Birth control doesn't always work and no medication is without risk, especially when it involves hormones that may lead to other health issues.

That's why I said low risk, it's not high risk as millions of women do it without any issue. Yes, a small part do have issue, but that is few and far between. Pregnancy is a much much much higher risk than any of these. If she wants to shoulder that risk, let it be on her own head.

Then the man gives up the "right" to cry about not wanting his "child" aborted. There has to be give and take with the woman maintaining the greatest amount of control, as her life is the one most likely to suffer.

I wasnt talking about whether its only the womans choice dork, I was talking about Homie's ignorant post.

As far as risks for taking brith control go, why dont you get on it and see what it does to YOUR Body before preaching that a woman needs to put a foreign chemical in her body so that you dont have to worry about getting her pregnant.

Why dont you risk all forms of cancer, weight gain, heart disease, hormonal imbalances and a 100 other side effects of borth control before deciding what a woman shoud and shouldnt do.

Well said, sir. Well said.

In order to be "fair",
Two people enter a contract (also known as fucking)
One party wishes to disolve the contract.
If the women wishs to disolve the contract, she has two options.
One is to disolve the contract immediately (abortion) - All parties free and clear. The other is to fulfill a portion of the contract (deliver product and sign copyright over to another party aka adoption) Man is off free and clear, women puts in considerable resources.

Both cases, all parties are free and clear if the women is to disolve the contract.

If the man wants to opt out, what are the ramifications.
Women left having to hold up her end of the contract even though the man decided to walk.

Is that fair?

A women is forced top honor her end of the bargain, meanwhile the man could walk away and pretend it different happen if it were not for the government.

Geez...are all women this whiney?
I can definitely understand the gay thing.
No risk of pregancy
no fucking whining.

I agree, if the man wants the right to say "I want nothing to do with this baby", he has to give up any idea that he has a say in abortion at all. He will have to fully recognize that it's a woman's body, but in doing so a woman will lose the right to forcibly include the man as a participant (financial donor) in a baby that could of been destroyed.

I take all sorts of medicines that have side effects and wreck havoc on what I can or can't do and could cause all sorts of sideeffects. That's part of life.

I have already stated I support the Tigger snip the balls option for men. It's the responsibility of both parties to attempt to stop a pregnancy if they are both not committed to having a child. If it's one sided option, then it's not fair to the other party. I understand accidents happen, but there are acceptable options for woman to control it after the fact. If she doesn't want to control it and he wants no part of it, tough shit.

Society, as a whole, has an interest in that sort of thing. That's why we have laws that force the man to support a child that he has sired. I have no children and I can tell you for damned sure that I don't want to be paying for what you created, because the mother is on welfare and you're a deadbeat.

You see more than just two people are involved, no matter how things started.