TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

The Inmates of White County are Given Reduced Jail Time If They Get A Vasectomy

wrez

July 20, 2017
187 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.newschannel5.com/news/inmates-given-reduced-jail-time-if-they-get-a-vasectomy
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title The Inmates of White County are Given Reduced Jail Time If They Get A Vasectomy
Author

wrez

Upvotes 187
Comments 118
Date July 20, 2017 9:39 PM UTC
(9 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6ojhsi/the_inmates_of_white_county_are_given_reduced/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-inmates-of-white-county-are-given-reduced-jail.917545
https://theredarchive.com/post/917545
Top posts by wrez

Brown University student sues his alleged false accuser for defamation and University on the grounds of Title IX discrimination based on his male sex, breach of contract by the university and a denial of due process rights

1932 upvotes
October 20, 2015
/r/MensRights

Pay gap? Women earn MORE than men till their 40s: 20-something woman have been paid more than men in the same age group over the last decade

1297 upvotes
August 30, 2015
/r/MensRights

A man helping a disabled boy is tackled by Undercover Cops in a Sex Sting, and his civil rights are violated, unlawful search. Now he is suing.

833 upvotes
October 18, 2013
/r/MensRights

Rolling Stone retracts UVA rape story

771 upvotes
December 5, 2014
/r/MensRights

Media starting to title female exploitation correctly "Local teacher charged with child rape for allegedly having sex with 14 year old ex-student"

446 upvotes
February 7, 2015
/r/MensRights

Two men accused of raping British woman Zara-Jayne Moisey have charges DROPPED after 'video shows consent of all parties'

445 upvotes
November 29, 2016
/r/MensRights

Woman, 36, bears child of 11-year-old boy

389 upvotes
June 14, 2014
/r/MensRights

Ohio University Settles First Amendment Lawsuit for $32,000 Over T-Shirt Slogan, after Administrators falsely claimed T-shirts “objectified women” and “promoted prostitution.”

381 upvotes
February 3, 2015
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]jeff_the_nurse 42 points43 points44 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fuck that. If I want a reduced sentence, I'll just get a sex change.

[–]Singulaire 43 points44 points45 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Skirting the bounds of eugenics here.

[–]ee4m 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It is eugenics - its called state promoted voluntary eugenics.

"choice" for short.

Nazis cited this as an influence.

Hitler and the woman that introduced this used to write letters to each other.

[–]TheGrammarBazi 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It is eugenics. That's literally what American government institutions used to do. There was also another case in California (a state where eugenics were extremely popular), where a female prison was doing the same thing.

[–]TacticalEspoinage 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Is it "skirting the bounds of eugenics" or is it "literally eugenics"?

[–]Singulaire 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's skirting the bounds in the sense that you could argue it's technically not eugenics because the sterilisation is theoretically reversible and not compulsory. Still, for all intents and purposes it's placing a strong pressure on a vulnerable population of "undesirables" in order to prevent them from reproducing, and thus eugenics.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]CuckKnight 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There would likely be problems with this due to genetic imprinting, so I would say that the vasectomy reversal is more likely. I agree that it would be too much hassle for most people, especially jobless ex-cons to get a reversal unless they were desperate. Plus, I wonder if the whole reason why ex-cons might have lots of kids is in part because they aren't diligent with birth control.

[–]byecyclehelmet 43 points44 points45 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's fucking sick. Next time it'll be castration.

[–]YuenHsiaoTieng 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This doesn't sit well with me either, but overall I think government incentives for sterilization are a great thing.

[–]unbelievablepeople 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What would those incentives be? Currently, government incentivizes having children with things like tax deductions. Are you saying you'd like to get rid of those and replace them with tax deductions for vasectomies?

[–]YuenHsiaoTieng 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, pretty much. You can have government assistance as long as you don't make more people who need government assistance.

[–]contractor808 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ethics aside, that assumes the "right" people are going to take up the incentives. Seems like a policy doomed to fail from the start.

