Male Contraceptive Injections - Is this male libeeration

dearg lady

I'm back, and my heads a lil clearer, apologies for talkin nonsense earlier

Em, yup, I think in time, this could be really useful for couples in committed relationships, it would at least give each a chance to take a break from hormones. I know with the female contraceptive pill there is a kind of suggested limit on how many years you should take it, which I think is quite long actually, but significantly less for smokers.

As regards casual sex and not so serious relationships, similiar to female contraceptive pill, it would probably only be used alongside condoms for peace of mind on both sides.

Yes, I think it could be quite liberating for men, a bit of extra reassurance

CDfm

shellyboo wrote: »

Off the top of my head and with no actual medical knowledge - I was on a contraceptive injection for years, and it was injected into my bumcheek

You enjoyed posting that a bit too much:p

The Corinthian

Pherekydes wrote: »

You'll find that there is walking away, for both genders. According to CDfM's stats, 11000 absent parents were investigated by the Dept in 2007. My partner's husband left her and went to live in the UK, paying not a penny of maintenance. It's a lot more common than you think

Last time I checked extremes such as going into exile or, as someone else suggested, voluntarily losing your job and facing poverty are not exactly 'walking away'.

CDfm

According to CDfM's stats,

I took them from the Irish Independent who got them from the Dept of Social and Family Affairs.


Pherekydes are you secretly Brian Cowan and is that a job offer?

Pherekydes

The Corinthian wrote: »

Last time I checked extremes such as going into exile or, as someone else suggested, voluntarily losing your job and facing poverty are not exactly 'walking away'.

LOL. Leaving your spouse and going to live in another jurisdiction is not walking away? That's explicitly what it was in this case. I know of another case where the guy denied he had fathered the second of his two children and has been non-contactable since, not even paying maintenance for the first. While the vast majority of parents are decent and loving, there are some real b**tards out there on both sides of the gender divide. According to the stats, there were 11000 absentee parents investigated in 2007, which implies there are more. They are not just the extremes.

CdFm wrote:

Pherekydes are you secretly Brian Cowan and is that a job offer?

Never heard of him. Who is he?

metrovelvet

You know what cdfm- you might be right - it might not be that common. Maybe, and likely I have been convinced or brainwashed to think it is, the men scarperring. Somehow, people think that the more common something is, the more likely it is for human nature to accept it.

But I do know this, from the one of the canvassers who came to my door last election, that he told me there are thousands of men not voting because they dont want to be on the voters registers because the addresses are public, listed in the post office, and they are hiding from paying maintenance.

The Corinthian

Pherekydes wrote: »

LOL. Leaving your spouse and going to live in another jurisdiction is not walking away? That's explicitly what it was in this case.

I think you misunderstood my point. It has been inferred that pregnancy only really affects women in this thread and that men can somehow 'walk away' scot free. If walking away means things such as exile to a foreign country, loss of voting rights or enforced unemployment, then it is hardly scot free.

Also you cited an example of a man abandoning his family, having previously made a concious commitment to his spouse and to have children as opposed to what has been discussed here which is some poor smuck who may have gotten a woman pregnant from a one night stand or casual fling, never made any commitment yet is still essentially screwed for life. Not the same thing.

shellyboo

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you misunderstood my point. It has been inferred that pregnancy only really affects women in this thread and that men can somehow 'walk away' scot free. If walking away means things such as exile to a foreign country, loss of voting rights or enforced unemployment, then it is hardly scot free.

Ah here, nobody said that at all.

Guys, you asked why we women wouldn't "trust" a man to take contraception, and we said for peace of mind, and because pregnancy affects women more.

And when we're talking about crisis pregnancies (which we are, we're not talking about kids, or maintenance) the man CAN walk away. He can say "I don't want to have anything to do with this" and walk away. He might come back, the law might go after him, he might have to escape the country - but whatever he does, he does not have the problem of a crisis pregnancy living inside his body. A woman does. She has to deal with it, she has to make decisions there and now that will affect the rest of her life. The man has nine months before it affects his life in any real-life, here-and-now way. He can walk away for 8 months and 29 days and have a massive change of heart before the child's even born.


