TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • 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/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/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • 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 Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Oklahoma Democrat proposes mandatory vasectomies for boys until they reach "financial and emotional stability"

raffu280

June 27, 2022
534 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2022/05/24/oklahoma-dem-proposes-mandatory-vasectomies-for-boys-until-they-reach-financial-and-emotional-stability-1241934/
Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Oklahoma Democrat proposes mandatory vasectomies for boys until they reach "financial and emotional stability"
Author

raffu280

Upvotes 534
Comments 259
Date June 27, 2022 3:37 PM UTC
(4 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/vlybpz/oklahoma_democrat_proposes_mandatory_vasectomies/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/oklahoma-democrat-proposes-mandatory-vasectomies.1121252
https://theredarchive.com/post/1121252
Top posts by raffu280

Yale being probed by DOE, accused of "toxic environment against men"

2242 upvotes
May 19, 2018
/r/MensRights

UK female teacher, 34, had drunken sex with two 17-year-old boys in her choir after taking them home and plying them with alcohol in 2008 and 2012. Police "interviewed" her - but no prosecutions

2148 upvotes
November 15, 2018
/r/MensRights

Singer who filed charges against Trump's campaign boss claiming he slapped her ass was caught on video doing the same to a man – but claims "it's just a joke"

2126 upvotes
December 29, 2017
/r/MensRights

Actress and liberal activist Alyssa Milano calls for women to go on a “sex strike” to protest new abortion laws - promoting the narrative that women have sex only as a "concession" or gift to men, not because they enjoy sex for its own sake

1936 upvotes
May 14, 2019
/r/MensRights

Five Catholic college students charged with luring a 22-year-old soldier before they falsely accused him of being a pedophile as part of "Catch a Predator" TikTok trend

1493 upvotes
January 16, 2025
/r/MensRights

University of Washington condemns one of its own former professors for saying, “Half of the female STEM faculty in the U.S. were hired over more qualified men”

1492 upvotes
January 6, 2022
/r/MensRights

USAToday article slams Tesla cars for not appealing to women, viewing them as "impractical toys" for men. Suggested that CEO Elon Musk's male "bravado" and "aloofness" is off-putting and "untrustworthy", hurting the brand instead

1210 upvotes
July 10, 2019
/r/MensRights

A 20-year-old Pennsylvania woman admitted she fabricated kidnapping and rape allegations that kept an innocent man locked up for over a month — saying she targeted the stranger because he was “creepy”

1064 upvotes
January 25, 2025
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–][deleted] 4 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]syedalired21 16 points17 points18 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wish his father had gotten one

[–]nerdy-awesome-guy 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

A lobotomy?

[–]Ferbuggity 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That would suffice.

[–]raffu280[S] 244 points245 points246 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

"Eugenics" has come out of the shadows now.

[–]WeEatBabies 123 points124 points125 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So a genocide with feminist hypergamy as it's basis! I warned you all, but you didn't listen!

BTW they started already in Canada by refusing to receive unmarried Syrian male refugees, unmarried while woman, np! : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/23/canada-syrian-refugee-resettlement-plan-no-single-men

Also in Haiti, after the earthquake only women were given food by the U.N. saying they will share it with the family, unmarried men, starved to death by feminist eugenics! : https://www.npr.org/2010/02/01/123202099/new-program-for-food-aid-in-haiti-targets-women

[–]Geryfon 37 points38 points39 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It was always lurking, sure Planned Parenthood had connections with it back in the day.

[–]proteios1 15 points16 points17 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

its been out for several decades....

[–]Icy-Start5536 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's hyperg... oh wait, you're right

[–]Viesegel 103 points104 points105 points 4 years ago (64 children) | Copy Link

This must be the famous "bodily autonomy" they like to talk about.

[+]xMoody -60 points-59 points-58 points 4 years ago* (63 children) | Copy Link

that is literally the point he is trying to make, if you actually read the article and not just the headline.

[–]Iwarrior01 19 points20 points21 points 4 years ago (62 children) | Copy Link

What do you mean?

[+]xMoody -47 points-46 points-45 points 4 years ago (61 children) | Copy Link

he is pointing out the hypocrisy of conservatives that so easily have zero problems legislating a woman's body but wouldn't ever dream of doing the same thing to men, who are equally responsible in the child-making process.

[–]Fearless-File-3625 34 points35 points36 points 4 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

Except conservatives legislate over men's body all the fucking time, much more than women.

[+]xMoody -27 points-26 points-25 points 4 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

What laws govern men’s reproductive rights?

I’ll wait.

[–]Fearless-File-3625 25 points26 points27 points 4 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Your original comment was about "men's body" and not just reproductive rights, so this is a goalpost shift.

Parentage, child custody and child support laws all govern men's reproductive rights.

[–]jimmyvivi2 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

yea that guy is so full of shit its unbelievable.

[–]xMoody -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

No, it was not, your willful misinterpretation to try and claim goalpost shifting to avoid admitting mens reproductive rights aren’t controlled by the government is your own call. Sometimes you’re just on the wrong side of the argument, bud. It happens, try to have a bit of a less cringey reaction when it happens to you again.

[–]Fearless-File-3625 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

🤣 thanks for letting me know I am right 🤣

[–]xMoody -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

yea this is a bad look for you homie

you will argue with a lot of people and you will be right and you will be wrong and the best thing to do when you're wrong is learn from it and not do whatever this thing is you're trying to do

[–]Fearless-File-36251 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

🤣 Who is arguing? I am right and I know it. 🤣🤣🤣

[–]xMoody1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/vlybpz/comment/ie3cqob/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3

[–]Fearless-File-36251 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/vlybpz/comment/ie3dunr/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3

[–]xMoody1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Using emojis

Copying responses

You really do hate to see it

[–]Fearless-File-36251 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Acting like a bellend

Copying responses

Being a hypocrite

You really do hate to see it

[–]xMoody1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Again my dude this is a really bad look for you

You were wrong on an online forum and need to have a healthier emotional response than this

[–]Fearless-File-36251 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You need one too.

[–]NohoTwoPointOh 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Shifting the goalposts. Such a predictable tactic.

[–]xMoody -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That was my original point. Thanks for proving me right.

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

Men have no reproductive rights.

[–]ChadWolf98 17 points18 points19 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

You know that there is a great difference between mandat8ng a medical procedure vs banning it?

Proposing a bill to ban vasectomies would make more sense but these politicans are stupid to recognise that

[–]xMoody -4 points-3 points-2 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Almost like mandating a pregnancy and birth, huh?

[–]ChadWolf98 14 points15 points16 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

An abortion ban doesnt mandate a medical procedure, as pregnancy is not that

It doesnt even mandate pregmqncy

[–]xMoody -5 points-4 points-3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So you have a choice between carrying a pregnancy or not in Oklahoma? You sure about that?

[–]Avakayi 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

As someone said nobody is forcing these women to have sex and give child births and raise them all on her own Just like how nobody is forcing men to have responsibilities over a child he didn't want for 18-21 years... Oh wait that is exactly what's happening so how is govt not making laws that are restrictive towards men? . A proper way to make it as difficult for men is to ban vasectomy just like how they banned abortions.

FyI I am pro choice within certain time limit i.e with 3-4 months.

[–]xMoody -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Lmao you are sooo close to getting it. Your reaction of forcing vasectomies is the opposite direction. Neither gender should be mandated to do anything, every single person should have autonomy over their bodies when it comes to making choices about having children.

[–]theZodiaCrapper 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's very easy to not get pregnant. Insanely easy, actually.

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

Yeah well unfortunately not everyone in the world feels that way. Infact majority of the world feels the opposite way. Especially the people in power.

Is it fair ? Absolutely not. What you said in the end was absolutely correct. Everyone should be allowed complete authority over thier body when it comes pregnancy provided they don't risk the health of the mother and have the permission of father.

Welcome to unfair world or the adult world.

[–]Iwarrior01 38 points39 points40 points 4 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

I am pro choice but I understand the opinion and logic of pro lifers

Now to your argument:-

Firstly , vasectomy are partially reversible, secondly when you decide to have sex you agree to the responsibility of being pregnant. Getting pregnant is a consequence of having sex. You can't run away from the consequences of doing something.

