Male Post-Conception Opt Out

[trouble13]

Re: Mazel tov!

No, dont lie. I'm asking YOU if you believe that about men and their libidos. And I see you dont answer.

Nowhere am I insincere, you are just trying to use that to undermine my post. And nowhere do I claim that men cant control themselves. I write that I believe 100% that they are. I'm asking YOU *why* they dont exercise that control to protect themselves from unwanted fatherhood.

Can you answer now?

Explain what you meant when you said this if you did not mean it as men being incapable of controlling their sexual impulses

And again...nobody cares if men opt out of relationships. Seriously, who do you think really wants sex more, in general? :roll:

As for your question why men dont excercise control to protect themselves. I have no clue why you're asking me this when i have repeatedly posted that men are protecting themselves by not engsuging with women. In fact the post i quoted above was your response to that proposition.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

So then women should be able to withhold children from men that they do produce? Never let them see them? In divorces, breakups, etc?

Logically, yes, not that I am agreeing that's how it show be. Merely following the logic chain. However, not such with divorce, as even with material assets, there is some semblance of dual ownership of all that is gained during the marriage. But between two single individuals, the logic from the premise of the sperm being a donation from the man to the woman, would mean that she doesn't have to allow him access to the results, even if he wants it and wants to provide.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[Crusader13]

Men ain't the boss of women and they gotta pay for their own offspring. It's a tough world but cryin' about it don't help.

Women ain't the boss of men and they gotta pay for their own offspring. It's a tough world but cryin' about it don't help.

 

[ecofarm]

Women ain't the boss of men and they gotta pay for their own offspring. It's a tough world but cryin' about it don't help.

No one is asking for a female post conception opt out.

 

[weaver2]

Re: Bad definitions

..... hiding behind legal lingo. This isn't a legal debate.

Any attempt to make opt-out legal will be decided by the courts and the chances of it surviving legal scrutiny are not good. It has been tried before in Dubay vs Wells (Dubay v. Wells, 442 F. Supp. 2d 404 | Casetext)

Wells had a baby conceived by Dubay and born after they had ended their relationship. Dubay claimed he never intended to become a father so he shouldn’t have to pay support. He claimed the payments were unconstitutional based on the 11th and 14th Amendments therefore the state had no right to compell payment. Additionally he claimed that the courts through Roe v Wade gave women the right to an abortion so they could opt-out but hadn’t extended the same right to opt-out to men which wansn’t fair.

He lost. The courts stated that Dubay had to pay support because he risked conception by having sex with Wells, knowing that “the consenquences of sexual intercourse have always included conception”.

“the Court sees no evidence that the state required him to engage in the sexual activity that resulted in the conception of his son. Further he has identified no action taken by a state actor that interfered in any way with his choice to use or not to use contraceptive methods during sexual activity to avoid his sexual partner's resulting pregnancy. Accordingly, he cannot state a claim for a violation of his substantive rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. “(T)he Hawaii Supreme Court rejected the (same) argument in more succinct language: "the father elected a course of conduct inconsistent with the exercise of his right not to beget a child. The reproductive consequences of his actions were imposed by the operation of nature, not statute." Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Doe,125 P.3d 461, 469 (Haw. 2005).


The court also stated, Dubai could not claim unconstitutional denial of rights equal to women's right to opt-out because “fairness or receprocity does not generate a substantial right.” “Supreme Court's cases do not create a state enforced right to an abortion; rather, they describe a constitutional right to privacy that protects against unwarranted interference by the State into matters of personal decision-making, which include the decision to abort or continue a pregnancy. ….. The State does not enforce the right to privacy; rather, it is the right to privacy that protects individuals from the State. Since the State does not "enforce" the right to privacy, it cannot do so unequally. Moreover, the Sixth Circuit has unequivocally rejected the notion that a right to disavow parenthood arises for males as a counter-balance to the recognition that the constitutional privacy protections concerning reproductive choices naturally impact women more than men:
Dubay v. Wells, 442 F. Supp. 2d 404, 411 (E.D. Mich. 2006)


So: the courts say that both partners knowingly accept risk of conception and parenthood when they engage in sex,making both responsible for support and equality to opt-out was not denied because Roe v Wade did not confere the right to an abortion it gave women the right to privacy.

 

[Crusader13]

:applaud:applaud

And now, cue something derisive about women's character.....:roll:

LOL nice try, but you're missing the point that a man is making the choice to opt out before a baby even exists. To take a page from the feminist playboook, a baby in the womb is just a gunk of cells equivalent to snot. Men should have the right to walk away from that gunk of cells while it's still just a gunk of cells. A man is not opting out of paying for his offspring because there is no offspring when he makes his choice. You can't retrospectively hold a man responsible for something that didn't even exist at the time the decision was made - that's like telling women they need to carry to term because even though a pregnancy didn't exist at the time they had sex, it does now. See the logic (or lack of it?)

