• 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

Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...

You post the biggest and most inane lies that I have almost every come across... anyway, I have wasted too much time responding to your pathetic dumber than **** trolling posts as it is....
 
Bodhisattva said:
You post the biggest and most inane lies that I have almost every come across... anyway, I have wasted too much time responding to your pathetic dumber than **** trolling posts as it is....
Click to expand...

Sorry, anyone reading your posts at this point will believe you have 'gone 'round the bend' of rationality.

I posted the proof. Everyone else can read it too...you know that, right? (Cant take anything about your comprehensive ability for granted at this point.) It's a public forum, you know that, right?

I used your own demands: I presented the LEGAL proof, showing the law applies equally to men and women, and didnt base any of it on biology. And still you deny the facts. :doh

This, and the fact that AJ never actually posts any proof for his imaginary "facts" on this have got to be one of the most bizarre things other posters have ever read. It certainly is for me.

Have a little dignity and admit the failure, geez.
 
Bodhisattva said:
The man is not abandoning a child because there is no child when he would be making his opt out decision...

... the woman is forcing a child onto society that she can not properly support. The woman is the selfish abusive person, in this situation.

It is all in how you look at it... and being honest about it is important.
Click to expand...

I was 100% honest. Society is not going to let men walk away from a pregnancy they created because it is economically and socially detrimental to the social structure. That's a fact.

And FYI: if there is a pregnancy there will be a child in 9 months. You don't get to opt-out by saying there isn't any child at opt-out moment. That's just dishonest.

Keep telling yourself that the woman is being selfish and abusive. It isn't going to change societies need for social and economic stability.
 
trouble13 said:
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
Click to expand...

A woman who chooses abortion usually has multiple concerns.

Pregnancy can seriously affect your ability to support yourself, pregnancy.....

Pregnancy dependent on safety net health insurance (Medicaid) can leave you with prenatal care in less than optimal conditions. Which could lead increased health risks.

Pregnancy can seriously affect your ability to care for your family.

Pregnancy can affect your ability to support yourself in the future by interrupting school. This can lead to a future with less opportunity for living in a safe area and having decent insurance to care for the health needs of yourself and your family.

And by the way, in my case....if my condition(s) were caught much later ….abortion would be the least of my worries. I was heading towards DIALYSIS....and I felt FINE.

Pregnancy leads to a host of concerns related to the condition of pregnancy.

Your thought process is very narrow in scope.
 
year2late said:
A woman who chooses abortion usually has multiple concerns.

Pregnancy can seriously affect your ability to support yourself, pregnancy.....

Pregnancy dependent on safety net health insurance (Medicaid) can leave you with prenatal care in less than optimal conditions. Which could lead increased health risks.

Pregnancy can seriously affect your ability to care for your family.

Pregnancy can affect your ability to support yourself in the future by interrupting school. This can lead to a future with less opportunity for living in a safe area and having decent insurance to care for the health needs of yourself and your family.

And by the way, in my case....if my condition(s) were caught much later ….abortion would be the least of my worries. I was heading towards DIALYSIS....and I felt FINE.

Pregnancy leads to a host of concerns related to the condition of pregnancy.

Your thought process is very narrow in scope.
Click to expand...
You sure do like to dodge direct questions when you dont like to admit something.

Btw some of the concerns you listed as valid reasons for aborted are shared by men too yet the law does not view them as valid reasons to allow man to opt out parenthood. You inadvertently bolstered my point with your attempt to obfuscate it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
You sure do like to dodge direct questions when you dont like to admit something.

Btw some of the concerns you listed as valid reasons for aborted are shared by men too yet the law does not view them as valid reasons to allow man to opt out parenthood. You inadvertently bolstered my point with your attempt to obfuscate it.

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

I did not dodge the question, I explained reality to you.

You seem to think a woman only has one concern with pregnancy. SHe may have a primary concern....but she has multiple other concerns as well - on top of the concerns that a man has.
 
year2late said:
I did not dodge the question, I explained reality to you.

You seem to think a woman only has one concern with pregnancy. SHe may have a primary concern....but she has multiple other concerns as well - on top of the concerns that a man has.
Click to expand...
Does the law allow a woman to abort for the sole reason that she does not want to be a parent? It requires no explanation, its a yes or no question.
Does the law allow a man to have any legal option availsble to him for that same purpose, yes or no?
The fact that you refuse to directly answer those question and are refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the point being made shows what a dishonest actor you are in this conversation.


