Birth Control: Sharing the responsibility

I don't want anything.
if you think it's her body, then it's her body.

 

I don't care about the law.
If you think it's her body then be consistent.

 

Then keep their legs closed. Simple. Actions have consequences.

 

Everybody rack your tomatoes. lol

I would consider this idea. I mean I know at least a half-a-dozen men who have done this voluntarily on their own. Two that stopped after two kids and had a vasectomy and three who had three children and then had a vasectomy. And one who chose to have no children at all.

The only downside I see, is if you mandate it through the state. And why would you go that route anyway? I suspect that if they subsidized vasectomies that men would come line up everyday!

 

Well, carrying a baby for nine months is more work than ejaculating once for a few seconds.

 

Are you addressing the hypothetical goal or the actual goal for which the bill was actually made? Or just a goal of equal responsibility, with the bill being an aside.

Currently it is equal responsibility for the results of such interactions. If a man is the known father of a child he has as much legal responsibility as the mother. As such he also has as much responsibility to ensure an unwanted pregnancy. In the end there are only three methods of prevention; removal of the testicles, removal of the overies, and 100% abstention. Everything else is risk reduction, including vasectomy and tubal ligation. All carry some, however small, risk of failure.

Now while we can point to some inequality in the results of the failure of the method(s) or in the failure to use methods, this still derives either from a failure to apply the laws existing (or maybe more accurately failure to attempt to), or the failure of the woman to track potential father, if she is bedding more than one in rapid succession.

 

It's pretty commonsense. The law being proposed is forced sterilization. A law forcing a man into sterilization opens up women being forcibly sterilized....especially those who are addicted to drugs or alcohol or those dependent on welfare who have children on a regular basis.
Is that a can of worms feminists want to open up?

 

Why?
It's her body

 

What does that have to do with parental responsibility? Note that until the child is actually born, the man has no legal obligations. Not for prenatal care or anything. That obligation, shared with the mother, occurs after birth.

 

Now you are referring to welfare, nothing to do with the issue.

 

Why?
Ain't his body.
It's her problem

 

The resultant child is of his body as well as hers, regardless of where gestation occurs. Thus as much his responsibility as hers when born. Thus as much as his responsibility as hers to take measures if he doesn't want a child and the responsibility that comes with one.

 

That's your own fault for having babies with guys who do that. No one to blame but you.

Work you say? How about who's the one taking you to your appointments, the one who's hand you're crushing during birth? The one who "takes turns" changing diapers with you, and I put that in quotations because I watched our two babies during the day while she worked and she watched them at night while I worked, I guarantee you there are more diapers during the day than there are at night. Ever change a diaper on a baby that is teething? Grossest thing ever, and yeah I got most of those because "it made her sick" to do it. "Take turns", whatever. Then there's everything in between, taking them with me wherever I went, the store, the gym, to their dr's appointments, again and again because they kept giving each other bugs. And me. Birthday parties, of other people's kids.

Walking around with one kid in a stroller and the other in a baby carrier on my chest, people's reactions ran across the spectrum. Did you know that there are quite a few women out there who mock guys for doing that? There are. Once having to make an emergency teething diaper change at Target once, I decided to go to the shoe dept to do it because who shops for shoes at Target? Women. Who, I would have guessed to be a bit more sympathetic to someone in my position. Only one woman came through the aisle just as I was rolling up the dirty diaper and she was not happy about it, which I don't blame her, but fanning her face with her hand and scrunching up her face was uncalled for. Embarrassing? Yeah. But this was before men's restroom's had changing tables so what is a Dad supposed to do? I called Target after I got home and asked that very question and guess what popped up at Targets everywhere. Changing tables in men's restrooms.

7 years of 4 hours of sleep a day wears you down, and changes you. Their Mother and I ended up divorcing and I paid 11 years of child support for two kids. I got them for visitations and never left their life, but you have no idea how difficult that can be when you pay 25% of your gross income to child support and end up having to drive across Texas to pick your kids up to visit. I understand it's "cheaper to keep her" but imagine how much motivation a guy like me would need to pick up his things and move away from his children and divorce their Mother.

All that effort, all that pain, all that work, and you try to relegate all that to a mere ejaculation.

When I heard that my wife was pregnant with our 2nd child, I had instant love for my son or daughter. Instantly. My little baby whom I couldn't wait to hold in my arms, if anyone ever came to me and told me they aborted my baby, they had best not be standing in front of me.

Share the responsibility you say? Sounds great! Get to it!

Now!

 

The whole point of the thread is about women's bodies, don't cha know. You keep seal barking this absurd statement of yours as if anyone with an 8th grade education doesn't understand the subject. Clearly you are having trouble or are being stubborn to the point of insipidness rather than concede a point
Your proud willful ignorance makes an rational discussion based on facts and logic impossible. Adios.

 

Not really, but if the state wants to go all theocratic with dogma and FORCE THEM to have children regardless of the circumstance of conception (rape, defective contraceptives), then let folk like you deny social services to help raise that child, then why not "forced" sterilization? Or, we could just cut the crap and let the OPTION of abortion remain to PRIVATE CITIZENS AND THEIR DOCTORS.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-responsibility.568260/page-6#post-1071461239

 

No, I'm referring to who and why on welfare that is DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE OP. Single, (and white) female parents. How many of those do you average occurred in states that made it virtually impossible for a woman to have an abortion

 

I'm addressing what was in the OP link proposed by the rep.

Why are you consistently repeating moot points? the message is simple.....if the state is hell bent on making the option of abortion virtually impossible (if not illegal) for women, then why do we let men off the hook? Vasectomy's have a higher success rate than condoms (or is it vice versa?) And why again, are you harping on women's number of sex partners as opposed to men's? Yeah, both sides have folk who hate condoms, are allergic to some medications, etc., etc. But since the record of unwed mothers on welfare is high, guys are not (or cannot be compelled) to step up to the plate....many in the public domain complain about their tax dollars going to welfare and social services for kids that are "not their problem", etc., etc. Its a hot mess, made hotter by congenital misogyny in society that the woman bear the brunt of such incidences.. Hence the proposal, and by evidence, the knee jerk responses of men against it.

 

But yet she has SOLE say over it. See the double standard?

 

Great, mandate the same for women.

 

I like the part where you said, "Insipidness",.....really

 

They let the penis in.
Big girls need to be big girls and own responsibility of "their body".

 

No she doesn't. She only holds any extra say when it is in her body. If her genetic offspring is being gestated in a surrogate woman, the mother has no say on whether an abortion occurs. The woman does not have a right in and of itself to terminate the offspring. Do not mistake a result for a right. Her right of bodily autonomy only deals with a things in her own body. His right of bodily autonomy only deals with things in his own body. Equal.

 

The actual purpose of the linked bill was not to make any kind of equality in the law, but to highlight the hypocrisy of the opposition's position and proposal in their anti-abortion attempt. In the process of the discussion side points are made, as normal, and I have addressed them. So basically it seems that you are upset that a normal occurrence in these threads has occurred.

 

The baby is definitely not in his body.
It's her responsibility