I think it's medically impractical. There are literally BILLIONS of sperm per "shot". Only takes a couple hundred to make it to the egg and wear down the protective membrane surrounding it, and only one to screw up your life (and hers) forever - especially if the RR nutjobs take "plan B" and abortion off the table.

I'd bet if it were the male who had the birth canal that a pill for men would be on the market already.

"Voegeli's program for temporary (Male) sterilization is as follows: "A man sits in a [shallow or testes-only] bath of 116 degrees Fahrenheit for forty-five minutes daily for three weeks. Six months of sterility results, after which normal fertility returns. For longer sterility, the treatment is repeated" (Corea 1985, 179). Although some men could support temperatures up to 125 degrees, water at 116 degrees Fahrenheit was found to reliably produce at least six months of sterility (Voegeli 1956)."

yeah, there would be better pain meds for childbirth too. And abortion would be safe, legal, and available in a handy home kit.

Might explain why Hugh Hefner has no kids...

And "John Wayne" brand tampons.

That being said, if women are equal and capable, what are they waiting for? A man to give them the solution?

ROTFL!

that's weird on so many levels...

well, no offense, but since you're a 40 year old single guy with no kids, I won't flame you, but instead point out that until you have kids and/or a failed marriage, you have no idea what it is like. And even if you have kids, everyone's situation is different.

I respect that fact that your childhood experiences lead you to a conclusion that seems right to you. But until the ***** hits the fan, it is all in the abstract...and frankly decisions are easy in the abstract/theoretical.

I'm starting to realize the reason for many of these responses, this is like the single guy thread. Father a child, then see how you feel. I didn't understand either until I became a father. My wife and I have a great relationship, but I would do anything for that boy. I would pay child support with a smile if I were in that situation, just so it was going to him. That's where I see the major problem with the system, there should be more controls over where the child support goes. Food, yes. College fund, yes. New purse for mom, no. Of course, maybe my feelings on this issue are the exception. I just don't understand how anybody can look at their own child and think of them as a burden, regardless of custody, etc. Don't want a baby? I still agree with nostatic, don't stick it in. Very easy, that's what porn is for.

Well, and visa versa. If you haven't been on the receiving end, then you can't imagine how horrible it is/can be and don't know the potential consequences. I can only suggest that I would not do it because I cannot imagine bringing myself to do to another person what was done to me.

BTW - Why do I seem to be the only person on this thread who comes from divorced parents? I can't believe I am the only person on Pelican who came from a broken home.

And for the record, I was one of those kids who "did better" after the divorce - much better, actually - at least temporarily. My grades improved and I was involved in more school activities etc - but it was only because I was desperately trying to maintain some sort of external normalcy while my home life spun into the darkest abyss. I also deeply wanted to please my parents during "their" time of need. On the outside, I was doing great while on the inside, I was profoundly broken for life.

Nostatic, it gives me the willies to be on the opposite end of a heavy discussion from you...FWIW, you seem like one of the voices of reason and sanity here and I dislike butting heads with you. I feel like I should never have hit the "SUBMIT REPLY" button in the first place. And writing about this topic just brings up dark and awful memories that fill me with a seemingly endless pool of dread.

chicks are evil , them's like biological timebombs , you never know when they gonna go off, either a baby , or a fit... and either will cost you your paycheck, the baby , or the fit.
might as well drop some monster hit of lsd, if that goes wrong ,at least you'll snap out of it in 8 to 12 hours...

I think if you think about it in the most cursory manner, you will realize that Roe vs Wade has more to do with the "after conception" time period. Perhaps this speaks more about the fact that the male has no say in whether an abortion is/isn't performed, the child given for adoption(at least one case of a mother giving up a toddler for adoption and dodging the father that I know) Even if they do get married and have the child, if they later divorce and the mother gets custody(which the case almost universally)she can do what she wishes with the children. I can assure you, the non-custodial parents visitation "rights" can be tenuous at best



No, the right to recieve support is held by the "custodial parent"; kid's name on the account, but that is not the beneficiary of the check

Close, they are all crazy, women are evil BTW, I could give you a mathematical proof, but hopefully someone else already has posted it.

Say what?

This is an "equal protection under the law" clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Consititution issue. Whether a man or a woman or both (or neither) has a moral obligation to financially support their/his/her child is another matter best left to the clergy. The state has repeatedly and successfully argued that the state's interest is best served by someone other than the state financially supporting a child. That argumant is not likely ever to be overcome. However, the remedy is NOT to have one parent or the other be held legally responsible for child support. In Michigan, there is no law forcing the custodial parent, as it does the noncustodial parent, to pay child support. That is the issue. Nostatic argues (incomprehensibly) that both parents had the choice to have sex and therfore the father has the obligation to support the child. Since a mother has the choice to support her child(ren) but the father does not have that choice, and because the full force and effect of the laws of the State of Michigan fall into play, there is no equal protection in this circumstance. In addition, if one considers that having unprotected sex, the father (only) presumes a potential obligation to pay child support, and creates an implied contract to meet that potential obligation, one could (and will) argue that if the potential to have a child is misrepresented, then the contract, implied or explicit, is not binding. Here, in this particular case, the victim of the fraud is legally held responsible while the perpetrator of the fraud is not (the best interest of the child set aside, for now). As an aside, I think Nostatic's adamant declaration that a man has an automatic, irreversible obligation to pay support is fueled by two things: 1) mysogyny and 2) chauvenism. Nostatic presumes that no woman can be trusted (mysogyny) so that all men must protect themselves from the inherent evil of women and that no woman is able (chauvenism) to support her children. Again, this is not a moral issue.