On January 22nd, 1973 the US Supreme Court made the landmark decision in the Roe v. Wade trial that gave women the right to have an abortion of an unplanned pregnancy. Since this ruling, many different groups, mostly religious and traditional conservative, have petitioned the government to reverse the Supreme Court decision and do away with abortion. For over 40 years they have tried and, for the most part, failed to get politicians to reverse the Roe v. Wade decision. Protestors have met with some success at the state level, but that has meant little more than an inconvenience to women wishing to get an abortion because they simply have to drive to another state.
It is interesting that traditional conservative groups (the “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem” traditional conservative groups) immediately went to government to solve their abortion problem. In the forty years that have followed, they still believe that the solution is to simply protest outside of Planned Parenthood clinics and vote in candidates who claim to be pro-life. They have not looked at any other possible solutions outside of politics.
Insanity is doing the same over and over again and expecting different results.
When you have a difficult problem it is best to go to people who are trained to solve difficult problems: engineers.
In the 1970s an Indian biomedical engineer by the name of Sujoy Guha was working on a cost-effective way of killing bacteria in drinking water by coating the inside of water pipes with an electrically charged polymer called styrene maleic anhydride. As bacteria flowed through the pipes, this polymer would tear them apart. Then as the population in India surged in 1970s, Sujoy Guha came up with the idea of using it as a non-hormonal male contraceptive. The vas deferens, which is the tube sperm flow through to get from the testes to the urethra, is much like the water pipes he was working with and sperm are similar to bacteria. In addition, a second injection of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) flushes out the maleic anhydride, returning a man to full reproductive potency.
In 1979 he succeeded in proof of concept on rats and in 1985 he got the same results in monkeys. He called this new contraceptive method RISUG, reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance. It has been tested on hundreds of men in India. Recently a company called the Parsemus Foundation bought rights to RISUG and is putting it through clinical trials in the US under the name Vasalgel.
So what does all this have to do with abortion? Simple, in order to have an abortion a woman needs to have three things.
- An unplanned pregnancy
- The desire to terminate the unplanned pregnancy
- A clinic where she can legally terminate the pregnancy
The efforts of traditional conservatives have mostly focused on finding a political solution to number three. A few have tried to protest in front of clinics with pictures of dead fetuses in order to change number two, but very little effort has been put into preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place, which is the Achilles heel of the abortion problem. Women can’t get abortions if they don’t become pregnant.
According to The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy there were 3,370,000 unplanned pregnancies in 2008, which is the most recent data they had available. In a time when women have access to dozens of different affordable forms of birth control, the sheer number of unplanned pregnancies can mean three things.
- Not all of these pregnancies were truly unplanned.
- Women suck at remembering to take the pill on time.
- A combination of 1 and 2.
That is why if pro-life groups were serious about ending abortion they would take the engineering approach and get RISUG/Vasalgel on the market as soon as possible. Then they could use their massive influence to push parents to get the procedure for their sons when they turn 16.
If pro-life groups did this then they could do to Planned Parenthood what Internet Explorer did to Netscape Navigator in the 2000s. Instead of making abortion illegal they would make it redundant. There would still be the occasional slip-up and some young woman would get pregnant and want an abortion, but it would take place at a much lower rate than the over 1 million abortions per year that are currently happening. It would probably be even lower than the number of illegal abortions taking place before Roe v. Wade was passed.
Read Next: A Final Solution For Abortion And Bastardy
Keep in mind, it may well be the guy lying about condoms.
Serious troll is serious
Men have no reason to lie about condoms, it’s the women who use children as weapons, because it benefits them to steal an unwilling man’s resources
using the feminist state. Child support, alimony, child custody, reproductive “rights” aren’t for the benefit of men or even children, they are solely for the benefit of reckless sluts and entitled twats who haven’t been put in check by a real man.
Serious troll is serious
Men have no reason to lie about condoms,
it’s the women who use children as weapons, because it benefits them to
steal an unwilling man’s resources using the feminist state.
Child support, alimony, child custody, reproductive rights aren’t for
the benefit of men or even children, they are solely for the benefit of
reckless sluts and entitled twats who haven’t been put in check by a
real man.
So what’s stopping her from taking her own pill? best thing about male pill, it does not rob a woman of any choice of conception on her part. She can use any number of birth control methods proven to work. Or she doesn’t have to.
The condom is there I swear it. It is just the new invisible one Trojan came out with, but for real it really is there.
OR.. we as men could collectively grow a pair of balls and start shaming, mocking and humiliating women who choose abortion, by calling them baby killers, reckless sluts etc. But this would require a population-wide change in the mindset of men, which will never happen because most men are programmed by society and nature to mindlessly support the vagina.
Bullshit. They would just go underground, get back alley abortions, with all the complications that follow from that. Also, this increase the number of single moms, with all the burdens that brings for society.
I already explained why my approach would work a billion times better than your soft women-coddling approach. My approach recognizes female nature, specifically that once society and their family and us men establishes something as taboo and shameful, women correct their behavior very quickly (ie. teens start taking steps to prevent pregnancy BEFORE it happens)
You seem to lack an understanding of how women operate psychologically. They are followers, they will bend to social pressure from men very easily, especially if you’re dominant and self-assured.
It only works that way if women know they’ll get caught for doing it. When people are desperate, they will resort to desperate measures. I also think you’d see a spike in the crime rate if you decided to ban abortion, but that’s a different issue.
Sex ed has been proven to do just that: teens taking steps to prevent pregnancy.
How would you envision this shaming policy of yours to work?
Sex ed assumes the teens don’t want to get pregnant. Given teen pregnancy rates, that’s not a reasonable assumption. Do you really think, in the year 2014, girls are getting pregnant because they don’t know about birth control or can’t get it? That’s absurd. My ten-year-old can bike over to the nearest candy store and buy condoms. My teenager can get birth control pills handed out like candy at her doctor’s office. There is literally no inhabited place in the country where birth control is not readily available, and there is literally no person over the age of about nine who hasn’t been taught about birth control. Only idiot feminists trying to funnel more taxpayer dollars to the lobbying group Planned Parenthood think otherwise.
Teen girls who get pregnant choose to do so. They get validation that way, they can get money from Uncle Sugar, they may be able to maneuver the (possible) babydaddy into marriage, and if they have a change of heart, Planned Parenthood will make sure they feel all brave and feministy for killing a person because they are potentially inconvenient.
Are you referring to teen pregnancies in the US? Teen pregnancies in North Western Europe tend to be quite low in the Caucasian part of the population.
a girlfriend of mine, the straightest, most down to earth working girl you could ever meet, would forget her pill sometimes….. women subconsciously want babies when they are banging a guy…. what you want in the logical conscious mind and what you want hormonally, subconsciously, emotionally, etc. is another ball game. – that is why murders happen, drunk drivers happen, people lose all their money etc. etc. etc.
humans are not in control like a main frame web server… and even they crash from time to time.
Indeed, people do make mistakes.
That’s why I think male birth control is such a good idea. If the woman forgets to take her birth control pill, the man’s birth control acts as a second layer of defense. And vice versa, if the man’s birth control is not 100% effective.
No, I’m afraid it’s more simple and depressing than that.
While there doubtless are a few girls who get pregnant deliberately for bad reasons, the simple fact is: most girls get pregnant because they are too lazy, stupid and oblivious, to do what they know they should do.
Also, no birth control is 100 percent effective. When you have an whole society where everybody f(@ks all the time, even with contraception you will have an higher rate of STDs and unwanted pregnancies, than in a society where people learn to control themselves. Since everybody managed to do this up until about the 1950s, we shouldn’t delude ourselves into thinking that it is an impossible achievement.
Single moms only burden society because men with guns extract tax dollars from people who produce to give to them. Cut off funding and single moms vanish without a trace.
Now before you talk about hordes of orphan children, realize that we already have huge numbers of children who are effectively wards of the state because they’re in jeuvie hall from growing up without a father figure.
Keep in mind though, there are those situations where the father is an abusive, horrible human being. In those cases, being a single parent is a much better alternative.
Yes, true, however if you look at things statistically, the number of single mothers who simply got pregnant out of wedlock, or initiated frivorce proceedings and claimed significant custody rights generally dwarfs the number of truly abusive fathers. Right now our government gives incentives to be a single mother, which is basically is a disincentive to ever be a father to anyone.
Single mom offspring tends to score pretty high in the crime stats too
Sure. Those women made a discussion that impacted them in a big way; in this case, a negative one. Perhaps they were just careless teenagers, perhaps they just weren’t educated enough in sex, but the point is, it does happen. Also…well…I wouldn’t necessarily call those “incentives” , I mean they aren’t something women are just clamoring for. It’s certainly not like winning the lottery or anything; especially with the social shame that comes with it. It’s basically the single mother equivalent of an unemployment check.
Removal of normal consequences for behavior “A” through government programs intended to help people is effectively incentives that encourage behavior “A”.
There are also situations where the mother is an abusive, horrible human being and she gets sole custody of the children after throwing the father out. An abused woman can take kids away from a deadbeat dad much more easily than an abused man can take kids away from a deadbeat mom.
Being raised by a single parent isn’t a better alternative when the single parent happens to be the abusive one. Way to push the man bad, woman good line.
…perhaps they just weren’t educated enough in sex…
Really? I’m going to be nice here and just ask you to think about that one.
I grew up in a single mother household. I would not wish that on any kid. Single mothers are feral vermin, that need to be stopped. Why do you think so many people in jail come from single mother homes?
I think enforced abortions are a mercy killing for the child, better dead than raised by a single mother trash bag.
I was an emotional mess thanks to being raised by a single mother.
When I got over it though, I made me strong. It helped me realise the nature of women. I had no illusions about them that needed to be shattered.
Not all schools or parents teach sex ed the way it should be taught. Some parents won’t let their child sit in on sex education, some schools teach abstinence only sex ed, some places just don’t teach sex ed. Those all increase the likelihood that a girl will get pregnant if she has sex because she simply doesn’t know how to protect herself and neither does the guy she’s with.
The reason so many criminals come from single parent, not just single mother, homes is because the other parent doesn’t support or help the other in any way, this leads to the children trying to help out in any way shape or form, often leading to criminal activity to help support the family. It’s not all on the mother, it’s on the father for not being around to help and thus leaving his children to be raised in a way not really accepted or liked by society.
This is some harsh shit, but honestly I feel this way about women who’d have a back-alley abortion; whatever harm comes to them, they deserve it. They tried to kill a defenseless human being so that’s called karma.
I spoke with a woman who does pro-life stuff for a living; travels around the country speaking. I asked her what should happen to women who get abortions or attempt abortions if abortions were illegal nationwide. She said that a woman who has an abortion is punished enough knowing what she did.
I told her that they and their “doctors” should be prosecuted for manslaughter.
She didn’t really seem to like that.
Forget manslaughter; manslaughter generally refers to the accidental death of someone through negligence. They should be prosecuted for murder, which is how the crime was generally treated in the past.
It’s not harsh; we’ve just been conditioned to think of women as precious daisies and helpless victims, and so the idea of letting harm come to them, even if deserved, is shocking.
An old friend of mine – a girl I’ve know since grade school, but who moved to Seattle and is now a commie pinko – told me around Christmastime that we needed to keep abortion legal so that women didn’t have to get “back-alley” abortions. I asked her why we should feel any need to protect heinous criminals from the consequences of their actions. Indeed, I told her that perhaps the fear of a back-alley abortion would dissuade women from murdering their infants; but if even that couldn’t dissuade them, I certainly wasn’t going to feel sorry for them if it turned out badly for them.
I told her that it was like asking me to feel sorry for a robber who gets shot by the home owner during a b&e. I asked her what the logical conclusion of such an opinion would be.
I said, that perhaps we should legalize rape, and set up taxpayer-funded rape centers. I mean, rape is going to happen one way or another, and the last thing we want is for women to be raped in brutal back-alley rapings, right? At least at a governmental rape center, the girl could immediately get grief counselling and medical attention and a warm mug of tea. We are dooming women to horrific back-alley rapings by outlawing this sad but inevitable activity! We need to keep rape safe, legal and rare.
Anyway, I shared these perfectly rational truths (understanding, of course, that I was not actually advocating for “safe legal and rare” rape, but was simply pointing out how awful the argument for “safe legal and rare” abortion sounded when we applied it to other horrific acts of violence). Now she refuses to speak to me ever again. She really showed me! Now I have been deprived of one more woman’s opinions on why she should be allowed to murder and steal as much as she wants while feeling entitled to make us feel like the bad guys. Poor me.
These ideas only sound harsh because our society has driven way off into “no consequences for your actions” land. But if you think about it, this is the only rational way to see the issue. If you’re trying to kill your child, who gives a rip what happens to you? The only thing I feel bad about, is that you took your kid with you.
Seriously? Don’t tell me you have compassion for embryos when you would rather see women die. You lack empathy and you’re an asshole. Yay abortion is legal and you can eat a dick.
Those “embryos” are human beings.
that is an argument that is well worth being made.
That “defenseless human being” might just one day burglarize your house, rape your wife, drive over your children while drunk. Go ahead, pick one.
There is nothing worse than an unwanted child who grows into a criminal.
We all have the same capacity for good and evil.
Have you ever heard of the concept of “bodily autonomy?” Well it simply means that NO ONE can use your body without YOUR permission. This includes fetuses that cannot survive outside of the womb. By making abortion illegal, you would be giving a fetus more rights than a person and a woman less rights than a corpse. Think about that for a second.
Feminists believe words have consequences but not decisions.
Until fetus are able to survive outside the womb, they limit women’s choices for medication and healthcare. If a woman gets into a car accident and gets enough radiology studies to help save her life, the radiation safety officer of the hospital might have to recommend a therapeutic abortion. A living woman can probably have more babies, but a dead one can’t have any. Quinine was once used to treat 11 different maladies(freely prescribed for leg cramps) but now can only be prescribed in the US for pregnant women with malaria.
I would consider a woman who had an abortion to be better than one who dropped a fetal alcohol syndrome or crack baby on the taxpayers. BTW when women get abortions they get a note for work saying they had a miscarriage.
Look up Reactive Attachment Disorder. It turns out good can be killed off.
“Bodily autonomy” is precisely why abortion should be banned. Outside of a rape, babies only end up in the womb out of the woman’s own actions. After that, the baby has “bodily autonomy” of his or her own.
Also, that is quite a stupid analoy. A corpse cannot survive at all. It i already dead. A fetus is not dead, outside of a miscarriage.
Do you not know how to read? Or, like most leftists, do you only know how to discuss an issue by irrationally misrepresenting both sides of it in your favour?
I wouldn’t rather see “women die.” I would simply not be terribly upset if murderers wound up killing themselves in the act of committing a murder. Just like I’m not upset when robbers get blasted in the face by the Circle K clerk – or, on the theme of women, when rapists get a face-full of lead from Suzie’s beretta pico. I am glad that the scum are dead, and that we didn’t wind up having a long, expensive trial that locked them up with free food and cable for the next 20 years.
Decent women, I would protect. I would rather see them live, healthy and happy, than die. But you need to believe that I would rather see “women die,” so that you can give your inner child a nice bear-hug and continue to feel like my moral superior, even though you’re the one in favour of infanticide, and I’m the one in favour of seeing criminals perish from the face of the Earth. God save you.
It’s sad that you cheer for abortion. Laws do not always reflect what is just. They can also change. When they do, people like you may want to head for the hills.
And, hey: embryos are people too. The difference between an embryo and a woman trying to kill her child, is that one is a person who deserves to live, and the other is a person who deserves to die. God save you.
just checked that out. interesting stuff.
The fetus can’t survive on it’s own. Until it is born it is essentially a parasite. And forcing a woman to host a parasite without her consent is a violation of bodily autonomy
then the women who get taxpayer funded abortions are living parasites.
If you are old and cannot live without assistance, you are not leeching off a person’s body the way that a fetus is. If you are old you can live with a family member or in an assisted living program but you do not place the same physical burden on a person that an unborn fetus places on its mother.
Or, we could simply execute women who murder their children, and force those who do have children out of wedlock to either marry or give their children up for adoption. If they prove to be serially pregnant, unwed slatterns, I don’t see why jail time isn’t in order.
Is that too mean for our soft and cuddly age? Hmm. What is more cruel? Brutally stomping out horrific social problems, or letting horrific social problems gradually ruin the majority of people’s lives through civilizational decline? I think it’s kinder to hang a slut, than to let sluts hang the nation.
Murderers, even and especially women murdering their own children (few crimes seem worse to me), should hang at the neck until dead. Sluts should be punished, and if they cannot be reformed, their children should be given to people capable of raising them right. That sounds merciful to me, even if it involves some inevitable harshness with criminally negligent types.
And sure, I’m in favour of holding men responsible for their involvement. Theoretically, we are the gender that should be more accountable. Now, if people keep their activity private, I don’t think the State should be in the habit of hunting down fornicators. But if their recklessness becomes a public problem, especially repeatedly so, I’m fine with a three strikes and you’re dead policy. Has a man knocked up three different women in his life, without being married to them, causing grief to the kids, the mother, the foster parents, the state? He’s an irresponsible creep, and I don’t see why we need him hanging around.
I support abortion because I don’t think human life is sacred, and I am for an individual’s personal autonomy. I don’t care about supporting vaginas, unless it is via the insertion of my penis.
Abortion has always existed, and always will. People die, everyone dies, some aren’t even born. That’s the way it goes, the strong survive.
Individual autonomy has to be tempered by the rights of others. The child in her belly didn’t agree to exist, and it hasn’t given her permission to snuff out his existence. Women have plenty of reproductive rights to prevent a fetus from forming in the first place. If they’re too reckless and irresponsible to use those options BEFORE fertilization of the egg then it’s not about “individual autonomy” anymore. Now, there is another life to consider, what about the fetus and his individual autonomy?
And how much individual autonomy do fathers have once a woman decides to have her baby? Where is consideration for HIS “individual autonomy” when it comes to child support, child custody, etc.?
And when did you give your parents permission to give birth to you?
Luck of nature’s draw, you won. What are you going to do with your winnings?
Here is the testimony of a girl who survived a saline abortion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ
Warning, extreme male shaming. (Deserved)
‘God’ is the greatest abortionist in history. Millions, perhaps billions, or even trillions of fertilized embryos never were carried to term because of miscarriages.
Now if you want to use the ‘ensouled’ argument, the church (at one point) had a guy write that (since you can’t split a soul like a ham sandwich) no one could be ensouled until the possibility of twinning ended.
You can argue fertilized embryo rights, and I’ll support them as soon as that 2 week old embryo can be placed in an incubator and grow without being a parasite on the host.
The one part I do agree with is the man’s choice, to not pay. As inglixthemad put it in the fark,com thread: this isn’t the 19th or even 20th century, a woman can earn an education and a good wage. She isn’t property, and doesn’t need a man’s money.
He also posted something on the child support argument.
Don’t care, not going to watch it.
I said I don’t think human life is sacred, so this won’t sway me. Abortion or cluster bomb, or starvation or cancer, it’s all death to me. Why do the lives of the unborn matter more than those of the born? Because they don’t, it’s the same, see through the illusion
On the one hand I agree with you:life is not sacred.And if you want to get an abortion get it,but do not make me subsidize it for you.
On the other hand,abortion is murder:’intentional’ killing of human life.(I know you could bring plenty of nuanced meanings to this term ,especially in legal parlance,but I choose this for simplicity and because it is commonly understood that way).
So am I implying that I am OK with murder?Well in cases of euthanasia,capital punishment,suicide(self murder),self defense against excruciating violence:YES.But abortion is a grey area.If you are getting an abortion because that aids in getting govt funds,then you are certainly a cold blooded murderer,indeed a Hitman. If on the other hand you abort the fetus because it has some major genetic or congenital disorder,then perhaps your actions are more morally justifiable.
But all in all,in keeping with the point of this article,if you don’t have to even come to stage of pregnancy,then you avoid the quicksands of the abortion question.
For the right wing, is (against what they say) about taking control from you. That is why they would ban abortion (taking control over your life) and that is why they support the death penalty (taking control over your death). They want to control every aspect of your pathetic wage-slave life. It is the opposite of freedom. The fetus is not yet an human being (if it is the are my individual cells which contain my DNA and are alive as well).
Now, I get why many in this website will support banning abortion, and it has nothing to do with the rights of the unborn, but with the women that need to have an abortion. There must be other ways to ensure a change in societal culture, and the proposition of the author seems like a good way to do it.
If it’s all just luck of the draw, then nothing matters anyway. I’m sure, therefore, that you won’t object if we round up abortionists and execute the lot of them, and ignore your ideas about what should and shouldn’t be legal. I mean, who gave you permission to think anything? Or me? It’s luck of the draw. Whoever wins, wins. Right? If we succeed in killing them, then they lost. It’s as simple as that, right?
Nobody is saying that the unborn matter *more* than the born. We’re just saying that they don’t matter less, and people who kill them should be treated in the same way, as we would treat them if they killed a grown person.
So, in your view, ‘God’ deliberately comes down and snuffs the life out of these embryos? That is a peculiar position, and not one that would be endorsed by any major religion, I’m sure.
Though, of course, the fact of the matter is that God is not us, and we are not God. The rules are different. Different things, different offices, have different rights and duties. God, as the source of all life, has a power over life that we do not have. What is licit for Him – the taking of a life, the casting of a soul into hell, or into bliss – is above our pay grade. Does the pot turn to the potter and complain about how he has been made? Neither are we in a position to complain about how God disposes the circumstances of our lives. We know that He is just, and merciful, and charitable. Whatever mistaken judgments we form to the contrary, are rooted in our imperfect understanding, and our tendency to map our own justice onto God.
Thats basically the way reality works, the winners do win, yes,thank you for that lesson.
And I saying that we already treat the living like shit, there is no use pretending that the unborn are so much more important.
Thinking isn’t your strong suit is it? A fetus can’t consent because it’s brain isn’t developed enough to produce thoughts. Think about this, when you were in your slag moms belly, could you have consented to your own life? If she had ripped you out with a dirty coat hanger would you have been sad?
FYI birth control pills are only about 80% effective and taking so much as a tylonal can render them completely ineffective, and for all the kids bitching about men having to pay child support in the case that the woman end’s up a single mother, it goes both ways, in cases where men undertake the responsibility to raise the kid by themselves the mother is required to pay child support. No one’s individual autonomy is being encroached on by making both parties responsible for a life createdby BOTH of them, takes two to tango and if one of them ends up having to raise the kid by themselves it’s a no-brainer that the other party would be paying into raising the child financially weather it to be a single mother or single father.
You “don’t think human life is sacred,” but you are “for an individual’s personal autonomy.”
If human life is not sacred, why is it entitled to any rights at all, or why is it morally important for it to be autonomous?
Also, wouldn’t you agree that personal autonomy begins, with not being murdered by your parents? Few things impinge upon personal autonomy, more than being murdered by self-absorbed narcissists who place their personal convenience above your personal autonomy.
Also, if personal autonomy takes the form of bad decisions, should people ever have to suffer the consequences of their actions? Or does “personal autonomy” mean they get to resort to any method – including killing other people, even their own children, and violating their children’s personal autonomy – for the sake of regaining their personal autonomy which they already lost once through a negligent exercise of their personal autonomy?
I think you’ll find, if you poke around there for a bit, that you have a half-baked philosophy. Be a man, and walk the hard road to the truth. The truth is rough and it demands our all; but it’s better than living life like a woman, inventing pretty little half-truths that let us believe the easier thing, rather than the true thing. Truly I don’t mean that in an insulting way; I used to be pro-choice, myself. But then I thought about my views, which were basically the same as yours, and realized it was a mess of irrationalities.
Abortion has always been around, true. So has rape. So have vicious women. So has murder. So has theft. The fact that they’ve always been around, and always will be, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t throw the people who commit such crimes into prison or the pit of hell.
You only have “rights” because a powerful group of people currently allow you to believe you have them, they can be taken away at any time.
Of course personal autonomy has two sides, one is also responsible for the choices one make.
I don’t think you have any idea what the truth is any more than I do. If I knew what the truth was, I wouldn’t be screwing around on the internet.
I’ve come to a few conclusions about this issue:
1. Nothing is sacred.
2. Abortion is a euphemism for infanticide. You don’t need the idea of “sacred” to tell the difference between murder and a medical procedure.
3. Most of the murdered children would have been on the bottom rung of society, seeing as they would have been bred and raised by the scum of modern society, by and large.
4. There’s not a damn thing I can do to make this scum-segment of society more intelligent or ethical, or make them stop wanting to kill their offspring.
Why would I mock a woman for aborting a fetus that I as a tax payer do not want to provide for?
I’d give the slut a free abortion. It’s cheaper than WIC, SNAP, Section 8, EBT and so on.
I want to shame these would-be Welafare moms into having an abortion.
All I want to know is this: rare, medium-rare, medium, or well-done?
What, you were going to let that ‘veal’ go to waste?
Why not abolish the welfare state
What’s with the crying girl graphic at the top of the post? You think girls are all tender little violets? I know lots of women who wouldn’t think twice about aborting a fetus if it was inconvenient for them to bring a kid into the world.
Agreed bro. It’s sad that even some of these writers on a so-called “red pill” website are closet white knights and captain save-a-hoes. If they knew women’s true nature, they wouldn’t be portraying her as cute little Miss Daisy who can do no wrong
The graphic was from Cyanide and Happiness’s Depressing Comic Week 2, but the top got cut off. It was supposed to be dark humor. Stop reading too much into things.
People are going to see the crying bitch and assume her abortion was an agonizing decision and transfer this line of thought to the real world. This isn’t “reading too much into things” it’s basic perception. When I saw the crying bitch, I also assumed she was a victim of circumstance deserving of my sympathy. Again, this is basic perception, not rocket science.
Stupid knee jerk fools with little ability for original thought and no ability to filter truth from noise are going to see the crying bitch and assume dumb shit, yes. I think they call that Asperger’s Syndrome?
Oh look, this seems like a reasonable article for once
Let’s….mhmm…so far so good….aaaand straight to the victim blaming.
I’ll give you guys this much, it only took you, oh, two paragraphs to get there. I’d say that’s a new record!
Cues the 1 second video clip from that unnamed movie, “Shut up Cunt”
Good sex ed is instrumental in preventing teen pregnancies and abortions. The Netherlands has a long tradition of being open about sex, giving children comprehensive education about contraceptives, resulting in very low rates of teen pregnancy and abortion.
The conservative/christian approach – not discussing sex and promoting abstinence – in the US obviously doesn’t work. So lets just be real. Teenagers are going to experiment with sex. Make sure they have been educated by then.
We both have the same goal, but opposite approaches. Your approach is the carrot, my approach is the stick
Your Carrot: positive sex education
My Stick: shame, mock, humiliate and socially ostracize all teen preggos. Women are slaves to social pressure, once something is considered taboo by the population, women fall into line very quickly and start behaving themselves.
I have evidence supporting my carrot. What evidence do you have supporting yours?
My evidence the very internal code on which all women are designed (your mom, sister, girlfriend, every vagina on earth). My evidence is 1000s of years of human civilization prior to feminism, which kept women’s behavior and conduct in check largely via social and group pressure. Women are designed to follow the men they serve, nature designed them on that very basis.
Leave your PhD at home, it can’t measure up to the very core of how females are designed psychologically – as followers. They are awaiting OUR instructions. Right now, too many men are giving them poor instruction.
Currently, the only countries using that system are the hardcore muslim countries. And they tend to be shitholes.
Providing education has been proven to work. No need to go back to the dark ages in an attempt to prevent abortion.
It’s actually YOU who is living in the dark ages, especially after you posted this admission of your complete and utter incompetence:
“If a pill like that existed, I would gladly pay for that.
I’ve had too many exes trying to talk me out of using a condom over the years…”
Your own words prove that you have a poor grasp/understanding of women’s nature and how to run a satisfying relationship with them where they know the MAN is in charge
Leave your “living in the dark ages” bs at home with your dysfunctional women-dominated relationships. I know what I’m doing, you don’t
Right. So your evidence was citing how civilizations did things 1000s of years ago, and now I live in the dark ages for promoting education? Get your reasoning straightened out.
I have an excellent understanding of relationships, women and biology – no contraceptive is 100% effective, and using more than one is always a good idea. Also, I’m not a big fan of women being on the pill, for all the weird side effects they have. Using a male contraceptive as well as a condom would put me 100% in charge of the decision of when I will have children.
You’ve misunderstood the conservative approach to family planning. It is not abstinence, it is *actual planning* and it is not a hatred of sex, it is a love of sex that drives them. The conservative approach is very popular and therefore (due to the bell curve) largely a feature of beta masculinity. Their love of sex for beta males leads them to desire a social system where betas get wives who are reasonably chaste. They do this for posterity. Your Nordic approach results in catastropic birth rates and disproportionate incentives for men to pursue families. Your approach requires the reprogramming of all sectors of society to accept what is not popular/desirable among most men; the men themselves have to be reprogrammed to accept sluts, and civilization has to be reprogrammed to support feminism. If anything happens to the economy of such a place, it all comes crashing down, and total chaos ensues. In a more traditional society they will remain strong and stable in economic/social stress.
When young men ask me why they struggle with porn and desire so much, I tell them that it is totally natural and in any traditional, properly ordered society, they would be on their way to family building in their late teens. This opens their eyes to what has been taken from them.
you are wrong about this….. women accepted instructions BECAUSE life was difficult and dangerous AND because they needed men to do all their heavy lifting…. women simply didn’t have any control, so there was no option….
if you go on a cruise liner and it starts sinking, you better listen to instructions and get yourself in a life boat… your only other choice is to dive overboard and swim…. women saw that option as unviable…. so they used to do as they were told…
today, not so much….. that is the flaw of red pill…. women will follow and accept alpha dominance and be wary of social pressure etc. etc. BUT only to a point….. today they have a choice…..
“…all teen preggos.” Too many single parent homes exist for that. Irresponsible women who let their men molest and rape her kids because they can’t stand being alone are the worst.
They’re also growing to be the most common kind of single mother, that’s a pit which no society can climb out of. Potential future wives and mothers ruined before they even start puberty, oh lawd!
Never heard of a case where any single dads allowing other men to molest their sons & daughters yet….
Actually the poster boys for gay marriage in Australia did just that with an adopted son. Not sure if that counts.
EXACTLY. FINALLY A VOICE OF WISDOM ON THIS OTHERWISE STUPID WEBSITE
The only reason it doesn’t work is because of the depraved state of modern media throwing all kinds of bullshit at the teens. And because teens are dumb.
Sex Ed in the UK was compulsory when I went to school, but our abortion rate is twice (?) yours, where we have 33 per 1000 as compared to your 15 per 1000 (from CDC.gov). There is some other factor causing the abortion rate, in the same way gun control is a problem in the US (gotta disarm the sheeple) but not in other countries like Switzerland.
There must be some cultural or other factor causing these problems, not Christianity. Kids are savvy to sex and don’t need to discuss it with parents and perhaps even schools, to know that contraception is available.
How many of those abortions came from the muslim “grooming” (child rape) cases your leftists denied occurred? 2o years after someone explained the muslim principle of al-hijra, cases finally break and social workers say they didn’t investigate because the crimes fit the stereotype.
If it was on men to take a pill every day in order to prevent pregnancy, unwanted pregnancies would be happening a highly reduced rate. You also wouldn’t have men pissing and moaning on the internet and before congress about how they couldn’t afford the products without the government paying for it. We’d all take up a paper route well into our 30’s if we had to, in order to cover such a wondrous method of systemic misery prevention.
^^ Truther
(thumbs up)
If a pill like that existed, I would gladly pay for that.
I’ve had too many exes trying to talk me out of using a condom over the years…
Your ex-girlfriends don’t want you using condoms? Why?
Condoms smell bad, taste bad and feel bad. I only have sex in committed relationships because I fear STD’s but can’t stand condoms.
I’m in two minds. Abortion has been around for so long, that getting rid of it would make a society most women could not adapt to. Plus it would completely eliminate a lot of casual sex.
On the other hand, a society needs children. The children haven’t been born due to abortion technologies, hence it has resulted in social degeneration for a variety of reasons and a need for mass immigration. Pregnancy was nature’s way of ensuring that the family line and society continued. Plus abortion is also completely un-Christian.
In any case, as we can see from Hoe-bamacare, the status quo is to whore all the way. I do wish, though, that women wouldn’t see abortion as glorified contraception and hence make better choices with regards to their partners. Also, women need to learn to be good mothers again, or we will be standing in the ruins of what was once a great society, 20-30 years from now, tops.
actually if you read freakonomics, they show in that book how Roe v Wade meant that thousands, millions of would be criminals from single parent homes were never born…. and thus in the early 90s when clinton came into power…. a crime wave endemic that was predicted never came to pass… you may recall that NYC was an absolute pit in the 70s and 80s and now is relatively safe and decent… this is simply because the impverished criminals due to be born in the 70s and 80s never made it past the abortion clinic….
This is correct. And the F*** politicians, like R. Guilliani, had the audacity to take credit for reduced crime through alleged increases in law enforcement ala post-Regan war on crime movement.
And if you read “Freedom-nomics” they disprove that silly assertion in Freakonomics by using neighboring Canada as a control. Abortion was illegal in the same time frame, but they had a similar drop in crime rate as the US.
Freakonomics is sadly full of neat, plausible bullshit.
That’s because “broken window” policing works. It’s duplicated elsewhere. Guilliani’s policies were absolutely responsible for the drop in NYC lawlessness. I’m not syaing he invented it, but he followed a successful strategy. He set the tone that you obey the damn law and little infractions will not be overlooked.
The judeo christian holy books make absolutely no mention of contraception. Holy men know that more babies means more dammed souls to fill their coffers every Sunday, the ban on contraception was invented by pope’s.
The Scriptures mention the sin of Onan, where Onan did not ejaculate into his wife’s womb, thus preventing her pregnancy. This was an abomination before the Lord, it says. You also fail to understand, that Christianity is not a Bible-based religion; it existed for 4 centuries before the Bible was compiled. The Church is an institution founded by Christ and built upon the Apostles, with Peter as their chief. As Christ said, “I have come to build my Church,” not, “I have come to write my Bible, so that every idiot can twist my words to suit him.” Obey the Church, that’s what Jesus came to establish. Forget your private interpretations; if you interpret the Bible differently from the early Church, then you are the one making stuff up.
Plus, the moral tradition against contraception is not just a Christian one, but a natural law tradition that all moral philosophers acknowledge. The Dalai Lama has explained why contraception is not permissible for Buddhists, for example.
Chesterton was right about people who slam the Catholic Church: “any stick is good enough to beat it with.” Catholicism is out to make more babies, on the one hand, but Catholicism is out to repress human sexuality through celibacy on the other. Catholicism is too violent; Catholicism is too pacifistic. Only something truly extraordinary could seem to piss everyone off at the same time, for perfectly opposite reasons…
The millions of bishops, priests, monks and nuns, especially in the middle ages, certainly curbed the birth-rate very sharply, which Catholics wouldn’t have done if they were only looking to make more babies.
Read a book, and don’t believe every word spoken by your self-appointed oracle at the 154th Truly and For-Realsies Apostolic Church of the Lawrd Geezus of the Foursquare Gospel up the Creambun with Jam.
Protestant Sectarianism: it’s like an open-mic amateur-hour at the local comedy club. “The Bible doesn’t mention contraception.” Not by name, I suppose. It doesn’t mention cloning or pedophilia, either, but I feel comfortable going out on a limb and condemning those two! Amateur hour!
Bible has Old Testament. Argument fails.
teh bibul is teh wurd of gawd! It sez so right there in teh bibul! It must be true.
You read GK Chesterton. Very impressed! You’re in the top 1%.dont pay attention to those retards.hopefully they don’t troll every intelligent post.
Exactly!
What is your point?
Thanks!
“The Scriptures mention the sin of Onan, where Onan did not ejaculate
into his wife’s womb, thus preventing her pregnancy. This was an
abomination before the Lord”
What a wacky “lord”!
“Plus, the moral tradition against contraception is not just a Christian
one, but a natural law tradition that all moral philosophers
acknowledge.”
So called “natural law” is a bunch of nonsense and not natural at all.
If you’re using Peter to justify Roman Catholicism, I feel like you’ve missed your own points about the early church. RC dug it’s own grave by playing politics and much much worse. What beefs do you have with Luther’s treatise? Which points could you not stand behind?
What church were people supposed to attend while RC was selling indulgences and tearing apart heretics with white hot tongs?
You’re right, Protestants and sects are amateur hour compared to RC. Even Jim Jones was pitifully bush league compared to RC’s carnage.
“I’ll read the scriptures and explain it to you. TRUST ME.” – RC
As a former atheist, and then Protestant (non-denominational), and then Orthodox Christian now entering the Catholic Church, I can say with all certainty that the best scriptural scholarship, the best science, the best philosophy and the best spirituality have always emanated from the Catholic Church. It is obviously an over-simplification to characterize Catholicism as you do (“I’ll read the Scriptures and explain it to you”). A more accurate description, would be to say that Christ obviously established a Church (He didn’t write a Bible!), He left that Church in human hands (the Apostles), He told the faithful to listen to the Church, called it the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth, and had His apostles declare that the laity should be subject to their teachers.
In other words, a better description of Catholicism would be “Welcome to the Body of Christ; as God has given gifts to each of us, let us serve Him according to our capacities, and rejoice in the governing and teaching authority of those who have succeeded the Apostles in the governance of the household of the faith, and regard them as stewards of the Mysteries of God, even as we participate in the Mysteries with them and become partakers alike of the Divine Nature.”
I’ll never understand people who view mistakes, sins, crimes or unofficial doctrinal errors as undermining the essential nature of the Church. The Church saw that Luther had good points on certain issues, and the settled doctrine of Indulgences corresponds very tightly to the Apostolic Tradition. Claims of the torturing of heretics are grossly exaggerated, and most of the (few) acts of torture that occurred, occurred under the Spanish secular authorities. When the archives of the Inquisition were opened, it was revealed that a shockingly small number of executions or crimes occurred. The directive as to what kinds of pressure could be applied in investigation, read like the discussions in recent times about water-boarding. Nothing horrific was allowed, and there was debate even over that. Most of the “horrors” of the Inquisition were in fact horror stories invented by Protestants, but disproven by the historical record.
I appreciate the detailed response, but I’ll try to keep my rebuttal succinct.
Who is more similar to the early church, Catholics or Protestants? To me, the answer is obvious.
I should have been more clear on another point. If I was a peasant who spoke German, why keep the scriptures in Latin? Why make the people solely dependent on a parish priest? That trust was horribly abused. Before you respond, consider Paul’s advice regarding the Boreans and reading source documents for themselves.
As for torture, don’t you dare compare stress positions and discomfort intended to scare murderers out of their secrets with the actions of your church. RC got in bed with temporal powers and that was their undoing. I’m not badgering you, but if you don’t know the murders and atrocities committed by the Catholic Church in Europe, you owe it to yourself to read a history – anyone’s, really. Once they got into the empire business, things got very nasty and ungodly.
In short, Catholics wanted the sole license to practice Christianity. In the process they perverted it, abused the flock and they still haven’t recovered from the mess they made of things.
A brand isn’t important, the Word is. That institution has ruined their name, time and again. They may have fine teachers these days, but it’s arguable that they don’t deserve the trust of people seeking God. That’s not a fact that makes me particularly happy, it’s just an observation.
The Church is a spiritual institution, not brick and mortar. Christ was clear about the nature of his Kingdom. There is no dancing around Papal empire building.
” Plus abortion is also completely un-Christian.”
Nonsense.
This. But there is ‘SmartRisug’ now which is a little better.
The other thing we could do is point out that women aren’t slaves to their biology anymore. They also aren’t considered chattel by ‘the chauvinist pigs’ running the country. A guy did an excellent job poking the feminists on Fark.c search for ‘inglixthemad’ and watch what he does to the feminists.
http://www.fark.com/comments/8155417/Pregnant-women-are-just-hosts-even-though-some-people-refer-to-them-as-mothers-This-actual-quote-from-A-A-snide-comment-from-a-gay-man-B-A-horror-author-C-A-VA-state-rep
Fark is about as blue-pill as it gets. It was not always this way. Over a long period, all the far left people in that community decided to chase off anyone they didn’t like. What’s left is something that inglixthemad casually backhands at them and they can’t see their errors in logic. Very sad death of a community.
LOL – if men could have abortions they’d be available in drive-thrus. Lets be real here. Fucking dummies.
Then it stands to reason that if men had to pay for the children, then abortion would also be available in drive-thrus and women could be legally compelled to have the procedure. Nice try.
“dummies”
Women always say the same stupid shit about male birth control: “I’m not gonna trust a man to take his birth control! No way! trolololol”
The reality of the situation is that we have EVERY reason to make sure we take our birth control. The consequences for us are simply to great to ignore, only a borderline retarded man would avoid taking birth control with the way child support laws go in this country.
The consequences are arguably greater for a woman aren’t they? You can avoid child support laws but a woman can’t really avoid her baby.
She can have an abortion….
Check and mate for the win
I’m talking about after the baby is born. And if she has an abortion there are no child support issues either.
Since you raised it though, abortion is not a pleasant consequence for a woman.
Her body her choice. There is no reason for a woman to have a child that she doesn’t want in this day in age. Once an ex girlfriend of mine told me a story about her friend getting pregnant. She was hooking up with two different guys at the time and wasn’t sure who the father was. She was also completely broke and couldn’t afford an abortion. So what did she do? She told both of them individually that it was their child and that she needed them to pay half of the abortion costs.
Good point. Actually this is really the problem isn’t it? A woman can decide to have a baby regardless of whether the man wants to take care of it or not. She can do this because she can use the State to force the man to pay for a child he doesn’t want. So it seems the issue isn’t really contraception. Its that the State enables and rewards a woman for having a child out of wedlock. And she can use this as leverage to make you pay for an abortion.
What a disgusting whore.
Women can legally:
1. Kill the baby. Abortion
2. Kill the baby after it is born. Late term abortion
3. Abandon the baby. hospitals, fire stations etc.
4. Force non-taxable, non-accountable income from the father.
All without the fathers consent, involvement or approval.
Many a women has used the “need an abortion” payment from their ex as a parting gift. One got a new tattoo, jewelery, another always bought a new outfit…
Wait kill the baby after its born??!! And are you sure a mother abandoning a baby is legal? I am sure that is covered under negligence laws.
While I agree in principle with the others the picture I get from single mothers I have known is that it is not all gravy for them and I know plenty of fathers who manage to avoid child support. Not saying that is always the case but my fundamental point is that its easier for a man to avoid responsibility for a baby after it is born than it is for a woman.
For the record I do not agree with child support laws. They are just a way to remove a man from the picture but keep his money. Fundamentally, unethical.
How do you go about avoiding child support? Not work and smoke pot all day or hope the woman is too stupid to remember your name. Anyone that makes money the govt knows about is stuck.
More likely reality she had an ultrasound with her name added to it and had each guy pay full cost for something that was not there.
KILL DA WABBITS
Sorry, I’m channelling Vox Day as Elmer Fudd …
“Kill the baby after it is born. Late term abortion”
Late term abortions do not take place AFTER the baby is born, you idiot.
“so women couldn’t use what was in them to avoid deployment”
Female military staff uses condoms to avoid deployment?!
No like the “good muslim” woman that claimed the IMF chief forced her somoli self to perform oral sex on him,only to be saved by her telling her drug dealing boyfriend in prison about the scam while being recorded. If you leave a condom from a $5000 hooker on the rim of a trash can, the semen inside can be used by any woman that comes across it.
OK but what would prevent a male soldier from deployment in that situation? Female soldiers can avoid deployment via pregnancy, but male solidiers can’t get preggers.
Cancer. When the Gulf War Syndrome study came out saying that soldiers that deployed where healthier than those that didn’t it turned out that having cancer patients and preggers on the not side was a huge difference. The study counted a preg woman going to appointments as if it was a man going to the ER 30 times in a year with US done days before so results would be available.
80% of the baby is “born” when late term abortions take place. It’s a bullshit technicality to deliver a thriving child, but just leave the head inside the mother, so you can snip it’s spinal cord. It is very gruesome.
The counter-argument is that the woman’s decision was already made when she had sex. Deciding time is past. The developing human inside her ought to be protected. Believe me, I’ve had some close calls. But like it or not, you can’t get around the fact that it’s a developing human in there. We were all once in that shape conditions.
They should consult the father when they can.
Truest thing I’ve heard.
“I’m not gonna trust a man to take his birth control!”
Fine. All women have to do is keeping taking their own birth control, and insist on condoms as well and that way everyone will be protected 3 times over.
Its a win-win-win!!!
Always?
I like how you speak for all men.
How would you make it “on men” to take a pill? Regulation? Law? Send the police round every morning to force that pill down your throat?
How on Earth would this prevent pregnancy? Most men can’t remember to take their vitamins. And is not a woman responsible for her own body?
And I don’t know about you but I don’t trust a chemical laden pill from a company I just don’t know, interfering with my natural biological functions. Do you know what the long term or epigenetic effects are of that because I don’t.
Vasalgel is a one time injection in the vas deferens that is good for ten years. I will admit that after re-reading my article I did not do a good job of explaining that, but it is a one time injection good for ten years. The amount of substance is very small and lasts for ten years so very little if any is absorbed out of the vas deferens into other parts of the body. Vasalgel does not impair any biological functions. I hope this cleared some things up. However, please click on the link and research it yourself before demanding answers to questions you could easily answer yourself.
With respect (assuming you are referring to me) I didn’t demand answers to anything. My questions were directed to Van Zan’s comment regarding “pills”.
Since you have raised it though, doesn’t Vasalgel impair biological functions by definition? Not saying its permanent but that does seem to be the case.
Last point though and again with respect, I suspect that you are either an advocate or marketer of this product. As such, I don’t think it is incumbent on the customer or the audience of your article to conduct research to support your assertions. In my opinion the salesmen should convince the customer rather than expect the customer to convince himself. Certainly, I don’t have time to do it.
I like how your reading comprehension is at a level where you feel comfortable making the statement “I like how you speak for all men.”, because even a quick glance over my statement would lead to the conclusion that I’m not speaking for all men, or even claiming to have a position where I could.
How would I make it “on men” to take a pill? Again, reading comprehension would bring one to the conclusion that my statement was an opinionated analysis of a situation that does not exist (men taking birth control) vs reality where it’s solely within a woman’s sphere of responsibility and access to the pill. At no point did I advocate any enforcement mechanism legal or otherwise, rather doing much the opposite and surmising that men would take a birth control pill designed for them by choice.
This would prevent pregnancy because men are more responsible that women, and also are much more vulnerable to the legal system in regards to children, thus are much more incentivized to use the birth control methods afforded to them, in this case a fictional male-only birth control pill. And if you’re comparing your run of the mill vitamins with pills that will prevent 18 years of child support and an awful woman in your life for that period, then you must conclude that men find those two things of equal importance.
And I don’t know about you, but I also do not trust an imaginary chemical laden pill from an imaginary company I just don’t know, interfering with my natural biological functions in some imaginary way. I can’t say I know what the long term of epigenetic effects of this imaginary pill are, because they’re imaginary. Or did you miss the part where my entire statement was a general observation of how birth control would be valued and used responsibly *IF* the pill had been designed for men. Perhaps if their were ill effects of that form of imaginary birth control, then we could have other imaginary companies make a dozen or more methods we could try, as women are currently afforded. And if those imaginary methods show long-term damage to our bodies we can all hire an imaginary lawyer and file an imaginary class action lawsuit because a few of us had a bad reaction to our imaginary trans-urethral mesh.
You sound very defensive – its easier and more edifying to admit that either you made a mistake or did not clearly explain your argument. Taking another “quick glance” doesn’t convince me that your statement does not suggest that you are speaking collectively for men. If that was not your intention, fine.
However, you seem to have undue faith in the responsible nature of ahem, all men. Lets leave aside arguments about whether or not all men equate vitamin pills with imaginary pills. Your argument falls flat on its face as if all men were as responsible as you say, and as concerned with consequences as you suggest, there would be no need for an imaginary pill since these responsible men would either wear their condom or not screw the girl in the first place.
The logistics of using a condom at all times, versus taking a pill once a day are not the same. Whether or not the man screws the girl is also divorced from the concept. The point here is if men were afforded “the pill”, unwanted pregnancy would occur at a far reduced rate. You contest that assertion, yet you failed to address how men are far more incentivized by society and it’s current laws to protect themselves by being responsible with this form of imaginary birth control versus women who are showered with rewards for carrying through with an unwanted (at the moment of conception) pregnancy via child support/men and welfare/men, or are allowed to evade the responsibilities through abortion. And many of these women simply choose not to use contraception that is effective, affordable, and accessible.
Men do not get to decide if the child is aborted or not, nor do they get to decide whether or not they pay child support, nor are they treated fairly when it comes to custody of the children. So it’s pretty obvious that men would handle taking a pill once a day much better than women ever have.
Speaking for myself, I would rather use a condom than take a pill that can mess with my normal biological functions, with unknown epigenetic effects on my grandchildren. I am not even comfortable with women taking a pill given that they have immediate unpleasant side effects on the woman and could also impact my grandchildren.
The logistics are not the same, true. In my view a condom is superior since you know that you are wearing it and you know if it fails. A pill on the other hand, you can forget to take or think you took when really you didn’t. And you don’t know that it is working.
I don’t follow your logic. If what you are saying is true about incentivisation then unwanted pregnancies should not occur regardless of the availability of pills since alternative forms of contraception are available. Furthermore, if a man is truly concerned about the financial consequences he can just avoid having sex with untrustworthy sluts. And I know men that do this.
I think you place too much faith in the forward thinking of the average man. The prisons are filled with men who didn’t think through the consequences of their actions.
I agree we are not treated fairly with respect to virtually anything to do with children. Men pay, women benefit.
Pregnancy is 100% the woman’s responsibility.
The irony is most woman want unprotected sex because the are still kids in their heads and don’t want responsibilities.
American women never really grow up until they hit 45.
I have been pushing this like so many others for decades. RISUG has actually been sent back to the trial phase by the FDA claiming health risks on the first and secondary objections.
Once those are fixed, THEN they will let it through supposedly.
Let’s all hold our breath!
But I’ll bet the fundamentalist fringe will then claim male contraception is sinful, and just a way for men to not man up and raise families.
Actually there has been a highly effective male birth control pill for men invented. The only reason it’s not on the market is because of “inhumane side effects” such as abdominal cramps, mood swings, increased sex drive, food cravings, and bloating. Do any of these sounds familiar? Oh yeah! Their the effects of a period, something girls go through every month, but I guess men are just too wimpy to deal with that.
If such a pill existed then I’m on board for it. I’m a hormonal bitch from hell on the pill, but I take it religiously none the less, a few bad moods to pay for a few more years of childlessness are a fair price to pay.
With that in mind, abortions should exist, but they shouldn’t be as easily available as they are in the UK. I had a friend who actually used abortion as contraception, due to this, I’m not friends with her now. Ultimately I believe that if the child will have a shit quality of life (ie severely disabled) or will die shortly after birth, if the mother physically could not sustain the pregnancy without significant risk to her health, or in the instance of rape should be the only circumstances in which an abortion should be considered.
Unplanned pregnancies are preventable, so I don’t think they should be grounds for an abortion. Abortions in the UK are commonly funded on the NHS, which is funded by the taxpayer.
Are you willing to scupper an affair?
Parsley, sage, rosemary, and thyme
Decoct them as a tea you’ll prepare
And there won’t be that unborn kid to mind …
Now how do you plead, Miss Robinson?
WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO TELL ME OR ANY WOMAN WHAT WE CAN DO WITH OUR BODIES? THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL FACT OF FEMALE DIGNITY. JUST LIKE WE DON’T TELL MEN TO SHAVE OR NOT TO SHAVE.
KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OUR BODIES…
Sounds like someone just got their Platinum Planned Parenthood Rewards Card in the mail…
SHUT YOUR GOD DAMN MOUTH UP. I AM NOT A MEMBER OF PP FOR YOUR STUPID INFORMATION NOT THAT YOU DESERVE TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ME OR MY AFFILIATIONS.
Be nice Maureen. Do what you like then, just don’t ask us to pay for it.
I will happily help pay for other people’s abortions.
With my money, or yours?
NOBODY would put their dick into the vast wasteland that is Maureen’s unused vagina. Nobody.
It isn’t your body.
Abortion destroys societies. At least China, India and other similar nations are the same or on a slow way up. That’s because they have kids. We don’t and hence all the Western nations are in population decline. So whether it is women’s choice or not, by sticking to this route, eventually they will have no choice, as society will make hard decisions one way or another to fix the rot.
On the other hand, the focused abortion of female fetuses in China and India is destroying their societies just as fast. Human trafficking, child theft, dowry murders, all due to a lack of women and therefore future wives and mothers… nope, sorry, those were not the best examples you could have chosen.
Keep your hands out of our wallets. Give us the right to renounce fatherhood at pregnancy….and child support. Male dignity.
Noticed that you left out the dignity of the child. Just vacuum him out of “Your Body” in pieces. Even though that child could survive without its Mom.
Also, nobody likes you here and you’re not making a difference… Or much of a point.
“CHILD” ? ? TAKE BIOLOGY 101 OR READ ANY BOOK ON THE SUBJECT. IT’S NOT A CHILD IT’S A BUNCH OF CELLS.
BUT I EXPECT A MISOGYNIST TO PREFER A BUNCH OF CELLS TO A LIVING BREATHING WOMAN WITH A FULL SPIRIT
Fine. I think its more than a “bunch of cells” after 6 months or whenever. We disagree here.
Why can’t I opt out of child support? Why does a female get all the rights to the birth, and the man doesn’t get to legally say anything. He only pays…and eventually gets jail time if he doesn’t.
Maureen, you are literally nothing more than a bunch of cells. Unless you want to talk about a soul, or some religious stuff, you are nothing but a bunch of cells. /scientific fact.
It never stops being a bunch of cells. From the moment of conception, humans are simply a bunch of cells undergoing meiosis to sustain life.
You’re using an irrational argument based purely on emotion rather than any kind of factual reality. I think I was more mature as a fetus. And Maureen would have no problems with me being sliced up into tiny little pieces, vacuumed out and disposed of.
I get your logic. However, The ONLY surfire way any man is going to avoid paying child support is not having sex. Even with birth control/condoms there is a risk of pregnancy. And if abortion is out of the question, he has to pay the price.
Just don’t come at us with “Its my body, my choice,” then expect child support. You don’t get to logically argue for both.
“WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO TELL ME OR ANY WOMAN WHAT WE CAN DO WITH OUR BODIES?”
This:
“If we are unwilling to hold women strictly accountable for their actions, we have only one logical recourse available: a return to the ancient Roman legal doctrine that a woman is a perpetual minor. Although demeaning to women and inconvenient even for men, such a system is at least internally consistent. What is both inconsistent and morally indefensible is what feminism and the misguided gallantry of certain male conservatives are now combining to promote: freedom for women to do as they damned well please with blame and punishment for men if the women are not happy with the results of their own behavior.”
http://dontmarry.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/fscr.pdf
Western Women are ensuring that both sexes are enslaved to the state. So we both become slaves and not capable of making our own decisions.
THE CAPS LOCK KEY IS ON THE FAR LEFT HAND SIDE OF YOUR KEYBOARD. IF YOU CLICK IT YOU GET LOWER CASE.
I AM NOT AFRAID OF MY VOICE. THIS IS HOW I SPEAK AND IF YOU DON’T LIKE A STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMAN THEN MOVE TO NORTH KOREA.
THAT’S MY GIRL. SHE’S A STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMAN AND DOESN’T TAKE ORDERS FROM PIPSQUEAK PYJAMA BOYS. IF YOU BLANKET BLOG BOYS ARE AFRAID OF KNOCKING UP SOME GIRL AND PAYING CHILD SUPPORT WHICH IS YOUR DUTY THEN KEEP YOUR LITTLE WEINERS IN YOUR PANTS OR WANK TO PORN WHICH IS SOMETHING YOU’RE GOOD AT.
By that logic, if you are scared of getting pregnant and having to have a baby, keep your legs shut?
Inter-uterine sausage making is done for woman’s dignity ?
How is inter-uterine sausage making dignified in any way ?
Because there are two bodies? There is your body, and then there is also the body of your child.
When I shave I don’t happen to kill another human being. It’s actually kind of a big difference.
Speak for yourself, please.
*signed, another woman*
Check the article again OP, on the paragraph after the Engineer pic you probably made a mistake and you omitted the part about the first injection of the procedure.
Would pay for this injection. Would save me money and distress in the long run
This “blocking” of RISUG is very likely due to the impact of big pharma’s need for constant profits. I’m not knocking capitalism, I’m knocking cronyism.
yeah… the IUD is an excellent form of birth control, non hormonal, fitted in the cervix / uterus, you can check if it’s there with a finger and it lasts for 5-7 years…. costs $50 and 10 minutes to put in….
in latin america and china it’s very common because people cannot afford to buy pills each month, but in europe and north america, it’s black balled…
if doctors were truly upholding the Hippocratic oath, to do no harm, they would insist that all girls try a coil first…
but instead big pharma insists on profits (and breast cancer) for young women.
Doctors are generally poor businessmen, but their predecessors have created quite a system of cronyism that has inflated prices and distorted actual health care practice into a monster that is killing the United States.
I had an IUD for nearly 7 years and simply loved it (okay, apart from the 4 days every month when I was dripping blood through my jeans within an hour after changing… IUDs force heavier bleeding). I wish it were advertised more, but the pharma industry doesn’t earn billions with it and suppresses it neatly. None of my doctors ever told me about it, but the internet is a great thing sometimes…
Unfortunately, the Hippocratic oath is a myth and not included in a medical education. It was only ever an ideal and never binding.
I’m from Europe and abortion really isn’t a topic here. I don’t even know the law in my country but I really don’t understand why it’s such a huge issue. I get the whole religious argument about it being murder but I seriously think that’s bullshit if it’s done in the first few weeks or whatever. I might sound completely ignorant but I see no difference in using a condom or a having an abortion later. Can anybody fill me in?
Certainly you can see the difference between an abortion at three weeks and one at twenty weeks or more.
It isn’t a religious argument, ironically the religious are at least scientifically correct. Life beings at conception, this is when an individual organism whose cells are capable of undergoing meiosis is formed. The religious argument,comes from the religion of the 21st century, progressivism, which bestows an abstract concept called “personhood” around the 20th week, upon which it is no longer ethical to terminate the fetus, because it is now human.
Abortion is the best thing that happened to medicine. Drop off your girl at the clinic to get the future money pit out while it is still legal. Make sure to get your girl a large pepperoni pizza after she’s all done at the clinic. $500 dollar abortion investment saves you over $100k in the long run.
I discovered the manosphere about 2010, specifically a post on Chateau Heartiste, one day when I Googled “men like abortion.”
More like $250K over 18 years.
Imagine if there was any other investment that cost $500 and after 9 months returned $1000- 1500 per month for 18 years.
Bitcoin did that before the crash.
Abortion lowers crime, so it is pretty beneficial to society. Maybe we should look at shortening the time available for a woman to have an abortion. I don’t see many men who will get an injection that is “more likely reversible than a non surgical vasectomy” in their bollocks, do you?
I’d sign up.
It is only a fifteen minute outpatient procedure. If men are willing to get a surgical vasectomy then they will not mind a dab of topical numbing antiseptic and a short prick if it means not having to worry about the “oops I’m pregnant” moment with a girlfriend for 10 years. Sure some men won’t get it, but after enough men who didn’t get it because they were scared get locked down with 18-21 years of child support reason will enter the minds of men.
Castration would lower crime, too
Certainly not. I shudder to think the ways on which castrated men would spend their energy.
Maybe we should just kill all men since they are beasts.
Abortion is a crime, and it produces a society where crime is not taken seriously.
A better way to deal with excess criminal populations is to execute the guilty, rather than murdering the innocent. We tolerate crime in this society in a way that would mystify all other human civilizations before us. In fact, we are so insane on the issue of crime, that it makes sense for us to say things like “abortion reduces crime.”
Abortion is a crime, and it produces a society that does not take crime seriously. A just society executes criminals and thins the ranks in that way, rather than encourage women to kill the innocent in the hopes of “preventing” crime in the future, by committing crime now.
Execution does not deter criminals. Children born into dysfunctional circumstances are more likely to become criminals and a drain on society. It is an economically irrefutable fact.
I don’t care if it deters criminals. What I care about, is that it kills criminals. When a rapist is hung by the neck until dead, guess what is certainly eliminated? Any chance of a repeat offense.
My view is that a civilized society should have neither the time nor the patience to put up with violent criminals. I can see showing leniency *one time only* to a man who maybe holds somebody up at gunpoint with a fake gun because he was driven to it in desperation to feed his family. But if somebody holds someone up at gunpoint for frivolous reasons (real or fake gun, I don’t care), or if somebody actually rapes, kills, brutally assaults, etc., then that person should simply be put to death. I’m speaking of cases where there are witnesses or some other kind of certain evidence. You don’t want to put someone to death if there’s anything like a real chance that they may have been wrongly convicted.
That said, kill them and be done with it. There’s one problem solved. Plus, it gradually winnows down the dysfunctional communities who produce these kids. Where do dysfunctional families come from? They come from people who lie, cheat, steal, and hurt other people, either landing in prison or otherwise forsaking the parent of their children, etc. For the record, I would also have a two strikes and you’re out policy with irresponsible, out-of-wedlock parents who refused to marry after discovering they were pregnant. Because single mothers and dysfunctional families do contribute so much to the criminal element, it is time we recognized the fact and punished people severely, who dare to start such families. If you knock a woman up and ditch her, that’s fine for the first time only. Everybody makes mistakes, and maybe you really shouldn’t marry that woman because you would be horrible together. You will pay child support as appropriate. But if you do it again, you’ve demonstrated that you’re a complete deadbeat who will bring society down with you. Death penalty. Same for women who get knocked up over and over again by a line of men. Death penalty. Over time, this will reduce the criminal population and improve society. Things have gotten out of hand, and I think a firmer discipline for the criminal element is necessary at this point.
By the way: if you think you can come down from your lofty tower of the “reality based community,” where you seem to think everything is subjective and debatable except for the points you want to make, you would realize that there are very few facts dealing with economic issues, that are ‘irrefutable’ and beyond debate.
“Same for women who get knocked up over and over again by a line of men. Death penalty.”
And is this for the women who got pregnant and aborted – or those who gave birth? Because the idea of killing off a woman and leaving her children as orphans is just as reprehensible as your initial suggestion. And it doesn’t sound like you’d have any interest in reviewing each instance on a case by case basis – since apparently you’d be the one doing all of the judging.
Yes, I’m sure the children would really be missing out on the excellent mothering skills of the woman with a line forming outside her bedroom door.
That is why you pull out and sploog ON them instead of IN them. Locations in order of preference: 1. open mouth /face,
2. chest and boobies
3. Hair
4. back/butt while doing doggie…
Don’t understand why more men can’t grasp this.
Blame beer
That helps but you do understand that you can still get a woman pregnant when not actually cumming inside her, right? Want to add to the effectiveness of that, wear a condomn. Nobody wants to but it is better than paying child support for the next few decades.
Quite possible to use the pull out method without getting a woman pregnant, you obviously lack discipline. Pre cum does not impregnate women. I have been using that method for almost 3 years, no accidents.
Maybe the women were simply intelligent enough to take the pill or have an implant or get the 3-months-injection so they can have questionable fun without getting impregnated by someone like you…
You can still get diseases from girls that medicine cant cure.
The ONE woman was not on anything and still isn’t. Long term relationship and no contraception and no slip ups. Discipline, try it.
That is why you establish long term relationships with women you trust, who are clean and who have been tested. Everyone who has had unprotected sex at any stage should have medical check ups. Long term relationships offer so much more than screwing randoms and potentially contracting STI’s.
The reason conservative groups will not push for RISUG/Vasalgel (or any other contraception) is because they are a bunch of religious busybodys who feel that it is their place to tell people to not have sex. Thus, abortion is less about the life of the fetus and more about punishing women for the crime of having sex without the intent to procreate.
If anti-abortion groups were really “pro-life,” they would oppose wars, favor gun control, and push for health insurance for everyone. If they really cared about reducing abortion, they would adopt the suggestion of this post — and the recommendation of feminists — to increase access to contraception.
Killing to defend life is…still defense of life. Contraception is still…preventing life. It’s undeniable at this point that sex outside moral parameters like marriage leads to the destruction of society. All the sexually liberated countries are falling to extinction levels of fertility, and collapsing their economies and borders
Read the first “Freakonomics” book. Their take is that the drop in crime rates is not due to incarceration, laws, 3 strikes etc but ABORTION. The theory is simple. People NOT being born do not then turn into thugs and criminals.
That’s an excellent book. My main worry with banning abortion is that you’re gonna push it underground. A person who had an unplanned pregnancy that doesn’t want a kid will find a way to not have that kid. From a risk-based view point, banning abortion increases the risk of something crazy happening. The way to deal with these problems isn’t with blanket bans.
It’ll never get banned anyways. Its not the ‘elite’ agenda. They want ‘depopulation’, and then if any labor is needed, they’ll have immigration for that.
The world’s population will have to come down dramatically in one fashion or another. The amount of stress being placed on natural resources and the environment is unsustainable. If you were to see a sudden spike in food prices, I think all hell could break loose in some parts of the world. If that were to happen, the Muslim world would be the first to go down.
This may be happening already…
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/data/jpg/20140225/20140225_CA_trd.jpg
I’m not so worried about the developed world as I would be of the lesser developed world. Here, we’re productive and rich enough to pay for higher food price. In places like the Muslim world though, they often spend 50% of their income on food alone. As India and China get richer, they’ll also demand higher quality food and more meat, which puts further strains on food supplies and could force food prices higher. I actually believe it was the spike in food prices after the Fed’s QE 1 that caused the Arab Spring and if we get another serious spike in food prices, you could see some really crazy shit happen.
muslims are getting imported to the US with our taxes thanks to the refugee resettlement program and people that think bringing muslims to the US will make them like us more. The boston marathon brothers and Ft Dix attackers came in via my taxes.
food prices will go up this year. The Ukraine is Russia’s breadbasket that Soros started a coup in. England’s farmland is flooded right now thanks to watermelons(green outside red inside) interference. China’s rice output expected to slip. The CA drought & severe cold in the east is going to add up to higher prices. If you can store food you might want to load up to ride out the year.
Did the drop in crime actually coincide with improvements in society? A society with lots of freedom, activity, possessions, youth, intelligence, ambition etc. should also have a lively criminal element.
The controverting evidence, of course, being that we do have a crime wave now with even lower birth rates since that time. And that crime did go up in New York after Guiliani left, and is still rising.
I don’t doubt that abortion played a role – and, as the authors of that book say, the fact that it played a role, is not an argument in favour of abortion – but, obviously, the crucial factors go beyond abortion. The crucial factors are cultural, moral, spiritual. An healthy society doesn’t produce thugs, even when birth rates are relatively high. An healthy society also executes violent and destabilizing criminals, which has a tendency to flatten out those birth rate gains in the thug community.
I’m pro-choice. If you ban it, it’ll just go underground and be way more dangerous. The way to deal with stuff like this isn’t by resorting to blanket bans. Instead, you’ve gotta put more of an emphasis on family.
abortion is mostly for sluts
No, abortion is for women who know they cannot support the child properly. You probably won’t see a ton of upper-middle class white girls going in to get abortions because they have strong family ties and are financially secure. Most people who get abortions are lower-class women who know they can’t support the baby. You don’t have to be a “Slut” to get a pregnant and decide an abortion is best. And most women only use abortion if it’s necessary and not as a regular form of contraception
It’s certainly not the most ideal option, and I certainly wouldn’t wish for anyone to go through something like that. And in some situations, especially if the mother’s life is at risk, an abortion might be the only option.
I guess that’s why, while I am pro-choice, I also believe in educating young people about responsible sex. And that goes for both genders. It’s not shameful for either of them to feel any of those feelings, and should they choose give in to those feelings, they should at least be protected.
Need I remind you:
“Mothers” are allowed to abandon newborns with no judgement or consequences from society
“Mothers” are allowed to kill newborns and even toddlers with no judgement or consequences from society
Where are the demands for men having the option to chose fatherhood when they feel ready for it instead of it being imposed on them by the “Mother”
If it’s HER BODY, HER CHOICE, then why isn’t it MY WALLET, MY CHOICE. In other words, why do men have to pay for children they never wanted, when women are allowed to KILL, ABANDON, BUTCHER or throw away children they had the option of aborting, but chose not to.
Again, females = all rights, no accountability
males = all burdens, no rights
Sorry pal, but what you’re selling is a bunch of hyperbole. I’m pretty sure women still get arrested for stuff like toddler murder.
Yes, they get arrested and released soon after. They certainly don’t spend 20 years in prison like a man. They certainly aren’t branded “child killers” by the media like a man.
Again, you are a female apologist.
Rather than attempt an honest interpretation of my post, you choose to play dumb and not use your common sense.
Getting handcuffed isn’t the same thing as getting handcuffed and spending the rest of your life in prison for child murder you clown.
Talk to any cop- the leeway a single mother gets is a lot more leeway than a single man gets. All she needs is a kid on the teat and she has a virtual get out of jail free card. She literally has to murder her kids, and even then she gets a shorter sentence than a father.
Arrested, yes; convicted, not as often.
Spot on.
I agree with your abortion bit, but like Jeggins says I have never heard of a mother not getting raked over the coals for infanticide or murder of a young child… it is the last taboo for women left….
Circumcise all men, in fact take their sperm and castrate them at puberty since women have no rights to their bodies and reproduction neither should men. See how fucking stupid you sound now? You’re seriously gonna cry a river for all the aborted embryos? Yeah right.
There is another example in indonesia… gandarusa… non hormonal, reversable male pill….
http://www.newmalecontraception.org/indonesian-pill-gandarusa/
It does strike me as strange that birth control was left to women… WHEN in fact men taking birth control retain all the power…
It probably goes back to the male ideals pre-feminism, where women were more easily controlled…. but clearly giving them birth control without at least giving the men something equivalent, tipped the scales badly.
you know…sometimes I think you guys post articles here just for the sake of disagreeing with feminist values. You idiots are all secretly being duped by the republican party – way to use your brainz!
Feminists dont have any values (or value for that matter). They only have needs (that, as usual for women, can only be satisfied by men).
this. a thousand times this.
Cause ripping fetuses from over a million wombs a year is a brilliant idea. Yes, you are dummy number one, or your a liberal politician.
When an ideology (like Feminism) is that consistently and obviously wrong, its hard not to disagree with it.
Please explain to me what exactly in this article is disagreeing with feminist values.
No sane woman WANTS to have abortions, it’s not happy-go-fun-time to go to the clinic and have a fetus either sucked out of you or aborted through medication – both pretty goddamn painful and traumatic. Trying to keep abortion rates down through contraceptives, safe reversible procedures and using protection is GOOD.
Men to be able to not only use condoms (they can break) or trust their girlfriend/lover to take contraceptives and not lie/forget/whatnot about it, but also to be able to take their own contraceptives/have safe simple fully reversible procedures done is GOOD.
Free and easy access to abortions for worthless sluts is just about the only thing I agree with feminists on, as well as quick and easy access to a slut’s nether regions since she’s on that “empowerment” time and everything.
Why would I mock a woman for aborting a fetus that I as a tax payer do not want to provide for?
I’d gladly give the slut a free abortion. It’s cheaper than WIC, SNAP, Section 8, EBT and so on.
I want to shame these would-be welfare moms into having abortions.
More abortions = less worthless people
Providing women with unlimited abortion and birth control options has incentivised them to have indiscriminate sex with multiple partners without consiquence. This is great news for lotharios who want to be on the receiving end of that equation. This is not good news for ‘broody’ men who want to pair bond with women in long term marriages.
Well, just as there are men who wants to have indiscriminate sex with multiple partners, as are there women who wants the same. BUT, just as there are men who want to pair up with women in long term marriages, as are there women who want the very same thing. The trick is to find someone who wants what you want.
I have girlfriends who have enjoyed sleeping around, and I have girlfriends who were virgins on their wedding night. They all were ‘provided with unlimited abortion and birth control options’, but they made very different choices. It all boils down to their personality and beliefs.
Women by nature were never meant to ‘sleep around’, this was disadvantageous to their survival prospects during prehistoric times.
The feminist agenda has enlisted science and technology to extend women’s sexual options by way of birth control, abortions, IVF, fertility treatment etc etc
This is a problem for men as it unleashes female hypergamy.
She can now cheat on you without consequence of falling pregnant.
She can trick you into an ‘oops’ pregnancy by lying about taking the pill.
She can ride the carousel into her 30’s then snag a provider guy into pregnancy using IVF and fertility drugs.
Women are living out their deluded fantasies at the expense of men and tax payers without shame or consequence.
“Women by nature were never meant to ‘sleep around’, this was disadvantageous to their survival prospects during prehistoric times.”
There are different theories and hypotheses, but we can only guess at our pure biological natural behaviour and never really know. There are many studies who claim we probably had a similar behaviour to Bonobos, our closest relatives together with the chimpanzees, before religion and culture conditioned us to behave according to norms and morals we made up. Bonobos are massively ‘slutty’, especially females. There are few animals and insects in nature where females are monogamous. Usually females have more sexual partners during their lifetime than the males do.
We humans have for millenia used contraceptives and methods to prevent pregnancies and to ensure proper child spacing for the benefit of both mother and child, as well as for aborting unwanted fetuses. Nothing novel about it.
Regarding women parasitizing upon tax payers – I wasn’t aware that only men paid taxes…
You made some good points regarding Bonobos. What I meant was that human females benefited from pair bonding with a stable male as they would otherwise be abandoned in the wild to perish during childbirth
I’m curious about this point you made:
‘We humans have for millenia used contraceptives and methods to prevent pregnancies and to ensure proper child spacing for the benefit of both mother and child.’
Could you elaborate on this? What examples of contraceptives existed thousands of years ago that could safely abort a foetus, accelerate fertility, alter hormonal cycles etc
I think it’s been established early humans mainly lived in groups, so pairing wasn’t necessarily so important. Childbirth has mainly been a female ‘thing’, where women cared for eachother before, during and after this fragile and dangerous time.
Regarding contraceptives there are several herbs and berries that have been used to stifle fertility for thousands of years, as well as herbs used to promote fertility as well as milk flow.
Examples of hormone regulators and fertility enhancers (except the obvious nutrition and exercise);
Red Raspberry leaf
Nettle leaf
Dandelion leaf
Fermented Cod Liver Oil
Roe
Red Clover
Maca
Vitex
Alfalfa
Shatavari
Ashwaganda
Burdock Root
Schisandra
etc…
Increasing milk supply:
Fenugreek
Blessed Thistle
Raspberry leaf
Shatavari
Fennel
etc…
Examples of sterility promoters;
Stoneseed root
Thistles
Examples of Implantation preventers;
Wild Carrot seed
Smartweed leaves
Emmenagogues (promoting menstrual flow, abortatives);
Ginger root
Tansy leaves
Elderberries
Pennyroyal leaves
Angelica root
Black Cohosh root
Mugwort
Peruvian bark
Rosemary
Blue Cohosh root
etc…
Contraceptive/child spacing methods that have been used for millenia are for example the Fertility Awareness and Cervical Mucus Method (google it). A woman cannot become pregnant unless she has sex before or on her ovulation-time of the month.
Men pay in 70% of the taxes, women get more out of the state.
Welfare programs are men paying the state who give money to women, so women can kick men away form their families.
The state favours and protects women over men.
Single mother households are mess. The sort of women who would kick the father away from the kids is a psychopath. She should not have her toxic behaviour financed and enabled.
Women who get knocked up out of marriage should have enforced abortions, if they can’t find a male partner.
You talk of ‘the state’ as if it’s an alien entity. The state is comprised of people, where men still are in majority, especially in judicial and executive positions.
I agree with you on one thing, people who try to keep the other parent away from the children without cause (meaning that the parent they try to keep away hasn’t commited any crime against the children) and thus causing not only the parent but also the children trauma and psychological damage are deplorable despicable excuses of human beings.
You forgot sheep intestine condoms. Several mammals have induced (early) ovulation from trauma, but there is no ethical way to determine if humans are one of them.
“has incentivised them to have indiscriminate sex with multiple partners without consiquence”
What do I cared? Paying $400 for an abortion is a lot cheaper than paying $1000+ per month in welfare for a bastard child who will grow up to be a criminal.
It’s 2014. No one is going back to getting married at 14 years old. People are going to fuck.
A single mom with 4 kids sucks up over $1,000,000 taxpayer dollars in 10 years.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-27/when-work-punished-tragedy-americas-welfare-state
“the single mom is better off earnings gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045.”
chart
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/11-2/welfare%20cliff_0.jpg
Wow, this is a terrible article!
First of all, abortion is a good thing. A very good thing. It keeps incapable mothers from reproducing yet more thugspawn and keeps the crime rate down.
Second of all, religious conservatives would never support this male pill idea because their problem is not with abortion, it is with sex.
The problem is that usually the thugs girlfriend keeps the spawn. Where i live the only thing being born is usually thugspawn. Its usually a decent mans child that is aborted.
agree, look at how many grown up crybabies cunts there are here. Probably butthurt because they couldn’t start a family since too beta.
I impregnated my ex-gf for mistake and thank god there was the possibility to abort
Here’s my idea: young men should go ahead and get vasectomies after storing a supply of sperm for any future children HE PLANS to parent.
If and when a female wants a man for marriage and family, SHE CAN PURCHASE THAT SPERM at market rates, just as if she were a single female wanting a child out of wedlock. If she can’t afford the price, her parents can provide a DOWRY that will fund not only the sperm, but provide incentive for the successful man to sacrifice his freedoms and resources to co-parent with the female.
Men, get snipped and sell your goo to the highest and most worthy bidder. (bidders, plural, if you live in those polygamist areas, wink wink, nudge, nudge). Let’s bring back the real economics of female and familial support.
That’s absolutely brilliant and a great way to stop excessive reproducers from over littering as it should cost some coin to keep sperm froZen if it would be happening on a national scale, plus the cost of insemination, so in short we could out breed all the liberals. FTW.
Why, Thank You!
Serendipity, or coincidence. There’s a news on the local Fox News station I just happened to have on as background noise — Single woman reflects on the cost, risks, and uncertainties of artificial insemination. She says, “it’s $13,000 in my womb….”
Ok. Let’s add in some other expenses for EACH of those kids she want’s — from age 1 to 18 like I suggest. I just wanted to look at the numbers for my own info.
$13,000 to get “knocked-up” (sperm + insemination + doctors/techs + labs, etc)
$11,666 avg. annual childcare cost per (NACCRRA) for 12 years = $134,000
$ 4020 avg. annual cost to raise child (USDHHS) for 18 years = $72,360
$ 22,826 avg. annual cost for in-state public college (College Board) for 4 years = $91,304
That’s a meager sum of…
$310,664
Now, the man should expect to receive some benefit from this child When older, I’m sure the child is ready, willing and able to clean, do chores, take care of pets, mow the grass, etc, yes? I’d expect, as in other cultures, you’ll get more useful work out a male offspring than female, but we’ll account for that in a moment. So, we’ll only ask for HALF of that $310,000 amount as a dowry, or $155,000 as a dowry from the educated, empowered, financially successful suitor (or her family).
However, if the offspring is female, we’ll have to ask for gender differential payment greater than half of the $310,000 due to the higher maintenance costs (clothes, shoes, makeup, haircare, female products) and lower useful work output. I’d say an even $200,000 is fair for contributing to raising a female offspring.
Two kids? Three, four or more? Well, we can all do that math.
Now, if the empowered, educated, financially successful female wants to work to contribute to offset those costs during the raising of the offspring, that’s fine. However, such an arrangement should be agreed to in advance in writing.
Prenup up before you pop out a pup.
That sounds acceptable. What’s mine is mine what’s yours is yours. Maybe families should just set up Dowery accounts for the child, but the suiter isn’t to get any of the money the woman’s father or family left her.
What a fantastical fairy land you must live in. I think you’re a blue pill guy right? Man up and do your job.
You fool, prenups get thrown out of court everyday. Go sit in the stands and watch the magic happen before you advocate prenups. Prenups are just an illusion.
WTF do I look like a guy? What kind of stupid ass question is that? Are you a fag? We’re you hoping? Each agreement could differ due to the contract between men and women due to desirable traits you’re looking for in your offspring.
Put money in trusts. They are harder to access and easy to create.
My best dude pic ftw
I can’t see a pic of you so no need to jump on the drama queen bandwagon, I should have replied to the OP who clearly lives in a dream land.
as long as you keep paying for the storage upkeep, there is no prolonged power outage, you don’t get someone else’s sperm or fraud
http://rawjustice.com/2010/09/01/woman-steals-over-150k-in-sperm-donation-fraud/?doing_wp_cron=1394060015.2565119266510009765625
I’ll take a male contraceptive if and when it becomes available but I’m blunt enough to state that I personally do not want abortion to end simply for the fact that if I accidentally knock up a chick, I’m not going to support her or the baby. Simple as that.
Unfortunately you don’t have a choice in the matter; if you knock up a girl, reproductive rights are in her hands.
Unless you are planning on getting paid under the table your whole life, wages and assets can be garnished. I hope everyone on this site earns the money they spend on women.
Male contraceptive is a good idea. If men and the women who do take it are both actively trying to prevent pregnancy then that should decrease unwanted pregnancies. Not sure where the author is from, but here in the US the chances of parents taking a boy in to get a procedure has about as fat a chance as parents taking a girl in to get birth control. Not unheard of, just exceedingly rare. American parents, along with school systems that preach abstinence over safety, are of the mindset that their precious child will set aside the exponential growth of hormones, wait till marriage to have sex, and never even think that their baby is out sucking cock every weekend. Schools hand out condoms to anyone that wants them, especially inner city districts. So why so many 15/16 year old parents? Kids are being made to feel shamed for doing something that is, let’s face it, common, so of course they won’t approach parents, or get condoms at school, and sure as fuck not going to buy condoms/pills on their own dime. The solution…parents need to get real and stop envisioning little Johnny and Susie as perfect, sexless little people. And schools need to stop with the abstinence and tell kids what they need to stay std free and keep from bringing unwanted children into this world.
Excellently put ~
“Not sure where the author is from, but here in the US the chances of
parents taking a boy in to get a procedure has about as fat a chance as
parents taking a girl in to get birth control.”
Typical feminist red herring. Lots of parents would get their sons RISUG, especially if it were provided for free by Obamacare.
(Feminist red herring like feminist red snapper. Order the chicken. –Confucius)
I want to say what really needs to happen is for men to be given the right to a legal abortion. Women can choose to have an abortion and they are praises for being “responsible” because they weren’t ready to handle being a parent. But guys, we’re fucked if we don’t want it. We should be able to go to the court, pay $50, file a “Motion of Paternal Abortion” there by waiving our rights to the the unborn child. In the process it also releases the father of any legal responsibility for the care or actions of said unborn child permanently. Then young men could also be praised as being responsible. The mother would be served with the “Notice of Paternal Abortion”. If she wants the child then she is on her own. By passing such laws the public would be outraged, but the hypocrisy would be abundantly clear: “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” As the article indicates go grass roots make it an equal rights issue and POOF abortion is reframed in terms of other than being “responsible”.
Women might be outraged but I agree with you to an extent. The only problem there is some liberal would make sure we’re all paying for the little mishap. $400 a month per child from the government to every gal that decided she wanted a free ride. You’ll increase the problem via tax increases.
I am not outraged at all, as this resembles something I have believed and spoken about for years.
I think more boys/men need to take the responsibility of not getting anyone pregnant through negligence though. You need to make sure to use condoms/having the vasalgel procedure done/take male contraceptive pills, and if your sexual partner gets pregnant anyway and you don’t want it, at least you haven’t put yourself and her in that position through irresponsibility.
It is hard to take responsibility for getting the Vasalgel injection when it is illegal everywhere in the world. If it were legal in India I would fly there for the procedure, but apparently the politicians in India don’t care enough about their economy to promote medical tourism. Everyone loses.
If you don’t know someone really well why are you not using condoms. There are diseases out there that western medicine cant cure.
I would prefer to use both
Putting control over conception, like anything else, back in the hands of men and out of the hands of big-titted, self-absorbed kidults would undoubtedly make life 1000% easier, but it will never happen for a few reasons:
1. Unwed mothers means child support, which means family court, which means dad in the factory, children in daycare, and money in lawyer’s pockets.
2. Giving men this control means TAKING this control from women, which no politician will ever sign off on.
3. No political approval means no FDA approval and thus, no availability for us.
Lastly, conservatives’ slip-up isn’t in running to gov’t to solve their problem. Because conservatives mistakenly expect their country to throw straight dice, their mistake is in asking their gov’t to simply stop being part of the problem. What we need here, to borrow from Bonaparte, is for a few of these ideas to find their bayonets.
I get what you’re saying and there are definitely factions who want men to be slaves and have the least control possible. But then how do you explain that vasectomies have been practiced for a long time?
The problem with vasectomies is that they are basically irreversible (yes, they say that it *might* be able to be reversed, but it’s a dice roll at best). That in and of itself is a daunting proposition to a man who may consider that one day he will want children, so right there that takes the young 19-26 year old bucks out of the equation right from the get go, and there’s a pretty fair chance that they’re the ones out screwing the broads who get pregnant and abort.
Plus, not to put too fine a point on it, but a lot of abortions happen in inner cities, where the education level is rather…low. Vasectomy types are usually higher up on the educational ladder, by and large.
Yes, good points.
How to end abortion ?
Start calling it what it is, inter-uterine sausage making.
Pro-life groups are not motivated by the sanctity of the embryo. They are motivated by spite, by the desire to fuck up the lives of young people who have sex. Male contraception achieves the opposite of what they are trying to do.
You think the woman who has had a few abortions will have a good life? She’ll degenerate into some sub-human state, would be cleaner for the abortion clinic to put a cattle gun to her head and toss her into the medical waste bin
Thank you for illustrating my point.
I agree with Anton that the engineering solution (non-political) is always superior to the political solution. Why? Because engineering solutions are inherently positive sum. Political solutions are inherently negative sum. Positive sum is always superior to negative sum.
However, having said that, many political factions, ranging from the pro-life people to the environmental people are imminently hostile to the engineering, positive sum solution. The reason is that they are not truly interested in actually solving the problem they are involved with. Instead, they are using the purported problem as the red herring to advance their political agenda, whatever it may be. This is the fundamental reason why very few problems and issues can be resolved via politics. They can only be resolved via the engineering approach.
Excellent concept. It simply blows the mind that a pharmaceutical male contraceptive is not yet on market – particularly with the profits the pharmas could stand to gain (and would bulldoze through any political/ideological barrier to gain as they are well adept at doing). My guess it is not political or ideological barriers at all that have kept us from it, but rather complacency on the part of both men and women. Men should be in the streets protesting for it but aside from this article I have never heard much more than a mere wishful mention.
I have one question though: would most men actually willingly go see their doctor and get a physical on a regular basis to get their prescription? Unless it could be bought off the shelf, we could have a problem there. I say this after having to nearly hog tie my old-school dad in order to get him to get his goddamn prostrate checked…
Good overview of men’s hormonal and non-hormonal contraceptive research to date and discussion of why there is currently nothing on the market: http://aeon.co/magazine/being-human/why-is-there-still-no-pill-for-men/
If it had passed the correct trials and proven safe would buy it in a heartbeat. I’m constantly worried about one particular girl I was pumping who vanished, never heard from her again.
1. A woman having an affair with a married man, getting knocked up, and deciding to keep the baby. Even if he’s decided to stick it out with his wife.
2. An abortion.
Honestly, which sickens you more? If you went with 1, let me add: she proudly declares to her friends, her family, and her work colleagues her situation and the status of the baby’s father and receives support for it. Despite being a homewrecker and a whore.
Granted, that won’t be the backstory for every abortion. In truth, most women will see the abortion option as an undo button they can use if they live their sex life with reckless abandon. That’s a shame.
But let’s not kid ourselves: sometimes, these women are doing the American taxpayer a favor. Do your part: recognize that’s a loaded gun between your legs and be careful where you aim it.
The person who decided to screw others than his/her partner/wife/husband is the whore and the homewrecker.
Says the woman who’s got no knowledge of the partner/wife/husband situation in said marriage.
Listen babe, I know it’s an honor to be a woman on RoK, but it’s a distinct one. Like being the world’s tallest midget. I’m trying to think of a polite way to say “fuck off”, but I’m just too drunk to do it. You understand.
“Says the woman who’s got no knowledge of the partner/wife/husband situation in said marriage.”
True. But if the marriage is bad, there is separation, divorce, estrangement etcetera. If it’s bad, it’s already ‘broken’ and cannot be wrecked. Just as if the husband and wife have an understanding and it’s an open marriage – then it’s not cheating.
Cheating on a partner is nobody elses fault except the cheaters. It’s a choice. It’s not the person he/she cheats with, or the hooker he/she pays, or anyone elses fault except the cheaters.
“Listen babe, I know it’s an honor to be a woman on RoK, but it’s a distinct one. Like being the world’s tallest midget. I’m trying to think of a polite way to say “fuck off”, but I’m just too drunk to do it. You understand.”
That was pretty funny ~
What if the guy has multiple personalities and only one knows he is married?
[Honestly, which sickens you more?]
The adulterer who cheated on his wife. He’s the one deceiving someone who has the most absolute claim on his trust.
“That is why if pro-life groups were serious about ending abortion they would take the engineering approach and get RISUG/Vasalgel on the market as soon as possible. Then they could use their massive influence to push parents to get the procedure for their sons when they turn 16.
Instead of making abortion illegal they would make it redundant. There would still be the occasional slip-up and some young woman would get pregnant and want an abortion, but it would take place at a much lower rate than the over 1 million abortions per year that are currently happening.”
The problem with this is that pro-life groups consists to a vast degree of religious fanatics. An alarming rate of teen-pregnancies are mostly due to lack of sexual education and unavailability of contraceptives. Pro-lifers do not want teens/anyone to have sex pre-marriage, they want everyone to keep their pants on until they get hitched. They would not agree with this vasalgel either, just as they don’t agree with condoms or the pill, since in their mind it would encourage teens/unmarried people to have sex. Bottom line; they don’t want anyone to have premarital sex, therefore they will not approve of any form of contraceptive as they believe it will encourage “salacious” conduct.
Men have no reproductive rights. Women can abort babies, put them up for adoption, abandon them all without the consent of the man but when the child it born, the responsibility of child support resides 100% with the father by force.
Woman want reproductive choice whilst forgoing any responsibility that arise from that choice. That doesn’t seem ‘strong and independent’ to me.
Women and their enablers will fight tooth to make sure the financial burden rests with the father.
The introduction of an easy male birth control option would alter the status quo regarding wealth transfer from men to women.
Man’s responsibility lies in;
1. Not getting the bitch/slut/whore pregnant in the 1st place, use condoms/vaselgel/the male pill when it comes to existence
2. Recording the sexual activities you participate in with her, either secretly or openly to prevent false rape charge and…
3. Never sticking your dick in crazy, period.
So yes, I do agree with you, male contraception will change the game for good, and for the better too.
I would love to know how to determine #3 in less than a day.
Single mothers should have enforced abortions, too many single mother trashbags out there.
Dead beat dads should have forced castration, too many dead beats out there.
“Not all of these pregnancies were truly unplanned.
Women suck at remembering to take the pill on time.
A combination of 1 and 2.”
4. They were brainwashed by religious upbringing and didn’t know how to use contraception or didn’t dare to get them.
5. They were young and stupid and just overwhelmed by their hormones.
6. They weren’t in a relationship and had no reason to take the hormone-bomb called “the pill” prior to getting raped
7. The guy botched the condom and didn’t tell the woman – raw is better anyway!
8. The woman was old(er) and thought she couldn’t get pregnant any more.
9. She was using another method of contraception and that failed. Even the pill can fail, by the way, it’s not 100%.
I only ever met one woman in my whole life who didn’t give a damn about the abortions she had (plural!). To her, abortions were just like a manicure job. The other two who had abortions suffered, even though they stood by their decisions.
It’s a very, very hot iron you are handling here. Fact is that no woman *wants* an abortion just to brag about it. Abortions are hell, emotional and physical. If a functioning male contraception would be found, great. The more choices the better. In the end, contraception is about trust – the man has to trust the woman with the pill, the woman has to trust the man with the condoms. If there is no trust, either has his/her own possibilities.
I beg to differ, sweetheart. Read the first three posts in this comment tree. This very recent comment tree.
http://jezebel.com/i-found-out-on-nye-when-i-was-25-that-i-was-pregnant-f-1520751342
commentor wasabi in that same thread seeks to prove otherwise.
Aw, yuk. I prefer not to read that website, if I can avoid it. Do I really have to? :/
I don’t blame you.
^
|
^
|
It’s a shame, you seem decent enough but these monsters outnumber you. Or at least they seem to.
^note that she outright admits that it’s killing a baby and she still says “not being ready” is a good enough excuse for it.
But it is a good enough reason… the funny thing is she shouldn’t have to give YOU or any other power tripper ANY reason. Abortion is a horrible thing to have to do, however this is not a perfect world men do not live up to their responsibility to first of all sleep with women they genuinely care for and take on the responsibility should they impregnate a woman. It is MEN who want women to have abortions and it’s all because they believe they’re hard done by paying child support, When will men start taking some of the responsibility for the denigration of the western family unit? Men want sex at no cost whenever with whoever as much as they like then they have the option to either bully or bribe a woman into potentially ruining her reproductive organs by receiving risky surgery to remove a ‘problem’ they helped create! Men have condoms, they have the pull out method which is 100% effective when used with discipline yet men still want to bitch and moan that they have no choice, that they’re hard done by. NO! paying child support has nothing on what it takes to raise and care for a child. If men truly don’t want accidents they would take every precaution to avoid them knowing they have no legal right to force a woman to either abort or keep a pregnancy. It’s not rocket science it’s a cold hard fact that perhaps the childish men of this world need to accept and learn from. It’s a harsh lesson to men but a necessary one nonetheless, women don’t get pregnant on their own men need to step up and be accountable for their part.
It takes two people to get pregnant, so the woman is every bit as responsible for her pregnancy as the man is; perhaps even more.
How about gun rights for fetuses?
Such is our society. A woman’s right to choose is sacred. But working men must either pay for the abortion or pay for the born baby by means of taxation. It’s a women’s private decision, but then it’s a public matter when the bills must be paid. The leftist feminists even call them “our children” when they want to raise taxes kids raised by poor single mothers. They’re your fucking children. Cunts! Don’t ask me to pay for your freedom.
It’s amazing how the Supreme court was forced to bow down before the alter of feminism by claiming that abortion was some kind of special right they were able to extract from the constitution. Clearly the framers of the constitution would have left the power to regulate this to the states. It make no sense that abortion is a right, while prostitution, drugs, etc.. are either illegal or left to the states. What about the right to privacy for Johns and their providers?
But, I’m actually for abortion rights at the state level(I don’t want to live with the offspring of irresponsible people).
RISUG is exactly what men need because then if they got that stuff injected into their balls, women would actually have to have a conversation with their partners about PLANNING parenthood instead of the “OOPS I’m pregnant, and I’m going to keep it” talk, and dammit….we can’t have women not having complete sovereignty over the reproductive process like they’ve enjoyed since the beginning of human history.
Moreover, all my reading of this stuff is that it’s VERY cheaply made, and it’s hard for Big Pharma to get behind something that they aren’t going to make a ridiculous amount of profit off of. Millions of men would get the shot, and then there would be a huge dry spell for the next 5 years. Not really good for business. The pill has to be taken every damn day. Coming back monthly = $$$
The supporters of abortion are hypocrites. Abortion was legalized on the basis that it would only be used as an absolute last resort. Now it is used as a form of birth control. We now know that around the world, baby girls are deliberately aborted simply because of their gender. This is gender discrimination on the ultimate level, yet we here absolutely nothing on this from supports of abortion. How can they claim to be protecting women when all across the world baby girls are being purposefully aborted? The easier abortion becomes the easier it is to make such choices, yet we do not here calls for the restriction of abortion, instead we here that abortion should be easier for women. This will only increase abortions based solely on gender, meaning that pro abortion enthusiasts are hypocrites and their silence on this issue speaks volumes.
Feminist logic
Women > Girls >> Boys >>> Men
When the Titanic crashed women saved themselves at a higher percentage than the children on the ship.
Correct, feminists are selfish. They want abortion because it allows for their individual gain. For the privileged (which most feminists are) it means that they can pursue their careers. That is as far as it goes, there is no true gender solidarity otherwise they would vehemently condemn the abortion of girls, but because they are women already it doesn’t affect them so they stay silent.
Actually, the whole “women and children first” thing is kind of a myth.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/31/3554854.htm
“According to The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy there were 3,370,000 unplanned pregnancies in 2008, which is the most recent data they had available.”
Comment from an eastern european woman friend of mine.
“There is no such thing as an unplanned pregnancy. Women know how to get pregnant. They know WHEN they can get pregnant. If a woman gets pregnant you can be almost certain she meant to get pregnant.”
Many other backed up that comment.
“Oh golly, a random, eastern european woman said that? Well then that must be absolutely, 100% true!”
I think you missed this bit.
“Many other backed up that comment.”
I checked that with about 12 eastern european women. All 12 or so backed up the comment. Indeed both my fav#1 and my ex wife Jennifer admit to getting pregnant deliberately and then calling it an “accident”.
These “accidental” are not accidental at all in the vast majority of cases….it is only western women who tell that lie so often. Eastern european women will tell the truth on this point.
Bad luck you western women, eh?
If I were as ugly as you, PeterAndrewNolan, I would not display my photograph on the internet..
LOL! Why is it that you women go with personal insults when you do not have an argument.
I have been called a very handsome man all across my adult life. Sure, when I was a “boy” I had freckles and was skinny and gangly. But once I filled out a bit after being so starved as a uni student no one has ever seriously called me “ugly”.
Even today I have women who do not know me stop me just to tell me I am a handsome man and ask me if I would like their phone number. I usually reject such offers of phone numbers because the women offering them are not up to my standards.
Why not try some other personal insult in absence of an argument. You know. Call me a paedophile, a rapist, a wife beater, a dead beat dad….Oh..that’s right…all those lies have already been widely stated about me so that won’t work either.
Here is an even better idea…how about you actually forward and ARGUMENT?
Or is that impossible for sweeties like you? I say that women are not of equal intellectual capacity to men and you women hate on me. What you do not do is actually ever forward an ARGUMENT.
“You are ugly” is not an ARGUMENT. It is the comment of a 5 year old…and I got over name calling on my first day of school when another boy tried name calling on me and I beat him up for it as 5 year olds do.
As far as photographs go. Here is one of an adulteress, prostitute, criminal child abuser….my ex Jennifer Toal…thanks for giving me the opening for posting it again here.
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/Portals/1/Jennifer%20Toal%20-%20Criminal%202.jpg
Men’s site ? Why so many women corrupting the conversation ? No Ban. .. They even respond to them naively..
—
It is women’s nature, it is what makes them women. They protect the child, men and society protect women, naturally, not by force. That is designed by nature. This is their act. Their body, their decision, they had sex, then they have to deal with the responsibility, the child is not part of her body it is only connected to it, it is a different DNA, an individual, irrefutable. -› Why once again men have to be responsible for these kids we call women.
› Contraception for men is for the benefit of men. That’s good. But not to make men ‘the responsible’, to prevent women’s from murdering their children. This is why this article is wrong. Even if it makes sense, it would only hide one symptom of many that reveals how much women have degenerated.
+ Women who kill should go to jail for a long time. + Women who abandon or give the baby for adoption should pay child support. + Men should not be forced to be fathers. Her biology, her choice to have sex with ‘somebody’ who is only interested in having sex, or somebody who is indeed interested in her, hers is the consequence. This is why sluts are shamed. We know why…
› You want to solve this problem, then It is time to let them be responsible.
Women have so much envy of men’s sexuality, The fact that nature made them responsible for something men are really not. that they want men to pay the consequences for women promiscuity, for the sake of women’s sexual liberation(masculinization).
Abortion? meh seems mainly a white libtard thing. Lifes little “suprises” that can put a spanner in the works to her weekend binge drinking and make work cubicle “career”.
The way to end most abortions is to stop subsidizing it with public money. We always get more of whatever we subsidize whether it’s abortion, welfare, bank failures, etc. If Planned Parenthood is really a necessary business, it shouldn’t have to be paid for by the taxpayers. Let the free market decide whether abortion is profitable or not. Since it costs way less to buy any form of birth control vs. having an abortion, watch how quickly people would remember to be responsible.
When male birth control finally arrives, single mothers will disappear.
Don’t count on it.
Great writeup, but you’re barking up the wrong tree.
Conservative groups have zero interest in simply reducing the number of abortions that take place. What they really want is control over sex.
Part of me thinks you know this already, and wrote this article to expose that point.
There are a large number of things that could be done to greatly reduce the number of abortions that occur. (You point out one.) If reducing the number of abortions was the real goal of “pro-life” and conservative groups, you’d see them trying to make these things happen. We do not see that.
I’ve been reading alot of articles on this website for a
few months now, just learning about red pill and manosphere (I’m in my early 20’s).
While most articles are okay, a few are just sheer brilliant. This website is awesome
for encouraging ways for men to improve themselves. My advice to ROK readers is
to discover the truth; that is pristine Islam (without the cultural baggage and
CIA-funded ‘terrorist’ groups). As a Muslim immigrant to the USA, I’ve grown up
here and gone to school here. I’ve always noticed something was wrong this
toxic feminist-lgbt-liberalPC society but never put my finger on it. I’m afraid
to get married and raise children in such a toxic, indoctrinating, anti-Islamic
society. Red pill is about not just gaming women but discovering the bitter
truth. Feminism, lgbt, liberalsPC, & atheism are all funded by satanic banking/corporations/media
to erode society, morals, and religion. No group is more demonized by this satanic
banking/corporations/media than Islam. The materials are there; seek the
knowledge about pristine Islam. It is readily available and plentiful in most
languages including English. Your life has a greater meaning, a greater
purpose. We’re all gonna die at some point, no escaping death. Islam teaches
about traditional family dynamics, good moral upbringing, and to better oneself
spiritually, physically, and mentally. I’m glad I was raised in this pure way
despite being surrounded, feeling alone. I love you guys here at ROK and just
want to get this message out. If you don’t like or accept Islam that’s cool, I
won’t hunt you down and call you a bigot or say you’re insensitive. Just do
some research on it and read about it. I’ve read about almost all the religions
in the world, economic philosophies, histories, ROK, etc. Researching and reading about things has made
more knowledgeable. Just keep reading, learning, and researching; after you
research Islam, based on its evidence come up with your own conclusion. You
decide if its right for you. Just merely putting this out there. [Prophet
Muhammad: “Near the end days the truth will be considered falsehood and falsehood
will be considered truth…The truthful person will be considered a liar while
the liar will be considered truthful.”] [Prophet Muhammad: “The strong man is not
one who is good at fighting but the strong man is one who can control his anger
in a fit of rage”.]
“That is why if pro-life groups were serious about ending abortion they
would take the engineering approach and get RISUG/Vasalgel on the market
as soon as possible.”
Aren’t reversable vasectomies currently already available? And “the male pill” was floated in the States back in the 70s but the idea was not well received by men because they feared serious side effects to their health and so it wasn’t pursued.
“The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts–a child–as a competitor, an intrusion and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the dependent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters. And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners.”
One of the smartest, most impactful things said on the Internet. What greater good can be done than saving a million babes per year from abortions?
Anton, this was a thought provoking article but you’ve overlooked one of the fundamental aspects of abortion. Its not only about reproductive choices for women, but power for women. By achieving birth control for men, you are destroying women’s ability to decide if they get pregnant, and this is a non starter.
If a woman wants to get pregnant, she can sleep with many different men and then go to the man making the most money or the one with the best provider skills and ask him for a shotgun marriage or force him to pay child support. Women will not allow you to take away that option and courts will throw out any lab results prooving sterility.
There have been cases where men are still forced to pay child support even aftwr negative paternity results. This case is no different.
Good article, but have in mind that the government has as much interest in a male contraceptive as feminists have interest in equality. It would ruin their millionaire industry. Women also would be left without the “happy accident” option, to force fatherhood upon a potential provider.
Who wants to end abortion? Viability is obviously the point of responsibility, but whose kid is it anyway? Do we really want to FORCE infanticidal degenerates to remain in the gene pool?
Another way you need an abortion is when you would die if you carried it to term, which is why I think women should be allowed to abort, and in other countries as well.