thegreaterbuzzette

3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I'll be honest, now I forget your point and how this relates to abortion.

This twister started because so many people seemed to be equating having sex with protection as a fail safe to not getting pregnant and therefore not needing access to abortions.

3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I don't like statistics because you can make them say anything you want if you know how to frame it, got a D in that class, I tried.

I got an A. And tutored @TheGreatBuzz.

Because in order to truly understand statistics you need to take out the BS and look at what the evidence actually is. 

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

we really putting inspecting the condom in the category of knowing how to use it?  That's really the only number that comes close to 50%, but you might as well headline the study that no one knows how to use one which you can't because wed be talking about an 70% to 80% failure rate or more and we aren't.

https://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/male-condom-use.html

Check that link....CDC indicates inspecting condom is item #4 for proper use (#1 & 2 being - use it, putting on BEFORE "the sex"). So I'd say it for sure would fall into this category.

Quote

If we were talking more them half put it on late or don't leave room at the top, okay, i could support the argument most men don't know how to use a condom, but that's not what it said.  And i laughed when it said 23% unroll the whole thing first, i don't know who they asked i have trouble believing they were doing that consistently : )

I'm noticing a trend- If you don't do it, then the statistics (which you asked for) must be wrong.

26 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Unless you can produce a stat that shows less then half of men know how to use a condom, its hyperlobe.  85% success rate would indicate majority of men do know how to use a condom, i don't how you see the opposite.

Again, not how stats work. It amazes me how people can convolute things. You are forgetting a very important ingredient to these statistics. Just because a woman does not get pregnant, does not mean the condom was used correctly. There is actually a pretty small window (typically 3 days in a 28 day cycle) where a female is truly capable of becoming pregnant. Therefore the fact that she did not conceive is not then proof of correct use of contraception.

Also, real world experience  how many men have you witnessed their usage of a condom?

I remember a sex ed event at my university in which every single Male participant did it wrong. And that was without the pressure of a naked hottie laying next to them.

Now this one has gone well off topic now. This is just such a larger conversation then simple legality of abortion.

My apologies. I'll refrain from further diving down this rabbit hole!

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I'm not sure that's how math works, if we're talking about 85% success rate, that's way more then 50%.

Actually, it is how stats works. When you take into consideration the number of times a single person erroneously uses. 85 men incorrectly using a condom once in a year is not equated to a single man using a condom incorrectly 85 times in 1 year.

#mathfacts

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

This is a discussion forum that's gotten this far from trying its best to have constructive conversations.  You don't get credit for adding to the discussion if that's not your goal.  This conversation is hard enough as it is without pouring gasoline on it, you didn't prove anything, just wasted a bunch of pages of the thread.  You want to have a serious conversation, we can do that, but be serious.

That is not an accurate representation of what I did or said at all. It wasn't gasoline. It was a true desire to provoke thought and to allow natural conversation to occur without someone censoring their response in a manner they would of had I said "this is just a hypothetical so you can empathize with females better". By your logic, anyone who ever took a devil's advocate stance is just gas lighting...

10 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

No one is assuming that.  I argue most people i know talk about a 98% success rate, which I'm seeing online, and your 85% number comes from incorrect usage.

 

 

Thanks for clarification, but I'll be honest I didnt realize that was your point.  Felt more like a grenade in a minefield.

Yes, the 85% is an overall statistic based upon average use. Sadly most people do not actually know the correct way to use a condom. I would be interested if most men here do. 98% effective when worn correctly is pointless when most don't.

Yes, I was purposely not clear about the intent of my post. As it would have skewed the response. Instead, most responses were dead on to my expectations that men would be completely appalled at the idea of having criminality tied to their child bearing capabilities. I feel my point was proven, even if others disagree. I would have pointed out early but this went way sideways with the "fun" comment for me (which I'll leave alone as to not rehash)

7 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

That feels not taking my last paragraph seriously at all.  If two adults agree to have consensual sex without contraceptive but neither want a kid and she gets pregnant anyway, should the guy get charged?  That feels different them someone taking the condom off without saying anything, which is wrong as hell.

1 - majority people here seem to be forgetting condoms aren't actually fail proof. In fact, under typical use they are only 85% effective. 

2 - I was not trying to suggest that I would support a law that put a man in jail for impregnating a female who claimed non-consent. The logistics of that alone make that not practical. The point of me posing that question was to provoke discussion and to allow men to have even the slightest view of what these laws feel like when they are aimed at your body.

I could make a very worthy case to both sides of this argument. And I very easily could belong to both groups.

I repeat, this issue here is fixing the PROBLEM, not the solution.

Dump money into sex education in schools and community. Remember when community health departments were a real thing? 

Fix the welfare system to not encourage more kids = more money. So that people aren't incentivized to stay unemployed because they lose needed benefits by crossing some figurative line that is still well below a living wage.

Teach family health and have community programs for youth in need so they can learn and be mentored to live a fulfilling life.

Crap.....when did I become a Democrat?!

As laws currently stand a women does have a right to consent to being pregnant and to consent to not being pregnant (be it contraception or abortion).

So yes consenting to sex and conception/birth are in fact two separate things. 

13 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Larry, it certainly seems like you equated raping women with fun as long as rape isn't a crime.  Now, I took it as a bad joke, but rather than get defensive, it might be useful to either clarify yourself or apologize.

13 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

Yea, is that all you got? Do you understand how weak that joke was? Do you understand how people who may have wives or daughter or sisters who have been raped would react when they hear **** like that? My wife was raped at 19 and had an abortion, this is real life and people don't think that **** is funny.

It says something about a person, when they make a joke like that. It says something about the relationship they have with women in general and what kind of heart they have. You need to really take a second and put yourself in someones shoes who has been raped and then ask yourself was that **** funny?

Jesus Christ, what in the **** is wrong with people?

Thank you both.

When I was the only one that called him out on that last night I had honestly lost a lot of faith in the people on this forum.

7 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Do you see anyone saying to get away with child support if the Dad says he told Mom to abort?  

 

Cause I saw that.  (And I'll point out, it's a common suggestion when this subject rises from the dead.  I'm not trying to single out one person for using what I think is a monumentally dishonest suggestion.  My problem is with the suggestion.)  And I'm absolutely certain that the end of child support is the predictable consequence of that proposal.  

You do understand that a key part of problem solving, critical thinking, negotiation, etc.....is taking a look at things from all angles? It helps to get a different perspective and ensure you are covering all your basis. It's not a matter of one saying "these should be the new laws", it is questions and proposal to spark discussion and hope that a middle ground path can be forged. 

8 minutes ago, Destino said:

The frustrating aspect of this entire debate is that logically reaching a broad consensus should be possible, like so many political arguments it boils down to where our society prefers to draw the lines.  Reaching it, however, feels all but impossible.  

 

Hard prolife and prochoice sides are not interested in compromise and both hold a great deal of political influence.  Politicians can easily be argued to benefit from having this battle continue.  Even if you get by those two problems, you have court rulings that limit what legislative options might look like.

 

 

#nailedit

7 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

@thegreaterbuzzette I want to ask a clarifying question. 

 

Here's what I understand so far: Criminalizing abortions puts all of the legal consequences on women. You believe men should share in the consequences for an unintended pregnancy. 

 

If I understand you right, your position is less that men should be punished for getting women pregnant, but that the father should also be punished in the case of an abortion. Is that right?

 

If so, I can understand that line of thinking, but I see some pitfalls as well. What if the father doesn't want to abort the baby, but the mother does? Are they actually equally culpable?

 

(For what it's worth, I believe most abortions should be legal.)

There is no easy answer to any of it. It's broader conversations and thought provoking questions that need to occur.

It will never be truly equal/fair because at the end of the day, only women can bare children.

I also think there is unjust because a woman alone can choose to terminate a pregnancy even if the father does not want her to. But if a man does not desire the pregnancy be kept to term, he is still obligated to child support. 

In a perfect world, people would not have sex unless fully accepting of consequences...but this world is by no means perfect. 

House Bill 314, criminalizes the procedure, reclassifying abortion as a Class A felony, punishable by up to 99 years in prison for doctors. Attempted abortions will be reclassified as a Class C penalty. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/alabama-abortion-law-passed-alabama-passes-near-total-abortion-ban-with-no-exceptions-for-rape-or-incest-2019-05-14/ 

....seems pretty criminal to me. 

20 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

And here I thought this entire hijack started because you stated that we needed laws to criminalize this.  Now you tell me it already is?  

 

Obviously I must be confused.  I keep having hallucinations of moving goalposts.  

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. The difference is that it shifts the criminality to the Male instead of to the Female. 

I in no way feel this is a hijack. It is an alternate solution. One that may even result in less unplanned pregnancy and therefore less need for abortions.

For the record I think abortions are tragic, horrible, and totally preventable. I would never, ever want to partake. But, I would never want to take the right away from someone that feels it is necessary and their best option.

We need to fix the problem, not the solution.

7 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Failure to pull out in time should now be criminalized.  (Or only if it results in pregnancy?  I'm not sure.)

You do understand that current/proposed laws do criminalize this now for a woman if she chooses abortion?

7 minutes ago, Larry said:

Just out of curiosity, to pull out (see what I did there?) a hypothetical that I assume has happened at least once, somewhere, If a woman tells a man that she has birth control, or it's not that time of the month, or something similar, and then becomes pregnant, should she be criminally prosecuted, under your proposed law?  

Again, under current/proposed law....she already will be if she chooses an abortion.

7 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Please describe for me a currently legal form of getting a woman pregnant without her consent.  

 

So, consent to sex is now consent to pregnancy?

Again, the CIS Male priviledge is oooooozing in this thread.

"I'm sterile." "I had a vasectomy" "I'll pull out" "yea I have a condom on" "trust me"

-just a few of the sampling of things men say because they dont want to wear a condom. Because deep down they know, if she gets pregnant..... not his problem.

I'm usually not much of a feminist. But the fact that so many of you aren't even willing to consider the Male having true consequence and accountability for a pregnancy is quite astonishing. Especially for this group.

No I'm not talking about "nutting early"....what are we 13?

I'm talking about shifting the thought to a Male being responsible for getting a woman pregnant, and not solely on the female for getting pregnant. 

Rape is having SEX without consent. I indicated impregnating without consent. The fact that you do/did not recognize the difference is very telling. 

And did you then equate legalized rape to "fun"?????

23 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Pretty sure we already got those.  

 

This thread is about forcing said women to carry around the result, anyway.  

What laws are you referring too? I am not aware of them....

How about instead of laws criminalizing abortions (both getting and performing), a law was passed to criminalize men who impregnated women without consent? Bet that would make everyone understand the gravity of the situation before having sex. 

(yes I understand there are more reasons for abortions than accidental pregnancy, but it does make up a large portion)

Also, changes need to be made, many people that claim to be pro-life are actually only pro-birth. There are no sufficient programs in place to ensure that healthy, fruitful life actually occurs. 

56 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

^^^Reminds me of a conversation @thegreaterbuzzette and I had a long time ago.

 

She said I had to be the only person on the planet that didn't like porn where it was a threesome with two hot female twins. 

 

I pointed out that I didn't care for incest porn and said "could you imagine having a threesome with your sister?"

 

She said I had never so convincingly won an argument with just one statement before or since. 

Truth.

5 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Whoa nelly.  Of course not, either there is a sign that says you can't or you know the law saying you can or can't take it in there.

 

 

Are we really comparing disclosure of a gun in a residence to if someone in a relationship has an STD and when to tell them?  You should get both out the way quickly before someone's feelings get anymore hurt then they will be.

 

 

This goes both ways depending on the situation.  If you want to know, you should ask.  Having said that, relying on this strategy can backfire when they find out something you could've told them but didn't because they didn't ask.  This happens all the time, a totally avoidable episode of drama.

 

 

But they knew before the kids went over there...

 

 

No other way around it, they all look dumb, imo.

 

Forgive me, I don't know how to break down the quotes to reply piece by piece. 

The STD comparison was to show the blurred line of when your business becomes someone else's business. Notice I said, should one have to disclose to anyone that may be attracted to them, not that they are attracted to. Must it be disclosed so early on, to prevent someone for falling for them without the full picture? Or should it only be disclosed once applicable and necessary? We can revisit the drug comparison - if one was a recovering opioid addict, it would be good practice to tell potential roommates "please no medicines, even prescribed, as not a good fit". The same way a legal marijuana smoker SHOULD disclose this as well. 

Also I should point out that I do not inform adults of guns in home. These roommates were all adults. 

Random roommates are never a good idea, and never end well. Yes, I said never.

Again, she SHOULD have disclosed the gun. They SHOULD have asked if there'd be guns. But neither did, and that's why we read about it in the news.

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

People give weird looks but I’d want to know. I’d also ask, if it were my kids going to their house. 

Military and florida....the weird looks are usually because it would be odd NOT to be a gun owner. Which I wasn't for a very long time. 

Guns terrified me. I'm still very nervous to carry. 

That's why I like getting involved in these topics, because I think I am very *unique* in my opinion and stance.

Similarly, I live in a conceal carry state. I do not announce at the grocery store that I have my gun on me. If something was to happen, would it then be fair to say "I hid the fact I had a gun?"

What about if someone has chlamydia (hypothetically of course single RV dude)? Should they immediately have to disclose to someone (and everyone) to whom may be attracted to them that they have it, or instead is it only necessary to disclose if a relationship seems to be a potential? Where the line is for disclosure varies for all.

Thats why if its something you want to know, you need to ask.

Whenever anyone brings minors to our home we lock up guns and ammo stored elsewhere. And the parents are told there are guns in the home. 

Personally I think all parties involved here failed at adulting and life. 

Should a, would a, could a