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Does the law allow a woman to abort for the sole reason that she does not want to be a parent? It requires no explanation, its a yes or no question.
Does the law allow a man to have any legal option availsble to him for that same purpose, yes or no?
The fact that you refuse to directly answer those question and are refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the point being made shows what a dishonest actor you are in this conversation.


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

A woman does not have to say why she wants the abortion up until the time of viability outside the womb.

It is her body. Her decision.

She could have it because she does not want to miss a nail appointment. It is her body, her choice.
 
year2late said:
A woman does not have to say why she wants the abortion up until the time of viability outside the womb.

It is her body. Her decision.

She could have it because she does not want to miss a nail appointment. It is her body, her choice.
Click to expand...
A luxury that men are not afforded

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

The whole point is allowing men the freedom to make choices for themselves -- in their own interest or in the interest of their loved ones. See, the thing is, it would inappropriate for a man to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, as that gives him undue control over her body. Now, the consequences of her choice can be severe for everyone -- herself, the father, the child, the state. But it is her right to choose for herself. That is exactly the right men are arguing for in this thread. Some men would make poor choices ; others would not. But his right to self-determination, to the fruits of his own labor and his own sweat, should be inviolable under the same principle.
 
year2late said:
A woman who chooses abortion usually has multiple concerns.

Pregnancy can seriously affect your ability to support yourself, pregnancy.....

Pregnancy dependent on safety net health insurance (Medicaid) can leave you with prenatal care in less than optimal conditions. Which could lead increased health risks.

Pregnancy can seriously affect your ability to care for your family.

Pregnancy can affect your ability to support yourself in the future by interrupting school. This can lead to a future with less opportunity for living in a safe area and having decent insurance to care for the health needs of yourself and your family.

And by the way, in my case....if my condition(s) were caught much later ….abortion would be the least of my worries. I was heading towards DIALYSIS....and I felt FINE.

Pregnancy leads to a host of concerns related to the condition of pregnancy.

Your thought process is very narrow in scope.
Click to expand...

All of the bolded are also potential consequences of high, decade-long child-support orders. That's the whole point and why the status quo is so unjust.
 
Lursa said:
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?
Click to expand...

You are over-representing the health risks of abortion and way under-representing the financial burdens and their consequences for non-custodials. You're trying to make this sound like she faces all the stakes. My position is that is unjust for anyone innocent of a horrific crime to be burdened with 20 years of forced labor against their will. If the act of coitus is a contractual obligation to parenthood, as you insist, then that directly contradicts the moral and ethical foundations of pro-choice law.
 
trouble13 said:
A luxury that men are not afforded

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

Pregnancy with all the risks is a luxury?

When was the last time you had your life or your job threatened because you ejaculated? (assuming you choose to ejaculate into a willing partner in a discreet location)
 
GhostlyJoe said:
You are over-representing the health risks of abortion and way under-representing the financial burdens and their consequences for non-custodials. You're trying to make this sound like she faces all the stakes. My position is that is unjust for anyone innocent of a horrific crime to be burdened with 20 years of forced labor against their will. If the act of coitus is a contractual obligation to parenthood, as you insist, then that directly contradicts the moral and ethical foundations of pro-choice law.
Click to expand...

If a baby is born....both parents may be required legally to support their child. Both parties.

Now, if you want to discuss how that support is decided - that is another issue. I am all for ongoing reform of the child support/custody structure. 100% agree with that.

I would like to know of the men that face "20 years of forced labor"...how many of those men consistently bring their own condoms to the party and use them each and every time. If I was a guy who emphatically did not want to be a father....I would bring my own condoms and wear them each and every time - no matter what birth control she was using. I would discard the condom myself. Each and every time. Do you believe that a significant percentage of these men take this small step? I do not. "She told me she was on birth control, she tricked me" seems to be the refrain.

I think each person is responsible for their own contraception. Men have got to weight the risk of "forced labor" over some loss of sensation.
 
year2late said:
If a baby is born....both parents may be required legally to support their child. Both parties.

Now, if you want to discuss how that support is decided - that is another issue. I am all for ongoing reform of the child support/custody structure. 100% agree with that.

I would like to know of the men that face "20 years of forced labor"...how many of those men consistently bring their own condoms to the party and use them each and every time. If I was a guy who emphatically did not want to be a father....I would bring my own condoms and wear them each and every time - no matter what birth control she was using. I would discard the condom myself. Each and every time. Do you believe that a significant percentage of these men take this small step? I do not. "She told me she was on birth control, she tricked me" seems to be the refrain.

I think each person is responsible for their own contraception. Men have got to weight the risk of "forced labor" over some loss of sensation.
Click to expand...

"Wear a condom" is good advice for men who don't want to be fathers. But this is about the legal standing of men to choose parenthood independent of sex — as women are legally able to do. "I guess the harlot should have kept her legs closed" is a pretty daft position post Roe vs. Wade.
 
year2late said:
Pregnancy with all the risks is a luxury?

When was the last time you had your life or your job threatened because you ejaculated? (assuming you choose to ejaculate into a willing partner in a discreet location)
Click to expand...
Your strawmen are boring. Im referring to the legal ability to choose to not be a parent. The law gives women an avenue to excercise that choice and denies men of having any avenue available to them.

Mens liberation will happen one way or another. Its just sad that the misandrists are gonna force the worst possible solution be the one taken.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Does the law allow a woman to abort for the sole reason that she does not want to be a parent? It requires no explanation, its a yes or no question.
Does the law allow a man to have any legal option availsble to him for that same purpose, yes or no?
Click to expand...

Yup, the law does. Any one of these men can/could have chosen to do exactly that:

Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...

The law applies equally to men and women. It is equal.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
The whole point is allowing men the freedom to make choices for themselves -- in their own interest or in the interest of their loved ones. See, the thing is, it would inappropriate for a man to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, as that gives him undue control over her body. Now, the consequences of her choice can be severe for everyone -- herself, the father, the child, the state. But it is her right to choose for herself. That is exactly the right men are arguing for in this thread. Some men would make poor choices ; others would not. But his right to self-determination, to the fruits of his own labor and his own sweat, should be inviolable under the same principle.
Click to expand...

Except that if there is a child, then the child and the taxpayers are unfairly impacted. That's the biggest difference.

And if it's 'not fair' to the man, it is by far even more unfair for kids to go without (or less) and the taxpayers to pay for something they didnt create. Why shouldnt the responsible parties be held responsible? Why make others pay for their choices? Remember, the laws regarding child support are equal (and if they are not applied equally, well, most family court judges are still men, so...?)
 
Bodhisattva said:
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?
Click to expand...

I like to have sex with females and don't mind raising the kids..
 
GhostlyJoe said:
You are over-representing the health risks of abortion and way under-representing the financial burdens and their consequences for non-custodials. You're trying to make this sound like she faces all the stakes. My position is that is unjust for anyone innocent of a horrific crime to be burdened with 20 years of forced labor against their will. If the act of coitus is a contractual obligation to parenthood, as you insist, then that directly contradicts the moral and ethical foundations of pro-choice law.
Click to expand...

The point is ALL those are risks and they cant be controlled, predicted, or prevented.

So how can you possibly believe that someone else should have the right to decide those risks for another adult?

If the man doesnt want that $$ obligation...does he or does he not have 100% ability to avoid it? Yes or no? And since I believe that answer is yes...then why shouldnt he be held accountable for his decision? The woman is, always.

She doesnt...she has no choice but to accept one or more than one of those consequences and every single one affects her body for the rest of her life. If you choose to minimize the risks and health consequences, that is a sign of your disrespect for women and our welfare.
 
Lursa said:
Except that if there is a child, then the child and the taxpayers are unfairly impacted. That's the biggest difference.

And if it's 'not fair' to the man, it is by far even more unfair for kids to go without (or less) and the taxpayers to pay for something they didnt create. Why shouldnt the responsible parties be held responsible? Why make others pay for their choices? Remember, the laws regarding child support are equal (and if they are not applied equally, well, most family court judges are still men, so...?)
Click to expand...

You can't base respect of his right to self-determination on a hypothetical outcome, nor are his rights determined by convenience to society at large. Certainly, a pregnant woman's right to choose carries a similar hazard -- it could create a burden on the children, the father, the taxpayers. That burden does not trump her right to make choices about her own body. Men deserve to have that same right respected.

As to your question: Responsible parties are being held responsible. A pregnant woman has full right to determination of the pregnancy, therefore she rightly has responsibility. If he wants parental rights, then he must accept parental responsibilities just as she does.

But this brings me back to an earlier point. Name another group other than noncustodial parents who are forced to reimburse the state for needs-based assistance. I mean, the argument about burdening taxpayers would be a lot more compelling if you can show any consistency in the law. Are in-tact families expected to repay food stamps? If not, why not? Why is that particular onus set aside for people suffering in broken families?
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
The point is ALL those are risks and they cant be controlled, predicted, or prevented.

So how can you possibly believe that someone else should have the right to decide those risks for another adult?

If the man doesnt want that $$ obligation...does he or does he not have 100% ability to avoid it? Yes or no? And since I believe that answer is yes...then why shouldnt he be held accountable for his decision? The woman is, always.

She doesnt...she has no choice but to accept one or more than one of those consequences and every single one affects her body for the rest of her life. If you choose to minimize the risks and health consequences, that is a sign of your disrespect for women and our welfare.
Click to expand...

You are minimizing the burden of a large child-support order. I'm not going to pretend that 9 months of pregnancy is a cakewalk, or that abortion isn't a morally and physically difficult decision.

Look at it this way: Just as an assessment of relative risk, if you were given the choice to have your appendix removed or else pay someone else's mortgage, what would you choose?
 
GhostlyJoe said:
"Wear a condom" is good advice for men who don't want to be fathers. But this is about the legal standing of men to choose parenthood independent of sex — as women are legally able to do. "I guess the harlot should have kept her legs closed" is a pretty daft position post Roe vs. Wade.
Click to expand...

A woman has "an extra choice" because it is her body that bears 100 percent of the risks. I should have had a healthy pregnancy and delivery. I am alive and well (although I still have several issues related to the pregnancy 25 years ago) because I had access to a doctor that knew me and had the time to scrutinize some minor findings. I felt fine and my kidneys were being attacked.

The best option for a sexually active man that does not desire to be a father is to be responsible for his own contraception - no mater what the woman is using.

How is this equating to your 'harlot" scenario I am saying...go ahead, have sex....but be responsible for your own contraception while you do.

Do you think sexually active men who clearly do not want to be a father should be totally reliant on the woman and her contraception? Or should he be responsible for his own as well?
 
year2late said:
A woman has "an extra choice" because it is her body that bears 100 percent of the risks. I should have had a healthy pregnancy and delivery. I am alive and well (although I still have several issues related to the pregnancy 25 years ago) because I had access to a doctor that knew me and had the time to scrutinize some minor findings. I felt fine and my kidneys were being attacked.

The best option for a sexually active man that does not desire to be a father is to be responsible for his own contraception - no mater what the woman is using.

How is this equating to your 'harlot" scenario I am saying...go ahead, have sex....but be responsible for your own contraception while you do.

Do you think sexually active men who clearly do not want to be a father should be totally reliant on the woman and her contraception? Or should he be responsible for his own as well?
Click to expand...

I think men should behave responsibly and ethically. But that is a separate question from the state legally requiring ethical behavior. A lot of people consider abortion immoral and unethical, but that doesn't trump a woman's legal right to body autonomy. Ethical questions don't negate his rights, either.

Your argument about a mother's biology determining her control over pregnancy decisions is sound, in my mind. But it ignores the other side of biology -- men have no biological obligation to provide care. Child support is a social construct, not a biological one. If biology is the determining factor, then a male opt-out is fully endorsed by nature.

Basically, modern medicine makes a safe abortion a reality, affording women an option that didn't before exist -- an option to cast off a biological yolk. It was that biological yolk that carried with it a host of social burdens and sexual roles -- nurturer and homemaker, protector and provider, etc. By removing that biological yolk, women are free to step away from these predetermined sexual roles. But, by extension, it also should allow men to step away from their pre-determined sexual roles. It's a new world order. It's time for the law to catch up.
 
Lursa said:
If the man doesnt want that $$ obligation...does he or does he not have 100% ability to avoid it? Yes or no? And since I believe that answer is yes...then why shouldnt he be held accountable for his decision?
Click to expand...

Interesting thats the same failed argument prolifers use against abortion. Hypocrisy = exposed and another instant fail.
Fact remains based on legality its unequal and unless the laws and rules change nobody can change that fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom