Douchebag tricks his girlfriend into taking abortion pills

[Jub]

Because most of those birth control methods have side effects, dude, in some cases serious.

Edit: they also don't do shit for STIs, unlike condoms, which help reduce infection risks.

Yet they're still massively popular and vastly more effective than condoms at preventing pregnancy. Obviously they do nothing for STI's, but those are far less of a risk in a longer term relationship. Most STI's also don't last 18+ years and many can be treated. I'd also bet that many men would take the risks involved if we had equally good and well supported options with the same ratio and significance of risk.

[Broomstick]

One question, if life isn't fair and women have the better options for birth control (the pill, IUD's, the loop, ext) all have a lower failure rate than a condom) why shouldn't men expect women to use such devices?

Because that sort of expectation is a form of controlling other peoples' bodies.

You also, again, discount that those methods are not without risk or complications. For example, there are a quite a number of women for whom hormonal pills are contraindicated because of a very real risk of stroke, heart attack, and blood clots. IUD's can cause serious infections and even, in some cases, perforate the uterus leading to peritonitis. One reason there is such a variety of birth control methods for women is because each and every one is found to be intolerable by significant numbers of women. This is not a trivial problem.

It's a simple fact that these options exist for women but not for men just as it's a simple fact that women get pregnant instead of men. Should we not apply the life isn't fair standard to this and expect the sex with the better options to use them?

The problem is that not all people are equally responsible or ethical. That's why YOU must take responsibility at some level. For starters, using TWO forms of birth control is vastly reducing the odds of pregnancy further because in order for conception to occur you would need a double failure. Using a condom also protects both of you from STD's. There are times even in a committed, faithful, monogamous relationship where this is sensible. If one of the two parties has a urinary tract infection, for example, or during some types of cancer chemotherapy (yeah, the drugs used are so fucking toxic they are excreted in your bodily fluids in sufficient concentration that your seminal fluid could make your partner ill). Or if your partner for some reason suspects her birth control might be compromised it serves as a backup.

You using a form of birth control not only helps protect you from the dishonest and careless, it also functions as a back up to your partner's birth control. If you really don't want a conception to take place it's a not unreasonable practice.

Or does this again only apply when it's men that have to face inconvenience due to the way nature and current methods of doing things works?

Again, you totally discount that every form of birth control used by women represent some form of inconvenience. Let's take the pill as an example: it's arguably our most reliable form of birth control but it MUST be taken every day (except for the interval week, which uses dummy pills), there are other very common drugs that can render it ineffective and you have to remember which ones those are, it costs money (and no, it's NOT covered by health insurance in the US), and to keep getting it a woman MUST undergo a physical exam each and every year which, guess what, costs money and time. It's an inconvenience. Get that through your goddamned head. It's not as inconvenient as getting pregnant and having a baby (that is, in fact, it's strongest selling point) but it's still inconvenient.

So shut the fuck up about "it's men that have to face inconvenience" because that's total horseshit, women are a LOT more inconvenienced than men about birth control. If you wear condoms you only have to think about them before you have sex. If a woman is on the pill she had to think about it each and every day, without fail, whether she's planning to have sex or not because it only works if you keep to the schedule.

Also, do you support increased numbers of men asking women for anal as it greatly reduces that chance of the woman not getting pregnant?

A man can ask for anal, just as he can ask for a blow job, but if the woman says no then he doesn't get it. Sure, I support people using whatever alternative they're comfortable with and mutually agree upon.

[Broomstick]

Yet they're still massively popular and vastly more effective than condoms at preventing pregnancy. Obviously they do nothing for STI's, but those are far less of a risk in a longer term relationship. Most STI's also don't last 18+ years and many can be treated. I'd also bet that many men would take the risks involved if we had equally good and well supported options with the same ratio and significance of risk.

Well, part of the problem is that you only have to prevent one egg from being fertilized per month, but each ejaculation contains millions of sperm and you have to get each and every one every single time. It's back to biology, again.

That said, I fully support research into more and better birth control options for men. If there was a pill that a man could take that was as reliable as the woman's pill in preventing conception it would certainly change the playing field.

[Broomstick]

Orientation? No, I'm not expecting you to change it, but it IS an option for those who are open to it.

You keep making this about me, which is sort of hilarious. For me, it is an option to only have sex with other men, but I'm not talking about me, I'm talking about men in general.

You're gay? No, seriously, I had no idea, if you've mentioned it before I don't recall it. Honestly, my statement was also for men in general. I don't expect you to believe it, but I have so little interest in your sex life that until you brought it up your orientation never occurred to me. I seem to have been born entirely without gaydar.

[Terralthra]

Bisexual. Currently in a committed open relationship with a woman.

[Broomstick]

I stand corrected, then.

[Jub]

One question, if life isn't fair and women have the better options for birth control (the pill, IUD's, the loop, ext) all have a lower failure rate than a condom) why shouldn't men expect women to use such devices?

Because that sort of expectation is a form of controlling other peoples' bodies.

You also, again, discount that those methods are not without risk or complications. For example, there are a quite a number of women for whom hormonal pills are contraindicated because of a very real risk of stroke, heart attack, and blood clots. IUD's can cause serious infections and even, in some cases, perforate the uterus leading to peritonitis. One reason there is such a variety of birth control methods for women is because each and every one is found to be intolerable by significant numbers of women. This is not a trivial problem.

Give men the same options and see how popular they become overnight. If this was the case I'd be saying that one member of the couple should be one of of the more permanent style options. Preferably the party with the least risks and side effects.

It's a simple fact that these options exist for women but not for men just as it's a simple fact that women get pregnant instead of men. Should we not apply the life isn't fair standard to this and expect the sex with the better options to use them?

The problem is that not all people are equally responsible or ethical. That's why YOU must take responsibility at some level. For starters, using TWO forms of birth control is vastly reducing the odds of pregnancy further because in order for conception to occur you would need a double failure. Using a condom also protects both of you from STD's. There are times even in a committed, faithful, monogamous relationship where this is sensible. If one of the two parties has a urinary tract infection, for example, or during some types of cancer chemotherapy (yeah, the drugs used are so fucking toxic they are excreted in your bodily fluids in sufficient concentration that your seminal fluid could make your partner ill). Or if your partner for some reason suspects her birth control might be compromised it serves as a backup.

You using a form of birth control not only helps protect you from the dishonest and careless, it also functions as a back up to your partner's birth control. If you really don't want a conception to take place it's a not unreasonable practice.

I never said that there weren't reasons for condoms to exist and be used. I just suggested that with one form being more effective that the other at stopping a specific thing that form should be the one most often looked to to prevent that thing.

Or does this again only apply when it's men that have to face inconvenience due to the way nature and current methods of doing things works?

Again, you totally discount that every form of birth control used by women represent some form of inconvenience. Let's take the pill as an example: it's arguably our most reliable form of birth control but it MUST be taken every day (except for the interval week, which uses dummy pills), there are other very common drugs that can render it ineffective and you have to remember which ones those are, it costs money (and no, it's NOT covered by health insurance in the US), and to keep getting it a woman MUST undergo a physical exam each and every year which, guess what, costs money and time. It's an inconvenience. Get that through your goddamned head. It's not as inconvenient as getting pregnant and having a baby (that is, in fact, it's strongest selling point) but it's still inconvenient.

So shut the fuck up about "it's men that have to face inconvenience" because that's total horseshit, women are a LOT more inconvenienced than men about birth control. If you wear condoms you only have to think about them before you have sex. If a woman is on the pill she had to think about it each and every day, without fail, whether she's planning to have sex or not because it only works if you keep to the schedule.

US health insurance blows, you should consider moving to a country with actual social spending if you find it such a huge bother. The monetary concerns aren't an issue in Canada and people should already go in for yearly checkups which birth control tests can be part of. So please quit arguing about things that shouldn't be an issue in a sensible nation.

Also, I guess I should feel so inconvenienced that take a vitamin everyday, it's such a fucking chore to remember that. Just like brushing my teeth, I mean fuck, that's just asking way too much. It's hard to get into a pattern and follow it right?

[K. A. Pital]

I guess I should feel so inconvenienced that take a vitamin everyday, it's such a fucking chore to remember that.

You dick-headed moron, do you even know what side effects estrogen-containing pills (those that could be taken just once per day) actually have? How about learning that long-term consumption increases the risk of trombosis, breast and/or ovary cancer, and of course, screws up your hormones so that a great number of women have severe acne problems after stopping, if they'd been using the estrogen-containing pills for more than a year?

Vitamin, my ass.

[Alyeska]

I guess I should feel so inconvenienced that take a vitamin everyday, it's such a fucking chore to remember that.

You dick-headed moron, do you even know what side effects estrogen-containing pills (those that could be taken just once per day) actually have? How about learning that long-term consumption increases the risk of trombosis, breast and/or ovary cancer, and of course, screws up your hormones so that a great number of women have severe acne problems after stopping, if they'd been using the estrogen-containing pills for more than a year?

Vitamin, my ass.

Jub doesn't give a shit about women. This thread is ample proof of that.

[Eleas]

Hilariously, Jub fails to read up on a pill with such potent side effects that it was considered not viable for use by men due to the extreme changes it imposed on the body. The fact that it imposes those same changes on female bodies was considered less of an obstacle, predictably.

[Broomstick]

US health insurance blows, you should consider moving to a country with actual social spending if you find it such a huge bother.

Do other countries pay for birth control for women or not? Or are you just assuming?

Oh, and I'm sure every first world country would be happy to have 150,000,000 women arrive at their border requesting residency. Yeah, that would work...

Also, like Terralthra, this is not an issue that concerns me personally as my partner is sterile. This is a concern about people in general but then I wouldn't expect someone such as yourself who obviously completely lacks the capacity for empathy to understand that in any way.

Also, I guess I should feel so inconvenienced that take a vitamin everyday, it's such a fucking chore to remember that. Just like brushing my teeth, I mean fuck, that's just asking way too much. It's hard to get into a pattern and follow it right?

Hey, you fucking moron, if you forget to take your vitamin it doesn't materially affect you. Forget a birth control pill, though, and pregnancy can result. Plus, you know, side effects, which you conveniently and continually forget.

But yeah, you're making it obvious you're a selfish, self-centered asshole.

[Broomstick]

Hilariously, Jub fails to read up on a pill with such potent side effects that it was considered not viable for use by men due to the extreme changes it imposed on the body. The fact that it imposes those same changes on female bodies was considered less of an obstacle, predictably.

Well, the cost/benefit ratio is different for the two genders. The pill, for all its flaws, is less likely to maim and kill a woman than actual pregnancy is so the risks are, for many, considered an acceptable trade-off.

But yeah, Jub is an ignorant tool. I hope he fucks doorknobs, because other people shouldn't have him inflicted upon them.

[Serafina]

Fun fact:
For some women, taking hormonal birth control pills can affect their hormonal cycles severely enough that, if they just take the pill a few hours late, they get really nifty symptoms such as severe headaches, nausea, cramps and disorientation.

Now obviously thats just their fault for not planning their entire day around taking it at the same time every day. There is after all no such thing as running out, forgetting them at home, having an unplanned appointment, oversleeping due to being ill or similar things.
And if they do those symptoms are just a rightful reminder of their proper duty to uphold mens rights and convenience.

[Terralthra]

Jub, seriously. The fact that there is an issue of fairness and equity in reproductive rights and choice is being drowned out by your complete idiocy and unwillingness to appropriately treat women as human, preferring instead comparing taking hormone-altering chemicals daily to VITAMINS, among numerous other stupid posts.

You'll note that no one here (well, almost no one) denied that there are fundamental inequities in the ways reproductive choice work, once approached on the issue rationally, with evidence. The issue is that a solution is a Hard Problem, but at least we started talking about it. Then you started posting again, and now the thread is a shitfest. Be goal-oriented. Is your approach changing minds, or is it hardening opposition? Are you making serious suggestions that you'd want to see implemented if you were a woman, or trying to tip the scales in your [gender's] favor?

[Alyeska]

I am of the personal opinion that Jub is a misogynistic douchebag. So I believe his goals are aimed at discriminating against women for the benefit of men. Which are reflected in his continued arguments in this thread.

[Korto]

US health insurance blows, you should consider moving to a country with actual social spending if you find it such a huge bother.

Do other countries pay for birth control for women or not? Or are you just assuming?

Well, as my wife's memory best serves, her IUD cost us $200, and as that was under a general anaesthetic there's no way that was remotely the real cost; and before that her implanon cost $20, which was just a simple jab in the arm by a nurse but that's $20 in total when it can cost $40 minimum just for an electrician's time.
Her implanon however had to be removed, as the hormones caused depression. She's unable to take the pill for the same reason.
However, condoms don't work well with me as I find I lose so much sensation in them that sometimes I can't even maintain an erection.

I do feel that telling the man a pregnancy was his fault for not wearing a condom in the (rare) circumstance that the woman lies about being on a contraceptive is like telling a woman it was her fault for being attacked because she shouldn't have been dressed slutty out at night.

Jub, please don't suggest people immigrate to get cheap contraceptive. It was a cheap trolling statement. It's not like moving to the next county. There's nothing cheap or easy about it, financially or socially. I don't believe our country would even take Broomstick, due to age and health concerns. If she was from England, it may be a different matter.
I suggest, Jub, that you walk away from this now. You had a bit of a point early on, but now you're just lashing out, and when people lash out they tend to say stupid shit.

[Batman]

And don't you forget it, woman!!!

Man-wear condom. Condom works, no problem. Condom fails, you have to pay some money.
Woman-pill works, no pregnancy but not insignificant risk of medical complications. Pill fails, everything that can go wrong with a pregnancy OR an abortion on top of that.

Yeah, I totally don't see why women should have a greater say in these matters either.

[Broomstick]

I do feel that telling the man a pregnancy was his fault for not wearing a condom in the (rare) circumstance that the woman lies about being on a contraceptive is like telling a woman it was her fault for being attacked because she shouldn't have been dressed slutty out at night.

Context is important. A man in an allegedly committed long term relationship where the woman lies about contraception is different than a drunken one-night stand. For the former circumstance I think there may well be an element of fraud, for the latter... well, to my mind it's foolish to rely upon the word of an intoxicated person you just met but then I've never been inclined to drunk sex, one night stands, or the like.

I don't think men have to wear condoms, but whatever they do they should have a grasp of both the risks and benefits. Unintentionally fathering a child is going to affect different men differently, and finances do figure into it. There are publicly known instances of wealthy men unintentionally fathering children and privately making arrangements with the mother. There are instances of wealthy deadbeats. There are poor men who will do their damnedest to help out the mother and child even with meager resources and others who will try to run away. Part of the reason this is such a difficult problem is the wide variation in people.

I don't believe our country would even take Broomstick, due to age and health concerns. If she was from England, it may be a different matter.

I actually did investigate emigrating at one point. Most commonwealth countries would be willing to accept me IF I had a job waiting or IF I had sufficient wealth to support myself (i.e. retire abroad). The required amount of money for the latter is pretty effing substantial, if I could accumulate that much I could comfortably retire here in the US in my native culture.

Realistically, although price can be an obstacle, it's one of the easier to solve medical access problems for the poor in the US. That doesn't mean it is easy, just easier than some other problems.

[Solauren]

Reading through the thread, I have a feeling Jub has some deep-seated issues he's juxpositioning on the thread and issue at hand.

[Gaidin]

Reading through the thread, I have a feeling Jub has some deep-seated issues he's juxpositioning on the thread and issue at hand.

That's sort of the feeling I get. It was sort of an accurate, if unsavory statement on page 1 or page 2 when someone(I misremember who) said that when all or most legal choices at a certain stage are on one side, then someone on the other would eventually make an unsavory act of desperation. Such an act of desperation rightfully leads to such charges as these when it is this kind of act. Jub seems more reasonable in the other topic that has no context of an incident behind the discussion.

[Broomstick]

As a related tangent to this thread, on another message board I frequent we have a current thread from a woman who works in the Minnesota state government area that deals with child support. Link. Some of us may find it interesting reading.

[TheHammer]

Otherwise, as I said, the absolute best thing for YOU to have done would have been to simply acknowledge that yes it's an unfair situation, and then politely kept your mouth shut.

Until a man is actually pregnant no, it's not a similar situation at all. Sorry if reality keeps bitch-slapping you but that's why women decide whether or not to abort or birth - because THEY are the ones who get pregnant. Men are not. Men only have control over their own bodies, which means their options involve where to stick their dick and whether or not to make a sperm deposit.

So, again, stop distorting my position you dishonest piece of shit and stop accusing me of being pro-life. Or just admit your the sort of slime that places your convenience above that of any other human beings, including both a child you have fathered and the women you used to incubate that child. Didn't want the child? Then you should have done something to prevent said child. Engaged in birth control that didn't work? So sorry - shit happens. Earthquakes, meteor strikes, unwanted babies... all have to be dealt with.

I'm the one being dishonest? I said to acknowledge that it's an "unfair" situation not that it was a "similar one".

Further, nowhere have I accused you of being "pro-life". I merely remarked that the statments you are using are the exact same "logic" used by pro-lifers for denying women access to abortion.

Didn't want the child? Then you should have done something to prevent said child. Engaged in birth control that didn't work? So sorry - shit happens. Earthquakes, meteor strikes, unwanted babies... all have to be dealt with.

Why should we not apply that same criteria to a female who got pregnant? Oh wait, you don't think that way because you are pro-choice. And I bet it really pisses you off when pro-life groups say those things.

I don't know why I continue to bother... This entire thread has turned into too much of a fucking pissing contest to have any hope of becoming a rational discussion, let alone a "debate".

[Broomstick]

Why should we not apply that same criteria to a female who got pregnant? Oh wait, you don't think that way because you are pro-choice. And I bet it really pisses you off when pro-life groups say those things.

No, actually it doesn't "really piss me off" when they say that because I understand that most of them actually and sincerely believe a smear of 4/8/12/whatever cells is a human being. I don't agree with them, I think they're wrong, but especially in the case of those consistently pro-life (meaning against the death penalty as well as abortion) I can respect their position without agreeing with it.

I get pissed when they try to impose their beliefs on other people, but I also understand their motivation is to prevent murder, which is a pretty compelling reason. I don't in any way approve of those who engage in killing doctors or bombing clinics, but most pro-life people are not that extreme.

Now, please stop assuming you know what my position is on anything.

[Serafina]

NO amount of cells is a human being.
Brain activity, self-awareness, sapience, consciousness - that's what makes a human being.

Now you could just sum that up with "having a soul makes a human being" - but since thats purely an unmeasurable quantity based on inconsistent religious beliefs, we can't make policy based on that in a secular state.
And yes, it IS inconsistent - if you argue that a lump of a few cells already has a soul, shouldn't you also argue that as long as a few cells remain alive in a human body he's not dead yet, even if brain and heart have ceased to work? Or what about cancer cells outside of a human body - they also have human DNA and all, why wouldn't they have a soul? I could go on like this for a while - and it being so inconsistent is even more reason not to make policy based on it.

[Alyeska]

NO amount of cells is a human being.
Brain activity, self-awareness, sapience, consciousness - that's what makes a human being.

So someone in a coma is no longer a human being?