Male Post-Conception Opt Out

[Crusader13]

That's why the courts audit his or her life and take account of what is available. Surely you can't be this naive?

I maintain that women are hypocrites for affirming that men "can't tell me what to do with my vagina", yet they're happy to tell men what to do with their money.

Maybe respect our property and we'll respect yours. Until then, you want it both ways.

Did the man not stick his dick in? Oh, he did? Then STFU.

Did the woman spread her legs? Oh, she did? Then STFU.

If they don't abort, then yes, it becomes about child welfare.

Great, so you admit that the rules should change only when it suits women.

Women don't want the baby - meh it's just a parasite.

Women do want the baby - OMG MUH CHILD WELFARE!!

Who cares about fetuses, they aren't even persons yet.

LOL but you think a man should have to care for something that wasn't even a person when he decided to opt out. Like I already explained, if men opt out of parenthood while the fetus is still a gunk of cells, the woman should have no right to retrospectively change the context of his decision by claiming that it's his child 9 months later. Just like abortions, the only thing that matters is the definition of the child at the time the decision was made. Women can't be charged for murder 9 months after an abortion just because "the fetus would've been a human life by today's definition". It doesn't work that way. Women make the decision to kill a gunk of cells and they're free from murder charges because they only killed a gunk of cells, not an actual person. Men make the decision to abandon a gunk of cells and should be free from financial responsibility because they only abandoned a gunk of cells, not an actual person.

The law is not going to create a fatherhood opt-out to punish women for something that isn't their fault

Yet the law has already created a motherhood opt-out to punish men for something that isn't their fault. What's your point?

Then he can enjoy living a life of poverty. Who cares? What's your point?

My point is why can't you keep your filthy hands off a man's money? Why do you think it's OK to grab his wallet but it's an outrage if he grabs your vagina, or better yet, politely asks you to not destroy what's inside it?

Women don't get to avoid responsibility either. They're either the ones raising the children by default or they have to foot the bill just like any delinquent father would.

Or they get to fall back on option 3 - have an abortion. So you're wrong. They DO get to avoid responsibility.

Planned Parenthood does not get funding for abortion. Their funding is earmarked for their other services.

State revenue is being provided to the country's leading provider of abortions. I've seen the stats; they conveniently dilute the records of services offered by sneaking in other items in the invoice. Eg - they'll perform an abortion, but not before performing an ultrasound or mamogram. Now the abortion only constitutes 50% of their service. Sneaky sneaky.

I am not aware of most abortion clinics offering tax payer funded abortions. Most are private pay.

To the outrage of feminists and most of those on the Left in fact.

 

[maquiscat]

Since you are trying to change family law it is not dodging the question to state you are beating a dead horse because the law has already decided.

This is an appeal to authority fallacy, or maybe status quo. At one point the claim could have been made that people were beating a dead horse wanting alcohol. "The law has already decided and is even a constitutional amendment."

Yeah that was permanent. Fact remains that the law can change back, actually or effectively.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

If a man has sex, there are only 4 outcomes:
--he can get accidentally hit in balls during intercourse
--he can suffer from torn foreskin on the tip of his penis
--he can bring on or worsen a case of penile fibrosis (Peyronie's disease)
--he can get a case of epididymal hypertension

Given that this is factually false, the rest of your post and premises are also false due to error carried forward. Guaranteed there are more possible outcomes of sex for a man than these four, and more men never experience them than do.



Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

So what freedom is being denied because you have to pay child support for the family you started.

Given that women also have to pay child support if they are not the ones with custody, let's add, "and how is the law on child support not equally applied?"

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[weaver2]

This is an appeal to authority fallacy, or maybe status quo. At one point the claim could have been made that people were beating a dead horse wanting alcohol. "The law has already decided and is even a constitutional amendment."

Yeah that was permanent. Fact remains that the law can change back, actually or effectively.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

What would it change back to? There were no laws about supporting children the man conceived. Men simply walked out of a marriage leaving wife and children with nothing. A child conceives out of wedlock was never acknowledged.

 

[maquiscat]

Being able to have sex without relying on your partner to determine the next 21 years of your life.

Women have that luxury. Men don't.

End of discussion.

Not really. You are only focusing in on one aspect of that. No one can have sex without relying on your partner to have a determination for potentially the rest of your life. You also have the potential to catch an STI from your partner, and that can go as far as to kill you. Even condoms can only reduce that risk, not eliminate it. So what laws are you proposing to get it so people have the opportunity to opt out of STIs?

Also, "End of discussion" is a baby tactic of those who cannot support their arguments, and thus try to close down discourse.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

:roll:

Nope. Only reduces the chance, not eliminate it. Only two things can eliminate the chance. Remove the uterus or remove the testicles.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[year2late]

I maintain that women are hypocrites for affirming that men "can't tell me what to do with my vagina", yet they're happy to tell men what to do with their money.
.