We're not talking about kids, we're talking about pregnancy. And a crisis pregnancy affects a woman more than a man because she cannot walk away. She does not have time or space to mull it over, or think, she has to deal with it. And THAT'S why I wouldn't hand over control of contraception to a man, because at the end of the day, if I get pregnant, it's MY problem to deal with.

Pherekydes

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you misunderstood my point. It has been inferred that pregnancy only really affects women in this thread and that men can somehow 'walk away' scot free. If walking away means things such as exile to a foreign country, loss of voting rights or enforced unemployment, then it is hardly scot free.

Also you cited an example of a man abandoning his family, having previously made a concious commitment to his spouse and to have children as opposed to what has been discussed here which is some poor smuck who may have gotten a woman pregnant from a one night stand or casual fling, never made any commitment yet is still essentially screwed for life. Not the same thing.

Having children is not being "essentially screwed for life", whether they are planned or not.

Men, and women, walk away scot free regularly. Only the ones who are pursued are not getting away scot free. Many lone parents don't bother pusuing the absent parent. It can often be too much trouble. And is it worth it in the end?

And who was talking about exile? These people are quite often living abroad of their own free will.

All this is getting away from the original point, though. The male contraceptive injection is not male liberation, because it will only be taken up by men in committed long-term relationships. The female contraceptive (pill or injection) was percieved as female liberation because women could now engage in sex without fear of unwanted pregnancies. Men had been doing that since the dawn of time.

The Corinthian

shellyboo wrote: »

Ah here, nobody said that at all.

You just have in your last post - it's YOUR problem to deal with according to you.

And when we're talking about crisis pregnancies (which we are, we're not talking about kids, or maintenance) the man CAN walk away. He can say "I don't want to have anything to do with this" and walk away. He might come back, the law might go after him, he might have to escape the country - but whatever he does, he does not have the problem of a crisis pregnancy living inside his body. A woman does. She has to deal with it, she has to make decisions there and now that will affect the rest of her life. The man has nine months before it affects his life in any real-life, here-and-now way. He can walk away for 8 months and 29 days and have a massive change of heart before the child's even born.

I'm sorry, but you're contradicting yourself. You suggest that a man CAN walk away, yet point out several reasons why he actually cannot.

We're not talking about kids, we're talking about pregnancy. And a crisis pregnancy affects a woman more than a man because she cannot walk away.

So there's no such thing as abortion or adoption?

And THAT'S why I wouldn't hand over control of contraception to a man, because at the end of the day, if I get pregnant, it's MY problem to deal with.

Unfortunately it is not simply your problem to deal with though, because - as I've already pointed out - a baby is not just for nine months and once born it is no longer 'your problem' but becomes the 'problem' of both parents, except that one has a monopoly on the options and the other has none.

You and others seem to be labouring under the misconception that somehow it does not affect men in any way, that they can abdicate all responsibility and live life as before. That is a complete fantasy as even in the extreme cases where a man may leave the country or otherwise go into hiding, their life has been irrevocably affected.

Pherekydes wrote: »

Having children is not being "essentially screwed for life", whether they are planned or not.

Then why do many women have abortions? Not everyone would agree with your romantic appraisal of parenthood, I'm afraid.

Men, and women, walk away scot free regularly. Only the ones who are pursued are not getting away scot free. Many lone parents don't bother pusuing the absent parent. It can often be too much trouble. And is it worth it in the end?

Naturally it can be too much trouble if the non-custodial parent takes extreme measures to make it so, but to do so is hardly walking away scot free and also presupposes that knowing they have a child out there does not in any way affect them too.

I don't think either gender simply walks away scot free. A price is paid regardless.

And who was talking about exile? These people are quite often living abroad of their own free will.

Or not.

CDfm

Pherekydes wrote: »

According to the stats, there were 11000 absentee parents investigated in 2007, which implies there are more. They are not just the extremes.

.

But if you look at the stats it is based on 11000 absentees and you dont know why they are absent.

1800 were assessed as underpaying. Thats not the same as having gone missing.

seamus

taconnol wrote: »

Can you provide study/link on that? I'd be interested to read it.

Actually don't have one, but it's generally accepted as given - even a quick google will bring up multiple studies about it and conversations on the link between testosterone and risk aversity. Personally, I would largely put it down to upbringing, where boys are taught to take the risks and win the prize whereas girls are taught to keep safe and avoid hurting themselves (to put it very basically).

TBH, if I were male I'd be a bit insulted by the suggestion that men put contraception at the same level of importance as taking out the bins..sounds a little too much like a 'Just so' story.

Well, I'm just being honest here. Possibly/probably due to my own circumstances, but I just don't take contraception all that seriously and I never have. Many men I know are similar - it may be something of a hangover from the "pregnancy is a woman's problem" attitude.

Emme wrote: »

Serial sleepers-around who don't wear a condom are putting themselves and their partners at risk of STDs. Always wear a condom unless you're in an established monogamous relationship.

Absolutely.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

wtf? I can understand how pregnancy would affect a woman's life more than a man's, but why would the child affect a woman's life more?

OK, well I was thinking specifically in terms of children between parents who aren't "a couple". The mother is usually the one, usually by choice, who looks after the child 24/7, which means that her life is in a great deal more upheaval than the man's (although on those occasions where he's given no choice about the residence of the child, you could argue that his life is in even more turmoil than her's)

Terodil wrote: »

I'm actually really offended by the above statements. Comparing responsible family planning to taking the trash out is just out there.

As I say, just being perfectly honest.

dearg lady

Corinthian, I can see your point about the difficulty in walkin away 'scot free' as in, someone could walk away, but there'll almost always be a price to pay on one way or another. But I don't think any posters on here have been suggesting that it doesn't affect men at all, just that it affects men less. By virtue of our make up, this is true.

CDfm

Pherekydes wrote: »

The female contraceptive (pill or injection) was percieved as female liberation because women could now engage in sex without fear of unwanted pregnancies. Men had been doing that since the dawn of time.

Some guys maybe but its really the minority and isn't mainstream.

Some relationship breakdowns are extreme and become so bitter you cant really categorize them and I imagine people are better off walking away.

Terodil

dearg lady wrote: »

it affects men less. By virtue of our make up, this is true.

Point in question.

I don't really think such relative statements make a lot of sense where we have no objective way of telling. I'm sure the ladies will say that they're more affected because they have to go through pregnancy and birth, the gentlemen will say they're more affected because of the 'double load' (assuming, for a second, the still prevalent model of wife at home + husband working). As long as neither of us experiences both sides, the whole discussion about who is impacted more is moot, and only serves to put down the other side.

BTW, I read this post mostly with long-term relationships in mind, whereas a lot of posters seem to be thinking about short-termers. Given the prevalence of STDs, I don't think anybody in their right mind would pass on the condoms, which would make injections redundant... so I assumed we'd be talking about relationships based on love and mutual trust.

dearg lady

Terodil wrote: »

Point in question.

I don't really think such relative statements make a lot of sense where we have no objective way of telling. I'm sure the ladies will say that they're more affected because they have to go through pregnancy and birth, the gentlemen will say they're more affected because of the 'double load' (assuming, for a second, the still prevalent model of wife at home + husband working). As long as neither of us experiences both sides, the whole discussion about who is impacted more is moot, and only serves to put down the other side.

Is this model still quite prevalent? I can honestly say I don't know any couples who adhere to this.

So based on the idea that both parents work, and everything is split equally(which is debatable obviously) in terms of housework and childcare. But still the woman has the 9 months of carrying the child, and all the lovely side effects that come with it, labour, and a couple of days in hospital, the possibilty of breastfeeding. In that sense I think it affects women more, but perhaps you could tell me what parts affect a man but not a woman or more than a woman?

CDfm

Yup -we have a gender debate on who is the better parent. This is the Rent-a-Womb vs womens proprietory rights to children debate.

You now have blended roles and the law hasn't caught up for political and other reasons.

Terodil

dearg lady wrote: »

Is this model still quite prevalent? I can honestly say I don't know any couples who adhere to this.

I do, although I personally would try not to follow it. I'm sure it depends also on the wealth of the family and the area/level of work... I would suppose this pattern to be more prevalent in moderately-off households, where part-time work is already harder to arrange (due to the specificity of the job), and one salary is enough to live on but not enough to be able to organise all-day childcare. It would obviously be less prevalent in poorer or extremely rich households, where either both need to work, the work is so exchangeable/splittable so as not to pose any organisational difficulties, or child care is a commodity.

dearg lady wrote: »

So based on the idea that both parents work, and everything is split equally(which is debatable obviously) in terms of housework and childcare. But still the woman has the 9 months of carrying the child, and all the lovely side effects that come with it, labour, and a couple of days in hospital, the possibilty of breastfeeding. In that sense I think it affects women more, but perhaps you could tell me what parts affect a man but not a woman or more than a woman?

I don't believe that your assumption is correct, see above. But even if it was, you are still trying to compare uncomparable things, and I'm not going to engage in a discussion about whether 1 day of labouring in hospital is worse than 1 day of worrying sick over your wife and your unborn child. a) it makes no sense and b) I see no point.

dearg lady

Terodil wrote: »

I don't believe that your assumption is correct, see above. But even if it was, you are still trying to compare uncomparable things, and I'm not going to engage in a discussion about whether 1 day of labouring in hospital is worse than 1 day of worrying sick over your wife and your unborn child. It makes no sense.

It's an assumption on which to base my point, that doesn't mean it actually happens. How childcare and work is actually split would be a discussion for a whole other thread

You may feel it makes no sense to argue, but most people would agree the whole pregnancy and labour area is more taxing on a woman. I know you won't argue the point, but if someone wants to put an argument forward I'd be genuninely interested to hear it.

Stheno

dearg lady wrote: »

Is this model still quite prevalent? I can honestly say I don't know any couples who adhere to this.

CSO Stats from 2008 show that 526,000 women out of a population of 3,514,900 total adult population are on home duties, compared to 6,700 men on home duties, so I'd say that the model of man works/woman is primary carer does still apply for many in the country. Anecdotally, amongst friends my own age who have children (I'm 36) and are part of a couple it would be pretty much a 50/50 split in terms of both working or one staying at home.

http://www.cso.ie/statistics/persons_by_sex_ecstatus.htm

dearg lady

nouggatti wrote: »

CSO Stats from 2008 show that 526,000 women out of a population of 3,514,900 total adult population are on home duties, compared to 6,700 men on home duties, so I'd say that the model of man works/woman is primary carer does still apply for many in the country. Anecdotally, amongst friends my own age who have children (I'm 36) and are part of a couple it would be pretty much a 50/50 split in terms of both working or one staying at home.

http://www.cso.ie/statistics/persons_by_sex_ecstatus.htm

I think you would need to compare this to families with both parents working to make a fair comparison

Stheno

dearg lady wrote: »

You may feel it makes no sense to argue, but most people would agree the whole pregnancy and labour area is more taxing on a woman. I know you won't argue the point, but if someone wants to put an argument forward I'd be genuninely interested to hear it.

Just going slightly off field here, but in a scenario where pregnancy happens within a stable relationship and the woman is at home, surely the pressure on the guy to provide for himself/his partner, and their children over the childhood of the children would be an equally if not more taxing pressure than pregnancy and labour?

There have been plenty of reports (iirc in the Indo mainly) where it has been noted that there is a rise in cases of depression amongst adult men, due to job losses and their subsequent inability to provide for their families.

dearg lady

nouggatti wrote: »

Just going slightly off field here, but in a scenario where pregnancy happens within a stable relationship and the woman is at home, surely the pressure on the guy to provide for himself/his partner, and their children over the childhood of the children would be an equally if not more taxing pressure than pregnancy and labour?

There have been plenty of reports (iirc in the Indo mainly) where it has been noted that there is a rise in cases of depression amongst adult men, due to job losses and their subsequent inability to provide for their families.

Ok, I can see very much so where you're coming from with that, I come from a one income family and there WAS a lot of stress on my father to provide for all of us. In recent years I think this model has been adhered to less and less, ie women workin through the pregnancy, few months off with baby, and back in. But I wonder, with the recession forcing job losses, if we can expect to see a lot more one income families again. perhaps.

Herbal Deity

shellyboo wrote: »

And when we're talking about crisis pregnancies (which we are, we're not talking about kids, or maintenance) the man CAN walk away.

Not with a clear conscience.

What you're saying is inherently misandric.

Can I ask you why you'd be with someone if you think there's even a tiny chance that they might walk away from you if you became pregnant?

It's all right to want to take responsibility for your own fate, but it's not ok to justify it based on an assumption that men are likely to act severely amorally in a crisis pregnancy situation.

Stheno

dearg lady wrote: »

I think you would need to compare this to families with both parents working to make a fair comparison

What do you mean?

My post there was to point out that a fairly large percentage of the adult female population are still on home duties as opposed to working.

Terodil

dearg lady wrote: »

You may feel it makes no sense to argue, but most people would agree the whole pregnancy and labour area is more taxing on a woman. I know you won't argue the point, but if someone wants to put an argument forward I'd be genuninely interested to hear it.

Well, in your what-if scenario, I think even I would be inclined to agree with it.

But it's a theoretical scenario only. We do not have that balance, for better or worse. The far more common scenario is wife at home and husband at work.

Now I've been arguing over and over again how important it is to ones mental health to work in a somewhat intellectually challenging environment that allows significant social interaction. We know how hard it is on women to stay at home and look after the kids. Being a housewife is by far not as recognised and rewarded (e.g. old-age-benefits!) as it should be. (And I need not mention under how much more duress men are if they decide to become housemen, that's for another thread )

So yes, housewives have a lot on their plate, bear the huge risk of dying inwardly from the lack of intellectual/social stimulus etc. etc

But the working men have equally important stress factors. If a dad sees his family responsibly *and* affectionately then he'll have to juggle the demands of the job, staying and possibly improving his position to increase economic safety for the family, and the emotional/time demands of the family, i.e. looking after the wife and kids. It's actually an impossibility for him because he will only see the kids for an hour or two at most, at night. It's a huge emotional stress on him to see the kids grow up and missing 90% of it.

And this is where we simply cannot compare it any more. What is worse, staying at home and minding the kids at the cost of intellectual withering or suffering from work stress and emotional drain because you cannot see your kids grow up properly.

Now you can go and switch men and women back and forth, the exact same would apply to a houseman/business woman couple with reversed roles. I don't care. The point is, if you were to look at things negatively, having kids is sh!t for all involved, and if one heap of sh!t is marginally higher then the other is marginally smellier.

Now of course most people would consider having kids as a massive improvement in their lives, but if so, I doubt any of these considerations would really come into play.

So my point still stands: Whatever way you look at it, comparisons are useless.

Terodil

Herbal Deity wrote: »

What you're saying is inherently misandric.

Can I ask you why you'd be with someone if you think there's even a tiny chance that they might walk away from you if you became pregnant?

It's all right to want to take responsibility for your own fate, but it's not ok to justify it based on an assumption that men are likely to act severely amorally in a crisis pregnancy situation.

Hold on a second, while I agree with those statements entirely with a view to some of the previous statements in this thread, I think you're just yelling at the wrong person at the moment

Shelly was talking about crisis pregnancies, which are, I assume, unwanted pregnancies from unstable or even non-existing relationships (e.g. ONSs). E.g. both contraceptives failed, either don't know the other's names/addresses etc.

But as I said above, I don't think injections are useful at all for such relationships so I don't think that argument applies here. We're talking about long-termers here, and your argument, Herbal, definitely has weight in *that* context.

Stheno

Terodil wrote: »

We're talking about long-termers here, and your argument, Herbal, definitely has weight in *that* context.

I don't think in fairness that everyone posting here regarding not trusting their bf in a relationship with this, would not trust their bf if an unplanned pregnancy arose.

Certainly in my case it's more to do with the "sure I can do it tomorrow" approach that my bf tends to use as his de facto approach to getting most things done, that would lead me not to use the male contraceptive injection as sole contraception as similiar to what Seamus pointed out, I'd be in the doctors the week before I needed to be, rather than risk that few hours that I might be late.

The Corinthian

dearg lady wrote: »

You may feel it makes no sense to argue, but most people would agree the whole pregnancy and labour area is more taxing on a woman.

So, in the case of the woman wanting to keep a child and the man not, nine months of pregnancy supersedes the value of the following 18 to 23 years of maintenance, to the point that the man has no say whatsoever?

nouggatti wrote: »

My post there was to point out that a fairly large percentage of the adult female population are still on home duties as opposed to working.

As opposed to being an non-salaried worker. I think it is a little offensive to suggest that they are not working.

Stheno

The Corinthian wrote: »

As opposed to being an non-salaried worker. I think it is a little offensive to suggest that they are not working.

That's CSO definition Categories include "at work" or "on home duties"

dearg lady

The Corinthian wrote: »

So, in the case of the woman wanting to keep a child and the man not, nine months of pregnancy supersedes the value of the following 18 to 23 years of maintenance, to the point that the man has no say whatsoever?

Are you suggesting that the woman wouldn't be contributing anything monetarily? Cos kids are damn expensive!

Pherekydes

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then why do many women have abortions? Not everyone would agree with your romantic appraisal of parenthood, I'm afraid.

What's a "romantic appraisal of parenthood"? Considering myself to not have been "essentially screwed for life"? That's just silly. And insulting to millions of parents. Do women who have abortions consider themselves to have been "essentially screwed for life"? What about the women who don't? You must realise most pregnancies go full term. Do they all have a romantic view of parenting?

CDfm wrote: »

.

But if you look at the stats it is based on 11000 absentees and you dont know why they are absent.

1800 were assessed as underpaying. Thats not the same as having gone missing.

The 1800 are part of the 11000. By definition they are 'absentee'. 'Absentee' means gone missing. The reasons for their absence are irrelevant.

Terodil

dearg lady wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the woman wouldn't be contributing anything monetarily? Cos kids are damn expensive!

Eh, no? The woman can force the man to pay for 20+ years without him having any say in it, plus quite possibly scar him emotionally by keeping the kid from him.

The Corinthian

dearg lady wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the woman wouldn't be contributing anything monetarily? Cos kids are damn expensive!

No, I am challenging your assertion that nine months of pregnancy can give someone the unilateral right to drastically affect the rest of the life of another human being.

As to women not contributing anything monetarily, that does happen, but it is another, far more complex discussion.

CDfm

Pherekydes wrote: »

The 1800 are part of the 11000. By definition they are 'absentee'. 'Absentee' means gone missing. The reasons for their absence are irrelevant.

It doesnt -it means not with mother and ceased contact.

The reason is relevant as if contact has ceased as the mother does not allow access that is very relevant IMHO.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, I am challenging your assertion that nine months of pregnancy can give someone the unilateral right to drastically affect the rest of the life of another human being.

As to women not contributing anything monetarily, that does happen, but it is another, far more complex discussion.

Is your point someone intentionally getting pregnant by deception?

The legal situation in Ireland is weird and we had a thread on marriage etc The Legal Position of Marriage in Ireland [Get yer latest thread titles here

The Corinthian

Pherekydes wrote: »

What's a "romantic appraisal of parenthood"? Considering myself to not have been "essentially screwed for life"? That's just silly. And insulting to millions of parents.

That's your opinion, your choice. The reality is not everyone shares it and not realizing this is pretty insulting to millions of others.

Do women who have abortions consider themselves to have been "essentially screwed for life"? What about the women who don't?

I don't think you understood what I wrote. The ones who have abortions are the ones who would consider themselves "essentially screwed for life" if they didn't have abortions.

You must realise most pregnancies go full term.

What's your point? Most is not all and the option exists for all women.

Pherekydes

CDfm wrote: »

It doesnt -it means not with mother and ceased contact.

That's just plain wrong. An absentee parent is one who is not actively parenting their child nor contributing financially. It doesn't mean 'not with mother'.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

Is your point someone intentionally getting pregnant by deception?

Actually it makes no difference if someone gets pregnant by deception.

Same with whether one uses condoms or not, be it a long term relationship or one-night stand it makes absolutely no difference if there is an unplanned pregnancy. Accidental, mutually decided or planned entrapment makes no difference in the eyes of the law.

Even in the case of relationships based on love and mutual trust where a couple have discussed and agreed not to have children, the woman can unilaterally renege on this agreement - PI periodically gets threads on this, so it's probably more common than you think.

I could argue that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only certain way of not falling into this situation if a man does want to father a child, except for the numerous cases of IVF donors that have been successfully sued for child maintenance. Indeed any ejaculation can prove suspect and even oral sex is no defence.

dearg lady

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, I am challenging your assertion that nine months of pregnancy can give someone the unilateral right to drastically affect the rest of the life of another human being.

As to women not contributing anything monetarily, that does happen, but it is another, far more complex discussion.

I really don't think I said that!! The final decision rests with the woman as she is the one carrying the child. Do I think that's fair, I really don't know is the answer. It seems unfair that a woman could keep a child that the man didn't want, equally unfair if a man could force a woman to terminate a pregnancy she wanted to continue with.

terodil, sorry I dunno how to do two quotes I do think fathers rights are massively lacking in this country, it's disgraceful actually.

Pherekydes

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't think you understood what I wrote. The ones who have abortions are the ones who would consider themselves "essentially screwed for life" if they didn't have abortions.

I don't think you understood what YOU wrote. Here it is (nothing about women having abortions):

The Corinthian wrote: »

...some poor smuck who may have gotten a woman pregnant from a one night stand or casual fling, never made any commitment yet is still essentially screwed for life.

The Corinthian

Pherekydes wrote: »

I don't think you understood what YOU wrote. Here it is (nothing about women having abortions):

You're not making any sense. You specifically cite "women who have abortions", quoting a passage where I am discussing this, and now are quoting a completely different passage that has nothing to do with abortion.

Pherekydes

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're not making any sense. You specifically cite "women who have abortions", quoting a passage where I am discussing this, and now are quoting a completely different passage that has nothing to do with abortion.

Yes. It's the first time you mentioned the "essentially screwed for life" phrase. That's where it all stems from.

The Corinthian

Pherekydes wrote: »

Yes. It's the first time you mentioned the "essentially screwed for life" phrase. That's where it all stems from.

I see that, but how it is connected to your question as to whether "women who have abortions consider themselves to have been essentially screwed for life" is beyond me.

Pherekydes

The Corinthian wrote: »

I see that, but how it is connected to your question as to whether "women who have abortions consider themselves to have been essentially screwed for life" is beyond me.

You brought up the "essentially screwed for life" term first and the "women who have abortions" first too, so you give us an answer.

The Corinthian

Pherekydes wrote: »

You brought up the "essentially screwed for life" term first and the "women who have abortions" first too, so you give us an answer.

What is the question? I genuinely have no idea what your point is.

dearg lady

nouggatti wrote: »

What do you mean?

My post there was to point out that a fairly large percentage of the adult female population are still on home duties as opposed to working.

You quoted it as a response to my post re traditional man at work, woman at home v both parents working. I was just pointing out it wasn't relevant to what I posted.

Stheno

dearg lady wrote: »

You quoted it as a response to my post re traditional man at work, woman at home v both parents working. I was just pointing out it wasn't relevant to what I posted.

Oh right, I edited my post to clarify what I was responding to.

And btw to do more than one quote, rather than hitting the quote button, hit the one beside it, with the + and the two '' symbols, you need to hit it for each post you want to quote, and then when you hit add reply it will populate all the quotes in your reply for you to answer

Herbal Deity

Terodil wrote: »

Hold on a second, while I agree with those statements entirely with a view to some of the previous statements in this thread, I think you're just yelling at the wrong person at the moment

Shelly was talking about crisis pregnancies, which are, I assume, unwanted pregnancies from unstable or even non-existing relationships (e.g. ONSs). E.g. both contraceptives failed, either don't know the other's names/addresses etc.

But as I said above, I don't think injections are useful at all for such relationships so I don't think that argument applies here. We're talking about long-termers here, and your argument, Herbal, definitely has weight in *that* context.

I thought that it was kind of obvious that one would take responsibility for their own contraception when not in a stable relationship. I didn't think that was being discussed at all here...

I don't like the implication that men are likely to act amorally in a crisis pregnancy situation. I don't think that if a man were to be responsible for contraception in a relationship, that he'd think, even subconsciously, "Ah sure, if worse comes to worst, I can always do a runner".

Perhaps there's a generational difference (as "it's the woman's problem" seems antiquated to me), or perhaps I'm just unique, but I consider matters of contraception to be extremely important, and were I on this male contraceptive injection, would not dream of having sex without a condom had I missed one.

The Corinthian

Herbal Deity wrote: »

I don't like the implication that men are likely to act amorally in a crisis pregnancy situation.

What I don't like is the implication that a man who does not want to be a father in a crisis pregnancy situation is amoral, while a woman who does not want to be a mother in a crisis pregnancy situation is still somehow moral.