Birth Control: Sharing the responsibility

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by kungfuliberal, Feb 16, 2020.

  1. JET3534

    JET3534 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2014
    Messages:
    13,350
    Likes Received:
    11,517
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Without consequences? There are a lot of men paying big time child support to women who claimed to be on the pill.
     
    gorfias likes this.
  2. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    translation: another knee jerk misogynistic attitude with no real rational or logical response.
     
  3. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I read your post, which essentially avoids the OP's point, thus my response. CHOICE is taken away if the state prohibits it....so l why not a similar ruling on men. READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY to see why the "status quo" must be changed across the 50 states.
     
  4. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Keep in mind that the morning after pill prevents conception....lifers are against that.
    Abortion terminates a pregnancy, thus preventing birth which results in human life...pre-mature births require all sorts of extraordinary medical care for the now "born" child to survive.
    Most lifers complain about the welfare and social services, but as long as their religious dogma is satisfied, they could care less about what happens after...you know, the quality of life they were so ardent to save.
    The OP proposal merely puts the same onus on the man as it does on the woman....prevention of an unwanted pregnancy...and he won't be forced through 9 months of pregnancy.
     
  5. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Okay, so if the proposal is put through, eliminate that potential fiasco for a whole lot of folk.
     
  6. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1. Knock off the condescending attitude and you get no nick names.
    2. And your point? The OP stands valid....it seems that guys lose it when people even hint that they should have a law placed on them that prevents them from sexually carrying on the way they want (or don't want to).
    3. then you should have NO PROBLEM with the OP proposal....Since you want to split a hair, that's what makes your claim suspicious.
    4. BS! You name me one law in any state that makes a male contraceptive for pre-martial sex mandatory, for starters!
    5. Logically and factually explain why the OP proposal is "stupid".
     
  7. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    hit the little arrow next to my name....you'll scroll back to discussion in it's proper progression.
     
  8. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    they do! But it seems a whole lot of folk want to tell them how and when to own it despite medical alternatives being available. Theocratic dictatorship is an ugly thing.
     
  9. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This thread is about sharing responsibity.
     
  10. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is actually irrelevant. Any claim that is not one of a hysterectomy or being a MtF (yes there are cis straight males for whom that is fine), means that there is always a chance, no matter how small, that pregnancy can occur.
     
  11. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The quoted text is there in the post. That still doesn't make it clear which sections your numbered responses address. There is another guy on a different forum who responds to long post as you do, but he adds numbers in the quote to specify what he is addressing with what. By all means if you want to be obscure, it's a free country. I'm just pointing out that your points were not clear because they are hard to context to a long post.

    Also as an aside, the bloody arrow doesn't always work on my phone for some God's forsaken reason. It's as reliable as Plinx's abilities (bonus points to whoever gets that reference)
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2020
  12. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you read any condescending attitude then that is all on you. I was trying to have an honest civil discussion.

    Actually this would just make it to where men could be MORE promiscuous. Guaranteed no children? Pfft. Most men would LOVE that. So you're excuse here holds no water.

    There is no hair splitting. The only reason I responded to the thread was to point out a claim that was made that anti-abortionists were trying to make it to where women could only have a limited amount of babies. That was, and still is, false. I could care less about the law in question because I know it would be shot down in court if it was actually enacted. Which it won't be.

    Name me a single state that enforce any such type law for women. And to answer your question, none that I know of because there is no male contraceptive on the market. Though I'd like to know what this has to do with my statement.

    Because 1: It won't be enacted. 2: Even if somehow, by some miracle, it was enacted it would be shot down in the courts. Just like anti-abortion laws for 24 weeks and younger were shot down in Roe v Wade. It's a waste of taxpayer money to even attempt to get it enacted for those very reasons. As such, its stupid.
     
  13. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually, like the IUD, the morning after pill prevents implantation, not conception. Yes, same end result, just different mechanisms.


    The OP and the connection of the article are actually rather separate. The bill linked to isn't a real intent AND it does hold the same problem of violation of bodily autonomy as does forced or prevented abortion.

    Medical science has advanced birth control (for all the misnomer the term is) in woman more because there is physical and chemically more options with fewer side effects. Thankfully there are newer male options being developed, such as the tube blockage, and the in line switch. The onus is there. The constant mantra of use condoms is rather prevalent. But the lack of options is not the same as lack of onus.
     
  14. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ok this doesn't answer the question of where you connect men happily paying child support to the laws being equal.

    There is no issue if there is a voluntary disparity. IOW, as long as the opportunity is there, but it is not taken advantage of by most, there is no issue. It doesn't matter if only a few father's take advantage of the safe harbor laws, as long as any father can, assuming sole custody. I understand an issue with De Jure, but a lack of use is not the same thing. A law should not be equal in results, but opportunity/availability.
     
  15. gorfias

    gorfias Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Messages:
    5,336
    Likes Received:
    5,925
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So men are as able as women to say they are not ready to be parents? This law takes care of this issue equally? I think not. And yes, if a gross disparity can be easily and fairly cured? If equality of outcome is easy and fair to come by, then it should be our goal.
     
  16. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's the women's body.
    It's the women's problem.
    Own it
     
    ArchStanton likes this.
  17. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What does that have to do with child support from the father?
     
  18. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,827
    Likes Received:
    32,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So she can “own it” by aborting the unwanted zygote? Right?
    Since it is her body and her problem?
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2020
  19. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This thread is about child support
     
  20. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,827
    Likes Received:
    32,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe you should reread the op...
    After you do, considering you can comprehend both it and the proposed legislation — feel free to answer the question.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2020
  21. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    it's her body.
    You claim it, you own it.
    .
     
  22. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Dude, spare me this picayune stuff, just his the major scroll back numbers at the bottom of each page, as the thread is not that long. If that's too much for you, then go somewhere else for a discussion where the author sets up as you like, as I'm sure others have covered the same topic. Jeez! :rolleyes:
     
  23. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes indeed. If a woman is carrying her genetic offspring, she can legally choose to have it removed from her body. If a man is carrying his genetic offspring, he can legally choose to have it removed. If a woman's genetic offspring is in someone else's body (surrogate), she CANNOT legally have the offspring removed. The key is bodily autonomy. You can remove from your own body only. In the case of the surrogate, the genetic mother has full legal child care responsibility upon birth of the offspring, exactly as the genetic father does.

    Do not confuse a result with a right. No one has a right to terminate their legal parental responsibilities, except per safe harbor laws or adoption laws, both which require a born child.

    The laws are written equally. The same right for the same situation. Only when you compare two separate situations can you make it seem unequal. Again, the law and the application of it are two different things.

    Equality of outcome is not a good thing. If only 1 woman out of 100 wants condition X, but 10 men out of 100 want condition X, equality of outcome would either force 9 women to take condition X, or deny 9 men condition X. Equality of opportunity allows the 10 individuals out of 200 who want condition X to have it while allowing those who don't to not have it.
     
  24. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Uh duh. Have you not noticed my positions here. Bodily autonomy is the key factor.

    Jet, however, was making a claim about men having sex with a woman supposedly on BC pills, but still gets pregnant. He's trying to make a point as to why men should have a opt out. I am pointing out that a man risks a pregnancy of a woman if any condition other than MtF or hysterectomy exist. So a claim of on the pill does not absolve said man of his parental legal obligations should the offspring come to term.
     
  25. kungfuliberal

    kungfuliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1. then you need to change how you convey such on all levels of response so there won't be any misinterpretation.
    2. Ahh, but if there a guarantee of non-impregnation, then who gives a damn if blue noses get bent because people are engaging in premarital sex? I got news for you....when contraceptives for men and women became over the counter products, all they did was just ACKNOWLEDGE the "promiscuity" you're going on about...and severely limit the chances of pregnancy and spread of VD. Nothing is 100%, but it's a hell of an improvement. But more to the point...are YOU equating "promiscuity" with prevention of unwanted pregnancy?
    3. Okay, unless you made a typo error, "anti-abortionist" are NOT about birth limitation....that is the whole point of promoting the CHOICE via Pro-abortionist movements. The OP is aimed at local governments who try (and some have) to circumnavigate Roe vs. Wade by making access to abortion as difficult as possible...if you're going to do this to women, then go to the other have of the coin and make it so no one has to worry about an unwanted pregnancy from their end.
    4. Naa-unnh, kid. YOU made the initial statement, so the burden of proof is on you. If you can't answer the question, that makes your previous statement false. If you can't own up to that in light of the chronology of the posts, then your dodge is in vain.

    5. Didn't ask for a prediction, I asked for your reasoning as to why it's not sound. Again, you speculate regarding court decisions, not as to the "why". Maybe you don't understand....the OP is NOT an "anti-abortion" law, it's a prophylactic, a preventative against unwanted pregnancy. Big difference that. Carry on.
     

Share This Page