• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you support a male contraceptive?

Would you support male contraceptives?

  • Yes, I would support male contraceptives?

    Votes: 26 89.7%

  • No, I wouldn't support male contraceptives?

    Votes: 3 10.3%

  • I don't know.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    29
Lord Tammerlain said:
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?
Click to expand...

I sure do. Women can give birth and men can not do that by the natural order. Therefore, she is responsible for bringing the child in the world and the man has nothing at all to do with it. This perfectly reflects on the rights of both parties. The responsibility you are talking about is created from LAW, not the natural order.

Your problem is you carelessly put things together in whatever clumsy way you desire and it leaves much to be desired and many mistakes in basic logic.
 
Last edited:
Lord Tammerlain said:
Certainly do, and because she is the one pregnant, she has a choice a man does not. That is because of biology
Click to expand...
Again (since you ignored it last time), abortion and pregnancy and parenthood are not just about what happens over the next 9 months. They are about what happens over the next 20-40 years.

Look, I would agree with you if abortion were only legal for biological reasons. Dangerous health complications with the pregnancy, for example. If that were the only reason a woman was allowed to have an abortion, then I'd agree that that should be her choice and the man should have no such choice (obviously) because he does not get pregnant and that is not a concern for him. But that is not the case. Women are legally allowed to abort for any reason they want, even if it has nothing at all to do with biology or health or the next 9 months. They are allowed to abort because they don't make enough money, don't want their social life affected, don't want the responsibility... I could go on forever. It could be anything at all, or nothing. These are purely convenience issues, and have nothing to do with biology or health. They are not about pregnancy; they are about parenthood.

If a woman is legally allowed to opt out for these types of reasons, then so should a man. Afterall, these issues are not unique to women just because they carry the baby. They equally apply to both people. So, then, should the right to opt out because of them.
 
ab9924 said:
Since the 20th century introduction of female contraceptives, women are for the 1st time capable of commanding their own lives. (Even getting rid of men for their happiness, in extreme cases, such as feminism.) We men could achieve the same independence from women (and ourselves) if we had a similar contraceptive. I propose an applied research that results in such individual control over fertility, libido, and social imperatives, as the one that women gain out of the existing female products. Would you support such a development?
Click to expand...

You forgot a choice, I dont care. I dont really care one way or another. If they them fine, if they dont fine. Doesnt matter to me.
 
Henrin said:
I sure do. Women can give birth and men can not do that by the natural order. Therefore, she is responsible for bringing the child in the world and the man has nothing at all to do with it. This perfectly reflects on the rights of both parties. The responsibility you are talking about is created from LAW, not the natural order.

Your problem is you carelessly put things together in whatever clumsy way you desire and it leaves much to be desired and many mistakes in basic logic.
Click to expand...
That's true. If his argument is all about biology and the natural order, then he's totally inconsistent. I mean, a man has no biological obligation to pay child support. He can just walk away. It's the law that makes these rules. Not biology.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe not, but it certainly affects his well-being and future if he is forced to pay for her decision, or some other form of compensation.

She gets to do whatever she wants with her body. No one is proposing to limit what she can do with her body. All we're saying is that she shouldn't get to do whatever she wants with a man's life.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Maybe not, but it certainly affects his well-being and future if he is forced to pay for her decision, or some other form of compensation.

She gets to do whatever she wants with her body. No one is proposing to limit what she can do with her body. All we're saying is that she shouldn't get to do whatever she wants with a man's life.
Click to expand...

They jointly decided to have sex knowing the possibilities - aren't they then both deciding what to do with each other's lives? What if one has an STD that they just don't know about - same thing.

I don't look at abortion as a viable option to encourage or push. By default - I expect everyone to carry . . . it's an extra divergent path if she has an abortion. So he's tied to the default - not the divergent path. Anything else will encourage and favor abortion and that is exactly what we don't need in this country - though I support abortion being available and legal - I don't believe it should become any more of a choice that's taken than it is already.

Either way - her life can be permanently altered. Whether she has an abortion, gives a child up for adoption, or they have a relationship - whatever the case . . . pregnancy is risky business and regardless of the parenting status in the end - it can have extreme life altering results.

Now - this view of mine would be quite different if our government gave 100% adequate care to child and/or mother to where they wouldn't *need* his support to stay out of a homeless shelter. Then - maybe I'd have a different view because a child wouldn't be without purely for a lack of having a decent parent in their life.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
They jointly decided to have sex knowing the possibilities - aren't they then both deciding what to do with each other's lives?

I don't look at abortion as a viable option to encourage or push. By default - I expect everyone to carry . . . it's an extra divergent path if she has an abortion. So he's tied to the default - not the divergent path.

Anything else will encourage and favor abortion and that is exactly what we don't need in this country - though I support abortion being available and legal - I don't believe it should become any more of a choice that's taken than it is already.

Either way - her life can be permanently altered. Whether she has an abortion, gives a child up for adoption, or they have a relationship - whatever the case . . . pregnancy is risky business and regardless of the parenting status in the end - it can have extreme life altering results.
Click to expand...

Not when the woman can unilaterally decide to abort or have a child. In that case, she is deciding for her own life. The man should be able to do the same, by deciding whether he wants to be involved with whatever she's decided.

He is not tied to the "default," as you put it (I disagree with that notion -- aborting is no less natural than not historically, and why would it be for such a mind-driven species?).

I don't care what it encourages or not. I am concerned with people's freedom to decide how to run their own lives. Women have that freedom, and men do not.

And furthermore, I disagree with you. Men have less reason to push for abortion if they know they won't be handcuffed for the rest of their lives if she gives birth. Adoption is still a completely viable option as well. Resources exist to help women with unplanned pregnancies if they want to have and keep a child as well, and it's not like men actually stick around if they really, really don't want to. So all I'm proposing is to stop treating them like criminals for daring to want their own lives when the woman has decided her own.

I believe everything should be as much of a choice as humanly possible. I don't believe in trying to dampen women's perception of what their choices are.

Women still get to choose. They just don't get to punish someone else for their decision. Disagreeing with that is insulting to men as equally free agents. It's also insulting to women. It implies they're too dumb to work out the mechanics of their own decisions. It insults men again by implying none of them would ever support a woman unless they were forced to do so, as though they're feral dogs.

None of those things are true, and I don't take kindly to being insulted in such a way, nor do men.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Not when the woman can unilaterally decide to abort or have a child. In that case, she is deciding for her own life. The man should be able to do the same, by deciding whether he wants to be involved with whatever she's decided.

He is not tied to the "default," as you put it (I disagree with that notion -- aborting is no less natural than not historically, and why would it be for such a mind-driven species?).

I don't care what it encourages or not. I am concerned with people's freedom to decide how to run their own lives. Women have that freedom, and men do not.

And furthermore, I disagree with you. Men have less reason to push for abortion if they know they won't be handcuffed for the rest of their lives if she gives birth. Adoption is still a completely viable option as well. Resources exist to help women with unplanned pregnancies if they want to have and keep a child as well, and it's not like men actually stick around if they really, really don't want to. So all I'm proposing is to stop treating them like criminals for daring to want their own lives when the woman has decided her own.

I believe everything should be as much of a choice as humanly possible. I don't believe in trying to dampen women's perception of what their choices are.

Women still get to choose. They just don't get to punish someone else for their decision. Disagreeing with that is insulting to men as equally free agents. It's also insulting to women. It implies they're too dumb to work out the mechanics of their own decisions. It insults men again by implying none of them would ever support a woman unless they were forced to do so, as though they're feral dogs.

None of those things are true, and I don't take kindly to being insulted in such a way, nor do men.
Click to expand...

You are so absolutely right. Too bad, feminism has already created an entire industry that runs on the current legal status of men. That will not go away. ... Unless we get a technological help.

Women are far less vested in social situations than men. I thought this was because of feminism+technology, but maybe it is not. The key for the improvement is then to free men from having to vest themselves in the social world, at least to the level where it is not more than women. I'm afraid that such a technology must start with developing a reliable hormon control for men.
 
ab9924 said:
You are so absolutely right. Too bad, feminism has already created an entire industry that runs on the current legal status of men. That will not go away. ... Unless we get a technological help.

Women are far less vested in social situations than men. I thought this was because of feminism+technology, but maybe it is not. The key for the improvement is then to free men from having to vest themselves in the social world, at least to the level where it is not more than women. I'm afraid that such a technology must start with developing a reliable hormon control for men.
Click to expand...

Dude, what is with your conspiratorial spewage about feminism?

First of all, I'm a feminist and I'm not alone in my position.

Second of all, laws that force men to pay for women's decisions are not the resut of feminism. In fact, they pre-date feminism. They are actually a result of the patriarchy, and the belief that women are incapable of supporting themselves.

As for your rant about social involvement/technology/feminism, I don't even know what the hell you're on about.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
They jointly decided to have sex knowing the possibilities - aren't they then both deciding what to do with each other's lives? What if one has an STD that they just don't know about - same thing.
Click to expand...

But this is exactly the problem. They never decide anything jointly. You ignore the basic biological dynamic of human life.

It is an empty propaganda that it takes 2 to tango, isn't it? Maybe I can illustrate this by mentioning that every little girl has thoughts of how many children they would have when grown up ... this is the motherly instinct. On the other hand, little boys don't think of girls until they grow up. Then, when all grown, the girls simply dig until they get their instinctually required pregnancy. So, whilst there is 2 of them in the bedroom, statistically there is only 1 of them there, the woman ALONE gets pregnant. This is important I think, because laws are written from statistics, not individualistics. So, how is it fair to make a man pay for a woman's decisions, statistically? Don't men need a technological help then that gets their interest in women under their individual control, before they get burnt for it statistically (summarily)?
 
ab9924 said:
But this is exactly the problem. They never decide anything jointly. You ignore the basic biological dynamic of human life.

It is an empty propaganda that it takes 2 to tango, isn't it? Maybe I can illustrate this by mentioning that every little girl has thoughts of how many children they would have when grown up ... this is the motherly instinct. On the other hand, little boys don't think of girls until they grow up. Then, when all grown, the girls simply dig until they get their instinctually required pregnancy. So, whilst there is 2 of them in the bedroom, statistically there is only 1 of them there, the woman ALONE gets pregnant. This is important I think, because laws are written from statistics, not individualistics. So, how is it fair to make a man pay for a woman's decisions, statistically? Don't men need a technological help then that gets their interest in women under their individual control, before they get burnt for it statistically (summarily)?
Click to expand...

That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. No wonder you have problems falling asleep at night! Little boys think about sex LONG before they are grown up, as do girls. Also, there are MANY women who do NOT want to have children. This is so misogynist, almost to the point of a conspiracy theory that all women are just trapping men to get pregnant and have their "quota" of babies. Intensive psychotherapy could be in order here.
 
Oh yeah, I do support male contraception! It's a great idea for men to have more choices than just condoms for BC! :)
 
ab9924 said:
But this is exactly the problem. They never decide anything jointly. You ignore the basic biological dynamic of human life.

It is an empty propaganda that it takes 2 to tango, isn't it? Maybe I can illustrate this by mentioning that every little girl has thoughts of how many children they would have when grown up ... this is the motherly instinct. On the other hand, little boys don't think of girls until they grow up. Then, when all grown, the girls simply dig until they get their instinctually required pregnancy. So, whilst there is 2 of them in the bedroom, statistically there is only 1 of them there, the woman ALONE gets pregnant. This is important I think, because laws are written from statistics, not individualistics. So, how is it fair to make a man pay for a woman's decisions, statistically? Don't men need a technological help then that gets their interest in women under their individual control, before they get burnt for it statistically (summarily)?
Click to expand...

Please, men are perfectly capable of saying no. As if men have no control over their urges. :roll:
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Dude, what is with your conspiratorial spewage about feminism?

First of all, I'm a feminist and I'm not alone in my position.

Second of all, laws that force men to pay for women's decisions are not the resut of feminism. In fact, they pre-date feminism. They are actually a result of the patriarchy, and the belief that women are incapable of supporting themselves.

As for your rant about social involvement/technology/feminism, I don't even know what the hell you're on about.
Click to expand...

Okay, I am not a feminism expert. But don't you think that if feminism was actually interested in resolving problems with pregnancy and child raring, then they would actually address that, instead of inventing legal schemes for money, out of the individual pockets of outsiders? Feminism is a formidable power because of technology. That is probably a good thing, women need to protect their interests, like everyone else. But we men need something that lets us match that, right? And that would be a similar technological control.

To clarify: every woman goes and goes until she gets her planned pregnancy. (Including the "unplanned" ones.) Men have no choice here. My technological proposal will allow men to choose.
 
ab9924 said:
But this is exactly the problem. They never decide anything jointly. You ignore the basic biological dynamic of human life.

It is an empty propaganda that it takes 2 to tango, isn't it? Maybe I can illustrate this by mentioning that every little girl has thoughts of how many children they would have when grown up ... this is the motherly instinct. On the other hand, little boys don't think of girls until they grow up. Then, when all grown, the girls simply dig until they get their instinctually required pregnancy. So, whilst there is 2 of them in the bedroom, statistically there is only 1 of them there, the woman ALONE gets pregnant. This is important I think, because laws are written from statistics, not individualistics. So, how is it fair to make a man pay for a woman's decisions, statistically? Don't men need a technological help then that gets their interest in women under their individual control, before they get burnt for it statistically (summarily)?
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but bull****. :lol:

I'm childfree just got fixed a couple months ago. I never wanted kids. I never even played "house" as a kid, unless I got to be the kooky aunt.

You want to know what else? 20% of women will exit their fertile years without ever having children, many of them by choice, or simply because they never felt the desire to.

Even before reliable birth control, some women went to great lengths to avoid having children, including primitive abortions and birth control or even avoiding sex with men.

There is no "motherly instinct" until a woman actually has children. Just social pressure. And there is a LOT of social pressure. Take it from me -- childfree women get it worse than anyone. Any time something bad happens, it's "god punishing me" for not having kids, according to my Catholic family.
 
ab9924 said:
Okay, I am not a feminism expert. But don't you think that if feminism was actually interested in resolving problems with pregnancy and child raring, then they would actually address that, instead of inventing legal schemes for money, out of the individual pockets of outsiders? Feminism is a formidable power because of technology. That is probably a good thing, women need to protect their interests, like everyone else. But we men need something that lets us match that, right? And that would be a similar technological control.

To clarify: every woman goes and goes until she gets her planned pregnancy. (Including the "unplanned" ones.) Men have no choice here. My technological proposal will allow men to choose.
Click to expand...

First of all, explain the part I highlighted in your statement please.
 
ab9924 said:
Okay, I am not a feminism expert. But don't you think that if feminism was actually interested in resolving problems with pregnancy and child raring, then they would actually address that, instead of inventing legal schemes for money, out of the individual pockets of outsiders? Feminism is a formidable power because of technology. That is probably a good thing, women need to protect their interests, like everyone else. But we men need something that lets us match that, right? And that would be a similar technological control.

To clarify: every woman goes and goes until she gets her planned pregnancy. (Including the "unplanned" ones.) Men have no choice here. My technological proposal will allow men to choose.
Click to expand...

Like I said, feminism DID NOT INVENT THAT SYSTEM. That system was invented by men before feminism even existed.

You really shouldn't make baseless statements about things you obviously don't understand. For an address of your equally baseless and insulting pregnancy comment, see my post above.
 
I really think the "men don't have a choice here" funny in ab9924's post. Men have a choice to say "no, I'm not going to have unprotected sex." Or "no, I'm not going to have sex at all" if you feel that strongly about it. If you have a problem with self-control, DON'T blame it on women. Your personal shortcomings are NOT our fault.
 
ChrisL said:
I really think the "men don't have a choice here" funny in ab9924's post. Men have a choice to say "no, I'm not going to have unprotected sex." Or "no, I'm not going to have sex at all" if you feel that strongly about it. If you have a problem with self-control, DON'T blame it on women. Your personal shortcomings are NOT our fault.
Click to expand...

Nope, and a woman's personal shortcoming of not wanting to support her own decisions isn't a man's fault.
 
Well, I have to log off soon, so if you don't respond in the next 10 minutes, I'll have to come back and see if you responded later on ab9924. I expect you have something to back up some of the claims you've made here.
 
ab9924 said:
Since the 20th century introduction of female contraceptives, women are for the 1st time capable of commanding their own lives. (Even getting rid of men for their happiness, in extreme cases, such as feminism.) We men could achieve the same independence from women (and ourselves) if we had a similar contraceptive. I propose an applied research that results in such individual control over fertility, libido, and social imperatives, as the one that women gain out of the existing female products. Would you support such a development?
Click to expand...

Im confused as to how blocking conception equates to independence. And actually, legalizing prostitution seems a better solution to reducing male dependence on females.
 
ChrisL said:
That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. No wonder you have problems falling asleep at night! Little boys think about sex LONG before they are grown up, as do girls. Also, there are MANY women who do NOT want to have children. This is so misogynist, almost to the point of a conspiracy theory that all women are just trapping men to get pregnant and have their "quota" of babies. Intensive psychotherapy could be in order here.
Click to expand...

Oh no no no. I don't want to sound misogynist. I don't blame women. This is not a blame game but a game of statistics. My proposal is simply that it is technology that gives women control over their lives. Plus, that we men need more control too, at least something nearly as good as what women have today. What made me think about this issue was that the highest birth rate in America is exactly in those communities where neither the man nor the woman can support a child. Consequently, what they are missing is the male hormonal control.

Women don't conspire against us men. They have technological control over themselves, not over us men. Wouldn't it be nice if we had a technological control over men too?
 
ChrisL said:
Please, men are perfectly capable of saying no. As if men have no control over their urges. :roll:
Click to expand...

This may not be the urge, although that (if exists) would certainly benefit from chemical control. But would you be able to beat up your guilt about yourself after saying no to her?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Excuse me, but bull****. :lol:

I'm childfree just got fixed a couple months ago. I never wanted kids. I never even played "house" as a kid, unless I got to be the kooky aunt.

You want to know what else? 20% of women will exit their fertile years without ever having children, many of them by choice, or simply because they never felt the desire to.

Even before reliable birth control, some women went to great lengths to avoid having children, including primitive abortions and birth control or even avoiding sex with men.

There is no "motherly instinct" until a woman actually has children. Just social pressure. And there is a LOT of social pressure. Take it from me -- childfree women get it worse than anyone. Any time something bad happens, it's "god punishing me" for not having kids, according to my Catholic family.
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ Smoke, your post is VERY educational ... I've never had the slightest and foggiest clue that women were actually under SOCIAL pressure to get pregnant. This is probably the same type of pressure that makes us men feel extremely guilty about ourselves if we say no to a woman.

I heard stuff such as a woman who goes into menopause without children would regret her life and a man who says no to a woman is gay and not worthy to step into society. How do women fight off such biasses? (I know men don't.)
 
ChrisL said:
First of all, explain the part I highlighted in your statement please.
Click to expand...

If you are a woman, you put together the arsenal of pills + ideology, and you can go very happily all your life without the burden of ever thinking of men. Such a liberation(?) doesn't exist for men.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom