NationStates Jolt Archive

I am tired of the seeing over and over again the equvalence of a female's right to have an abortion with the male's right to disown paternity. The right to an abortion is not based upon the right of a female to control her progeny, but upon her right to control the use of her body as a womb. There are all kinds of arguments that can be made about this, but the right is based upon using the body and should be compared to the right to refuse to give your kidney to someone else, not the right to refuse child support. If laws were perhaps created forcing fathers to give their kidneys to their children then there might be an equvalence, but I am pretty certain no such law yet exists.

Discuss, debate, argue or whatever but please try to keep it in mind when you talk about abortion.

when a man consents to sex, he is aware that sex can lead to babies. if he is unwilling to support a child he would be helping to create, his choice in the matter is right then. if you dont want to support your children, then just say NO to sex

when a man consents to sex, he is aware that sex can lead to babies. if he is unwilling to support a child he would be helping to create, his choice in the matter is right then. if you dont want to support your children, then just say NO to sex

Or wear a rubber, maybe?

Remember kids: safe sex always!

condoms fail
babies result
men still pay

amen

I don't think anyone has any right to tell someone what they can - and cannot - do with their body. Of course, I also cringe just thinking about it whenever I hear about teenagers using this as a sort of contraception means. It isn't.

I feel that abortion isn't something to do when two kids are stupid enough to have sex without proper protection. There are a lot of means to ensure no "accidental" pregnancies happen, condoms and emergency contraceptive pills being two amonsgt many. To turn to abortion because you've been irresponsible... Well let's just say it's enough to make you want to slap the two dimwits.

However, like the thread's host said, how can someone force a woman to bear a child she doesn't want? What if a woman gets pregnant after being sexually abused?What if giving birth is a danger to her health? What if she knows she won't be able to support the child? What if she just plain doesn't want it?

I don't buy the religious "the baby has a soul even if it's not formed yet" argument, being agnostic. I know religious poeple do want to protect the sanctity of life. That I agree with. But what about the sanctity of the life of the mother? To force her to bear a child against her will is - I know I'm being blunt - plain slavery to me. The mother has the right to life too, and the right to govern her life as she wills. Women aren't only baby-factories: they're human beings, and should have the last word on their own destiny.

Abortion isn't pretty. We might not like it, but we must realize it's a necessity in last resort. It cannot be encouraged : always we should try to find other options, like contraception or adoption when possible, yet to outlaw it is to deny women their humanity and capacity to govern their own life.

condoms fail
babies result
men still pay

On top of this there's the slight problem that people are as good as psychotic when sexually aroused. They could claim insanity in court and have it hold up if they got a sympathetic judge.

condoms fail
babies result
men still pay

Condoms doesn't fail. At least not where I live.

You'd be interested to know that when used properly, a condom is 99.4% reliable. Add the emergency contraceptive pills for the 0.6% remaining, and you're pretty much covered.

(The key words above were "properly used". By your comments I'll assume you're american, since I've heard you don't teach proper condom use or even have sexuality classes at school. I live in Canada and everyobody learns how to use them properly here. I think a quick comparative search on teenage pregnancies stats of our countries might convince you it works)

condoms fail
babies result
men still pay

On top of this there's the slight problem that people are as good as psychotic when sexually aroused. They could claim insanity in court and have it hold up if they got a sympathetic judge.

Well, yeah, but the same argument could be used for rape.

If a person kills another person he or she is that much less human.
If a female willingly has an abortion than she is that much less human.

Like I once said:
Any female that would willingly have an abortion is not a mother and not a women.

On top of this there's the slight problem that people are as good as psychotic when sexually aroused. They could claim insanity in court and have it hold up if they got a sympathetic judge.

Oh, please. So you're telling me you turn psychotic when you're aroused?

...

I'm fine with anyone pleading that in court. As long as they're forced to follow therapy or are just plain thrown in a nut-house. I mean, who would want a sexually aroused psychotic on loose in his neighbourhood? Those guys are obviously a danger to society :roll:

If a person kills another person he or she is that much less human.
If a female willingly has an abortion than she is that much less human.

Like I once said:
Any female that would willingly have an abortion is not a mother and not a women.

So capital punishment makes us all inhuman. Glad you understand that. So does war and violence.

Like I once said:
Any female that would willingly have an abortion is not a mother and not a women.

I agree with the part where she's not a mother. But that doesn't make her "not a woman".


Unless you're implying killing babies is a man's job? :shock:

So capital punishment makes us all inhuman. Glad you understand that. So does war and violence.

Couldn't have said it better.

condoms fail
babies result
men still pay

Condoms doesn't fail. At least not where I live.

You'd be interested to know that when used properly, a condom is 99.4% reliable. Add the emergency contraceptive pills for the 0.6% remaining, and you're pretty much covered.

(The key words above were "properly used". By your comments I'll assume you're american, since I've heard you don't teach proper condom use or even have sexuality classes at school. I live in Canada and everyobody learns how to use them properly here. I think a quick comparative search on teenage pregnancies stats of our countries might convince you it works)

First, 99.4% isn't perfect and does mean there is some failure. You're right that emergency contraceptives can cover for the times when condoms break. Also, contraceptive pills or shots can be used so that even condoms become unecessary except for preventing STDs.

You've been misinformed about American sexual education. All American children in standard public education currcilums are required to take (often several) courses on sex, anatomy, and the importance of safety.

Like I once said:
Any female that would willingly have an abortion is not a mother and not a women.

I agree with the part where she's not a mother. But that doesn't make her "not a woman".

But how does a woman getting an abortion make her "not a mother" to anything other than that potential child? Many women have gone on from an abortion to be very successful mothers. Are you arguing that if a woman has an abortion she gives up any right to further procreation or accolades if she has another baby and is an excellent mother?

condoms fail
babies result
men still pay

On top of this there's the slight problem that people are as good as psychotic when sexually aroused. They could claim insanity in court and have it hold up if they got a sympathetic judge.

Well, yeah, but the same argument could be used for rape.

Rape is rarely about sexuality. Rapists do not commit rape because they cannot get sex any other way, they commit rape because of the powerful feeling it gives them. With that said, nearly every extreme crime is committed in some altered mental state. This is not to say that people should be let off because they were not in the right mind when they committed the crime, but many criminals appear perfectly normal before and after they commit their crimes.

First, 99.4% isn't perfect and does mean there is some failure. You're right that emergency contraceptives can cover for the times when condoms break. Also, contraceptive pills or shots can be used so that even condoms become unecessary except for preventing STDs.

You've been misinformed about American sexual education. All American children in standard public education currcilums are required to take (often several) courses on sex, anatomy, and the importance of safety.

My bad. I remember reading an article about you not having any sexual education classes. Must've been something about the right-wing administration wanting to remove those classes in the future in favor of their "abstinence" policy.Sorry about the mix up.

But you make my point. With the contraception means at our disposal, abortion should be a last resort option only. The best way to diminish the number of abortion is by education teenagers about contraception, not by outlawing abortion itself.

Unless the child is a danger to the woman's health, they should not abort the child. Put it up for adoption, many couples that can not have children would be willing to adopt him. Think of the family that would give loving and wonderful care if you can't/won't...

On top of this there's the slight problem that people are as good as psychotic when sexually aroused. They could claim insanity in court and have it hold up if they got a sympathetic judge.

Oh, please. So you're telling me you turn psychotic when you're aroused?

...

I'm fine with anyone pleading that in court. As long as they're forced to follow therapy or are just plain thrown in a nut-house. I mean, who would want a sexually aroused psychotic on loose in his neighbourhood? Those guys are obviously a danger to society :roll:

I don't know what your experience with sex is, but the hormones released during sexual arousal impair ones judgment as much or more than alcohol. Like I said before, I don't think that people should be able to escape responsiblity for their actions because of it, but it is important to understand.

condoms fail
babies result
men still pay

On top of this there's the slight problem that people are as good as psychotic when sexually aroused. They could claim insanity in court and have it hold up if they got a sympathetic judge.

Well, yeah, but the same argument could be used for rape.

Rape is rarely about sexuality. Rapists do not commit rape because they cannot get sex any other way, they commit rape because of the powerful feeling it gives them. With that said, nearly every extreme crime is committed in some altered mental state. This is not to say that people should be let off because they were not in the right mind when they committed the crime, but many criminals appear perfectly normal before and after they commit their crimes.

