After you fire a gun at someone, it may be solely their choice to step out of the way of the bullet. You are responsible for what your bullet does, regardless.
While I concede that vasectomy is not 100% perfect, in all the years (over ten years) that Reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance (RISUG) was used by Dr. Sujoy K Guha in India it failed only once and that was due to an improper injection procedure. Vasalgel is not exactly the same method developed by Dr. Sujoy K Guha, but it is one of the only methods being accepted in the US. Another that is being pursued is Smart RISUG. A similar injection known as "Vasalgel", based on the idea behind RISUG but using a different method, is currently undergoing successful animal trials in the United States. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_inhibition_of_sperm_under_guidance The problem the team researching and testing Vasagel are having is funding, not a single one of the big pharma companies are interested as it would cut deeply into their other contraceptive profits. As to your request for a 100% effective male contraceptive, you should know that nothing is ever 100%.
Yeah, he has full responsibiliiy, and no say in anything what happens, and if a woman decides to get an abortion and he does not agree with it, or was never even told of the decision, he forced to pay for it anyway.
I don't think it's fair that women don't have to sign up for the draft like guys do. Guys can't even attend college unless they do. And if a woman gets on my nerves, I'm not afraid to punch her repeatedly in the face just like I would a man. In fact, once I c*nt punt that ho, I'll grab her nipples and perform a 180° clockwise/counterclockwise tittie-twist.
Better be careful about whom you impregnate, then. It's the woman who has to carry the child, so yeah, she (along with Mother Nature) has ultimate control over whether she's going to proceed with the pregnancy. If she does decide to keep it, then why shouldn't the father contribute to the child's upbringing? I don't see the sense in getting a woman pregnant, then insisting that she abort the kid so that it won't reduce your future disposable income. Also, if a guy is not forced to pay child support, then he may promise to support the kid early on, but then bail out later for whatever reason. That happens often enough anyway. Obviously it is a complex and personal issue, and the father often enough does have his say in what will happen, but he's not the ultimate decision-maker in this regard for the very practical reason I've already outlined.
Condoms are only effective 91% of the time to stop a pregnancy. (That's if used correctly) 83% to stop the contraction of HIV. No, it's not operator error. BC for men isn't as effective as BC for women. What if a woman pokes a hole in a condom? Should the man still be held responsiblev
Yeah. Men don't have any birth control choices after the act. They never will have, either, and there is absolutely nothing to be done about it. On the other hand, men don't have to risk their future health or life to become a parent, so it's swings and roundabouts. It's best to realise that and always use a condom you have bought yourself from a reputable source , which, when used correctly, are very reliable.
To use prolife logic, any man who has sex with a woman is agreeing to abortion if she becomes pregnant. If he doesn't want her to have an abortion, he should keep his pants on.
That still does not explain why a father should have to pay for an abortion which a woman chooses on her own, with no imput from him to get, especially when they were not even told of the pregnancy, which happens a lot. I am not saying a man should never help pay for it, only that it is unfair for a father, who perhaps actually wants to be a father, to be forced to pay for the mother's person choice. My best friend girlfriend's aborted their child because she as a pill addict and did not want to wait 9 months to get (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up. The law says it was her right, but why should my friend be forced to pay for her killing his son so she can do drugs (our state has heavy penalties for mothers who do drugs, smoke, or drink while pregnant).
She sued him on the grounds that as the father he should be required to help pay for the abortion, and the judge (a woman with has a history of sexism, and siding with women over men) ruled in her favor. The judge was told of the circumstances, that she was a drug addict who only got the abortion because she wanted to do drugs and did not want to risk the 5 year minimum for doing so while pregnant. He had to give her 50% of the cost of the abortion and pay her court costs.
There is a very easy solution to this! Outlaw abortion, premarital sex, adultery, sodomy, and divorce. Under these rules, the only people getting pregnant would be married women; they and their husbands would be parents to the child. Anyone else who has a child under this system would be breaking the law, so they would have their child removed upon birth, and face imprisonment. It's tough, but I think it works.
How exactly would outlawing abortion, premarital sex, adultery, sodomy and divorce stop them? They have all been around since about the time humans were around and, legal or illegal, they have not stopped.. Do you really think that tying up the courts with this deluge of "crimes", raising taxes, Bigger Government, more jails (at taxpayer's expense), more orphanages (at taxpayer's expense) is a good idea?
I never said anything about stopping them, just making sure that if it does happen, the criminals are severely punished. The purpose of the law is not to stop people from doing bad things, but to ensure that the state has a legal justification for responding against crime.
So you DO really think that tying up the courts with this deluge of "crimes", raising taxes, Bigger Government, more jails (at taxpayer's expense), more orphanages (at taxpayer's expense) is a good idea...and then you admit it wouldn't stop them, you just want to punish those you don't agree with....how nasty!
Sort of, but not quite. Once it's in the women's body the women has to deal with the consequences of it, and that is why she is afforded greater legal power over the process. Reproduction occurs after insemination. The man has nothing to do with reproduction other then 'supply' of a product - such that the father is in no way involved in the creation of life beyond supply of a constituent part at the beginning of long and often risky process between mother and child only. So the law needs to, and usually does, look at it that way.
that is what I am saying, once the deposit is made, there is no withdraws as he gave it to her, he could not try to take it back the next day without her permission, that would be considered rape .
Maybe the OPer should sue God because, yes, men do not have the "right" to get pregnant. Then again, women do not have the right to have the men be pregnant, go thru labor, and possibly die or be permanently crippled.
