Birth Control: Sharing the responsibility

Here's a classic: Two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm "pro-Choice" and even I can see that banning abortions and mandating vasectomies are two completely different things. If that legislator was responding to a measure mandating hysterectomies your "goose and gander" thingy might be valid, but it's just fallacious. Apples and accordions...

 

Still a huge issue: sex and reproductive rights.
1a. A woman has a wide number of different types of birth control.
1b. BC for men: vasectomy and likely sterilization. Condoms. Ick. They're trying to "perfect" a male pill. It basically gives men a fever to kill sperm. One promising thing I hear about is: an injected temp. block of sperm. Like a temp. vasectomy. We can speculate as to why this is not being looked into aggressively.
2a. Women can terminate a pregnancy even over a man's objection.
2b. A man, even if statutorily raped, can be found financially responsible for child support. He can find himself paying child support even in cases of paternity fraud.
3a. Depends upon the jurisdiction but there are "safe haven" or "Baby Moses" laws. The custodial parent, who will nearly always be the mother, has a window in which to decide whether or not she is ready to be a parent. The newborn babe can be left with government officials, such as fire-persons, no questions asked.
3b. Upon notice of a pregnancy, the non-custodial man has no such option.
Dunno about adoption law. I imagine it is complex, can very wildly upon jurisdiction. My guess is women are fighting for the right to surrender a child to adoption without notice to the dad, even if she knows who he is.

 

Sorry. Can’t take someone serious who looks so ridiculous. It’s like milky white girls wearing cornrows or growing dreds. Just stop. I can’t see her nails but I’ll guess and assume they’re 4” long since hair like that usually matches well with trashy nails

 

1. the immediate consequence is a pregnancy, son! Ask a woman who has had a baby what goes down in less than a month of conception....relatively immediate if you ask me. And since I can READ and have read a LOT of material (federal, state, independent think tanks, etc.) that regarding single parent women, absent fathers, paternity suits, etc., yeah...I got the idea and so do the women since a whole lot of folk are telling those women TFB...you spread 'em, you take care of it whether you like it or not (yeah, I'm pissed about the SOS I get from "lifers" on this subject).

2. Umm, the whole point of the OP is pointing directly to the congenital unfairness in this country on the subject. Pity you can't see that (or choose not to).

3. No shyte, Sherlock! The OP link points out that since folk like you want to regulate when a woman brings a pregnancy to term (ipso facto: having a or another child), that men should be put on the same burner ... your moot point ramblings and attempts to split a hair non-withstanding.

4. Pay attention; the proposal SPECIFICALLY STATES that if this country is to maintain a policy of forcing women to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term, then steps should be taken to ensure that men to contribute to an unwanted pregnancy. Vasectomy's can be reversed (been that way for a LONG time, don't cha know) in case a divorcee wants to remarry and both spouses want kids. BUT IF THE "LIFERS" MIND THEIR OWN DAMNED BUSINESS REGARDING AN INDIVIDUAL DECISON ON ABORTION, THEN NONE OF THIS HANG WRINGING AND LAME "WHAT IF'S" WOULD BE NECESSARY.

 

Oh stop acting silly! Anything of worth to contribute to the discussion?

 

Clearly, you can't fault the logic of the proposal so you blather this absurdity.
By the way PAY ATTENTION to what you read. The proposal is in response TO THE FACT THAT HAS EXISTED FOR DECADES IN THIS COUNTRY that women are being forced to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term. Well, put a little restrictive law on the other half of the equation and you cut down on unwanted pregnancies to a degree. Your last sentence is a moot point that is not the focus of the OP link.

 

Thus the proposal...eliminates the risk of that.

 

Ahh, but as of now in many states and regions the woman DOES NOT have final say regarding abortion....court cases prove that time and again. Hence this proposal, which seems to burn the butts of many because it puts the onus of enforced "responsibility" (i.e., someone else) on the guys...yet they're okay with it on the woman. Hypocrisy!

 

Clearly, you're just babbling nonsense for the sake of attention and response. Either that or you have serious issues with women that should be addressed by a professional therapist. No need for you to take up space on my thread or warrant further consideration.

 

1. And men have theirs. That is not the issue...the issue is that if a local, state or federal gov't exercises the right to force an unwanted pregnancy to term, then equal legislation should be put upon men to help limit such unwanted events.
1b. Bottom line: nothing for you except some theorized therapy that may never be....typical chauvinist BS on your part.
2a. How is this possible in a state that prohibits abortion or the morning after pill? Are you advocating back alley or coat hangers? Look up how that worked out over the years.
2b. Please post a case of a man being raped by a woman and then legally held responsible for the child. And in child support in cases of paternity fraud, the support is cancelled if fraud is proven. If you have documents to the contrary, produce them.
3. And how does this change the FACT that if a woman were NOT denied a personal choice of abortion you would have no need for such laws? And let's get real, the foster care and adoption system in this country stinks...with "conservative" voters constantly bitching about their tax dollars supporting such.
3b. No "option" for what? the woman in many states has no option but to bring the pregnancy to term. You're inadvertently still leaving the decision up to the man. The OP proposal says what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.
Then you admit ignorance of a law that you then proceed to speculate on in a way that fits your world view.

Essentially, you've got nothing but knee jerk responses and ill thought out rebuttals that do not take into consideration all the facts available.

 

How about acknowledging the FACT that women's rights to self determination regarding their reproductive organs have been dismissed by the state? That's the OP proposal, of which you self professed conservatives don't want to deal with. Yet subject a man to the same rules, and you all harrumph and wail like stuck pigs. Hypocrisy!

And explain how are men taking only responsibility when the majority of folk on welfare in this country are single parent women (the vast majority NOT receiving alimony)?

 

"you are STILL telling a woman that she has to take a pregnancy to term. Why?"

I agree people shouldn't have to face consequences for their choices. If I'm at a casino and I choose to bet on a hand and lose I should just be able to say to the dealer "whoops that was an accident I'm gonna just keep my money"

 

We should just kill all men outright save all the trouble. Or we could send them all to jail...... Oh wait we already do that

 

Democrats have been wanting to snip our sacks for years. This is nothing new

 

This is, quite possibly, one of the worst comparisons I've seen on this board in a long, long time.

Men should be allowed to "abort" the baby financially. If they want an abortion and the mother doesn't, then the men are free from all financial obligations.

That is fair. Fair is fair.

I'm ready for it... tell me how that idea is sexist. I cant wait.

 

Give the men freedom from financial obligation.

Problem solved.

 

If you read my post carefully, I have not heard the argument to change the status quo.

 

Again, reread my last statement of the post.

 

While pro choice politically, I must note that we're looking at two different issues. Abortion ends a human life, vasectomies do not. Mind you, that does not address the issue of when life becomes person. Life isn't the true issue since we take life to survive. So comparing abortion to really anything else in reproduction is no real comparison. Vasectomy and hysterectomy are viable comparisons.

Keep in mind my position is that bodily autonomy is the key Trump in abortion rights.

 

Sadly part of the issue is that they also don't want women getting hysterectomies, something even when medically necessary. The control issue is not limited to abortions.

 

You forget the context. It's supposedly a counter balance to the control on women. Since men weren't in the one bill, another was made to include them. Why would women need to be included on both bills but men only on one?

 

Everyone loses their gonads prior to.birth, men and women.

You idea fails because all you are doing is removing the parent from the ability to finance their child. Also the contract is not needed since it is already law.

 

There is not a single legal right that women have that men do not.

 

That is your view and a minority one at that. The rest of us, liberal and conservative alike, see it as progress. It's your view that is dying out with age.

 

Before the issue can become a truly 50/50 issue, we'll need both artificial wombs AND a procedure that the only difference in transfer or termination is the choice.