Child support is about supporting a child that you helped create. If you believe the child is not yours, there is an easy test.

If you believe the mother is not caring for the child and is putting the child in danger, then CPS is appropriate.

Not sure what that has to do with your vagina control issue.

 

[maquiscat]

Nope, you're wrong. The 4 outcomes I listed can only happen to men. Women cannot get kicked in the balls or experience epididymal hypertension. So why don't you start by disputing these 4 consequences and why you think men should have to listen to women when it comes to choosing which one they suffer? Oh that's right, you can't.

They were disputed immediately by the reality that they are not the only 4 outcomes possible, as claimed. You have to have a valid argument before it can be disputed. Hell even the OPs argument is valid, even if it is based upon a faulty premises.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[year2late]

Given that women also have to pay child support if they are not the ones with custody, let's add, "and how is the law on child support not equally applied?"

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

I am not sure that some on this board understand that notion.


I work in a field where most women are breadwinners in their family. They end up having joint custody and still pay about a grand/month in child support and maintain health insurance. The men have been under employed because they cared for the kids. It takes them awhile to catch up in their careers.

 

[trouble13]

Those are all quotes from your posts.

Which post of mine did i say this?

Condoms limit friction, feeling, and the overall enjoyment of sex for men. In other words, they suck the fun out of having sex. Women get to have sex the fun way with maximum enjoyment while not having to worry about their partner deciding the next 21 years of their life. Men don't have that privilege.

Men no longer want to be held to some outdated standard based on social principles from decades ago.

If women can't support a family on their own, they will need to factor that into their decision when to keep or abort the baby.

men (have a) right to liberate themselves from predatory behaviors.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Not really. You are only focusing in on one aspect of that. No one can have sex without relying on your partner to have a determination for potentially the rest of your life. You also have the potential to catch an STI from your partner, and that can go as far as to kill you. Even condoms can only reduce that risk, not eliminate it. So what laws are you proposing to get it so people have the opportunity to opt out of STIs?

Also, "End of discussion" is a baby tactic of those who cannot support their arguments, and thus try to close down discourse.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

What you're saying isnt quite accurate either. A womsn csn in fact have sex, get pregnant, and never inform her partner he is going to become a father, and never have any contact with him ever agsin, under current law.

That is one of my gripes of the total lack of respect the law offers to men. It operates from this stereotype that men dont want to be fathers or have contact with their children so it sees no need to protect a mans relationship with his children.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

I am not sure that some on this board understand that notion.


I work in a field where most women are breadwinners in their family. They end up having joint custody and still pay about a grand/month in child support and maintain health insurance. The men have been under employed because they cared for the kids. It takes them awhile to catch up in their careers.

Were any of those women forced to become mothers agaist their will of were they offered a choice after they became pregnant?

Thats the difference that some on this board dont understand. Most of us agree that in instances when consensual intercourse happens both are equally responsible for that. Where there is contention is that a woman has the legal authority to end a pregnancy for the reason of not feeling prepared to be a mother. Men are not given that option. Men are told their choices were over the moment they ejaculated.

If the law was interested in treating the parents as coequals it would either not allow women to abort without a sufficent medical reason or it would allow men to opt out of parenthood based on him deciding for himself he isnt sufficiently prepared to become a father to that child.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[it's just me]

This thread is about your wish for _men_ to be granted the legal right to abandon their offspring. Therefore my post was about _men_ abandoning their offspring.

But an accusation of sexism for dealing the subject that you established is as good an excuse to unsubscribe as any. It's a stupid thread anyway. It's stupid every time you post it. Your obsession with the unfairness of you having a legal obligation to support the life you create is fascinating in a grotesque way. But the law is not going to be changed to accommodate men who begrudge having to support the children they create. Not going to happen. No sufficiently large political group in America will support it. I can't speak for New Zealand, but apparently you face a similar "problem" there. So sorry for you.

/unsubscribed

You and others are missing the point. The way you have it now, if a woman gets pregnant (even before paternity is established) the man is on the hook for 18 years of support. If he wants to keep the kid, he has no say. If he doesn't want to keep the kid, he has no say. When do his rights come into play?

 

[Bodi]

The courts have already decided that issue in Dubay vs Wells and Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Doe,125 P.3d 461, 469 (Haw. 2005).They determined that the opt-out time is before having sex and not after conception. It's a settled issue.

The Courrt was wrong and Dubay did not appeal to the Supreme Court... it is not settled.

 

[Lursa]

real Men ?

The idea that there is some real man code is chivalrous nonsense.

Agreed.

(And it's not misandry since I'm just agreeing with you)

 

[Lursa]

And they are blind to the problem they are creating. Men are dropping out of the workforce because there isnt any incentive for them to work. They are also avoiding interaction with women. This does not end well for anyone.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

More jobs for women!

And for the men that really do want to work.


Win-win as far as I can see.

 

[Lursa]

If you believe there are so many loser women, they really really shouldnt be risking sex if they cant pay the consequences if they get pregnant. Works both ways,


Just being a slut doesn't mean you get a 'get out of jail free' card. Works both ways.



It works both ways.

Totally agree. I've never written otherwise...I have consistently written here that women must pay their consequences if they get pregnant...and that it's impossible for them to escape those consequences.

So what is your point?

Except that I referred to males that wouldnt step up for their responsibilities as losers. Not men that have consensual sex. If you are referring to women that have consensual sex as sluts, then I guess the men that have sex with them are males sluts?

 

[Lursa]

Then don't have it. Abortions are legal.

Don't get pregnant then. Simple.

Then don't have sex.

Thank you. That is exactly my point. Women have the choice to have sex and if they choose to, then they are vulnerable to those consequences. As I've written over and over, if men or women dont want consequences...dont have sex.

I'm glad we're on the same page with this.

Right, and if there's sexual intercourse, men will suffer at least 1 of the consequences I mentioned. In fact, sometimes they can suffer all 4 at once.

Um, men dont suffer any of those consequences except fatherhood (the first one). And that's only if the woman decides to have the baby. So men get out of consequences a good bit of the time. So you arent thinking properly.

Get it now?

 

[trouble13]

More jobs for women!

And for the men that really do want to work.


Win-win as far as I can see.

Enjoy your victory lol

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

Seriously, you are against "free" abortions and you stand with the men that say they shouldn't have to pay child support. seriously!!!????

The disconnect is real...and nearly incomprehensible. :doh

 

[Lursa]

Which post of mine did i say this?

Condoms limit friction, feeling, and the overall enjoyment of sex for men. In other words, they suck the fun out of having sex. Women get to have sex the fun way with maximum enjoyment while not having to worry about their partner deciding the next 21 years of their life. Men don't have that privilege.

Men no longer want to be held to some outdated standard based on social principles from decades ago.

If women can't support a family on their own, they will need to factor that into their decision when to keep or abort the baby.

men (have a) right to liberate themselves from predatory behaviors.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Nobody is forcing men to have sex with women. If you dont like it, or cant wait until you are in a committed relationship and can go without birth control...too bad. That is not the fault of women. Or any laws.

It's not fair that women suffer pregnancy and childbirth and the risks...some permanent...that go along with it. The thing that has *enabled* women to have more sex with men are contraceptives, including condoms....and yet here you are, complaining about it.

Uh...men acting like victims is a huge turnoff...that sure wont get men more sex.

 

[Lursa]

What you're saying isnt quite accurate either. A womsn csn in fact have sex, get pregnant, and never inform her partner he is going to become a father, and never have any contact with him ever agsin, under current law.

That is one of my gripes of the total lack of respect the law offers to men. It operates from this stereotype that men dont want to be fathers or have contact with their children so it sees no need to protect a mans relationship with his children.

The shortsighted OP never acknowledges this, or what it means. It means that if the ridiculous opt-out were law...if women were as calculating and selfish as the OP and you believe...women would do exactly that...never let it be known until it was too late.

This is esp. true if she says she doesnt know who the father is and you have to wait until there is a baby to do the DNA test.

It's a ridiculous, unworkable, and unworthy proposal.

 

[Lursa]

You and others are missing the point. The way you have it now, if a woman gets pregnant (even before paternity is established) the man is on the hook for 18 years of support. If he wants to keep the kid, he has no say. If he doesn't want to keep the kid, he has no say. When do his rights come into play?

Which specific rights of 'his' are you referring to?

 

[trouble13]

Nobody is forcing men to have sex with women. If you dont like it, or cant wait until you are in a committed relationship and can go without birth control...too bad. That is not the fault of women. Or any laws.

It's not fair that women suffer pregnancy and childbirth and the risks...some permanent...that go along with it. The thing that has *enabled* women to have more sex with men are contraceptives, including condoms....and yet here you are, complaining about it.

Uh...men acting like victims is a huge turnoff...that sure wont get men more sex.

First off i didnt say anything in that post. You are making the same exact error as the poster that my reply was directed to. If you can find the post that belongs to me that says that by all means post it and i will respond. I dont appriciate having things associated to me that i did not say.

And as far as your poutrage goes about how nature is unfair to saddle women with the burden of pregnancy. I have the ssme response for you that you give to men. If women dont like the consequences of getting pregnant, dont have sex.

And again your misandrist belief that men want sex more than women is noted. Im sure all the future generations of females who cant find men interested in them appriciate all your anti-Male sentiments that are turning men off.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk