Home - List All Discussions

Hit Me With Your Best Shot...

...Fire Away!

by: Spinwubby

Now, a birth control shot for men
by Neharika Sabharwal - February 17, 2010

A male hormonal contraceptive regimen that is safe, reversible, and effective in preventing unplanned pregnancies may very soon liberate women from the shackles of family planning.
Professor Richard Anderson, from the University of Edinburgh, who is heading one of the two year long trials said, "A lot of women may think it's time men took their turn. When we carried out surveys of women, they were enormously enthusiastic. The single most common reason was they wanted to share the responsibility for contraception."
The worldwide study comprises of 60 couples in Manchester, and 20 couples in Edinburgh who are participating in a year-long trial of a male contraceptive injection.
Working of the injection
The shot contains the male sex hormone testosterone, and a synthetic version of the female sex hormone progesterone. The men will be given injections by the general physician twice a month.
The injection works by stimulating the brain into reducing the levels of other hormones which control sperm production and maturation.
However, once the shots are discontinued the sperm count returned to normal. This method is also an effective measure in providing a time bound contraceptive option.
The tests for the shots have shown positive results in 99 percent of the cases. Additionally, no adverse effects were perceived though some men were troubled by hot flushes, mood swings, and acne.
Method effective in committed relationships
This contraception option is perfect for couples where female methods do not work, and couples want to avoid permanent procedure like a vasectomy.
However, because the injection is unable to protect against sexually-transmitted infections, this method is best suited to stable couples in a committed relationship for whom the risk is minimal.
Dr Anderson, stated, "The single most common reason was that they wanted to share the responsibility for contraception. You are not sleeping with men you are sleeping with one particular man you are sharing your bank accounts and everything else with.
"It's not that women want to control contraception because they could be 'left holding the baby'. In a strong relationship, you share everything, and this is part of it".
Giving some insight on male contraceptive measures Dr Allan Pacey, a Sheffield University expert on male fertility declared, "Vasectomy is OK but although it is viewed as reversible it isn't really, so it would be useful to have an alternative.
"The big sticking point is acceptability. I think there is a lot of education needed to convince men that this jab doesn't make them less of a man."

reply from: LexIcon

Great! Now men can become slaves to "the fix" as well!

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
"Slaves?"
You might ask 90% of child-support check writers about "slavery."

reply from: nancyu

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
"Slaves?"
You might ask 90% of child-support check writers about "slavery."
What is this supposed to mean? You think men should not be obligated to care for their own children? At least you're consistent, you don't think women should either.

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Ironic that this comes from the woman who expects her kids to support her financially while she treats them to the the most jaw-dropping, callous neglect I've ever seen aired on a public forum.

reply from: LexIcon

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
"Slaves?"
You might ask 90% of child-support check writers about "slavery."
Gee, how many of these 90% (let's make them all male for the sake of argument) would opt for being injected with a synthetic female hormone, with possible "hot flushes, mood swings, and acne" as side effects, besides the drop in sperm production because their own hormones have been co-opted, and still believe that they were men and not women, at least temporarily?
IOW, men who want to be women for all sexual purposes, may become slaves to "the fix," just like women have neutered themselves with "the fix" that screws up their own hormones so as to prevent ovulation.

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
...And women clamor for that hormonal fix. The new pills that suppress ovulation and end periods for years on end are flying off the shelves. I myself had my tubes tied at 23.
I don't think you understand that normal, healthy people carry their gender identity in their heart and mind. Their crotch? Not so much...

reply from: Ana

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
"Slaves?"
You might ask 90% of child-support check writers about "slavery."
Gee, how many of these 90% (let's make them all male for the sake of argument) would opt for being injected with a synthetic female hormone, with possible "hot flushes, mood swings, and acne" as side effects, besides the drop in sperm production because their own hormones have been co-opted, and still believe that they were men and not women, at least temporarily?
IOW, men who want to be women for all sexual purposes, may become slaves to "the fix," just like women have neutered themselves with "the fix" that screws up their own hormones so as to prevent ovulation.
You know, you don't help with this kind of talk. Women have been responsible for birth control for many years now... why shouldn't men have to carry some of that burden? You are aware that not everyone who uses BC is an underage, hormone driven teenager grappling in the back seat of a car, right?? And if it's about saving unborn children, aren't a couple of hot flashes worth the life of a child??

reply from: LexIcon

Spinwubby and Ana,
Neither of you have addressed my point, that now men can become slaves to chemistry to control their fertility, just as women have done for years.
Whatever floats your boat...

reply from: Spinwubby

Originally posted by: LexIcon
Spinwubby and Ana,
Neither of you have addressed my point, that now men can become slaves to chemistry to control their fertility, just as women have done for years.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
...Or you can be a slave to a Duggar-sized herd of rugats.
It just depends is you are one of those people who use the expression "quiverfull" as a noun, or one of those people who use "quiverfull" as an adjective when discussing children.

reply from: LexIcon

I didn't understand what you meant by "quiverfull" viz a' viz the Duggars, so I Googled it and found http://www.newsweek.com/id/189763
That's what floats their boat, and you still haven't addressed my point about slavery to chemistry to control one's fertility.

reply from: Ana

First of all, you're going to have to define "slavery". I guess. If your definition means "people making a choice about their lives that is not the choice I'd make", then maybe so. But I am of the opinion that when people throw around words like "holocost" and "slavery" and "nazi" and "rape" and other very powerful words simply to make a point, you are demeaning every person who's ancestry or experience comes from there.

reply from: Ana

Slavery \Slav"er*y\, n.; pl. Slaveries. [See 2d Slave.]
1. The condition of a slave; the state of entire subjection of one person to the will of another. [1913 Webster]
Disguise thyself as thou wilt, still, slavery, said I, still thou art a bitter draught! --Sterne. [1913 Webster]
I wish, from my soul, that the legislature of this state [Virginia] could see the policy of a gradual abolition of slavery. It might prevent much future mischief. --Washington. [1913 Webster]
2. A condition of subjection or submission characterized by lack of freedom of action or of will. [1913 Webster]
The vulgar slaveries rich men submit to. --C. Lever. [1913 Webster]
There is a slavery that no legislation can abolish, -- the slavery of caste. --G. W. Cable. [1913 Webster]
3. The holding of slaves. [1913 Webster]
Syn: Bondage; servitude; inthrallment; enslavement; captivity; bond service; vassalage. [1913 Webster]
Source: The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
And this applies to BC how, exactly??

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
For the people who choose that option, a 15-second pause to take that pill or a 30-second pause to get thet shot is a small price to pay for hours and hours of spontaneous, worry-free sex.
Notto mention that the pill has a number of positive health benefits. (Many non-sexually active women take the pill JUST for the health benefits.)

reply from: Imaginary

If both partners take contraception = less unwanted pregnancies = less abortions = everyone happy?
So, go go male contraception. I'll be dragging my hubby to the doctor once this comes out! No sex before he gets his shot. -evil cackle-
@ Spinwubby: Yep! I can vouch for that. The pill saved me from a lot of trips to the hospital.

reply from: LexIcon

Relying on biochemical "fixes" to avoid the possibility of pregnancy is a form of self-enslavement. The healthier alternative to screwing with one's hormonal balances is to simply abstain from sexual intercourse on occasion, and thereby remain true to one's own biological makeup.
You do believe in choice, don't you?

reply from: LexIcon

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
For the people who choose that option, a 15-second pause to take that pill or a 30-second pause to get thet shot is a small price to pay for hours and hours of spontaneous, worry-free sex.
Notto mention that the pill has a number of positive health benefits. (Many non-sexually active women take the pill JUST for the health benefits.)
Yes indeed, many don't mind at all becoming slaves to "the fix." It relieves them of the very real inconvenience of having to say "No" on occasion.

reply from: Banned Member

If all women had Spiny's personality there would be no need for birth control whatsoever!

reply from: LexIcon

Thank you for describing the connection between the contraceptive mentality and its logical conclusion: abortion as a form of birth control.

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Would you prefer that people with no discipline had abortions or babies instead?

reply from: Spinwubby

Thank you for describing the connection between the contraceptive mentality and its logical conclusion: abortion as a form of birth control.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Nope.
She has a medical condition that's controlled by the pill. It's saved her a lot of grief, and is GOOD for her health. It's a positive for her.

reply from: Imaginary

Thank you for describing the connection between the contraceptive mentality and its logical conclusion: abortion as a form of birth control.
Now you make me wonder how you link doing everything to prevent a pregnancy from happening(having both partners on birth control) to abortion. I'm merely stating that less abortions will happen if both partners use birth control, since it'll have a smaller fail rate.
And I think we all know that some women use abortion as birth control. It's about wether or not you use it as the last resort that matters (to me, but I guess to you that doesn't matter since all women who have abortions are murders to you, or that's what I gather from your posts).

reply from: LexIcon

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Would you prefer that people with no discipline had abortions or babies instead?
Babies, of course. You would prefer that they had abortions? How do you propose to "discipline" them, that is, unless you are an utter cynic?

reply from: LexIcon

She also described the connection between the contraceptive mentality and its logical conclusion: abortion as a form of birth control.

reply from: LexIcon

I am saying that the contraceptive mentality logically leads to abortion-on-demand.
Are women who abort murderers? In the U.S., as a matter of law, they can't be murderers, because the living "thing" that they kill is not a "person" under the 14th Amendment, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. Are they murderers before God? God knows. I don't.

reply from: Shenanigans

It'll be interesting to see in the next few decades just exactly what long term use of these pills and potions have done.
You really can't get away with taking a foreign substance into your body to get it to stop something its meant to do naturally.

reply from: Imaginary

...I need to stop typing so many typoes. >.<
It does to some. I personally will get an abortion if I ever get pregnant while on birth control, my 2 best friends won't. It really depends from person to person, and their mindset.
I don't believe in god, but that put aside, what do YOU see it as? You made me genuinly curious.

reply from: Ana

Relying on biochemical "fixes" to avoid the possibility of pregnancy is a form of self-enslavement. The healthier alternative to screwing with one's hormonal balances is to simply abstain from sexual intercourse on occasion, and thereby remain true to one's own biological makeup.
Why, because you say so? I am on meds for high cholesterol. It is a biomechanical fix that I'm greatful to have. Sometimes "screwing" with your hormones is a lifesaver if you're bleeding to death every month. I have a friend who used it to GET pregnant. It regulated her cycles for her. I have a hard time trusting pro lifers who are so caught up in the morality of if someone SHOULD be having sex that they completely forget that pro life is supposed to be about STOPPING ABORTION. A pregnancy prevented cant be aborted.
In what sense? I am for stopping abortions, I am pro life. But I'm a realist too. My hope is to help women not get pregnant until they are ready (education) and to help them choose life if they do.

reply from: Ana

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
For the people who choose that option, a 15-second pause to take that pill or a 30-second pause to get thet shot is a small price to pay for hours and hours of spontaneous, worry-free sex.
Notto mention that the pill has a number of positive health benefits. (Many non-sexually active women take the pill JUST for the health benefits.)
Yes indeed, many don't mind at all becoming slaves to "the fix." It relieves them of the very real inconvenience of having to say "No" on occasion.
Is this about dictating morality or stopping babies from being aborted?

reply from: Ana

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Would you prefer that people with no discipline had abortions or babies instead?
Babies, of course. You would prefer that they had abortions? How do you propose to "discipline" them, that is, unless you are an utter cynic?
My preference is that they have neither.

reply from: Ana

That description can cover a lot of meds, sheanigans.

reply from: Ana

Only if you believe that those people are going to magically stop having sex because of a lack of BC. Here's a hint... they aren't.

reply from: LexIcon

Thank you very much for asking!
I approach opposition to abortion from two fronts. The first is that I'm a Christian who believes, as Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 6:19, that my body is not my own private property to do with it as I please, but rather belongs to God, and God, as far as I've been able to determine, has established marriage between one man and one woman as the only proper domain of genitally expressive conduct.
Moreover, as a Catholic Christian, I believe that the married couple should remain open to the possibility of children, and that to deliberately thwart this possibility is sin, while to abort a pregnancy without just cause, say, as a form of birth control, is gravely sinful, meaning that it kills the life of the spirit, and, if left unrepented, merits hell as a just reward.
Secondly, I am persuaded that the U.S. Supreme Court erred badly by refusing to accord due process protections to the unborn. It reduced them to living garbage, as a matter of law, and this is the argument that I prefer to make when contending for life in a forum like this. That is, it is a violation of what SHOULD be seen as the civil rights of the unborn that they should be legally regarded as disposable PROPERTY.

reply from: LexIcon

Relying on biochemical "fixes" to avoid the possibility of pregnancy is a form of self-enslavement. The healthier alternative to screwing with one's hormonal balances is to simply abstain from sexual intercourse on occasion, and thereby remain true to one's own biological makeup.
Why, because you say so? I am on meds for high cholesterol. It is a biomechanical fix that I'm greatful to have. Sometimes "screwing" with your hormones is a lifesaver if you're bleeding to death every month. I have a friend who used it to GET pregnant. It regulated her cycles for her. I have a hard time trusting pro lifers who are so caught up in the morality of if someone SHOULD be having sex that they completely forget that pro life is supposed to be about STOPPING ABORTION. A pregnancy prevented cant be aborted.
In what sense? I am for stopping abortions, I am pro life. But I'm a realist too. My hope is to help women not get pregnant until they are ready (education) and to help them choose life if they do.
I am happy that a pharmaceutical "fix" is available to you for high cholesterol, but the truth of the matter is that those who take the pill to avoid pregnancy, as a general rule, DON'T NEED TO TAKE IT. They can simply say "No," can't they? Of course, it is FAR easier to take "the fix" and be done with it.

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
So you believe that babies are a "punishment?"
Where have I heard that before?
...And since WHEN is it YOUR job to discipline anyone? I don't want your your life, and you had better respect my right to live my life.

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Yes, but if you want to hump and don't want any kids, you had better use a contraceptive.
90% of Catholics can't be wrong!

reply from: LexIcon

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
So you believe that babies are a "punishment?"
Where have I heard that before?
...And since WHEN is it YOUR job to discipline anyone? I don't want your your life, and you had better respect my right to live my life.
Babies are a blessing. It is Obama and others of his ilk who see them as a "punishment."
YOU'RE the one who cited the undisciplined conduct of others, as you wrote, "Would you prefer that people with no discipline had abortions or babies instead?" If you would condemn others and leave it at that, then why should I give you a pass? This has nothing to do with your right to live your life, but with your willingness to actually effect positive change, instead of being a totally self-centered negative.

reply from: LexIcon

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Yes, but if you want to hump and don't want any kids, you had better use a contraceptive.
90% of Catholics can't be wrong!
Illogical. 90% of Catholics CAN be wrong.

reply from: Spinwubby

Originally posted by: LexIcon
"Would you prefer that people with no discipline had abortions or babies instead?"
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
That's right.
I NEVER took it upon myself to discipline others.
I'm not going to tell others what to eat, if they can smoke, or how they should hump, and neither should you.
Keep your nose out of the lives of law-abiding Americans.

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Excuse me?
YOU want irresponsible people to be put in charge of vulnerable infants to appease your bloviating self-righteousness, and you call ME self-centered?
Priceless...

reply from: LexIcon

Answer your own question.

reply from: LexIcon

You want the babies dead.
What is the price of blood?

reply from: LexIcon

Spinwubby, an abortionist at heart.

reply from: Banned Member

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Would you prefer that people with no discipline had abortions or babies instead?
Babies of course. Haven't you been paying attention?

reply from: Spinwubby

Originally posted by: LexIcon
You want the babies dead.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
No, genius. You will never find a quote from me EVER saying I want babies dead.
You will find about a bazillion quotes from me saying how thrilled I'd be if NOBODY ever had an unintended pregnancy or an abortion ever again.
Education and access to contraception are vital to that end.

reply from: Spinwubby

Babies of course. Haven't you been paying attention?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I worded that poorly.
What I meant to ask is if you really wanted irresponsible people having babies and abortions, or would you prefer that they use contraception?

reply from: LexIcon

I would prefer that "irresponsible people" would use the occasion of "having babies" to become responsible parents, period.

reply from: LexIcon

Truth be told, using contraception actually encourages people to be IRRESPONSIBLE.

reply from: QueenJ

IKR?
You forgot to mention those people that take insulin and other related medication for their diabetes? They're SLAVES TO CHEMICALS!
And people who undergo chemotherapy for cancer? SLAVES TO CHEMICALS!
And so on and so forth.

reply from: BenningtonV

Spinwubby....you rock my world

reply from: B0zo

Babies of course. Haven't you been paying attention?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I worded that poorly.
What I meant to ask is if you really wanted irresponsible people having babies and abortions, or would you prefer that they use contraception?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about the novel idea that irresponsible people don't perform the reproductive act, since apparently they don't fully understand that the reproductive act sometimes causes...drum roll please...REPRODUCTION.
Your question also presumes that using contraception means that there will be no babies, which is false, since we all know contraption fails, which leads to "contraception part II," i.e., abortion.
People who have no discipline should acquire discipline. Contraception use is not discipline.
I would rather they were in a committed relationship and that they were prepared for the consequences of engaging in the reproductive act, but I would not see contraception as the "solution" if they were irresponsible, since I do not see contraception as infallible, and sooner or later it will fail.
Promotion of contraception is a short-term solution which leads to long-term problems, caused by the mindset of sexual bulimia, enjoying the act of making babies with the determination that no babies will be made (and destroying them if they are made by "accident").
Would I want irresponsible people to have babies and abortions or would I prefer they use contraception?
I want irresponsible people to be responsible. But if they make a baby, it is less responsible, and is an act of supreme injustice to kill it instead of keeping it, regarless of their lack of parenting skills.
I do not believe the sex act is soley for baby making, however, as it serves the useful purpose of bonding the couple and making a more secure home for the family, and I believe we can responsbily teach ways to naturally reduce the number of pregnancies without using contraception.

reply from: BenningtonV

BOzo: "I do not believe the sex act is soley for baby making."
"the sex act"?
were you sheltered as a child?

reply from: LexIcon

Is this the third time now that I've asked you to learn how to read, Your Highness? I didn't say that diabetics and others who take medications to control their symptoms aren't slaves to chemicals. What I said was that the development of a male contraceptive will enable men to become slaves to biochemistry to control their fertility, just as women have done for years.
The ONLY difference is that those on insulin, for example, have little choice in the matter, or none at all. If they stop taking insulin, they will die. That is NOT the case with those who become slaves to fertility controlling biochemical concoctions to avoid the possibility of pregnancy altogether. They COULD opt out, but CHOOSE not to.

reply from: joueravecfous

It's hard to claim that someone is a "slave" to something when they do it voluntarily and believe strongly in the benefits. Taking an occasional shot or a daily pill can hardly be compared to slavery. When have people ever 'opted out' of sex? Your denial of human biology and behavior is naive to say the least. Opt out all YOU want, but hormonal birth control is up there with the absolute greatest achievements of the 20th century. If you're so upset about abortion, you should be cheering for BC.

reply from: LexIcon

You have it exactly bass ackwards. It is those who resort to BC who are denying human biology and behavior. As for me, I would rather celebrate the concept of sexual self control that does not depend on even temporary enslavement to chemical "fixes."

reply from: joueravecfous

They're hardly denying it - they're working with it.
Isn't it nice to make your own choices about your body?

reply from: sk1bianca

pregnancy is not a disease like cancer and diabetes. BC doesn't prevent or cure a disease. it is not necessary.

reply from: B0zo

Because BC is 100% effective and nobody who has an abortion is practicing BC...right?

reply from: joueravecfous

Because BC is highly effective when used correctly and BILLIONS of women who would otherwise have abortions DO use it correctly.
How many people have gotten pregnant while using your church sanctioned BC (aka NFP)? It is only effective when practiced correctly, right?
Of course there will be a failure rate in both scenarios, but the failure is user based, not product based. Try for a moment to imagine the abortion rate in the U.S. alone if there had not been hormonal BC for the last 50 years. Do you think it might be tripled or even more?

reply from: LexIcon

"BILLIONS of women who would otherwise have abortions." Not TRILLIONS?

reply from: onterroristwatch

Babies of course. Haven't you been paying attention?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I worded that poorly.
What I meant to ask is if you really wanted irresponsible people having babies and abortions, or would you prefer that they use contraception?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about the novel idea that irresponsible people don't perform the reproductive act, since apparently they don't fully understand that the reproductive act sometimes causes...drum roll please...REPRODUCTION.
Your question also presumes that using contraception means that there will be no babies, which is false, since we all know contraption fails, which leads to "contraception part II," i.e., abortion.
People who have no discipline should acquire discipline. Contraception use is not discipline.
I would rather they were in a committed relationship and that they were prepared for the consequences of engaging in the reproductive act, but I would not see contraception as the "solution" if they were irresponsible, since I do not see contraception as infallible, and sooner or later it will fail.
Promotion of contraception is a short-term solution which leads to long-term problems, caused by the mindset of sexual bulimia, enjoying the act of making babies with the determination that no babies will be made (and destroying them if they are made by "accident").
Would I want irresponsible people to have babies and abortions or would I prefer they use contraception?
I want irresponsible people to be responsible. But if they make a baby, it is less responsible, and is an act of supreme injustice to kill it instead of keeping it, regarless of their lack of parenting skills.
I do not believe the sex act is soley for baby making, however, as it serves the useful purpose of bonding the couple and making a more secure home for the family, and I believe we can responsbily teach ways to naturally reduce the number of pregnancies without using contraception.
Spoken like someone who never gets any.

reply from: B0zo

All I can tell you is that my children were not planned, and that at least in the case of the first one it was not the best timing, but that I did not have them killed so I could be free to do other things.

reply from: onterroristwatch

Let me guess, you live in a trailer park too?

reply from: B0zo

Let me guess, you live in a trailer park too?
No I don't live in a trailer park, but I'm not a snob and don't think less of those who do.

reply from: onterroristwatch

Let me guess, you live in a trailer park too?
No I don't live in a trailer park, but I'm not a snob and don't think less of those who do.
Of course you don't. Who would you be friends with if you did?

reply from: B0zo

you're such a pathetic noob

reply from: Ana

I would prefer that "irresponsible people" would use the occasion of "having babies" to become responsible parents, period.
Lovely idea, too bad it rarely workes out that way.

reply from: Ana

Again, this is a lovely idea, but you aren't dealing with things as they are, but how you wish them to be. I think if the pro life movement is to truly make a difference, we have to quit opining how everyone should agree with our morality/beliefs/religion and deal with people as they are, which is sometimes broken and imperfect.

reply from: Ana

Bozo isn't a bad guy at all, in fact he occationally finds himself as the rare sane pro life poster on what can be an insane board.
And trailer parks aren't all bad. I've lived in Nevada, and there are some beautiful ones out there.

reply from: LexIcon

http://fadein.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/trailer-trash-hi-rise11.jpg -more like a trailer highrise- where me, the wifey, and assorted other kin live.
You're green with envy, I can tell.

reply from: Banned Member

Babies of course. Haven't you been paying attention?
Hey Spinny, please notice that you garfed up the quotation sequence here. You have us misquoted as saying each other's words.
Could you please fix this?
To answer your question, I personally see the wisdom of contraception and personal sterilization. I disagree that contraceptive education and implementation is any way near enough.
This is a human nature and a societal shortcoming that needs a many pronged approach to mitigate. We need religious training for abstinence, health class style education for abstinence, stronger marital institutions and social taboos.
Additionally, I believe that alcohol is a constant problem and accounts for the inordinate number of contraceptive failures. Of course your contraceptive is going to fail if you are too drunk to use it or use it properly.
I would be very interested in seeing (accurate) statistics on how many aborted fetuses each year were conceived while the Mother and/or the Father was under the influence of alcohol.

reply from: B0zo

We're all broken and imperfect, but how can we help anyone or ourselves if we practice or encourage practices that leads to more brokenness and imperfection?
For example, if you see that I'm an irresponsible man having "unprotected" flings, you could encourage me to use "protection," and all you will do is convince me that now I'm free of possible paternity suits and child support, and I will fornicate freely with greater confidence. I will be no better and no less broken, but will be worse, and sooner or later I'll end up making a baby, in spite of the best efforts to frustrate the reproduction process.

reply from: sweet

http://fadein.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/trailer-trash-hi-rise11.jpg -more like a trailer highrise- where me, the wifey, and assorted other kin live.
You're green with envy, I can tell.interesting. is that a real pic?

reply from: LexIcon

http://fadein.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/trailer-trash-hi-rise11.jpg -more like a trailer highrise- where me, the wifey, and assorted other kin live.
You're green with envy, I can tell.interesting. is that a real pic?
But of course! Would I lie to you?

reply from: sweet

http://fadein.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/trailer-trash-hi-rise11.jpg -more like a trailer highrise- where me, the wifey, and assorted other kin live.
You're green with envy, I can tell.interesting. is that a real pic?
But of course! Would I lie to you?o.k. i've never seen such a neighborhood...cool pic.

reply from: Ana

http://fadein.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/trailer-trash-hi-rise11.jpg -more like a trailer highrise- where me, the wifey, and assorted other kin live.
You're green with envy, I can tell.
Lexicon, no joke, that is REALLY cool!

reply from: Ana

We're all broken and imperfect, but how can we help anyone or ourselves if we practice or encourage practices that leads to more brokenness and imperfection?
For example, if you see that I'm an irresponsible man having "unprotected" flings, you could encourage me to use "protection," and all you will do is convince me that now I'm free of possible paternity suits and child support, and I will fornicate freely with greater confidence. I will be no better and no less broken, but will be worse, and sooner or later I'll end up making a baby, in spite of the best efforts to frustrate the reproduction process.
No. If you're having unprotected flings, my first concern is the babies that might be produced as a result, so I do everything I can to make sure that the likelyhood of that happening is as close to zero as statistics will allow. THEN we can discuss the morality of the situation and what's behind it. It's like emergency medicine... you focus on the worst problem FIRST (unwanted pregnancies and the abortions that may follow) and then you work on the rest. It's a matter of priorities.

reply from: BossMomma

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
"Slaves?"
You might ask 90% of child-support check writers about "slavery."
What is this supposed to mean? You think men should not be obligated to care for their own children? At least you're consistent, you don't think women should either.
No stupid, it's about ensuring that unwanted children are not concieved. Recently I took legal measures to release my ex-husband from child support because he does not need to be forced to man up. Before, I was getting money straight out of his checks and it was a financial hardship on him. A male contraceptive will free men from producing children they don't want and free women from making that dreadful choice. And as far as child neglect goes you have no room to talk, you sponge off your own children and completely ignore their emotional needs.

reply from: BossMomma

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
...And women clamor for that hormonal fix. The new pills that suppress ovulation and end periods for years on end are flying off the shelves. I myself had my tubes tied at 23.
I don't think you understand that normal, healthy people carry their gender identity in their heart and mind. Their crotch? Not so much...
No kidding, I do not regret my tubal. I've had my kids and they are happy, healthy and, thriving. Men and women are not breeding machines, many don't want kids and there is nothing wrong with that.

reply from: BossMomma

Have you seen the newest of the Duggar brood? A tiny preemie fighting for her life and those to reproductively obsessed nut jobs are already talking about having more.

reply from: BossMomma

I didn't understand what you meant by "quiverfull" viz a' viz the Duggars, so I Googled it and found http://www.newsweek.com/id/189763
That's what floats their boat, and you still haven't addressed my point about slavery to chemistry to control one's fertility.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/189763
"At the heart of this reality-show depiction of "extreme motherhood" is a growing conservative Christian emphasis on the importance of women submitting to their husbands and fathers, an antifeminist backlash that holds that gender equality is contrary to God's law and that women's highest calling is as wives and "prolific" "mothers.
Wow, wives and mothers..this is a woman's highest calling? A man can be a doctor, lawyer, president of the united f#cking states and a woman's place is to crank out his kids and slave away in his house? That is bullshyte.

reply from: BossMomma

Relying on biochemical "fixes" to avoid the possibility of pregnancy is a form of self-enslavement. The healthier alternative to screwing with one's hormonal balances is to simply abstain from sexual intercourse on occasion, and thereby remain true to one's own biological makeup.
You do believe in choice, don't you?
No, cranking out kid after kid after kid that you can't support is slavery. It is better than an unwanted child never be concieved than to be aborted later in the womb or born to an unloving family. Contraception allows people to plan and give that baby the best, not just what they can scrape by on.

reply from: LexIcon

BossMomma, would you agree that adoption is better than abortion?

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
There is no one on this board more pro-life than BossMomma.
She risked everything to try to save Aiden.

reply from: BossMomma

Adoption is better than abortion but contraceptive is better than both.

reply from: carolemarie

I am not against having lots of kids if you can support them and want to do that. I am against the idea that it makes you a better mother than those with one child.
I am opposed to the idea that women should submit to men and breed, and that is suppose to be our highest calling! That is just silly and it isn't in the bible and is an anti woman pov.
Being a mother is a choice. Not every woman wants to be or should be one.
Being a wife doesn't mean you give up the right to your dreams and future and being a christian doesn't mean you become a child, submitting to your guys pov on everything and just raising kids.
If you and your spouse want 21 kids, and can do it, then go for it.
If you and your spouse don't then don't. Freedom in Christ!!!!


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics