• 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
Surtr said:
It's called a condom... or pulling out. Besides, one more pill in my regimen and I'll be using an oil filter for a liver.
Click to expand...

Pulling out isn't always effective.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
you mean like men could not use condoms before if they did not want to reproduce, or god forbid not have sex?

If they would do either of those two things the chance of being responsible for reproduction would be very very small
Click to expand...

"Very, very small" isn't good enough. Men should never be coerced into being responsible for the decisions of others.
 
Surtr said:
It's called a condom... or pulling out. Besides, one more pill in my regimen and I'll be using an oil filter for a liver.
Click to expand...

Pulling out is not birth control. It's Russian Roulette.

Condoms are great, but when you're with someone and you've both been tested, having to put a barrier between you and being unable to have spontaneous sex sucks.

If you don't want to take it, don't. But lots of men do. They should have that option.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
"Very, very small" isn't good enough. Men should never be coerced into being responsible for the decisions of others.
Click to expand...

And they are not

If the man does not want the possibility of becoming a parent and have zero risk of that occuring he should not have sex

If he decides to have sex, he accepts the possibility that he will become a father in 9 or so months time. Unless of course if he was raped
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Only if we up the amount and type of support given to the increased number of single moms would I consider it.
Click to expand...

I would agree with this, but I honestly don't think it would increase the number of single moms. I think disarming the baby trap would lead to a lot fewer women "forgetting" their birth control pills.

If you want to start a family, you should start by finding a partner you can trust and rely on and getting married. If that's too much commitment for someone, they have no ****ing business raising children. I feel bad for women who get pregnant and get abandoned, and married women whose husbands die or leave them, but I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for women who decide to have children alone and then expect their families and society to provide for them.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
And they are not

If the man does not want the possibility of becoming a parent and have zero risk of that occuring he should not have sex

If he decides to have sex, he accepts the possibility that he will become a father in 9 or so months time. Unless of course if he was raped
Click to expand...

This entire responsibility argument of yours is completely ass backwards. Just sayin'
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
And they are not

If the man does not want the possibility of becoming a parent and have zero risk of that occuring he should not have sex

If he decides to have sex, he accepts the possibility that he will become a father in 9 or so months time. Unless of course if he was raped
Click to expand...

I don't live in the fantasy land where people just never have sex unless they want to become parents. I live in reality.

I also don't live in the Puritanical dictatorship where the only purpose of sex is breeding, and consent to sex is consent to parenting. It's not. Not any more than consent to driving is consent to being hit by a drunk driver.

The law should not be able to rule a man's life simply because he had sex.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
If he decides to have sex, he accepts the possibility that he will become a father in 9 or so months time. Unless of course if he was raped
Click to expand...

Are you pro-choice? Because our society and our laws do not accept that logic when it is applied to women. If you accept the pro-choice logic as applied to women, you should also accept it as applied to men.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
Are you pro-choice? Because our society and our laws do not accept that logic when it is applied to women. If you accept the pro-choice logic as applied to women, you should also accept it as applied to men.
Click to expand...

It's "well then she should have kept her slutty legs shut" in reverse. Ugh. Can we just stop that?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I think men just really need to accept that it's the risk they take when they have sex.
But it's problematic (not being able to secure abortion per being the male) because the issue is that it's happening with her body - and of course others cannot force one to undergo a medical procedure.

When nature developed beings that were male and female things were just off that way from the start - the guys have less say and the women have more misery that goes with it.

Nothing is going to change that - that's just nature. . . no pill or legislation is going to equal out that perceived imbalance. . . because believe me - I'd be happy to not have to be the bearer of the children around here. That would have been good to go without in my life.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to get into all this stuff in depth because this is just gonna turn into yet another endless abortion thread, lol.

But do I really need to point out that everything you just said ("That's just the risk you take when you have sex", "Nature made us a certain way and we are bound by it") are every bit as legitimate, and illegitimate, when applied to women and abortion?

The only difference is:
But it's problematic (not being able to secure abortion per being the male) because the issue is that it's happening with her body - and of course others cannot force one to undergo a medical procedure.
Click to expand...
Well I am not talking about men being allowed to force a woman to have an abortion. Let's get that out of the way. I wouldn't support that. I'm talking about having a legal way for men to abdicate their rights and responsibility for the pregnancy and the child, once any decision about the pregnancy and child is removed from him completely.

Now, to the bolded part, yes, it is her body. And If women were only allowed to have abortions based on legitimate bodily and health reasons, such as a life-threatening complication with the pregnancy, then I'd agree with you. But that's not the case. Women can have abortions, and in doing so abdicate their responsibility, for any reason they choose. It doesn't have to have anything to do with their body or health. It can be as simple as the fact that they just aren't ready to face the responsibility yet. So again, if women can legally opt out for convenience reasons, men should legally be able to as well. Fair is fair. The man opting out doesn't take any of her choice away. She would just need to make her choice given this new information.
 
Last edited:
Viktyr Gehrig said:
Are you pro-choice? Because our society and our laws do not accept that logic when it is applied to women. If you accept the pro-choice logic as applied to women, you should also accept it as applied to men.
Click to expand...

I certainly am pro choice

I fully support any man going and getting an abortion for any pregnancy they somehow might have
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
I completely agree. If women have complete ownership over their reproductive process -- as they should -- then making men responsible for their decisions is anti-feminist, and anti-man.

In the absence of a mutual decision confirmed as such by both parties about whatever the woman decides to do with the pregnancy, the man should be able to abdicate himself from responsibility for said decision.

It is incredibly hypocritical to claim that women should be free to control their bodies, but men should have their finances or lifestyle controlled because of someone else's decision. It paints men's freedom as less important, and it also paints women as incapable of handling their own freedoms.

Honestly, I'd be terrified if I were a man. Getting fixed might have been a little easier, but nothing is perfect. I make sure to tell my partners from the outset of any sexual relationship that I have already decided what I would do, he can't change my mind, and he has no responsibility to do anything should that ever happen. He accepts that and stays, or doesn't and leaves. Since he can't decide what to do after the fact, I give him an opportunity to decide before the fact.
Click to expand...
I think I just became your biggest fan :)
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
It's "well then she should have kept her slutty legs shut" in reverse. Ugh. Can we just stop that?
Click to expand...

No you are right if she did not want to get pregnant she should have kept her legs shut


But because of BIOLOGY she has an option to end the pregnancy before it comes to term
 
Aunt Spiker said:
You know - some men have proof of said discussions in which she said 'yes - I would want to abort' and he agreed. . . and eventually she ended up pregnant - and did not abort - and he was able to remove himself from support-requirements because she changed her mind.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
No you are right if she did not want to get pregnant she should have kept her legs shut


But because of BIOLOGY she has an option to end the pregnancy before it comes to term
Click to expand...

If you don't want to get hit by a drunk, you shouldn't drive. If you choose to drive, the paramedics should just refuse to help you.

That's the argument you're making as per men's rights.

Why do women have the right to abort, but men don't have the right to refuse responsibility for someone else's decision?
 
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...

In those cases the court is not deciding what is best for her or for him, but in the interests of the child
 
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 believe it varies state-to-state. Some are more Draconian than others.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
If you don't want to get hit by a drunk, you shouldn't drive. If you choose to drive, the paramedics should just refuse to help you.

That's the argument you're making as per men's rights.

Why do women have the right to abort, but men don't have the right to refuse responsibility for someone else's decision?
Click to expand...

Are men legally prohibited from having an abortion?

Did the man not make the decision to have sex?

The only difference is biological, and that biological difference provides for some different choices to be made for a few months
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Are men legally prohibited from having an abortion?

Did the man not make the decision to have sex?

The only difference is biological, and that biological difference provides for some different choices to be made for a few months
Click to expand...

Men are biologically prohibited from having an abortion.

However, that does not mean they should be legally forced to be responsible for a woman's decision, whether it's to abort or have a child.

If the woman can opt out via abortion, men should be able to opt out legally.

How does biology make it ok to force men into servitude?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Men are biologically prohibited from having an abortion.

However, that does not mean they should be legally forced to be responsible for a woman's decision, whether it's to abort or have a child.

If the woman can opt out via abortion, men should be able to opt out legally.

How does biology make it ok to force men into servitude?
Click to expand...

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
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
In those cases the court is not deciding what is best for her or for him, but in the interests of the child
Click to expand...
What is in the best interests of the child in that case is the sole responsibility of the mother, alone, because the mother, alone, is responsible for choosing to have the baby.
 
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...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom