Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Still trying to figure out why some people think this is a bad thing. Nothing was mentioned about being taxpayer funded. Or did I misread the title and it really read This is the pontificate and beat your chest about your greatness thread.
Lessee cheap, easier and, if both easy and cheap might just lead to fewer out of wedlock kids which means LESS WELFARE!
Who said anything about taxpayers funding this procedure? Not me.
Who said anything about disapproving this "alternative form of birth control?" Not me.
Who said this wasn't a form of personal responsibility? Not me.
All I said is that the (cheaper) alternative is to be a responsible human being through keeping your dick in your pants (or use protection) if you don't intend to pro-create.
Why do you have a problem with this simple concept?
You're playing that game now? You aren't fooling anyone trying to deny what you wrote when it's still there. Let me tell you a secret: we can still read it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
I know this will rain on your parade, but pay attention:
1) I have never gotten someone pregnant that I didn't intend to get pregnant. It's called self-control, personal responsibility, and family planning.
2) I paid for my own contraceptives (What a concept!)
3) I have never accepted one red penny of taxpayer-funded social support. Why should I? I am a responsible person.
If you need me to put together a brochure on "basic personal responsibility," let me know. I'll be glad to school you on how easy it is to be a responsible human being.
Am I just imagining this whole entire post?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
Or you could just keep your dick in your pants......or at a minimum keep it covered....if you don't intend to pro-create.
Where did you say anything about it being cheaper? Why do you care how people spend their money? If they want to spend 1 million dollars on this procedure rather than $4 on a pack of condoms, what business is it of yours?
Correct, technically only women can be the recipent of birth control. However, contraception control and disease preventative measures (a.k.a. safe sex) are the responsibility of every participant in the sexual act.
You're playing that game now? You aren't fooling anyone trying to deny what you wrote when it's still there. Let me tell you a secret: we can still read it.
Am I just imagining this whole entire post?
Where did you say anything about it being cheaper? Why do you care how people spend their money? If they want to spend 1 million dollars on this procedure rather than $4 on a pack of condoms, what business is it of yours?
Yes, you are imagining it. You're also conflating two different posts, twisting and contorting my words to fit some ill-informed and ill-conceived agenda that you would love for me to espouse.
My only Agenda is personal responsibility. NOTHING I have said insinuates that I disapprove of this procedure...that I think it should/shouldn't be taxpayer funded, etc. Those are YOUR assertions based off your poor comprehension of of my posts.
Each response is in direct reply to a specific post. That you would conflate and contort my words makes you one disingenous contributor.
Correct, technically only women can be the recipent of birth control. However, contraception control is the responsibility of every participant in the sexual act.
Touche'
Actually, it's conception control, and, according to some, it's still the responsibility of the women-folk.
If I remember my biology class correctly, it takes a male and female to make a baby.
Well they don't even know if it works yet so I'll leave it to the monkeys in India and stick with it.
"RISUG has been safe and effective in 25 years of animal and human trials (see publications list). Studies have tested, among other things, its dosage and length of action in monkeys and men, its reversibility in rats, its reversibility multiple times in monkeys, its teratogenic potential in rats and rabbits, its toxicity in rats and monkeys, its ultrastructural effect in the vas deferens before and after removal in monkeys, its effect on seminal plasma metabolites and the prostate in men, its ultrastructural effect on sperm in monkeys, and the status of semen and accessory sex gland function in monkeys and men. The latest studies report on sperm returning to normal and safety for offspring after reversal in rats (Lohiya 2010) and on modifying it for use in females (e.g. Jha 2010).
Questions remain about the likelihood of pregnancy after reversing RISUG after long periods of use, especially since in the monkey study, cellular changes appeared in some of the sperm-producing tubules at the center of the testes after one year (Mishra 2003). However, a subsequent publication provides reassurance and additional information: the testes and vas deferens gradually returned to normal within 150 days of reversal (Lohiya 2005).
The monkey study published in 2005 reported on reversal after about 18 months of use. However, several dozen men from the first clinical trials have been using the method for 20 years or more. It would be reassuring and informative to reverse the procedure in some of those volunteers in order to determine their subsequent fertility. RISUG’s developer in India has proposed both a study of reversal after 6 months and a study of reversal in some of the men who have had it for many years, but the studies are still in the approvals process. We anxiously await approval of these studies."
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,285 posts, read 54,100,737 times
Reputation: 40586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big George
...and that little place called ADULTHOOD. Unfortunately, too many people never end up there.
A vote from the "sex is ONLY for procreation" school ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.