Male Post-Conception Opt Out

[GhostlyJoe]

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.

The justification is an extension of the state using force to take the funds from another party, which is why there is a call for greater control and accountability. Your use of the term "deadbeats" is just an appeal to emotion. You levy accusation of sexism, but really you're oversimplifying the issue to make an emotional argument. Consider that we a live in a no-fault divorce world, and the issue gets even more complicated. Really, no one in this thread has been advocating for women to be forcibly returned to traditional gender roles. Rather, people are arguing for men to be released from there's -- forced to be providers and protectors or be shamed as "deadbeats" with little regard for their individual circumstances. Even those who desire to be parents and contribute as much as they can are shoveled under the derogatory umbrella.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

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

18 years of forced a labor is a physical consequence.

 

[ecofarm]

The justification is an extension of the state using force to take the funds from another party, which is why there is a call for greater control and accountability.

The only reason the state is forced to get involved is a failed male. That male's failure in no way reflects upon a woman's ability to manage her household. You want to indict her based upon him.

 

[Bodi]

18 years of forced a labor is a physical consequence.

One that is overlooked or mocked by ignorant people...

 

[GhostlyJoe]

The only reason the state is forced to get involved is a failed male. That male's failure in no way reflects upon a woman's ability to manage her household. You want to indict her based upon him.

Hahahaha! You know nothing, John Snow! Bigotry isn't much of an argument.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

One that is overlooked or mocked by ignorant people...

I personally have a friend in his 50s who just took a second job stacking boxes -- on top of a 40-hour-a-week desk job. Oh, and he just got his Realtor's license. He was forced out of his home, and his second marriage is on the rocks. All to satisfy an amended child support order and cover legal bills. Guess that's not labor though. :shrug: And why should he even question how she spends that money, right? I mean, she has a mortgage. Someday, the kids will be grown. She'll get to keep the house. He gets a broken back and has no money for his own retirement. But he's a "deadbeat," I guess, so screw him.

 

[Bodi]

I personally have a friend in his 50s who just took a second job stacking boxes -- on top of a 40-hour-a-week desk job. Oh, and he just got his Realtor's license. He was forced out of his home, and his second marriage is on the rocks. All to satisfy an amended child support order and cover legal bills. Guess that's not labor though. :shrug: And why should he even question how she spends that money, right? I mean, she has a mortgage. Someday, the kids will be grown. She'll get to keep the house. He gets a broken back and has no money for his own retirement. But he's a "deadbeat," I guess, so screw him.

That seriously sucks . I know a few sad situations like that as well. Questioning anything, having actual experience are not , makes a man a deadbeat nowadays apparently that is the new PC

 

[trouble13]

I personally have a friend in his 50s who just took a second job stacking boxes -- on top of a 40-hour-a-week desk job. Oh, and he just got his Realtor's license. He was forced out of his home, and his second marriage is on the rocks. All to satisfy an amended child support order and cover legal bills. Guess that's not labor though. :shrug: And why should he even question how she spends that money, right? I mean, she has a mortgage. Someday, the kids will be grown. She'll get to keep the house. He gets a broken back and has no money for his own retirement. But he's a "deadbeat," I guess, so screw him.

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

 

[Crusader13]

If you believe there are so many loser men, then they really really shouldnt be risking sex if they cant pay the consequences if they get a woman pregnant.

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 loser doesnt mean you get a 'get out of jail free' card.

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

It means you work and play within your means.

It works both ways.

 

[Crusader13]

So, finally we get to the real issue.. All of the pleasure and none of the responsibility.

Basically birth control is the responsibility, totally, of the woman so a man can enjoy sex "naturally" and if something happens the guy without the condom isn't responsible. His only responsibility is to enjoy sex "naturally".

OMG

Nobody is saying that, you're drawing incorrect assumptions now. Last time I checked, women have means of birth control too (besides abortion). I'm not saying that it should only be a woman's responsibility yet you seem to be implying that it should only be a man's responsibility. The truth is, it's both of their responsibility. But the difference is that women have a back-up in case birth control fails, so expecting a man to sacrifice his enjoyment seems illogical.

 

[Crusader13]

Having a kid you dont want is a consequence.

Then don't have it. Abortions are legal.

Dying is a consequence.

Don't get pregnant then. Simple.

Permanent disability from an infection from a miscarriage is a consequence!

Then don't have sex.

The point is, if there's a pregnancy, the woman will suffer at least one of those consequences

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.

 

[Crusader13]

Men CAN'T have the same choice that women do because they DON'T HAVE UTERUSES.

Women who need money from their partner CAN'T have the same choice because they DON'T HAVE THE SAME FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. No woman knows how much, or how little, money a man has. You don't know what other bills he has to pay. You don't know how hard he has to work for that money. Therefore, you don't get to make assumptions and demand that he should give some of it to you. Keep your hands off his vag...I mean money!

It's gross how you characterize women as money grubbing gold diggers, when it's about child care.

It's gross how you characterize men [who are against abortion] as power grubbing misogynists, when it's about child care!

Are men this divorced from reality that they think they can stir their dick and then cry because they don't have control over where the child gestates?

Are women this divorced from reality that they think they can flaunt their vagina and then cry because they don't have the financial means to support the ensuing child?

Speaking of having your cake and eating it too...!

when really it's about the State allocating care for children.

Yet suddenly that standard of care goes out the window when a woman wants to opt out after conception. Funny how you suddenly care about children when discussing a man's responsibility. When it's on a woman, all of a sudden it turns into "urgh, who cares about the child, it's just a parasite!".

A woman doesn't have to undergo the risk of an abortion if she doesn't want to,

A man doesn't have to get a job to support the child if he doesn't want to

and especially not because the man doesn't want the government deciding that he should pay for his sexual act rather than tax payers.

and especially not because the woman refuses to pay for her own sexual act.

Tax payers should not foot the bill for someone else's children!

Tell that to the women who demand to have free, taxpayer-funded abortions on demand. Actually, last I checked, Planned Parenthood receives government funding. So you seem to be OK with tax payers footing the bill for someone else's children after all. Double standards galore in this thread.

 

[Northern Light]

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.

Maybe you weren't stating that directly but others have been, stated right at me in replies. Stop being hyperbolic because not everyone discusses things on your terms. It's childish.

 

[Northern Light]

Women who need money from their partner CAN'T have the same choice because they DON'T HAVE THE SAME FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. No woman knows how much, or how little, money a man has. You don't know what other bills he has to pay. You don't know how hard he has to work for that money. Therefore, you don't get to make assumptions and demand that he should give some of it to you. Keep your hands off his vag...I mean money!

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

It's gross how you characterize men [who are against abortion] as power grubbing misogynists, when it's about child care!

:roll:

Are women this divorced from reality that they think they can flaunt their vagina and then cry because they don't have the financial means to support the ensuing child?

Ugh, the misogyny.

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

Yet suddenly that standard of care goes out the window when a woman wants to opt out after conception. Funny how you suddenly care about children when discussing a man's responsibility. When it's on a woman, all of a sudden it turns into "urgh, who cares about the child, it's just a parasite!".

You're too dim to understand the subtle but important distinction here. Women have the power to abort or not. If they don't abort, then yes, it becomes about child welfare. Who cares about fetuses, they aren't even persons yet. You're pointing out a hypocrisy that doesn't even exist.

Women have two choices during pregnancy, men have none because they don't carry the pregnancy. Get it through your thick head already. The law is not going to create a fatherhood opt-out to punish women for something that isn't their fault, but reproductive reality.

A man doesn't have to get a job to support the child if he doesn't want to

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

The second he has money it will be garnished. The same goes for any woman who shirks responsibility.

and especially not because the woman refuses to pay for her own sexual act.

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.

Man, you really are a piece of work.

Tell that to the women who demand to have free, taxpayer-funded abortions on demand. Actually, last I checked, Planned Parenthood receives government funding. So you seem to be OK with tax payers footing the bill for someone else's children after all. Double standards galore in this thread.

Planned Parenthood does not get funding for abortion. Their funding is earmarked for their other services. I am not aware of most abortion clinics offering tax payer funded abortions. Most are private pay.

You're either lying or just incredibly ignorant. Either way, you have a lot of learning and growing up to do based on how you characterize women. Shame on you.

 

[Bodi]

Maybe you weren't stating that directly but others have been, stated right at me in replies. Stop being hyperbolic because not everyone discusses things on your terms. It's childish.

The argument is how I have posted it in the opening Post... the rest is end of story

 

[Northern Light]

The argument is how I have posted it in the opening Post... the rest is end of story

Sorry to burst your bubble but you're not the only participant in this thread.

 

[Bodi]

in this thread.

One thing my ex stated specifically in a court document was that her reason for getting increased child support and being allowed to relocate my children away from me was because she would be getting more money. Pretty sure that is not something the majority of women do but it is still an example of something that some women do to f*** over men.

 

[Bodi]

Sorry to burst your bubble but you're not the only participant in this thread.

this thread is about a topic that I created. If you don't want to talk about it cool... go off and frolic about in The Fields of Joy as you Express Yourself in ways that make you feel supremely happy about your interpretation of the

 

[Northern Light]

this thread is about a topic that I created. If you don't want to talk about it cool... go off and frolic about in The Fields of Joy as you Express Yourself in ways that make you feel supremely happy about your interpretation of the

Sorry but you know that's not how it works here. You don't get to dictate the winds of change in a discussion just because you're the OP, and especially not when your ideological brethren have themselves caused the very tangents that I am merely responding to in kind. Your one-sidedness is laughable.

 

[weaver2]

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

Those are all quotes from your posts.

 

[weaver2]

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

When you are on your second marriage and it's failing the problem is not with the laws of the country.

 

[weaver2]

Women who need money from their partner CAN'T have the same choice because they DON'T HAVE THE SAME FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. No woman knows how much, or how little, money a man has. You don't know what other bills he has to pay. You don't know how hard he has to work for that money. Therefore, you don't get to make assumptions and demand that he should give some of it to you. Keep your hands off his vag...I mean money!



It's gross how you characterize men [who are against abortion] as power grubbing misogynists, when it's about child care!

Are women this divorced from reality that they think they can flaunt their vagina and then cry because they don't have the financial means to support the ensuing child?

Speaking of having your cake and eating it too...!

Yet suddenly that standard of care goes out the window when a woman wants to opt out after conception. Funny how you suddenly care about children when discussing a man's responsibility. When it's on a woman, all of a sudden it turns into "urgh, who cares about the child, it's just a parasite!".

A man doesn't have to get a job to support the child if he doesn't want to and especially not because the woman refuses to pay for her own sexual act.

Tell that to the women who demand to have free, taxpayer-funded abortions on demand. Actually, last I checked, Planned Parenthood receives government funding. So you seem to be OK with tax payers footing the bill for someone else's children after all. Double standards galore in this thread.

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

 

[Bodi]

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



:roll:



Ugh, the misogyny.

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



You're too dim to understand the subtle but important distinction here. Women have the power to abort or not. If they don't abort, then yes, it becomes about child welfare. Who cares about fetuses, they aren't even persons yet. You're pointing out a hypocrisy that doesn't even exist.

Women have two choices during pregnancy, men have none because they don't carry the pregnancy. Get it through your thick head already. The law is not going to create a fatherhood opt-out to punish women for something that isn't their fault, but reproductive reality.



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

The second he has money it will be garnished. The same goes for any woman who shirks responsibility.



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.

Man, you really are a piece of work.



Planned Parenthood does not get funding for abortion. Their funding is earmarked for their other services. I am not aware of most abortion clinics offering tax payer funded abortions. Most are private pay.

You're either lying or just incredibly ignorant. Either way, you have a lot of learning and growing up to do based on how you characterize women. Shame on you.

Post conception opt-out that is the topic of this thread not misogyny not women is s**** not men are deadbeats not child support not anything other than a legal option for post conception opt outs that promote equality for men and women

 

[Bodi]

Sorry but you know that's not how it works here. You don't get to dictate the winds of change in a discussion just because you're the OP, and especially not when your ideological brethren have themselves caused the very tangents that I am merely responding to in kind. Your one-sidedness is laughable.

If they created that tangent then they can leave the thread as well... as it is the OP is the topic of the thread...

 

[weaver2]

Post conception opt-out that is the topic of this thread not misogyny not women is s**** not men are deadbeats not child support not anything other than a legal option for post conception opt outs that promote equality for men and women

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.