Justices Thomas and Alito and same-sex marriage

[skubikky]

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.

 

  Do you think it also has anything to do with the women who have chosen to have sex with these men?   People need to take responsibility as best they can ....for themselves.   As long as women have the greater impact for an unwanted pregnancy, it would stand to reason that they would be motivated to take extra care with preventing unwanted pregnancies.   

In the heat of the moment, people aren't considering the child support laws.

[raeoflyte]

I definitely dont get the argument that women should bare the brunt of birth control. As a parent of a boy and girl I want them both to have safe and easy access to birth control. I keep hoping something comes on the market before ds hits the teen years, but thats not looking likely.

[raeoflyte]

Oct 7, 2020 10:27:46 GMT -5 oped said:

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. 

My marriage has been legal less than 8 years, but it seems longer. It's sobering to think it could disappear before we even qualify for each others social security.

[pulmonarymd]

Oct 8, 2020 7:00:31 GMT -5 raeoflyte said:

I definitely dont get the argument that women should bare the brunt of birth control. As a parent of a boy and girl I want them both to have safe and easy access to birth control. I keep hoping something comes on the market before ds hits the teen years, but thats not looking likely.

Both should be responsible. But, since men do not have any of the physical risks of being pregnant, the burden is disproportionately one sided. It is also the argument for why men should have no say in the decision re: abortion. If you know your risk is higher, you should protect yourself more. In this pandemic, although everyone should wear a mask, many don't. So if you are high risk, you need to be extra cautious to protect your health. How is the risk of pregnancy any different.

And the argument for condoms also includes decreasing the risk of STDs. Women cannot do much in that regards. So men should use them to protect both participants.

[Tennesseer]

Oct 8, 2020 7:05:53 GMT -5 raeoflyte said:

Oct 7, 2020 10:27:46 GMT -5 oped said:

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. 

My marriage has been legal less than 8 years, but it seems longer. It's sobering to think it could disappear before we even qualify for each others social security.

Overturning the 2015 SCOTUS ruling on same-sex marriage would be a very unpopular decision with the American public and I believe SCOTUS knows it.

U.S. Support for Same-Sex Marriage Matches Record High BY JUS

[raeoflyte]

Oct 8, 2020 9:01:08 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Oct 8, 2020 7:00:31 GMT -5 raeoflyte said:

I definitely dont get the argument that women should bare the brunt of birth control. As a parent of a boy and girl I want them both to have safe and easy access to birth control. I keep hoping something comes on the market before ds hits the teen years, but thats not looking likely.

Both should be responsible. But, since men do not have any of the physical risks of being pregnant, the burden is disproportionately one sided. It is also the argument for why men should have no say in the decision re: abortion. If you know your risk is higher, you should protect yourself more. In this pandemic, although everyone should wear a mask, many don't. So if you are high risk, you need to be extra cautious to protect your health. How is the risk of pregnancy any different.

And the argument for condoms also includes decreasing the risk of STDs. Women cannot do much in that regards. So men should use them to protect both participants.

Everyone's at risk. Different risks, but its no reason to argue men should be less cautious about birth control.

Women have the risk of pregnancy, being a single parent, never getting child support, etc.

Men have the risk that they have limited contact with their child and pay child support for 18+ years.

Either option could be awful. Everyone should be trying to limit unwanted pregnancies. Including men.

[pulmonarymd]

Oct 8, 2020 11:20:48 GMT -5 raeoflyte said:

Oct 8, 2020 9:01:08 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Both should be responsible. But, since men do not have any of the physical risks of being pregnant, the burden is disproportionately one sided. It is also the argument for why men should have no say in the decision re: abortion. If you know your risk is higher, you should protect yourself more. In this pandemic, although everyone should wear a mask, many don't. So if you are high risk, you need to be extra cautious to protect your health. How is the risk of pregnancy any different.

And the argument for condoms also includes decreasing the risk of STDs. Women cannot do much in that regards. So men should use them to protect both participants.

Everyone's at risk. Different risks, but its no reason to argue men should be less cautious about birth control.

Women have the risk of pregnancy, being a single parent, never getting child support, etc.

Men have the risk that they have limited contact with their child and pay child support for 18+ years.

Either option could be awful. Everyone should be trying to limit unwanted pregnancies. Including men.

I don't disagree. But the risks are not the same. A pregnancy has no physical effect on a man. Sure, he has to pay for 18 years, but that is true for both parties. So, if you add the risk of pregnancy to the economic risks, a women has a greater burden. A caring partner should help lessen that burden, but we know(especially now with COVID), many people do not care. So, it is incumbent upon us to protect ourselves and not depend on the actions of someone else. Until I knew someone well enough, I would not trust that they are on birth control as I did not wish to have to deal with an unplanned pregnancy.

[Miss Tequila]

Oct 8, 2020 11:28:19 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Oct 8, 2020 11:20:48 GMT -5 raeoflyte said:

Everyone's at risk. Different risks, but its no reason to argue men should be less cautious about birth control.

Women have the risk of pregnancy, being a single parent, never getting child support, etc.

Men have the risk that they have limited contact with their child and pay child support for 18+ years.

Either option could be awful. Everyone should be trying to limit unwanted pregnancies. Including men.

I don't disagree. But the risks are not the same. A pregnancy has no physical effect on a man. Sure, he has to pay for 18 years, but that is true for both parties. So, if you add the risk of pregnancy to the economic risks, a women has a greater burden. A caring partner should help lessen that burden, but we know(especially now with COVID), many people do not care. So, it is incumbent upon us to protect ourselves and not depend on the actions of someone else. Until I knew someone well enough, I would not trust that they are on birth control as I did not wish to have to deal with an unplanned pregnancy.

  Through this thread, it has been brought up that women bore the greatest burden from pregnancy/raising children.  I have no idea why any woman wouldn't take it upon herself to make sure she didn't get pregnant until she wanted a child.  I won't leave my financial security in the hands of anyone else, I can't imagine leaving the prevention of pregnancy up to anyone but me.  

[gs11rmb]

Oct 7, 2020 14:22:32 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

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

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.

When I was pregnant with our second child I knew that I was 'done'.  So was my husband.  We talked about it briefly but he really didn't like the idea of having a vasectomy.  Don't get me wrong if that was the only viable option then he would have done so.  But, the idea made him uncomfortable in ways that he couldn't fully articulate and it wasn't related to pain. 

I don't think anyone should be compelled to have surgery they don't want and I feel that particularly strongly when it comes to reproductive matters.

[raeoflyte]

Oct 8, 2020 12:39:27 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Oct 8, 2020 11:28:19 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

I don't disagree. But the risks are not the same. A pregnancy has no physical effect on a man. Sure, he has to pay for 18 years, but that is true for both parties. So, if you add the risk of pregnancy to the economic risks, a women has a greater burden. A caring partner should help lessen that burden, but we know(especially now with COVID), many people do not care. So, it is incumbent upon us to protect ourselves and not depend on the actions of someone else. Until I knew someone well enough, I would not trust that they are on birth control as I did not wish to have to deal with an unplanned pregnancy.

  Through this thread, it has been brought up that women bore the greatest burden from pregnancy/raising children.  I have no idea why any woman wouldn't take it upon herself to make sure she didn't get pregnant until she wanted a child.  I won't leave my financial security in the hands of anyone else, I can't imagine leaving the prevention of pregnancy up to anyone but me.  

You're imagining something I'm not arguing. No where have I, or anyone that I've seen argue that men should use bc so women don't have to.

Men should want bc to reduce their risk. I want my son to have access to better male bc so he has more control over when or if he decides to procreate. It really has nothing to do with women using birth control.

[justme]

Women do biologically have more risk.

But no one is talking about women not taking birth control or not having access to it if there's a male birth control.

Biologically women have the burden of carrying a pregnancy, but there is absolutely no reason why both sexes shouldn't have equal ability to have access to non-permanent, highly effective birth control except for the fact that our society as a whole is ok with men abdicating that responsibility. 


I could further expand this as I believe it's also an extension of toxic masculinity (see getting a vasectomy being referred to as cutting off your balls or making you not a man), but that's taking this thread even further from the original topic, when I think that society things it's ok for women to bare the burden any any negative outcomes of raising children and as a birth is needed to raise a child, that control births is both the responsibility, burden, and for some people punishment of women. 

[raeoflyte]

Honestly, I prefer my risk as a woman. The idea of someone having my child and making it difficult to be in their lives (regardless of how much money I pay) sounds a hell of a lot worse then depending on myself to raise my kid.

[Miss Tequila]

Oct 8, 2020 16:01:34 GMT -5 raeoflyte said:

Oct 8, 2020 12:39:27 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

  Through this thread, it has been brought up that women bore the greatest burden from pregnancy/raising children.  I have no idea why any woman wouldn't take it upon herself to make sure she didn't get pregnant until she wanted a child.  I won't leave my financial security in the hands of anyone else, I can't imagine leaving the prevention of pregnancy up to anyone but me.  

You're imagining something I'm not arguing. No where have I, or anyone that I've seen argue that men should use bc so women don't have to.

Men should want bc to reduce their risk. I want my son to have access to better male bc so he has more control over when or if he decides to procreate. It really has nothing to do with women using birth control.

While I was replying to a post you were quoted in, my comment was not directed at you.

[pulmonarymd]

Oct 8, 2020 16:12:43 GMT -5 justme said:

Women do biologically have more risk.

But no one is talking about women not taking birth control or not having access to it if there's a male birth control.

Biologically women have the burden of carrying a pregnancy, but there is absolutely no reason why both sexes shouldn't have equal ability to have access to non-permanent, highly effective birth control except for the fact that our society as a whole is ok with men abdicating that responsibility. 


I could further expand this as I believe it's also an extension of toxic masculinity (see getting a vasectomy being referred to as cutting off your balls or making you not a man), but that's taking this thread even further from the original topic, when I think that society things it's ok for women to bare the burden any any negative outcomes of raising children and as a birth is needed to raise a child, that control births is both the responsibility, burden, and for some people punishment of women. 

We would all like to live in a perfect world where everyone takes responsibility. Unfortunately, I see the consequences of people being irresponsible everyday. Men should be more responsible, no doubt. But some of you are belittling men for some of their concerns and the issues with male contraceptives. How is that helping? Isn't that what trump does, he makes fun of people who he feels are wimps? There are scientific reasons for the lack of male oral contraceptives. I see posts that talk about how many women get pregnant on OC. Well, the reality is the failure rate on a male oral contraceptive is likely to be higher given the current thought process. new ideas, new drugs, etc are needed. The company that finally has a breakthrough that and gets an effective drug/advice will make quite a bit of money, as many men are responsible, despite what I see posted all the time. But a drug that decreases libido will never make its money back. 

[justme]

Oct 8, 2020 16:23:51 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Oct 8, 2020 16:12:43 GMT -5 justme said:

Women do biologically have more risk.

But no one is talking about women not taking birth control or not having access to it if there's a male birth control.

Biologically women have the burden of carrying a pregnancy, but there is absolutely no reason why both sexes shouldn't have equal ability to have access to non-permanent, highly effective birth control except for the fact that our society as a whole is ok with men abdicating that responsibility. 


I could further expand this as I believe it's also an extension of toxic masculinity (see getting a vasectomy being referred to as cutting off your balls or making you not a man), but that's taking this thread even further from the original topic, when I think that society things it's ok for women to bare the burden any any negative outcomes of raising children and as a birth is needed to raise a child, that control births is both the responsibility, burden, and for some people punishment of women. 

We would all like to live in a perfect world where everyone takes responsibility. Unfortunately, I see the consequences of people being irresponsible everyday. Men should be more responsible, no doubt. But some of you are belittling men for some of their concerns and the issues with male contraceptives. How is that helping? Isn't that what trump does, he makes fun of people who he feels are wimps? There are scientific reasons for the lack of male oral contraceptives. I see posts that talk about how many women get pregnant on OC. Well, the reality is the failure rate on a male oral contraceptive is likely to be higher given the current thought process. new ideas, new drugs, etc are needed. The company that finally has a breakthrough that and gets an effective drug/advice will make quite a bit of money, as many men are responsible, despite what I see posted all the time. But a drug that decreases libido will never make its money back. 

The belittling is because the side effects were the exact same ones that come with female birth control. It's too risky for men, yet women have to put up with it and be happy with it because men whine about having the same side effects they've been dealing with for decades? In reality it's not riskier for men to get blood clots over women - it's that society has decided that it's on women to figure it out. And the reality that most of the people in decision making seats on this are all male.

If female birth control had no side effects I'm quite positive that no one that made fun of them would be doing so.

I'm under no illusion that this will magically change, but I'm also not going to sit here and say it is what it is and women just need to accept they're going to risk blood clots, head aches, weight gain, lowered libido, mood changes, heart attacks, stroke, etc and sit here quietly WHEN MEN AND THOSE IN CHARGE SAID THE EXACT SAME SIDE EFFECTS FOR MEN WAS TOO MUCH. 

Unless you can show me a side effect of male contraceptives that's risky and not found with women's contraceptives. I'll admit I didn't do a deep dive into it. 

[pulmonarymd]

Oct 8, 2020 16:50:18 GMT -5 justme said:

Oct 8, 2020 16:23:51 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

We would all like to live in a perfect world where everyone takes responsibility. Unfortunately, I see the consequences of people being irresponsible everyday. Men should be more responsible, no doubt. But some of you are belittling men for some of their concerns and the issues with male contraceptives. How is that helping? Isn't that what trump does, he makes fun of people who he feels are wimps? There are scientific reasons for the lack of male oral contraceptives. I see posts that talk about how many women get pregnant on OC. Well, the reality is the failure rate on a male oral contraceptive is likely to be higher given the current thought process. new ideas, new drugs, etc are needed. The company that finally has a breakthrough that and gets an effective drug/advice will make quite a bit of money, as many men are responsible, despite what I see posted all the time. But a drug that decreases libido will never make its money back. 

The belittling is because the side effects were the exact same ones that come with female birth control. It's too risky for men, yet women have to put up with it and be happy with it because men whine about having the same side effects they've been dealing with for decades? In reality it's not riskier for men to get blood clots over women - it's that society has decided that it's on women to figure it out. And the reality that most of the people in decision making seats on this are all male.

If female birth control had no side effects I'm quite positive that no one that made fun of them would be doing so.

I'm under no illusion that this will magically change, but I'm also not going to sit here and say it is what it is and women just need to accept they're going to risk blood clots, head aches, weight gain, lowered libido, mood changes, heart attacks, stroke, etc and sit here quietly WHEN MEN AND THOSE IN CHARGE SAID THE EXACT SAME SIDE EFFECTS FOR MEN WAS TOO MUCH. 

Unless you can show me a side effect of male contraceptives that's risky and not found with women's contraceptives. I'll admit I didn't do a deep dive into it. 

You are only looking at half the equation. Risks are always balanced by benefits. The benefit for a women is she no longer is pregnant with its inherent risks as well as the benefits of not raising a child. For men, the benefit is only not raising the child. So the risk benefit calculation, if the risks are exactly the same, is significantly beneficial to women over men. That is never pointed out when this is discussed. Pregnant women die and get serious and not so serious consequences from pregnancy. Preventing them is only beneficial to a women.

[thyme4change]

Oct 8, 2020 17:25:47 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Oct 8, 2020 16:50:18 GMT -5 justme said:

The belittling is because the side effects were the exact same ones that come with female birth control. It's too risky for men, yet women have to put up with it and be happy with it because men whine about having the same side effects they've been dealing with for decades? In reality it's not riskier for men to get blood clots over women - it's that society has decided that it's on women to figure it out. And the reality that most of the people in decision making seats on this are all male.

If female birth control had no side effects I'm quite positive that no one that made fun of them would be doing so.

I'm under no illusion that this will magically change, but I'm also not going to sit here and say it is what it is and women just need to accept they're going to risk blood clots, head aches, weight gain, lowered libido, mood changes, heart attacks, stroke, etc and sit here quietly WHEN MEN AND THOSE IN CHARGE SAID THE EXACT SAME SIDE EFFECTS FOR MEN WAS TOO MUCH. 

Unless you can show me a side effect of male contraceptives that's risky and not found with women's contraceptives. I'll admit I didn't do a deep dive into it. 

You are only looking at half the equation. Risks are always balanced by benefits. The benefit for a women is she no longer is pregnant with its inherent risks as well as the benefits of not raising a child. For men, the benefit is only not raising the child. So the risk benefit calculation, if the risks are exactly the same, is significantly beneficial to women over men. That is never pointed out when this is discussed. Pregnant women die and get serious and not so serious consequences from pregnancy. Preventing them is only beneficial to a women.

Pregnancy is risky, but 18 years of a child vs no child is hardly nothing. I wish we would stop minimizing the risk to men for not preventing pregnancies. It is misogynistic to women and belittling to men. It reinforces the attitude that men can easily walk away, because we tell them over and over and over that some girl getting pregnant is not a boys problem. It is, and it should be, and we should repeat that message so men will stop being so lame.

[sesfw]

 But, the idea made him uncomfortable in ways that he couldn't fully articulate and it wasn't related to pain.

With men I think the idea of a knife near their private parts is un-nerving.

[pulmonarymd]

Oct 8, 2020 19:19:50 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Oct 8, 2020 17:25:47 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

You are only looking at half the equation. Risks are always balanced by benefits. The benefit for a women is she no longer is pregnant with its inherent risks as well as the benefits of not raising a child. For men, the benefit is only not raising the child. So the risk benefit calculation, if the risks are exactly the same, is significantly beneficial to women over men. That is never pointed out when this is discussed. Pregnant women die and get serious and not so serious consequences from pregnancy. Preventing them is only beneficial to a women.

Pregnancy is risky, but 18 years of a child vs no child is hardly nothing. I wish we would stop minimizing the risk to men for not preventing pregnancies. It is misogynistic to women and belittling to men. It reinforces the attitude that men can easily walk away, because we tell them over and over and over that some girl getting pregnant is not a boys problem. It is, and it should be, and we should repeat that message so men will stop being so lame.

The point I am making is that the risks to men vs women of birth control is not the same and neither are the benefits. When we talk about male contraception, that needs to be acknowledged. For example, the risk of blood clots is increased in pregnancy. Men have no comparable increased risk. So an increased risk of blood clots is more of a risk for men.

Now, men need to be more responsible. If you have no intention of beinga father and supporting a child, you need to ensure it does not happen. But people spend more time on their Instagram accounts then discussing this with the person they are having sex with. They assume things instead of being honest. And that goes for both men and women. And I repeat something I said above. The only form of birth control that helps control stds is a condom. So, that should be used in any non-monagomous sexual encounter. The argument about other options for men are ignoring that fact.

[Miss Tequila]

Oct 8, 2020 19:19:50 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Oct 8, 2020 17:25:47 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

You are only looking at half the equation. Risks are always balanced by benefits. The benefit for a women is she no longer is pregnant with its inherent risks as well as the benefits of not raising a child. For men, the benefit is only not raising the child. So the risk benefit calculation, if the risks are exactly the same, is significantly beneficial to women over men. That is never pointed out when this is discussed. Pregnant women die and get serious and not so serious consequences from pregnancy. Preventing them is only beneficial to a women.

Pregnancy is risky, but 18 years of a child vs no child is hardly nothing. I wish we would stop minimizing the risk to men for not preventing pregnancies. It is misogynistic to women and belittling to men. It reinforces the attitude that men can easily walk away, because we tell them over and over and over that some girl getting pregnant is not a boys problem. It is, and it should be, and we should repeat that message so men will stop being so lame.

Why don’t men have the same choice that women do, though? If birth control fails and a woman doesn’t want to be a mom, she aborts the baby. And I know that you are definitely pro-choice and in full support of ending a pregnancy that she doesn’t want. A man doesn’t have that option. We can’t give a woman the right to choose if she wants to be a parent but not a man. We can’t make someone want to be a father. What we can and should do is force him to pay child support.

[oped]

Oct 8, 2020 21:28:07 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Oct 8, 2020 19:19:50 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Pregnancy is risky, but 18 years of a child vs no child is hardly nothing. I wish we would stop minimizing the risk to men for not preventing pregnancies. It is misogynistic to women and belittling to men. It reinforces the attitude that men can easily walk away, because we tell them over and over and over that some girl getting pregnant is not a boys problem. It is, and it should be, and we should repeat that message so men will stop being so lame.

Why don’t men have the same choice that women do, though? If birth control fails and a woman doesn’t want to be a mom, she aborts the baby. And I know that you are definitely pro-choice and in full support of ending a pregnancy that she doesn’t want. A man doesn’t have that option. We can’t give a woman the right to choose if she wants to be a parent but not a man. We can’t make someone want to be a father. What we can and should do is force him to pay child support.

Do you feel any conflict between thinking it’s unfair that men have to pay child support but also thinking that we shouldn’t have social support anti-poverty programs? 

[Miss Tequila]

Oct 8, 2020 16:50:18 GMT -5 justme said:

Oct 8, 2020 16:23:51 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

We would all like to live in a perfect world where everyone takes responsibility. Unfortunately, I see the consequences of people being irresponsible everyday. Men should be more responsible, no doubt. But some of you are belittling men for some of their concerns and the issues with male contraceptives. How is that helping? Isn't that what trump does, he makes fun of people who he feels are wimps? There are scientific reasons for the lack of male oral contraceptives. I see posts that talk about how many women get pregnant on OC. Well, the reality is the failure rate on a male oral contraceptive is likely to be higher given the current thought process. new ideas, new drugs, etc are needed. The company that finally has a breakthrough that and gets an effective drug/advice will make quite a bit of money, as many men are responsible, despite what I see posted all the time. But a drug that decreases libido will never make its money back. 

The belittling is because the side effects were the exact same ones that come with female birth control. It's too risky for men, yet women have to put up with it and be happy with it because men whine about having the same side effects they've been dealing with for decades? In reality it's not riskier for men to get blood clots over women - it's that society has decided that it's on women to figure it out. And the reality that most of the people in decision making seats on this are all male.

If female birth control had no side effects I'm quite positive that no one that made fun of them would be doing so.

I'm under no illusion that this will magically change, but I'm also not going to sit here and say it is what it is and women just need to accept they're going to risk blood clots, head aches, weight gain, lowered libido, mood changes, heart attacks, stroke, etc and sit here quietly WHEN MEN AND THOSE IN CHARGE SAID THE EXACT SAME SIDE EFFECTS FOR MEN WAS TOO MUCH. 

Unless you can show me a side effect of male contraceptives that's risky and not found with women's contraceptives. I'll admit I didn't do a deep dive into it. 

But men have condoms. I’m going to try to post a link from planned parenthood. It says that if worn correctly, from start to finish, and every time, they are 98% effective. I believe bc pills are 99% effective so not much difference. Why would a man choose to take hormones when a condom is almost as effective as bc?

www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom/how-effective-are-condoms

And I’m so confused on how risky bc pills are. Several other players said they aren’t that risky and should be OTC. They were considered risky when I took them 10-15 years ago but new recommendations have changed.

[Miss Tequila]

Oct 8, 2020 21:30:54 GMT -5 oped said:

Oct 8, 2020 21:28:07 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Why don’t men have the same choice that women do, though? If birth control fails and a woman doesn’t want to be a mom, she aborts the baby. And I know that you are definitely pro-choice and in full support of ending a pregnancy that she doesn’t want. A man doesn’t have that option. We can’t give a woman the right to choose if she wants to be a parent but not a man. We can’t make someone want to be a father. What we can and should do is force him to pay child support.

Do you feel any conflict between thinking it’s unfair that men have to pay child support but also thinking that we shouldn’t have social support anti-poverty programs? 

I never said it’s unfair that men have to pay child support. If one of my posts read that way it was a typo. When a man has sex, he is taking a chance on making a baby. Once the baby is conceived the man has zero choice so he needs to be prepared to pay for the child. Which is why no man should have sex without a condom. Plus, we should all encourage condoms as they prevent STD

ETA: I went back and read the post you quoted. The last sentence I said we can and must make men pay child support. But I don’t believe in forcing visitation or shared custody. If a man doesn’t want to be a father, we can’t make him. Just like we can’t make a woman who is pregnant be a mother. But the same people aging woman have a choice are calling out men for making the choice to not be a father.

[Deleted]

Oct 8, 2020 12:58:10 GMT -5 gs11rmb said:

Oct 7, 2020 14:22:32 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

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.

When I was pregnant with our second child I knew that I was 'done'.  So was my husband.  We talked about it briefly but he really didn't like the idea of having a vasectomy.  Don't get me wrong if that was the only viable option then he would have done so.  But, the idea made him uncomfortable in ways that he couldn't fully articulate and it wasn't related to pain. 

I don't think anyone should be compelled to have surgery they don't want and I feel that particularly strongly when it comes to reproductive matters.

Lol.  This was 40+ years ago when having your tubes tied probably required a few days in the hospital.  I was scheduled, but the now ex panicked at being left at home with a toddler and a colicky infant.  He volunteered to have a vasectomy instead.

Maybe a colicky baby crying could factor in the bc argument.

[justme]

Oct 8, 2020 21:33:12 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Oct 8, 2020 16:50:18 GMT -5 justme said:

The belittling is because the side effects were the exact same ones that come with female birth control. It's too risky for men, yet women have to put up with it and be happy with it because men whine about having the same side effects they've been dealing with for decades? In reality it's not riskier for men to get blood clots over women - it's that society has decided that it's on women to figure it out. And the reality that most of the people in decision making seats on this are all male.

If female birth control had no side effects I'm quite positive that no one that made fun of them would be doing so.

I'm under no illusion that this will magically change, but I'm also not going to sit here and say it is what it is and women just need to accept they're going to risk blood clots, head aches, weight gain, lowered libido, mood changes, heart attacks, stroke, etc and sit here quietly WHEN MEN AND THOSE IN CHARGE SAID THE EXACT SAME SIDE EFFECTS FOR MEN WAS TOO MUCH. 

Unless you can show me a side effect of male contraceptives that's risky and not found with women's contraceptives. I'll admit I didn't do a deep dive into it. 

But men have condoms. I’m going to try to post a link from planned parenthood. It says that if worn correctly, from start to finish, and every time, they are 98% effective. I believe bc pills are 99% effective so not much difference. Why would a man choose to take hormones when a condom is almost as effective as bc?

www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom/how-effective-are-condoms

And I’m so confused on how risky bc pills are. Several other players said they aren’t that risky and should be OTC. They were considered risky when I took them 10-15 years ago but new recommendations have changed.

Your own source points out that in the real world condoms are only 85% effective. That means for every 100 people that use a condom over a year there are 15 babies are born 9 months (not accounting for abortion and miscarriage).

Birth control pills also have an effective rate lower than their "prefect and never going to actually happen" rate. It doesn't drop as much as condoms - it's around 91%. So that's 9 babies each year for every 100 people.

I mean, it's better than pull and pray, but if I had a son I'd greatly prefer he had a method that was more effective than condoms.

[justme]

Oct 8, 2020 21:36:12 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Oct 8, 2020 21:30:54 GMT -5 oped said:

Do you feel any conflict between thinking it’s unfair that men have to pay child support but also thinking that we shouldn’t have social support anti-poverty programs? 

I never said it’s unfair that men have to pay child support. If one of my posts read that way it was a typo. When a man has sex, he is taking a chance on making a baby. Once the baby is conceived the man has zero choice so he needs to be prepared to pay for the child. Which is why no man should have sex without a condom. Plus, we should all encourage condoms as they prevent STD

ETA: I went back and read the post you quoted. The last sentence I said we can and must make men pay child support. But I don’t believe in forcing visitation or shared custody. If a man doesn’t want to be a father, we can’t make him. Just like we can’t make a woman who is pregnant be a mother. But the same people aging woman have a choice are calling out men for making the choice to not be a father.

Your posts before this one read quite different than this one.

There's two different responsibilities with children 1) financial and 2) actual parenting. Unless you clarify you're only talking about one, referring to responsibilities and children most will assume you are talking about both.

I've never thought men should be forced to be a parent to a child from their sperm (and in fact think in most instances that's worse than no second parent), but they need to be financially responsible. I don't think anyone on this thread was talking about forcing a parental role on men, but I can't for certain speak for them.

[thyme4change]

Oct 8, 2020 22:31:51 GMT -5 justme said:

Oct 8, 2020 21:33:12 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

But men have condoms. I’m going to try to post a link from planned parenthood. It says that if worn correctly, from start to finish, and every time, they are 98% effective. I believe bc pills are 99% effective so not much difference. Why would a man choose to take hormones when a condom is almost as effective as bc?

www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom/how-effective-are-condoms

And I’m so confused on how risky bc pills are. Several other players said they aren’t that risky and should be OTC. They were considered risky when I took them 10-15 years ago but new recommendations have changed.

Your own source points out that in the real world condoms are only 85% effective. That means for every 100 people that use a condom over a year there are 15 babies are born 9 months (not accounting for abortion and miscarriage).

Birth control pills also have an effective rate lower than their "prefect and never going to actually happen" rate. It doesn't drop as much as condoms - it's around 91%. So that's 9 babies each year for every 100 people.

I mean, it's better than pull and pray, but if I had a son I'd greatly prefer he had a method that was more effective than condoms.

Not every 100 people, but every 100 times a couple has sex. That could be 3 months for some people. 😍😍

[raeoflyte]

Oct 8, 2020 17:25:47 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Oct 8, 2020 16:50:18 GMT -5 justme said:

The belittling is because the side effects were the exact same ones that come with female birth control. It's too risky for men, yet women have to put up with it and be happy with it because men whine about having the same side effects they've been dealing with for decades? In reality it's not riskier for men to get blood clots over women - it's that society has decided that it's on women to figure it out. And the reality that most of the people in decision making seats on this are all male.

If female birth control had no side effects I'm quite positive that no one that made fun of them would be doing so.

I'm under no illusion that this will magically change, but I'm also not going to sit here and say it is what it is and women just need to accept they're going to risk blood clots, head aches, weight gain, lowered libido, mood changes, heart attacks, stroke, etc and sit here quietly WHEN MEN AND THOSE IN CHARGE SAID THE EXACT SAME SIDE EFFECTS FOR MEN WAS TOO MUCH. 

Unless you can show me a side effect of male contraceptives that's risky and not found with women's contraceptives. I'll admit I didn't do a deep dive into it. 

You are only looking at half the equation. Risks are always balanced by benefits. The benefit for a women is she no longer is pregnant with its inherent risks as well as the benefits of not raising a child. For men, the benefit is only not raising the child. So the risk benefit calculation, if the risks are exactly the same, is significantly beneficial to women over men. That is never pointed out when this is discussed. Pregnant women die and get serious and not so serious consequences from pregnancy. Preventing them is only beneficial to a women.

You're adding a bunch of superfluous factors to try to prove why men dont need to be responsible for bc and I'm not buying it.

Most peoole have a period of life when they want to have sex and don't want to have kids. Making that as simple as possible benefits everyone. The less effort involved in said bc options being effective also benefits everyone. Condoms require significant in the moment effort which makes it the most likely to fail. Daily bc requires effort but less than condoms. Fix it and forget it (for a set period of time) options are ideal.

Again, nothing is saying women shouldnt or wouldnt continue to take their own bc. It also has nothing to do with using a condom to protect against std's. Plenty of people in a monogamous relationship dont want kids.

Saying that men can't possibly be expected to protect themselves because it might cause a lower libido paints men in a such a gross and self serving light. I would hope that is an minority, but I know better. That is why we have to change the conversation, and it should be men at the forefront. It benefits themselves.

[gs11rmb]

Oct 9, 2020 8:07:03 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Oct 8, 2020 22:31:51 GMT -5 justme said:

Your own source points out that in the real world condoms are only 85% effective. That means for every 100 people that use a condom over a year there are 15 babies are born 9 months (not accounting for abortion and miscarriage).

Birth control pills also have an effective rate lower than their "prefect and never going to actually happen" rate. It doesn't drop as much as condoms - it's around 91%. So that's 9 babies each year for every 100 people.

I mean, it's better than pull and pray, but if I had a son I'd greatly prefer he had a method that was more effective than condoms.

Not every 100 people, but every 100 times a couple has sex. That could be 3 months for some people. 😍😍

And 3 years for others

[thyme4change]

Oct 9, 2020 8:25:18 GMT -5 gs11rmb said:

Oct 9, 2020 8:07:03 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Not every 100 people, but every 100 times a couple has sex. That could be 3 months for some people. 😍😍

And 3 years for others

Or the first 3 months vs a few years in. 😬