~ archived since 2018 ~

[x-post r/atlanta] Democratic women try to ban vasectomies because they don't like men having birth control.

7oby

February 22, 2012

1 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://www.reddit.com/r/Atlanta/comments/pztfg/democratic_women_seek_a_state_ban_on_vasectomies/

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	[x-post r/atlanta] Democratic women try to ban vasectomies because they don't like men having birth control.
Author	7oby
Upvotes	1
Comments	33
Date	February 22, 2012 9:01 AM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/q0prr/xpost_ratlanta_democratic_women_try_to_ban/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/x-post-ratlanta-democratic-women-try-to-ban.1027254 https://theredarchive.com/post/1027254

Comments

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Solus01 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]AryoBarzan 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]kanuk876 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

You could turn this around and say that giving men more say over abortion is part of bringing men into society.

Since men are legally bound to financially provide for children upon a woman's decision, why shouldn't women be bound to a pregnancy upon a man's decision?

So here's the twist I'm getting at: Allow abortions, but only if the biological father approves. This policy would have more symmetry and fairness than the current regime.

And one more thing: saying that men don't have their physical body in the game is a shallow, disrespectful lie. If a child is born, the man is on the hook for a lot of child support if nothing else. Most men donate years of their life, many risking harm, death and (today) incarceration to support children physically, financially and emotionally . To claim the only danger involved in childbirth is to the mother is... well, frankly, it's disrespectful, it's dismisses our male contribution to the propagation of the species, and it has male disposability written all over it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]kanuk876 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]kanuk876 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Since men are legally bound to financially provide for children upon a woman's decision, why shouldn't women be bound to a pregnancy upon a man's decision?

Affects her physically, more unfair than child support (unpopular opinion but it's what I feel)

Although I do admit it's fair to let men cut ties pre-conception to a possible child with a woman, but until the day comes where it's possible I would not want to substitute one unfair thing for another.

To claim the only danger involved in childbirth is to the mother is... well, frankly, it's disrespectful, it's dismisses our male contribution to the propagation of the species, and it has male disposability written all over it.

How one carries child or gives birth to child is not a choice. What jobs a man chooses is. I don't believe it's right to say the risks of pregnancy and childbirth are the same as men post-birth.

[–]kanuk876 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't believe it's right to say the risks of pregnancy and childbirth are the same as men post-birth.

Try not paying child support. Then get back to us about whether it carries more or less risk versus pregnancy.

I'm not trying to dismiss your views. I'm trying to call attention to how you obsess over the single 9 months of pregnancy to the exclusion of male contribution.

I will now carry your argument to the logical conclusion in an attempt to demonstrate why it is absurd:

"When you compare the risks of childbirth for a woman during the 9 months of pregnancy, versus the father during that same 9 months, to the exclusion of any external stimulus other than the pregnancy itself, it is safe to say the woman carries virtually all risk while the man carries none."

Hard to argue that, when the question is crafted such that any male contribution is either beyond the scope of the debate or dismissed due to being not biologically driven.

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

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

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AryoBarzan 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

rape and incest would be EXTROADINARY cases to most people which is why they would be willing to 'be fine with abortion' in those particular cases even if the baby is the issue.

But why? If the issue is that of protecting the life of the unborn, why does it matter how tragic the mother's situation?

It may seem absurd but this day and age people actually do blame women for unwanted pregnancies, and without outright saying so forcing childbirth is having her deal with the consequences of her actions moreso than protecting the unborn. And don't get me wrong, the same happens to poor boys who get girls pregnant, by accident, by ignorance, by any reason at all.

And I know it's not a good analogy, but the point was to suggest imposing a consequence on males (no choice/control over body) in response to a consequence on females (no abortion/emotional harassment prior to abortion). And the controversy it is creating seems to have done it's job, as it was never intended to be a real law.

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

But why? If the issue is that of protecting the life of the unborn, why does it matter how tragic the mother's situation?

Because it is a question of morals, not fact. Some people believe that a tragic situation (ie. an extoradinary situation) would warrant an abortion or a death of the unborn. Just like many warrant the death of an unborn because it's 'her body, her decision'.

It may seem absurd but this day and age people actually do blame women for unwanted pregnancies, and without outright saying so forcing childbirth is having her deal with the consequences of her actions moreso than protecting the unborn.

Well, since women carry ALL reproductive rights and are able to have an abortion LEGALLY this day and age (regardless of what pro-lifers have to say), it doesn't really make sense to blame the man. Even if a scumbag lied to his girlfriend/poked holes in condoms/etc, she still has the FINAL say in the decision regardless of his opinion. There is NEVER a child BORN in the Western world that a woman doesn't want. The same is certainly not true for boys/men.

And I know it's not a good analogy, but the point was to suggest imposing a consequence on males (no choice/control over body) in response to a consequence on females (no abortion/emotional harassment prior to abortion). And the controversy it is creating seems to have done it's job, as it was never intended to be a real law.

No. This sort of behavior just depicts how fascist these feminists are and what they're willing to do to GET their way. You ever hear of Machiavelli? Well, fascists are the ones who often justify the means by the ends and pretending to make stupid laws which are nowhere near the same playing field will only show how radical the feminists can get. The fact that they're not only trying to 'justify' this stupid pretend law by claiming (ie. lying) about how its analogous to abortion is just fascist style politics and thinking. I oppose this sort of thinking/behavior and if any of these moron 'liberal' feminists actually cared about the garbage they preached, they would too.

[–]elitez 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lanana 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AryoBarzan 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CHICOandtheMAN 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]CHICOandtheMAN 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

They did not equate abortion with birth control, they equated men's reproductive rights with women's reproductive rights. Reproductive rights are genuine controversies, no quotation marks necessary -- public funding, insurance company mandates, parental notification, and scores of other topics attract people who take one position with respect to women, and another with respect to men. The bill that is the topic of this discussion, in spite of the title of this post taking it ridiculously seriously, is theatrics meant to say to men (and sympathetic women), "How would you like it if this happened to you?" If men (and women) who think placing limits on women's access to contraception pause to say, "It sounded good when we drafted insurance regulations that interfere with women's access to birth control, but if we did the same thing to men, it would be reprehensible. Maybe we should reconsider our zeal." People who do that are more likely to move from right to left than liberal to Republican.

This is the equivalent of proponents of gay marriage introducing a bill to ban interfaith marriages based on the same Biblical philosophy that is used to oppose gay marriage. That kind of stunt, not meant to be taken seriously as a potential law, would not drive voters to the GOP. It might make some right-wing voters say, "It would not be fair to prohibit me (a Christian) from marrying the person I love because he is a Polytheist, even if the Bible prohibits the marriage. Maybe I should not be interfering with the relationships of others, the Bible notwithstanding."

This bill is a device to draw us into a discussion, which is why you were invited to a public meeting on the topic. Instead of attacking those who want to spread an important message, join them, please.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

They did not equate abortion with birth control, they equated men's reproductive rights with women's reproductive rights.

Great. You and I are intelligent people who realize this. The people who take Santorum frothing at the mouth at face-value are not. There is a direct analogue to a vasectomy for a woman. It is not under attack in the public eye.

, "It sounded good when we drafted insurance regulations that interfere with women's access to birth control, but if we did the same thing to men, it would be reprehensible."

Except there is no ban on women getting their tubes tied. The issue, as espoused by the right, is a woman literally killing a human for her own 'selfish' reasons.

As for the analogue to birth control, vasectomies are not mandated to be covered under under insurance under any law.

It's not that I don't 'get it', it's that this is just a dumb fucking move that does nothing except look 'edgy' and allow those on the left to circlejerk around their wit, all the while providing ammo for the right to cement their idiocy in the mind of mushy-minded Republicans.

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

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]CHICOandtheMAN 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Nobody compared vasectomy to abortion. Men to not have zero reproductive rights. They have the right to a vasectomy, among others. It is true that women and men don't have it the same, and with respect to reproductive rights, men are second class under the law. But we want to achieve equality by securing more rights for men, not fewer for women. And we want women to have more, also. In this case, a bill is introduced in the legislature not for the purpose of making law, but for the rhetorical purpose of inviting support for women's rights. Insofar as this action on behalf of women does not harm men, I say good. I want women to have more freedom, and I think this is a perfectly acceptable way to publicize the desire of some women to secure and increase their freedoms. Let's support them along with ourselves.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm aware, and I do support the right for abortion for a woman. However, I expect the SAME support towards men when it comes to a financial abortion, with the same principle of "his body, his choice" etc. I know the bill was placed as a satire, the point I am making though, is that they are acting like men have 100s of options, while women have none, yet basically the reverse is true. Removing abortion would actually bring it in line. I do not support doing that at all I am just saying that currently, a male's reproductive rights are equivalent to a woman w/o the option for abortion. A woman should have the right to abort a child she doesn't want, her body her choice. But at the same time, she shouldn't be able to force a man (speaking that he chooses this in the same timeframe a woman can abort) to pay for a child only she wants. Her body, her choice, her responsibility. Many people even use the excuse "Well if a man didnt want to have a baby, he shouldn't have had sex!" which is completely hypocritical, because that is one of the same reasons a Christian would use to support removing a woman's abortion.

Men to not have zero reproductive rights. They have the right to a vasectomy, among others.

Also, I do not find this to be a reproductive right.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]7oby[S] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]DougDante 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link