Male Contraceptive Injections - Is this male libeeration

shellyboo

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

I'm not talking about a baby, I'm talking about a PREGNANCY. A man can walk away from a pregnancy. It's not until the child is born that he is legally responsible for it.

A woman cannot because it is occuring inside her body. She can't ignore it; she can't walk away. A man can. There are repercussions, yes, but he can physically walk away from the situation.

Telling me that a crisis pregnancy affects both genders equally is patently ridiculous. If my partner was in a horrific accident and ended up in a wheelchair, it would affect us BOTH - but it sure as hell wouldn't affect us equally, because I have the freedom to leave the situation should I so choose.

And yes, I am comparing a crisis pregnancy to a horrific accident, because for many couples, it is.

I have unlimited sympathy for men in crisis pregnancy situations, I really really do, especially when they trusted their partners to look after the contraception. I agree that men need more rights when it comes to their kids. I am on board with pretty much everything you have to say on that matter, but the fact remains is that a father's legal responsibility does not begin until after the child is born. So your argument about maintenance etc doesn't even apply here. We're talking about preventing pregnancy, not what happens afterwards.

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

I didn't say that. Point out to me where I said it doesn't affect men in any way. I said it affects them in a different way, and it affects them LESS.

The Corinthian wrote: »

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

I don't think that either. My point is that a man can walk away, since the baby isn't growing inside of him.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

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.

LOL. I am not misandric.

Asking me why I would be with someone if there was a chance they wouldn't stand by me if I accidentally got pregnant is akin to asking me why I leave the house in the morning when there's a chance I could get hit by a bus.

Accidents happen. Nobody ever expects them to happen to them, and nobody runs their relationships based on a worst-case scenario.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

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

I never said it was likely. I said it was possible.

I'm in no way talking about men deserting their children here, by the way. I'm talking about who has to deal with the immediate aftermath of a crisis pregnancy situation. And like it or not, the burden of that falls more on the woman than it does the man. Without any intention of ever shirking his responsibilities, a guy could very easily say "I need space to think about this" and head off for a couple of days, a week, a month, nine months, until he's ready to deal with it.

Herbal Deity

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

That's a very good point.

shellyboo

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

That's an excellent point, and I agree with you... but it has nothing to do with this thread. Would make a good discussion though.

Terodil

shellyboo wrote: »

I'm talking about who has to deal with the immediate aftermath of a crisis pregnancy situation. And like it or not, the burden of that falls more on the woman than it does the man. Without any intention of ever shirking his responsibilities, a guy could very easily say "I need space to think about this" and head off for a couple of days, a week, a month, nine months, until he's ready to deal with it.

I'm not sure I'd agree. Especially if we are talking about the *immediate* aftermath of the crisis pregnancy, i.e. the first couple of weeks when both partners struggle with it.

In the first couple of weeks the physical impact on the woman is low. Yes she may start feeling sick in the mornings, but that's transient.

So what we are talking about here is (more or less) purely psychological. And I don't buy your argument here Shelly, location does not come into the equation. It won't help a man to go away, it won't help him distance himself from the worry and the thoughts that he carries with him, wherever he is, at day or at night. Same as the woman actually. In fact, additionally to the worry, he may also blame himself for ruining the woman's life (following your train of thought), whereas the woman (again following your train of thought) may just think about herself and possibly the kid.

Of course it will depend massively on the man and the woman involved. Some people will be able to shrug it off, but that, again, applies to both.

The point I'm making, again, is not to paint either better or worse but the statement:

I said it affects them in a different way, and it affects them LESS.

does not make any sense.

CDfm

Terodil wrote: »

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.

Irish law does favour the woman and there is no enforcement of access orders in any practical way.There is enforcement of maintenance orders and the penalty is jail.

The Corinthian wrote: »

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

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.

There is an Irish case with a homosexual sperm donor who was sued for maintenance when the lesbian couple he donated to split up. He has been ordered to pay maintenance and his claim for access (even though agreed at outset) was denied by the court.

shellyboo

Terodil wrote: »

So what we are talking about here is (more or less) purely psychological. And I don't buy your argument here Shelly, location does not come into the equation. It won't help a man to go away, it won't help him distance himself from the worry and the thoughts that he carries with him, wherever he is, at day or at night. Same as the woman actually. In fact, additionally to the worry, he may also blame himself for ruining the woman's life (following your train of thought), whereas the woman (again following your train of thought) may just think about herself and possibly the kid.

Of course it's psychological. And while there are many, many men out there who are as caring as you would be, who'd feel just as panicked and awful as a woman would, who'd feel guilt and all the rest - there are also many men out there who are simply not like that.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Pregnancy is a physiological state that happens to women and women only. To suggest that it effects men to the exact same degree is totally preposterous to me.

CDfm

shellyboo wrote: »

Of course it's psychological. And while there are many, many men out there who are as caring as you would be, who'd feel just as panicked and awful as a woman would, who'd feel guilt and all the rest - there are also many men out there who are simply not like that.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Pregnancy is a physiological state that happens to women and women only. To suggest that it effects men to the exact same degree is totally preposterous to me.

Not at all - guys are affected if their partner has a miscarriage. Feel stressed by parenthood and panic about getting stuff right too.

In the same way some women are not maternal , smoke,drink and take drugs and end up with babies with foetal alcohol syndrome.

The difference is the woman has the womb and "hosts" the pregnancy for the 9 months but any adult can take care of the child once born.

There is a guy in Sweden at the moment trying to produce breastmilk

Swedish dad in bid for breast milk

Published: 2 Sep 09 17:49 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/21842/20090902/
Swedish father Ragnar Bengtsson, 26, has entered into an experiment that he hopes will help him breastfeed his future children.

On Tuesday, the Stockholm family man began stimulating his breasts with a pump in a bid to produce milk.

"Anything that doesn't do any harm is worth trying out. And if it works it could prove very important for men's ability to get much closer to their children at an early stage," Bengtsson told The Local.

His efforts are to be documented by Swedish TV8, with the first instalment scheduled to air at 9pm on Wednesday on the Aschberg show. Bengtsson also maintains a blog on the station's website, the title of which translates as: 'The Milkman - One Drop at a Time'.

Terodil

shellyboo wrote: »

Of course it's psychological. And while there are many, many men out there who are as caring as you would be, who'd feel just as panicked and awful as a woman would, who'd feel guilt and all the rest - there are also many men out there who are simply not like that.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Pregnancy is a physiological state that happens to women and women only. To suggest that it effects men to the exact same degree is totally preposterous to me.

Sorry for being pedantic here Shelly, but there is a difference between the actual degree of impact and the number of men who would feel the impact. They are not related. I agree that *some* men might be able to push it from their minds -- and that these might be slightly more in number than women, because of physiological reasons -- but claiming that it does not (i.e. cannot) affect men as much as women in general is just as preposterous to me

Edit/PS: And yes, 'exact same' sounds silly, which is why I was against such comparisons in the first place. It's not numbers being added or subtracted.

shellyboo

CDfm wrote: »

The difference is the woman has the womb and "hosts" the pregnancy for the 9 months but any adult can take care of the child once born.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Are you guys honestly claiming that the state of growing a baby inside of you has no discernible effect on women and women alone, psychologically or mentally? That every single thought and feeling which happens in pregnancy happens just as much, to the same degree, in men? Do you really and truly think that?

The Corinthian

shellyboo wrote: »

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Are you guys honestly claiming that the state of growing a baby inside of you has no discernible effect on women and women alone, psychologically or mentally? That every single thought and feeling which happens in pregnancy happens just as much, to the same degree, in men? Do you really and truly think that?

How about this - let's accept that a woman is far more affected by pregnancy than men. Secondly let's accept that there is an affect on men too. Thirdly we can safely accept that parenthood does not end with pregnancy.

Can we all agree on these three?

CathyMoran

Terodil wrote: »

In the first couple of weeks the physical impact on the woman is low. Yes she may start feeling sick in the mornings, but that's transient.

So what we are talking about here is (more or less) purely psychological. And I don't buy your argument here Shelly, location does not come into the equation. It won't help a man to go away, it won't help him distance himself from the worry and the thoughts that he carries with him, wherever he is, at day or at night. Same as the woman actually. In fact, additionally to the worry, he may also blame himself for ruining the woman's life (following your train of thought), whereas the woman (again following your train of thought) may just think about herself and possibly the kid.

Of course it will depend massively on the man and the woman involved. Some people will be able to shrug it off, but that, again, applies to both.

The point I'm making, again, is not to paint either better or worse but the statement:

does not make any sense.

The early stages of pregnancy are no joke, it can be not "just" morning sickness, you can get chronic fatigue, urgent need to go to the loo, mood swings...

CDfm wrote: »

Not at all - guys are affected if their partner has a miscarriage. Feel stressed by parenthood and panic about getting stuff right too.

Both of us were very badly affected by our multiple miscarriages, sure I had the extra hormones but that was the only difference. They were joint losses.

Personally I would not want my husband to take the male injection, the same way he did not want me to take the pill, if something happened we were always willing to accept a pregnancy.

CDfm

shellyboo wrote: »

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Are you guys honestly claiming that the state of growing a baby inside of you has no discernible effect on women and women alone, psychologically or mentally? That every single thought and feeling which happens in pregnancy happens just as much, to the same degree, in men? Do you really and truly think that?

Yup - women sit around and moan and groan and paint ceilings and gnaw on coal.

Guys on the other hand have to be responsable worry about getting more money, scrimping and saving , stopping going out to the pub bookies and all that stuff get rid of the boy racer and get a sensible family car . The point is that it is life changing and they do it for the baby and their partner.

shellyboo

Terodil wrote: »

I agree that *some* men might be able to push it from their minds -- and that these might be slightly more in number than women, because of physiological reasons -- but claiming that it does not (i.e. cannot) affect men as much as women in general is just as preposterous to me

That's all I'm saying. There are physiological issues at play here that have feck all to do with maintenance, or guilt, or responsibility - and that is that when a couple gets pregnant, one of them has to grow the baby. That person happens to be the woman. I'm not saying that women are morally superior to men when it comes to crisis pregnancies, that they're virtuous and men are bad... I'm saying that one person has the problem literally inside of their body, which makes it somewhat of a bigger issue to deal with. More immediate. More real. Not in a massive way, in a very tiny, subtle way.

And because of this very subtle, tiny distinction that has nothing to do with gender politics, or maintenance, or anything else... I would not put sole responsibility for contraception in the hands of my partner.

shellyboo

The Corinthian wrote: »

How about this - let's accept that a woman is far more affected by pregnancy than men. Secondly let's accept that there is an affect on men too. Thirdly we can safely accept that parenthood does not end with pregnancy.

Can we all agree on these three?

Totally. I never denied the second or third point though.

The Corinthian

shellyboo wrote: »

Totally. I never denied the second or third point though.

Grand so.

So given that parenting is not simply about pregnancy and men are affected too, how come men have absolutely no reproductive rights, but instead have legal parental obligations, while women have the right to choose to accept the legal parental obligations of both parents, long after pregnancy?

Terodil

The Corinthian wrote: »

Grand so.

So given that parenting is not simply about pregnancy and men are affected too, how come men have absolutely no reproductive rights, but instead have legal parental obligations, while women have the right to choose to accept the legal parental obligations of both parents, long after pregnancy?

Haven't we had that topic already?

I think nobody on this thread, either side, was happy with that situation.

I still disagree with you Shelly but I guess we'll never know the truth unless we swap bodies

CDfm

Guys have responsibilities and its often expressed in money terms and thats not fair.

Women have a lot more rights to choose, pregnancy or termination, involve the father or not.

I wonder how many guys would opt to go for injections especially if "she" was trying for a baby "he" didnt want.

EDIT: Surely thats the point of the male contraction device - fun without consequences but the dark side is controlling fertility especially for those not wanting to be parents?