Rather than see this reality as a call to action, as the catalyst for changing the condition…MRA’s insist that the reality is proof that women are “privileged” in society.

I suppose that MRAs would be satisfied if women were offing women at the same rates that men are offing men…

Can it get any stupider?

Okay, revise the midsecond trimester requirement to say… 60 days after the man gets wind of the decision to carry the pregnancy to term.

Problem solved.

So, for a 21 year old man who knows he doesn’t want to have kids until at least his 30’s, a vasectomy would be a great option. Not for all men, because you can’t absolutely count on being able to reverse it. But, it’s a good option-you don’t have to worry getting anyone pregnant.

Why don’t more young men go for this? I’m not sure. I would venture they don’t want the side effects and don’t want to go through any kind of pain or risks. Of course, women are expected to do just that, without complaint.

Well, according to planned parenthood, they are available widely…
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control/female-condom.htm

But if your pharmacy doesn’t carry them, they can be ordered at
http://secure.condomania.com/prodinfo.asp?number=C-FC

Now all that is needed is a male pill….and no, I don’t think it’s your fault I can’t get one.

It has also meant that women have been forced into bearing children conceived through rape; children they did not want to have (see just about any war).

Thanks for the straight answer. So then, is a woman’s right to reproduce subject to the same (though different-gendered) limitation?

I do believe that NotNOW is trying for a gotcha.

First off, the “right to reproduce” is bs. No such right exists. Reproduction is easy for some (women and men) and difficult for others (women and men), but nothing guarantees that is is something anyone is entitled to. (Though there’s a lot of technology that fools people into thinking that they may be.)

But to take the question at face value.

The simple answer is clearly no. Women do no have the limitations vis a vis reproduction that men do.

It’s the asymmetry of who bears the child. This means that a woman could reproduce without getting a man to agree to be a father in other than a strictly biological sense (see lesbian mothers and sperm donors). It has also meant that women have been forced into bearing child.

Penetrative, heterosexual intercourse always might result in a child when there is no contraception. A man who is worried about being forced to care for a child when he doesn’t want to needs to be very careful about contraception and judicious about the women he chooses to have sex with.

This is not rocket-science.

But it’s not available in my neck of the woods. Not for all the money in the world.

Nice misdirection there.

Until parthenogenesis becomes commonly available for human females, some guy’s sperm will be needed. However, that sperm may have been “donated” years previously…

“Absent a willing woman…of course not.”

Thanks for the straight answer. So then, is a woman’s right to reproduce subject to the same (though different-gendered) limitation?

So you would be willing to use a female condom and have your partner use the male pill?