[–]hottake_toothache 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

WFT is wrong with Tennessee? There was a scandal somewhat like this in Nashville just a few years ago--where a woman charged with child abuse was offered a reduced sentence if she had her tubes tied. http://wkrn.com/2015/04/01/metro-public-defender-who-reported-sterilization-offer-as-plea-deal-speaks-out/

I can understand how someone might naively view these kinds of policies as a good thing, but the government should never have this kind of power.

[–]Feared77 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I felt the same way about pedophiles being chemically castrated in Australia. It's not okay to celebrate cruel and unusual punishment. That is what this is. That's a fucking terrible thing to push and I don't know why human rights issues like these get kicked along down the road.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is overwhelmingly affecting men, when it comes to men "Human Rights" suddenly excluedes them.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (49 children) | Copy Link

Can someone explain their issue with this opportunity to me?

I really don't see the problem with this, especially in the context of men's rights. The program also offers an implant for women, and the operation only takes off 30 days of jail time.

It's voluntary, I don't see why people can't make their own decisions, even if they might regret them later.

[–]McFeely_Smackup 47 points48 points49 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I really don't see the problem with this, especially in the context of men's rights. The program also offers an implant for women, and the operation only takes off 30 days of jail time.

So men can trade permanent sterilization for 30 days off their sentence, and women can trade getting an implant that can be removed at any time for the same.

You really don't see the issue?

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Vasectomies can be reversed as well, although it IS much more expensive than removing the implant.

I guess there is a bit of a disparity between the price difference, but it is still voluntary and not forced.

[–]McFeely_Smackup 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

you can TRY to reverse a vasectomy...it's expensive microsurgery that's not guaranteed to work. It's not remotely comparable to an implant that can be removed with tweezers.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

True, I suppose the men should receive a better deal, or the women a shorter one.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

From what I understand, having tubes tied can be a lot more expensive than a vasectomy.

I agree that it would be ideal, but the procedure is unfortunately not equal.

[–]Celda 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Vasectomies are intended as permanent sterilization, and are not intended for men who later want to have kids.

They can be reversed, but the success rate is definitely not guaranteed.

A birth control implant like the one mentioned is intended as temporary birth control.

[–]Vandechoz 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

definitely not equal, but I'm guessing tube-tying is a bit too invasive of a procedure for something like this

it sucks that vasalgel isn't available for this yet, but I'm all for the voluntary sterilization of criminals

[–]TheGrammarBazi 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You don't find anything immoral with coerced sterilization? You don't find anything wrong with asking prisoners to choose between personal freedom and sterilization? How about we ask them if they want to chop off a finger in exchange for years in prison? How about their entire hands? A thief with no hands will never steal again, so that's a bonus!

By the way, a vasectomy is serious surgery, and can have serious complications. "Would you like to be free sooner and risk chronic debilitating pain?" Offering someone who is under duress such a choice is equivalent to torture. Specifically asking people who are in prison (ie people who have already exhibited compulsive and self-destructive behaviour) is fucking inhuman.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not coerced just because they are imprisoned. If that were the case, then all deals made from prison would be coerced.

If they have no hands, then they can't take care of themselves, and the duty to care for them would lie again on the state. Or we can just be like Saudi Arabia and let their family take care of them or let them die.

If this is coercion then anyone making a deal with anyone else that has something over them is coercion. Like a man indebted to another, can't give him some property in exchange for a smaller debt.

And just because they are likely to exhibit compulsive behavior doesn't mean they don't have agency. If that were inhuman, then it would also be inhuman to offer any kind of deal that one party might regret to anyone because ALL humans are compulsive at some point, making the most basic exchanges cease to exist.

[–]TheRavenousRabbit 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

It is about sexual control. Imagine having black people being incarcerated at a much higher rate, often unjustly so or receiving much longer sentences than white people, and then have a "opportunity" to make their sentence as lenient as the white people's? Yeah, it is offensive on every level.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I really don't care if it's offensive.

They have to take a class about it before, so they can't pretend to not know the results of their choices (and it is reversible, although expensive)

I don't really see how race comes into question in this, especially as the program is offered to inmates of all races. If you are wondering why black people are more likely to be incarcerated, you might want to look up the national crime victimization survey, which takes information solely from the victims of crime, not based on convictions or arrests.

I am curious why you think that African Americans are convicted unjustly or receive much longer sentences. From what I have found, many studies that say African Americans get harsher sentences for the same crime do not take into account the circumstances of the offense or any prior convictions.

[–]Voidslan 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

Did you even read the article?

The program is optional.

The program is for anyone, not just non-whites.

The program is trying to prevent repeat incarcerations on two fronts. Guys who can't pay child support or commit crimes to provide for a family, and the children of those incarcerated that on average grow up in the conditions that push someone to committing crimes.

How about everyone gets to decide what is and is not a desirable option for themselves and let those affected choose accordingly?

[–]RapeMatters 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

The problem is that jail time is used as an adverse incentive. Men (and women) are being told "have surgery, or go to jail for a(n extra) month. That's your choice".

It's like being told you can either go to jail or go to church (which is also unconstitutional).

[–]Skydiver860 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

Men (and women) are being told "have surgery, or go to jail for a(n extra) month. That's your choice".

no. that's not true at all. Don't twist this to fit your narrative. No one gets extra time for not participating. Time is taken off of their sentence for participating. There's a massive difference. If they don't participate, they serve their original sentence. If they do participate, they have 30 days taken off of their original sentence. Time isn't added to their sentence if they don't participate.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Women are given a temporary treatment.

Men are given a permanent one.

If I walked up to a black man and said "You can choose to have a leg removed for 30 days off" and walked up to a white man and said "You can choose to have your leg temporarily paralyzed for 30 days off" would you call those equal choices?

Tubal Ligation is the equivalent of a vasectomy - the only reason it isn't being offered is sexism.

[–]Halafax 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Tubal Ligation is the equivalent of a vasectomy - the only reason it isn't being offered is sexism.

It's a more costly and complicated surgery. Because guy parts are already external.

If men had an option for a long lasting temporary procedure, the state would still opt with whatever's cheaper.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Either it's equal or it's not offered.

This is nothing more than anti-male policy, you're telling me suddenly the government is concerned about costs? Why not slash some of the hundreds of worthless women's programs.

[–]Halafax -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Either it's equal or it's not offered.

To their mind, they're prolly balancing the options based on how much it costs to do them. I'm not an expert on this, but Google says:

Vasectomy - 350 to 1000
Birth control implant - 0 to 800

Compare to

Tubal ligation - 1500 to 6000

No one knows how much vasagel will be, because they haven't gotten that far yet. If it comes up cheaper than vasectomies, they'll go that route instead.

This is nothing more than anti-male policy, you're telling me suddenly the government is concerned about costs?

Male disposability was always about cost.

Men are the bulk of the homeless, no one cares enough about them to do anything. Ditto suicides. Men dying younger, but paying the bulk of retirement? To the government, that's win-win.

Why not slash some of the hundreds of worthless women's programs.

Because people sympathize and empathize with women. Same reason men get longer prison terms than women.

[–]EsraYmssik 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No one gets extra time for not participating.

Yes they do.

It's not "the sentence is 90 days, 60 if you get snipped, but I'll make it 120 if you refuse"

It's: 90 days in jail OR 60 days + vasectomy

Choosing to not get snipped means an extra 30 days.

[–]Skydiver860 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

no it isn't. they've already been sentenced. Their sentence has been handed down already. They're doing that time no matter what.

[–]RapeMatters 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

No one gets extra time for not participating.

There's no functional difference between "time off for participating" and "extra time for not participating".

Let's have person A and B. Both are convicted of a crime and are sentenced to 60 days in jail. Person A has a vasectomy and serves 30 days. Person B serves 60 days.

Person Y and person Z also are convicted of a crime but are sentenced to 30 days. Person Y has a vasectomy and serves 30 days. Person Z has to serve an extra 30 days for refusing a vasectomy and serves 60 days.

How has the result functionally changed?

[–]Collective82 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Because it's an OPT IN program.

You get sentenced and you stay good, do you not get a reduction in time you have to serve?

[–]RapeMatters 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

In most states yes, but that's independent of this "program".

Most crimes have discretion in sentencing. So you might have a crime for which the sentences ranges from a fine to 60 days in jail.

Essentially, the judge tells the convicted criminal "it is my judgement you should be sentenced to 60 days, but I'll give you 30 days if you sterilize yourself".

Which is no different then "it is my judgement you should be sentenced to 30 days, but if you fail to sterilize yourself I will raise it to 60 days."

[–]Collective82 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Except "was trying to break a vicious cycle of repeat offenders who constantly come into his courtroom on drug related charges, subsequently can’t afford child support and have trouble finding jobs." repeat offenders are usually year plus sentences.

[–]RapeMatters 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Same principle applies. You can't require someone sterilize themselves under threat of more jail time. We frown on that - just as you can't force someone to attend church under threat of more jail time.

And oh yes they tried.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/church_or_jail_program_put_on_hold_for_legal_review/

[–]OrionsSword 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Except "was trying to break a vicious cycle of repeat offenders who constantly come into his courtroom on drug related charges, single mothers who subsequently can’t afford child support and have trouble finding jobs whose children subsequently are more likely to commit crimes and themselves have children out of wedlock."

Explain the difference, especially in the case of drug crimes where the only victim is the offender. "But but they committed a crime and lost their rights!" Sure, and if you are living off of the largesse of the taxpaying public they have no say in your reproductive strategy?

[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Opt in or opt out, you only serve the last 30 days of you don't get a vasectomy. There's no difference

[–]Collective82 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So you might as well not behave yourself to get time off for good behavior as well then

[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

One of those is temporary, and one of those is permanent.

If you are equating the two, then you've already lost the discussion.

[–]Ttabts 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You get sentenced and you stay good, do you not get a reduction in time you have to serve?

Yes, because using reduced prison time to incentivize good behavior is a good thing.

Using reduced prison time to incentivize sterilization is goddamn eugenics.

Like if someone paid off Jews to have themselves sterilized, should that policy be given a free pass because "it's their choice"? no, of course not, it would still be fucked up. The fact that it was "by choice" is only mitigating by the laziest of moral standards.

[–]Skydiver860 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

How has the result functionally changed?

you are unable to see how those are two completely different scenarios? no one is adding time to anyone's sentence in the first scenario for refusal of anything. How is offering the inmates an option to get out early if they get a vasectomy the same as telling inmates if they refuse to get a vasectomy they'll have their sentence extended? One is give an opportunity to get out early. The other is being forced to do something against their will or else they're getting punished.

That's two completely different scenarios. in the scenario with persons a and b, both are given a choice and no one is being punished. In the scenario with Y and Z both people are being forced with the threat of punishment. How is a threat of punishment not functionally different than offering an incentive?

[–]RapeMatters 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How is a threat of punishment not functionally different than offering an incentive?

Because the incentive is a reduction in a punishment it is in your power to extend or reduce at will. It is functionally the same thing under law and gives the exact same result, basically.

De jure structure is important. De facto result is also important.

[–]murpdog 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Show me where I blamed women, liar.

[–]TheRavenousRabbit 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I did. I was making a reference to the difference between men and women. There is a massive sentencing gap between men and women - and offering a male to essentially sterilized in return for a sentence on par with women (if that) is offensive. Just interchange the sex with race and everybody would understand the problem.

[–]boringcarpets 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

"Optional" - prison isn't exactly a walk in the park, they're trading for their freedom, there is no incentive with more weight

[–]Voidslan -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure how much weight 30 days carries.

Would you prefer if there was no sentencing time reduction?

[–]boringcarpets 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Spend one day in a cell and trust me you'll realise how shit it is. Your response shows me that you don't know what you're talking about and have a rose tinted view of what prison is like

[–]Voidslan 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You didn't answer my question. The goal of the program has already been stated. Would you prefer repeat offenders be given free vasectomies with or without a 30 day reduction in their sentencing? If i did go to jail, I'd take advantage of a free vasectomy.

[–]boringcarpets 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's my point, you dolt! 30 days is a lot, if someone offers anything you'll take it - it's not a choice

[–]Voidslan 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Okay let me rephrase the question. Would you be happy with them offering free vasectomies to repeat offenders? No credit towards prison time.

[–]mikesteane 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Put the price up and offer a discount for early payment. Keep the price the same and try to impose a penalty for late payment. This "opportunity", as you put it, is a very close approximation to a threat.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

How is it a threat? They're already getting jail time, it's not like they'd get more jail time if they refuse the vasectomy.

[–]mikesteane 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Can't see or won't see?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

wut

[–]TheRavenousRabbit 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Wow... just... wow. Imagine doing the opposite.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If women were told "Permanent Sterilization" and men were given Vasagel the harpies would lose their collective mind.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Im ok with this. There's 7 billion people on the planet.

[–]Pathfinder24 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

So what?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So we're killing the planet withover population. Maybe some form of eugenics isnt such a bad thing.

Like why bring another person on to the planet, especially if they are going to be raised under someone who already a burden to society.

[–]alclarkey 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Go fuck yourself with your eugenics you sick fuck.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ha look at you go.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, this policy is unlikely to succeed if challenged

[–]OrionsSword 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Problem is it doesn't change things for those affected.

[–]RapeMatters 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hey, at least the ACLU is on the right side this time.

Of course, it probably has more to do with the female implant than the vasectomy, but I'll take what we can get.

[–]conchoso 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

vicious cycle of repeat offenders who constantly come into his courtroom on drug related charges

Does just legalizing all drugs also solve this problem? If all drugs were legal, cheap, safe, and accessible would people still fuk with and steal from each other? The government ruining your life is the biggest risk in using most recreational drugs, in this case to the most extreme degree.

[–]abc989 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The government ruining your life is the biggest risk in using most recreational drugs, in this case to the most extreme degree.

Except simple drug users are rarely sent to prison. Less than 1% of people in prison for drug crimes are there for simple possession.

[–]Throwawayingaccount 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The problem with that is the laws for what constitutes "trafficking" is absurd.

Have more than two doses on you? That's possession with intent to distribute!

[–]Collective82 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

And for those drug addicts that break into your house or car to get money aren't ruining your life or being a drain on the economic system?

[–]blackxxwolf3 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

different crimes. someone breaks into your house or car thats a totally separate crime from possession.

[–]Collective82 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Most likely by what the judge said your not getting the option for simple possession.

[–]Collective82 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Jesus people!!!! After reading the comments I realize most of you would never be happy! Just like frmisits today aren't happy!!!

Vasalgel isn't available for men yet, and a vasectomy is a hell of a lot easier, cheaper, and safer than an invasive surgery on women!

Also this is your choice! You done fucked up A A Ron, now here's your sentence and IF you want time of, be good, and for even more, get snipped. It's aimed at repeat offenders and people who can't afford the kids they have now. "was trying to break a vicious cycle of repeat offenders who constantly come into his courtroom on drug related charges, subsequently can’t afford child support and have trouble finding jobs." really? You want these people out there making MORE PEOPLE and continuing the cycle of poverty and living off welfare?

Sure it could be considered borderline eugenics, but it could also be a relief for men who otherwise couldn't or wouldn't (because there's no benefit for them) go get one done. It helps stop children from being born and fatherless because their dad was a screw up.

[–]TheGrammarBazi 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If they genuinely cared, they'd offer vasectomies for free, in exchange for absolutely nothing. (You know, like Planned Parenthood offers free abortions.)

Also, keep in mind that when your rant has to include phrases like "sure, it could be considered borderline eugenics, but...", maybe it's time to take a step back and rethink your position, Adolf.

[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

It's a choice between jail time and sterilization. That's horrendous.

[–]Collective82 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

How do ou figure? It's 30 days off what's probably multi years sentences that your already getting.

[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

How do I figure that offering them sterilization as an option to not do 30 days of jail time is a choice between jail time and sterilization? Does that really need to be explained to you?

[–]Collective82 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Does one month really make a difference when your serving 3 years?

[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Does one month really make a difference when your serving 3 years?

Really? This is the argument you're making now?

[–]Collective82 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes because that's the context of use. Have you lived in shitty conditions? Have you been practically locked up? You get used to it, you get comfortable. One month isn't a big deal.

[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Freedom vs not freedom... all on the condition of sterilization... but jails not a big deal, so it's not that big of an incentive.

I mean, no one wants to see their children they've been denied access to for years... they are comfortable with the constant threat of rape and death in a prison system.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Beat the system. Get the vasectomy. Get out. Get a vasectomy reversal. Done.

[–]bufedad 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There's around a 20% chance that a reversal will actually work.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Cite your sources. http://attainfertility.com/article/vasectomy-reversal-success This one says 50-70%.

[–]Throwawayingaccount 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's still a procedure that's designed to be permanent, that we happen to be able to reverse sometimes, compared with an IUD which is designed to be temporary and wear off on it's own.

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

They are bringing Margret Sangers eugenics program back.

[–]furchfur 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Definitely illegal. Could be challenged by men who do not have vasectomies and not given time off.

[–]WildHuntsman 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Isn't that the same rational that they use to spade and neuter dogs and cats?

[–]MattLyte 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Population control - wealthy people don't have to consider this.

[–]CuckKnight 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would be okay with this if we lived in a completely egalitarian society where women got the same sentence as men on average for the same crime and men weren't the ones compelled to do crime by societal inequalities (a father robbing someone for money to take care of his kid because he can't just strip like the mother can). Also, I think that women should be given a tubal ligation rather then just an implant.

[–]Panel2468975 -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I approve of the program?

[–]Ttabts 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

"I don't see the problem with eugenics?" - Reddit, usually

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

So you think Men should be permanently sterilized while women take a temporary solution instead of a tubal ligation?

That's not only disturbing from a constitutional standpoint but from a Men's Rights standpoint.

[–]Panel2468975 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

While I do dislike the uneven affect, minimizing the dependents is a good idea. The problem with permanently sterilizing women is that it takes a significantly more invasive procedure to do so.

[–]armymon 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Cant vasectomies be reversed?

[–]Collective82 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Some. But I think people would be more content with vasalgel.

[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A vasectomy is permanent. Doctors will attempt to reverse them, but three procedure is expensive and fails far more often than it succeeds.

[–]Ttabts 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The fact that there is a gender discrepancy is pretty secondary to the government literally carrying out textbook eugenics.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Secondary and irrelevant aren't equivalent.

Eugenics is bad, it's made even worse when it's targeted against a specific group (It then begins to lean towards things like genocide).

[–]not_just_amwac -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Their body, their choice. If this is what they want, then good for them.

[–]Jamie0251 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

People who are offered bad choices make bad decisions. Criminals are vulnerable because they are more likely to be people who don't think of the long term consequences of their actions.

[–]SkeetShoot 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Criminals that aren't capable of making long term decisions are precisely the kind of people who should be sterilized.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Skydiver860 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

where is there forcible sterilization going on here? No one is being forced to do anything. They're given a choice.

[–]MisterDamage 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Do X or spend 3 years in jail" is what's known as duress. It's indistinguishable from "Do 7 years of do 4 years and get sterilised"

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Yet only the men are, not the women.

Sounds to me like you're a sexist.

[–]Collective82 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Cause there is no approved temp for men yet!

[–]SkeetShoot 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Why would you assume that "criminal" automatically means a man? I believe it should should apply to both genders.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The women are not sterilized, they are given temporary solutions.

The men are sterilized, they are given irreversible surgery.

There is an irreversible surgery for women - they chose not to do it and to give women the same time reward as men. Unequal choices with equal reward - i.e. Sexism.

[–]SkeetShoot 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't agree with the double standard that is very obviously present. If we're talking sterilization of those incapable of long term thinking it should be permanent.

[–]SilverGryphon -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wow free vasectomies, why is this a bad thing if you don't want children?

I aint impregnating no bitch and then be forced to pay child support.

[–]rg57 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So what surgery are the women offered?

At the very least, some of them can do with some liposuction, maybe some breast implants.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter