If you think men should help decide if a woman gets an abortion, just shut up.

So why do we need federal funding for breast cancer research? People will still be able to donate to that cause if they care about it.

Many pregnancies have resulted despite the use of a condom.

Sometimes even through nefarious acts by a woman that the man should not have trusted.

When used properly and untampered, condoms work excellently. Don't use a condom given to you by somebody you don't trust, just like you shouldn't swallow a pill given by someone you don't trust... It's not that complicated.

You're welcome to petition your lawmakers to fund research into male contraception. It's certainly not the fault of women if this ain't a research priority for the US federal government.

Condoms as birth control. Adequate.

Condoms as preventative health care. Quite good.

Humans just aren't reliable enough for condoms to make it past adequate.



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

those are not good betting odds for people who really don't want to have a child.

This has been the most bemusing thread, with both 'sides' talking about entirely different (even though they have a nexus) topics....and it appears only one side understands this, with that side only making nominal attempts to modify their communication to achieve clarity....it has lead to some of the most bizarre conversations I have seen on these forums.

I thought around page 3-4 they might converge...but then they went their separate ways again.

I've heard of a case where a woman fished a used condom out of a wastebasket, impregnated herself with it, and then got the courts to force the guy to pay child support.

That depends. In my view they hold some of the blame if they disparage the idea of it becoming a focus of major research.

If they remain silent on the issue (or even support such research), in that case I would not blame them for the lack of government research.

I don't know how to talk down to the level of ordinary people. It's one of my shortcomings. I did my best.

I thought so too. Apparently the purveyors of the original nonsense wanted to relitigate even though they had no leg to stand on.

I get the "we're human and make errors", but if you are truly committed to having them serve as birth control, and do use them properly each and every time, they are more like 98% effective. My partners used condoms for years, and I made sure they were used correctly, so I feel I was at the top range, right up there with the pill.

I was surprised, and thought it was a typo when the same site says the pill is only 91% effective when in real life situation. When used properly, they of course are 99% effective.

jeez, 91% is a very scary number.

That's another reason I personally don't care if a male bc pill is developed. It's one thing if you know what your partner is doing. It's quite another if I meet someone, decide to have sex, and am assured by him "I'm on the pill" He may honestly not want to get anyone pregnant. However, I don't know how strict he is with adhering to proper administration. Obviously the same could be said about having faith that a woman isn't going to get pregnant because she tells you she's on the pill. However, for me, that's not important because I only care about what I do. I am the only statistic I'm interested in.


Just musing here....
The statistics can be so misleading and made to say whatever point wants to be made.
Nosing around, I was looking for numbers on the chance of getting pregnant while using no contraception.

The percentages varied, but for convenience sake here I'm going to say that a woman has a 15 to 20% chance of getting pregnant in any particular month she has unprotected sex. But then the number goes up to that there's something like an 85 to 90% chance she'll get pregnant in a year.

Well, who figured out how many times any one particular woman has sex in any particular month or year? One episode of sex in a year when the woman is nowhere near her ovulation days is going to be drastically different from someone who has unprotected sex every month, on each day she's near ovulation. What about someone who just has a lot of sex, most days, all year round? What about the sperm count of the men she's having sex with?

I have to imagine some woman has heard/read there's a 90% chance of getting pregnant, and just gives up on birth control altogether, thinking it's a lost cause. I know this sounds unlikely/ridiculous, but I have met women whose knowledge of reproduction is just that bad, and could/would come to that conclusion.

God, I wish I could remember this one woman who said something so totally outrageous about getting pregnant. It's tickling the edge of my brain. Maybe it'll come to me later. Things like this often do.

If you know what you're doing, condoms are as safe as the pill, circa 98%.

People who really really don't want a child should go for surgical sterilisation.

Abortion should remain an option precisely because contraception can fail.

If you don't trust the contraceptive methods available to you, do the gene pool a favor and keep your pants zipped, or opt for vasectomy.


Women have asked for such research for decades now.

Ah! I remember.

This woman who was very full term told me she hadn’t wanted to get pregnant, but “had heard” that if you got your tubes tied “they could untie them themselves and grow back together”. Her husband was there and he earnestly nodded in agreement to verify this, and the futility of even trying.

These are the same people from whom we want to take away access to safe abortions, but will rabidly defend their right to have as many babies as they want (or don’t want).

I believe such gross lack of knowledge in how babies are prevented is sadly not as uncommon as we would like to think.

Unfortunately, easier said than done. Times they are a changing, but it’s still unlikely that anyone, if they have never had a child, can walk into their doctors office and say “I really really Really do not want a child, so I want to be sterilized.

One should be able to do that without having to prove themselves, or face the Regret Police.

If I could go back in time, my response to the I know better than you response #412b of “you’d regret it” would be “whose regret would it be?”

I have few resentments but one is over all about the extra work and risks over the years because others know what’s best for me.

Now excuse me while I go downtown and get a tattoo over my face entire of a neon purple tarantula and 5 or 6 face piercings.

For women who aren't quite sure yet, there's the coil, a form of reversible sterilisation. There's nothing similar for men though.

I looked up the coil, and here it’s called an IUD.

No thank you very much!

Over the years I have had personal friends go through nightmares with those gawd awful things. Severe bleeding, bad cramps, not to mention constantly pumping hormones into your system.

It hurts to have it inserted and taken out, and so me at least, the thought of this foreign object living inside of my uterus, not only putting out hormones, but scraping along the uterine walls is repulsive.

I know that many women are fine with IUDs but my personal opinion is it feels like you are being punished for wanting to have pregnancy free sex with that little torture device.

How many men would accept having something inserted into their testicles that not only killed sperm with drugs of some kind, but also constantly rubbed about the inside of your balls and made you pee blood?

Well yes, there's that.

It may not feel the same but when you take pills, you hammer your system in a different way, chemically instead of mechanically, but your system takes a hit nevertheless. There's no 'safe', 'natural' non-invasive way to knock down or hack a human reproductive system.

If it's the normal functional kind, your uterus is a bloody good reproductive system, honed by millions of years of evolution. Primates have the best placentas amongst all mammals. It's a very fine piece of biology, your uterus, and of course it's gona work as soon as it gets the slightest chance.

Unless you hit it by something. Mechanical, chemical, time-management (eg period sex), that's your choice but there's no easy way to do it.

You get hormones via the iud as well. Or, it's made from copper, which has it's own set of problems

Not sure why you list an iud as a temporary sterilization when it does the same thing as bc pills, plus more.

In any event, why something so invasive? If all you intent is is to provide a woman a choice of a long term birth control method that she won't have to think about for a long while, why not an implant in her arm? Just as effective.

However, if does beg the question that if a woman cannot be responsible enough to remember to take a pill every day at the same time, how is she going to remember to have her implant or iud replaced every 3 to 5 years?

Oh sure, her doctor, if she goes to one regularly would tell her. However, there's a lot of women that don't go on a regular basis.

If you're "not quite sure", there are plenty of options.

I object to others, including my health care providers trying to save me from myself and the apparantly unbearable regret of not having any, or more children.

OK, OK . . . settle down Chai . . . come on, we've got to go catch a bus. It's time for your session with your counselor. Good mental health is as essential as good nutrition. That reminds me, do we need to take you to the grocery store again? Oh my Dog, when was the last time your had your hair done. I was telling The Girl, just the other day . . .

Here's the problem with saying men should be excluded from women's choice:

Men often try to pressure women into sexual intercourse by pressuring their partners into accepting abortion as a last resort. In short, they pressure women to 'choose choice.'

If abortion was prohibited except with a rape report, then women could simply provide all known information about any men whose DNA could show up in the aborted fetal tissue at the time of abortion.

Then, once the abortion is finished, the men whose DNA shows up in the analysis are liable for rape as well as an additional charge, such as 'rape leading to pregnancy,' or 'rape leading to abortion.'

Such laws restricting abortion would assist women in expecting men not to pressure them into choosing to have sexual intercourse as part of a relationship by telling them, "you can just get an abortion if you get pregnant."

You can say that women should be strong enough to refuse sex when a man is pressuring her, but it's not that simple within a relationship. It is much easier to convince a loved one to stop pressuring you if the law is involved.

Now, before Roe v Wade, abortion was legal for documented rapes so what Roe v Wade really did was to allow women to protect men from liability for pregnancy. If you think about it, the people who benefit most from unrestricted abortion are sex workers and men who can afford to buy women's consent to abortion, i.e. men who pay for women to 'choose choice' whether or not those women are really comfortable submitting to an abortion.

Huh?

Just thinking maybe you needed someone to take you by the hand and tell you how to do everything. It was sarcasm, although not directed at you.

As far as my vasectomy went, I had to have permission from my wife, all of the guys I know who had it done also had to have their spouses permission and in most cases, they wanted you to already have kids because doing a reversal was painful and not always successful. There were signed consent forms indicating her agreement with the procedure, if she had disagreed, the Dr would not have done it.

I mention this every time a woman mentions needing her husbands permission, it's no different for men. I've heard stories of needing a father's permission for an adult woman who were not married. I think we are decades past such treatment, but spouses permission is a real thing. Mine was done in 2006 and most of the guys who I know who have had it done were all in the last 3 years, so the rules haven't changed.