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.
They make these things, they're called condoms. They're available at just about every convenience, grocery, and drug store. Even if she were taking BC pills, they can fail.
They could but not many people truly like condoms and they do sometimes tear easily even if put on and used properly. I know that from personal experience.
Pro-lifers can say the same thing to female-bodied people, though. Plus, homophobes could previously say the same thing to gay people.
Quote:
I don't think it's fair that men cannot create and carry a child in their body, and females have to do the hard work of creating the child with their body.
Actually, female-bodied people certainly don't have to ever do this hard work if they have access to safe abortion.
Quote:
If a male was able to do that, they would have the same reproductive choices that women have in regards to abortion.
Yes, and if a male was able to do that, then pro-life legislation would not be sexist against females. However, the fact of the matter is that males certainly cannot do that right now.
Quote:
Until that happens, their choice to reproduce ends once they inseminate a female.
Consent to reproduction should not automatically equal consent to paying child support for 18+ years, though. Similarly, consent to giving a poor child a kidney and thus extending this poor child's life should not mean consent to financially support this poor child until this child will become an adult (even if the alternative to this is having the taxpayers financially support this poor child).
Quote:
Choose to engage in other non reproductive sexual acts,
That's like looking inside of an extremely fancy house for at least a couple of decades without ever actually going inside of this house! Indeed, surgical castration is certainly far preferable to this advice of yours (which is turn shows just how extremely awful this advice of yours actually is!)!
Quote:
abstain from any reproductive acts,
Have you done that for your entire life, though? Indeed, did you only have penis-in-vagina sex when you wanted to have a child? If not, then I certainly don't think that you are in a position to give this advice to anyone else!
Indeed, just like some female pro-choicers say "No uterus, no opinion" in regards to abortion, I am saying that unless you have personally abstained from penis-in-vagina sex for your entire life, you are certainly in absolutely no position to give this advice to other people! After all, it is certainly easy to give advice to other people when you have not consistently followed this very same advice!
Quote:
or combine a vasectomy with other birth control methods.
Are you aware of the fact that since all non-drastic forms of birth control can and sometimes do fail, there is absolutely no reason as to why exactly 2+ forms of non-drastic birth control cannot simultaneously fail?
Also, are you aware of the fact that a male-bodied people who did all of this and still going to cause an unplanned pregnancy to occur is certainly not going to get any slack from paying child support afterwards? Indeed, would you support giving a male-bodied people who did all of this a unilateral opt-out from paying child support in the event that an unplanned pregnancy will occur afterwards?
I know several childless men who have had vasectomies. It's an elective surgery, not too complicated and minimal recovery time.
Yes, but too bad that vasectomies are a shiitty form of birth control! After all, the odds are extremely high that at least one man's vasectomy out of every 10,000 vasectomies will fail! Indeed, please educate yourself about the law of truly large numbers:
1. They result in a person's body being injured, but the problem with this is that people's bodies sometimes recover from injuries--hence re-canalization sometimes occurs afterwards and thus vasectomies sometimes fail. Indeed, a genuinely good non-drastic birth control method would certainly not rely on injuring a person's body!
2. Vasectomies are more akin to shooting at a "bullet-proof" vest; in contrast, a genuinely good birth control method would certainly be more akin to unloading a gun.
Quote:
I also know many couples that engage in non reproductive options when birth control is not reliable...( woman is taking antibiotics thus rendering the pill less effective) I think most women under the age of 45 engage in a variety of positions. I've even heard grandmothers actively discussing acts that I didn't even know they knew about. Just because they aren't discussing it with you, doesn't mean it's not going on. (I'm talking women over the age of 70 and 80)
So, would you have been willing to abstain from penis-in-vagina sex for your entire life? If not, then I strongly encourage you to avoid giving this advice to anyone else!
Quote:
Abstinence, non reproductive sexual acts,
Gee, this sounds like the very same advice that pro-lifers give female-bodied people! Indeed, male-bodied people certainly react no better to this advice when people such as yourself give them this advice than female-bodied people do when pro-lifers give them this advice!
Quote:
and combination of birth control methods are the only way to be assured there is no pregnancy.
I hate to break it to you, but since all non-drastic methods of birth control can and sometimes do fail, there is absolutely no reason as to why exactly 2+ forms of birth control cannot simultaneously fail!
Indeed, even extremely unlikely things can and sometimes do occur :
"The answer is roughly 1 in 1.56 trillion, and on May 23, Patricia Demauro, a New Jersey grandmother, beat those odds at Atlantic City's Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa. Demauro's 154-roll lucky streak, which lasted four hours and 18 minutes, broke the world records for the longest craps roll and the most successive dice rolls without "sevening out.""
That's right--1 in 1.56 trillion!
Quote:
I listed the vasectomy for the OP,
If 1 in 1.56 trillion odds are certainly not good enough, then why exactly would you think that 1 in 2,000 to 4,000 odds would be good enough? Indeed, let's face it--vasectomies are certainly an extremely shiitty form of birth control!
Quote:
because he does not think a combination of regular and non invasive BC methods are reliable enough. I suggested using three in the first or second thread he made, but he doesn't think it will work...condom, BC pills, and either the sponge or diaphragm. A female condom instead of a regular condom is a fine option too.
That's because there is absolutely no reason as to why exactly 2+ forms of birth control cannot simultaneously fail! Indeed, while you might certainly not like facts, this certainly does not make these facts disappear!
When you donate sperm, you are not obligated to pay child support for any resulting children. Consensual sex is not the same as donating sperm - no legal agreements or anything are signed.
So, how about allowing legal agreements before consensual sex as well and making these legal agreements be valid in a court of law?
I don't know any American urologists that will perform a vasectomy on a man who does not already have children.
Actually, there are probably some such urologists. However, the fact of the matter is that vasectomies are certainly an extremely shiitty form of birth control. Indeed, anyone who understands the law of truly large numbers would understand what exactly I mean here. Plus, considering that the human body sometimes recovers from injuries, injuring a person's body in a non-drastic way for birth control purposes is certainly a very bad idea!
Quote:
Nor do I know many American women willing to engage in non-reproductive sexual acts. Some grudgingly acede, occasionally, if the guy is worth the sacrifice, but it is not a stable solution for the longer term. And there are threads galore in the relationships forum about how pathetic the men are, that aren't willing to engage in sexual activity.
And this is a part of the reason as to why exactly I myself certainly far prefer surgical castration to abstaining from penis-in-vagina sex.
Believe me ... I'm certainly working on it! However, in any case, castration is certainly not an acceptable solution to this for all male-bodied people (and neither is abstinence from penis-in-vagina sex, for that matter!).
Actually, it doesn't need to go that far. Freeze sperm and get a vasectomy. That way you can have kids later if you decide you really want them and you aren't going to end up paying for any you made unintentially.
I guess that you're never heard of vasectomy failure, eh? Indeed, injuring a person's body in a non-drastic manner in order to make this person sterile sometimes fails due to the fact that the body sometimes heals itself afterwards.
It could be possible that the OP has impregnated someone and is very angry and lashing out.
Actually, No, I have thankfully never impregnated anyone yet.
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.
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.
Plus, homophobes could previously say the same thing to gay people. 
