Would you support a male contraceptive?

Lord Tammerlain said:

How are they forced?

They had choices before engaging in the act, i expect of their own free will. The same choices a woman has

For a period of time after sex, the choices are different because of BIOLOGY, and after pregnancy the choices are the same again

Click to expand...

Well if we're going strictly by BIOLOGY, then abortion shouldn't be an option for the woman either. BIOLOGY does not give women an option for abortion. The LAW does. And the law should likewise give the man an option.

NitroHangover said:

Well if we're going strictly by BIOLOGY, then abortion shouldn't be an option for the woman either. BIOLOGY does not give women an option for abortion. The LAW does. And the law should likewise give the man an option.

Click to expand...

Not true. Abortion is a natural behavior in humans (and a couple other species as well). Humans have been aborting since the beginning of time, and they continue to abort even when it's illegal.

I am absolutely for any safe, effective contraceptive that allows anyone, male or female, to control their own reproductive freedoms.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

They chose to have sex, not to be a financial servant for 20 years.

Next time you get hit by a drunk, refuse to let the paramedics help you. This is nothing but sexist BS.

Click to expand...

understanding that women get pregnant and men do not is sexist? Then I suggest scientists work out a way to tranfer the fetus to men to end such sexism created by nature

NitroHangover said:

Well if we're going strictly by BIOLOGY, then abortion shouldn't be an option for the woman either. BIOLOGY does not give women an option for abortion. The LAW does. And the law should likewise give the man an option.

Click to expand...

I am sure the law does not stop a man from having an abortion

Lord Tammerlain said:

understanding that women get pregnant and men do not is sexist? Then I suggest scientists work out a way to tranfer the fetus to men to end such sexism created by nature

Click to expand...

This is not about deciding what to do with a pregnancy. This is about deciding what to do about SOMEONE ELSE'S decision.

The woman gets to decide about the pregnancy. The man should get to decide whether or not he wants to be involved with the woman's decision.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

This is not about deciding what to do with a pregnancy. This is about deciding what to do about SOMEONE ELSE'S decision.

The woman gets to decide about the pregnancy. The man should get to decide whether or not he wants to be involved with the woman's decision.

Click to expand...

So a man should have authority over what a woman does for 9 months?

Does the women get to have the same right to prevent men from doing something for the same time period

Lord Tammerlain said:

So a man should have authority over what a woman does for 9 months?

Does the women get to have the same right to prevent men from doing something for the same time period

Click to expand...

No. A man should have authority over how he spends his own time and money.

The woman can decide to do whatever she wants with the pregnancy. She should not be able to decide to force the man to support her when he never agreed to her decision.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Not true. Abortion is a natural behavior in humans (and a couple other species as well). Humans have been aborting since the beginning of time, and they continue to abort even when it's illegal.

Click to expand...

I don't think there's anything "natural" about it. It is always done by artificial means. I mean, there is no natural, biological mechanism by which a woman can intentionally miscarry. And I've read the couple of examples of "abortions" in other species. They don't sound anything like abortions, to me.

Anyway, it's moot, because we're talking about the here and now, and the question is one of legal fairness. Today, in this country, the law gives women the right to have an abortion. Biology was never consulted about it. And the truth is, if abortion were made illegal except in cases of rape or life-threatening condition, I wouldn't be arguing that men should have a way to opt out. I don't believe that either should. But as long as the law continues to grant the right to one, it should also grant the right to the other.

Lord Tammerlain said:

So a man should have authority over what a woman does for 9 months?

Does the women get to have the same right to prevent men from doing something for the same time period

Click to expand...

I noticed how you still haven't figured out how you got everything backwards so far. You are saying men should be able to forced to care for children, but women can basically kill whatever they want. The logic in that is in fact backwards. It makes more sense to say that the woman can't abort and the man is not forced into something if we are dealing with a responsibility argument, but you are in fact doing the exact opposite.

NitroHangover said:

I don't think there's anything "natural" about it. It is always done by artificial means. I mean, there is no natural, biological mechanism by which a woman can intentionally miscarry. And I've read the couple of examples of "abortions" in other species. They don't sound anything like abortions, to me.

Anyway, it's moot, because we're talking about the here and now, and the question is one of legal fairness. Today, in this country, the law gives women the right to have an abortion. Biology was never consulted about it. And the truth is, if abortion were made illegal except in cases of rape or life-threatening condition, I wouldn't be arguing that men should have a way to opt out. I don't believe that either should. But as long as the law continues to grant the right to one, it should also grant the right to the other.

Click to expand...

That's not true. There are dozens of natural means of abortion, using physical or herbal methods. They are not quite as effective as modern medical means. And in many cases, they aren't as safe either. But women have been performing abortions since before civilization. Abortion is quite natural.

The fact that it's behavioral instead of internal doesn't make it any less natural. Behavior is natural.

Horses can miscarry at will. And they do if they aren't permitted to mask paternity by having sex with multiple males. That's an abortion.

On the latter point, I agree.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

No. A man should have authority over how he spends his own time and money.

The woman can decide to do whatever she wants with the pregnancy. She should not be able to decide to force the man to support her when he never agreed to her decision.

Click to expand...

He agreed to have sex, and the risk of parenthood is one of the risks from having sex. By having sex, he accepted that risk He can avoid having intercourse, and have anal or oral sex instead to prevent pregnancy. But at the end of 9 months if a child is born then in the majority of cases both are responsible

Lord Tammerlain said:

I am sure the law does not stop a man from having an abortion

Click to expand...

Only because it doesn't need to. But for all intents and purposes, it stops him from having the male equivalent.

Look, an abortion is not only about what happens for the next 9 months. It is about what happens for the next 20 years or longer.

Henrin said:

I noticed how you still haven't figured out how you got everything backwards so far. You are saying men should be able to forced to care for children, but women can basically kill whatever they want. The logic in that is in fact backwards. It makes more sense to say that the woman can't abort and the man is not forced into anything if we are dealing with a responsibility argument, but you are in fact doing the exact opposite.

Click to expand...

Not by a long shot

Both can abort a pregnancy if they are pregnant, if the pregnancy is not ended then both are responsible for the baby

I do not support forcing either the man or the woman to have an abortion, so one of the two is going to have to accept the decision of the other person regarding what to do with their own body, that might mean the pregnancy is ended or that both will become parents

Lord Tammerlain said:

He agreed to have sex, and the risk of parenthood is one of the risks from having sex. By having sex, he accepted that risk He can avoid having intercourse, and have anal or oral sex instead to prevent pregnancy. But at the end of 9 months if a child is born then in the majority of cases both are responsible

Click to expand...

What you're espousing is sexist. Women should be free to choose, but men should be legally enslaved to pay for her decision.

Though - I think the court's view should be that the situation shouldn't pressure a woman into an abortion. Though it is legal - it shouldn't be the pushed-for choice. Honestly. If more women engage in sex and end up pregnant she shouldn't have to consider abortion as if it's her only viable option.

And such arguments as they're presented really aim to make abortion THE ideal choice - and it's not. A lot of people would never choose to have an abortion no matter what - regardless of whether it's legal or not. And they shouldn't be guilted or pressured into that - ever. And so that just reiterates why men and women just shouldn't engage in sex if they aren't willing to discuss the what-ifs and know where each one lies. . . it's a bit of maturity that's required.

"It should be legalized - but not legitimized" - this is what someone on this forum said about prostitution and I think it applies to abortion as well. It should never be seen or considered a viable option - it should only be for those who have NO other choice.

NitroHangover said:

Wait, so you mean there are actual cases of this happening? Can you link? Because I am aware of some identical situations, even some where the woman herself, in court, said she did not want the man's support because they'd agreed he wouldn't be responsible, and the court still made him pay, against both their wishes. She actually had to accept his checks each month, cash them, and then give him his money back. Which of course still puts him right back at her mercy. It's that ****ed up.

Click to expand...

I remember a particular case - in 2002 maybe - where this was the case. In the end - he didn't have to pay child support. I'm trying to find the case now - it was a long time ago, my memory might be rusty. But it was early 2000's because I remember discussing it at a certain forum elsewhere.

Though - now that I think about it - I'm unsure if it was an American case. Might have been Canadian . . . because that's where said forum was spawned.

I'll keep looking.

Now - personally, for me, the courts ruled my ex was suppose to pay support - but I didn't want his support so I didn't process a claim for it, etc. And no one but me ever understood why I did that - no one could fathom why I didn't want support. They thought I was nuts - even my husband when we first married. . .eventually his pressure on me made me pursue it which quickly led to the exact reason why I didn't want it: his wife (ok - we're talking many years passing - he remarried and so did I over time) . . . his wife decided to pursue his visitation rights. . . Then my husband experienced first hand why I didn't want support - and he regretted pressuring me into it after all those years. . . and then he adopted the boys, forever ending his 'right' to claim them as his in any fashion.

So - the courts can be sidestepped if it's done in a certain way.

Lord Tammerlain said:

Not by a long shot

Both can abort a pregnancy if they are pregnant, if the pregnancy is not ended then both are responsible for the baby

I do not support forcing either the man or the woman to have an abortion, so one of the two is going to have to accept the decision of the other person regarding what to do with their own body, that might mean the pregnancy is ended or that both will become parents

Click to expand...

That argument makes no sense either. Only one can ever become pregnant by the natural order and pretending otherwise is completely retarded and I'm not going to say anything more on it. The second part is just legal nonsense and has nothing to do with your comments about responsibility.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

What you're espousing is sexist. Women should be free to choose, but men should be legally enslaved to pay for her decision.

Click to expand...

Did he not choose to have sex? If not I would hope he pressed sexual assualt charges. He choose to have sex, and as such accept the possiblity of having a child

Henrin said:

That argument makes no sense either. Only one can ever become pregnant by the natural order and pretending otherwise is completely retarded and I'm not going to say anything more on it. The second part is just legal nonsense and has nothing to do with your comments about responsibility.

Click to expand...

So you accept that biologically men and women when it comes to reproduction are different,

Now just how do you think biology should effect reproductive rights?

Lord Tammerlain said:

Did he not choose to have sex? If not I would hope he pressed sexual assualt charges. He choose to have sex, and as such accept the possiblity of having a child

Click to expand...

Then you have to say the same thing to her when she tries to have an abortion.

Speaking of sexual assault. . . why is it that when two people are drunk and have sex that, when legally viewed, the female is considered unable to consent because she was drunk. . . but he WAS able to consent and even commit a heinous crime even though he was drunk, too?

How is it that she can't consent - but he can? And that the male is always considered to having raped the female but she never rapes him? Aren't they then raping each other?

What's the logic? I know - it doesn't belong in this thread but someone's comment made me think of it.

NitroHangover said:

Then you have to say the same thing to her when she tries to have an abortion.

Click to expand...

Certainly do, and because she is the one pregnant, she has a choice a man does not. That is because of biology

I don't know what Mr. Propaine and S+M are arguing about... S+M is usually right about these things, though. The whole thing about consequences for sex... That shows us a lot of problems. First, that having a child is something that is considered a consequence. Having a child is a big thing. It should never be taken lightly. It changes your life, forever. It should never be something that happens by accident. We need to embrace all technological advancements that can bring our reproduction under our control, be it contraceptives, abortion, or whatever else.

As to the OP, the scientific idea of something like a male pill or patch or whatever... totally for it. I don't want any accidental babies. But the whole war between the sexes stuff he espouses... it's kinda creepy. I don't know about him, but I like women. Women are fun. And fun for plenty of things besides sex, too.* The only men who need to hide themselves away from women and gain "independence" from them are cowards who can't handle things they can't control. And who are probably inadequate in some form of another and can't really handle that either. But I'm all for better birth control.

*Sammich making, for example. ^_^

Speaking of consequences and sammich making entities... S+M... we're still waiting eagerly for your game! I've been staring at the dude and the hot couple he's gonna shoot for a long time now. I'm getting S+M blueballs...

Paschendale said:

Speaking of consequences and sammich making entities... S+M... we're still waiting eagerly for your game! I've been staring at the dude and the hot couple he's gonna shoot for a long time now. I'm getting S+M blueballs...

Click to expand...

Pasch, how I wish I could. Right now I'm taking a 5-minute breather from writing a paper. I am way, way too busy to run a game effectively, and I don't see that changing for the next couple months at least -- if not until this summer.

Maybe I should take it down.

NitroHangover said:

Then you have to say the same thing to her when she tries to have an abortion.

Click to expand...

The hangup is still the fact that it's affecting one person's body and not the other person's body. It just skews things. However much I'd love 100% equality - in the end we're still bound by various sex-traits.