Texas Passes Bill to Require Sonograms Before Abortions

[^_^ 5,021]

be real sure - just ask for a bj instead.

Eh, no sharp teeth in the ####### make it a much more pleasant environment.

[eekee 182]

Multiple barriers. The pill, the condom and gobs of spermicidal lube. Get as close to 100% as possible without having to cum on her stomach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spermicide

Spermicical lube... allergic irritation, increased risk of HIV, increased chance of UTIs, yeast infection, and everything else that is totally fun. Yeah, no thanks. Doctors and other health care professionals have been recommending against using it for years.

[^_^ 5,021]

Then just use a lot of regular Astroglide. Proven to reduce motility. A good supplement on top of the other methods.

Of course, there is always the bj as Charles suggested.

Edited May 10, 2011 by \

[Fandango 1,439]

as I said, as long as it's solely the woman's choice of what happens to the child, then it's 99% her responsibility to make sure she doesn't get pregnant.

Until men have a say at conception. Until men have equal rights under the law over the mother, then it's the woman's responsibility almost completely.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but the way you're trying to say it is ridiculous.

If a man doesn't want to 'lose control' over having a say, he should be more concerned at conception. Ergo, it's NOT just the 'woman's responsibility' to ensure not getting pregnant.

I say I understand your point because I do think men get the sh!t end of the stick...let's say the man wants the baby, the woman doesn't. It seems wrong that the woman can just kill the unborn child, and the man has no say in it.

So, to avoid that complication, it's a 50/50 split as far as responsibility with conception.

[^_^ 5,021]

So, to avoid that complication, it's a 50/50 split as far as responsibility with conception.

So both husband and wife have to wrap their penises in saran wrap?

Edited May 10, 2011 by \

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If pregnancies could be carried to term outside the womans body (which currently isn't possible) then men would get a say.

As only women can get pregnant, men can't have a say without claiming a level of ownership over the woman's body. That is surely a form of sexual slavery.

[anya-D 8]

A lot of people still have a steriotype od who seeks abortion and why - here is a very good research I found gives very good answer...finally.

[Zero Sum 305]

I understand the point you're trying to make, but the way you're trying to say it is ridiculous.

If a man doesn't want to 'lose control' over having a say, he should be more concerned at conception. Ergo, it's NOT just the 'woman's responsibility' to ensure not getting pregnant.

I say I understand your point because I do think men get the sh!t end of the stick...let's say the man wants the baby, the woman doesn't. It seems wrong that the woman can just kill the unborn child, and the man has no say in it.

So, to avoid that complication, it's a 50/50 split as far as responsibility with conception.

I get the responsibility part. But when we guys can carry a fetus to term, then we can talk about making decisions equally.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

If pregnancies could be carried to term outside the womans body (which currently isn't possible) then men would get a say.

As only women can get pregnant, men can't have a say without claiming a level of ownership over the woman's body. That is surely a form of sexual slavery.

I think many who argue it should be 50/50 responsibility in this thread object to the fact that while a man has no legal say over what the woman does regarding the child, he still holds legal responsibility for the child if its born...effectively the woman has choice the man does not.

What I find hilarious about this is that I often here a pro-life style argument used in this instance from people who are pro choice "well he made the choice to have sex...he must deal with the consequences"

[eekee 182]

A lot of people still have a steriotype od who seeks abortion and why - here is a very good research I found gives very good answer...finally.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think many who argue it should be 50/50 responsibility in this thread object to the fact that while a man has no legal say over what the woman does regarding the child, he still holds legal responsibility for the child if its born...effectively the woman has choice the man does not.

What I find hilarious about this is that I often here a pro-life style argument used in this instance from people who are pro choice "well he made the choice to have sex...he must deal with the consequences"

That argument only makes sense of you enjoy twisting semantics.

The simple fact of the matter is that biology isn't equal. Women are the only ones who can get pregnant, the wishes of the man are all but irrelevant to whether or not she decides to have the baby. The reasons for this are obvious, she undergoes the biological changes, she incurs the medical expenses, it's her quality of life that is disrupted during the pregnancy.

Should men able to cede their parental rights to avoid say, child support? Perhaps, but that is a very different conversation.

Edited May 10, 2011 by fishdude

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I think many who argue it should be 50/50 responsibility in this thread object to the fact that while a man has no legal say over what the woman does regarding the child, he still holds legal responsibility for the child if its born...effectively the woman has choice the man does not.

What I find hilarious about this is that I often here a pro-life style argument used in this instance from people who are pro choice "well he made the choice to have sex...he must deal with the consequences"

Of course, if it is the woman's choice, what about the majority of pre-viable things being removed that were potential females?

I only irony I find to the issue, is that some folks make the intelligent decision not to have children at a certain point, if ever in their lives, while unintelligent people just seem to breed. Think of how many of the world's problems could be solved if that was not the sad truth.

[Danno 1,228]

A little more complicated biology dictates what constitutes viability. And all that stuff. The word viability is simple enough though.

Of course "viability" is getting to be a shorter and shorter window of time as medical advancement leaps ahead.

SO yes.. the word "viability" is simple enough.... it;s the time frame that keeps changing.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

That argument only makes sense of you enjoy twisting semantics.

The simple fact of the matter is that biology isn't equal. Women are the only ones who can get pregnant, the wishes of the man are all but irrelevant to whether or not she decides to have the baby. The reasons for this are obvious, she undergoes the biological changes, she incurs the medical expenses, it's her quality of life that is disrupted during the pregnancy.

Should men able to cede their parental rights to avoid say, child support? Perhaps, but that is a very different conversation.

I'm actually only arguing for your last sentence. Clearly medical costs should be split.

I'm reminded of a comedy sketch where the man makes every woman he sleeps with sign a contract for sex.

[Zero Sum 305]

Of course, if it is the woman's choice, what about the majority of pre-viable things being removed that were potential females?

I only irony I find to the issue, is that some folks make the intelligent decision not to have children at a certain point, if ever in their lives, while unintelligent people just seem to breed. Think of how many of the world's problems could be solved if that was not the sad truth.

Idiocracy.

An ironic consequence, perhaps, of life imitating art?