Male Post-Conception Opt Out

[Bodi]

I'm anti-jerks not anti-men. Real men understand the risks and pay up if there is a child.

real Men ?

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

 

[Northern Light]

If the courts are concerned about the childs welfare why is there no mechanism in place to ensure child support payments are being spent on the child?

If you want to talk about family court reforms, I'm totally open to that... because I agree there are shortcomings.

But as soon as you make it about attacking women in order to rectify men, you've lost my support.

 

[Bodi]

Except it is not bigotry but whatever.

And the people who are the toxic ones are really men, are there women who cause toxic relationships? Sure, that is undoubtedly true, but I am pretty sure the biggest victims of toxic relationships are cause by men.

Non of this has anything to do with the illogical idea of men being able to get out of their duty to their child.

:lol:

 

[Bodi]

If you want to talk about family court reforms, I'm totally open to that... because I agree there are shortcomings.

But as soon as you make it about attacking women in order to rectify men, you've lost my support.

This is the whole problem with people who think like you do... it is not about attacking women. If you would stop spouting this stupid bul**** we could get on to actually helping everybody in the situation be treated fairly.

 

[Northern Light]

This argument literally has nothing to do with who has the power over reproduction. Every man who is posted in this thread admits and wants women to have all the power over there reproduction. We want them to have 100% control over whether they are bought or whether they keep the child. They have that power nobody is taking it away get over it and deal with the actual issue instead of all this stupid Straw Man bull****.

You can't say it's irrelevant when there is discussion of leveraging women to have abortions by granting them a certain cut off time that favors the man, etc. i.e. "She better have an abortion by such and such time otherwise she can't complain about not getting child support." Do you think that's legally ethical? It's not and will never happen.

You're acting like this has nothing to do with reproductive control when clearly it encroaches on that very territory.

So you better get your argument straight and stop waffling.

You can't leverage human flesh against financial interest in this way.

 

[AGENT J]

900+ Posts and we are in the same place and the OP stands
The reality some people want the laws changed to support equality based on legality and some are fine with it being factually unequal based on legality.
The people that support/ are fine with it currently being unequal have their right to feel that way.
And truth be told it isnt going to change in my lifetime or my kids lifetime. Im not even interested in changing anybody's mind to support legal equality, support what you want, But that doesnt mean honest educated objective people will not identify it for what it factually is . . unequal. The fact remains you support something unequal based on legality and parental rights. :hrug:

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?

 

[Bodi]

Re: Call the question

It does not promote equality, it promotes the opposite.

Equal post conception rights are unequal according to you... interesting... interesting indeed.

 

[weaver2]

Thats not what im saying and you damn well know it.

I dunno about that.

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.

...... sounds almost exactly like this. (well without the plain brown wrapper form Amazon)

So, when a child is conceived the sperm came in the mail from Amazon wrapped in a plain brown paper package not from you. You were just enjoying sex "naturally, the way it was intended for maximum pleasure and enjoyment". (without condom). And nobody could possibly ask you to be responsible for anything especially not for child support. It just wouldn't be fair, because obviously it wasn't your sperm. . And to hell with the slut that somehow got pregnant. it wasn't your fault that you were enjoying sex "naturally" the way You and God intended it to be.

 

[trouble13]

If you want to talk about family court reforms, I'm totally open to that... because I agree there are shortcomings.

But as soon as you make it about attacking women in order to rectify men, you've lost my support.

I only brought it up because it appears to contradict the notion that the states priority is the childs welfare.

You think its about attacking women when really it just does not pander to making their choice to keep a child more convenient for them. While i can see your point that not having a guarantee of finacial support could influence the womans decision i think its a huge stretch to call it coercion.

If we are gonna define that as coercion could we also not say that the gov is coercing women to have babies by guaranteeing women support as well?

On that note, the state really bends overbackwards to accomidate whatever choice the woman makes and limits mens options to a large extent.

Some men are not even told by the mother they are going to become fathers until after the event occurs robbing them of precious time needed to prepare for fatherhood.

Some men dont even know they are fathers until years after their child is born. Robbing them again of precious time they could of been sharing in their childs life. The state takes none of that into consideration they will still hit the father for back support.

Speaking of support, the state will not even acknowledge any money they spend on their children as support unless its specifically sent to the welfare agency and then given directly to the mother to use on whatever she wants. A caring father can not even by his children clothes or school stuff to ensure that his support is going where its needed for his childs welfare and not something else.

I can go on and on with how one sided the law is but i think I've made my point.

The bottom line is that i dont think its unfair to give men a small window of opprotunity to take a legal position of not being responsible for the product of an accidental pregnancy that leaves the woman with enough time to make her own informed decision of whats best for her.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

I dunno about that.

This ......


...... sounds almost exactly like this. (well without the plain brown wrapper form Amazon)

Those are not my posts nor do they reflect my position. The availability of condoms have no bearing on a mans rights but it has nothing to do with anyone having a right to unprotected sex.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[year2late]

This is very true. The childs welfare is never a consideration even with child support there isnt any accountability that the money is used to provide for the child. Thats why I refer to it as mommy support.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Wow. I do not doubt there are some self serving mothers out there...but to lump them all like that???wow.

Im talking about the law not the women motives.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

You clearly state that the child's welfare is not a consideration and then call child support "mommy support" -of course you are questioning her motives.

Seriously.

 

[year2late]

This is very true. The childs welfare is never a consideration even with child support there isnt any accountability that the money is used to provide for the child. Thats why I refer to it as mommy support.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Wow. I do not doubt there are some self serving mothers out there...but to lump them all like that???wow.

Those are not my posts nor do they reflect my position. The availability of condoms have no bearing on a mans rights but it has nothing to do with anyone having a right to unprotected sex.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

You have a right to unprotected sex. You just don't have the right to unprotected sex without consequences.

 

[Bodi]

His choice ended when she got pregnant by him. He has no right to refuse his financial duties to the child.

Yes I get it. That is your opinion. Legally though that is unequal and that is simply a fact with regards to post conception opt-out opportunities between men and women. Your opinion that his choice is over is it relevant

 

[ecofarm]

If Society actually cares about the welfare of the child they would have some sort of system in place to make sure that the mother spend the money on the child or that the money is spent on the Child by government oversight. As it is right now the mother can spend the money on anything she wants and I know this first hand and it doesn't have to b on child support.

Dead-beatism.

There are many expenses in a household. Dead-beats categorize them to their rhetorical benefit.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Dead-beatism.

There are many expenses in a household. Dead-beats categorize them to their rhetorical benefit.

Pointless name-calling designed to undermine any reasonable opposition to the status quo. If you're just here to cast sexist aspersions, why post?

 

[Bodi]

You can't say it's irrelevant when there is discussion of leveraging women to have abortions by granting them a certain cut off time that favors the man, etc. i.e. "She better have an abortion by such and such time otherwise she can't complain about not getting child support." Do you think that's legally ethical? It's not and will never happen.

You're acting like this has nothing to do with reproductive control when clearly it encroaches on that very territory.

So you better get your argument straight and stop waffling.

You can't leverage human flesh against financial interest in this way.

There is no leveraging of women in this argument... there is also no cut-off date for when she can have an abortion... she has total control over her own body... she has total control over whether she has an abortion or not... my argument has been straight from the very beginning perhaps you just don't understand it... leveraging human flash blah blah blah whatever you'd understand the argument before you start making these appeals to emotion and nonsensical illogical comments.

 

[trouble13]

You clearly state that the child's welfare is not a consideration and then call child support "mommy support" -of course you are questioning her motives.

Seriously.

I am being critical of the government not women. Women are the beneficiary of it the majority of time but thats not the womans fault its the systems fault that they dont ensure the money is used as intended.

As far as women go, i am only critical of the ones that missuse the funds.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[ecofarm]

Pointless name-calling designed to undermine any reasonable opposition to the status quo. If you're just here to cast sexist aspersions, why post?

Trying to pretend we, as a government, need to control how women spend child support is nothing more than an extension of sexism. There are many expenses in a household and money coming from two different sources need not be kept as separate books.

It is, in fact, dead-beatism to pretend a grave injustice occurs in the expenditure of child support and we, as a government, need to keep books for women receiving child support.

End of story.

 

[Bodi]

Dead-beatism.

There are many expenses in a household. Dead-beats categorize them to their rhetorical benefit.

When I have experienced a mother who goes and gets lattes and bagels and takeout food repeatedly and then turns around and tells me she can't afford shoes or food for the children... well you tell me what's going on there. When the man pays Xtra gladly to put shoes on their kid's, clothes on their backs and food on the table only to have it happen month after month with child support services doing nothing about it upon complaints... it is not unique either and any person, especially a man, who thinks it is is an ignorant tool arguing s*** they don't have a f****** clue about and is certainly not listening 2 or caring about, the real issue

 

[trouble13]

You have a right to unprotected sex. You just don't have the right to unprotected sex without consequences.

Thats absolutely true and this thread is based on one specific consequences unfairness.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[year2late]

When I have experienced a mother who goes and gets lattes and bagels and takeout food repeatedly and then turns around and tells me she can't afford shoes or food for the children... well you tell me what's going on there. When the man pays Xtra gladly to put shoes on their kid's clothes on their backs and food on the table only to have it happen month after month with child support services doing nothing about it upon complaints it is not unique either and any person especially a man who thinks it is isn't ignorant tool arguing s*** they don't have a f****** clue about.

Stalking?

 

[ecofarm]

When I have experienced a mother who goes and gets lattes and bagels and takeout food repeatedly...

...arguing s*** they don't have a f****** clue about.

I'm arguing from a sociological position. One that treats women as people and even adults. You're arguing from an emotional dumpster fire. I'll stand with my position.

 

[Bodi]

Trying to pretend we, as a government, need to control how women spend child support is nothing more than an extension of sexism. There are many expenses in a household and money coming from two different sources need not be kept as separate books.

It is, in fact, dead-beatism to pretend a grave injustice occurs in the expenditure of child support and we, as a government, need to keep books for women receiving child support.

End of story.

Holy****... the f****** ignorance that people Post. When you do not have a clue you should not act like you do...

 

[year2late]

Thats absolutely true and this thread is based on one specific consequences unfairness.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Yeah, if only a man had the same physical consequences of sex that a woman does......then we can talk about fair.:lamo

 

[ecofarm]

When I have experienced a mother who goes and gets lattes and bagels and takeout food repeatedly and then turns around and tells me she can't afford shoes or food for the children... well you tell me what's going on there. When the man pays Xtra gladly to put shoes on their kid's, clothes on their backs and food on the table only to have it happen month after month with child support services doing nothing about it upon complaints... it is not unique either and any person, especially a man, who thinks it is is an ignorant tool arguing s*** they don't have a f****** clue about and is certainly not listening 2 or caring about, the real issue

Bagels?! That's outrageous!!

Lock her up!!