satellite refueling and menstruation

Before all you guys go get this procedure, check out the literature
tht links vasectomies with heart problems.

You could always "save it" for that special girl and then you
wouldn't have to pay for the vasectomy OR the reversal.

Jan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> It would appear that having the guy depend on the female to take
care of things is RISKY as all get out... remember the old "trust
everyone but verify mantra"...but how does one verify at the moment
of passion? How many of us have had "wishful thinking" at that
moment of truth...
>
> simple solution, guy does V section... then, regardless of what
partner of opportunity claims or intentions are, the bases are
covered. End of issue.
>
> Can a guy afford to have a kid or is ready for the commitment?
Then the cost and effort of a V section reversal is reasonable
threshold investment of time and money.
>
> If memory serves, they are 88% effective through micro surgery to
reverse...a more than reasonable ratio... and I believe one could
STILL harvest directly from testes for artificial insemination if
the tubes get too messed up.
>
> Again the alternative is a 100% chance of pregnancy at the wrong
time of the month... instead of 100% chance of NO consequence
regardless of the time of month...no "accidents" no memory loss, no
mistakes, no wishful thinking because of the moment of passion
>
> solves all the whos body is it questions... guy doesnt wanna have
his little guys start something without his full consent, then he
has the right to control his guys and when they get released... no
matter HOW much the partner claims the right to her body, it doesnt
come an issue. No action unless BOTH parties (the guy through a
reversal) agree.
>
> From: janet_baker76
> To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 5:37 PM
> Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: satellite refueling and menstruation
>
> Zeno, baby, I am for one law, the recriminalization of abortion.
> See, I agree with you, very fundamentally: my body is mine, your
> body is yours, and that baby's body is his or hers. As soon as
you
> deny that last person's rights, you open the door to deny the
first
> two people's rights, too. And that's what's happened since we
made
> abortion legal and profitable.
>
> And also there's something so unbalanced about how it is now: a
guy
> has no call, the woman has the whole call. How awful it is, you
meet
> this person who represents herself as uninterested in
parenthood,
> she's safe, she's on the pill, you have sex, and the next thing
you
> know you're a paying dad for the rest of your life without any
> choice in the matter. It's unjust. Neither ONE of youse guys
should
> have a call about whether the new human being lives or dies.
Murder
> should be criminal except in self defense. Everybody who has sex
> should do so knowing that if a human being is conceived, that
human
> being has as much right to life as anybody else. It should be
the
> default position that human life is sacred, without
qualification--
> not age (preborn and toothless or post-profitable and
toothless),
> not sex, not nationality, not income.
>
> Could you work with me on that?
>
> Jan
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
> wrote:
> >
> > Well Janet, if you aren't wanting to pass laws to MAKE women
have
> > babies, to MAKE men give up porn (women too; lots of women
like
> porn),
> > to MAKE women not take some no-bleed pill, to MAKE... you get
the
> idea.
> >
> > As long as you are just advocating changes in behavior, and
not
> trying
> > to slap us porn-loving birth-controlling heathans with the
force of
> > law, then I guess we don't really have a beef with each other.
I
> > mean, we can talk, and tell each other "you're wrong!" or
> even "you're
> > wrong about this, but you're right about that," but I don't
> consider
> > you an enemy for advocating something, even something that I
find
> silly.
> >
> > Of course, a quick look around here will show that I'm very
big on
> > women owning their own bodies, and on men owning theirs, for
that
> > matter. The whole tiff on longevity was based on the question
of
> > whether or not people should be able to decide for themselves
how
> long
> > they should live. I disagree with Francis Fukuyama when he
says
> that
> > such things are the provence of government, or of society at
> large.
> > How long I can live should be limited by my own choice only,
though
> > currently it is also limited by the current low state of the
art in
> > longevity tech. So it shouldn't be surprising that I feel that
> > whether or not women menstruate should be up to them. If you
want