It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Men's reproductive rights

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by KLSyesca
i have been bitching on this issue for years..there are plenty of women out there that are lying to there mates and telling them they are taking there birth controll when they are not

There are plenty of women who have abortions as well so no contraception IS NOT 100% and it is ignorant to assume most women who fall pregnant do so deliberately. Some do but once the baby is born it has half his dna so is not more 'her' responsibilty than his [apart from nursing].

Again.. contraception is NOT 100% effective.. condoms break, certain drugs [antibiotics] can make the pill and similar treatments useless, diaphrams slip, IUD has a used by date and the day after pill can fail.. oh and I have never heared of a man actually bothering to take the male contraceptive pill either.

Now that everyone has read the above, if a man is told by a woman that she is on the pill and still chooses to have unprotected sex with her, despite knowing there's still a chance she might fall pregnant.. on what grounds can he claim to be an innocent victim? [Not including male rape victims obviously.]

[edit on 20-3-2006 by riley]




posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
I'd like to know why he's having sex with someone who he has no intention of commiting to. I'm guessing men like these must be just using women for sex as obviously they do not respect or love the woman if the only choices he's going to give her are 'abort or abandon'. Thats just callous.


If I'm not mistaken you are refering to me in this statement.

Well my fiancee would definitely be amused by this to say the least !

Apparently, you have taken the liberty to jump to conclusions just by my position on this debate. Understandable, but your concern is unfounded. Just because I advocate greater 'reproductive' responsibility for women doesnt imply that I am some immoral womaniser !!
.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
Some do but once the baby is born it has half his dna so is not more 'her' responsibilty than his [apart from nursing].

Just as some men leave a woman after they have had a child together!
So should such behaviour be rewarded in women by giving them custody of the child, child care and social service support etc ?
If she find that the baby is half his DNA after the child is born the woman should also be aware of this fact before she decides to ignore her partners wishes and get pregnant !

oh and I have never heared of a man actually bothering to take the male contraceptive pill either.

Because its not out yet and presently the male contraceptive is an injection that he would have to take rather than a pill that women have !


Now that everyone has read the above, if a man is told by a woman that she is on the pill and still chooses to have unprotected sex with her, despite knowing there's still a chance she might fall pregnant.. on what grounds can he claim to be an innocent victim? [Not including male rape victims obviously.]
The cases you have mentioned are rare occurrences and found in a small minority about 5% of the women. But then again isn’t it her responsibility to say that her medication might not work to the man?
There is a chance of getting pregnant no matter what contraception is used unless the woman has a tubectomy or they abstain from sex. But this is not he point of concern here, the main point is that some women are getting pregnant for purely selfish reasons and thereby throttling their partners by forcing them into a lifelong emotional and financial responsibility. And this is going unpunished and instead getting rewarded all in the name of the child and woman's rights. This has to be corrected and sooner or latter it will.
Licensing is good way to achieve this, as the responsibly of any particular child would be determined by the state before conception rather than the machinations of the woman.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
Just as some men leave a woman after they have had a child together!
So should such behaviour be rewarded in women by giving them custody of the child, child care and social service support etc ?

Whatever is in the best interest of the child. If one parent uses a child purely to extort money perhaps the other parent would be a better care giver as they might put the interest of the child ahead of the wallet. Either way someone has to pay for it's upbringing regardless of why it was concieved.

If she find that the baby is half his DNA after the child is born the woman should also be aware of this fact before she decides to ignore her partners wishes and get pregnant !

Do I have to explain the birds and the bees to you? A woman is not obliged to follow the commands of her partner when it comes to her own body. If he wishes her not to get pregnant he needs to take precautions himself and not have tantrums and cry foul when.. surprise surprise.. sex actually causes pregnancy.

Because its not out yet and presently the male contraceptive is an injection that he would have to take rather than a pill that women have !

Some women have deprovera. They take this injection to try minumalise their chance of getting pregnant. Whats the difference? Let me guess.. sex should be 'fun' and needles are hurties?
Poor men. Sexual health is so difficult for them.. women have no idea what they have to go through.

The cases you have mentioned are rare occurrences and found in a small minority about 5% of the women.

One women in three apparently have abortions. If this is true then contraception isn't as reliable as it's cracked up to be. BTW A fair proportion of abortions are due to coersion from the father [and others]- you earlier said this was how things should work. Do you really believe this?!

But then again isn’t it her responsibility to say that her medication might not work to the man?

Many women [especially younger inexperienced ones] may be just as naive as yourself in these matters so wouldn't know any better. If a girl says "I'm on the pill." that might not mean she remembers to take it everyday. These things happen and not every unwanted pregancy is caused by a diabolical plot to ruin a man life.. what about her life? Believe it or not most women want more from life than just having kids.

There is a chance of getting pregnant no matter what contraception is used unless the woman has a tubectomy or they abstain from sex.

A tubectomy is quite an extensive operation.. a vasectomy takes five minutes and is easily reversable. YOU seem to be the one concerned with preventing pregnancy.. wouldn't it be easier then for men to abstain or use protection themselves instead of treating women as just things to sexually gratify them without consequence? What right do you have to start dictating what medical treatments and operations they should have done to their bodies? It's like you expect them to 'maintain' their availability for you. Do you realise that long term hormonal replacement can cause breast cancer amongst other things? Depression? There are actual human beings attached to those reproductive [notice that word?] organs- they shouldn't have to lower themselves to accomidate men because they're horny and don't want to wear a franger.

But this is not he point of concern here, the main point is that some women are getting pregnant for purely selfish reasons and thereby throttling their partners by forcing them into a lifelong emotional and financial responsibility.

Just as men were having sex for selfish reasons.. in the name of his 'manhood'. If they thought of pregnacy repulses them that much.. and they have so much contempt for the mothers.. why were they with them in the first place only to tell her to abort the day she misses her period? Hey I know the answer to that.. must be true love.


And this is going unpunished and instead getting rewarded all in the name of the child and woman's rights. This has to be corrected and sooner or latter it will.

In the name of women's rights? Before womens' rights men had to marry a woman if he got her pregnant lest her daddy come after him with a shotgun. I'm sorry but the pill was not invented just for maIe sexual convenience. I'm surprised men with your extreme attitude still exist. Most men I know are a little bit more considerate and respectful of the choices their partners make.. especially when it comes to their reproductive health.

Licensing is good way to achieve this, as the responsibly of any particular child would be determined by the state before conception rather than the machinations of the woman.

A licence to have sex? Would this apply to men as well?


[edit on 21-3-2006 by riley]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 10:00 AM
link   
I missed this post:

Originally posted by IAF101
If I'm not mistaken you are refering to me in this statement.

'He' as in men who have sex irresponsibly expecting women to abort or adopt out at his will. I was unsure if you fit into this category.. either way I am perplexed as to why you think this idea is 'okay'. I concede that my last post was a little harsh and I apologise for inferring you're a womaniser.. I made this assumption as you seem very defensive of irresponsible men.

Well my fiancee would definitely be amused by this to say the least !

Congratulations.. if she would like to add to the conversation she is welcome to do so.

Just because I advocate greater 'reproductive' responsibility for women doesnt imply that I am some immoral womaniser !!
.

And I am advocating MALE sexual responsibilty.. you speak as though women don't take any precautions.. and to expect women to abort or give up their babies because a father isn't ready is truly offensive.

[edit on 21-3-2006 by riley]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
yes.......and umm...the birth control pill can and does occasionally backfire, and ummm.....many women are advise not to take it because of health reasons, others are advised to get off it around 30 years of age.

Though this is true, the percentage of women that get pregnant despite taking the contraceptive pill is very low. I've read that its almost less than 2%. If the woman was to get pregnant depite the pill her options are still open if she really doesnt want to bring a child into the world to live in penury.
Moreover the pill, as far as my knowledge goes is not only a contraceptive but also has many auxillary benefits like decreasing the menstration cycles, decreasing cramps and pain and even prevents against some cancers I hear.

The pill is said to be the most effective contraceptive if taken properly short of sterelization or abstenence. Thats why its so important that women be honest about its use.


...and ummm......you are taking to someone who has been in the financial bind that I've been describing here.....it would have only taken me $30 to come up with the clothing for my kids to continue on with school, my husband refused to let go of it, I couldn't work at the time, and well, he dropped out of school.....so, yes, depending on the circumstances, coming up with the money might be rather difficult..

I am sorry to hear you faced such a financial crunch but social services could have helped you out in that situation. Plus there are many NGO's and even the local church in most cases has some community programmes to assist in times like these.
About comming up with $30 I am talking about unmarried people that are equaly independent and am not referring to a married couple as in that case the father would be legally forced to pay for all children that he may have sired as he would part of a definite family unit.



should the women also have the right, if after being married 20 or so years, and she reaches the magical age of 30 and told that she shouldn't take the pill anymore, well, can she force her husband to get sterilized, since he is the one with the purse strings, and it's cheaper for him, and less invasive a proceedure?

Some inaccuracies here: IF a women was to be married for 20 years and then reach the age of 30 years then she would must have married when she was 10; this is a serious violation of the law.

About the sterilization, a woman who is married to a man who doesnt want any more children but still wants to maintain the relationship could I think legally have a postnupital agreement that would put the child in sole custody of the man and/or pay adequate compensation to the woman for each additional child borne by her. This would in effect be 'forcing' the man to abstain if not pressurizing him into sterilization. About controlling the purse strings, that is the prerogative of each individual adult, if they choose to be able to be contributers to the family income or not. There are some men too that cannot be considered as a working adult and thus the family is supported by the woman soley. So financial security is an individual choice.

But as a family unit the normal conditions of child support, healthcare etc do not hold as a family is expected to carry out all these activities jointly. It is for those who were in a non-legal relationship that the problem of being deceived and extorted comes into the picture.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
Whatever is in the best interest of the child. If one parent uses a child purely to extort money perhaps the other parent would be a better care giver as they might put the interest of the child ahead of the wallet. Either way someone has to pay for it's upbringing regardless of why it was concieved.

So you are ready to ignore the fact that the woman employed deception to conceive the child with the sole purpose of extorting money ? Why because she gave birth to the child ?Is it okay for a woman to use her biology to take advantage?

How can we determine that either parent is competent to take care of the child, one may be behind the wallet while the other may be just unable to do so. DO you think a child would truly be seperated from its mother ? Not in the USA !
As for the child, it is a mere pawn. How can paying for the childs support, which is with the mother be any thing short of exonerating and infact rewarding the mother for her duplicity ?
If the welfare of children is truly the prime concern it would be more prudent to enforce more stringent laws that would prevent unwanted pregnancies followed by unwanted children in the first place.



A woman is not obliged to follow the commands of her partner when it comes to her own body.

I never claim that she should follow any commands but rather seek to delineate the responsibility for raising the child from collective responsibility to individual responsibility. The choice would still be with the woman, every choice with a different consequence. This would ensure greater responsibility.


If he wishes her not to get pregnant he needs to take precautions himself and not have tantrums and cry foul when.. surprise surprise.. sex actually causes pregnancy.

This sort of thinking is no longer valid as sex doesnt have to cause pregnancy today. The advances in contraceptives make this possible. The man would indeed have a role to play in the womans pregnancy but what I talk about is the event when the woman lies about her use of the pill and thus deceives the man into a false sense of security. Similarly, if he could deceive her and not use a condom then would she consent to having his child ?



Some women have deprovera. They take this injection to try minumalise their chance of getting pregnant. Whats the difference? Let me guess.. sex should be 'fun' and needles are hurties?

Well, do 10 million women take deprovera ? They do take the contraceptive pill however because it is easy, convenient and effective. While the injection is hardly used except when they cannot use pills. For men its not like that, the injection is the only recourse and thus its minimal use due to the apparent inconvenience. Also the pill makes no noticeable physical change to the act of sex but works internally, not the case in men. The pill is also just a contraceptive and does not protect from STDs so the level of trust one would need to go in with only the pill is high to begin with.


One women in three apparently have abortions. If this is true then contraception isn't as reliable as it's cracked up to be. BTW A fair proportion of abortions are due to coersion from the father [and others]- you earlier said this was how things should work. Do you really believe this?!

Well according to studies, the proper use of the contraceptive pill has produced nearly 100% effective. I think your figures refer to 1 in 3 pregnant women get abortions, other wise the figures would be simply ridiculous!

I have never maintained that the woman should be coerced into abortion if it is against her wishes but rather live up to the responsibilites of her choices. A more equitable system of rights and responsibilities.
You can again spin a circular argument that shouldnt the man exercise responsibility too and I would say yes if he agreed to have the child and was not forced on him but if the woman does it out of selfishness, she has to get the responsibilites that go with her greater liberties as well.


These things happen and not every unwanted pregancy is caused by a diabolical plot to ruin a man life.. what about her life? Believe it or not most women want more from life than just having kids.

I understand that these things happen, thats why there are abortions and with todays technology its only a couple of pills for the first few weeks into pregnancy. The point would be to be honest about her intentions rather than always ask the man to shoulder the responsibility of virtue.

As you rightly say that women aspire for more than just procreation, I agree here, thats why it is all the more important that they do not get sucked into the swamp of motherhood just to satisfy a desire. So that they may have the ability to pursue their other interests, honest intentions here can go a long way in saving many people lives like- the child, the father and the mother too.



.. wouldn't it be easier then for men to abstain or use protection themselves instead of treating women as just things to sexually gratify them without consequence?

So its either black or white ? Is there no middle path to this ? Are we is some antedilluvian era where men are either either chaste monks or vulgar beasts ?
Do you realize that a condom has effectiveness in comparision to the contraceptive pill that women take ? Why cant the woman wear a condom ? Though it prevents against STD, a condom is still only 90% effective and 30% of the women who depend singularly on condoms get pregnant as opposed 5% of the women who use birth control pills ? So according to your idea, there would be more pregnancies by using only condoms or no pregnancies through abstience.
It is important to realize that sex is an improtant part of our society, so responsibility for sex should lie in both sides of the court. While women have had populistic support for being the eternal victim for a long time, today such an image is fast fading. The responsibility of consequence lies in both sides, in one side with the man for his gullibility and on the other the woman for her deceit. A pregnancy cannot be blamed soley on the man not having a condom which is easily discernable while a woman on the other hand devceives the man about her use of contraceptives!


Do you realise that long term hormonal replacement can cause breast cancer amongst other things? Depression?

Men are prone to other side effects as well if they were to be subjected to long term hormonal replacement. And hormonal replacement doesnt cause cancer in itself but rather increases the risk of cancer, while at the same time decreases the risk of some cancers too.


There are actual human beings attached to those reproductive [notice that word?] organs-........................Hey I know the answer to that.. must be true love.

All I can say is, though belligerence and Sarcasm are amusing they do little to put forth your point.



In the name of women's rights? Before womens' rights men had to marry a woman if he got her pregnant lest her daddy come after him with a shotgun.

well in some cases its pretty much the same today, except instead of her father with a shotgun you have lawyers with legal notices, which are much scarier ! . [ Okay this is sarcasm! ]



A licence to have sex? Would this apply to men as well?


No, a licence to have a child. Why would anybody want to licence sex, it in itself is not the root cause but rather a device for through which procreation is possible . I know this may sound absurd to you but think about it. Is sex really the reason why so many kids live on child support? Or is it the failure to commit in the first place by both parties to take full responsibility of the child, to ensure that they are not only financially capable but also emotionally secure enough to commit to something so big. Sex here is but a tool for this, nothing more.

I would think that licencing children will not only promote greater number of family units in society but also ensure by law that both parents can and want to have a child together. This would I think lead to better homes, better future for children and in the end a better society overall.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
And I am advocating MALE sexual responsibilty.. you speak as though women don't take any precautions.. and to expect women to abort or give up their babies because a father isn't ready is truly offensive.

Well women can take maximum precaution because technology allows them to do so. Abstinence though admirable, would be very diffcult to sell to both men and women.

Again, let me reiterate, I do not believe that women should give up their babies becasue of the fathers insistence but only that the fathes responsibility over the child is forgone if his desire not to have a child is not respected by a women when she is in a position to do so.
Imagine if you will that men could in effect extricate the fecund egg out of the womb during sex and could then in private choose to fertilise these eggs with their Dna, then after a child is born would the woman be willing to pay support for it even though she had no intention of having it in the first place ?
Will she pay for something she had little or no control over because of a planned deception against her ? Do you think society would allow this man to keep the child and ask the mother to pay child support ?
I doubt it.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   
"This sort of thinking is no longer valid as sex doesnt have to cause pregnancy today. The advances in contraceptives make this possible. The man would indeed have a role to play in the womans pregnancy but what I talk about is the event when the woman lies about her use of the pill and thus deceives the man into a false sense of security. Similarly, if he could deceive her and not use a condom then would she consent to having his child ? "

--------------------------------------------------------------

read my lips....I am a 45 year old women who has raised three kids!! I only wanted one.....contraceptives are not 100% guarenteed!! crap happens!! It is your life, take the initiative to control what happens in it!! don't leave it up to anyone else. sooner or later, if you do, you will end up being hurt, backstabbed, or in some other way screwed, if not with a child, then some other unfortunately incident... IT IS YOUR LIFE!!!



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Men? Rights? Guys... Suck it up... We lost all our rights back in the sixties.

It's no longer a mans world.


Women are smarter.. More caring... More intuative... Just better in general.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
So you are ready to ignore the fact that the woman employed deception to conceive the child with the sole purpose of extorting money ? Why because she gave birth to the child ?Is it okay for a woman to use her biology to take advantage?

Isn't it deception for a man to say "I love you." insinuating he intends on committing to get her in the sack but walking away when she becomes pregnant? Lies are not illegal.. and there'd would be no way of telling if her lies led to conception as.. AGAIN contraception is not 100% reliable. Should we charge the man with wilful ignorance as well?

DO you think a child would truly be seperated from its mother ? Not in the USA !

I do not live in the USA. The laws in Aus a changing so fathers have equal rights in custody.

The choice would still be with the woman, every choice with a different consequence. This would ensure greater responsibility.

"If you choose to have this baby I will not pay a cent in support." Is blackmail.. especially if she is broke. She is not being given a choice but being bullied into accepting his decision.

The man would indeed have a role to play in the womans pregnancy but what I talk about is the event when the woman lies about her use of the pill and thus deceives the man into a false sense of security.

AGAIN. Not 100% effective.

Similarly, if he could deceive her and not use a condom then would she consent to having his child ?

If man decided he didn't want to wear a condom, despite being asked to.. he probably wouldn't get anywhere with her anyway.

Well, do 10 million women take deprovera ?

A fair few do. I have known several.. though many have swapped to the implant [though when not inserted properly can also be ineffective. Same deal as the pill: Not 100% effective.

For men its not like that, the injection is the only recourse and thus its minimal use due to the apparent inconvenience.

Vacectomies take 5 minutes and are easily reversable.

Also the pill makes no noticeable physical change to the act of sex but works internally, not the case in men.

Could you elaborate? The female one has signficant physical side effects. It's the price some are prepared to pay. At present I think the male contracetion is still in trial mode. This includes the needle and the implant.. when they are available men should have no reason to not take responsibilty for themslves.

The pill is also just a contraceptive and does not protect from STDs so the level of trust one would need to go in with only the pill is high to begin with.

It could be used as a back up to condoms. Would woman trust a guy who says "Don't worry babe on the pill."
..he'd be taking it to protect himself from unwanted pregnacy.

Well according to studies, the proper use of the contraceptive pill has produced nearly 100% effective.

Do you know how to use the pill properly? A woman needs only to skip one dose and it is 100% ineffective.

I think your figures refer to 1 in 3 pregnant women get abortions, other wise the figures would be simply ridiculous!

I agree the figures are indeed ridiculous but they are indeed fact.

You can again spin a circular argument that shouldnt the man exercise responsibility too and I would say yes if he agreed to have the child and was not forced on him

If it were 'forced' on him it would be rape. Consentual sex is not rape.

I understand that these things happen, thats why there are abortions and with todays technology its only a couple of pills for the first few weeks into pregnancy.

Many women are 'pro-life'.. they may not want to have an abortion so technology isn't relevent.

Do you realize that a condom has effectiveness in comparision to the contraceptive pill that women take ? Why cant the woman wear a condom ?

Because they are ugly, impractical and not marketable. I'm not even sure if they're still available.

It is important to realize that sex is an improtant part of our society, so responsibility for sex should lie in both sides of the court.

Yes. It's about time men in general were more able to take more repoductive responsibilty- this is why things like the male pill have been created.

Men are prone to other side effects as well if they were to be subjected to long term hormonal replacement.

If he doesn't want kids he will deal with the side effects just as women do.

And hormonal replacement doesnt cause cancer in itself but rather increases the risk of cancer,

My mother and grandmother died of breast cancer.. just like many other women. I personally can't take hormone replacement for this reason plus it triggers depression. These are reasons enough for the many of women to avoid using the pill completely and use alternatives.

as have many other while at the same time decreases the risk of some cancers too.

Which cancers?

No, a licence to have a child. Why would anybody want to licence sex, it in itself is not the root cause but rather a device for through which procreation is possible .

:shk:

I know this may sound absurd to you but think about it. Is sex really the reason why so many kids live on child support?

Sex is what makes the world go round. The fact is MOST children are not planned but created because their parents are horny.

I would think that licencing children will not only promote greater number of family units in society but also ensure by law that both parents can and want to have a child together.

The only way to license children would be to licence conception.. otherwise you'd have women being rounded up getting forced abortions like they do in china. Sound like an ideal situation to you?

Imagine if you will that men could in effect extricate the fecund egg out of the womb during sex and could then in private choose to fertilise these eggs with their Dna, then after a child is born would the woman be willing to pay support for it even though she had no intention of having it in the first place ?

This is not a good example. Men do not 'unknowingly' have consentual sex with women so they cannot claim ignorance to it. In the cases of rape however I completely agree with you, neither men nor women should have to pay for childen that have been created through force though the offenders should be.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by riley]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
Lies are not illegal.. and there'd would be no way of telling if her lies led to conception ..

No, but extortion and entrapment is. That's what this is about. The need to stem this type of extrotion that women get away with because of the sympathy generated for the child. The reality of this extortion is lost with the birth of the child letting the mother go scott free. There has to be punishment for all crimes and as the father is punished for his callousness, the mother is not punished for her sucessful extrotion from the man as child support.


The laws in Aus a changing so fathers have equal rights in custody.

So you agree that the laws so far have been more favorable to women with regard to custody ?



"If you choose to have this baby I will not pay a cent in support." Is blackmail.. especially if she is broke.

Having a child if she is broke is worse than blackmail, its torture! To condemn a child to a life of poverty and under priviledge just to satisfy her vanity of motherhood is much worse than asking the woman to weigh in her ability to care for the child and act responsibly accordingly.



If man decided he didn't want to wear a condom, despite being asked to.. he probably wouldn't get anywhere with her anyway.

what I state is a hypothetical sitaution, if for some reason the woman could not make out, say she was drunk or on drugs then what ? Unfortunately as the sexes are so different no proper example can be shown that would simulate the womans use of the pill for the man.


A fair few do. I have known several.. though many have swapped to the implant

How many is this ? 10, 100, 1000 ? 10 million is an imposing number to compare this with. Why do you think they have swaped ? Ease and convenience of use are the most likely reasons. Similarly the male contraceptive injection.



Vacectomies take 5 minutes and are easily reversable.

Guess what, Vacetomies have not been very popular becasuse the complications of reversal are many like chronic prostasis which in effect would leave the man sterile and with dead testicles, this would imply the slow and excrutiating pain of killing the testes day after day. Post vasectomy pain syndrome is a common condition that has gained greater recognition as it was perviously diagnosed as something psychosomatic. Sure 5 mins to a woman would seem like no big deal but the serious damage in the mans body begins when the body tries to kill off the mans testicles as the source of rouge sperm cells into the blood stream. Add to this that the sperm cells are very resistive as they have to be to impregnate another body, would cause a massive conflcit between the testes and the body and guess who wins, the body !
This information doesnt find itself to the coloums of womens magazines and mens magazines certainly arent about Urology thus the ignorance on the side effects of vasectomy. In fact most men who've had vasectomies have post-vasectomy pain but is passed off as pychological. The figures cuurently are at around 30% with the figures rising steadily over the years. Thus, vasectomy hasnt much caught on as tubectomy though the few that go through and want to reverse their operation find themselves sterile and in pain all the while they are in 'disconnect'.
I know tubectomy also has its complications too but I havent advocated this ever. Unlike women where sexual problems find themselves to be hot topics of gossip, men do not share such enthusiasm and the topic is generally never touched upon unless the man is forced to reveal it.


Could you elaborate? The female one has signficant physical side effects. It's the price some are prepared to pay.

I dont know if different pills for women have different problems but from what I have been told, the contraception pill is very usefull to women in more ways than mere contraception, it decreases the risk of certain cancers, the pain of mestruation, periods become lighter and fewer, lesser mood swings, greater energy etc. I do realize that there is the whole headache, dizziness, nausea thing involved too but that is supposed to disappear with time.
Most important this pill has no marked effect on the actual act of sex, that is women would still have feel exactly the same way that they did when they didnt take the pill and had sex.
But this wouldnt be the case for the male reproductive pill as it would be similar to some form of oligospermia, which men wouldnt welcome. Instead if the male pill was to be allow for 'dead' sperm to be produced then I cant see there being any problem in men taking contraceptives and having greater control in the choice of contraception and freedom form emotional and financial extortion.
But this has yet to be launched and testing now and as for the primitive version of the pill that is under trial, this has been promised a decade ago and still isnt ready. The inherent complexity of the pill fortells the complexities that may arise. The present debate however isnt about, what the future will bring but what is happening in the present, i.e. the unilatralism of women in deciding conception regardless of their partners wishes. The future holds promise though.


It could be used as a back up to condoms. Would woman trust a guy who says "Don't worry babe on the pill."
..he'd be taking it to protect himself from unwanted pregnacy.

Why should the onus of preenting STD's be soley the mans prerogative? Women have condoms, which are infact better than male condoms and would also provide her protection from STD's. Why cant the man take a contraceptive and the women wear a condom ? Women wont stand for that would they !



Do you know how to use the pill properly? A woman needs only to skip one dose and it is 100% ineffective.

Acutually I do, I read that manual they give with those 28 day packs with the plastic pill holders.

The pill according to the FDA has a failure rate of less that 1%. Also if one were to skip a pill, they still have the after pill, spermicides, etc. Then even after this if they still manage to get pregnant then they have the abortion pills, the pills that give a miscarriage and if they still cant manage to get out of the pregnancy they have finally the start of the invasive procedures.
So you see, the lines of defense are deep and anyone without an intent on getting pregnant wouldnt need to.



I agree the figures are indeed ridiculous but they are indeed fact.

What do you mean, that its 1 in 3 pregnant women or 1 in 3 women ? If it is the latter then it certainly isnt true.
According to the Statistics, the rate of abortions is 2.1% of all women in the age group of 17-44 had abortions in 2000. If you claim a rate of 32.5% this is is ridiculous!
www.abortiontv.com...



If it were 'forced' on him it would be rape. Consentual sex is not rape.

No, it would be the unilateral assertion by the woman of her choice and not the choice of her partner. In other words, extortion.



Many women are 'pro-life'.. they may not want to have an abortion so technology isn't relevent.

Then these women are truly naive and simplistic. Pro-choice is worse than pro-death, it not only condemns a child his entire life with poverty and under-priviledge but also to a state of emotional neglect.
Women should instead support ' Pro-GoodLife' ! What's the point in living in misery, such a life would be worse than death.



Because they are ugly, impractical and not marketable.

Men feel the same way too, dont see too many woman take kindly to this excuse, why do you think men would think any different ??
Condoms are condoms no matter who wears them.



It's about time men in general were more able to take more repoductive responsibilty- this is why things like the male pill have been created.

The male pill is being tested and is not available to the public for general use.
While the woman's pill has, thus her unfair advantage in conception, thus the need for her to maintain greater reproductive responsibility.



If he doesn't want kids he will deal with the side effects just as women do.

By switching to the most comfortable contraceptive and refusing to use STD protection ? That isnt something men look up to emulate !


These are reasons enough for the many of women to avoid using the pill completely and use alternatives.

These are reasons for some women to avoid using the pill.
Alternatives still exsist like spermicides, the implants, diaphrams or even a condom. These are however more difficult to do, so the natural expectation that men do the dirty work instead.


Which cancers?

Many cancers. Some of them being:
Bowel Cancer[/url
[url=http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=8701]Heart disease, stroke and cancers

Ovarian Cancer



The fact is MOST children are not planned but created because their parents are horny.

Well this is untrue. Unwanted Children are born because the parents choose to be irresponsible. Sex has nothing to do with it. IF they could get kids through a slot machine, there would still be unwanted kids, its not the machines fault, its the people who use it.




The only way to license children would be to licence conception.. otherwise you'd have women being rounded up getting forced abortions like they do in china. Sound like an ideal situation to you?

This is an exaggeration. Conception is as mentioned before a mere mechanism, it is the people who act irresponsible that cause birth. If a woman wanted to get a child all she would need would be her partners permission and a magistrates signature and she could give birth to a child or any number of children. If she tries to conceive a child unlawfully(that is give birth, not get pregnant!) then they would either force her to pay compensation/jail term and then have sole responsibility over the child or if she is a repeat offender, sterilize her permanently. Same would apply for the male.



This is not a good example. Men do not 'unknowingly' have consentual sex with women so they cannot claim ignorance to it.

Well this hypothetical situation, which I believe will arise in the future with the development of artificial wombs; finally eliminating the need of women to further humanity, was the best example I could come up with, to compare what I am talking about with respect to a womens point of view. This situation is highly plausible and it is extreemly traumatic to its victim be they male or female, males now as technology limits equity here. Such a situation would be something to consider as this is how men feel now.
Yes,sex is consensual but only sex in this case, nothing more. Two people agree to have sex with each other not have children with each other. That is the difference and women are aware about the nature of this sex but could choose to use it to their advantage.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   
If men took the same attitude toward reproductive rights as women, it'd be legal to for a man to kill the bearer of his unborn child.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
If men took the same attitude toward reproductive rights as women, it'd be legal to for a man to kill the bearer of his unborn child.

[er- in some countires it is legal if she's 'procreating' with someone else].
Could you explain your post please? It doesn't make any sense.. what 'attitude' is it we have Grady? All you've really done is made a vague generalisation about women then justified mudering them. I guess it's in keeping with the thread though.. if she doesn't abort or give up his child on command he should kill her right? At the very least she should be thrown in jail for the inconvenience..




[edit on 4-9-2006 by riley]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Theres a simple solution, if men sign a legal document that they want the woman to have an abortion, they don't have to support the baby if she chooses to go ahead and have the baby.

If they don't sign any document, its a sign that they are happy to have and support the child.

The woman still 100% retains her rights on her body and the man doesn't get trapped by a woman having a child he doesn't want.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 05:25 AM
link   
[ Just because I advocate greater 'reproductive' responsibility for women doesnt imply that I am some immoral womaniser !!
.

But it does mean you are poorly informed.
Greater reproductive responsibility for women? The burden of 99.9% of birth control falls on women, the medical risks of BC fall on women, the medical risks of pregnancy and abortion fall on women, the psychological effect of aborting a baby is lifelong. And you don't think we take enough responsibility? Puhleese!

Unless you have a latex allergy there is no medical risk for you at all in choosing to be responsible for preventing pregnancy. For us it's not just the weight gain associated with pills and shots but also blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, and a host of other serious and not so serious complications. Pregnancy is no day in the park either and I would know since I have four children and their births' included lovely things like, anesthesia fed through a catheter into my spinal fluid, enormous pain when that didn't work, an allergic reaction to demerol, surgery because my son was an emergency c-section, infection from said surgery, the inability to pee for 24 hours after birth (that's fun), barfing all over myself in the recovery room, possible placental abruption with my 4th child, I could go on. Birth and pregnancy are a wonderful process but not without risk to mother and baby. So far the only man I know who was hurt during birth was my friend who passed out watching both of his kids come into this world-he hit his head on the floor.

I suggest if you want more say into the possiblity of becoming a father, that you wait until you meet a woman you can trust 100%, you marry her, you have sex after you marry her, and then never divorce her. Go back to school, get a chemistry degree and come up with a male pill/shot/implant or do what my hubby did and get snipped!



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 05:32 AM
link   
[

There is a chance of getting pregnant no matter what contraception is used unless the woman has a tubectomy or they abstain from sex.

My sister had her tubes tied after two complicated pregnancies, with emergecy c-sections because of high blood pressure. She got pregnant twice after having her tubes tied and miscarried both babies.

I suggest if you are involved with women you have no desire to communicate with prior to sex, that you get yourself to a urologist mighty fast and take care of business. It is your responsiblity once in a sexual relationship to inform yourself about the different types of BC, what they can and cannot do and their effectivness-that's called being a grown up.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
Theres a simple solution, if men sign a legal document that they want the woman to have an abortion, they don't have to support the baby if she chooses to go ahead and have the baby.

If they don't sign any document, its a sign that they are happy to have and support the child.

You have got to be kidding right? And what if the woman is poor? That would be blackmailing her to having an abortion or giving the baby up.. if she doesn't she has to bring a child into the world alone with no way of providing for it. Are you suggesting that certain types of blackmail should become legal? Thats not protecting his rights.. thats stomping all over hers.

The simple solution.. if he knows he would want her to have an abortion [or wouldn't] .. is to prevent the pregnancy in the first place. These repoductive rights [which don't involve pricey legal documents and lawyers] would include either keeping it in his pants, using a condom, getting a vacectomy or the pill/injection or becoming a daddy. There are plenty of options for males.. it's funny how the ones demanding rights [over hers] are only interested in having a 'say' post coitus. I wonder why that is..?


I already addressed these points months ago. Please re-read the thread.

[edit on 4-9-2006 by riley]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
If men took the same attitude toward reproductive rights as women, it'd be legal to for a man to kill the bearer of his unborn child.


Could you explain your post please? It doesn't make any sense..


You've heard those gems of feminist logic:

If men got pregnant, abortion would be legal.

If men had menses, ______________. (Fill in the blank.)

This is my attempt at similar logic.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Some of you are talking as if every unplanned pregnancy was some secret evil plot by the mother to entrap the man. Now I know that this does happen on occasion but I hardly believe that it happens as much as many here think it does.

I have heard many people say that we shouldn't have laws protect us from our ignorance and stupidity. Wouldn't this be another case? If you blindly believe that a woman is on bc just because she says she is or if you blindly believe that bc is 100% effective and then something happens to prove you wrong, should you really have a law protecting you from that stupidity?

And before I am accused of being a bias feminist, I feel the same goes for women when they believe the lies that men tell them to get them into bed. If something happens when you follow a man(or woman) into bed after believing these things, you have to take your share of the responsibility. Believe me I know, I have been there!

Many women are advised to NOT take the pill due to age (women over 35 are advised to not take the pill or one of it's other forms), heart health issues, mental health issues and women who smoke are advised not to take the pill. How can you get on the pill when doctors refuse to perscribe the pill because the patient is under one of these conditions? Other forms of birth control's effectiveness pale in comparison to the pill.

Abortions are very dangerous. They can leave permanent scar tissue and cause infertility. What if abortions weren't even legal? There is a possibility that some day they may not be of certain political groups have their way. Where will this logic go then?

Women who get their tubes tied are at a high risk for tubal pregnancies as well.

I do agree that men get the short end of the stick when it comes to the legalities involving custody and child support. Some men pay way too much child support and get to see their children very little. I disagree with this as well, and I do agree that people should stop blindly believing that the mother is always in the right.

So I believe that yes men (and women) should have to take their share of responsibilities in cases like this. Also that men should be treated more fairly in family court.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join