"Free" Contraception

[Patron]

how it is one sided ? you create another human being you need to care/pay for it

but I still think condoms should be included in this, it's the only protection a man can use besides being snipped and a man can create a lot of babies with a lot of women in a very short period of time

[butcher99]

You don't want kids, get a vasectomy. If you can prove you would be as good a dad as the woman is a mom you can get joint custody. This is not the 1960s. Now you pay your share of upkeep if the kids are yours. But whatever the outcome, if you are the biological father the law is clear. You are there for the conception you are there for the duration even if only financially. You knew going into the act there was a possibility of the outcome. Time to man up and face the responsibility.

Gotcha, one sided.

Well from your prospective it certainly is. All I have heard from those in this discussion is that it is the woman that should pay everything. The man for his participation should just be able to walk away.

[Mazdatruck]

Well from your prospective it certainly is. All I have heard from those in this discussion is that it is the woman that should pay everything. The man for his participation should just be able to walk away.

You literally said 'man up" to men while defending a woman's right not to man up.

[butcher99]

Well from your prospective it certainly is. All I have heard from those in this discussion is that it is the woman that should pay everything. The man for his participation should just be able to walk away.

You literally said 'man up" to men while defending a woman's right not to man up.

I am not defending a womans right to not man up. I am defending a womans right to go after support for the other person who was there when she got pregnant.
But what has your comment to do with what you quoted?

[Mazdatruck]

I am not defending a womans right to not man up. I am defending a womans right to go after support for the other person who was there when she got pregnant.

The woman has the right to kill or give up the baby without even telling the father.

That is called not man-ing up for her choice that was made after the fact. Full legal protection zero financial burden.

The man should have the same legally protected ability to not man up after the fact.

I do not support a woman's right to chose after the fact without a mans ability to chose after the fact. This is why yet more free birth control for women, while men are forced to pay for children they do not want or even see is a egregious inequality in our society.

My stance on abortion has now evolved to this. For my entire life I supported a woman's right to choose while begrudgingly accepting that men deserve somehow less consideration. I chalk it up to social gaslighting by a fem-centric education and pop culture environment. I'm not advocating for less protections for women, I just won't support any more until the playing field is leveled.

In France it's illegal to DNA test your children - guess why!

[countmeout]

All I have heard from those in this discussion is that it is the woman that should pay everything. The man for his participation should just be able to walk away.

An unplanned pregnancy is just that. I believe being able to be up front and say as a man you do not want to have the child is acceptable.

We provide women the option to get an abortion, we don't tell them to keep it in their pants or have their tubes tied.

The top reasons for an abortion are in order, financial, birth control failed and partner issues.

So if a man says he cannot afford a child, the condom failed or he doesn't get along well with the to be mother, too bad. But a women can get an abortion for any of these reasons.

One sided, men have to keep it in their pants or risk a baby, women can abort after as they wish.

[butcher99]

All I have heard from those in this discussion is that it is the woman that should pay everything. The man for his participation should just be able to walk away.

An unplanned pregnancy is just that. I believe being able to be up front and say as a man you do not want to have the child is acceptable.

We provide women the option to get an abortion, we don't tell them to keep it in their pants or have their tubes tied.

The top reasons for an abortion are in order, financial, birth control failed and partner issues.

So if a man says he cannot afford a child, the condom failed or he doesn't get along well with the to be mother, too bad. But a women can get an abortion for any of these reasons.

One sided, men have to keep it in their pants or risk a baby, women can abort after as they wish.

Abortion has nothing to do with this. Absolutely nothing. If you do not want a child ever yet want sex with a woman, just get a vasectomy. Then you have nothing to worry about. And it is free. One size fits all.
Your strawman argument about abortion is just that.

[butcher99]

An unplanned pregnancy is just that. I believe being able to be up front and say as a man you do not want to have the child is acceptable.

Two choices if you never want kids and want to make sure. Get a vasectomy. Again. Don't have sex with a woman Or face the consequences. You KNOW what they are if the woman gets pregnant by chance. It is a chance you both took. Therefore, you both pay the consequences. That is the way it is.

[BC Landlord]

How expensive is to buy a condom? Or, if you really needed to go cheap, why not pulling it out on time? Why would a government need to get involved in this?

[GordonH]

How expensive is to buy a condom? Or, if you really needed to go cheap, why not pulling it out on time? Why would a government need to get involved in this?

I suspect it’s cheaper to provide contraceptives then preforming an abortion.

[BC Landlord]

I suspect it’s cheaper to provide contraceptives then preforming an abortion.

As if unprotected sex is something normal.

[GordonH]

I suspect it’s cheaper to provide contraceptives then preforming an abortion.

As if unprotected sex is somethin normal.

Time will tell if abortion levels start to drop, if so it will free up time for surgeons to preform other types of surgeries.

[BC Landlord]

Time will tell if abortion levels start to drop, if so it will free up time for surgeons to preform other types of surgeries.

As if that is more important than hip and knee surgeries, so we prioritize abortions over that?

[GordonH]

Time will tell if abortion levels start to drop, if so it will free up time for surgeons to preform other types of surgeries.

As if that is more important than hip and knee surgeries, so we prioritize abortions over that?

Every Tuesday at hospitals across BC, that’s why there are protesters across the street wearing signs.

[butcher99]

Time will tell if abortion levels start to drop, if so it will free up time for surgeons to preform other types of surgeries.

As if that is more important than hip and knee surgeries, so we prioritize abortions over that?

Different doctors. Hip and knee surgeons do not do abortions.