Justices Thomas and Alito and same-sex marriage

[Miss Tequila]

Oct 7, 2020 10:11:09 GMT -5 justme said:

Oct 7, 2020 6:36:06 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

What burden do you expect men to carry for an unwanted child? Serious question. Women have all the say since they carry the child to birth. If they do not want the child, they abort it. A man doesn’t have that option. He can’t even terminate his rights at birth unless they are putting the baby up for adoption. If there is an unwanted child, the man is in the hook for the next 18 years for child support. I can’t speak for all areas but in my area, men are thrown in jail for not paying child support.

I’ve always felt since it was my body and my health af risk, I was making damn sure that I was on birth control to prevent a pregnancy that wasn’t ready for. I’m the one that would be the one pregnant so I was going to take every precaution I could to make sure I didn’t get pregnant.

Now, since men get zero choice when it came to the pregnancy, I would think the smartest thing would be for them to also use protection. But if people were smart there wouldn’t be so many unwanted pregnancies. Condoms and birth control together Have to have a pretty high prevention rate. As a woman, if there was a food way to prevent prefnancy for women without using hormones, I would be all over that. But as far as I know there isn’t.

They do get a choice - their biology plus currently being failed by healthcare options means they just have one choice early in. More like two I guess - 1) have sex or not 2) wear a condom or not. 

Though they then do have a choice not to interact with the child, they should pay child support. I think the only way you can get to a point where men are able to sign away their financial responsibilities is when we have a society that is willing to pick up the slack (and a society that allows women to opt out as well - meaning abortion stays legal). Meaning government supported childcare, government supported healthcare for children, etc. In other words - society takes on the position of ensuring all children are properly cared for regardless of whether they have one parent or two so then it doesn't matter if they have one parent or two supporting them. But I doubt that will happen here anytime soon -- even though ironically doing that would decrease the amount of abortions (which often goes hand in hand with those that are against more government help want more restrictions on it). 

It's why I think there should be a huge push for better male birth control than condoms - which have a quite large failure rate - and vasectomies that don't work if you want kids later. I believe men should have more control over their fertility than they do currently. But that control shouldn't come at the expense of the kids. And guys themselves aren't making a big push for it like women did way back when -- because again the burden of children falls to women by default in our society. 

BTW going to jail for not paying doesn't occur everywhere. But not paying isn't the only issue. The other issue is when guys are only made to pay a few dollars towards their kids. Even $100 a month doesn't do squat when it comes to the costs of raising a child. 

The problem is, if guys aren’t pushing for it then there is a strong likelihood that they won’t use it. Do I can understand why a pharmaceutical company wouldn’t want to invest in it.

I can’t speak for everywhere, but in my area there is a formula. I never got any kind of child support so I can only speak in theory. But essentially, it is the assumed cost of raising a child and then a formula based on how many days each parent has the child and then their salary %. It is pretty straight forward. So if a woman makes double what the father makes, she will get a lot less than someone where the father makes double. I don’t know how it works in other areas

The fact that the woman is left holding the bag if she chooses not to abort, is exactly why I would never give up responsibility for preventing a pregnancy. It’s my life and my future on the line (when I was younger...I can’t have babies now!), no one is going to be as dedicated as me to make sure I don’t have a baby before I’m ready. I’m the same way with my financial security. I only rely on myself. So yes, if the men want birth control beyond what is available, great. But I still would have made sure I was protected

[oped]

And actually birth control pills have been found to be very safe over the past 30 years and even leading medical organizations, including the American
College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists, advocate for over-the counter
access to hormonal birth control.

[oped]

Oct 7, 2020 10:09:52 GMT -5 haapai said:

You two are right, of course.  On the other hand, the optics of the discussion are .... quite old-fashioned. 

I'm worried about both, but honestly I'm worried about LGBTQ more. I won't live in a place where abortion is illegal, but while that might mean changing states, it is less likely to go full outlawed in the country. Marriage was not equal until it was given federal status, given many of our tax etc. laws. That is much more likely to be ripped out from under us. 

[Miss Tequila]

Oct 7, 2020 10:25:34 GMT -5 oped said:

And actually birth control pills have been found to be very safe over the past 30 years and even leading medical organizations, including the American
College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists, advocate for over-the counter
access to hormonal birth control.

Then if they are so safe, why the uproar over men not having birth control beyond condoms?

I haven’t taken birth control in probably 15 years. I do remember my doctor going over risks with me. I remember one being stroke/blood clots and the risk increased if you smoked. Unless that has changed significantly, I can’t believe we would want to take that risk just for easier access

[oped]

Yes.. and I used to have to take antibiotics before a teeth cleaning because of my heart murmur but recommendations change. 

In this case both pills and recommendations have changed. 

[Miss Tequila]

Oct 7, 2020 10:42:42 GMT -5 oped said:

Yes.. and I used to have to take antibiotics before a teeth cleaning because of my heart murmur but recommendations change. 

In this case both pills and recommendations have changed. 

Like I said, it’s been a long time for me so I didn’t know the pills no longer put you at risk of blood clots or stroke. So they seem pretty safe. Takes me back to why the uproar about the risen being on women.

[sesfw]

And an argument against gay marriage is that two women or two men cannot "naturally" bear children so therefore there is no need to grant them the right to get married.

I have seen several instances where gay couples make wonderful adoptive and loving parents.  Far better than 50-75 + years ago when orphanages were around.




The current candidate for Supreme Court isn’t just anti abortion. She’s anti IVF and birth control as well.

I haven't seen or heard about this.  I know she has a large family but in pictures I've see, it's an inter-racial family.  I'm assuming some of the children are adopted.

Reminds me of my FIL in the 1960 election.  Couldn't decide if he would vote for a Republican or Catholic.  "The country will be run by the Pope".  He lived through the depression and thought FDR was as close to God as a person to get.

[justme]

Oct 7, 2020 10:23:46 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Oct 7, 2020 10:11:09 GMT -5 justme said:

They do get a choice - their biology plus currently being failed by healthcare options means they just have one choice early in. More like two I guess - 1) have sex or not 2) wear a condom or not. 

Though they then do have a choice not to interact with the child, they should pay child support. I think the only way you can get to a point where men are able to sign away their financial responsibilities is when we have a society that is willing to pick up the slack (and a society that allows women to opt out as well - meaning abortion stays legal). Meaning government supported childcare, government supported healthcare for children, etc. In other words - society takes on the position of ensuring all children are properly cared for regardless of whether they have one parent or two so then it doesn't matter if they have one parent or two supporting them. But I doubt that will happen here anytime soon -- even though ironically doing that would decrease the amount of abortions (which often goes hand in hand with those that are against more government help want more restrictions on it). 

It's why I think there should be a huge push for better male birth control than condoms - which have a quite large failure rate - and vasectomies that don't work if you want kids later. I believe men should have more control over their fertility than they do currently. But that control shouldn't come at the expense of the kids. And guys themselves aren't making a big push for it like women did way back when -- because again the burden of children falls to women by default in our society. 

BTW going to jail for not paying doesn't occur everywhere. But not paying isn't the only issue. The other issue is when guys are only made to pay a few dollars towards their kids. Even $100 a month doesn't do squat when it comes to the costs of raising a child. 

The problem is, if guys aren’t pushing for it then there is a strong likelihood that they won’t use it. Do I can understand why a pharmaceutical company wouldn’t want to invest in it.

I can’t speak for everywhere, but in my area there is a formula. I never got any kind of child support so I can only speak in theory. But essentially, it is the assumed cost of raising a child and then a formula based on how many days each parent has the child and then their salary %. It is pretty straight forward. So if a woman makes double what the father makes, she will get a lot less than someone where the father makes double. I don’t know how it works in other areas

The fact that the woman is left holding the bag if she chooses not to abort, is exactly why I would never give up responsibility for preventing a pregnancy. It’s my life and my future on the line (when I was younger...I can’t have babies now!), no one is going to be as dedicated as me to make sure I don’t have a baby before I’m ready. I’m the same way with my financial security. I only rely on myself. So yes, if the men want birth control beyond what is available, great. But I still would have made sure I was protected

I get that it's not as simple as sell it they will come. But you also have to ask WHY aren't guys using it? Because the burden of having a child doesn't fall to them and we have plenty of ways for them to shirk it. Beyond just moving away or not giving the mother info - there's working under the table or purposefully keeping their salary low. There should be a bare minimum the non primary care parents pays a month - and I'm not talking $100 a month.


I don't know why you keep arguing the whole "I'd still take birth control" thing. No one's saying you can't. 

[oped]

I should have been more specific. She supports groups that believe 'life begins at fertilization', so issues then come with IVF and birth control pills which some believe to be an abortifacient because it could allow a fertilized egg to not implant. 

[haapai]

I think that Justice Thomas and Justice Alito were endorsing a candidate.  Their words were superfluous and unnecessary and aimed at the electorate.  They are reminding voters that the next president will name their replacements and it's pretty clear who they prefer. 

[thyme4change]

Oct 7, 2020 10:39:39 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Oct 7, 2020 10:25:34 GMT -5 oped said:

And actually birth control pills have been found to be very safe over the past 30 years and even leading medical organizations, including the American
College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists, advocate for over-the counter
access to hormonal birth control.

Then if they are so safe, why the uproar over men not having birth control beyond condoms?

I haven’t taken birth control in probably 15 years. I do remember my doctor going over risks with me. I remember one being stroke/blood clots and the risk increased if you smoked. Unless that has changed significantly, I can’t believe we would want to take that risk just for easier access

Men getting a more auto-pilot way to prevent getting someone pregnant gives men more power. The uproar isn't because women are in danger if they take BC, it is because men's only option is to make sure they have a condem, there is nothing wrong with that condem and then hope it doesn't break or slip. They have to count on / trust the woman using a second form accurately. And, they have no other choice. A woman can do the implant, the bill, a diaphram, etc. The man has one single option, and it isn't that great of an option.

And, if the woman does get pregnant, she can use Plan B, abort, put the baby up for adoption or keep it. And the man doesn't really have any say in those decisions. So, he should have a better option for controlling his reproductive juices than just "catch me if you can" condems.

[Miss Tequila]

Oct 6, 2020 11:41:16 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

Oct 6, 2020 11:07:37 GMT -5 sesfw said:

Then maybe we need to detangle marriage and the law. If you want it to be a religious thing then it's a religious thing only. No tax breaks, no legal rights NOTHING come with having a minister say "I pronounce you man and wife". No protections come with getting married, NONE. Either marriage and all the rights that come with it are for everyone or they are for no one.





Excuse me for laughing ..... Ideally this would be great IF both male and female could bare children.  Now there are too many males that think their manhood is proven by how many babies they can start.

9 times out of 10, the raising of children fall on mom.  And when 'sperm donor' takes off, she not only has to raise the kids, but support them with wages that are less than male counterparts.

I've seen too much of this in my years, so I'm a believer in the legalization of the marriage contract between two people.  I don't care about skin color, religious beliefs, sexual preferences.  It's a legal contract for the support of family unit.

The beautiful wedding ceremony where-ever is just as legally binding as a simple 'I do' in front of a JP.  The wedding is one day ........... the marriage is supposed to be a commitment for a lifetime.  Choose wisely.

no thank you.

Plenty of successful single mother families, even just here on this board - there are a lot of us.

It's silly to make these pretenses about marriage, when many wonderful marriages end with the untimely early death of one of the partners, frequently with children involved, and the other goes on to have a fulfilling life, even if raising children on their own.

As a single mom, I completely agree.  The worst thing I did was try to make a marriage work that wasn't meant to be.  I would say the worst thing I did was marry the man I met at 17, but if I didnt then I wouldn't have my kids and I would trade them for the world.  

We certainly do not want woman to be forced to stay married because a marriage should last a life time.  I do think we should help women realize the risk they take by putting their financial security in the hands of their spouse.  50% of marriages end in divorce and all women need to be prepared for it.  If there is one thing I tried to get through to my daughter, it is that.  NEVER EVER RELY ON A MAN!  We can want a man.  We can love a man.  But the minute we become dependent on them, we are at a huge risk.  

[Miss Tequila]

Oct 7, 2020 11:51:26 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Oct 7, 2020 10:39:39 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Then if they are so safe, why the uproar over men not having birth control beyond condoms?

I haven’t taken birth control in probably 15 years. I do remember my doctor going over risks with me. I remember one being stroke/blood clots and the risk increased if you smoked. Unless that has changed significantly, I can’t believe we would want to take that risk just for easier access

Men getting a more auto-pilot way to prevent getting someone pregnant gives men more power. The uproar isn't because women are in danger if they take BC, it is because men's only option is to make sure they have a condem, there is nothing wrong with that condem and then hope it doesn't break or slip. They have to count on / trust the woman using a second form accurately. And, they have no other choice. A woman can do the implant, the bill, a diaphram, etc. The man has one single option, and it isn't that great of an option.

And, if the woman does get pregnant, she can use Plan B, abort, put the baby up for adoption or keep it. And the man doesn't really have any say in those decisions. So, he should have a better option for controlling his reproductive juices than just "catch me if you can" condems.

I'm not disagreeing that this would be beneficial for men.  But it seems that there wouldn't be much demand or else the drug companies would be all over this.  If they could make a lot of money from this, do we really think the drug companies wouldn't go for it?

[Miss Tequila]

Oct 7, 2020 11:02:15 GMT -5 justme said:

Oct 7, 2020 10:23:46 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

The problem is, if guys aren’t pushing for it then there is a strong likelihood that they won’t use it. Do I can understand why a pharmaceutical company wouldn’t want to invest in it.

I can’t speak for everywhere, but in my area there is a formula. I never got any kind of child support so I can only speak in theory. But essentially, it is the assumed cost of raising a child and then a formula based on how many days each parent has the child and then their salary %. It is pretty straight forward. So if a woman makes double what the father makes, she will get a lot less than someone where the father makes double. I don’t know how it works in other areas

The fact that the woman is left holding the bag if she chooses not to abort, is exactly why I would never give up responsibility for preventing a pregnancy. It’s my life and my future on the line (when I was younger...I can’t have babies now!), no one is going to be as dedicated as me to make sure I don’t have a baby before I’m ready. I’m the same way with my financial security. I only rely on myself. So yes, if the men want birth control beyond what is available, great. But I still would have made sure I was protected

I get that it's not as simple as sell it they will come. But you also have to ask WHY aren't guys using it? Because the burden of having a child doesn't fall to them and we have plenty of ways for them to shirk it. Beyond just moving away or not giving the mother info - there's working under the table or purposefully keeping their salary low. There should be a bare minimum the non primary care parents pays a month - and I'm not talking $100 a month.


I don't know why you keep arguing the whole "I'd still take birth control" thing. No one's saying you can't. 

I can't imagine any decent man is going to work for cash or intentionally choose a low-paying job.  That is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.  If the guy was a deadbeat when you hook up with him, that isn't likely to change because you suddenly have a child that he doesn't want.  But I can't imagine a well paid professional chucking it all up to work for cash just so he doesn't pay child support.  i have a loser cousin that had kids he didn't support...but he was a loser when he got the women pregnant...I always wondered "what in the hell were they thinking"??

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Oct 7, 2020 10:39:39 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Oct 7, 2020 10:25:34 GMT -5 oped said:

And actually birth control pills have been found to be very safe over the past 30 years and even leading medical organizations, including the American
College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists, advocate for over-the counter
access to hormonal birth control.

Then if they are so safe, why the uproar over men not having birth control beyond condoms?

I haven’t taken birth control in probably 15 years. I do remember my doctor going over risks with me. I remember one being stroke/blood clots and the risk increased if you smoked. Unless that has changed significantly, I can’t believe we would want to take that risk just for easier access

Actually, there was a male birth control pill.  It got scrapped because of the side effects....mood change, weight gain, bloating.  Sound familiar?  Men did not want to take it with those side effects.....the same side effects women have dealt with for 60 years now.

[justme]

Oct 7, 2020 11:59:51 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Oct 7, 2020 11:02:15 GMT -5 justme said:

I get that it's not as simple as sell it they will come. But you also have to ask WHY aren't guys using it? Because the burden of having a child doesn't fall to them and we have plenty of ways for them to shirk it. Beyond just moving away or not giving the mother info - there's working under the table or purposefully keeping their salary low. There should be a bare minimum the non primary care parents pays a month - and I'm not talking $100 a month.


I don't know why you keep arguing the whole "I'd still take birth control" thing. No one's saying you can't. 

I can't imagine any decent man is going to work for cash or intentionally choose a low-paying job.  That is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.  If the guy was a deadbeat when you hook up with him, that isn't likely to change because you suddenly have a child that he doesn't want.  But I can't imagine a well paid professional chucking it all up to work for cash just so he doesn't pay child support.  i have a loser cousin that had kids he didn't support...but he was a loser when he got the women pregnant...I always wondered "what in the hell were they thinking"??

A quick google search shows that only 44% of custodial parents received the full amount of child support. 

More than 30% aren't paid at all. (Which means around 26% give partial payments)

In 2017 there were 5.5 million delinquent with child support to a tune over over $114B. I'm willing to bet money that those 5.5 million aren't all in jail, probably a small fraction. 

So either there's not that many decent men, or men dodge child support a lot more than you think.

_{(Yes, there are some women in that category, but women by far are the custodial parent)}

[Miss Tequila]

Oct 7, 2020 12:03:09 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Oct 7, 2020 10:39:39 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Then if they are so safe, why the uproar over men not having birth control beyond condoms?

I haven’t taken birth control in probably 15 years. I do remember my doctor going over risks with me. I remember one being stroke/blood clots and the risk increased if you smoked. Unless that has changed significantly, I can’t believe we would want to take that risk just for easier access

Actually, there was a male birth control pill.  It got scrapped because of the side effects....mood change, weight gain, bloating.  Sound familiar?  Men did not want to take it with those side effects.....the same side effects women have dealt with for 60 years now.

Are we supposed to force men to take a pill to prevent something in someone else?  Of course women are more willing to take a pill to prevent pregnancy, we are the ones who would actually get pregnant.  

[oped]

So then you can give up your ‘guys have no rights’ given that the pregnancy is just something that happens to someone else...

[Miss Tequila]

Oct 7, 2020 12:34:26 GMT -5 justme said:

Oct 7, 2020 11:59:51 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

I can't imagine any decent man is going to work for cash or intentionally choose a low-paying job.  That is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.  If the guy was a deadbeat when you hook up with him, that isn't likely to change because you suddenly have a child that he doesn't want.  But I can't imagine a well paid professional chucking it all up to work for cash just so he doesn't pay child support.  i have a loser cousin that had kids he didn't support...but he was a loser when he got the women pregnant...I always wondered "what in the hell were they thinking"??

A quick google search shows that only 44% of custodial parents received the full amount of child support. 

More than 30% aren't paid at all. (Which means around 26% give partial payments)

In 2017 there were 5.5 million delinquent with child support to a tune over over $114B. I'm willing to bet money that those 5.5 million aren't all in jail, probably a small fraction. 

So either there's not that many decent men, or men dodge child support a lot more than you think.

_{(Yes, there are some women in that category, but women by far are the custodial parent)}

Even more reason for women to protect themselves and not rely on deadbeats to keep them from getting pregnant.   If a man doesn't care about supporting his child, he probably isn't going to care whether he gets a woman pregnant or not.  

There does need to be a national registry to catch these deadbeats.  I'm all about supporting myself and my children (I never got support and never asked for it) but if a man is ordered to pay child support, he damn well needs to pay it.  

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Oct 7, 2020 10:51:40 GMT -5 sesfw said:

And an argument against gay marriage is that two women or two men cannot "naturally" bear children so therefore there is no need to grant them the right to get married.

I have seen several instances where gay couples make wonderful adoptive and loving parents.  Far better than 50-75 + years ago when orphanages were around.




The current candidate for Supreme Court isn’t just anti abortion. She’s anti IVF and birth control as well.

I haven't seen or heard about this.  I know she has a large family but in pictures I've see, it's an inter-racial family.  I'm assuming some of the children are adopted.

Reminds me of my FIL in the 1960 election.  Couldn't decide if he would vote for a Republican or Catholic.  "The country will be run by the Pope".  He lived through the depression and thought FDR was as close to God as a person to get.

You're argument was that marriage needs a legal side attached to it for the sake of children who are produced in the marriage.   That is often an argument for denying gay people the right to "marry" because since they cannot biologically have children together there is no need for them to be married.  Civil Unions are perfectly adequate and leave marriage to those approved to procreate.

That or straight people who either cannot or choose not to have children shouldn't be allowed to get married either.  If the reason marriage exists is to protect children then childless couples don't need to get married either.  Go get a civil union.   Don't think that will fly do you?

My point stands.  If marriage is going to have legal benefits then they should be available to all consenting adults that want to marry.  If not then "marriage" becomes a religious ceremony just like baptism with no legal standing.   You want legal benefits you have to go to a court house and get a Civil Union.  


Straight couples should not have the right to socially engineer marriage to their benefit while hiding behind a Bible.  

[Miss Tequila]

Oct 7, 2020 12:41:25 GMT -5 oped said:

So then you can give up your ‘guys have no rights’ given that the pregnancy is just something that happens to someone else...

Which doesn't mean that they still have no rights.  They don't.  I certainly do not think they should have the right to force an abortion on a woman.  But in the end, the woman does get to decide if she becomes a parent once she is pregnant.  The father has to make the decision before he has sex.  

I'm not sure what we are arguing about.  Do you not agree that a woman has more of an interest in preventing a pregnancy that happens in her body that someone that can't get pregnant?  A man will want to prevent it so he isn't on the hook for child support for 18 years, but a woman that chooses to keep the baby with a man who doesn't want to be involved, is also on the hook for raising the child.  You can force a man to pay child support.  A judge cannot force him to take the child or even care about the child.  Nor do I think the judge should.  

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Oct 7, 2020 12:49:17 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Oct 7, 2020 12:41:25 GMT -5 oped said:

So then you can give up your ‘guys have no rights’ given that the pregnancy is just something that happens to someone else...

Which doesn't mean that they still have no rights.  They don't.  I certainly do not think they should have the right to force an abortion on a woman.  But in the end, the woman does get to decide if she becomes a parent once she is pregnant.  The father has to make the decision before he has sex.  

I'm not sure what we are arguing about.  Do you not agree that a woman has more of an interest in preventing a pregnancy that happens in her body that someone that can't get pregnant?  A man will want to prevent it so he isn't on the hook for child support for 18 years, but a woman that chooses to keep the baby with a man who doesn't want to be involved, is also on the hook for raising the child.  You can force a man to pay child support.  A judge cannot force him to take the child or even care about the child.  Nor do I think the judge should.  

Last I heard, no one forces an abortion on a woman....it is a choice.  The same sort of choice that men have demanded since the male BCP’s side effects are too severe.

You can’t have it both ways.  Either you have autonomy over your body....or you don’t.  

[Miss Tequila]

Oct 7, 2020 12:54:27 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Oct 7, 2020 12:49:17 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Which doesn't mean that they still have no rights.  They don't.  I certainly do not think they should have the right to force an abortion on a woman.  But in the end, the woman does get to decide if she becomes a parent once she is pregnant.  The father has to make the decision before he has sex.  

I'm not sure what we are arguing about.  Do you not agree that a woman has more of an interest in preventing a pregnancy that happens in her body that someone that can't get pregnant?  A man will want to prevent it so he isn't on the hook for child support for 18 years, but a woman that chooses to keep the baby with a man who doesn't want to be involved, is also on the hook for raising the child.  You can force a man to pay child support.  A judge cannot force him to take the child or even care about the child.  Nor do I think the judge should.  

Last I heard, no one forces an abortion on a woman....it is a choice.  The same sort of choice that men have demanded since the male BCP’s side effects are too severe.

You can’t have it both ways.  Either you have autonomy over your body....or you don’t.  

That was my point.  They can't force an abortion on a woman and I was saying that I certainly didn't think they should be able to. 

Women don't have choice because men don't take BCP?  A woman could take birth control and require her partner to wear a condom.  Together, that would be some serious protection.  

[thyme4change]

Oct 7, 2020 11:56:22 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Oct 7, 2020 11:51:26 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Men getting a more auto-pilot way to prevent getting someone pregnant gives men more power. The uproar isn't because women are in danger if they take BC, it is because men's only option is to make sure they have a condem, there is nothing wrong with that condem and then hope it doesn't break or slip. They have to count on / trust the woman using a second form accurately. And, they have no other choice. A woman can do the implant, the bill, a diaphram, etc. The man has one single option, and it isn't that great of an option.

And, if the woman does get pregnant, she can use Plan B, abort, put the baby up for adoption or keep it. And the man doesn't really have any say in those decisions. So, he should have a better option for controlling his reproductive juices than just "catch me if you can" condems.

I'm not disagreeing that this would be beneficial for men.  But it seems that there wouldn't be much demand or else the drug companies would be all over this.  If they could make a lot of money from this, do we really think the drug companies wouldn't go for it?

What i heard about Vasagel is that it wouldn't be exclusive to one company, so it would basically start at lower prices, which makes the cost to get it through FDA not worth it.

But maybe you are right. Men are such weaklings when it is suggested that they may have to get one single shot to prevent becoming a daddy for multiple years. "Wah, it might hurt." Give me a fucking break.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Oct 7, 2020 14:07:37 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Oct 7, 2020 11:56:22 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

I'm not disagreeing that this would be beneficial for men.  But it seems that there wouldn't be much demand or else the drug companies would be all over this.  If they could make a lot of money from this, do we really think the drug companies wouldn't go for it?

What i heard about Vasagel is that it wouldn't be exclusive to one company, so it would basically start at lower prices, which makes the cost to get it through FDA not worth it.

But maybe you are right. Men are such weaklings when it is suggested that they may have to get one single shot to prevent becoming a daddy for multiple years. "Wah, it might hurt." Give me a fucking break.

How many men do you hear complain when the choice is them getting a vasectomy, or their wife get her tubes tied?  While there are some men that are totally on board with getting snipped, you hear far more complaints about it - despite the fact that it is far less invasive than a tubal ligation for a woman.

[Miss Tequila]

Oct 7, 2020 14:07:37 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Oct 7, 2020 11:56:22 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

I'm not disagreeing that this would be beneficial for men.  But it seems that there wouldn't be much demand or else the drug companies would be all over this.  If they could make a lot of money from this, do we really think the drug companies wouldn't go for it?

What i heard about Vasagel is that it wouldn't be exclusive to one company, so it would basically start at lower prices, which makes the cost to get it through FDA not worth it.

But maybe you are right. Men are such weaklings when it is suggested that they may have to get one single shot to prevent becoming a daddy for multiple years. "Wah, it might hurt." Give me a fucking break.

I don't think it is fair to call them weaklings...I mean, their cold might have them near death

[thyme4change]

Oct 7, 2020 14:29:57 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Oct 7, 2020 14:07:37 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

What i heard about Vasagel is that it wouldn't be exclusive to one company, so it would basically start at lower prices, which makes the cost to get it through FDA not worth it.

But maybe you are right. Men are such weaklings when it is suggested that they may have to get one single shot to prevent becoming a daddy for multiple years. "Wah, it might hurt." Give me a fucking break.

I don't think it is fair to call them weaklings...I mean, their cold might have them near death

You are right. It isn't weakness. It is cowardice. They are afraid of 30 seconds of discomfort. 🐔 🐔 🐔 🐔 Chickens.

[Miss Tequila]

Oct 7, 2020 15:05:40 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Oct 7, 2020 14:29:57 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

I don't think it is fair to call them weaklings...I mean, their cold might have them near death

You are right. It isn't weakness. It is cowardice. They are afraid of 30 seconds of discomfort. 🐔 🐔 🐔 🐔 Chickens.

Lol. My ex told me if it were up to him pushing a human out of his body, we would not have had children. And my DF insists his kidney stone was just like childbirth (I’ve had kidney stones-it’s not!lol). I think you are onto something...lol

I also need to read more about why Vasagel would be sold by more than one company. Isn’t that unusual?

I’ve wasted enough time online today though. I always said my house would be spotless if I didn’t work. I’ve determine that was a lie...

[thyme4change]

Oct 7, 2020 15:09:57 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Oct 7, 2020 15:05:40 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

You are right. It isn't weakness. It is cowardice. They are afraid of 30 seconds of discomfort. 🐔 🐔 🐔 🐔 Chickens.

Lol. My ex told me if it were up to him pushing a human out of his body, we would not have had children. And my DF insists his kidney stone was just like childbirth (I’ve had kidney stones-it’s not!lol). I think you are onto something...lol

I also need to read more about why Vasagel would be sold by more than one company. Isn’t that unusual?

I’ve wasted enough time online today though. I always said my house would be spotless if I didn’t work. I’ve determine that was a lie...

I'm not sure, maybe it is a compound that has been around so you can't get a patent.

I always say if I win the billion dollar lottery, I will set up a not-for-profit, get it through FDA and then market the shit out of it. I think a lot of frat boys would be interested. Married men who are too chicken to get a full vasectomy, and any responsible boy who is trying to pull himself to the next economic level and knows having kids too young is a huge deterrent. I'd offer it for free to anyone who is between 15 and 22 who can't afford it.

[skubikky]

Oct 6, 2020 11:40:36 GMT -5 justme said:

Oct 6, 2020 11:07:37 GMT -5 sesfw said:

Then maybe we need to detangle marriage and the law. If you want it to be a religious thing then it's a religious thing only. No tax breaks, no legal rights NOTHING come with having a minister say "I pronounce you man and wife". No protections come with getting married, NONE. Either marriage and all the rights that come with it are for everyone or they are for no one.





Excuse me for laughing ..... Ideally this would be great IF both male and female could bare children.  Now there are too many males that think their manhood is proven by how many babies they can start.

9 times out of 10, the raising of children fall on mom.  And when 'sperm donor' takes off, she not only has to raise the kids, but support them with wages that are less than male counterparts.

I've seen too much of this in my years, so I'm a believer in the legalization of the marriage contract between two people.  I don't care about skin color, religious beliefs, sexual preferences.  It's a legal contract for the support of family unit.

The beautiful wedding ceremony where-ever is just as legally binding as a simple 'I do' in front of a JP.  The wedding is one day ........... the marriage is supposed to be a commitment for a lifetime.  Choose wisely.

Considering there's this thing called divorce and it happens frequently - it would make WAY more sense that if your goal is to ensure that children are provided for is to create much stronger child support laws. Men can skimp out on paying for their children because the laws LET THEM. And husbands take off and become nothing more than sperm donors ALL THE TIME.

So instead of this inane fight over marriage which solves NOTHING because fathers can still leave even if they're married -- lets start creating laws that hold men accountable to provide for their children. 

People leave children, yes probably more often men, but there are enough women who do it as well.  Take a look at the foster care system.