologically forces a father to care for his offspring. This is really a moral, ethical, and legal question.

And reimbursing taxpayers is fundamental to this argument -- in fact, it's one of the main justifications for child support orders. If a single parent seeks public aid, and no support order exists, the state will sue the non-custodial parent to establish a support order, and that money, including potential back support, will be owed to the state until it is payed in full -- even long after the child is an adult, if need be. This is a common practice in many states, and it's based on the belief that parents, not taxpayers, should be providing care. All of this is almost entirely independent of the non-custodial's actual relationship to the child and can be imposed entirely against the non-custodial's will. What other group is ever expected to reimburse the state for welfare services? Ever?
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Biology is certainly relevant in abortion discussions -- it inexorably invovles a woman's control of her own body. But child support is an entirely social construct. There is nothing that biologically forces a father to care for his offspring. This is really a moral, ethical, and legal question.

And reimbursing taxpayers is fundamental to this argument -- in fact, it's one of the main justifications for child support orders. If a single parent seeks public aid, and no support order exists, the state will sue the non-custodial parent to establish a support order, and that money, including potential back support, will be owed to the state until it is payed in full -- even long after the child is an adult, if need be. This is a common practice in many states, and it's based on the belief that parents, not taxpayers, should be providing care. All of this is almost entirely independent of the non-custodial's actual relationship to the child and can be imposed entirely against the non-custodial's will. What other group is ever expected to reimburse the state for welfare services? Ever?
Click to expand...

The OP has written repeatedly that this topic and his proposal have "nothing to do with biology or abortion" and refuses to consider those (supposedly) when making his or considering other arguments.

Argument based completely on the law:

Legally-recognized men do gestate and give birth. However they also have the exact same ability to 'opt-out' (abort) of parenthood before birth as women do.

The law is indeed equal.
 
Lursa said:
If I blame anyone, I blame men and women equally. I have little respect for people who have kids knowing they cant afford them and will need public assistance, period. And I have no respect for a man or a woman, as non-custodial parent, that doesnt pay child support.

But stop lying...the current laws apply equally to (legally-recognized) men and women regarding opting out before parenthood. It destroys your entire premise so you wont admit it, but it's true...the law is equal.

You are just mad now because, in reality, it means that non-pregnant men cant opt-out of parenthood...so, care to change your proposal? This should be interesting. Good luck keeping biology out of this one.
Click to expand...

I don't look down on people because they need help. Pro-creation is an innate part of the human experience -- a biological imperative. People will fall in love and have children regardless of the society around them, the level of poverty, their income, their social status. It's for the benefit of society as a whole that we offer social services to those who need it -- not only to those who merit it.

This is why I claimed your argument is rooted in bigotry -- your stance seems firmly grounded in a judgmental view of male sexuality. Gray-headed beadles of the old church used to think that sex was shameful, that women were unworthy of sexual freedom. We've let go of those outdated norms. It's time to let men also throw off these outdated sexual roles.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
I don't look down on people because they need help. Pro-creation is an innate part of the human experience -- a biological imperative. People will fall in love and have children regardless of the society around them, the level of poverty, their income, their social status. It's for the benefit of society as a whole that we offer social services to those who need it -- not only to those who merit it.

This is why I claimed your argument is rooted in bigotry -- your stance seems firmly grounded in a judgmental view of male sexuality. Gray-headed beadles of the old church used to think that sex was shameful, that women were unworthy of sexual freedom. We've let go of those outdated norms. It's time to let men also throw off these outdated sexual roles.
Click to expand...

Since my post addressed both sexes equally, your accusation of bigotry is unfounded.

And I do not change my stance that knowingly having a kid you cant afford and knowing you'll need public assistance to do so is wrong, irresponsible, and selfish. And that applies to couples that do this, not just single mothers.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
This is why I claimed your argument is rooted in bigotry -- your stance seems firmly grounded in a judgmental view of male sexuality. Gray-headed beadles of the old church used to think that sex was shameful, that women were unworthy of sexual freedom. We've let go of those outdated norms. It's time to let men also throw off these outdated sexual roles.
Click to expand...

Oh no, it's still sadly common to see and hear it. Proof:

[W:753,799] Women Who Have Sex Outside Marriage are STUPID! Here's Why

Here on the forum, it's almost always men that post these kind of judgmental posts and it's not surprising...because sexual freedom for women means less control for men. And fewer women available, fewer needing to marry or depend on men. (meaning: less sex)

And when you read my posts in that thread, you'll see I'm not the one dissing men. Just read the last few pages.
 
Lursa said:
The OP has written repeatedly that this topic and his proposal have "nothing to do with biology or abortion" and refuses to consider those (supposedly) when making his or considering other arguments.

Argument based completely on the law:

Legally-recognized men do gestate and give birth. However they also have the exact same ability to 'opt-out' (abort) of parenthood before birth as women do.

The law is indeed equal.
Click to expand...

You're playing semantics -- the divide here is not "men" and "women" as much as it's "those with and without uteruses." Sexual attraction is a powerful biological compulsion, and almost all people will continue to have sex regardless of the political circumstances they face. That's a given. The question here is, what are the stakes of sex? Who pays the consequence and who makes the choices? The injustice is found in the disconnect between the power to choose and the requirement to pay. That is the nature of all injustice -- the imbalance between rights and responsibilities.
 
trouble13 said:
1.) My point is that the law makes that allowance to women but not to men.
2.) Im trying to illustrate the disparity in the law that some are either incapable of seeing or refusing to acknowledge as unequal.

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

1.) and i was adding to that factual reality
2.) correct its either monumental ignorance or monumental biased dishonesty

but the best part is facts wont change, based on legality its factually unequal
 
GhostlyJoe said:
You're playing semantics -- the divide here is not "men" and "women" as much as it's "those with and without uteruses." Sexual attraction is a powerful biological compulsion, and almost all people will continue to have sex regardless of the political circumstances they face. That's a given.
Click to expand...

Nope...and it's not my distinction: the issue is not about biology. It's a legal one.

And now you are making excuses for people to feel entitled to sex? Do you excuse people who cheat on their marriages too? It's the same "compulsion." And people are expected, legally and socially, to control themselves.

What you are implying, is that men are still entitled to sex without consequences. They no longer are. Women never have been and still are not.
So that too, is (now) equal.
 
trouble13 said:
You did not answer my question.
Is it acceptable for a woman to chose to abort for the SOLE reason that she does not want the responsibility of being a mother to that child?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
That is never the reality she always has other potentially serious consequences .
 
GhostlyJoe said:
\ The question here is, what are the stakes of sex? Who pays the consequence and who makes the choices? The injustice is found in the disconnect between the power to choose and the requirement to pay. That is the nature of all injustice -- the imbalance between rights and responsibilities.
Click to expand...

The stakes? The stakes are life and death for women. For men, only financial.

You've seen this before: if a woman gets pregnant, she cannot escape consequences. There are only 4 scenarios:

--she has a kid
--she has a miscarriage
--she has an abortion
--she dies during pregnancy/childbirth

And she can die or or have permanent health damage from the 1st 3 too. And ALL are painful and create lifelong physical changes for women.

Men are just pissed because they cant control those consequences (and neither can women in some cases)... they STILL want control...for the option that is in THEIR best interests. So why the heck should a woman consider the ones that arent in her best interests? Can you explain?

If men want control, they can have it...100%: they can control themselves, decide, before they have sex. Only before sex can BOTH men and women avoid the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy...and that is equal.

Is it your position that men are not capable of making this decision in their own best interests? Yes or no?
 
Lursa said:
Nope...and it's not my distinction: the issue is not about biology. It's a legal one.

And now you are making excuses for people to feel entitled to sex? Do you excuse people who cheat on their marriages too? It's the same "compulsion." And people are expected, legally and socially, to control themselves.

What you are implying, is that men are still entitled to sex without consequences. They no longer are. Women never have been and still are not.
So that too, is (now) equal.
Click to expand...

Cheating is a violation of trust -- and in some cases, of a legal contract. Consensual sexual encounters are not. However, I would consider knowingly forcing your partner to become a father against his will worse than adultery on a moral scale. The issue seems to be that you see male sexuality as predatory and shameful. You say they're "entitled to sex," as if sexual encounters are not consensual acts between adults. You can argue that both adults knowingly accept the consequences, but the entire issue here is that those consequences are not faced equally by law, as the party with a uterus gets full control of the outcome, and the other party faces lifelong consequences.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Cheating is a violation of trust -- and in some cases, of a legal contract. Consensual sexual encounters are not. However, I would consider knowingly forcing your partner to become a father against his will worse than adultery on a moral scale. The issue seems to be that you see male sexuality as predatory and shameful. You say they're "entitled to sex," as if sexual encounters are not consensual acts between adults. You can argue that both adults knowingly accept the consequences, but the entire issue here is that those consequences are not faced equally by law, as the party with a uterus gets full control of the outcome, and the other party faces lifelong consequences.
Click to expand...

I never said men or women were entitled to sex...dont change my words.

And if the man had sex with her, he knows the risks and the consequences. How is that her fault if she makes the best decision regarding the pregnancy for herself? She is the one that has to suffer her own consequences. How is the man not accountable for his decision?

Wouldnt he make the one in his own best interests? Yes or no?

And...take a guess here: do you believe that, if they could legally force it, many of them would demand she get an abortion? yes or no? Be honest.
 
Lursa said:
Men are just pissed because they cant control those consequences
Click to expand...

and there it is!!!
theres the vile, factually dishonest and factual bigotry that many posters have pointed out. Thanks for again proving them right! So delicious! what a triggered meltdown! :lamo

FACTS:
The laws are currently factually set up unequal based on legality
Biology is meaningless to the topic of equality based on legality.


Does anybody have anything to change those facts yet? . . anybody . . one fact that shows otherwise . . one? thanks!
 
Last edited:
year2late said:
That is never the reality she always has other potentially serious consequences .
Click to expand...
Is it your position that women only abort for medical reasons and that the law only allows it when its deemed medically necessary? Is that the level of dishonesty you want to stoop to?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Lursa said:
If I blame anyone, I blame men and women equally. I have little respect for people who have kids knowing they cant afford them and will need public assistance, period. And I have no respect for a man or a woman, as non-custodial parent, that doesnt pay child support.

But stop lying...the current laws apply equally to (legally-recognized) men and women regarding opting out before parenthood. It destroys your entire premise so you wont admit it, but it's true...the law is equal.

You are just mad now because, in reality, it means that non-pregnant men cant opt-out of parenthood...so, care to change your proposal? This should be interesting. Good luck keeping biology out of this one.
Click to expand...

Men can not get pregnant and have a child... period.

... and you talk about who is lying? :lol:

Keep posting that idiotic and literally retarded **** if you want to though... it just casts a reflection on your intellect.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Biology is certainly relevant in abortion discussions
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
The OP has written repeatedly that this topic and his proposal have "nothing to do with biology or abortion"
Click to expand...

More lies Lursa? I have said that biology has nothing to do with him making a post-conception opt-out. That part of the argument is only about the law being unequal. But I have told you this repeatedly and you continue to post lies about it.
 
Lursa said:
Nope...and it's not my distinction: the issue is not about biology. It's a legal one.

And now you are making excuses for people to feel entitled to sex? Do you excuse people who cheat on their marriages too? It's the same "compulsion." And people are expected, legally and socially, to control themselves.

What you are implying, is that men are still entitled to sex without consequences. They no longer are. Women never have been and still are not.
So that too, is (now) equal.
Click to expand...

The argument you are attempting to use has never been about consequences of sex... it has always been about post-conception rights to opt-out. Women have that right and men do not. But every time an argument is presented that defeats you, you, and others, twist it to "consequences" or "legally recognized men" (one of the most stupid I have ever heard) and other twists. Why though? It is so that you can make sure that women are supported should they decide to act unilaterally and have a child that she can not support instead of demanding that she be responsible and abort the pregnancy. That is when I toss out terms like selfish... because it is. It is not what is he wants and certainly not what the child wants... it is what is she wants.

Even when a woman can support the child on her own, she still goes after the man for child support, for the most part.
 
Bodhisattva said:
The argument you are attempting to use has never been about consequences of sex... it has always been about post-conception rights to opt-out. Women have that right and men do not
Click to expand...

Yes...men do.

That's a fact. So stop with the BS, stop lying about it.

Any legally-recognized man has that "right."
 
Bodhisattva said:
Men can not get pregnant and have a child... period.

... and you talk about who is lying? :lol:

Keep posting that idiotic and literally retarded **** if you want to though... it just casts a reflection on your intellect.
Click to expand...

Yes they can. Legally-recognized men get pregnant and have kids.

Trans man and partner expecting first child - CNN

The story of one man’s pregnancy: ‘It felt joyous, amazing and brilliant’ | Life and style | The Guardian

Thomas Beatie: What Happened to the Original 'Pregnant Man'?

Texas Transgender Man Gives Birth to Baby Boy | PEOPLE.com

You are the one continually lying about it. Here's the proof ^^^.

Not only that, you are disrespecting these men every time you deny this.

Men and women are legally allowed to opt-out of parenthood pre-birth. The law is equal.
 
Last edited:
Bodhisattva said:
More lies Lursa? I have said that biology has nothing to do with him making a post-conception opt-out. That part of the argument is only about the law being unequal. But I have told you this repeatedly and you continue to post lies about it.
Click to expand...

And I'm only addressing your cop-out proposal. And I just posted all the proof needed that has nothing to do with biology.

Men and women can both do so, legally. The law is equal.

For you to continue to write that I'm lying is the worst hypocrisy I've ever seen on this forum.
 
Bodhisattva said:
The argument you are attempting to use has never been about consequences of sex... it has always been about post-conception rights to opt-out. Women have that right and men do not. But every time an argument is presented that defeats you, you, and others, twist it to "consequences" or "legally recognized men" (one of the most stupid I have ever heard) and other twists. Why though? It is so that you can make sure that women are supported should they decide to act unilaterally and have a child that she can not support instead of demanding that she be responsible and abort the pregnancy. That is when I toss out terms like selfish... because it is. It is not what is he wants and certainly not what the child wants... it is what is she wants.

Even when a woman can support the child on her own, she still goes after the man for child support, for the most part.
Click to expand...

We already covered this. Your cop-out proposal DOES have nothing to do with consequences in the context you are writing about here. They just come up when you or other posters complain about women getting out of the consequences of having sex that results in a pregnancy. And how men want to avoid them and women never can.

Your cop-out has nothing to do with *personal* consequences because it has nothing to do with whether or not the woman decides to abort or have a kid. She will still do what's best for her...and the kids and taxpayers are the only ones that would pay consequences.

And it's bull**** for you to call her selfish when she's making the choice in her own best interests...when the man would be doing the exact same thing. And being just as selfish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom