|
United States43189 Posts
On March 04 2012 00:17 RageBot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 00:09 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:06 Bigtony wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:48 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote:On March 03 2012 20:49 SF-Fork wrote:
First of all I would like to point out that reading this thread diagonally makes me think that somehow woman is the only sex responsible of birth control. Are we serious?
Thank you. It also seems we're entirely to blame for the decision to have sex in the first place, zzzzz... Keep in mind that women aren't the only ones that benefit from this policy. These are your girlfriends, wives, potential-hook-ups-at-a-bar, etc. Giving them affordable control over their own reproductive cycles is a great thing for everyone. I know just about everyone on this forum is young and male, but control over when you get pregnant is *crucial* to women's autonomy. Women's lives were quite different when one unwanted or unplanned pregnancy can completely throw your life off the tracks. The views on sex in this thread are astounding me. What year is it? Come on. Women are overwhelmingly the deciding party in sex, precisely because it's 2012. I don't think the bill will pass, it's interesting reading the views from outside the country though. I don't understand why everyone cares so much was goes on in the US. Edit: I just have to go a bit more in depth cause I think I skipped over your main point. We have birth control. The point here is the mandated coverage for religious objectors, which everyone seems to just skip over and point WE LIKE BIRTH CONTROL. Hey, nothing wrong with birth control. The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution. Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever. That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country. More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2. Seems eminently fair. A+ Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections. So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me. The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal. Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 00:16 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:10 Aterons_toss wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 Aterons_toss wrote:
Also... isn't there a law in the US that if the child is born the father has to pay some kind of compensation to the mother until he reaches maturity ? ( there was even a thread about this a few months ago i believe ) So what I gather from reading articles, and from a friend of mine with a deadbeat dad, that compensation is not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, and it's difficult for poor women to pursue legal action on the matter. I guess I brought up the point as more of a theoretical question on how it would change the debate. There are already cases of women getting pregnant on purpose to be able to raise a child with whoever they want and "steal" money from the guy which is the father since he did not want the kid. A women is able to abort if all contraception fail a man is not and if the compensation would be higher/easier to get it would get "exploited" way to much. Wow yeah, Im sure this doesnt happen often enough to even bother bringing up. Its pretty offensive actually. How can she get pregnant on purpose without the guy realizing it? He is very much part of the act "Honey... i'm pregnant!" "But... how? you said you took the pill..." "Yeah... guess I forgot" "Well... you're going to abort the baby, right?" "No... I guess i'm going to keep it, I like the idea of being a mother" And then, the guy is legally obliged to pay for the baby.
It's 2012. I'm pretty sure men know that children are a risk of sex. Talk to your partner about options should contraception fail and use additional safeguards if you don't want to take the risk.
|
On March 04 2012 00:17 aminoashley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 00:17 RageBot wrote:On March 04 2012 00:09 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:06 Bigtony wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:48 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote:On March 03 2012 20:49 SF-Fork wrote:
First of all I would like to point out that reading this thread diagonally makes me think that somehow woman is the only sex responsible of birth control. Are we serious?
Thank you. It also seems we're entirely to blame for the decision to have sex in the first place, zzzzz... Keep in mind that women aren't the only ones that benefit from this policy. These are your girlfriends, wives, potential-hook-ups-at-a-bar, etc. Giving them affordable control over their own reproductive cycles is a great thing for everyone. I know just about everyone on this forum is young and male, but control over when you get pregnant is *crucial* to women's autonomy. Women's lives were quite different when one unwanted or unplanned pregnancy can completely throw your life off the tracks. The views on sex in this thread are astounding me. What year is it? Come on. Women are overwhelmingly the deciding party in sex, precisely because it's 2012. I don't think the bill will pass, it's interesting reading the views from outside the country though. I don't understand why everyone cares so much was goes on in the US. Edit: I just have to go a bit more in depth cause I think I skipped over your main point. We have birth control. The point here is the mandated coverage for religious objectors, which everyone seems to just skip over and point WE LIKE BIRTH CONTROL. Hey, nothing wrong with birth control. The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution. Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever. That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country. More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2. Seems eminently fair. A+ Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections. So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me. The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal. And you think people are going to support a business- buying their goods etc- if they are openly discriminating against people. I Dont think so
It has nothing to do with the fact that, by itself, hiring atheists/whatever can't be a good/bad business model by itself, but only context and culture based one.
On March 04 2012 00:18 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 23:41 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote:On March 03 2012 20:49 SF-Fork wrote:
First of all I would like to point out that reading this thread diagonally makes me think that somehow woman is the only sex responsible of birth control. Are we serious?
Thank you. It also seems we're entirely to blame for the decision to have sex in the first place, zzzzz... Keep in mind that women aren't the only ones that benefit from this policy. These are your girlfriends, wives, potential-hook-ups-at-a-bar, etc. Giving them affordable control over their own reproductive cycles is a great thing for everyone. I know just about everyone on this forum is young and male, but control over when you get pregnant is *crucial* to women's autonomy. Women's lives were quite different when one unwanted or unplanned pregnancy can completely throw your life off the tracks. The views on sex in this thread are astounding me. What year is it? Come on. Women are overwhelmingly the deciding party in sex, precisely because it's 2012. Just because you will fuck anything with two legs if given the chance does not mean that women are the deciding party. Just that you have lower standards then they do.
You didn't say anything reasonable against his argument, in nature, men court, and women choose, these days women are the ones who choose who they date, marry, have sex with etc etc, it's not 100 years ago when the fathers decided for them.
|
On March 04 2012 00:17 RageBot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 00:09 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:06 Bigtony wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:48 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote:On March 03 2012 20:49 SF-Fork wrote:
First of all I would like to point out that reading this thread diagonally makes me think that somehow woman is the only sex responsible of birth control. Are we serious?
Thank you. It also seems we're entirely to blame for the decision to have sex in the first place, zzzzz... Keep in mind that women aren't the only ones that benefit from this policy. These are your girlfriends, wives, potential-hook-ups-at-a-bar, etc. Giving them affordable control over their own reproductive cycles is a great thing for everyone. I know just about everyone on this forum is young and male, but control over when you get pregnant is *crucial* to women's autonomy. Women's lives were quite different when one unwanted or unplanned pregnancy can completely throw your life off the tracks. The views on sex in this thread are astounding me. What year is it? Come on. Women are overwhelmingly the deciding party in sex, precisely because it's 2012. I don't think the bill will pass, it's interesting reading the views from outside the country though. I don't understand why everyone cares so much was goes on in the US. Edit: I just have to go a bit more in depth cause I think I skipped over your main point. We have birth control. The point here is the mandated coverage for religious objectors, which everyone seems to just skip over and point WE LIKE BIRTH CONTROL. Hey, nothing wrong with birth control. The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution. Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever. That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country. More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2. Seems eminently fair. A+ Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections. So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me. The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal. Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 00:16 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:10 Aterons_toss wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 Aterons_toss wrote:
Also... isn't there a law in the US that if the child is born the father has to pay some kind of compensation to the mother until he reaches maturity ? ( there was even a thread about this a few months ago i believe ) So what I gather from reading articles, and from a friend of mine with a deadbeat dad, that compensation is not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, and it's difficult for poor women to pursue legal action on the matter. I guess I brought up the point as more of a theoretical question on how it would change the debate. There are already cases of women getting pregnant on purpose to be able to raise a child with whoever they want and "steal" money from the guy which is the father since he did not want the kid. A women is able to abort if all contraception fail a man is not and if the compensation would be higher/easier to get it would get "exploited" way to much. Wow yeah, Im sure this doesnt happen often enough to even bother bringing up. Its pretty offensive actually. How can she get pregnant on purpose without the guy realizing it? He is very much part of the act "Honey... i'm pregnant!" "But... how? you said you took the pill..." "Yeah... guess I forgot" "Well... you're going to abort the baby, right?" "No... I guess i'm going to keep it, I like the idea of being a mother" And then, the guy is legally obliged to pay for the baby.
I really dont think this happens often enough to warrant even bringing up, most women dont have some plot to have children in order to get child support. Its not really the way to luxury...and either way, if you are having sex with someone there is always the chance of that happening, so you are always responsible regardless. If you are with someone who you think isnt being honest about taking their birth control, then you are responsible for doing your part as well.
|
On March 04 2012 00:16 SerpentFlame wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 00:15 SimDawg wrote:On March 04 2012 00:07 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 04 2012 00:00 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:58 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:48 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote:On March 03 2012 20:49 SF-Fork wrote:
First of all I would like to point out that reading this thread diagonally makes me think that somehow woman is the only sex responsible of birth control. Are we serious?
Thank you. It also seems we're entirely to blame for the decision to have sex in the first place, zzzzz... Keep in mind that women aren't the only ones that benefit from this policy. These are your girlfriends, wives, potential-hook-ups-at-a-bar, etc. Giving them affordable control over their own reproductive cycles is a great thing for everyone. I know just about everyone on this forum is young and male, but control over when you get pregnant is *crucial* to women's autonomy. Women's lives were quite different when one unwanted or unplanned pregnancy can completely throw your life off the tracks. The views on sex in this thread are astounding me. What year is it? Come on. Women are overwhelmingly the deciding party in sex, precisely because it's 2012. I don't think the bill will pass, it's interesting reading the views from outside the country though. I don't understand why everyone cares so much was goes on in the US. Edit: I just have to go a bit more in depth cause I think I skipped over your main point. We have birth control. The point here is the mandated coverage for religious objectors, which everyone seems to just skip over and point WE LIKE BIRTH CONTROL. Hey, nothing wrong with birth control. The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution. Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever. That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country. Catholic institutions are already tax-exempted and subjected to hundreds of other legal breaks that non-religious organizations don't have. If you want to talk responsibility, lets repeal those, let religious institutions exempt contraceptives, and have government use that revenue to provide women in those institutions contraceptive coverage. I'm sure nobody backing the existing contraceptive law would mind. They have existing unrelated benefits so should should not get this one? Doesn't make much sense to me, I have to admit. I'm never said they shouldn't get religious exemption. The reason religious institutions get tax breaks is because they provide a public good. If they're going to not perform some public service that other institutions do, then deduct from their tax break that rewardes them from providing public services. It's not that difficult. But your definition of public good is providing contraception? You have to understand that's a thin bridge to walk. It's not like they stop being positive institutions because they don't do this one thing you'd like them to do. I mean it almost seems like you're turning this argument railing against religion and their privileged status in America. Um, no. You deduct as much from their exemption as they are saving from not providing contraception. Its not an all or nothing debate. If they're not going to do something other businesses have to, then they should pay for the money they save. That's basic responsibility.
What you've done is force them to give contraception without actually requiring them to hand out the condoms and pills.
The argument is about to circle back onto why they need to be required to give out contraception.
|
On March 04 2012 00:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 00:17 RageBot wrote:On March 04 2012 00:09 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:06 Bigtony wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:48 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote:On March 03 2012 20:49 SF-Fork wrote:
First of all I would like to point out that reading this thread diagonally makes me think that somehow woman is the only sex responsible of birth control. Are we serious?
Thank you. It also seems we're entirely to blame for the decision to have sex in the first place, zzzzz... Keep in mind that women aren't the only ones that benefit from this policy. These are your girlfriends, wives, potential-hook-ups-at-a-bar, etc. Giving them affordable control over their own reproductive cycles is a great thing for everyone. I know just about everyone on this forum is young and male, but control over when you get pregnant is *crucial* to women's autonomy. Women's lives were quite different when one unwanted or unplanned pregnancy can completely throw your life off the tracks. The views on sex in this thread are astounding me. What year is it? Come on. Women are overwhelmingly the deciding party in sex, precisely because it's 2012. I don't think the bill will pass, it's interesting reading the views from outside the country though. I don't understand why everyone cares so much was goes on in the US. Edit: I just have to go a bit more in depth cause I think I skipped over your main point. We have birth control. The point here is the mandated coverage for religious objectors, which everyone seems to just skip over and point WE LIKE BIRTH CONTROL. Hey, nothing wrong with birth control. The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution. Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever. That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country. More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2. Seems eminently fair. A+ Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections. So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me. The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal. On March 04 2012 00:16 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:10 Aterons_toss wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 Aterons_toss wrote:
Also... isn't there a law in the US that if the child is born the father has to pay some kind of compensation to the mother until he reaches maturity ? ( there was even a thread about this a few months ago i believe ) So what I gather from reading articles, and from a friend of mine with a deadbeat dad, that compensation is not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, and it's difficult for poor women to pursue legal action on the matter. I guess I brought up the point as more of a theoretical question on how it would change the debate. There are already cases of women getting pregnant on purpose to be able to raise a child with whoever they want and "steal" money from the guy which is the father since he did not want the kid. A women is able to abort if all contraception fail a man is not and if the compensation would be higher/easier to get it would get "exploited" way to much. Wow yeah, Im sure this doesnt happen often enough to even bother bringing up. Its pretty offensive actually. How can she get pregnant on purpose without the guy realizing it? He is very much part of the act "Honey... i'm pregnant!" "But... how? you said you took the pill..." "Yeah... guess I forgot" "Well... you're going to abort the baby, right?" "No... I guess i'm going to keep it, I like the idea of being a mother" And then, the guy is legally obliged to pay for the baby. It's 2012. I'm pretty sure men know that children are a risk of sex. Talk to your partner about options should contraception fail and use additional safeguards if you don't want to take the risk.
I think that most men will just trust their girlfriends when they tell them that they don't want a baby, how do you think my girlfriend would act if, after she tells me that she's taking the pill and doesn't want children, I still put on a condom? She will feel that I don't trust her and will be really hurt.
|
On March 04 2012 00:17 aminoashley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 00:17 RageBot wrote:On March 04 2012 00:09 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:06 Bigtony wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:48 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote:On March 03 2012 20:49 SF-Fork wrote:
First of all I would like to point out that reading this thread diagonally makes me think that somehow woman is the only sex responsible of birth control. Are we serious?
Thank you. It also seems we're entirely to blame for the decision to have sex in the first place, zzzzz... Keep in mind that women aren't the only ones that benefit from this policy. These are your girlfriends, wives, potential-hook-ups-at-a-bar, etc. Giving them affordable control over their own reproductive cycles is a great thing for everyone. I know just about everyone on this forum is young and male, but control over when you get pregnant is *crucial* to women's autonomy. Women's lives were quite different when one unwanted or unplanned pregnancy can completely throw your life off the tracks. The views on sex in this thread are astounding me. What year is it? Come on. Women are overwhelmingly the deciding party in sex, precisely because it's 2012. I don't think the bill will pass, it's interesting reading the views from outside the country though. I don't understand why everyone cares so much was goes on in the US. Edit: I just have to go a bit more in depth cause I think I skipped over your main point. We have birth control. The point here is the mandated coverage for religious objectors, which everyone seems to just skip over and point WE LIKE BIRTH CONTROL. Hey, nothing wrong with birth control. The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution. Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever. That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country. More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2. Seems eminently fair. A+ Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections. So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me. The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal. And you think people are going to support a business- buying their goods etc- if they are openly discriminating against people. I Dont think so
Well Nike openly employees sweatshop labor as does Apple and countless other major brands.
So yes, I think people will support a business model that shits all over its employees without a second thought.... as long as the store they buy it in looks nice ^^
|
On March 04 2012 00:23 RageBot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 00:17 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:17 RageBot wrote:On March 04 2012 00:09 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:06 Bigtony wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:48 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote:On March 03 2012 20:49 SF-Fork wrote:
First of all I would like to point out that reading this thread diagonally makes me think that somehow woman is the only sex responsible of birth control. Are we serious?
Thank you. It also seems we're entirely to blame for the decision to have sex in the first place, zzzzz... Keep in mind that women aren't the only ones that benefit from this policy. These are your girlfriends, wives, potential-hook-ups-at-a-bar, etc. Giving them affordable control over their own reproductive cycles is a great thing for everyone. I know just about everyone on this forum is young and male, but control over when you get pregnant is *crucial* to women's autonomy. Women's lives were quite different when one unwanted or unplanned pregnancy can completely throw your life off the tracks. The views on sex in this thread are astounding me. What year is it? Come on. Women are overwhelmingly the deciding party in sex, precisely because it's 2012. I don't think the bill will pass, it's interesting reading the views from outside the country though. I don't understand why everyone cares so much was goes on in the US. Edit: I just have to go a bit more in depth cause I think I skipped over your main point. We have birth control. The point here is the mandated coverage for religious objectors, which everyone seems to just skip over and point WE LIKE BIRTH CONTROL. Hey, nothing wrong with birth control. The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution. Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever. That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country. More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2. Seems eminently fair. A+ Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections. So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me. The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal. And you think people are going to support a business- buying their goods etc- if they are openly discriminating against people. I Dont think so It has nothing to do with the fact that, by itself, hiring atheists/whatever can't be a good/bad business model by itself, but only context and culture based one. Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 00:18 seppolevne wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote:On March 03 2012 20:49 SF-Fork wrote:
First of all I would like to point out that reading this thread diagonally makes me think that somehow woman is the only sex responsible of birth control. Are we serious?
Thank you. It also seems we're entirely to blame for the decision to have sex in the first place, zzzzz... Keep in mind that women aren't the only ones that benefit from this policy. These are your girlfriends, wives, potential-hook-ups-at-a-bar, etc. Giving them affordable control over their own reproductive cycles is a great thing for everyone. I know just about everyone on this forum is young and male, but control over when you get pregnant is *crucial* to women's autonomy. Women's lives were quite different when one unwanted or unplanned pregnancy can completely throw your life off the tracks. The views on sex in this thread are astounding me. What year is it? Come on. Women are overwhelmingly the deciding party in sex, precisely because it's 2012. Just because you will fuck anything with two legs if given the chance does not mean that women are the deciding party. Just that you have lower standards then they do. You didn't say anything reasonable against his argument, in nature, men court, and women choose, these days women are the ones who choose who they date, marry, have sex with etc etc, it's not 100 years ago when the fathers decided for them.
Alright well Im not a business major and know nothing about that- and its pretty irrelevant actually, the point I am making is that you cant let business just decide who or what they think is moral and then dictate peoples lives around that. First, it wont be good for business because people like me would choose to not buy any of their goods, and secondly, they are going to alienate a good majority of potential high quality employers that dont fit their ridiculously narrow view of what a good and moral person it.
edit: and the overseas sweatshop argument is an entirely different debate. You really cant get around that in this country unless you pretty much buy only things made in the United States. Im talking about US businesses hiring US citizens
|
On March 04 2012 00:24 aminoashley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 00:17 RageBot wrote:On March 04 2012 00:09 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:06 Bigtony wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:48 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote:On March 03 2012 20:49 SF-Fork wrote:
First of all I would like to point out that reading this thread diagonally makes me think that somehow woman is the only sex responsible of birth control. Are we serious?
Thank you. It also seems we're entirely to blame for the decision to have sex in the first place, zzzzz... Keep in mind that women aren't the only ones that benefit from this policy. These are your girlfriends, wives, potential-hook-ups-at-a-bar, etc. Giving them affordable control over their own reproductive cycles is a great thing for everyone. I know just about everyone on this forum is young and male, but control over when you get pregnant is *crucial* to women's autonomy. Women's lives were quite different when one unwanted or unplanned pregnancy can completely throw your life off the tracks. The views on sex in this thread are astounding me. What year is it? Come on. Women are overwhelmingly the deciding party in sex, precisely because it's 2012. I don't think the bill will pass, it's interesting reading the views from outside the country though. I don't understand why everyone cares so much was goes on in the US. Edit: I just have to go a bit more in depth cause I think I skipped over your main point. We have birth control. The point here is the mandated coverage for religious objectors, which everyone seems to just skip over and point WE LIKE BIRTH CONTROL. Hey, nothing wrong with birth control. The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution. Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever. That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country. More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2. Seems eminently fair. A+ Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections. So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me. The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal. On March 04 2012 00:16 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:10 Aterons_toss wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 Aterons_toss wrote:
Also... isn't there a law in the US that if the child is born the father has to pay some kind of compensation to the mother until he reaches maturity ? ( there was even a thread about this a few months ago i believe ) So what I gather from reading articles, and from a friend of mine with a deadbeat dad, that compensation is not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, and it's difficult for poor women to pursue legal action on the matter. I guess I brought up the point as more of a theoretical question on how it would change the debate. There are already cases of women getting pregnant on purpose to be able to raise a child with whoever they want and "steal" money from the guy which is the father since he did not want the kid. A women is able to abort if all contraception fail a man is not and if the compensation would be higher/easier to get it would get "exploited" way to much. Wow yeah, Im sure this doesnt happen often enough to even bother bringing up. Its pretty offensive actually. How can she get pregnant on purpose without the guy realizing it? He is very much part of the act "Honey... i'm pregnant!" "But... how? you said you took the pill..." "Yeah... guess I forgot" "Well... you're going to abort the baby, right?" "No... I guess i'm going to keep it, I like the idea of being a mother" And then, the guy is legally obliged to pay for the baby. I really dont think this happens often enough to warrant even bringing up, most women dont have some plot to have children in order to get child support. Its not really the way to luxury...and either way, if you are having sex with someone there is always the chance of that happening, so you are always responsible regardless. If you are with someone who you think isnt being honest about taking their birth control, then you are responsible for doing your part as well.
It's not like pepole have a plot for a lot of things, many pepole just act on a whim, pepole can get overweight, hurt others and so on, not because they plan ahead, but... it just happens for some pepole, maybe the woman just saw a documentary about babies which had a dramatic effect on her preception? You can never be 100% sure about anything regarding human beings, everyone is different to an extent.
And I don't know about how often that happenes, maybe it matters, maybe it doesn't.
|
On March 04 2012 00:17 RageBot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 00:09 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:06 Bigtony wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:48 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote:On March 03 2012 20:49 SF-Fork wrote:
First of all I would like to point out that reading this thread diagonally makes me think that somehow woman is the only sex responsible of birth control. Are we serious?
Thank you. It also seems we're entirely to blame for the decision to have sex in the first place, zzzzz... Keep in mind that women aren't the only ones that benefit from this policy. These are your girlfriends, wives, potential-hook-ups-at-a-bar, etc. Giving them affordable control over their own reproductive cycles is a great thing for everyone. I know just about everyone on this forum is young and male, but control over when you get pregnant is *crucial* to women's autonomy. Women's lives were quite different when one unwanted or unplanned pregnancy can completely throw your life off the tracks. The views on sex in this thread are astounding me. What year is it? Come on. Women are overwhelmingly the deciding party in sex, precisely because it's 2012. I don't think the bill will pass, it's interesting reading the views from outside the country though. I don't understand why everyone cares so much was goes on in the US. Edit: I just have to go a bit more in depth cause I think I skipped over your main point. We have birth control. The point here is the mandated coverage for religious objectors, which everyone seems to just skip over and point WE LIKE BIRTH CONTROL. Hey, nothing wrong with birth control. The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution. Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever. That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country. More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2. Seems eminently fair. A+ Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections. So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me. The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal. Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 00:16 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:10 Aterons_toss wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 Aterons_toss wrote:
Also... isn't there a law in the US that if the child is born the father has to pay some kind of compensation to the mother until he reaches maturity ? ( there was even a thread about this a few months ago i believe ) So what I gather from reading articles, and from a friend of mine with a deadbeat dad, that compensation is not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, and it's difficult for poor women to pursue legal action on the matter. I guess I brought up the point as more of a theoretical question on how it would change the debate. There are already cases of women getting pregnant on purpose to be able to raise a child with whoever they want and "steal" money from the guy which is the father since he did not want the kid. A women is able to abort if all contraception fail a man is not and if the compensation would be higher/easier to get it would get "exploited" way to much. Wow yeah, Im sure this doesnt happen often enough to even bother bringing up. Its pretty offensive actually. How can she get pregnant on purpose without the guy realizing it? He is very much part of the act "Honey... i'm pregnant!" "But... how? you said you took the pill..." "Yeah... guess I forgot" "Well... you're going to abort the baby, right?" "No... I guess i'm going to keep it, I like the idea of being a mother" And then, the guy is legally obliged to pay for the baby.
Bravo. A hilarious example of how men, throughout the centuries, are suppressed by women. This is just another ploy in the grand scheme of things. A man accidentally slipped and his dick landed in a vagina. Happens all the time. I feel with you bro.
Sex is a two way street, why should contraception be any different?
|
On March 04 2012 00:27 aminoashley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 00:23 RageBot wrote:On March 04 2012 00:17 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:17 RageBot wrote:On March 04 2012 00:09 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:06 Bigtony wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:48 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote:
[quote]
Thank you. It also seems we're entirely to blame for the decision to have sex in the first place, zzzzz...
Keep in mind that women aren't the only ones that benefit from this policy. These are your girlfriends, wives, potential-hook-ups-at-a-bar, etc. Giving them affordable control over their own reproductive cycles is a great thing for everyone. I know just about everyone on this forum is young and male, but control over when you get pregnant is *crucial* to women's autonomy. Women's lives were quite different when one unwanted or unplanned pregnancy can completely throw your life off the tracks.
The views on sex in this thread are astounding me. What year is it? Come on. Women are overwhelmingly the deciding party in sex, precisely because it's 2012. I don't think the bill will pass, it's interesting reading the views from outside the country though. I don't understand why everyone cares so much was goes on in the US. Edit: I just have to go a bit more in depth cause I think I skipped over your main point. We have birth control. The point here is the mandated coverage for religious objectors, which everyone seems to just skip over and point WE LIKE BIRTH CONTROL. Hey, nothing wrong with birth control. The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution. Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever. That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country. More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2. Seems eminently fair. A+ Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections. So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me. The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal. And you think people are going to support a business- buying their goods etc- if they are openly discriminating against people. I Dont think so It has nothing to do with the fact that, by itself, hiring atheists/whatever can't be a good/bad business model by itself, but only context and culture based one. On March 04 2012 00:18 seppolevne wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote:On March 03 2012 20:49 SF-Fork wrote:
First of all I would like to point out that reading this thread diagonally makes me think that somehow woman is the only sex responsible of birth control. Are we serious?
Thank you. It also seems we're entirely to blame for the decision to have sex in the first place, zzzzz... Keep in mind that women aren't the only ones that benefit from this policy. These are your girlfriends, wives, potential-hook-ups-at-a-bar, etc. Giving them affordable control over their own reproductive cycles is a great thing for everyone. I know just about everyone on this forum is young and male, but control over when you get pregnant is *crucial* to women's autonomy. Women's lives were quite different when one unwanted or unplanned pregnancy can completely throw your life off the tracks. The views on sex in this thread are astounding me. What year is it? Come on. Women are overwhelmingly the deciding party in sex, precisely because it's 2012. Just because you will fuck anything with two legs if given the chance does not mean that women are the deciding party. Just that you have lower standards then they do. You didn't say anything reasonable against his argument, in nature, men court, and women choose, these days women are the ones who choose who they date, marry, have sex with etc etc, it's not 100 years ago when the fathers decided for them. Alright well Im not a business major and know nothing about that- and its pretty irrelevant actually, the point I am making is that you cant let business just decide who or what they think is moral and then dictate peoples lives around that. First, it wont be good for business because people like me would choose to not buy any of their goods, and secondly, they are going to alienate a good majority of potential high quality employers that dont fit their ridiculously narrow view of what a good and moral person it. edit: and the overseas sweatshop argument is an entirely different debate. You really cant get around that in this country unless you pretty much buy only things made in the United States. Im talking about US businesses hiring US citizens
EDIT: Don't want to start a discussion I can't finish... grocery store time!
|
On March 04 2012 00:28 RageBot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 00:24 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:17 RageBot wrote:On March 04 2012 00:09 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:06 Bigtony wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:48 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote:On March 03 2012 20:49 SF-Fork wrote:
First of all I would like to point out that reading this thread diagonally makes me think that somehow woman is the only sex responsible of birth control. Are we serious?
Thank you. It also seems we're entirely to blame for the decision to have sex in the first place, zzzzz... Keep in mind that women aren't the only ones that benefit from this policy. These are your girlfriends, wives, potential-hook-ups-at-a-bar, etc. Giving them affordable control over their own reproductive cycles is a great thing for everyone. I know just about everyone on this forum is young and male, but control over when you get pregnant is *crucial* to women's autonomy. Women's lives were quite different when one unwanted or unplanned pregnancy can completely throw your life off the tracks. The views on sex in this thread are astounding me. What year is it? Come on. Women are overwhelmingly the deciding party in sex, precisely because it's 2012. I don't think the bill will pass, it's interesting reading the views from outside the country though. I don't understand why everyone cares so much was goes on in the US. Edit: I just have to go a bit more in depth cause I think I skipped over your main point. We have birth control. The point here is the mandated coverage for religious objectors, which everyone seems to just skip over and point WE LIKE BIRTH CONTROL. Hey, nothing wrong with birth control. The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution. Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever. That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country. More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2. Seems eminently fair. A+ Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections. So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me. The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal. On March 04 2012 00:16 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:10 Aterons_toss wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 Aterons_toss wrote:
Also... isn't there a law in the US that if the child is born the father has to pay some kind of compensation to the mother until he reaches maturity ? ( there was even a thread about this a few months ago i believe ) So what I gather from reading articles, and from a friend of mine with a deadbeat dad, that compensation is not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, and it's difficult for poor women to pursue legal action on the matter. I guess I brought up the point as more of a theoretical question on how it would change the debate. There are already cases of women getting pregnant on purpose to be able to raise a child with whoever they want and "steal" money from the guy which is the father since he did not want the kid. A women is able to abort if all contraception fail a man is not and if the compensation would be higher/easier to get it would get "exploited" way to much. Wow yeah, Im sure this doesnt happen often enough to even bother bringing up. Its pretty offensive actually. How can she get pregnant on purpose without the guy realizing it? He is very much part of the act "Honey... i'm pregnant!" "But... how? you said you took the pill..." "Yeah... guess I forgot" "Well... you're going to abort the baby, right?" "No... I guess i'm going to keep it, I like the idea of being a mother" And then, the guy is legally obliged to pay for the baby. I really dont think this happens often enough to warrant even bringing up, most women dont have some plot to have children in order to get child support. Its not really the way to luxury...and either way, if you are having sex with someone there is always the chance of that happening, so you are always responsible regardless. If you are with someone who you think isnt being honest about taking their birth control, then you are responsible for doing your part as well. It's not like pepole have a plot for a lot of things, many pepole just act on a whim, pepole can get overweight, hurt others and so on, not because they plan ahead, but... it just happens for some pepole, maybe the woman just saw a documentary about babies which had a dramatic effect on her preception? You can never be 100% sure about anything regarding human beings, everyone is different to an extent. And I don't know about how often that happenes, maybe it matters, maybe it doesn't.
It really doesnt, because it is shifting the blame entirely on the female again. It is making men martyrs who are completely helpess against women and their "emotions" Its pretty offensive to think we are so driven by our hormones and emotions that simply seeing a documentary about babies would make us subconsciously stop taking birth control and then get pregnant. Its absurd
|
On March 04 2012 00:27 aminoashley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 00:23 RageBot wrote:On March 04 2012 00:17 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:17 RageBot wrote:On March 04 2012 00:09 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:06 Bigtony wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:48 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote:
[quote]
Thank you. It also seems we're entirely to blame for the decision to have sex in the first place, zzzzz...
Keep in mind that women aren't the only ones that benefit from this policy. These are your girlfriends, wives, potential-hook-ups-at-a-bar, etc. Giving them affordable control over their own reproductive cycles is a great thing for everyone. I know just about everyone on this forum is young and male, but control over when you get pregnant is *crucial* to women's autonomy. Women's lives were quite different when one unwanted or unplanned pregnancy can completely throw your life off the tracks.
The views on sex in this thread are astounding me. What year is it? Come on. Women are overwhelmingly the deciding party in sex, precisely because it's 2012. I don't think the bill will pass, it's interesting reading the views from outside the country though. I don't understand why everyone cares so much was goes on in the US. Edit: I just have to go a bit more in depth cause I think I skipped over your main point. We have birth control. The point here is the mandated coverage for religious objectors, which everyone seems to just skip over and point WE LIKE BIRTH CONTROL. Hey, nothing wrong with birth control. The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution. Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever. That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country. More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2. Seems eminently fair. A+ Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections. So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me. The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal. And you think people are going to support a business- buying their goods etc- if they are openly discriminating against people. I Dont think so It has nothing to do with the fact that, by itself, hiring atheists/whatever can't be a good/bad business model by itself, but only context and culture based one. On March 04 2012 00:18 seppolevne wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote:On March 03 2012 20:49 SF-Fork wrote:
First of all I would like to point out that reading this thread diagonally makes me think that somehow woman is the only sex responsible of birth control. Are we serious?
Thank you. It also seems we're entirely to blame for the decision to have sex in the first place, zzzzz... Keep in mind that women aren't the only ones that benefit from this policy. These are your girlfriends, wives, potential-hook-ups-at-a-bar, etc. Giving them affordable control over their own reproductive cycles is a great thing for everyone. I know just about everyone on this forum is young and male, but control over when you get pregnant is *crucial* to women's autonomy. Women's lives were quite different when one unwanted or unplanned pregnancy can completely throw your life off the tracks. The views on sex in this thread are astounding me. What year is it? Come on. Women are overwhelmingly the deciding party in sex, precisely because it's 2012. Just because you will fuck anything with two legs if given the chance does not mean that women are the deciding party. Just that you have lower standards then they do. You didn't say anything reasonable against his argument, in nature, men court, and women choose, these days women are the ones who choose who they date, marry, have sex with etc etc, it's not 100 years ago when the fathers decided for them. Alright well Im not a business major and know nothing about that- and its pretty irrelevant actually, the point I am making is that you cant let business just decide who or what they think is moral and then dictate peoples lives around that. First, it wont be good for business because people like me would choose to not buy any of their goods, and secondly, they are going to alienate a good majority of potential high quality employers that dont fit their ridiculously narrow view of what a good and moral person it. edit: and the overseas sweatshop argument is an entirely different debate. You really cant get around that in this country unless you pretty much buy only things made in the United States. Im talking about US businesses hiring US citizens
Why not? Let businesses decide for themselves, you only need to decide to support them or not, if a business chooses to not hire quality pepole - it's still their decisions, and if they fall because of it, it's their own fault.
|
I don't know why everyone's getting worked up about this.
Rush Limbaugh loves to troll the left-side of the media, so he often goes out of his way to say outrageous things just for the purpose of ticking them off.
As for the issue itself, why should employers be in charge of their employee's healthcare? That is what needs to be changed. Then insurance companies can choose whether or not they want to include the service of contraception or not. Then individuals can look at each company, see if they have the plan they like, and buy from them. If people want contraceptives to be covered, all you have to do is go to another insurance company that does cover them. The free market will decide who wins and who loses.
|
On March 04 2012 00:30 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 00:27 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:23 RageBot wrote:On March 04 2012 00:17 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:17 RageBot wrote:On March 04 2012 00:09 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:06 Bigtony wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:48 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 SimDawg wrote:
[quote]
Come on. Women are overwhelmingly the deciding party in sex, precisely because it's 2012.
I don't think the bill will pass, it's interesting reading the views from outside the country though. I don't understand why everyone cares so much was goes on in the US.
Edit: I just have to go a bit more in depth cause I think I skipped over your main point. We have birth control. The point here is the mandated coverage for religious objectors, which everyone seems to just skip over and point WE LIKE BIRTH CONTROL. Hey, nothing wrong with birth control. The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution. Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever. That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country. More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2. Seems eminently fair. A+ Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections. So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me. The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal. And you think people are going to support a business- buying their goods etc- if they are openly discriminating against people. I Dont think so It has nothing to do with the fact that, by itself, hiring atheists/whatever can't be a good/bad business model by itself, but only context and culture based one. On March 04 2012 00:18 seppolevne wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote:On March 03 2012 20:49 SF-Fork wrote:
First of all I would like to point out that reading this thread diagonally makes me think that somehow woman is the only sex responsible of birth control. Are we serious?
Thank you. It also seems we're entirely to blame for the decision to have sex in the first place, zzzzz... Keep in mind that women aren't the only ones that benefit from this policy. These are your girlfriends, wives, potential-hook-ups-at-a-bar, etc. Giving them affordable control over their own reproductive cycles is a great thing for everyone. I know just about everyone on this forum is young and male, but control over when you get pregnant is *crucial* to women's autonomy. Women's lives were quite different when one unwanted or unplanned pregnancy can completely throw your life off the tracks. The views on sex in this thread are astounding me. What year is it? Come on. Women are overwhelmingly the deciding party in sex, precisely because it's 2012. Just because you will fuck anything with two legs if given the chance does not mean that women are the deciding party. Just that you have lower standards then they do. You didn't say anything reasonable against his argument, in nature, men court, and women choose, these days women are the ones who choose who they date, marry, have sex with etc etc, it's not 100 years ago when the fathers decided for them. Alright well Im not a business major and know nothing about that- and its pretty irrelevant actually, the point I am making is that you cant let business just decide who or what they think is moral and then dictate peoples lives around that. First, it wont be good for business because people like me would choose to not buy any of their goods, and secondly, they are going to alienate a good majority of potential high quality employers that dont fit their ridiculously narrow view of what a good and moral person it. edit: and the overseas sweatshop argument is an entirely different debate. You really cant get around that in this country unless you pretty much buy only things made in the United States. Im talking about US businesses hiring US citizens well no, you made the point that consumers would be savy and don't support less than moral business practices.... that argument has no basis in reality
How doesnt it? If I was aware that say Nike decided that they didnt want to support birth control coverage or HIV screening for their homosexual emplyers, I would stop shopping there. Im sure there would be tons of news stories and people would boycott it. How is that unrealistic?
And I am agreeing with you then- I just made the one simple point that it probably wouldnt be in their best interest to do these things...this is entirely irrelevant though
|
On March 04 2012 00:30 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 00:17 RageBot wrote:On March 04 2012 00:09 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:06 Bigtony wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:48 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote:On March 03 2012 20:49 SF-Fork wrote:
First of all I would like to point out that reading this thread diagonally makes me think that somehow woman is the only sex responsible of birth control. Are we serious?
Thank you. It also seems we're entirely to blame for the decision to have sex in the first place, zzzzz... Keep in mind that women aren't the only ones that benefit from this policy. These are your girlfriends, wives, potential-hook-ups-at-a-bar, etc. Giving them affordable control over their own reproductive cycles is a great thing for everyone. I know just about everyone on this forum is young and male, but control over when you get pregnant is *crucial* to women's autonomy. Women's lives were quite different when one unwanted or unplanned pregnancy can completely throw your life off the tracks. The views on sex in this thread are astounding me. What year is it? Come on. Women are overwhelmingly the deciding party in sex, precisely because it's 2012. I don't think the bill will pass, it's interesting reading the views from outside the country though. I don't understand why everyone cares so much was goes on in the US. Edit: I just have to go a bit more in depth cause I think I skipped over your main point. We have birth control. The point here is the mandated coverage for religious objectors, which everyone seems to just skip over and point WE LIKE BIRTH CONTROL. Hey, nothing wrong with birth control. The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution. Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever. That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country. More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2. Seems eminently fair. A+ Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections. So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me. The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal. On March 04 2012 00:16 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:10 Aterons_toss wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 Aterons_toss wrote:
Also... isn't there a law in the US that if the child is born the father has to pay some kind of compensation to the mother until he reaches maturity ? ( there was even a thread about this a few months ago i believe ) So what I gather from reading articles, and from a friend of mine with a deadbeat dad, that compensation is not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, and it's difficult for poor women to pursue legal action on the matter. I guess I brought up the point as more of a theoretical question on how it would change the debate. There are already cases of women getting pregnant on purpose to be able to raise a child with whoever they want and "steal" money from the guy which is the father since he did not want the kid. A women is able to abort if all contraception fail a man is not and if the compensation would be higher/easier to get it would get "exploited" way to much. Wow yeah, Im sure this doesnt happen often enough to even bother bringing up. Its pretty offensive actually. How can she get pregnant on purpose without the guy realizing it? He is very much part of the act "Honey... i'm pregnant!" "But... how? you said you took the pill..." "Yeah... guess I forgot" "Well... you're going to abort the baby, right?" "No... I guess i'm going to keep it, I like the idea of being a mother" And then, the guy is legally obliged to pay for the baby. Bravo. A hilarious example of how men, throughout the centuries, are suppressed by women. This is just another ploy in the grand scheme of things. A man accidentally slipped and his dick landed in a vagina. Happens all the time. I feel with you bro. Sex is a two way street, why should contraception be any different?
I didn't talk about contraception, I talked about trust.
If I don't trust a girl (like in a club), of course i'm going to use a condom, but if I dated her long enough, should I still not trust her? Should I treat her as a lier and never trust her?
|
On March 04 2012 00:31 aminoashley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 00:28 RageBot wrote:On March 04 2012 00:24 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:17 RageBot wrote:On March 04 2012 00:09 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:06 Bigtony wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:48 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote:
[quote]
Thank you. It also seems we're entirely to blame for the decision to have sex in the first place, zzzzz...
Keep in mind that women aren't the only ones that benefit from this policy. These are your girlfriends, wives, potential-hook-ups-at-a-bar, etc. Giving them affordable control over their own reproductive cycles is a great thing for everyone. I know just about everyone on this forum is young and male, but control over when you get pregnant is *crucial* to women's autonomy. Women's lives were quite different when one unwanted or unplanned pregnancy can completely throw your life off the tracks.
The views on sex in this thread are astounding me. What year is it? Come on. Women are overwhelmingly the deciding party in sex, precisely because it's 2012. I don't think the bill will pass, it's interesting reading the views from outside the country though. I don't understand why everyone cares so much was goes on in the US. Edit: I just have to go a bit more in depth cause I think I skipped over your main point. We have birth control. The point here is the mandated coverage for religious objectors, which everyone seems to just skip over and point WE LIKE BIRTH CONTROL. Hey, nothing wrong with birth control. The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution. Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever. That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country. More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2. Seems eminently fair. A+ Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections. So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me. The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal. On March 04 2012 00:16 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:10 Aterons_toss wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 Aterons_toss wrote:
Also... isn't there a law in the US that if the child is born the father has to pay some kind of compensation to the mother until he reaches maturity ? ( there was even a thread about this a few months ago i believe ) So what I gather from reading articles, and from a friend of mine with a deadbeat dad, that compensation is not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, and it's difficult for poor women to pursue legal action on the matter. I guess I brought up the point as more of a theoretical question on how it would change the debate. There are already cases of women getting pregnant on purpose to be able to raise a child with whoever they want and "steal" money from the guy which is the father since he did not want the kid. A women is able to abort if all contraception fail a man is not and if the compensation would be higher/easier to get it would get "exploited" way to much. Wow yeah, Im sure this doesnt happen often enough to even bother bringing up. Its pretty offensive actually. How can she get pregnant on purpose without the guy realizing it? He is very much part of the act "Honey... i'm pregnant!" "But... how? you said you took the pill..." "Yeah... guess I forgot" "Well... you're going to abort the baby, right?" "No... I guess i'm going to keep it, I like the idea of being a mother" And then, the guy is legally obliged to pay for the baby. I really dont think this happens often enough to warrant even bringing up, most women dont have some plot to have children in order to get child support. Its not really the way to luxury...and either way, if you are having sex with someone there is always the chance of that happening, so you are always responsible regardless. If you are with someone who you think isnt being honest about taking their birth control, then you are responsible for doing your part as well. It's not like pepole have a plot for a lot of things, many pepole just act on a whim, pepole can get overweight, hurt others and so on, not because they plan ahead, but... it just happens for some pepole, maybe the woman just saw a documentary about babies which had a dramatic effect on her preception? You can never be 100% sure about anything regarding human beings, everyone is different to an extent. And I don't know about how often that happenes, maybe it matters, maybe it doesn't. It really doesnt, because it is shifting the blame entirely on the female again. It is making men martyrs who are completely helpess against women and their "emotions" Its pretty offensive to think we are so driven by our hormones and emotions that simply seeing a documentary about babies would make us subconsciously stop taking birth control and then get pregnant. Its absurd
You would be suprised to find out how much of our behavior and personality are created solely by our genetics and hormones.
Most human behavior isn't purely logical you know, many pepole don't really think about things, they rationalize to themselves later on, maybe you don't, but most pepole do.
|
On March 04 2012 00:25 RageBot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 00:22 KwarK wrote:On March 04 2012 00:17 RageBot wrote:On March 04 2012 00:09 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:06 Bigtony wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:48 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote:On March 03 2012 20:49 SF-Fork wrote:
First of all I would like to point out that reading this thread diagonally makes me think that somehow woman is the only sex responsible of birth control. Are we serious?
Thank you. It also seems we're entirely to blame for the decision to have sex in the first place, zzzzz... Keep in mind that women aren't the only ones that benefit from this policy. These are your girlfriends, wives, potential-hook-ups-at-a-bar, etc. Giving them affordable control over their own reproductive cycles is a great thing for everyone. I know just about everyone on this forum is young and male, but control over when you get pregnant is *crucial* to women's autonomy. Women's lives were quite different when one unwanted or unplanned pregnancy can completely throw your life off the tracks. The views on sex in this thread are astounding me. What year is it? Come on. Women are overwhelmingly the deciding party in sex, precisely because it's 2012. I don't think the bill will pass, it's interesting reading the views from outside the country though. I don't understand why everyone cares so much was goes on in the US. Edit: I just have to go a bit more in depth cause I think I skipped over your main point. We have birth control. The point here is the mandated coverage for religious objectors, which everyone seems to just skip over and point WE LIKE BIRTH CONTROL. Hey, nothing wrong with birth control. The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution. Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever. That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country. More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2. Seems eminently fair. A+ Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections. So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me. The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal. On March 04 2012 00:16 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:10 Aterons_toss wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 Aterons_toss wrote:
Also... isn't there a law in the US that if the child is born the father has to pay some kind of compensation to the mother until he reaches maturity ? ( there was even a thread about this a few months ago i believe ) So what I gather from reading articles, and from a friend of mine with a deadbeat dad, that compensation is not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, and it's difficult for poor women to pursue legal action on the matter. I guess I brought up the point as more of a theoretical question on how it would change the debate. There are already cases of women getting pregnant on purpose to be able to raise a child with whoever they want and "steal" money from the guy which is the father since he did not want the kid. A women is able to abort if all contraception fail a man is not and if the compensation would be higher/easier to get it would get "exploited" way to much. Wow yeah, Im sure this doesnt happen often enough to even bother bringing up. Its pretty offensive actually. How can she get pregnant on purpose without the guy realizing it? He is very much part of the act "Honey... i'm pregnant!" "But... how? you said you took the pill..." "Yeah... guess I forgot" "Well... you're going to abort the baby, right?" "No... I guess i'm going to keep it, I like the idea of being a mother" And then, the guy is legally obliged to pay for the baby. It's 2012. I'm pretty sure men know that children are a risk of sex. Talk to your partner about options should contraception fail and use additional safeguards if you don't want to take the risk. I think that most men will just trust their girlfriends when they tell them that they don't want a baby, how do you think my girlfriend would act if, after she tells me that she's taking the pill and doesn't want children, I still put on a condom? She will feel that I don't trust her and will be really hurt.
Why the fuck would your girlfriend feel like you don't trust her? She doesn't want kids and gets hurt when you put on a condom. Is she stupid? Then stop dating her. Problem solved. Two to tango, suck it up.
|
On March 04 2012 00:34 RageBot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 00:31 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:28 RageBot wrote:On March 04 2012 00:24 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:17 RageBot wrote:On March 04 2012 00:09 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:06 Bigtony wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:48 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 SimDawg wrote:
[quote]
Come on. Women are overwhelmingly the deciding party in sex, precisely because it's 2012.
I don't think the bill will pass, it's interesting reading the views from outside the country though. I don't understand why everyone cares so much was goes on in the US.
Edit: I just have to go a bit more in depth cause I think I skipped over your main point. We have birth control. The point here is the mandated coverage for religious objectors, which everyone seems to just skip over and point WE LIKE BIRTH CONTROL. Hey, nothing wrong with birth control. The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution. Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever. That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country. More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2. Seems eminently fair. A+ Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections. So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me. The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal. On March 04 2012 00:16 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:10 Aterons_toss wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 Aterons_toss wrote:
Also... isn't there a law in the US that if the child is born the father has to pay some kind of compensation to the mother until he reaches maturity ? ( there was even a thread about this a few months ago i believe ) So what I gather from reading articles, and from a friend of mine with a deadbeat dad, that compensation is not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, and it's difficult for poor women to pursue legal action on the matter. I guess I brought up the point as more of a theoretical question on how it would change the debate. There are already cases of women getting pregnant on purpose to be able to raise a child with whoever they want and "steal" money from the guy which is the father since he did not want the kid. A women is able to abort if all contraception fail a man is not and if the compensation would be higher/easier to get it would get "exploited" way to much. Wow yeah, Im sure this doesnt happen often enough to even bother bringing up. Its pretty offensive actually. How can she get pregnant on purpose without the guy realizing it? He is very much part of the act "Honey... i'm pregnant!" "But... how? you said you took the pill..." "Yeah... guess I forgot" "Well... you're going to abort the baby, right?" "No... I guess i'm going to keep it, I like the idea of being a mother" And then, the guy is legally obliged to pay for the baby. I really dont think this happens often enough to warrant even bringing up, most women dont have some plot to have children in order to get child support. Its not really the way to luxury...and either way, if you are having sex with someone there is always the chance of that happening, so you are always responsible regardless. If you are with someone who you think isnt being honest about taking their birth control, then you are responsible for doing your part as well. It's not like pepole have a plot for a lot of things, many pepole just act on a whim, pepole can get overweight, hurt others and so on, not because they plan ahead, but... it just happens for some pepole, maybe the woman just saw a documentary about babies which had a dramatic effect on her preception? You can never be 100% sure about anything regarding human beings, everyone is different to an extent. And I don't know about how often that happenes, maybe it matters, maybe it doesn't. It really doesnt, because it is shifting the blame entirely on the female again. It is making men martyrs who are completely helpess against women and their "emotions" Its pretty offensive to think we are so driven by our hormones and emotions that simply seeing a documentary about babies would make us subconsciously stop taking birth control and then get pregnant. Its absurd You would be suprised to find out how much of our behavior and personality are created solely by our genetics and hormones. Most human behavior isn't purely logical you know, many pepole don't really think about things, they rationalize to themselves later on, maybe you don't, but most pepole do.
No I wouldnt . We have self control and we have self awareness though- it is overly simplistic and ignorant to think that you would make the conscious decision not to take a pill that you take at the same time everyday because of some documentary or because you saw someone with a baby etc etc. That is a huge decision that people dont just casually make
And we are not determined by our genetics- culture and upbringing has an enormous effect on our personality.
|
On March 04 2012 00:24 aminoashley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 00:17 RageBot wrote:On March 04 2012 00:09 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:06 Bigtony wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:48 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote:On March 03 2012 20:49 SF-Fork wrote:
First of all I would like to point out that reading this thread diagonally makes me think that somehow woman is the only sex responsible of birth control. Are we serious?
Thank you. It also seems we're entirely to blame for the decision to have sex in the first place, zzzzz... Keep in mind that women aren't the only ones that benefit from this policy. These are your girlfriends, wives, potential-hook-ups-at-a-bar, etc. Giving them affordable control over their own reproductive cycles is a great thing for everyone. I know just about everyone on this forum is young and male, but control over when you get pregnant is *crucial* to women's autonomy. Women's lives were quite different when one unwanted or unplanned pregnancy can completely throw your life off the tracks. The views on sex in this thread are astounding me. What year is it? Come on. Women are overwhelmingly the deciding party in sex, precisely because it's 2012. I don't think the bill will pass, it's interesting reading the views from outside the country though. I don't understand why everyone cares so much was goes on in the US. Edit: I just have to go a bit more in depth cause I think I skipped over your main point. We have birth control. The point here is the mandated coverage for religious objectors, which everyone seems to just skip over and point WE LIKE BIRTH CONTROL. Hey, nothing wrong with birth control. The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution. Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever. That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country. More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2. Seems eminently fair. A+ Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections. So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me. The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal. On March 04 2012 00:16 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:10 Aterons_toss wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 Aterons_toss wrote:
Also... isn't there a law in the US that if the child is born the father has to pay some kind of compensation to the mother until he reaches maturity ? ( there was even a thread about this a few months ago i believe ) So what I gather from reading articles, and from a friend of mine with a deadbeat dad, that compensation is not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, and it's difficult for poor women to pursue legal action on the matter. I guess I brought up the point as more of a theoretical question on how it would change the debate. There are already cases of women getting pregnant on purpose to be able to raise a child with whoever they want and "steal" money from the guy which is the father since he did not want the kid. A women is able to abort if all contraception fail a man is not and if the compensation would be higher/easier to get it would get "exploited" way to much. Wow yeah, Im sure this doesnt happen often enough to even bother bringing up. Its pretty offensive actually. How can she get pregnant on purpose without the guy realizing it? He is very much part of the act "Honey... i'm pregnant!" "But... how? you said you took the pill..." "Yeah... guess I forgot" "Well... you're going to abort the baby, right?" "No... I guess i'm going to keep it, I like the idea of being a mother" And then, the guy is legally obliged to pay for the baby. I really dont think this happens often enough to warrant even bringing up, most women dont have some plot to have children in order to get child support. Its not really the way to luxury...and either way, if you are having sex with someone there is always the chance of that happening, so you are always responsible regardless. If you are with someone who you think isnt being honest about taking their birth control, then you are responsible for doing your part as well.
Well, most men do not have a plot to get women pregnant ether.
And lets just take the 4 situations :
Man wants to get women pregnant without her wishing for it
He can make a whole in a condom, and in case they are really close he can replace her pills, EVEN so the women can still abort the baby
Pregnant by mistake - man doesn't want the baby
Only mistake a man can do is for his condom to "fail"
Women however can use 2 "safeguards" 1 being the man condom the 2nd being the pills and in case both fails or she forgets the pills ( which is kinda her fault ) she can abort.
If she does not want to the man can't force her to abort and is obligated to pay for a kid that he doesn't want to have
Women wants to get pregnant without her partner knowing:
She can stop taking pills and tell the man that she did take them, in case the man uses a condom she could find a way to break it ( although it would be hard, much like a men replacing the pills ) and there is the option to use the sperm from certain" sexual acts" or from the condom in case the man forgot to throw it but it isn't likely to work + kinda easy to spot, so its kinda of "even" with the man BUT she still has the option to abort for her, so she is favored
Pregnant by mistake - women doesn't want baby
Its her "responsibility" to take pills and she can be sure that the man is wearing a condom ( unlike man, which can't be sure if the women took the pills or not ) and it is HER choice to keep the baby
Well both cases of "unwanted" pregnancy where one wants to keep the baby and one does not seem to be in favor of women, so i ask again, why should man be taxed even more for it than they are now ?
|
On March 04 2012 00:33 RageBot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 00:30 Doublemint wrote:On March 04 2012 00:17 RageBot wrote:On March 04 2012 00:09 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:06 Bigtony wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:48 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 SimDawg wrote:On March 03 2012 23:03 Haemonculus wrote:On March 03 2012 20:49 SF-Fork wrote:
First of all I would like to point out that reading this thread diagonally makes me think that somehow woman is the only sex responsible of birth control. Are we serious?
Thank you. It also seems we're entirely to blame for the decision to have sex in the first place, zzzzz... Keep in mind that women aren't the only ones that benefit from this policy. These are your girlfriends, wives, potential-hook-ups-at-a-bar, etc. Giving them affordable control over their own reproductive cycles is a great thing for everyone. I know just about everyone on this forum is young and male, but control over when you get pregnant is *crucial* to women's autonomy. Women's lives were quite different when one unwanted or unplanned pregnancy can completely throw your life off the tracks. The views on sex in this thread are astounding me. What year is it? Come on. Women are overwhelmingly the deciding party in sex, precisely because it's 2012. I don't think the bill will pass, it's interesting reading the views from outside the country though. I don't understand why everyone cares so much was goes on in the US. Edit: I just have to go a bit more in depth cause I think I skipped over your main point. We have birth control. The point here is the mandated coverage for religious objectors, which everyone seems to just skip over and point WE LIKE BIRTH CONTROL. Hey, nothing wrong with birth control. The problem is that our system is set up so that almost everyone gets insured through their employer. Exempting religious organizations from having to make contraceptives available makes birth control a good deal harder to access for women at a Catholic university or similar institution. Well you say that with a straight face. You're at a Catholic University. You're in a situation where you need birth control. And you feel the Catholic University should be forced against it's beliefs to provide that for you/whoever. That doesn't comport in my head. Choose another University. There's no personal responsibility in this country. More edits: 1) Choose another University. 2) Prepare yourself better so you don't need contraception while on a Catholic University 3) Pay for it yourself if you screw up 1 and 2. Seems eminently fair. A+ Businesses have a right to run themselves in whatever way they want within the constitution. I think this is well within constitutional protections. So they can fire people for being homosexual or atheists or whatever else they dont morally agree with? That seems like a poor business model to me. The only thing that determines if something is a good business model or not is if it is making a lot of money, long term. It doesn't matter, from the business prespective, what are the means, only the goal. On March 04 2012 00:16 aminoashley wrote:On March 04 2012 00:10 Aterons_toss wrote:On March 03 2012 23:52 SerpentFlame wrote:On March 03 2012 23:41 Aterons_toss wrote:
Also... isn't there a law in the US that if the child is born the father has to pay some kind of compensation to the mother until he reaches maturity ? ( there was even a thread about this a few months ago i believe ) So what I gather from reading articles, and from a friend of mine with a deadbeat dad, that compensation is not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, and it's difficult for poor women to pursue legal action on the matter. I guess I brought up the point as more of a theoretical question on how it would change the debate. There are already cases of women getting pregnant on purpose to be able to raise a child with whoever they want and "steal" money from the guy which is the father since he did not want the kid. A women is able to abort if all contraception fail a man is not and if the compensation would be higher/easier to get it would get "exploited" way to much. Wow yeah, Im sure this doesnt happen often enough to even bother bringing up. Its pretty offensive actually. How can she get pregnant on purpose without the guy realizing it? He is very much part of the act "Honey... i'm pregnant!" "But... how? you said you took the pill..." "Yeah... guess I forgot" "Well... you're going to abort the baby, right?" "No... I guess i'm going to keep it, I like the idea of being a mother" And then, the guy is legally obliged to pay for the baby. Bravo. A hilarious example of how men, throughout the centuries, are suppressed by women. This is just another ploy in the grand scheme of things. A man accidentally slipped and his dick landed in a vagina. Happens all the time. I feel with you bro. Sex is a two way street, why should contraception be any different? I didn't talk about contraception, I talked about trust. If I don't trust a girl (like in a club), of course i'm going to use a condom, but if I dated her long enough, should I still not trust her? Should I treat her as a lier and never trust her?
You probably should, yet that always depends from person to person. What does it even mean "dated long enough"?
Why treat her as a liar, does she give you reason for that? The point is : If YOU fuck with somebody, and don´t want to make a child - let alone trust her??? - why don´t you use a condom. It´s really that simple of an answer. Take responsibility either way - even if you "fuck up".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