But in this case what was the men's fault who will get forced to have vasectomy, he will be punished without any fault. Comparing that to the pro choice argument, not using condoms, not taking birth control pills and having sex were her fault. You just can't compare the two situations

[+]xMoody -27 points-26 points-25 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

>secondly when you decide to have sex you agree to the responsibility of being pregnant.

lmfao what? no. no one is agreeing to get pregnant when they have sex unless that is specifically the outcome of the session. do you actually truthfully believe that? everyone knows it CAN happen but non-procreational sex (which i would have to imagine is an ungodly overwhelming majority of all sex) is not had with the agreement to get pregnant. what a mindbogglingly incorrect statement to make.

and, he knows this isn't passing, no one wants this. again, this is just a suuuuper obvious callout of the hypocrisy of conservatives. that's it. that's all it is.

[–]Viesegel 31 points32 points33 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

no one is agreeing to get pregnant when they have sex unless that is specifically the outcome of the session

You're agreeing to take a risk. If you're not comfortable with that risk, you won't be forced to have sex.

Mandatory vasectomy is forced.

[–]xMoody -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

yes, you are agreeing to take a risk (and risks can be mitigated), but you are not agreeing to get pregnant which the person I replied to suggested they are the same thing, which they are not evne remotely close to being the same thing.

and also, mandatory carrying unwanted child to term is pretty similar. its the whole reason we have developed all of these safe methods of abortion in the first place.

[–]Iwarrior01 12 points13 points14 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I was hearing a philosophical debate and they compared this scenario to a baseball game.

Let's say you are playing a baseball game in a densely populated and packed locality in a park. You hit a shot and broke someone's window, at that point you can't say , Oh! I hit the ball but I won't take the responsibility of the window breaking as it was not what I intended to do. That's why people are given jail time even when they kill a person as an accident. If you decide to drive a car , play baseball or have sex, in any case you will have to take responsibility if something goes downhill.

In case of driving, you can prevent yourself from an accident by driving carefully, in case of baseball, prevent from breaking someone's window by playing in a safe area. In a similar way, you can prevent pregnancy by taking birth control pills and using condoms

[–]xMoody -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

choosing an abortion is taking responsibilty though so this analogy is not very good especially considering a window breaking isn't something that completely changes your body and gives you 18 years of responsibility you didn't have before.

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

Where is the responsability in abortion? It's literally made so the woman can avoid consequences of her actions

[–]xMoody -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Lmao what a fox newsian take. Women should just carry the ectopic pregnancy to term because it’s their responsibility, right??

[–]NikeTracksuit3 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why you jump to ectopic when I never said it? You want to use exceptions to prove a rule.

[–]reverbiscrap 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

no one is agreeing to get pregnant when they have sex unless that is specifically the outcome of the session

You know, that argument is absolutely put forth when men talk about Legal Paternal Surrender, and anyone who disputes its validity is called names.

[+]Anih1list -9 points-8 points-7 points 4 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

The idea having sex equals consent to pregnancy is like arguing driving a car equals consent to be crashed into, and subsequently using that as a basis to deny a car crash victim healthcare. Yes, it’s a known risk, no that doesn’t mean it’s consensual.

[–]LordJesterTheFree 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But there are ways of practicing safe sex like condoms that are over 99% effective if used properly so it's more akin to saying someone who drives recklessly is consenting to be crashed into

[–]Anih1list -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Do Republican abortion bans specify that abortions are legal if contraceptives were used? No, they don’t care whatsoever how careful or not you are, you “consent” either way. And did you forget the second part of the statement? Because you must “take responsibility” you don’t get healthcare after someone crashes into you? In fact, republicans oppose contraceptives and condoms, so this would be most akin to banning seat belts and ABS brake systems and THEN denying people healthcare once crashes happen.

Also notice that even your own incorrect interpretation of the argument is still indefensible. Do you really think a reckless driver is consenting to be crashed into?

[–]NikeTracksuit 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

No, the idea is that if you have sex you are taking a risk. Just like driving a car, if something goes bad because of you then you are gonna be held responsable.

[–]Anih1list -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Do you see the difference between “taking a risk” and “consent”? Not all pregnancies are “because of you,” just as there are safe driving habits, there is safe sex. When it’s not your own fault, insurance will cover your healthcare even in cases of rape. Republicans want to ban contraceptives and sex ed AND deny healthcare. They are anti-safety, anti-responsibility, and anti-woman.

[–]NikeTracksuit 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Again, you are talking about a tiny exception.

[–]Anih1list -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

First of all, you can’t just ignore exceptions. Either a statement is true, or it is not, and I don’t see republicans carving out exceptions. Pregnancy is not a woman’s “fault”, it is a result of man, woman, and lack of effective contraception. If republicans wanted women to be responsible, shouldn’t they be funding contraceptives and sex education rather than banning it?

[–]NikeTracksuit0 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You think that the majority of women who get pregnant do because of "not effective contraception"? Give me a fucking break. Never said that pregnancy is only women's fault, it's both. Btw no, you make people responsible by making them get a consequences from their actions. If they never get consequences they will continue have unprotected sex, getting abortions and solve their problem while murdering a life. Now they know that they either have sex when they want babies, they make 110% sure to use contraceptives or abstain. Reminds me of what men already did and are still doing.

[–]Anih1list0 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Are you dense? Unprotected sex by definition lacks effective contraception. Ending life is not murder. Ending a PERSON’s life without just cause is murder. Abortion is self-defense against a parasitic non-person draining bodily resources. You admit this is about punishing women, euphemized as “responsibility”. Why do you think 18 years of care plus costs are an appropriate punishment for having sex?

[–]NikeTracksuit0 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ok, it's their responsibility to not engage in it, not mine. A fetus is by definition a human life, it has the DNA of a human, so it's human, by aborting you are ending human life I think so because everyone knows that sex can lead to pregnancy, and if you are stupid enough to engage in sex without protection then you must face the consequences. Still, even if they get pregnant and give birth they can still abandon the kid in anonymity no question asked, so she still is not facing 18 years of punishment. The man on the other hand doesn't have this luxury. You are all blinded by women are wonderful effect because if the same arguments are made against men all you say is "he should've kept it in his pants" Sorry but I have no more empathy for women who cause their own problems and wouldn't give a fuck about me if I was in a similar situation. You are an adult, take responsibility.

[–]Anih1list0 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yeah of course it’s not your responsibility. You get to have all the unprotected sex you like, it’s always the woman who must “take responsibility”. The cancer cells taken out of Henrietta Lacks decades ago are also living and contain human DNA. There are even Fetiform Teratoma tumors that grow partial infant bodies, some with heartbeats. Do I care? No, because they are not people who think and feel.

You’re okay with a woman abandoning her child? What happened to “responsibility”? You’re saying it’s ok to force a child into life without knowledge it will have a good life? If anything, childbirth is a violation of a fetus’ consent!

No, I don’t think men “should’ve kept it in his pants,” I think he should be able to abdicate all rights and responsibilities before the child is born if he wishes. Nice try, but the only hypocrite here is you.

[–]NikeTracksuit0 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, I take responsibility too, if she wants the baby I'm forced to pay child support. I can't escape it. Your comparison is dumb, fetuses don't kill and are able to grow, tumors kill and can't develop into adults, tiny detail but nice try. A fetus has the potential to think and feel, while a tumor doesn't, and it's by definition human life, because it has human DNA and it's following human phases of life. I'm not ok with women abandoning their children, I'm stating that they still have options even if they are bitching about not being able to kill their own babies. It's not ok to force to life, but life starts when the sperm fertilizes the egg, so you should avoid that step. A person has already took all the risks about childbirth the moment he/she engages to sex. Same for you taking a drug or steroids, you don't want them to happen but if you take them you accept that those side effects can happen to you. Problem with pregnancy is that the moment another human life is involved your body it's not only yours. Plus, even if science says that the baby starts to feel around the 12nd week we can't know for sure if a random mutation or some other event appear that would make the baby feel earlier than that. The problem with your last sentence is that the baby well being comes before you, since he is in the world because of you and the mother it's your duty to provide for him. You didn't want it? Shouldn't have sex or should've used more protections.

[–]Anih1list0 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So the woman has to live 10 months with a compromised immune system, carrying a fetus around, and then care for the child. You have to pay child support. Why are the “consequences” so different in scale when clearly both of you have equal “responsibility” in creating the child? Why not admit this is a dodge and you just wanna punish sex?

Yeah, fetuses kill. Ever heard of ectopic pregnancy? Also, pregnancy reduces the immune system. It is by definition a health risk. And not all tumors kill either. Fetuses can develop into adults, but so can sperm. Should it be illegal to masturbate too? Unless you take the mother’s womb and bodily resources for granted, neither will ever develop into anything. Not that it matters, since it’s by definition impossible to wrong a person who never exists.

No, life doesn’t start at fertilization. The sperm and egg are already alive, and they are just extensions of the parents’ pre-existing life. It’s not immoral to start a life, It’s immoral to force a PERSON to begin existing, and also immoral to force a PERSON to experience suffering. Suffering begins the moment a child is born. Pregnancy is the continuous process of a person’s creation, meaning abortion is not only acceptable but morally NECESSARY.

Just because someone takes drugs doesn’t mean they shouldn’t receive treatment if they want it. Nobody needs to “accept” overdose and death even if it’s self-caused. These are not just “natural consequences” if the government can help us alleviate them and simply chooses not to help. It is a conscious choice you are making to punish women disproportionately.

No, just because someone’s predicament is my fault doesn’t mean I have to sacrifice my bodily autonomy. Even if I intentionally run someone over with my car, that does not entitle the government to force me to donate my blood to the victim I created, even if I am the only eligible donor for miles around.

[–]NikeTracksuit1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

1) Because nature wanted so. Not my fault we evolved this way. Women have lot of priviledges from this tho, like never ever worrying about not reproducing, since they have all the sexual power. Men on the other hand don't have this luxury, so both have pros and cons. I don't wanna punish sex, but sex is an act that can come with consequences, when you engage in it you should be aware. The consequences could be worst for women? Not my problem.

2) Then, in case the fetuses will kill the mother, only in that case we can allow abortion. You are making a rare case a rule when it's not the case. Sperm can't develop into an adult, because it only has half human DNA. It's by definition not human. Masturbating shouldn't be illegal for this reason, because when masturbating you are not killing any human life since the sperm DNA is not the one of a human.

3) HUMAN life starts with conception, learn how to read, and I value human life more than other forms of life. I'm familiar with Benatar writing, don't try that bullshit with me, it's immoral to start human life, that's why conception, that is the first stage of humanity, should be avoided. Suffering as much as we know can begin at any time, fetuses can start feeling suffering at 12 weeks, and you never know if they developed earlier because of random mutation and so on, so the moment your body has foreign alive human DNA is the moment you shouldn't suppress it.

4) This is a false equivalence, the only problem I have with this is that you are not creating another life and causing harm to it by suppressing it. That said, when you abuse your body you lose some priviledges. Smokers have less of a right to receive lung transplant for example, cocaine addicts same with heart transplants and so on. Plus, treatment doesn't have to involve killing the baby but helping the mother feeling better.

5) But government will punish you by throwing you in prison, you still pay in a way or another. If you want to put women who abort in prison then go on.

[–]Anih1list1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

  1. So you finally abandon the disguise you care about responsibility once you are cornered on the fact equal responsibility should mean equal consequences. No, women don’t all have sexual power. Time to bring out #NotAllWomen. Some women are ugly, and they do have to worry about reproduction. Not that it matters, since reproduction involves determining another person’s future so cannot be an individual right.

  2. Half human DNA is not human? Let’s not pretend this is anything but an arbitrary standard. Nobody cares about how many sets of funny molecules exist inside a cell. If two zygotes combined to form a chimera, we’d have two unique sets of human DNA, but only one life. If a zygote split into twins, it would be two lives but one DNA set. Additionally, plants exhibit haploidy, where spores containing only half the full genome can still produce individual plants. What you care about (but I don’t) in this instance is the ability to mature independently, and an embryo can no more do that than a sperm.

  3. If suffering starts at 12 weeks (and it doesn’t), that’s all the more reason to abort sooner rather than later or never. You keep bringing back things like “human” and “life” even though every time I challenge you on that you have to backpedal to the proper term “person”. That is, unless you think anything with the capacity to suffer should not be killed. I think death is a proper way to reduce suffering if no personal rights are violated in the process. Are you for mandatory veganism? Also, I am not influenced by Benatar.

  4. You are bringing in extraneous factors. Right now, we are only talking about responsibility and consequences. The creation of life is addressed in other sections.

  5. Government will throw you in prison not for depriving your victim of usage of your body, but for attempting murder in the first place. In either case You can still refuse to sustain the person you forced to be dependent on you, with no legal consequences. But since pregnancy, the act that caused someone to be dependent, is not illegal (yet), pregnancy followed by abortion would logically be completely legally acceptable.

[–]NikeTracksuit1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

1) huge lie, women have infinite sexual power doesn't matter how ugly they are, study biology, females of every species are valuable just because they are females and drive the reproduction. Don't believe me? Take your mum's pictures and use them on tinder and see how many dudes would sleep with her, even good looking ones. I don't think that men and women have equal responsability on reproduction, since the woman is the one that determines who will pass his genes due to her strong sexual value.

2) Half of human DNA is not human by definition, you are grasping at straws now. We are not plants nor bacteria, so those examples don't apply to us. Stick to the argument. If it has the DNA that it will have its life then it's human, simple as that. Before that it's not human.

3) I can tell by the way you write that you are heavily influenced by Benatar. Not that it matters. Suffering starts at 12 weeks, by then the nervous system is developed. However not all humans are equal, and we could have mutations that could make the baby start to feel earlier. The only safe way to be sure there will be zero suffering is to abstain from sex. I use the word person so you can't shift the goal post, by person I mean someone who has full human DNA and is able to have biological functions.

4) I'm not getting what you said. The arguments are both about responsability and the morality (other than if it should be legal or not) of abortion.

5) Pregnancy is like driving, not illegal, however since if you do both in a dangerous way and you end up killing someone (either suppressing it via abortion of hitting it with your car) you are still ending a life because of your actions, so yes, the government can't force you to do anything to save that life, but can punish you for your misbehavior. In this case, practicing something (driving, sex) in an unsafe way. In fact the only way those could be excused is if the result is not your fault (rape or someone runs under your car)

[–]Anih1list1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

  1. Wow, you've really fallen off the deep end now. First, I will point out that women having this supposed "privilege" has absolutely nothing to do with responsibility. Second of all, women "in nature" have no reproductive power because men for thousands of years just raped whatever women they could get away with raping. Nature and biology only determine "value" insofar as value means "survival of the species," which neither I nor any man uses to determine who to fuck. Women today have more responsibility of deciding who to fuck, but they do not hold more responsibility for the pregnancy that results from the fuck. After all, some man impregnates some woman regardless of which man is chosen by which woman.
  2. I never claimed we are plants. I claimed whether something can be called an individual has nothing to do with how much DNA is contained inside it. Even if we were dealing with a sentient robot with zero DNA, it could still be considered a person. Even if we were dealing with a full set of human DNA, it could be unviable or inert and still not be an individual. I'm not grasping at straws, I'm using my scientific knowledge along with logical specificity to demonstrate that your DNA requirements is simply arbitrary.
  3. I came up with all my anti-natalist arguments before I ever heard of Benatar. You do not need to convince me that I'm lying. "Someone who has full human DNA and is able to have biological functions" is a circular definition. A someone is by definition a person. Again, cancer cells have biological functions and full sets of human DNA. A sentient robot could have no DNA but still be a person. And again again, your incorrect 12-week claim would only support my argument for abortion to occur as soon as possible.
  4. Ok, so you have bitten the bullet and concluded that "unsafe sex" is "misbehavior". This is, of course, legally untenable. Murder is different from manslaughter due to difference in intent. Under your system, unsafe sex that leads to nothing is less punishable than safe sex that leads to pregnancy... Unless you'd like to criminalize unsafe sex and safe sex that leads to pregnancy to the same degree. Then we add the wrinkle of sex leading to birth, where there has (assuming no anti-natalism and embryonic personhood) been no victim of anything. Whether that birth was wanted or unwanted seems to make no difference, though it seems like the safe sex to birth people had bad intent. Also what happens to the man in each case, whether he wanted the pregnancy or agreed with the woman's decision to abort or not? There are so many action-punishment combinations for you to pick and choose from that I can't tell whether there exists one that is theoretically consistent with both your morality and modern legal theory. All I can say is it's a complete mess and I am very dubious you actually believe what you are saying despite all my efforts to be charitable.

[–]NikeTracksuit1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

1) You are moving the goal post, first you claimed that women who are ugly can't reproduce, then you claim "muh men rape" forgetting that humans are social creatures and rape was always frowned upon and socially stigmatized. By biological definition yes, survival of the fittest is what makes someone biologically valuable or not. Evolution doesn't care about your personal morals or values.

2) lol no, a sentient robot without DNA is not human, it's sentient yes, but humanity has his own definition.

3) Again with this argument, no, cancer cells are not a human being because they don't have the capacity to become anatomically a human being. A sentient robot wouldn't be a human being, it would be something else.

4) Well, yes. Whenever you engage in sex you are risking something. Just like when you drive a car. Getting pregnant with birth control would be like driving a car with your belt on and going slowly but hitting someone, getting pregnant without would be like driving a car on cocaine and alcool. It's an analogy of course. Men should pay still, because the baby is born due to his actions and now he is responsible for it.

[–]Anih1list1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

  1. No, I never conceded that women are ugly can reproduce. It really depends how ugly. I was simply pointing out that by your own goalposts your argument does not apply. I was not adopting a new set of goalposts myself, as I argued against using nature as a normative argument. You are using reproductive capability as a substitute for sexual value: that all women can get laid. Indeed, evolution doesn't care about personal values, but you are arguing that personal values do care about evolution.
    Rape in the modern definition has only recently been stigmatized. Previously, women were married off to their husbands in arranged marriages when they were like 12. That's all rape. Even rape that was considered bad was not punished, as the rapists were often soldiers from opposing kingdoms, lords, etc.
  2. I never claimed robots were humans. I claimed robots were people. Get your terms straight. Nonsentient humans are not valuable, and sentient robots are. I do not value braindead humans or embryos.
  3. Now you have shifted the goalposts. You previously said a person was someone with human DNA and biological functions, which objectively includes cancer cells. Now you have changed your definition so that all "humans are capable of being anatomical humans". But again, you keep jumping back and forth between "human" and "person". Only by assigning one aspects of another are you able to get away with this. Either you care about the personhood or you care about the human DNA, or both. But in this conversation you have demonstrated that in certain circumstances you don't care about either. You ideologically incoherent.
    To your actual point, though, embryos are not capable of developing into anatomical humans. They will simply die... UNLESS the mother supplies wombs, nutrients, etc. The same way an egg will simply die unless the father supplies sperm.
  4. Yet you seem to think abortion should be illegal in either case, while the "woman who drives with cocaine and alcohol" but doesn't end up pregnant gets off scot-free. But previously you said "having unsafe sex" was the crime. Are you sure you even understand your own argument?

[–]NikeTracksuit1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Brother I'm very tired can we continue tomorrow?

[–]auMatech 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

but wouldn't ever dream of doing the same thing to men

You know men have no reproductive rights as is, right? There's nothing left for them to legislate.

Aside from that, how about selective service? As a man in the US you have basically 0 rights without signing away your life should the government deem it fit to be thrown away... This whole 'sterilize men for a decision that both men and women of the "pro life" Camp made' is disingenuous

[–]xMoody -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The draft is not about reproductive rights homie you’re a bit off base

[–]auMatech 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You were talking about legislating People's bodies, not specifically reproductive rights.

conservatives that so easily have zero problems legislating a woman's body but wouldn't ever dream of doing the same thing to men

Sending someone to die in a war via legislation, legislates their bodies...

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

The entire conversation has always been about reproductive rights

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

You do know America has a horrible, HORRIBLE history of forced sterilization, right?

That this can even be said should be regarded as horror. They said they same thing about Native Americans and the newly freed 'slaves'.

[–]pooky311229 points 4 years ago [recovered] (15 children) | Copy Link

Typical response to female rights infringement is not to fight for their rights, but to impose “punishment” on men.

[–]shit-zen-giggles 103 points104 points105 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

of course, never miss an opportunity to be missandrist

[–]Omandaco 26 points27 points28 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's not Misandry, it's just leveling the playing field you bigot! /S

[–]Clipzy22 32 points33 points34 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean we never had reproductions rights so the playing field was already leveled somewhat.

[–]Angryasfk 56 points57 points58 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

He thinks he’s being clever. But he’s too foolish to understand the difference between banning something and compelling something.

It’s not even original. That other idiot in Pennsylvania said something similar last year in response to the Texas law. He had even less excuse since Pennsylvania law explicitly legalises abortion.

I do wish these people would find something equivalent to an abortion ban. Say holding a man financially responsible for a child he’s sired. Oh wait, they already do that don’t they!

[–]TrilIias 12 points13 points14 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I do wish these people would find something equivalent to an abortion ban. Say holding a man financially responsible for a child he’s sired. Oh wait, they already do that don’t they!

I wouldn't say holding men financially responsible is equivalent to an abortion ban. There is no male equivalent to abortion. That said, the equivalent to holding men financially responsible is holding women financially responsible, which we really don't. Even after abortion has been banned in some states, women still have more reproductive rights than men, and this moron can't see that because he's too busy making a stupid "point."

[–]MiddleReasonable647 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There’s biological asymmetry baked into the cake, there’s no way to make reproduction “fair”.
Women carry babies, that’s how it’s done, there is nothing “fair” about it.
Feminists want to make everything equal and fair, that’s their first mistake.

[–]NikeTracksuit 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not even fair, they want to make it worst for men, we have lots of biological disadvantages too, feminists don't care. Do you think they care about male disposability? Or about the fact that sex is something a woman has never to worry about, but for some men is impossible to get? They don't care about equality, they want our advantages without our disadvantages.

[–]The_Dapper_Balrog 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's not even a ban, which is the really dumb thing. They're screaming about how abortion is now illegal, when it's not. Not a single state has banned medically-necessary abortions, nor abortions in the cases of rape or incest (the only state where abortions for the latter are currently illegal, Alabama, is actively in the process of changing that). The only thing that any state has banned is elective abortion, and many states haven't even banned that.

This is overblown.

[–]Angryasfk 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

On the contrary, many states actively make abortion on demand legal. I’ve not doubt the majority, probably the large majority of Americans live in states where abortion is legal, and is likely to remain so.

[–]FastestSpermFromDad 55 points56 points57 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

They fact they are blaming men to begin with shows just how sexist people can be to men. Man support pro-choice nearly as much as women, and in fact when circumstances are added like rape and health, men are more open to abortion than women. (I posted the Pew stuff on this in a thread yesterday).

It's a clear religious/political issue, but they can not help but blame and attack men. This issue years ago is the exact reason I hate feminism as I realized how unreal sexist they are as they ALWAYS choose to demonize men over fighting for the things they say not that they want, but need. I can not think of a single issue feminism does not claim men caused, not a single one. Like God damn, they even blame women not going into engineering on men somehow.

[–]Angryasfk 24 points25 points26 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

We can thank feminists for that. Abortion certainly is an issue of particular importance to women. But by framing it as a “men vs women” issue, they’ve lost touch with reality.

[–]TrilIias 22 points23 points24 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

They did the same with women's suffrage. In reality, men were slightly more likely to support women's suffrage than women were, and most women opposed it. But feminists have successfully rewritten history, so now most people think it's a given that the fight for women's suffrage was women against men when it absolutely never was. I guarantee you if we aren't careful, in 100 years people might just think that the battle over abortion we are seeing today was also a fight between men and women.

Source

[–]Angryasfk 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Feminists already see it that way.

As for abortion. Well we can’t see the future. Future generations may have the same level of disgust for us being so cavalier about abortion as present day people are over past generations having slavery.

It would be deeply ironic if todays woke statue pullers are vilified by their future equivalents as selfish baby killers!

[–]TrilIias 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It would also be heavily ironic if they manage to convince future generations that men are generally pro-life and that women are generally pro-choice only for future generations to see abortion as the slavery of our time.

As you say, we can't see the future, but I think the tendency seems to be to move away from those saying "they aren't really human."

[–]Illuminaughtyy3 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Every time abortion laws get passed, they attack gun rights.

This is what their mindless tit for tat has gotten them.

They just couldn't imagine that they weren't the more popular side and that they could actually lose, because they exist only in their safe spaces and echo chambers.

[–]63daddy 139 points140 points141 points 4 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

There’s a couple other states that have pushed such bills. It’s not humorous, it’s misandrist and a waste of taxpayer dollars that states waste time on such bills.

It’s also a very flawed analogy. I vasectomy isn’t equivalent to an abortion, it’s more equivalent to a tubal ligation and no state is banning tubal ligations.

There’s also a big difference between requiring a procedure and prohibiting a procedure. No state is forcing women to undergo any procedure, so again it’s a ridiculous analogy.

Many of these same democrat politicians are backing the new, incredibly anti-male title ix mandates. It’s hypocritical to advocate discrimination against males, then complain men aren’t rushing to support a “women’s issue”.

[–]rahsoft 40 points41 points42 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It’s not humorous, it’s misandrist and a waste of taxpayer dollars that stated waste time in such bills.

it tells me that they are unfit for duty , regardless of whatever subject there is.

it also a dereliction of duty for public office.

dont know why people vote them in.

pick stupid people, get stupid result

you would have thought that electing biden would have shown them that..

[–]shit-zen-giggles 16 points17 points18 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

idiots gonna idiot

[–]Angryasfk 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed he’s not that bright. But I think it’s more grandstanding, and getting national attention, which he’s getting. Perhaps (as the article infers) he thinks he’ll get to Washington via such stunts.

[–]manicmonkeys 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They were voted in because they pander to their zombie constituents.

[–]AirSailer 55 points56 points57 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Maybe women need to be forced to get tubal ligation as well, then abortion will be less of an issue.

[–]CawlinAlcarz 35 points36 points37 points 4 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Actually, women aren't sterilized as a result of tubal ligation. Their eggs can be harvested and fertilized via IVF and implanted back in their uterus.

Edit: neither are men sterilized from a failure to reverse a vasectomy. Sperm can be harvested in an essentially analogous procedure to egg harvesting, and subsequently used for IVF.

FYI more goes into reversing a vasectomy than just reconnecting the plumbing. Even after "successful" restoration of the plumbing, swimmers don't always flow.

"Reversibility" statistics don't always tell this whole story and typically only refer to surgical reconnection of the vas deferens, while not actually addressing actual restoration of fertility - i.e. motile, viable sperm in ejaculate.

[–]denyjunctionfunction 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

If a vasectomy fails to be reversible, that's the end of the genetic line for that man.

That’s not right. Consider a quick search before posting medical information. Sperm can be extracted from the testicles, which is analogous to extracting eggs from ovaries, and used in IVF.

TESA is a procedure performed for men who are having sperm retrieved for IVF/ICSI. It is done with local anesthesia in the operating room or office and is coordinated with their female partner’s egg retrieval. A needle is inserted in the testicle and tissue/sperm are aspirated. TESA is performed for men with obstructive azoospermia (s/p vasectomy).

[–]bottleblank 16 points17 points18 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh, good, well, that's alright then. >50% of men wanting a child later in life can just go and get stabbed in the bollocks to make it happen!

Problem solved, I guess.

(I appreciate your contribution to the factual content of this thread, but I don't think it even remotely makes the original article's suggestion acceptable in any way.)

[–]denyjunctionfunction 13 points14 points15 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I appreciate your contribution to the factual content of this thread, but I don't think it even remotely makes the original article's suggestion acceptable in any way.

I don’t either. I just don’t want arguments to go down the same route of spreading misinformation like “vasectomies are totally and easily reversible” lol

[–]CawlinAlcarz 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually, thank you for the correction! I was unaware of this procedure, and am glad to know about it.

I actually Googled this a while back but my search terms were not very good, so again, humbly and sincerely, thanks!

[–]Angryasfk 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think you’ve got a point. It’s easier for a woman to have children after tubal litigation than it is for a man judging from those NHS stats.

[–]Angryasfk 10 points11 points12 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Absolutely! I’ve tried making the same point.

And that’s why they’re not making any impact except with the converted.

Abortion: whether it should be legal and under what limits is a reasonable discussion for a society. It comes down to a question of when someone can be considered a person. If someone kicks a pregnant woman in the stomach and causes her to miscarry, feminists have no qualms about that thug being charged with murder rather than just common assault. So they’re not even consistent on this.

[–]63daddy 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I find that double standard frustrating. Whichever way one supports a fetus it makes no sense to say a fetus isn’t a human when it comes to abortion but is in other circumstances. That’s hypocritical.

[–]Angryasfk 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It’s female supremacy pure and simple. A woman WANTS a baby: it’s a person and killing it is murder; she doesn’t want it? It’s not a person, not a child, doesn’t exist, is just a clutch of cells and part of her body. It’s all down to a woman’s will.

[–]RecoveringCoomer 117 points118 points119 points 4 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

That's stupid. Vasectomies are irreversible. They'll end up permanently sterilizing boys. It would be child abuse.

[–]babybopp 21 points22 points23 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Dude wasn't serious. He was being sarcastic. The republican governor said he will sign any prolife bill. Dude was showing the absurdity of the abortion bill ... Read the article..

[–]RecoveringCoomer 25 points26 points27 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was hoping this was a joke, thanks. In this clown world that we live in, sometimes it is hard to tell.

[–]BrooksMentality13 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why isn’t this the top comment😭

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

So what? It is still not accetable behavior, and punishment should be due.

[+]bastiroid -96 points-95 points-94 points 4 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

Vasectomies are reversible, know a guy who had his fixed and got a kid. It's not that big of a surgery either Edit: Oh wow, downvoted for stating a fact. Come on guys we are better then this. Comment below even shows the numbers.

[–]No-Season2-No-Life 87 points88 points89 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's estimated that the success rate of a vasectomy reversal is:

75% if you have your vasectomy reversed within 3 years

up to 55% after 3 to 8 years

between 40% and 45% after 9 to 14 years

30% after 15 to 19 years

less than 10% after 20 years

Additionally your sperm motility will be considerably less after it happens due to formation of scar tissue in the tubes that carry the sperm, so even if it was reversed you'll still have a great deal of difficulty.

Source: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/vasectomy-reversal-nhs/

[–]Angryasfk 21 points22 points23 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nice to see some figures on this. Thank you.

[–]Geryfon 13 points14 points15 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for providing some facts and backing them up with sources👍

[–]ThEGr33kXII 37 points38 points39 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I once knew this women that smoked 60 cigarettes a day from 10 years old and lived till she was 105 years old. I don't think smoking causes cancer...

/S

Love your argument. Maybe you'd like to cite some statistics instead of "this one guy"?

[+]bastiroid -37 points-36 points-35 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What is wrong with my argument? They are reversible. Did I ever state 100%, no. The next comment below even shows the numbers. This sub is going down the drain recently.

[–]ThEGr33kXII 10 points11 points12 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it's the situation. Your comment came off as "It's fine because <anecdotal evidence>".

If this proposal gets put through then there would still be men, partners unable to have children for no good reason. Seems ruining even one person's life without giving them choice is a bit... Dark.

[+]Suspicious-Bid-9583 -18 points-17 points-16 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just people trolling u dude

[–]randomjack420 21 points22 points23 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Actually they become less reversible as time goes one. By the time some of these young men were capable under this korons proposal theybwould be sterile.

[+]bastiroid -21 points-20 points-19 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes you are right. Not agreeing with the proposal, just correcting incorrect information

[–]PlatypusPristine9194 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

just correcting incorrect information

No, the person who posted the actual figures was correcting incorrect information. You basically lied by omission.

[–]Angryasfk 19 points20 points21 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I used to hear it bandied about that they’re 96% reversible and all that. Turns out that’s not true. And the reversal is clearly far more complicated than the snip.

[–]bastiroid -5 points-4 points-3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Not denying that at all. 75% after 3 years apparently

[–]Angryasfk 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That’s not very long though. Especially if you do it to a kid of 12.

[–]Algoresball 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They’re irreversible most of the time.

[–]AspirationsOfFreedom 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You know, if you look it up for 20 secounds you would understand that you are wrong...

But i guess its just easier to say "we are better than this" and continue to spread missinformation? :P

[+]anonymousaspossable -22 points-21 points-20 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

First time disagreeing with the men's rights incels?

[–]Legitimate-Ad-6267 -5 points-4 points-3 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

No they aren't.

[–]babno 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Yes and no. Reversals have a ~90% success rate if done within a few years of the procedure, and it starts going down with more time. 10% isn't all that rare, and any doctor will tell you to treat the decision as if it is permanent, because there is a good chance it will be.

[–]Legitimate-Ad-6267 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

That's all true of course, but saying it's irreversible is simply misinformation. It is sometimes irreversible and the chances of it being irreversible go up as time passes, but in a short spam of time it's most often reversible.

[–]Hamakua 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

That's a bad faith argument. A revolver with 5 empty chambers and a 6th live and loaded one who's trigger is pulled while pointing at someone alive isn't "not dangerous."

This is a case of the high-impact low(er) probability negative consequence being of such a high impact compared to "nothing happening" that the entire act should be categorized as "dangerous" (in the case of the gun) or "irreversible" (as a default in the case of the vasectomy.) - This is how doctors currently treat vasectomies "presume they are irreversible" to the point that in many jurisdictions a man needs permission from his wife to get one.

There are other layers of the argument too.

There is a distinct difference of degree between not letting a specific race drink at a water fountain and condemning a specific race to hard labor and servitude as property just because of their race. Both are bad, one is significantly worse than the other chiefly because there is a difference between coercing (forcing) someone to do something they don't want to do and restriction - disallowing someone to do something they might want to do.

If the degree and importance of the degree between these two concepts is lost on you then you aren't equipped to understand why your argument isn't sound.

[–]Legitimate-Ad-6267 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

That's a bad faith argument. A revolver with 5 empty chambers and a 6th live and loaded one who's trigger is pulled while pointing at someone alive isn't "not dangerous."

Its dangerous, but saying "you're guaranteed to die" is flat out lying. Saying "it's irreversible" implies that you mean it's always irreversible, which isn't true. That's my whole point.

[–]Hamakua 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You seem to be reading past the core point of, for example, why doctors require the spouse of husbands in some jurisdictions to also agree to the husband's vasectomy. I can only imagine this as being bad faith because I personally do not presume ignorance.

[–]Legitimate-Ad-6267 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This is all completely irrelevant to my point. Surely you have better things to do than complain about a minor correction.

[–]Hamakua 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You position is no more valid than the person you originally retorted to by your own metrics. I point out (and the medical industry agrees with and disagrees with your position) that a 10% irreversible rate is not low enough to be categorized by those who's entire job is to understand these things to be framed as not "irreversible" because of the high-impact result of it being the case.

You are trying to frame the distinction as a "minor correction" it is not. It's a high-impact situation that you are ignoring and not folding into the probability. This is bad faith argumentation.

[–]Legitimate-Ad-6267 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

(and the medical industry agrees with and disagrees with your position)

K. I'm right and wrong. That's all you needed to say.

You are trying to frame the distinction as a "minor correction" it is not. It's a high-impact situation that you are ignoring and not folding into the probability. This is bad faith argumentation.

They said it's irreversible. I said it wasn't always. That's pretty damn minor, considering this is the bottom of a reddit comment section. Stop trying to make problems where they don't exist, and I guarantee you'll be a much happier person.

[–]bottleblank 62 points63 points64 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oklahoma Democrat can go swallow an untied load.

Fuck outta here with this bullshit. Talk about equality, jesus, you might as well just fire us all into the sun. You know you want to.

[–]DavidByron2 30 points31 points32 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Politicians used to pander to the KKK in the same way, back in the 1920s.

Pandering to (popular) hate movements; politics 101.

[–]whatafoolishsquid 13 points14 points15 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I despise Republicans too, but if there's a party that should get criticized for pandering, it's the Democrats. They basically have no consistent platform and will just take whatever inflammatory position stirs up voters that year.

[–]DavidByron2 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They're the same party. Or they were until Trump.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/vk0p7f/if_anyone_cares_this_is_why_i_think_roe_v_wade/

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

there's a party that should get criticized for pandering, it's the Democrats.

Uh, arent we doing that RIGHT NOW? Doesn't that happen often in the various men's issues focused subs? Or the various conservative subs?

[–]Angryasfk 13 points14 points15 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Clearly being a sm@rt@rse.

Honestly I’m sick of these idiots claiming that mandatory vasectomies are the equivalent of abortion bans. There is a clear difference between preventing someone from doing something and forcing them to do something.

These people actually think that vasectomies are fully reversible too. Which apparently isn’t the case.

[–]BigpapiiJ 10 points11 points12 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The fact this is the way anyone chose to utilize their time 🤡

[–]Sorry_Criticism_3254 16 points17 points18 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hahahahhahahaha!

My body, my choice, until it comes to men's bodies. Then it's, 'my body, your choice.'

[–]proteios1 16 points17 points18 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

this law actually read like a temper tantrum from a 3 year old who just wants some attention no matter how foolish they have to act to get it.

[–]RetrogradeIntellekt 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So men bare sole responsibility for preventing pregnancy. The woman is just a passive agent with no will of her own. But also men get no say in what happens after pregnancy occurs because women actually do have wills of their own and only their will matters.

Makes sense.

[–]Redbearded_Monkey 10 points11 points12 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Boys, fuck this shit. They are just getting worse,they will want our heads before they give in to common sense. Fuck this, this is insane, i won't be made criminal and less than human or a man because society has lost their collective mind on the subject.

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

I propose mandatory lobotomy to politicians who talk this level of stupid

[–]Monster3gamez 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Tvh I feel sorry for all Americans

[–]Practical-Rip6471 12 points13 points14 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The electorate needs to severely punish that Democrat for uttering something so vile and nasty. Previously from history a certain political party and movement tried just such a remedy. His did that turn out for them and their place in history.

Vasectomies are only reversible in 50℅ of operations, therefore he's actually advocating for the sterilisation of 50℅ of boys, because women can't be held to the consequences of their own actions.

Is he going to call for just as intrusive operations on equally young girls until they prove that they are also financially and emotionally stable?

He needs to be recalled and voted out of office immediately.

[–]g1455ofwater 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A threat of violence towards all men and a hate crime. Have the other Democrats denounced him and asked him to resign?

[–]MainstreamAcceptance 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It's legislative trolling. They don't actually want those laws to pass (and probably will ultimately vote against them) and it's basically just a ridiculously petty way of "owning the rightoids".

[–]DirtyPartyMan 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Enough with the ridiculousness. Let’s put away the religion and move forward as a society.

Look at Iran. Afghanistan. They used to be pretty cool places.

Now they’re shit boxes. Why? Religion.

[–]JudgementalChair 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm financially and emotionally stable, but I will lose both of those when I have a child

[–]Anih1list 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

“Undoubtedly the proposal is intended to be humorous and is a transparent attempt to “own” state Republicans.” Jokes on him, though, republicans don’t care about male bodily autonomy either (circumcision)

[–]pm_me_your_buttbulge 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You'd be surprised how many women learn about tubal ligation reversal... and when they are told "ok, as long as women do something similar" all of a sudden they do a 180 and talk about "fairness".

That's the funny thing. They don't want equality.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Apparently, forbidding a medical procedure is equivalent to mandating a medical procedure.

Arguments like the ones this Democrat are making are embarrassing to me, as a pro-choice person.

[–]FormedFecalIncident 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well according to most liberals you can’t assume anyone’s gender anymore so I guess everyone has to be sterilized at birth.

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

Democrats being Democrats....same old story.

[–]troubledtimez 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Everything is getting weirder day by day

[–]drunkard26 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Better kill me first before you come for my nuts

[–]alclarkey 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You guys do realize this is just another stunt to try and make some idiotic point about abortion/the demise of Roe V Wade right?

[–]jadedlonewolf89 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So they’re punishing children that don’t even have the right to vote by trying to take away basic human rights and dehumanizing them. Kudos I suppose for having the audacity to show the world exactly what kind of monster you’re capable of being. Also why does it seem like every year politicians seem more and more like power hungry terrorists?

[–]Legitimate-Ad-6267 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Overturning roe v wade will be good for men!"

Overturning roe v wade:

[–]Prospectw 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

This is beyond fucked up. Seeing things like this makes my choice of not moving to the US all the more justified.

[–]thinkb4youspeak 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So hopefully this sub is starting to see that red and blue are both terrible for men AND women and you should try voting for progressives. Just for shits and giggles. How could people who trust a dude who has been fighting for working people and the regulation of capitalism for more years than most of us have been alive be worse than red and blue.

How about safety orange and yellow?

[–]throwaway202108211 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

To help with doing that, the power of the two parties in blocking third party candidates needs to be reduced.

​

RNC and DNC handpicks nominees that stick to the establishment party platform, even for those like Bernie Sanders or Ron Paul that have no choice but to run as democrat or republican, respectively, in order to stand a chance of winning the presidency.

There is also the issue of delegates and superdelegates, which can also result in the RNC and DNC chairs gaming the system to push their favored nominee.

Then there is the issue of closed primaries, political party sanctioned media blackouts of third party candidates, and RNC and DNC higher ups blocking access of third party candidates from presidential debates.

Some ways this could be addressed imo:

  • elect more third party candidates (libertarians, green party, socialists) to Congress, so that they can vote for reform in the election and debating process that currently favors a two party duopoly, as well as having a better chance of pushing for Citizen United to be challenged to put a cap on dark money and unlimited campaign contributions to duopoly parties
  • rank choice voting
  • striking a compromise of closed primaries, but reinstating the Fairness Doctrine to ensure that third party candidates with reasonable platforms (so no nazis, racial nationalists, religious theocrats, or genocidal or authoritarian type parties) get proper coverage too when they are running in primaries
  • RNC and DNC should not be in charge of hosting presidential debates, a non partisan committee should.

[–]freerossulbrich 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Can that be reversed?

[–]ivanoud 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fuck off, don't touch the boys

[–]THX8819 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Interesting how this went from an argument for supposed bodily autonomy to suggesting mandatory reproductive procedures done to half the population. For what? Revenge? That’s not constitutional.

[–]BrodieS11 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Canadian here... bring back the god danm coat hanger clinics and call it even, it'd shut em up...

[–]Imaginary-Luck-8671 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why would we reward threatening to sterilize boys?

If anything, it’s time to go after voting rights next, until they’re signing up to the draft like men are forced to

[–]KazukiYahashi 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Good thing I’m not in the US, where this is actually crazy enough to become a reality.

With that said, my religion doesn’t allow me to get a vasectomy anyways lol

[–]randomjack420 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As an Oklahoman with two boys, one that is reaching that age now. It will literally be over my dead body. Good thing Oklahoma is a red atare and won't pass such an absurdity.

[–]Forsaken_Mode_2173 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh nice... Awesome... What a wonderful day to read.

[–]EviessVeralan 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The tendency of some women to demand that men have to be responsible for their choices is astounding.

[–]gnarlin 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is there a competition for the most evil and stupid ideas in the USA right now?

[–]weirdornxtlvl 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

How about mandatory vasectomies for women until they reach financial and emotional stability.

[–]alclarkey 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Well, it's physically impossible to give a woman a vasectomy, but I take your point.

[–]weirdornxtlvl -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not here trying to argue specific medical terms, you should already know what is meant by female "vasectomy".

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

Which is why I said, "But I take your point".

[–]Poormidlifechoices -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, it's physically impossible to give a woman a vasectomy,

Welcome to reddit new poster. I'm afraid you might be in for a shock at what some people believe here.

[–]Sensitive-Ad6609 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I do lean towards democrat, but hell no. Bs!!! :/

[–]mee8Ti6Eit 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Are you Michael Jackson? Seeing how far the democrats have gone, you must be leaning horizontally

[–]Sensitive-Ad6609 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hmm?

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

what you did there, i see it

[–]Huffers1010 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Discussion of the actual medical implications of this are a mistake, because it's never going to happen. OK, in extremis, crazier things have happened in history, but I don't think anyone, including Dollens, actually intends this to be a serious policy, and we make ourselves look credulous by discussing it as a serious idea.

In short, he's very nearly kidding around for political gain.

What matters is that if someone made this sort of statement, even in the pursuit of some sort of political irony, about women, he would be politically destroyed, his career ruined and he would be required to resign in ignominy. Something similar happened in the UK a year or so ago when a very unpleasant UK politician called Jenny Jones, who I think we can safely describe as an utterly repugnant, hardline, ultra-fundamentalist feminist extremist, proposed in a house of government that all men should be banned from being outside after 6pm.

Jones claimed, as Dollens probably would, that she was being ironic. She kept her job.

This is the sort of extremism that makes moderate and reasonable people start to question the mainstream narrative.

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

It's not kidding around if it goes on the books as a proposed state bill.

It's not kidding if anyone in their state legislature actually votes "yea" on it.

It's not a joke that it's a real bill proposal.

[–]alclarkey 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's a bit like jokingly pointing a loaded gun at your friend. You may have absolutely no intention of killing your friend, but you're also a gigantic idiot.

[–]Huffers1010 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I take your point, to a degree.

That said, I would confidently assume Dollens has said this in the full confidence it won't actually happen.

Yes, to an extent this is brinkmanship, and brinkmanship is dangerous and hard to control, but I would assume that in his brain it's a bit of political posturing he doesn't expect to come to pass, and he will have done it on that basis.

Yes, he's shatteringly stupid, on several levels, and I say that in the knowledge that he's on the side of American politics that in general I find least offputting.

[–]Scumbaggio1845 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He’s suggesting we sterilise the male population and we’re supposed to take this seriously?

First of all how dare he even suggest such a disgustingly invasive and life changing procedure just for being male in such a flippant manner. He should never be allowed to have any influence over other peoples lives because of his clear bias and lack of compassion. Also this sort of willingness to play to the crowd indicates a significant and worrying lack of honour or moral fortitude.

Secondly this is not the appropriate, mature adult reaction to the SCOTUS situation that should be being voiced, this is just regurgitating the type of horrendous anti male hatred we see in other places on Reddit we shall not name.

[–]rabel111 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Typical of the feminist left, their misandry comes out guns blazing whenever they don't get everything they want. Climate change? KILLALLMEN. Abortion laws? KILLALLMEN. Democracy? KILLALLMEN. The sun rises? KILLALLMEN.

[–]zach010 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think people have been suggesting this as a gotcha, but it doesn't work. It just makes the person suggesting it look crazy.

[–]sunlitekid01 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

🤦🏿🤦🏿🤦🏿

[–]Icy-Start5536 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't vote for this guy.

[–]ThrownAWAYthot88 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Calm down fellas. This dude is repeating an internet meme to make a point. Infringing on bodily autonomy isn't right for men or woman. Even if he wasn't there is literally no way it would EVER be passed into law. And if by some dystopian disaster it was there would mass chaos.

This isn't feminist rhetoric.

This isn't a cry for sterilization or eugenics.

It's a guy trying to make a point about how fucked up this situation is.

[–]Halafax 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's a guy trying to make a point about how fucked up this situation is.

He manages to get almost everything in the comparison exactly wrong.

[–]ThrownAWAYthot88 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I never said he was doing a good job.

[–]JoryATL 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My Ar 15 that you will heve to peyvfrom my cold dead hands will be defending my son. You hwve been warned

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

“I would invite you to co-author a bill that I’m considering next year that would mandate that each male, when they reach puberty, get a mandatory vasectomy that’s only reversible when they reach the point of financial and emotional stability,” Rep. Dollens said in his remarks on the state House floor. “If you think that’s crazy, then I think that maybe you understand how 50% of Oklahomans feel, as well.”

The bill is satire.

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

I would rather it be illegal for you to reproduce before 25. Obviously if abortion is illegal than that isn’t a option but if they’re a legal adult and haven’t filed for an exemption yet then the state takes them into foster care or they have to provide adoptive parents. It’s the least flawed system I can think of. Oh, and for the love of Fuck a proper sex education. Even if they have to put in “the only fool proof way to prevent an STD or pregnancy is abstinence” if it’ll satiate the religious folk, but then follow it with actual facts about how to use the available contraceptives.

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

OK. You convinced me. Nobody gets my vote anymore.

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

Not all vasectomies are reversible.

[–]Fitzftw7 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What… the fuck…

Look, I agree that people in a poor financial state shouldn’t be having kids, but this isn’t the answer.

[–]Anih1list 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well damn I’d never be able do reverse that then.

[–]Organic-Brotha 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Let’s not forget that prolonged vasectomies have an extremely low reversal rate

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

That’s funny, because I have never seen womens reproductive rights associated with their finances… literally ever

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

He should go fuck himself.

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

Not defending this shit bag but he said it was more used as a point because he believes the government is controlling females so he wanted to see how people react

[–]Flaky-Illustrator-52 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Very well, as long as the same is done to females via tubal ligations

[–]McFeely_Smackup1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This monkey thinks wasting legislature time with satire is the same as governing.

[–]Apocalypse23x1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And once again men are reduced to nothing more than a pay check.

[–]sithsidefarax1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

🤣🤣🤣🤣- that's all I can input

[–]Madlynumb1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

would save a lot of women and children from suffering.

[–]nerdy-awesome-guy -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

These kinds of people are asking for a beating/shooting/burning/whatever the hell else is painful!

[–]NeoNotNeo -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wow. And there is no need for a Mens Rights Movement.

[+]xMoody -7 points-6 points-5 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

lot of actual braindead people in here. this is obviously not intended to pass and only introduced to highlight the hypocrisy of the ease at which government tries to control women's bodies but won't consider doing it to men

[–]Huffers1010 13 points14 points15 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree entirely that people don't look smart by addressing this as a serious policy.

That said, I think two things are important. I should preface these remarks by saying I fully support access to abortion as it exists in many developed nations and I find the recent changes in the US horrifying; don't assume I'm saying this because I have some hidden anti-abortion agenda, because I don't.

So.

First, if you did take this seriously, you'd have to admit that vasectomy is an active surgical intervention, and forcing it on half the population is not in any sense comparable to withholding abortion solely from people who request it. As a political move, this doesn't really work to highlight any particular hypocrisy because it isn't a reasonable comparison.

Second, the effect it will have is to hand ammunition to people with an anti-abortion agenda, who can now correctly point to this as an example of their political opponents proposing reprehensible things. This sort of political rhetoric deepens divisions and is an incredibly bad idea.

In the end it's very unlikely to have the effect Dollens thinks it will and the effects it will have are bad for absolutely everyone.

[–]duhhhh 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

to highlight the hypocrisy of the ease at which government tries to control women's bodies but won't consider doing it to men

My the ignorance is strong in this one...

[–]pappo4ever -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Well you people already let hospitals cut a section of your dick, this is like just finishing the job.

[–]aallport -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There's a very good thread from a historian of vasectomys that goes into how weak the "mandatory vasectomies" argument is:

https://twitter.com/sniphist/status/1540765313511219200?t=3IUG1nMri73kecaB8GB63w&s=09

Nb: Very much pro choice, I don't believe anyone should be forced into parenthood!

[–]ApprehensiveGuest698 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Tolerant left, everyone. Just as tolerant as we all remember.

[–]Great-Flan-5896 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's crazy psycho time.

[–]WingsofSky -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Damn. Another politician said this. Thought a Delaware politician wanted something like this.

Some woman.

[–]nigerundayooosmokey -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[–]intrsurfer6 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Clearly this isn't a serious bill; he introduced it to make the point that if the government can regulate women's bodies with Abortion, it can also do the same for men. Calm down, guys

[+]blade_imaginato1 -6 points-5 points-4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Obviously the bill isn't serious, morons. It's mocking the recent scotus decision.

[–]TheOnlyDijaini -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

As stated before, when this was posted previously, this isn't real but instead is a shaming tactic only taken seriously by conspiracy theorists and the gullible.

Men's rights has enough problems with being taken seriously without getting labeled as a group full of crazy nut jobs who can't discern reality from sarcasm.

This is a stupid article for the following reasons:

  1. Vasectomies have only a 40% reversal success rate after 9 to 14 years. About the same time as a young man will become more emotionally stability but long before they are financially stable.

  2. Doctors will barely give consenting 30 year old adults a vasectomy much less a developing child. It is unethical and goes against the hypocratic oath.

  3. This is pushing the idea that Democrats are out to get you. They aren't. They aren't even doing the basic stuff democrats want them to do. Seriously, you're just not that important to them.

  4. No parent would subject their child to this and I know for a fact that those parents will arm themselves and attempt to kill anyone who attempts a medical procedure on their child without their consent.

Let's stick to actual men's rights issues instead of politically motivated bs.

[+]salty_missile -9 points-8 points-7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Bro, it literally says in the article it's a joke.

[+]elenapli -20 points-19 points-18 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Come on, this is not serious. It is to show how ridiculous it is to restrict women's access to safe legal abortions.

[–]duhhhh 19 points20 points21 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

What would you say if a male senator pushed a bill for mandatory clitoridectomies in an effort to ban unnecessary circumcisions?

[–]Imaginary-Luck-8671 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And that analogy isn’t even as bad as this bullshit

[+]elenapli -14 points-13 points-12 points 4 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

I would say the same thing. It is to get attention. I wouldn't waste my outrage on a joke.

[–]barebackblackjack 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn't waste my outrage on a joke.

An r/ Men'sRights post today about an infant boy dying after circumcision. You think it's funny?

[–]Halafax 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They do.

[–]elenapli -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

no, I don't think a baby dying is funny, seems like you are purposefully misunderstanding me. I am outraged out that babies death but not about this proposed bill about mandatory vasectomies which is clearly a joke to draw attention the fact that people lost the right to abortion.

[+][deleted] -9 points-8 points-7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It’s meant to be a parody of the pro-life movement.

Read the room, guys

[+]oceansarevast -37 points-36 points-35 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

This is not a bad idea at all. This way boys are protected against (1) females in heat in casual contacts, (2) unwanted pregnancies of girlfriends / wife. (3) No assumed father by default by courts. (4) The extra work needed to become fertile again gives time to the man to really get to know his girlfriend. (5) Females actively negotiating reversing vasectomy gives the man awareness of his sexual and mating value. (7) shifting resources to understanding male mating strategies as low birthrate becomes an economical crisis. I can go on...but they got my endorsement.

[–]Monster3gamez 22 points23 points24 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Boys can start puberty at the age 9 And It's estimated that the success rate of a vasectomy reversal is: 75% if you have your vasectomy reversed within 3 years. up to 55% after 3 to 8 years. between 40% and 45% after 9 to 14 years So by the time they are " financially stable " let's say 21 that shit has a 60% fail rate to be undone

[–]Ferbuggity 24 points25 points26 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Never mind the mental and emotional trauma...... but boys don't matter to these monsters on that front either,

[+]oceansarevast -21 points-20 points-19 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good, less kids born, more females become aware of their stupid ideas. Sometimes you need to lose to win.

[–]bottleblank 21 points22 points23 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

FGM: Very bad, prevent at all costs, evil, evil practice.

MGM: Whatever, sure, it's not as bad as FGM.

Mandatory vasectomy for all teenage boys: Great idea. Let's do it. Against their will, even though they're approaching an age where they have the capability to understand exactly what's going on, but no opportunity to refuse consent.

Christ on a bike.

People wonder why men were so blasé about the abortion thing.

Look in a fucking mirror.

[–]Imaginary-Luck-8671 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Right? Why the fuck should men care, given how mens reproductive rights are treated, this bullshit virtue signaling proposal included

[–]Monster3gamez 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yea no. I dont want no knife even close to my genitals

[–]Snakes1904 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This comment is just stupid, There is no guarantee that vasectomy can be reversed successfully. The reversal success rate keep declining as years pass.

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

Fuck no. That shits not really reversable

[–]Ptoney1 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fellas, if you don’t have money, you ain’t gettin NO HONEY

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

Wouldn't it make more sense to ban vasectomies? That seems more similar to banning abortions. The analogy to mandatory vasectomies would be mandatory abortions, right?

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

And allow them to have sex with impunity? That would go against all our good Christian values…

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

Errbody here wetting their pants at the idea of having their bodies legislated. You do get what this is every time it’s posted right? They’re getting you to react EXACTLY how they want, in order to prove their point. We all know it ain’t gonna happen. It’s a “modest proposal.” Y’all sound like a bunch of wound up biddies pretending like this is even close to a real threat. Just laugh and enjoy the fact that you don’t have to worry about it and go along with your day.

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

He's saying this in Oklahoma, which is 80% Republican. Who exactly is he pandering to?

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

Injustice anywhere is an excuse for injustice everywhere?

[–]AppropriateNet8777 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That statement is so fuckin retarded

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

They don’t really mean this. A eugenics program would eliminate the left after a few generations. They are just spouting nonsense.

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

Who will be responsible in cases of medical complications?

Who will be responsible if reversal didn't work?

Who will determine if 'financial and emotional stability' reached?

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

You guys are dumb. This is meant to be a retort to the abortion ban. Given that you guys are super pissed means you fell for it. Bravo.

Listen, I'm all for men's rights. I'm not getting married due to laws. I think we were actually on a roll playing the long game. What was failed to realize is that this isn't the 70s and more people are becoming non religious and support bodily autonomy (and for those who don't, prolifers get abortions too except they turn around and shun the procedure after they got it because they're different). This isn't helping the cause.

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

This is outrageous!!!!

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

Men should have the right to terminate pregnancies they don't agree to or want.

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

Lmao Democrats REALLY LOVE medical procedures fr. Gender changes, forced vaccinations, abortions and vasectomies. Makes you wonder who finances them?

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

Banning one invasive procedure is one thing...
Making another invasive procedure mandatory is something different.

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