In article ,
 "Hyerdahl"  wrote:

> mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com wrote:
> > Hyerdahl3 wrote:
> > > >Subject: Deal Made to Produce Male Birth Control Pill
> > > >From: "MCP" gf010w5035{at}blueyonder.co.uk
> > > >Date: 2/7/2005 10:11 AM Pacific Standard Time
> > > >Message-id: 
> > > >
> > > >You watch, and you heard it here first. Feminists will soon begin
> > the mantra >about how it violates the rights of women to choose to be
> a mother.
> > I know I
> > > >have already heard it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Nope; women have been waiting for men to catch up in the taking
> > responsibility
> > > dept.  here's your chance.
> >
> > I think this is a good example of some people believing their own
> > rhetoric.
> >
> > After all, as the original poster pointed out, women have been
> > "oopsing" for some time so men don't have to play a lot
of catchup.
> > Maybe men may just get it right.
>
> But who really cares, Mark?

Well, us for instance.  You chose to make a point and
I refuted it.  It takes two to tango.

> I mean men already have their own forms
> of BC as do women.

People have always had a form of birth control that's
100% effective: Abstinance.  The puritans were really
big on it.

Outside of that, men don't have a lot of choices in effective,
comfortable, birth control.  The "pill" was overblown
but it did provide an effective, comfortable, and
convenient form of birth control but only for women.

> A woman can't oopsi without a man having done the
> exact same thing, from the standpoint of him being totally 100%
> responsible for his own seed.

Clearly, this discussion is relevent to people since without
me saying much of anything we've wound up back at the
C4M issue.

You're right: With men having the tools to be 100% responsible
for his seed and still having comfortable, reliable, and
convenient sex, women will be unable to act in bad faith
and exploit children for fun and profit.  Everyone wins
except for career women who need financial support
from a father but can't find one willing to marry her.
Just in time for the current demographic trend too, don't
you think?

In some cases, such as Robert Blakely, they were 100% responsible
for their sperm and only had sex without a condom based upon
a verbal agreement which Bonnie broke.  This technology
could have saved Bonnie's life similar to legal baby
abandonment saving neonates.

> > I don't have a lot of faith in the oral contraceptive.  I think the
> > vasectomy-like injection has more potential for men being
> > convenient and not using hormones.
> >
>
> Are you saying that men are much more lazy than women;

With women oopsing all over the place, it's hard for them
to be much more lazy. :-)

Sure, men can be just as lazy as women which is the primary flaw
in oral contraceptives for either gender.

There's another limitation I thought of: chemical vasectomies
are CHEAP.  It's lower class men who are the primary
victims of "oopsing".  Oh, there's ANOTHER aspect to
this discussion people overlooked: Planned parenthood
will need to help subsidize oral contraceptives for men
as well as women or else expose themselves as having
a specific feminist agenda.

> quite possibly
> you understand the situation that men trying to make excuses for
> FAILING to use the contraceptive even before it arrives is very funny.

Yeah, almost as funny as women complaining that
it's men's and the state's fault that they're inadequate single
mothers for bastard babies.

> > I don't think the feminists will go back on their rhetoric but then
> > again, look at how they tried to downplay sexual harassment
> > when Clinton was under fire and THEN try to bring it back
> > when Schwartzenneggar groped?
>
> As President, Clinton was never accused of SH,

Er, he was dragged to a civil suit for just that kicking
and screaming and then committed perjury, a felony.
Look it up.

> and most folks didn't
> think it was appropriate to bring it up after.

Which makes it especially funny when most of these
same folks hypocritically whined about the Gropennator's
100% private misdeeds.

Yes, Bill Clinton made an "apology" where he said he
was sorry that people were trying to apply the laws
of the land to him.  If he had settled the lawsuit from
the beginning rather than paying full damages to get
it out of court, all of that grief could have been
avoided.  What a wonderful side topic for discussing
men taking responsibility for their actions!

Really: he could have just paid out the full funds and
the whole thing would have been over in hours.  He
delivered himself right into enemy hands with a silver
bow around his twisted, scabbed... nevermind.

> In the same light, now
> that Ahnuld is my Gov. I don't want trash brought up about him until
> AFTER he leaves office.  Why should taxpayers pay to defend either man
> in a SH lawsuit?

I agree.  The taxpayers shouldn't pay and I don't think they
would need to.  I believe Clinton had a legal defense fund.

You needn't worry.  These were October surprise charges
that carried no weight and are way beyond the statute
of limitations.  Talk to a lawyer sometime and he'll
explain it to you.

>  I don't mean to change> the subject, but I'm just pointing out that
> such self-centered> people can say just about anything even if it's
> rediculous.
>
> That's true, so have you ever tried a program for that?

Naw.  Apparently, my agenda seems to be winning.  Get it? :-)

> > I suspect that it won't catch on until some poor "oopsers"
> > discover that the guy they were trying to trap never
> > told them and bring it up to a judge.  I know that sounds
> > amazing, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened.
>
> Never told them what?

The original poster spelled it out (damn him!  I hate it when
people still my ideas! :-)

When either form of contraception comes out, it will be
as revolutionary as the pill but in a different way:
Women who are considering oopsing will have tons
of sex without any guaranteeable result.  It will
be pretty funny.

My wife and I watch Sex and the City and Charlotte, the
mean career woman, has only had a child because
she ooopsed and had sympathy sex with her kind hearted
ex-boyfriend.  She didn't get the abortion because
she wondered: "Is the the only chance I'll get?"

Such things will be reduced by this pill and I think that's
a good thing.  Such women's children deserve parents
who are fully working together for their future.

> > In the meantime, I think the "pill" for men would be just
> > as revolutionary as the women's version was.  Look out!
> >
> I think that's fantastic...if men take responsibility for it.

I don't think we need to worry about that too much.
Men aren't the ones crying to state to make women
pay for bastard children the women don't want.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/13/05 6:44:25 PM ---