Regardless of the motives behind rape or the factors that lead up to it, one aspect must be sexual arousal. Therefore, as sexual arousal leads to impared judgement, a rapist could conceivably use this as a line of defence if they got the right judge by your reasoning.

But how does a woman getting an abortion make her "not a mother" to anything other than that potential child? Many women have gone on from an abortion to be very successful mothers. Are you arguing that if a woman has an abortion she gives up any right to further procreation or accolades if she has another baby and is an excellent mother?

Absolutely not. What I meant to say was that if she gets an abortion, that means she doesn't have a child(well, if we assume she didn't already have children, but those cases are rarer than abortion due to teenage pregnancy). If she doesn't have a child, she's not a mother.

...Until she gets one, that is. You're right about women turning out to be very good mothers after having an abortion. I didn't want to imply otherwise. In fact, I know one personnally.

Remember kids: safe sex always!

So true.

But how does a woman getting an abortion make her "not a mother" to anything other than that potential child? Many women have gone on from an abortion to be very successful mothers. Are you arguing that if a woman has an abortion she gives up any right to further procreation or accolades if she has another baby and is an excellent mother?

Absolutely not. What I meant to say was that if she gets an abortion, that means she doesn't have a child(well, if we assume she didn't already have children, but those cases are rarer than abortion due to teenage pregnancy). If she doesn't have a child, she's not a mother.

...Until she gets one, that is. You're right about women turning out to be very good mothers after having an abortion. I didn't want to imply otherwise. In fact, I know one personnally.

Ah, good, thanks for setting me straight. I also know someone who had an abortion and is now a wonderful mother, so I was prepared to fight you tooth and nail on that one. :D

I don't know what your experience with sex is, but the hormones released during sexual arousal impair ones judgment as much or more than alcohol. Like I said before, I don't think that people should be able to escape responsiblity for their actions because of it, but it is important to understand.

Still not convinced.

You're not talking to a 15 years old virgin, here. I'm 21 and lead a very healthy sex life with a steady partner. However, even though I've been very aroused very often, I never forgot to use protection when it was needed. I don't start thinking with my little head whenever it gets up. Poeple should learn to act responsibly no matter the circumstances. There's nothing hard about opening a pack and using a rubber before intercourse.

If you're that worried, just make sure you one or two on you at any time. That way you don't have to break the mood by running to the drugstore. It's all about being prepared, you know.

condoms fail
babies result
men still pay

On top of this there's the slight problem that people are as good as psychotic when sexually aroused. They could claim insanity in court and have it hold up if they got a sympathetic judge.

Well, yeah, but the same argument could be used for rape.

Rape is rarely about sexuality. Rapists do not commit rape because they cannot get sex any other way, they commit rape because of the powerful feeling it gives them. With that said, nearly every extreme crime is committed in some altered mental state. This is not to say that people should be let off because they were not in the right mind when they committed the crime, but many criminals appear perfectly normal before and after they commit their crimes.

Regardless of the motives behind rape or the factors that lead up to it, one aspect must be sexual arousal. Therefore, as sexual arousal leads to impared judgement, a rapist could conceivably use this as a line of defence if they got the right judge by your reasoning.

Concievably yes, a rapist could use insanity as a defense if brought to trial. Generally rape is a crime which is not dismissed on grounds of insanity unless the subject shows signs of serious long term psychosis in which case they are sent to an mental institution rather than a prison, but the effect is the same.

I'm not sure if the impared judgment of sexual arousal is the same in rape cases as in regular consensual sex, but it would be interesting to find out if it were possible.

so If a child is inconvient to the "parents" social life then they should be able to kill the child instead of take responsibility for their actions?

Regardless of the motives behind rape or the factors that lead up to it, one aspect must be sexual arousal. Therefore, as sexual arousal leads to impared judgement, a rapist could conceivably use this as a line of defence if they got the right judge by your reasoning.

Do you know any judge stupid enough to fall for this?

And even if one did, the agressor would end up in a maximal security psychiatric asylum. Hey, it might not be called a prison, but I guarantee he's not getting out of there anytime soon.

I don't know what your experience with sex is, but the hormones released during sexual arousal impair ones judgment as much or more than alcohol. Like I said before, I don't think that people should be able to escape responsiblity for their actions because of it, but it is important to understand.

Still not convinced.

You're not talking to a 15 years old virgin, here. I'm 21 and lead a very healthy sex life with a steady partner. However, even though I've been very aroused very often, I never forgot to use protection when it was needed. I don't start thinking with my little head whenever it gets up. Poeple should learn to act responsibly no matter the circumstances. There's nothing hard about opening a pack and using a rubber before intercourse.

If you're that worried, just make sure you one or two on you at any time. That way you don't have to break the mood by running to the drugstore. It's all about being prepared, you know.

Again, I'm not saying people should be allowed to use the excuse of impaired judgment to escape responsiblity (drunk drivers can't escape punishment that way), and I believe that you are absolutely correct when you say that people should learn to be responsible for themselves at all times. I'm merely noting that there's more involved that just personal responsiblity.

Regardless of the motives behind rape or the factors that lead up to it, one aspect must be sexual arousal. Therefore, as sexual arousal leads to impared judgement, a rapist could conceivably use this as a line of defence if they got the right judge by your reasoning.

Do you know any judge stupid enough to fall for this?

And even if one did, the agressor would end up in a maximal security psychiatric asylum. Hey, it might not be called a prison, but I guarantee he's not getting out of there anytime soon.

Oh, no, absolutely not. I was just illustrating that if that line of reason were used for justification for why a man couldn't be held responsible for his actions after the birth of a child or why a couple "going at it" couldn't be bothered to use protection, it opens the door to a lot of other uncomfortable rationalizations of actions.

you actually believe that sex is just another activity.

so If a child is inconvient to the "parents" social life then they should be able to kill the child instead of take responsibility for their actions?

Read my previous posts. I think it should be discouraged, especially for shallow reasons like this. But it's still needed as a last resort.

I also question the use of "child" or even "baby" to designate an unborn fetus. 'Course, when the fetus is completely formed, it's okay to call it a baby, even if it's not born yet, but that's why there are regulations about not being able to get aborted after a set amount of months(At least here in Canada. I don't remember what's the limit, but abortion is possible only before the baby is formed).

Unless the child is a danger to the woman's health, they should not abort the child. Put it up for adoption, many couples that can not have children would be willing to adopt him. Think of the family that would give loving and wonderful care if you can't/won't...

I shall not be ingored this time!

you actually believe that sex is just another activity.

What the devil are you talking about? No one said that.

you actually believe that sex is just another activity.

Who was that question adressed to?

Unless the child is a danger to the woman's health, they should not abort the child. Put it up for adoption, many couples that can not have children would be willing to adopt him. Think of the family that would give loving and wonderful care if you can't/won't...

I shall not be ingored this time!

I acknowledge you, Fluffy, and agree with you. However, I am still unconvinced that my personal belief in this situation is cause for the abridgements of the rights and responsibilities of others.

Unless the child is a danger to the woman's health, they should not abort the child. Put it up for adoption, many couples that can not have children would be willing to adopt him. Think of the family that would give loving and wonderful care if you can't/won't...

I shall not be ingored this time!

I acknowledge you, Fluffy, and agree with you. However, I am still unconvinced that my personal belief in this situation is cause for the abridgements of the rights and responsibilities of others.

Unless the child is a danger to the woman's health, they should not abort the child. Put it up for adoption, many couples that can not have children would be willing to adopt him. Think of the family that would give loving and wonderful care if you can't/won't...

I shall not be ingored this time!

Lol. Read my posts and you'll figure out that if I ignored you, it's because I mostly agree. Except that where you say "they should not" I say "we should try to convince them that there are other options", but I'm Iron-willed about letting the decision be the woman's in the end. After all, she's the first concerned, much more than the father, because it's her body the child would grow into.

As a side note, I hate this server. :evil:

when a man consents to sex, he is aware that sex can lead to babies. if he is unwilling to support a child he would be helping to create, his choice in the matter is right then. if you dont want to support your children, then just say NO to sexWomen consent to sex. No double standard here?

SHL

It is not abridging the rights for anyone, it is helping to keep the life of a child intact. Think about it. If she didn't abort it, within a few months you would see a baby, which if I then killed you would have a problem with. If I kill it while it is not yet many people have no problem. Why should we grant people the right to kill thier own children? If the doctor says it won't kill you to have it, go ahead, put it up for adoption, and its over.

It's win-win: the baby lives, he gets a home with someone who can take care of him, the girl gets no baby and isn't mentally scarred for killing her own child.

First, 99.4% isn't perfect and does mean there is some failure. You're right that emergency contraceptives can cover for the times when condoms break. Also, contraceptive pills or shots can be used so that even condoms become unecessary except for preventing STDs.

You've been misinformed about American sexual education. All American children in standard public education currcilums are required to take (often several) courses on sex, anatomy, and the importance of safety.

My bad. I remember reading an article about you not having any sexual education classes. Must've been something about the right-wing administration wanting to remove those classes in the future in favor of their "abstinence" policy.Sorry about the mix up.

But you make my point. With the contraception means at our disposal, abortion should be a last resort option only. The best way to diminish the number of abortion is by education teenagers about contraception, not by outlawing abortion itself.

Knowing what is best and doing it are often at odds.

SHL

It is not abridging the rights for anyone, it is helping to keep the life of a child intact. Think about it. If she didn't abort it, within a few months you would see a baby, which if I then killed you would have a problem with. If I kill it while it is not yet many people have no problem. Why should we grant people the right to kill thier own children? If the doctor says it won't kill you to have it, go ahead, put it up for adoption, and its over.

It's win-win: the baby lives, he gets a home with someone who can take care of him, the girl gets no baby and isn't mentally scarred for killing her own child.

About the first part, I agree. I think it would be better to put it up for adoption. But see, I'm a man. That means I can never be forced to have a baby I don't want growing in my womb.

It's the woman who does. And neither you, I , or anybody can force her to do something she doesn't want with her womb. That would be denying her her human rights of being the only one to decide what to do with her own body.

Note, though, that when science has given us means to safely transfer a fetus from an unwilling woman's womb to a willing woman's womb, I'll be all in favor of banning abortion to transfering said fetus to a more welcoming place. That would respect the right of the woman to dispose of her body as she see fits, AND give that fetus a chance to become a baby.

Who knows, someday even we men may be able to do so as well, like in that Schwartznegger movie :wink:

Until then, though, tough luck. How would YOU feel if you were forced to let something grow inside you without your consent?

. . . I'm merely noting that there's more involved that just personal responsiblity.Such As . . .?

It had to be my consent, remember, sex takes two people

Knowing what is best and doing it are often at odds.
SHL

Then let's start working on it right away! :!:

so If a child is inconvient to the "parents" social life then they should be able to kill the child instead of take responsibility for their actions?

Read my previous posts. I think it should be discouraged, especially for shallow reasons like this. But it's still needed as a last resort.

I also question the use of "child" or even "baby" to designate an unborn fetus. 'Course, when the fetus is completely formed, it's okay to call it a baby, even if it's not born yet, but that's why there are regulations about not being able to get aborted after a set amount of months(At least here in Canada. I don't remember what's the limit, but abortion is possible only before the baby is formed).

As of last week there is currently no such limitation in the US.

SHL

How would YOU feel if you were forced to let something grow inside you without your consent?

Just though I'd invite everyone to give this question a few seconds of reflexion. What WOULD you do?

I know I wouldn't let anyone tell me what to do with my body.

It had to be my consent, remember, sex takes two people

As of last week there is currently no such limitation in the US.
SHL

Hey, perhaps you should suggest that instead of flat-out banning abortion to your local governor/senator/whatever the title of your politicians debating this point. Personnally I think it makes more sense.

It is not abridging the rights for anyone, it is helping to keep the life of a child intact. Think about it. If she didn't abort it, within a few months you would see a baby, which if I then killed you would have a problem with. If I kill it while it is not yet many people have no problem. Why should we grant people the right to kill thier own children? If the doctor says it won't kill you to have it, go ahead, put it up for adoption, and its over.

It's win-win: the baby lives, he gets a home with someone who can take care of him, the girl gets no baby and isn't mentally scarred for killing her own child.

About the first part, I agree. I think it would be better to put it up for adoption. But see, I'm a man. That means I can never be forced to have a baby I don't want growing in my womb.

It's the woman who does. And neither you, I , or anybody can force her to do something she doesn't want with her womb. That would be denying her her human rights of being the only one to decide what to do with her own body.

Note, though, that when science has given us means to safely transfer a fetus from an unwilling woman's womb to a willing woman's womb, I'll be all in favor of banning abortion to transfering said fetus to a more welcoming place. That would respect the right of the woman to dispose of her body as she see fits, AND give that fetus a chance to become a baby.

Who knows, someday even we men may be able to do so as well, like in that Schwartznegger movie :wink:

Until then, though, tough luck. How would YOU feel if you were forced to let something grow inside you without your consent?

Just as a male is held responsible for the support of the child resulting from his consent to sex, a female is accountable for her consent to having sex. Seperating sex from procreation is like seperating smoking from disease. The result might be undesireable growths but it is a natural outcome of decisions made.

SHL

Knowing what is best and doing it are often at odds.
SHL

Then let's start working on it right away! :!:

LMAO! No doubt, but humans are human.

SHL

I'm not sure I'd agree to a ban on abortion even if there were a way to safely remove a fetus from its mother and transfer it to someone else. That'd require pretty invasive surgery, and if I were pregnant and wasn't able to handle a child, I doubt I'd want surgery as a substitute. Maybe after viability, abortion might be banned except in cases of medical necessity... maybe.

I hate to place the burden on doctors, though, to prove that there's a necessity every time they perform an abortion. That's just asking for trouble, it seems to me: it would create delays that are likely to kill women in need.

As of last week there is currently no such limitation in the US.
SHL

Hey, perhaps you should suggest that instead of flat-out banning abortion to your local governor/senator/whatever the title of your politicians debating this point. Personnally I think it makes more sense.

Suggest what?

SS I am a New Yorker.

SHL

Just as a male is held responsible for the support of the child resulting from his consent to sex, a female is accountable for her consent to having sex. Seperating sex from procreation is like seperating smoking from disease. The result might be undesireable growths but it is a natural outcome of decisions made.
SHL

Your example doesn't really work in your favor, since when there is "undesireable outgrowth" from the results of smoking, we get it removed, don't we?

I'm not suggesting we do the same with babies. If you bothered to read my previous posts, you would realize I have little patience for teenagers using abortion as a mean of contraception. However, wheter you like it or not sex IS separate from procreation. I don't know of anyone who only had as many sexual encounters than he or she has had children.

Sex is about love. It's sometimes also, sadly(in my opinion), about lust. But to limit sex as only a mean of procreation is to be oversimplistic in your point of view. Sex is a mean to have children, but it's also a way of physically expressing your love for another human being. Which is why I advocate the use of contraception when the two partners consent: to make sure no third party is involved(and hurt in the process), if you will.

But sex can also be used as a tool to hurt or control somebody. What happens when there is no consent on the part of the woman? Your argument is flawed in this matter. If the woman does NOT consent, do you still think she should be forced to bear the child of such circumstances?

I'm not sure I'd agree to a ban on abortion even if there were a way to safely remove a fetus from its mother and transfer it to someone else. That'd require pretty invasive surgery, and if I were pregnant and wasn't able to handle a child, I doubt I'd want surgery as a substitute. Maybe after viability, abortion might be banned except in cases of medical necessity... maybe.


However, it can be argued that abortion IS surgery, you know? And of the pretty invasive kind as well :-P

So if they're at it, might as well save the fetus if it's possible, no? Although at this time all of this is pure speculation.

Suggest what?

SS I am a New Yorker.

SHL

Suggest having a limit of months after which an abortion is no longer possible because the baby is fully formed.

Sorry about that, it's just I try to avoid quote pyramids.

On that note, I have to bid farewell. I'll probably get back tomorrow to see what you answered to my comments.

Yes, she should, unless the child is going to kill her to be born. If not, then she should keep the child because no one asked the child whether it wanted to be killed. My guess is that the child would say no, if at such a young age it could talk or comprehend what death was.

But a fetus is a human being, they can grasp your finger (as one shocking photo-if I can find it-shows), they kick, they have been shown to have dreams, they move, they are alive. What right do you have to tell a human he is unwanted and thus must die?

when a man consents to sex, he is aware that sex can lead to babies. if he is unwilling to support a child he would be helping to create, his choice in the matter is right then. if you dont want to support your children, then just say NO to sexWomen consent to sex. No double standard here?

SHL

yeah women consent to sex, end up with a baby
she HAS to deal with it, she has no option to walk away.

same standard different circumstances

wow, go to the store and things heat up without me!

condoms fail
babies result
men still pay

Condoms doesn't fail. At least not where I live.

You'd be interested to know that when used properly, a condom is 99.4% reliable. Add the emergency contraceptive pills for the 0.6% remaining, and you're pretty much covered.

(The key words above were "properly used". By your comments I'll assume you're american, since I've heard you don't teach proper condom use or even have sexuality classes at school. I live in Canada and everyobody learns how to use them properly here. I think a quick comparative search on teenage pregnancies stats of our countries might convince you it works)Condoms fail where I live (my oldest brother) even when properly used. The pill is highly effective, except when it isn't (my older brother) (***side note for those on the pill, apparently doctors do not make clear that combining antibiotics and the pill reduces the pill's effectiveness althogh I learned this way back in some general biology class, with the newer lower dosage forms of the pill this is more pronounced, be aware that antibiotics and the pill means you can get pregnant). Diaphrams combine well with the pill and work most of the time (myself). The IUD is no longer used much because of side effects, but is somewhat effective in most case(my younger brother). A vasectomy is pretty foolproof, unless it heals itself (my youngest brother). NO form of contraception except for abstinence is 100% effective, although there is a widely held belief that contraception is 100% effective.



Given your own statements, then if we accept Ashmoria's argument even though you may become a parent using a condom (and emergency contraception pills after sex with a condom?) you cannot be held to support your offspring since you held a resonable belief that conception was impossible. I am a little puzzled by the emergency contraception though, I doubt it is particularily safe to use emergency contraceptive pills after every incident of sex. If we accept your number that condoms are effective in 99.4% of cases where used correctly, which means means if 1000 couples have sex, then the properly used condoms will not be efective 6 times. If one couple has sex, using condoms properly, 3 times a week, then the condoms will not be effective about once a year - think about that and the fact that there is no knowing which time the condom is not going to work, the first time maybe? I repeat that NO form of contraceptive is 100% effective, despite what you have been told and I have a family which proves that. Too bad people seem to have so much difficulty understanding this.

condoms fail
babies result
men still pay

Condoms doesn't fail. At least not where I live.

You'd be interested to know that when used properly, a condom is 99.4% reliable. Add the emergency contraceptive pills for the 0.6% remaining, and you're pretty much covered.

(The key words above were "properly used". By your comments I'll assume you're american, since I've heard you don't teach proper condom use or even have sexuality classes at school. I live in Canada and everyobody learns how to use them properly here. I think a quick comparative search on teenage pregnancies stats of our countries might convince you it works)Condoms fail where I live (my oldest brother) even when properly used. The pill is highly effective, except when it isn't (my older brother) (***side note for those on the pill, apparently doctors do not make clear that combining antibiotics and the pill reduces the pill's effectiveness althogh I learned this way back in some general biology class, with the newer lower dosage forms of the pill this is more pronounced, be aware that antibiotics and the pill means you can get pregnant). Diaphrams combine well with the pill and work most of the time (myself). The IUD is no longer used much because of side effects, but is somewhat effective in most case(my younger brother). A vasectomy is pretty foolproof, unless it heals itself (my youngest brother). NO form of contraception except for abstinence is 100% effective, although there is a widely held belief that contraception is 100% effective.



Given your own statements, then if we accept Ashmoria's argument even though you may become a parent using a condom (and emergency contraception pills after sex with a condom?) you cannot be held to support your offspring since you held a resonable belief that conception was impossible. I am a little puzzled by the emergency contraception though, I doubt it is particularily safe to use emergency contraceptive pills after every incident of sex. If we accept your number that condoms are effective in 99.4% of cases where used correctly, which means means if 1000 couples have sex, then the properly used condoms will not be efective 6 times. If one couple has sex, using condoms properly, 3 times a week, then the condoms will not be effective about once a year - think about that and the fact that there is no knowing which time the condom is not going to work, the first time maybe? I repeat that NO form of contraceptive is 100% effective, despite what you have been told and I have a family which proves that. Too bad people seem to have so much difficulty understanding this.