Male Opt Out

[Removable Mind]

No they are not. You get very frustrated because you keep losing. Its ok. Try another forum.

Uh huh. As I told you the other day, you have a significant lack of understanding of the law of the land and the Constitutional rights that women possess, which allows them to exercise several choices, or if you prefer, legal options.

Educate yourself and come back when you have a more informed grasp of reality.

 

[vegas giants]

Uh huh. As I told you the other day, you have a significant lack of understanding of the law of the and the Constitutional rights that women possess, which allows them to exercise several choices, or if you prefer, legal options.

Educate yourself and come back when you have a more informed grasp of reality.

You stop making an argument and start insulting when you have lost. You keep it together pretty well until then. Then you just get frustrated. Its a concession of defeat and I accept it

 

[Removable Mind]

You stop making an argument and start insulting when you have lost. You keep it together pretty well until then. Then you just get frustrated. Its a concession of defeat and I accept it

I start laughing at people who don’t know what they’re talking about. You happen to fall into that category.

Simply prove me wrong. That’s all you have to do. :shrug:

 

[vegas giants]

I start laughing at people who don’t know what they’re talking about. You happen to fall into that category.

Simply prove me wrong. That’s all you have to do. :shrug:

Make a point and I will. I have already many times. You now turn the attack on me instead of my argument. I have been polite and respectful and did not do the same to you. I think everyone can see that

PS. I love it wen the emoticons come out. LOL

 

[Removable Mind]

Make a point and I will. I have already many times. You now turn the attack on me instead of my argument. I have been polite and respectful and did not do the same to you. I think everyone can see that

PS. I love it wen the emoticons come out. LOL

You obviously don’t have what it take to understand the point.

 

[vegas giants]

You obviously don’t have what it take to understand the point.

You have abandoned respectful debate. Because you have nothing left

 

[Removable Mind]

You have abandoned respectful debate. Because you have nothing left

You’ve brought nothing to this exchange but circle jerk nonsense. I asked you a legitimate question several post ago and you couldn’t give an honest answer and you went down hill from there.

 

[vegas giants]

You’ve brought nothing to this exchange but circle jerk nonsense. I asked you a legitimate question several post ago and you couldn’t give an honest answer and you went down hill from there.

Ask it again. Ask it nicely and politely and I will be happy to respond honestly.

But you seem very frustrated now. Maybe now is not the best time for you

 

[Removable Mind]

Ask it again. Ask it nicely and politely and I will be happy to respond honestly.

But you seem very frustrated now. Maybe now is not the best time for you

You’ve already proven that you can’t discuss this topic in an honest manner.

So now, if it suits you, fireaway with some more slurs if you want. Good night.

 

[vegas giants]

You’ve already proven that you can’t discuss this topic in an honest manner.

So now, if it suits you, fireaway with some more slurs if you want. Good night.

I have not made a single slur. But you clearly have. You seem very upset over this debate. I have maintained a polite and respectful nature. But in any case have a wonderful evening.

 

[HowardBThiname]

The entire set of issues around unwanted pregnancies are complex and are usually paths to significant consequences.

I'm not denying that women entrap men. 20% of incidents of women entrapping men is a statically significant number. What leads you to think 20% is a close estimate?

Just from the females I've known over the years in addition to the articles written about it. Did you see the one I posted about what women share on Whisper?

There's also a number of men who the same thing, although it seems to be slightly fewer. Women have described it as "sexual assault" since they did not consent to unprotected sex. I'd say that probably is close to accurate when it happens to either a female or a male.

 

[HowardBThiname]

How can it be proven in court that conception deception has been committed by the woman or the man? If provability is reasonably easy then is it unlawful?

I ran across a site where it stated that the CDC conducted a study that involves over 10 million women who only about 10% admitted to deception. Another similar study was conducted with men and it was just over 9% who admitted to deception.

I haven't pursued verifying the above, but it doesn't seem unreasonable.

I think that if deception can be proven then it should be a felony and sentenced to the maximum penalty. But then if it the guilty party is a man it would be difficult to collect child support from someone serving time. And if it's a woman, a child will have to be placed somewhere.

So many issues regarding unwanted pregnancies and/or conception deception - with serious consequences.

Deception is kind of a "side issue," and I'm not sure it's beneficial to the subject to get too deeply into it. I don't think I'd charge the women (or men) with a felony, because those type of actions stem from neediness, a lack of self-worth, and insecurity. And, they're as ancient as time, itself.

I believe those incidents would drop substantially if we allowed men to opt-out. Women involved in trickery would realize that they legally can't trap the man, but that's all speculation on my part. I just think it's important to offer both males and females a post-conception choice of opting-out.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Well....apparently in the legal sphere...it has not.

I'm interested in your response to this:

Speaking as a liberal, this concern for taxpayers has got to be one of the most disingenuous arguments I've ever seen. The fact is, as progressives, we're willing to have taxpayers foot the bill for health care, education, infrastructure, defense, nutrition, equality, etc., etc., etc. In addition, we're willing to support progressive taxation and child tax credits and earned income credit and so many other programs that let the poor draw from the coffers filled by the wealthy. All of this with no expectation that those receiving benefits have to pay it back.

The ONLY group of people that have to pay back taxpayers for receiving benefits is non-custodial parents. And that debt is NON-DISCHARGEABLE! You can have your wages garnisheed for the rest of your life because you and your kids needed assistance. Only non-custodial parents face that kind of retribution for getting help. How can you justify that!? Because to me, it just look like blatant sexism! Explain yourself, progressive!

If the law is proper as is, then you should be able to defend it.

 

[year2late]

The reason non custodial parents are the ones paying into the system is that the custodial parent is possibly already footing the bill.

So if custodial parent makes $300 a week...she is putting 100 percent of her earnings to try to support the child (rent/utilities/etc)

The non custodial parent needs to pay child support. If the non custodial parent is not paying child support, why would he/she not have to potentially help reimburse for the public services that child needs?

Can you link me some examples from city/county social services websites that indicate any payment structures for non custodial parents?

Usually it is not as hard and fast as things seem.

I do not believe a parent should have to completely reimburse social services (outside of lying and fraud to the case worker or on legal forms).



But one thing you will hear from me frequently is that child support needs to be more fair. It should be reasonable. It should not be some get rich quick scheme for either parents.

 

[vegas giants]

The reason non custodial parents are the ones paying into the system is that the custodial parent is possibly already footing the bill.

So if custodial parent makes $300 a week...she is putting 100 percent of her earnings to try to support the child (rent/utilities/etc)

The non custodial parent needs to pay child support. If the non custodial parent is not paying child support, why would he/she not have to potentially help reimburse for the public services that child needs?

Can you link me some examples from city/county social services websites that indicate any payment structures for non custodial parents?

Usually it is not as hard and fast as things seem.

I do not believe a parent should have to completely reimburse social services (outside of lying and fraud to the case worker or on legal forms).



But one thing you will hear from me frequently is that child support needs to be more fair. It should be reasonable. It should not be some get rich quick scheme for either parents.

It should never have to get this far. Before it even becomes a child both parties should have the chance to opt out.

 

[year2late]

It should never have to get this far. Before it even becomes a child both parties should have the chance to opt out.

And yet, legally this is not the case.

Do you ever seeing be the case? I can see support/custody structures continuing to improve and be less onerous, but never opt out - because a person can already opt out of sex with that individual.

And if you do have sex with someone who you have known for a short period of time and you do not know for sure this relationship is solid....both partners should be using birth control. I do not give a hoot if the woman "says" she has an IUD. I do not care if she "says" she is on the pill. Wear a condom that you provide and dispose of it yourself. And frankly if you are having drunk sex.....and make bad judgements - think of this.....are you responsible for accidents if you drunk drive? Being impaired is your own problem (unless you are intentionally drugged against your will)

 

[vegas giants]

And yet, legally this is not the case.

Do you ever seeing be the case? I can see support/custody structures continuing to improve and be less onerous, but never opt out - because a person can already opt out of sex with that individual.

And if you do have sex with someone who you have known for a short period of time and you do not know for sure this relationship is solid....both partners should be using birth control. I do not give a hoot if the woman "says" she has an IUD. I do not care if she "says" she is on the pill. Wear a condom that you provide and dispose of it yourself. And frankly if you are having drunk sex.....and make bad judgements - think of this.....are you responsible for accidents if you drunk drive? Being impaired is your own problem (unless you are intentionally drugged against your will)

It is not the case because it is not in the interest of the government. It is a civil rights case and they can take decades before justice is reached.

 

[year2late]

It is not the case because it is not in the interest of the government. It is a civil rights case and they can take decades before justice is reached.

Do you think the child has a civil right to be supported as much as possible by both parents? Child needs should prevail.

Realistically, before any civil rights case is decided in favor of opting out....it is more likely that a long term contraception for men - so they can more effectively control their own path will be available. That should make "opting out" a trivial notion.

 

[vegas giants]

Do you think the child has a civil right to be supported as much as possible by both parents? Child needs should prevail.

Realistically, before any civil rights case is decided in favor of opting out....it is more likely that a long term contraception for men - so they can more effectively control their own path will be available. That should make "opting out" a trivial notion.

I think a nonviable fetus has no civil rights. We are talking about that stage. Contraception failure is never used to force women to give birth....it should not be used to force men to be financially responsible when there is a legal remedy

 

[year2late]

I think a nonviable fetus has no civil rights. We are talking about that stage. Contraception failure is never used to force women to give birth....it should not be used to force men to be financially responsible when there is a legal remedy

It is a biological act that has consequences.

Pregnancy holds 100 percent of the consequences for the woman.

So she gets an extra choice.

Afterwords, if a baby is born...it is about the baby. There is a way for a man not to be responsible for a baby. I believe he knows what it is.

But I do believe child support structure should be more fair.

I do think people should show more discretion in who they choose to have sex with. Both partners should use contraception. Unless you want a distinct probability of unintentional parenthood....BOTH PARTIES should use contraception. Period. "She told me she had an IUD" is no excuse. But both parties can choose to play sexual Russian roulette. But there will likely be unintended consequences.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

The reason non custodial parents are the ones paying into the system is that the custodial parent is possibly already footing the bill.

So if custodial parent makes $300 a week...she is putting 100 percent of her earnings to try to support the child (rent/utilities/etc)

The non custodial parent needs to pay child support. If the non custodial parent is not paying child support, why would he/she not have to potentially help reimburse for the public services that child needs?

Can you link me some examples from city/county social services websites that indicate any payment structures for non custodial parents?

Usually it is not as hard and fast as things seem.

I do not believe a parent should have to completely reimburse social services (outside of lying and fraud to the case worker or on legal forms).



But one thing you will hear from me frequently is that child support needs to be more fair. It should be reasonable. It should not be some get rich quick scheme for either parents.

Thanks for the reply. I'm extremely busy with real-world stuff right now, and I don't have time for a too detailed of a response right now. Here's something I've been researching: the "children's checkbook" model. It encourages negotiation and compromise, takes actual expenses into account, and is flexible to individual circumstances.

Here's an excerpt:

Both parents sit down to identify and discuss the costs related to caring for their children throughout the year and divide these into categories of shared costs — which may include lunch tickets, school clothing, and medical-related related expenses — and separately paid costs (which would not be paid from the joint account)— entertainment-related expenses such as eating out or vacationing.

With these categories in mind, both parents then pay child support into a joint account, in proportion to their respective incomes. As the children’s needs arise, either parent may withdraw money from the account. And, when their children’s needs change, the language in the agreement allows parents to add or modify categories of expenditures.

Obviously, it would not end all conflict. But at least it doesn't assume that one parent is a "deadbeat" because he or she is struggling financially.

 

[vegas giants]

It is a biological act that has consequences.

Pregnancy holds 100 percent of the consequences for the woman.

So she gets an extra choice.

Afterwords, if a baby is born...it is about the baby. There is a way for a man not to be responsible for a baby. I believe he knows what it is.

But I do believe child support structure should be more fair.

I do think people should show more discretion in who they choose to have sex with. Both partners should use contraception. Unless you want a distinct probability of unintentional parenthood....BOTH PARTIES should use contraception. Period. "She told me she had an IUD" is no excuse. But both parties can choose to play sexual Russian roulette. But there will likely be unintended consequences.

No she does not get an extra choice just because you say so. There is a legal remedy to her situation. One that millions of women have taken already. She has a choice to be pregnant or not. She needs to accept responsibility for whatever path she chooses. She has a choice.

 

[Bodi]

Hello, I just briefly scanned the first few posts so apologies if this post is redundant:

In my humble opinion, I feel that, if the woman gets to be the only person deciding whether to have a baby or not, then in this case she should bear the full cost of raising the resultant child, OR, the man also gets a say in whether the woman will have a child or not, in which case he will have to pay for half. Women should not be able to have their cake and eat it too, is my feeling.

No need to be humble... just say it.

And welcome... :2wave:

 

[year2late]

No she does not get an extra choice just because you say so. There is a legal remedy to her situation. One that millions of women have taken already. She has a choice to be pregnant or not. She needs to accept responsibility for whatever path she chooses. She has a choice.

Mot because I say so. Because biologically she has it and she has bodily autonomy. Not because I said so. A man cannot control her medical choices, so his option is pre-conception. I agree with current law on this, I just have major disagreements with child support and custody orders. Things are improving, but not as much as it should.

 

[year2late]

Thanks for the reply. I'm extremely busy with real-world stuff right now, and I don't have time for a too detailed of a response right now. Here's something I've been researching: the "children's checkbook" model. It encourages negotiation and compromise, takes actual expenses into account, and is flexible to individual circumstances.

Here's an excerpt:



Obviously, it would not end all conflict. But at least it doesn't assume that one parent is a "deadbeat" because he or she is struggling financially.

Thanks.