When does a med student learn to do abortions?

[NEATOMD]

Just answer the question. Do I have a right to withdraw my tube?

I never saw the question....if you asked it before at all.

Hypothetically, you would have the right to disconnect that hypothetical tube. Of course, you could hypothetically do just about anything, hypothetically speaking of course. What's any of that matter to you though, since you claim to be more interested in staying practical?

That argument doesn't correlate to abortion well anyway. It would be more similar to the attempting to have your kidney removed from another person since a fetus is directly attached to the mothers blood stream (no, factories, machinery, or external tubes required). From the viewpoint of a fetus, your kidneys are its kidneys. And, you don't have the autonomy to take someones kidney's from them without their permission.

Further, you neglect the fact that a fetus is recieving its oxygen supply through its "dialysis machine". So, a more similar equivalent would be considering whether or not it would be feasible for you to suffocate that person while withdrawing your tube/ removing your kidney.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[NEATOMD]

Anyway, lets just agree to disagree about the whole thing since we're not changing anyone here's mind and the current debate is tangent to the purpose of the thread.

 

[trustwomen]

Anyway, lets just agree to disagree about the whole thing since we're not changing anyone here's mind and the current debate is tangent to the purpose of the thread.

Fair enough.

 

[solacecomes]

Sorry that I’m interjecting when an agreement has already been reached and sorry that this post is so long but bear with me, trustwomen:

There are many arguments you can make for abortion, but the "bodily autonomy" one is decidedly extreme even for pro-choicers.

1) If you consider the fetus a human being (your stipulation), the mother's right to bodily autonomy does not supercede the unborn child's natural right to life.

2) Your argument by analogy is invalid because there are a number of fundamental differences between a fetus and an adult on dialysis (who is attached to the general "you"):
a. the baby was product of your bodily autonomy since by voluntarily having sex (and therefore putting the fetus in the position to be on "dialysis"), you hold a greater level of responsibility or at least culpability to it (if you knock over a vase, you're still responsible for breaking it regardless of your intentions, i.e. it doesn’t matter if you meant to get pregnant or not.. and rape would be more like someone smashing the vase on you and thus not your fault). So agreeing to be put on dialysis for another person would only apply to pregnancy if you put that person on dialysis. And if you somehow directly effected that person's dialysis, then he/she would certainly sue you (and likely win) to be his/her source of dialysis if you were the only source available (like a mother is for her child, in your analogy). In the fetus' case, it is obviously unable to sue. But that doesn't mean it's just to abort it. In a just world, in either of these specific cases, your right to bodily autonomy would be inferior to the dependent’s right to life.
b. Taking the dialysis patient "off of you" (whatever that means) may not be murder since another person may be found, but aborting a fetus (if you consider it human) certainly is.

3) Lastly (and I admit this isn't a logical argument, but an emotional appeal), if you did something to someone to cause them (and you) 9 months of dialysis, wouldn't you want to follow through with it in order to completely heal that person (the other option being to kill that person), even if it infringed on your bodily autonomy? Again, abortion might be defended through a number of other arguments, but it's low for pro-abortionists to defend abortion by saying that a potential mother should have 9 months of freedom in trade for a life (assuming, as you said yourself, that the fetus is human).

You're probably right that most anti-abortion people here are too opinionated to try to understand your posts. But I also strongly suspect that the pro-abortionists haven't read or tried to fully understand the whiteandred posts either. At least, there haven't been any valid arguments posted.

 

[trustwomen]

At least, there haven't been any valid arguments posted.

Ouch, from either side?

Actually I consider bodily autonomy to be a fairly strong argument, but it isn't even my main reason for being pro-choice. As Panda correctly pointed out, I don't believe that a fetus is a person or that it has a right to life. (If a fetus has a right to life, I would argue that a dog or a cow has an even greater right to life as they can feel pain, have some level of awareness, and can live without using humans' bodies to do so.) The bodily autonomy argument is icing on the cake, i.e. even if a fetus does have a right to life it has no legal right to use any part of your body against your will in order to survive. If I did believe a fetus was a person, I would still be pro-choice (for the above reason) although I would probably judge women who choose abortion quite harshly (in the moral sense) and would not do abortions.

This thread is fairly drained of meaning at this point, I admit. I didn't think my earlier posts were hard to understand (except for the "reactionary" stuff on this page, which is complex and far less heartfelt). Certainly they spoke to a few people, unless they were all lying to me. There is relatively high turnaround on SDN (and I suspect that once my news comes back on Monday, I'll find another hobby and/or my anxiety levels will drop so I won't peruse med school forums anymore). This thread, and I, will vanish into obscurity fairly soon. I hope the OP learned something about how to get trained in abortion provision, and I hope that my stories and perspective have meant something.

 

[trustwomen]

But I also strongly suspect that the pro-abortionists haven't read or tried to fully understand the whiteandred posts either. At least, there haven't been any valid arguments posted.

Actually, I thought dante201 broke apart whiteandred's posts quite nicely.

whiteandred started from two flawed premises:

1) that we cannot prove a fetus is not a person (or, as he put it, "human life"). Actually, we have legal and moral standards for who is a living person that are fairly clear, and fetuses meet none of them.

2) that if a fetus is a person (or might be), we cannot justify killing it. In fact, there are many reasons we can justifiably kill someone who is unquestionably a person. They mainly revolve around the notion of self-defense (although war is a stretch of that definition considering who is being killed).

You can't argue his points while accepting these flawed premises.

OK. Let's stop now. Even I am feeling frustrated, and I usually have such endurance for these things...

 

[8744]

Maybe if I start making racial or homophobic epithets the moderators will close this thread.

I'm going to do it....I swear I will...just step back from the thread and keep yer' hands where I can see 'em....that's right...step back from the keyboard...good.....easy now....

 

[solacecomes]

(response to your first post, trustwomen)

Hm, well my previous post was aimed at showing why bodily autonomy isn’t a valid argument (right to life almost always trumps right to bodily autonomy). But yeah, I agree that debating about issues like this (especially over online forums) is unfortunately rather useless in the end.

But I do hope that (if you don’t post again) someone will take the banner up on your side and counter some of the points made. While I’m currently on the pro-life side, I’m all ears to logical reasoning. I’ve thought and have debated on this for some time now, even though I dislike debates, because I think it’s an important issue.

(response to your second post)

I don’t believe that dante201 ever responded to the posts.

1) If there are uncontroversial moral/philosophical standards to define a living person, can someone direct me to an unbiased source? This is an honest question, not rhetorical. I really don’t think an unbiased source exists. “Legal” sources don’t count since laws are made from arguments that have been won one way or the other through philosophy. Plus, Roe v Wade itself, as mentioned in the whiteandred post, says that there’s no way to conclusively decide.

2) The point that was made was not that “you can’t justifiably kill someone who is unquestionably a person,” but that you can’t kill an innocent person. And even if you consider the fetus “guilty”, what could it possibly have done that deserves a “death sentence”? (Bodily autonomy might work if someone addresses the above).

I appreciate your patience and do understand if you don’t want to respond. Everyone needs to sleep sometime. Maybe tomorrow? Understandably never – online debates are frustrating.

 

[Elysium]

I just want to say that this is the very first ever abortion thread on SDN and lots and lots got accomplished by starting a pissing match between two groups that are never, ever going to agree about the subject.

Fine job everyone! I'm renouncing my pro-choice stance. I hope that abortion becomes illegal in this country and that lots and lots and lots of women die from botched abortions and that tons of unwanted kids are born to dipshts that treat them like crap and continue the cycle! I think that will be divine justice! Divine!

Matter of fact, I'm going to sabatoge the efforts of women of all ages from getting contraception from my clinic (I work full time in a family planning clinic, ya see) so that we can get tons more folks in the welfare system. Like the patient I saw today that has been pregnant nine times and has six kids? Bring it on! No more birth control for her.

Keep it real, ya'll.

 

[EvoDevo]

I just want to say that this is the very first ever abortion thread on SDN and lots and lots got accomplished by starting a pissing match between two groups that are never, ever going to agree about the subject.

Fine job everyone! I'm renouncing my pro-choice stance. I hope that abortion becomes illegal in this country and that lots and lots and lots of women die from botched abortions and that tons of unwanted kids are born to dipshts that treat them like crap and continue the cycle! I think that will be divine justice! Divine!

Matter of fact, I'm going to sabatoge the efforts of women of all ages from getting contraception from my clinic (I work full time in a family planning clinic, ya see) so that we can get tons more folks in the welfare system. Like the patient I saw today that has been pregnant nine times and has six kids? Bring it on! No more birth control for her.

Keep it real, ya'll.

Stop being so bitter.

 

[bigfrank]

I just want to say that this is the very first ever abortion thread on SDN and lots and lots got accomplished by starting a pissing match between two groups that are never, ever going to agree about the subject.

Fine job everyone! I'm renouncing my pro-choice stance. I hope that abortion becomes illegal in this country and that lots and lots and lots of women die from botched abortions and that tons of unwanted kids are born to dipshts that treat them like crap and continue the cycle! I think that will be divine justice! Divine!

Matter of fact, I'm going to sabatoge the efforts of women of all ages from getting contraception from my clinic (I work full time in a family planning clinic, ya see) so that we can get tons more folks in the welfare system. Like the patient I saw today that has been pregnant nine times and has six kids? Bring it on! No more birth control for her.

Keep it real, ya'll.

Thank you for the insight into the workings of a Liberal Mind. You can solve all problems via: abortion, taxation, and self-deprecation.

 

[8744]

And I just want to point out that as a conservative if I advocated abortion as a way to decrease the number of minority and other poor children who would one day grow up to be criminals or welfare bums you'd accuse me, with some justification, of being a bigot.

 

[8744]

"Abortion: Thinning the ranks of the poor in a socially acceptable manner."

 

[OzDDS]

New topic:

Men's reproductive rights.. (or lack thereof)


http://www.newswithviews.com/Sacks/glenn35.htm

http://www.ejfi.org/family/family-69.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8123-1200225,00.html

any thoughts?

 

[Flea girl]

New topic:

Men's reproductive rights.. (or lack thereof)


http://www.newswithviews.com/Sacks/glenn35.htm

http://www.ejfi.org/family/family-69.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8123-1200225,00.html

any thoughts?

There is something new called a CONDOM, that men can use if they do not want to father a child. Something a bit longlasting is called a VASECTOMY that also can be used to prevent father a child. Seriously, when a man chooses NOT to wear a condom, I believe at that point he has made his choice. Now if he did wear a condom and that broke(or whatever), then that would be a different story.

 

[OzDDS]

There is something new called a CONDOM, that men can use if they do not want to father a child. Something a bit longlasting is called a VASECTOMY that also can be used to prevent father a child. Seriously, when a man chooses NOT to wear a condom, I believe at that point he has made his choice. Now if he did wear a condom and that broke(or whatever), then that would be a different story.

What if the girlfriend/partner told the guy that she would not have sex with a condom.. and that she promised that everything was ok, because she 1) was unable to have a child and/or 2) was on the pill and 3) if she did get preggers then she would "take care of it".

Then gets pregnant.. and then demands child support?

Even with the condom discussion.. do you know the failure rate for condoms is much greater than for proper course of oral contraception. not to mention the many many many other forms of birth control that are available to women.. IUD, implant, etc etc... What choice do men really have? "keep it in their pants?" some might say.. well, the same could be said for women.. not a real answer to the problem of inequality in these issues.

a shrewd peice of lambskin/latex is all men have.

Not only that.. but just a little known fact.
vasectomy is more Permanent than a female getting her tubes ligated... as after the procedure the male's body begins to produce antibodies to their sperm in effect rendering them Permanently sterile even after physical reversal of the tubes.. (not so in women).

 

[OzDDS]

Now if he did wear a condom and that broke(or whatever), then that would be a different story.

so, do you believe that if he did his part and chose to wear a condom.. and it fails.. then he should be able to have equal choice to not be a father?

 

[Flea girl]

vasectomy is more Permanent than a female getting her tubes ligated... as after the procedure the male's body begins to produce antibodies to their sperm in effect rendering them Permanently sterile even after physical reversal of the tubes.. (not so in women).

Not so, my best friends husband recently had his vas reversed successfully They now are the proud parents of a 5 month old baby girl! Oh wait are you going to tell me how much easier and cheaper a tubal is too?!! Both of those options are CONSIDERED PERMANAT FORM OF BC. Look, it is a man's choice to have sex with a condom. I am sorry to say not NOT once have I heard that the girl would NOT have SEX with a condom. Now I hear how the boyfriend "just don't like it". So, what I tell my patients (both male and female) NO CONDOM=NO SEX. I feel it protects both parties not only from pregnancy but from STDs. Basically, if you do not want kids(both male and female) protect yourself. Here is a different case, I had a patient that her partner had told her he had a VAS, needless to say she got pregnant and her partner had lied. So, should she sue him?

 

[Flea girl]

so, do you believe that if he did his part and chose to wear a condom.. and it fails.. then he should be able to have equal choice to not be a father?

Look, I seriously think that both parties are liable. My personal take on this is that people should be in committed relationships when they have sex. Now in reality, this is not always the case. If two people are in an open and honest relationship these things should be discused. However, this world is not perfect, my advice is always CYA. On a differnt topic, my dream is that one day men will be able to carry children! Just like in the movie Junior. I think that perspective would make a world of differnce on so many levels .

 

[trustwomen]

Not only that.. but just a little known fact.
vasectomy is more Permanent than a female getting her tubes ligated... as after the procedure the male's body begins to produce antibodies to their sperm in effect rendering them Permanently sterile even after physical reversal of the tubes.. (not so in women).

This is not a little-known fact. This is a full-out fiction.

 

[dnw826]

This is not a little-known fact. This is a full-out fiction.

I agree. I am an andrologist and I have never heard such bologna.

 

[Flea girl]

one of my friends had a vasectomy at the tender age of 21. he had to basically beg the doctors to perform it because they said he was too young to make that decision. he came from a pretty difficult background and just didn't want to have children.

fast forward a few years. he's dating another friend of mine. she gets pregnant. he freaks, saying she must have cheated on him. she denies any cheating. many fights ensue...after a lot of soul searching they decide to abort the baby. the day of the appointment, they go to the hospital and on the way in, both turn to each other and say they can't do it and they want to have the baby. they ended up getting married and having the baby.

fast forward two more years-she's pregnant again with their second child. apparently the vasectomy either wasn't performed correctly, it didn't take, or somehow his bits grew back together. (by the by, they're doing incrediby well as a family).

The vasectomies that I have assisted on(30), we always sent the vas def to path(to confirm that that was the vas) as well as tell the pt to come back in 2 months so that the pt could give a sperm sample to get a sperm count, again to confirm that the pt is sterile. Also, it can take 15-20 ejaculations or 2 months before the pt is truely sterile. Always warned the pt that if they have sex b/f getting the zero sperm count, they still could have viable sperm.

 

[dnw826]

I just want to say that this is the very first ever abortion thread on SDN and lots and lots got accomplished by starting a pissing match between two groups that are never, ever going to agree about the subject.

Fine job everyone! I'm renouncing my pro-choice stance. I hope that abortion becomes illegal in this country and that lots and lots and lots of women die from botched abortions and that tons of unwanted kids are born to dipshts that treat them like crap and continue the cycle! I think that will be divine justice! Divine!

Matter of fact, I'm going to sabatoge the efforts of women of all ages from getting contraception from my clinic (I work full time in a family planning clinic, ya see) so that we can get tons more folks in the welfare system. Like the patient I saw today that has been pregnant nine times and has six kids? Bring it on! No more birth control for her.

Keep it real, ya'll.

Can I join you in your crusade? I think that we should also ban clothes hangers, or maybe just make it so that only plastic ones are allowed to be manufactured/owned. My mom's in jail. Maybe she should have another baby since she's only on tons of meth and the prison system would probably be pretty good at raising a kid. Or if it's put into foster care (b/c our foster/adoption system ROCKS), it would surely understand that it had to be born and that that's an awesome life to live where nobody loves it or treats you like a human. Right? I mean, we are supposed to reproduce like rabbits according to all the pro-lifers I have ever talked to, so who cares if your kid will have a tail and be locked in the basement, beaten and raped by their father (who so happens to be their grandfather and/or uncle)? The fact is that they are a miracle of life.

Bring it on, flames.

 

[dnw826]

The vasectomies that I have assisted on(30), we always sent the vas def to path(to confirm that that was the vas) as well as tell the pt to come back in 2 months so that the pt could give a sperm sample to get a sperm count, again to confirm that the pt is sterile. Also, it can take 15-20 ejaculations or 2 months before the pt is truely sterile. Always warned the pt that if they have sex b/f getting the zero sperm count, they still could have viable sperm.

Or even after they come in with a zero count. I've seen it happen.

Counts and analyses can be botched, or just not handled correctly. I have seen several counts with only a "few" sperm in them after the male has had a vasectomy.

Pathology does andrology, too? We had our own seperate department.

 

[Flea girl]

Or even after they come in with a zero count. I've seen it happen.

Counts and analyses can be botched, or just not handled correctly. I have seen several counts with only a "few" sperm in them after the male has had a vasectomy.

Pathology does andrology, too? We had our own seperate department.

Very true, I was just stating what we did. Again the only form of BC that is 100% is abstinance(sp?). No, vas goes to path, sperm goes somewhere else. My attending told me a story about a case when the guy had been 5 years out from the vas and got his wife pregnant. Also on we had a pt who had a tubal, and got pregnant. Again no method is perfect except the one noted above.

 

[trustwomen]

And I just want to point out that as a conservative if I advocated abortion as a way to decrease the number of minority and other poor children who would one day grow up to be criminals or welfare bums you'd accuse me, with some justification, of being a bigot.

I, in turn, want to point out that if a liberal advocated abortion for these reasons I would accuse him/her of the same thing. In fact, I'd be even more mad, because I would have expected better of them.

I suspect, however, that the post was a joke.

 

[bigfrank]

There is something new called a CONDOM, that men can use if they do not want to father a child. Something a bit longlasting is called a VASECTOMY that also can be used to prevent father a child. Seriously, when a man chooses NOT to wear a condom, I believe at that point he has made his choice. Now if he did wear a condom and that broke(or whatever), then that would be a different story.

How funny!!!

Only a liberal pro-lifer would have the audacity to tell men to wear a condom as "his choice."

I personally agree with you and would like to tell the women out there to wear a condom themselves, diaphragm, take an OC pill, or just close their legs if they don't want to get pregnant.

Sheesh. Unbelievably idiotic logic Flea.

 

[OzDDS]

Not so, my best friends husband recently had his vas reversed successfully They now are the proud parents of a 5 month old baby

Here is a different case, I had a patient that her partner had told her he had a VAS, needless to say she got pregnant and her partner had lied. So, should she sue him?

regarding your first point. Not sure referencing your "best friends' husband's expereince" (one person) is adequate proof.
Sorry.. I didnt mean antibodies were present in 100% of men who had undergone vasectomys. but it does happen in up to 50-60% of vasectomized men. Do some research..

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16263006&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=12185101&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=15193483&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum


Both tubal ligation and vasectomy are both marketed as permanent birth control procedures.. if some person wanted a reversal.. it has been known that in men reversal .. although physically easier procedure is much less effective in reversing fertility than it is in women.


regarding your 2nd point: If he had lied to her and told her she didnt need to use birth control. Because he was sterile when in fact he had never had the procedure... Then YES!! I do think she should be able to sue him.

 

[OzDDS]

Look, I seriously think that both parties are liable. My personal take on this is that people should be in committed relationships when they have sex. Now in reality, this is not always the case. If two people are in an open and honest relationship these things should be discused. However, this world is not perfect, my advice is always CYA. On a differnt topic, my dream is that one day men will be able to carry children! Just like in the movie Junior. I think that perspective would make a world of differnce on so many levels .

agreed!

 

[OzDDS]

How funny!!!

Only a liberal pro-lifer would have the audacity to tell men to wear a condom as "his choice."

I personally agree with you and would like to tell the women out there to wear a condom themselves, diaphragm, take an OC pill, or just close their legs if they don't want to get pregnant.

Sheesh. Unbelievably idiotic logic Flea.

agreed

 

[Flea girl]

How funny!!!

Only a liberal pro-lifer would have the audacity to tell men to wear a condom as "his choice."

I personally agree with you and would like to tell the women out there to wear a condom themselves, diaphragm, take an OC pill, or just close their legs if they don't want to get pregnant.

Sheesh. Unbelievably idiotic logic Flea.

OKAY CAN YOU EVEN READ?!! wHAT DID I SAY ! I AM AMAZED THAT SIMPLE MINDED FOOLS ONLY LIKE TO HEAR/SEE WHAT THEY WANT. GET OVER YOUR SELF! WHAT YOU ARE TELLING ME IS THAT IT IS NOT YOUR CHOICE TO WEAR A CONDOM?!! WHO THE H?LL IS IT THEN?!! WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO WAS IF THEN MAN/BOY DOES NOT WANT A CHILD WRAP HIS PENIS! GET OVER YOURSELF! READ MY OTHER POST, I SAID THAT THE RESPONIBLITY IS A TWO WAY STREET! LET ME GUESS DO YOU ALSO THINK WOMAN SHOULD NOT BE DOTORS TOO? SERIOUSLY GET A LIFE! READ MY OTHER POST BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR FOOL MOUTH! YOU TRUELY TALK ONLY TO HEAR YOUR SELF! I TRUELY PITY YOUR PATIENTS! I BELIEVE YOU GET OFF ON TRYING TO BELITTLE OTHER PEOPLE BELEIFS. PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE A SHAME ON THE FIELD OF MEDICINE.

 

[Flea girl]

regarding your first point. Not sure referencing your "best friends' husband's expereince" (one person) is adequate proof.
Sorry.. I didnt mean antibodies were present in 100% of men who had undergone vasectomys. but it does happen in up to 50-60% of vasectomized men. Do some research..

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16263006&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=12185101&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=15193483&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum


Both tubal ligation and vasectomy are both marketed as permanent birth control procedures.. if some person wanted a reversal.. it has been known that in men reversal .. although physically easier procedure is much less effective in reversing fertility than it is in women.


regarding your 2nd point: If he had lied to her and told her she didnt need to use birth control. Because he was sterile when in fact he had never had the procedure... Then YES!! I do think she should be able to sue him.

When did I disagee with your about the antibody theory? Do your research, in regards to safety, costs, & risks, a vas is the choice. AGAIN LIKE I SAID THESE METHODS YOU BE UTLIZED IF THEY WANT PERMANENT BC! People please readbefore you post!

 

[Flea girl]

How funny!!!

I personally agree with you and would like to tell the women out there to wear a condom themselves, diaphragm, take an OC pill, or just close their legs if they don't want to get pregnant.

Sheesh. Unbelievably idiotic logic Flea.

Shesh Frank, only a tight-a$$ conservative would say to woman to keep their legs closed! You are the one with the idiotic logic. Let me guess, is this what you tell the women you date? That you do not want to wear a condom but you do not want ot be a father but they are the ones that need to be on BC or keep their legs close? Man, you must get alot of dates! I mean that with so much sarcasm, since you can not pick up on things.

 

[Ypo.]

A really good way to kill threads is to move them to forums that are scarcely perused.

 

[OzDDS]

Shesh Frank, only a tight-a$$ conservative would say to woman to keep their legs closed! You are the one with the idiotic logic. Let me guess, is this what you tell the women you date? That you do not want to wear a condom but you do not want ot be a father but they are the ones that need to be on BC or keep their legs close? Man, you must get alot of dates! I mean that with so much sarcasm, since you can not pick up on things.

I think he just ment that he thinks its silly to tell people to "just keep it in their pants" or to "just keep their legs closed".. and that that sort of silly talk is ineffective from both sides of the equation.

Re read franks post:"I personally agree with you and would like to tell the women out there to wear a condom themselves, diaphragm, take an OC pill, or just close their legs if they don't want to get pregnant"

Dont know about you.. but I pick up a thing called sarcasm when I read that!

chill out!

 

[NEATOMD]

Ignore this post.

 

[Flea girl]

I think he just ment that he thinks its silly to tell people to "just keep it in their pants" or to "just keep their legs closed".. and that that sort of silly talk is ineffective from both sides of the equation.

Re read franks post:"I personally agree with you and would like to tell the women out there to wear a condom themselves, diaphragm, take an OC pill, or just close their legs if they don't want to get pregnant"

Dont know about you.. but I pick up a thing called sarcasm when I read that!

chill out!

Look, I am chill. I just hate it when people do not read post throughly before they post a response. I do not believe that said for people to keep their legs closed or keep their pants on. I think people should take responsibility for their sexual actions. What is wrong with that? Again, I will spell it out..I think that both men and woman should protect themselves when it comes to sex. If they do not want a baby or an std they should protect themselves. That way everyone is covered. Whether it be a man being lied to about a woman being on the pill or a woman being lied to about a man having a vas. I will put in the disclaimer, accidents do happen, that's life. So, since you are so bent on male repro rights, do you support ab? Since, that is what started this debate. You feel that males should have the right to decide whether or not to be forced to have a child or pay child support. So, that would mean you support ABs then right? Otherwise, what would be your solution to this problem?

 

[OzDDS]

1) I think people should take responsibility for their sexual actions.

2) I think that both men and woman should protect themselves when it comes to sex. If they do not want a baby or an std they should protect themselves. That way everyone is covered.

3) do you support ab?

4) You feel that males should have the right to decide whether or not to be forced to have a child or pay child support.

1) agreed

2) agreed

3) Yes

4) I believe that 1.. in the case of paternity fraud. Men should be able to leave the wife and children that are not his that he was duped into supporting.. and that he should be able to be re-imbursed to some extint for damages. and 2.. in the case that the female partner lies to the husband about being on birth control and/or tell's their partner they do not like condoms (men's ONLY option.. an unreliable one at that).. and women that promise their partner that they understand that he is not interested in becoming a father from the getgo and that they will take care of any accidents. Then later come to find out they never were on the pill in the first place and became pregnant. I believe that the father should have the right to relenquish all rights and responsiblities to that child.

 

[Flea girl]

.. in the case of paternity fraud. Men should be able to leave the wife and children that are not his that he was duped into supporting.. and that he should be able to be re-imbursed to some extint for damages. and 2.. in the case that the female partner lies to the husband about being on birth control and/or tell's their partner they do not like condoms (men's ONLY option.. an unreliable one at that).. and women that promise their partner that they understand that he is not interested in becoming a father from the getgo and that they will take care of any accidents. Then later come to find out they never were on the pill in the first place and became pregnant. I believe that the father should have the right to relenquish all rights and responsiblities to that child.

You know what I actually agree with you to a certain extent. The problem is that the case you describe is not as frequent as the father of the child, just taking off and not ever paying a cent of child support. I think sometimes people actually start thinking that what they see on Jerry Springer is reality. Not that what you have said never happens, I think the other scenario is more common.

 

[OzDDS]

You know what I actually agree with you to a certain extent. The problem is that the case you describe is not as frequent as the father of the child, just taking off and not ever paying a cent of child support. I think sometimes people actually start thinking that what they see on Jerry Springer is reality. Not that what you have said never happens, I think the other scenario is more common.

Yea.. same. I agree with you. But I do think that men who are put in those situations should have form of support. And should have options equal to a woman's options in those situations.

The "roe vs wade for men" case simply seeks to give those similarly situated men the option to relinquish all rights and responsiblities to the child.

This would not apply to men who were just being careless.. this is for men who men who were for the most part hard working honest men who were lied to and duped in to supporting kids they never wanted.

 

[Flea girl]

Yea.. same. I agree with you. But I do think that men who are put in those situations should have form of support. And should have options equal to a woman's options in those situations.

The "roe vs wade for men" case simply seeks to give those similarly situated men the option to relinquish all rights and responsiblities to the child.

This would not apply to men who were just being careless.. this is for men who men who were for the most part hard working honest men who were lied to and duped in to supporting kids they never wanted.

The only problem though, is that there are some men out there that would take advantage of that. Basically, the whole thing turns into a she said vs he said. So, there lies the problem. How do you prove that the woman lied or if the man is lying? I really do not mean to be a pill but it is more often the man that leaves the woman high and dry when they find out that there is a pregnancy. I feel that a law like that would just leave an opening for many men who no longer wants to pay child support. Don't get me wrong, I do not think that all men would but I have a feeling quite a few would. I am also not saying that all women are innocent either. The bottom line is that it takes TWO people to make a baby and BOTH parties should take responsibility for their actions, not leave it up to the other person.

 

[OzDDS]

1) How do you prove that the woman lied or if the man is lying?

2) I really do not mean to be a pill but it is more often the man that leaves the woman high and dry when they find out that there is a pregnancy.

1) Just as we have pre-nup agreements, maybe we can have law firms write up pre-coital contracts. (nothing beats the massey pre-coit)


2) This is a side note.. but it is usually women that initiate divorce. Women are more likely to plan for divorce saving/spending/redirecting funds into her name for after the split. Leaving the man high and dry.

point is.. Both men and women are likely to do all sorts of things when they feel a loss of power or control.. The only thing we can do is communicate what we want out of a relationship to the other party. If they agree and follow through with what they promise.. then all is fine. If they agree (but lie and cheat) and dont' really mean what they say. Then there's trouble..

I just think that men should have at least somewhat closer to the level of control that women have in these issues.

How do you feel about manditory DNA testing at birth for all fathers who want to be able to put their name on the birth certificate?

 

[Flea girl]

1) Just as we have pre-nup agreements, maybe we can have law firms write up pre-coital contracts. (nothing beats the massey pre-coit)


2) This is a side note.. but it is usually women that initiate divorce. Women are more likely to plan for divorce saving/spending/redirecting funds into her name for after the split. Leaving the man high and dry.

How do you feel about manditory DNA testing at birth for all fathers who want to be able to put their name on the birth certificate?

I find that what you state in #2 is pretty inaccurate. I have had friends that would prove to you otherwise. Now, if you have the research to back it up, I might me swayed but I think it is usually the man that leaves the woman high and dry. You know the story, man decides to trade in the older model for a younger one and you know the rest of the story. I have very rarely have I heard a woman doing that to a man. Sorry, just can't buy that one. No truthfully I have no problem about the whole DNA testing thing but now you have to worry about the controls and accurancy of the labs and handling the DNA. Who gets sued if they screw that up? And who is going to pay for the DNA testing? There is no way a hospital would incorporate that into the bill...too much liability, on so many levels. Unfortunately, man will never be on equal footing with woman in regards to pregnancy, b/c men can not carry the child. So, sorry I can't agree that men should be on equal footing with woman on that issue. Women are the ones stuck giving birth not the men. However, that may change one, I have been thinking about going into REI and developing ways for men to be able to carry a pregnancy(just like in the movie JUNIOR). Maybe then the playing field would be leveled.

 

[NEATOMD]

Women are the ones stuck giving birth not the men. However, that may change one, I have been thinking about going into REI and developing ways for men to be able to carry a pregnancy(just like in the movie JUNIOR). Maybe then the playing field would be leveled.

Oddly enough, I thought about this same thing. It would make sense too, this way the man could carry the baby half the pregnancy and the woman the other, which I thought would be kind of fair. Then I realized that it wouldn't work out so well because people would be arguing over who gets to carry the fetus the first half. The problem would be that the one who does the second half would have to lug around more weight and would have to go through the delivery...

you just can't win for losing

 

[bigfrank]

OKAY CAN YOU EVEN READ?!! wHAT DID I SAY ! I AM AMAZED THAT SIMPLE MINDED FOOLS ONLY LIKE TO HEAR/SEE WHAT THEY WANT. GET OVER YOUR SELF! WHAT YOU ARE TELLING ME IS THAT IT IS NOT YOUR CHOICE TO WEAR A CONDOM?!! WHO THE H?LL IS IT THEN?!! WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO WAS IF THEN MAN/BOY DOES NOT WANT A CHILD WRAP HIS PENIS! GET OVER YOURSELF! READ MY OTHER POST, I SAID THAT THE RESPONIBLITY IS A TWO WAY STREET! LET ME GUESS DO YOU ALSO THINK WOMAN SHOULD NOT BE DOTORS TOO? SERIOUSLY GET A LIFE! READ MY OTHER POST BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR FOOL MOUTH! YOU TRUELY TALK ONLY TO HEAR YOUR SELF! I TRUELY PITY YOUR PATIENTS! I BELIEVE YOU GET OFF ON TRYING TO BELITTLE OTHER PEOPLE BELEIFS. PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE A SHAME ON THE FIELD OF MEDICINE.

Did you think that all capital letters would make your illogical points more valid?

When one person has to resort to "yelling," it seems they may have either lost a grip on reality or lost the argument; perhaps both.

 

[dnw826]

1) agreed

2) agreed

3) Yes

4) I believe that 1.. in the case of paternity fraud. Men should be able to leave the wife and children that are not his that he was duped into supporting.. and that he should be able to be re-imbursed to some extint for damages. and 2.. in the case that the female partner lies to the husband about being on birth control and/or tell's their partner they do not like condoms (men's ONLY option.. an unreliable one at that).. and women that promise their partner that they understand that he is not interested in becoming a father from the getgo and that they will take care of any accidents. Then later come to find out they never were on the pill in the first place and became pregnant. I believe that the father should have the right to relenquish all rights and responsiblities to that child.

The problem here is PROVING that they lied to the man. Also if man's ONLY choice is to wear a condom, can't he just say "No, thanks", I'll only stick it in if it's wearing a raincoat? A little self control should suffice.

 

[dnw826]

I, in turn, want to point out that if a liberal advocated abortion for these reasons I would accuse him/her of the same thing. In fact, I'd be even more mad, because I would have expected better of them.

I suspect, however, that the post was a joke.

Have you read the book Freakonomics? Very interesting about how legalizing abortion can be linked (in the study) to the decrease in crime. Makes you think...Maybe abortion can be a good thing, right? If it's available, think of all the advantages (and I'm a liberal).

 

[Flea girl]

Did you think that all capital letters would make your illogical points more valid?

When one person has to resort to "yelling," it seems they may have either lost a grip on reality or lost the argument; perhaps both.

Actually, that was reserved for people who have a hard time reading things acurately. Wanted to make it a bit easier for you to read since you seem to have a hard time with that . Just trying to help a brother out. Sorry to inform you again, my grip on reality is not lost, I think you have proved that you have lost yours. Since you seem to have difficultly reading my posts correctly. I kinda noticed that you did not even respond to anything that I wrote. Oh, by the way, I did NOT lose the debate . Not even close.

 

[aphistis]

K, folks, if the only thing you're contributing to a thread is "I'm not wrong, you're wrong!", take the hint that it's probably time to find another pasture to graze.

 

[OzDDS]

I find that what you state in #2 is pretty inaccurate. I have had friends that would prove to you otherwise. Now, if you have the research to back it up, I might me swayed but I think it is usually the man that leaves the woman high and dry.

No truthfully I have no problem about the whole DNA testing thing but now you have to worry about the controls and accurancy of the labs and handling the DNA. Who gets sued if they screw that up? And who is going to pay for the DNA testing? There is no way a hospital would incorporate that into the bill...too much liability, on so many levels. Unfortunately, man will never be on equal footing with woman in regards to pregnancy, b/c men can not carry the child.

So, sorry I can't agree that men should be on equal footing with woman on that issue. Women are the ones stuck giving birth not the men. However, that may change one, I have been thinking about going into REI and developing ways for men to be able to carry a pregnancy(just like in the movie JUNIOR). Maybe then the playing field would be leveled.

Well.. now I'm sorry to be a pill.. but "everyone" has a "friend" that has done x or y that defies the norm. You haven't provided any proof either for that matter. But I believe on average.. most men initiate marriages and most women end them. I have read this.. and I will try and find statistics on this and get back to you.

Men will never be on equal footing.. your right.. that is why they are attempting to put forth legistation to give men "some" form of control in the event that they have a lieing woman on their hands. (does happen sometimes)

I agree with you on the complications of manditory DNA testing.. but I would at least make it a widely available option and let it be more marketed because seriously I think it would prevent a lot of the serious complications of paternity fraud before they become too great.