 

[Lursa]

Re: Mazel tov!

Explain what you meant when you said this if you did not mean it as men being incapable of controlling their sexual impulses



As for your question why men dont excercise control to protect themselves. I have no clue why you're asking me this when i have repeatedly posted that men are protecting themselves by not engsuging with women. In fact the post i quoted above was your response to that proposition.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I wrote it as a question, asking you if they could. That's the 2nd time I wrote that...what part dont you understand?

As for your comment on what you believe is current men's behavior...if that's the cure...then what's the problem? I see no one here objecting to men having less involvement with women.

But really, since so many men 'arent' refusing sex to women, your's isnt an answer to my question because obviously, most men are NOT doing what you claim. If you have the solution, as you claim...why arent more men using it?

 

[Lursa]

You all better hope both Ginsburg and Breyer can outlast Trump because if he gets 2 more seats on the bench there is a strong possibility that the prolife crowd will get abortions massively restricted and if that happens and people like yourself are whining about women loosing their rights. I will be sure to return the same condescending smug response to you. Women know the laws regarding abortions before they have sex therefore they need to STFU about it not being fair.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Ah, bitterness and no argument...just speculation about the future.

RvW was decided by a conservative bench, 7-2.

And there are additional Constitutional bases (amendments) that can be used in supporting that decision, if needed.

 

[Lursa]

Thats somewhat reasonable and if the courts made those type of distinctions i would have less objections to the current laws but thats not the case.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Take it up with the lawmakers...who are still mostly men.

And you should acknowledge this instead of continuing to attempt to blame much of this on women.

 

[Lursa]

Obviously, it would mean an extensive list of women's rights advocacy organizations and resources. You're asking me to count grains of sand on a beach. Men's rights is an area in need. Women are "covered" when it comes to finding advocates.

Sorry, AFAIK, you are just making crap up.

Once again you fail to articulate an argument...you just make claims and then retreat.

 

[Crusader13]

No one is asking for a female post conception opt out.

Except that's been a fundamental premise of the pro-choice argument for decades. Where do you think the name Planned Parenthood comes from? Stop me if you've heard this nonsense before:

YouTube

Women on the pro-choice side have always crusaded for "the right to decide when, how, and under what circumstances I become a parent". Let's not waste time in arguing whether or not this has been their main selling point, but it has been a fundamental one to their campaign. Scroll through most threads on the Abortion forum and you'll find countless instances of pro-choicers bringing up financial arguments (ie, women are under enough pressure, many of them don't have money to raise a child so you can't force it on them bla bla bla). For all intents and purposes, we can only assume the feminist pro-choice crowd has supported these arguments because they happily stood beside those making them and never bothered correcting or clarifying it. So it's time to eat your words.

If women get to opt out of conception for financial reasons, why shouldn't a man? Why do you think women should have a choice to decide when they become parents but men don't? And why are you happy to force a man, who may be struggling financially, to take on the responsibility of the woman's choice?

 

[ecofarm]

Except that's been a fundamental premise of the pro-choice argument for decades.

Bodi, the OP, is not suggesting men be able to literally force a woman to have an abortion (merely via financial pressure). Are you?

Opt-Out is a financial thing, right?

 

[Lursa]

LOL nice try, but you're missing the point that a man is making the choice to opt out before a baby even exists. To take a page from the feminist playboook, a baby in the womb is just a gunk of cells equivalent to snot. Men should have the right to walk away from that gunk of cells while it's still just a gunk of cells. A man is not opting out of paying for his offspring because there is no offspring when he makes his choice. You can't retrospectively hold a man responsible for something that didn't even exist at the time the decision was made - that's like telling women they need to carry to term because even though a pregnancy didn't exist at the time they had sex, it does now. See the logic (or lack of it?)

Of course you are still wrong. The risk is ALWAYS there unless there has been surgical means of birth control. Men KNOW this. Therefore they accept the risk. That's why it's a risk :doh There *MAY* be a pregnancy. He knows that. :roll:

It's a risk for both. At the same time. Then both are vulnerable to consequences of the risk they took. And both must confront those consequences. Just because you dont like that women's choices are biologically determined and different doesnt mean she doesnt face consequences.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

Bodi, the OP, is not suggesting men be able to literally force a woman to have an abortion (merely via financial pressure). Are you?

Opt-Out is a financial thing, right?

I'm pretty sure that isn't Bodi, ecofarm.

 

[maquiscat]

Bodi, the OP, is not suggesting men be able to literally force a woman to have an abortion (merely via financial pressure). Are you?

Opt-Out is a financial thing, right?

It's kinda sad that we're on opposite side of the debate, and we both have to call people out on the same strawman.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[ecofarm]

I'm pretty sure that isn't Bodi, ecofarm.

It's kinda sad that we're on opposite side of the debate, and we both have to call people out on the same strawman.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

My point is that when we, herein, refer to the term "opt out", we are referring to a financial arrangement. To conflate that with abortion is stupid at best.

Women are not asking to be let out of financial obligations regarding a child they have created. Only dead beats are doing that.

 

[weaver2]

If women get to opt out of conception for financial reasons, why shouldn't a man? Why do you think women should have a choice to decide when they become parents but men don't? And why are you happy to force a man, who may be struggling financially, to take on the responsibility of the woman's choice?

The courts have already established that both parents must support a child because both parents participated in sex knowing that sex always involves the risk of conception. Dubay vs Wells and Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Doe,125 P.3d 461, 469 (Haw. 2005). It doesn't make any difference what arguments are given the decision has already been decided. This horse is dead enough already.

:beatdeadhorse

 

[Crusader13]

Of course you are still wrong. The risk is ALWAYS there unless there has been surgical means of birth control. Men KNOW this. Therefore they accept the risk. That's why it's a risk :doh There *MAY* be a pregnancy. He knows that. :roll:

It's a risk for both. At the same time. Then both are vulnerable to consequences of the risk they took. And both must confront those consequences. Just because you dont like that women's choices are biologically determined and different doesnt mean she doesnt face consequences.

Except she doesn't face consequences. Women can opt out of parenthood after conception. Men cannot.

You demand men to restrict their sexual choices because there's a risk of pregnancy yet you would never say that to a woman - that would be 'slut shaming'. When men have tried to make that argument against abortion, they are labelled as 'mysogonists who want to tell us how we can or can't use our own vaginas! ".

Please tell me, as a woman, what gives you the right to tell a man what he can or can't do with his penis?

Face it, you hate the idea of men having equal choices and freedoms as women. You want women to have all the power when it comes to parenting and birth. Anything else is contra to your cause.

 

[Crusader13]

The courts have already established that both parents must support a child because both parents participated in sex knowing that sex always involves the risk of conception. Dubay vs Wells and Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Doe,125 P.3d 461, 469 (Haw. 2005). It doesn't make any difference what arguments are given the decision has already been decided. This horse is dead enough already.

:beatdeadhorse

Ugh, dodging the question again. I didn't ask you what the law says. I asked you whether or not you think the law is adaquate and to justify your position with practical social applications.

Do I really need to explain that laws can and do change all the time based on social progress and the discovery of new ideas? Surely you know that abortion wasn't always legal, nor was gay marriage, equality for blacks, etc etc. It wasn't OK at those times to simply say "Oh its the law so deal with it". Laws can and do change so I'm asking you, in lieu of social progress, do you think they should change to allow men the same convenience as women? And if not, why?

 

[SDET]

Let's also remember that male opt-in isn't guaranteed. If a mother wants to sufficiently she can shut the father out of the life of his children. There may ostensibly be laws, but they are ineffective.

 

[trouble13]

Ah, bitterness and no argument...just speculation about the future.

RvW was decided by a conservative bench, 7-2.

And there are additional Constitutional bases (amendments) that can be used in supporting that decision, if needed.

Like i said we will see if you sing the same tune when its women who are facing legal restrictions of their rights.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

The courts have already established that both parents must support a child because both parents participated in sex knowing that sex always involves the risk of conception. Dubay vs Wells and Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Doe,125 P.3d 461, 469 (Haw. 2005). It doesn't make any difference what arguments are given the decision has already been decided. This horse is dead enough already.

:beatdeadhorse

Huh...I wish I had posted that...oh wait, I have. About a million times!

 

[Lursa]

Like i said we will see if you sing the same tune when its women who are facing legal restrictions of their rights.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I'm not remotely worried...making abortion illegal is not Constitutional. On many levels (amendments).

Is that all you have left?

 

[trouble13]

Take it up with the lawmakers...who are still mostly men.

And you should acknowledge this instead of continuing to attempt to blame much of this on women.

I have not blamed women. I place the blame on the laws that put men at an unfair disadvantage. You and others try to frsme it as sn attack on women to avoid addressing mens right to liberate themselves from predatory behaviors.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

Ugh, dodging the question again. I didn't ask you what the law says. I asked you whether or not you think the law is adaquate and to justify your position with practical social applications.

Do I really need to explain that laws can and do change all the time based on social progress and the discovery of new ideas? Surely you know that abortion wasn't always legal, nor was gay marriage, equality for blacks, etc etc. It wasn't OK at those times to simply say "Oh its the law so deal with it". Laws can and do change so I'm asking you, in lieu of social progress, do you think they should change to allow men the same convenience as women? And if not, why?

Again, :roll:, there were solid reasons why the legal system established child support to begin with.

What has changed "socially" or otherwise that would change the need for that child support and encourage the courts to change their minds?