Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-16-2019, 02:13 PM
2ManyTacos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 952

Solution to the abortion madness? Make vasectomies for men universally available for free/low cost


Maybe I'm opening a can of worms here, and I feel like I have to throw in a few caveats: (1) I am as pro-choice as they come, (2) I think what's happening in Red America re: new abortion restrictions is heinous, and (3) I think even if SCOTUS overrules Roe you'll just start seeing a bunch of Blue states openly ignoring that decision anyway. But still, something I keep thinking is that *maybe* a world with vastly restrictive abortion laws would be more bearable *if* laws & operational norms regarding vasectomies in men were massively liberalized.

I mean, in my own case as somebody who is about as interested in having children as I am in having an un-anesthetized root canal, I found it incredibly maddening when a doctor turned down my request for a vasectomy on the basis that I was too young (26 at the time). I just think that, given that vasectomies are *the* most effective form of birth control, and that most men generally don't want to have kids anyway, a way to get around this Handmaid's Tale-like situation with onerous Red State abortion laws would be to broaden the availability of vasectomies writ large. The procedure could be made universally available to all men above the age of 16 and then subsidized in some way so that it would be either free or low cost.

I obviously don't know how tenable this idea would be - or even what the take up of this policy would look like - but I just think it could constitute some sort of workaround for the potential illegalized abortion era we may be entering. What do you think?
  #2  
Old 05-16-2019, 02:20 PM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 343
I think it’s a great idea, and hard for the anti-choice contingent to argue against without making explicit their fundie anti-woman agenda.

Personally, I think that if personhood begins at conception, Blue States should pass laws declaring that citizenship begins at conception, too. If a fetus was conceived in America then, regardless of where it was actually born, it’s entitled to full citizenship rights. Hey, you can’t have one definition of person for abortion and another for citizenship.

I don’t know if it’ll do any good, but it sure will be interesting to see how the anchor baby apocalypse crowd squares that little circle.

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; 05-16-2019 at 02:23 PM.
  #3  
Old 05-16-2019, 02:31 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,666
What do you think this would accomplish?
  #4  
Old 05-16-2019, 02:40 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,991
Quote:
...most men generally don't want to have kids anyway...
I don't think this is the case.

If they ever come up with a reliably reversible vasectomy, this might work out, but probably not otherwise.

I thought I remembered reading about a procedure wherein, instead of cutting and cauterizing the vas deferens, they used a pair of little clamps. The theory was that when and if the guy wanted children, they would remove the clamps, and then re-install them after he was done. I don't think it worked out - too much scar tissue so that the vas never reopened up. Plus, the longer it's been since the vasectomy, the less likely it is that it can be successfully reversed in the sense that you actually get someone pregnant. So a vasectomy at age 16 and a reversal attempt at 26 is going to be different from a reversal at age 35.

When I was snipped, my surgeon told me that I should consider it irreversible.

Regards,
Shodan
  #5  
Old 05-16-2019, 02:46 PM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 279
My wife had an abortion when our first child was a year old. She had an IUD and experienced a rare failure. I didn't want a vasectomy, nor did we decide to never have anymore children.

I have friends that have had pregnancy complications, including preeclampsia and ectopic pregnancy. At least one legislator in Ohio believe that ectopic pregnancies can be surgically relocated, and that the tubectomy my mother had was an abortion.

Why don't we get the government out of the decision altogether?
  #6  
Old 05-16-2019, 02:55 PM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
given that [....] that most men generally don't want to have kids anyway,
Most men want to have kids. You're an exception, not the norm.

Quote:
The procedure could be made universally available to all men above the age of 16
16 years old aren't even deemed competent to decide if they want to have sex, but you think they are competent to decide that they won't ever want children? I'm quite a bot older than you, and I changed my mind about a lot of things since I was 16.

I understand that you find irritating to be told that you don't know what you want, but :

-Vasectomy is often irreversible

-Wanting to have children or not is something many people drastically change their mind about during their life. In both directions.

If I were a doctor and still 26 yo, I'd probably agree with you and be perfectly fine with operating you. If I were a doctor now, I too would refuse to do this surgery on a 26 yo.


Quote:
but I just think it could constitute some sort of workaround for the potential illegalized abortion era we may be entering. What do you think?
There are plenty of contraception methods that aren't irreversible.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.

Last edited by clairobscur; 05-16-2019 at 02:57 PM.
  #7  
Old 05-16-2019, 03:06 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,431
AFAIK, a large proportion of health insurance companies already offer free or low-cost vasectomies.

I doubt it's the availability that's holding more widespread adoption of vasectomy back; rather I'm pretty sure it's squeamishness about doctors cutting on one's nutsack and the associated plumbing, along with fear that complications might leave them impotent or de-masculinized.

I don't doubt that an ignorant few don't realize that it's not the same thing as castration as well.
  #8  
Old 05-16-2019, 03:28 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,267
I'd like to second puddleglum's question - what do you think this will accomplish?

I don't have stats (but I won't let that stop me!), but I suspect that a significant percentage of abortions result from couplings where the man isn't worrying overmuch about the future beyond the next half hour. Waiting to get an invasive surgery first sounds like rather a lot to expect from a horny teenager - or a horny college student - or a horny adult male, for that matter.

Not to mention, the largest opposition to abortion comes from religious fundamentalists - the 'temple of the body' types. You think they're going to consider elective surgery a good approach when they already have the perfectly workable solution of telling other people what to do instead?
  #9  
Old 05-16-2019, 03:28 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,367
Anti abortion activists are to a good degree motivated by misogyny and religious fundamentalism. If they truly opposed abortion they'd favor sex education and easy access to contraception since these things lower abortion rates. But they oppose them.

Ironically being religious made you more tolerant of abortion, it's religious fundamentalism that makes you opposed.

https://psmag.com/social-justice/sex...on-to-abortion

Either way, this isn't a policy issue that can be solved with policy agendas. It's a moral agenda to its proponents.

Restricting male sexuality won't go over well with these people. But you're free to try.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #10  
Old 05-16-2019, 03:31 PM
CAH66 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 103
Age 16 is waaaay too young IMO. 16 year old kids have foolishly close horizons and very limited world experience when contemplating their futures. I also don't think your statement that "most men don't want to have children" is at all accurate. At best, maybe "at a certain point in their lives most men..."

I got the big V because I had two stepdaughters and they were enough for me. But I love being a father and, even better, Papa to my grandkids. Even though I didn't end up biologically fathering children, I would never have put that irrevocable decision in the hands of adolescent me.

From where I sit, the slight drop in surety of traditional methods of birth control is more than made up by their lack of permanence.
  #11  
Old 05-16-2019, 03:50 PM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,885
nm
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.

Last edited by clairobscur; 05-16-2019 at 03:50 PM.
  #12  
Old 05-16-2019, 05:32 PM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
(3) I think even if SCOTUS overrules Roe you'll just start seeing a bunch of Blue states openly ignoring that decision anyway.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Openly ignore there ability to regulate abortion at the state level?
  #13  
Old 05-16-2019, 05:35 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,978
How pricey is a snip anyways? Why not free whatever contraception? It’d save money.

It is humorous to see the left’s new found respect for states’ rights and limited government in this thread. And what’s with a non human having citizenship? What’s next fetal suffrage?

Last edited by octopus; 05-16-2019 at 05:35 PM.
  #14  
Old 05-16-2019, 05:37 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0k1 View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Openly ignore there ability to regulate abortion at the state level?
Blue states only need to follow the laws they agree with. Since they are a superior class.
  #15  
Old 05-16-2019, 05:47 PM
nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 13,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
AFAIK, a large proportion of health insurance companies already offer free or low-cost vasectomies.

I doubt it's the availability that's holding more widespread adoption of vasectomy back; rather I'm pretty sure it's squeamishness about doctors cutting on one's nutsack and the associated plumbing, along with fear that complications might leave them impotent or de-masculinized.

I don't doubt that an ignorant few don't realize that it's not the same thing as castration as well.
There are many, many variables. IMHO, the biggest disadvantage to a vasectomy is that it isn't immediately effective; the couple must use a second form of birth control for at least 3 months, until he's delivered a sperm cell-free semen sample. Plus, tubal ligation/removal (see footnote) is often done concurrently with a cesarean section, and while the procedure is more invasive, it's effective IMMEDIATELY. I also read about a woman whose husband offered to have a vasectomy, but she went ahead and had the tubal because that vasectomy wouldn't protect her if she was raped - something she had never experienced but it was a concern of hers. It was the right decision for them.

Footnote: I heard recently that many gynecologists are removing tubes, not tying them, because it doesn't take much longer, and it's believed that a lot of ovarian cancer actually originates in the tubes.

It's like any other birth control decision: Each couple needs to do what is right for them.
  #16  
Old 05-16-2019, 05:55 PM
2ManyTacos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 952
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0k1 View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Openly ignore there ability to regulate abortion at the state level?
I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of something that goes further than overruling Roe; e.g., declaring abortion itself to be unconstitutional and therefore illegal nationwide, which presumably is the dream scenario of anti-abortion fanatics. In that case I just think that a coalition of Blue States will refuse to abide by that decision and continue to allow legal abortion in those states; SCOTUS relies on voluntary compliance, after all.
  #17  
Old 05-16-2019, 06:25 PM
Max S. is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,554
People who advocate for widespread access to contraceptives generally mean reversible contraceptives, not sterilization (vasectomy or tubal ligation). Tubal reversal and vasectomy reversal are possible, but incredibly expensive and prone to fail. Also half of men who undergo vasectomy reversal find out they have developed anti-sperm antibodies; enough anti-bodies and the immune system no longer recognizes the sperm as self and seeks to actively destroy it.

~Max
  #18  
Old 05-16-2019, 06:43 PM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of something that goes further than overruling Roe; e.g., declaring abortion itself to be unconstitutional and therefore illegal nationwide, which presumably is the dream scenario of anti-abortion fanatics. In that case I just think that a coalition of Blue States will refuse to abide by that decision and continue to allow legal abortion in those states; SCOTUS relies on voluntary compliance, after all.
That's not how Constitutional law or the Supreme Court works. That would take an act of Congress.
  #19  
Old 05-16-2019, 06:51 PM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,739
I'm much more in favor of throwing men in prison if they don't pay child support once their fetus has a heart beat, including picking up their part of the tab for medical bills.

If women are going to be thrown in prison for doing bad things to "precious life", then so should men.
  #20  
Old 05-16-2019, 06:51 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0k1 View Post
That's not how Constitutional law or the Supreme Court works. That would take an act of Congress.
I'm sure we can tie this to the commerce clause somehow. Fetuses are future people, so if we assume that human slaves can be taken across state lines...
  #21  
Old 05-16-2019, 06:56 PM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Blue states only need to follow the laws they agree with. Since they are a superior class.
Try rephrasing this into a statement I can understand.
  #22  
Old 05-16-2019, 07:00 PM
Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 22,446
Even if they were free, I wouldn't get one. Don't want to be cut on, or a knife that close to my junk.
  #23  
Old 05-16-2019, 07:18 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
How pricey is a snip anyways? Why not free whatever contraception? It’d save money.

It is humorous to see the left’s new found respect for states’ rights and limited government in this thread. And what’s with a non human having citizenship? What’s next fetal suffrage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Blue states only need to follow the laws they agree with. Since they are a superior class.
I think the second paragraph of your first post here and your second post are really needlessly inflammatory. What is the point of posting those here? Don't we have enough left-right fights already going on?

As for the OP, I agree that all kinds of contraception, including vasectomies, should be cheap or free, but I don't think it will do anything to address the "abortion madness". Men who want to get vasectomies can probably get them.

I further disagree with your view that most men don't want kids. They may not want them when they're young, but I would guess that a large majority of men want children at some point in their lives.
  #24  
Old 05-16-2019, 07:23 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,464
Along with my request for more cites in another thread of mine, this cite shows that men want kids more than women do:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/men-wan...firms-studies/

It doesn't, however, provide evidence either way than a majority of men of all ages want to be/wanted to be fathers. Only 1 in 4 men under 24 want kids, and 80% of fathers are happy they have kids, but neither is directly on point.
  #25  
Old 05-16-2019, 07:37 PM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 279
Call me old-fashioned, but I don't believe you should have to spend the rest of your life raising a child with some just because you fucked once.
  #26  
Old 05-16-2019, 08:48 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
I think the second paragraph of your first post here and your second post are really needlessly inflammatory. What is the point of posting those here? Don't we have enough left-right fights already going on?

As for the OP, I agree that all kinds of contraception, including vasectomies, should be cheap or free, but I don't think it will do anything to address the "abortion madness". Men who want to get vasectomies can probably get them.

I further disagree with your view that most men don't want kids. They may not want them when they're young, but I would guess that a large majority of men want children at some point in their lives.
So what? I’m responding to the ridiculous assertion that “blue states” can pick and choose what Supreme Court decisions to abide by with impunity. Why not address that ‘inflammatory’ assertion instead of the response?

As the south learned during desegregation the federal government controls the army.
  #27  
Old 05-16-2019, 08:58 PM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Anti abortion activists are to a good degree motivated by misogyny and religious fundamentalism. If they truly opposed abortion they'd favor sex education and easy access to contraception since these things lower abortion rates. But they oppose them.
Agreed. While there may be a few useful idiots who really are motivated by thinking a fetus is a full human being, the opposition to abortion is much the same as the opposition to gay marriage, sex outside of marriage or the faction in of Creationism, school prayer or Jim Crow: It's an effort to symbolically assert power and control over a whole society ("We're the ones in charge here and we do things our way") to prevent it from changing in a way that will leave oppressors with less status/power over others.

You should be wary of non-reflectively accepting the conceptual framing and declared goals the GOP offers. It's more often than not an effort at manipulation.

Last edited by MichaelEmouse; 05-16-2019 at 08:59 PM.
  #28  
Old 05-16-2019, 09:23 PM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
So what? I’m responding to the ridiculous assertion that “blue states” can pick and choose what Supreme Court decisions to abide by with impunity. Why not address that ‘inflammatory’ assertion instead of the response?

As the south learned during desegregation the federal government controls the army.
How would overturning Roe v Wade change abortion law in a state like Maryland? The Roe v Wade decision said that women havd a constitutional righg to abortion. If the decision is overturned, that just means that states get to regulate abortion, it doesn't mean that abortion is illegal.

And you can express you opinions in a less dickish manner.
  #29  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:09 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,479
I don't really see this as addressing the center of the abortion debate. The issue is whether women should have control over their own bodies. Men getting vasectomies isn't going to provide that.

Last edited by Little Nemo; 05-16-2019 at 10:10 PM.
  #30  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:12 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0k1 View Post
How would overturning Roe v Wade change abortion law in a state like Maryland? The Roe v Wade decision said that women havd a constitutional righg to abortion. If the decision is overturned, that just means that states get to regulate abortion, it doesn't mean that abortion is illegal.
I think the majority of pro-life advocates see overturning the Roe decision as only the first step. Then they would push for a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision that prohibited abortions at the national level.
  #31  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:37 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,552
I'm all for making them cheap and easily available. I think I had to pay for mine, but it was well worth it, and cheaper than flying to Denmark to get my wife another IUD. (This was when they were impossible to get in the US.) Age requirements can be done the same as today.

But I wonder if the religious fanatics who don't want to even let the government pay for free birth control for women employees would have the same snit fit for free vasectomies.
  #32  
Old 05-16-2019, 10:40 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0k1 View Post
How would overturning Roe v Wade change abortion law in a state like Maryland? The Roe v Wade decision said that women havd a constitutional righg to abortion. If the decision is overturned, that just means that states get to regulate abortion, it doesn't mean that abortion is illegal.
Good point

Quote:
And you can express you opinions in a less dickish manner.
Lol. You must not read any of the comments directed at Republicans or conservatives if you think my tone is overly strident.
  #33  
Old 05-16-2019, 11:56 PM
Esprise Me is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 168
I've never met a man who wanted a vasectomy but couldn't afford it, and faced no other obstacles. I have to believe that's not a very common scenario. I'm absolutely in favor of all forms of birth control being free and easily available. But most men I've known don't even bother to wear condoms if they're in a committed relationship with a woman who's on the pill; I don't see them lining up en masse for a surgical procedure. Even if they did, that does nothing for the women with wanted pregnancies that go horribly wrong, the domestic violence victims whose abusers use sexual coercion and pregnancy as a means of control, the teenagers who want children someday but not yet, and a whole host of others who will still need abortion services.
  #34  
Old 05-17-2019, 12:48 AM
2ManyTacos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
I'm all for making them cheap and easily available. I think I had to pay for mine, but it was well worth it, and cheaper than flying to Denmark to get my wife another IUD. (This was when they were impossible to get in the US.) Age requirements can be done the same as today.

But I wonder if the religious fanatics who don't want to even let the government pay for free birth control for women employees would have the same snit fit for free vasectomies.
Re: the last sentence of your first paragraph, the problem with age requirements as they are today is that there's presently no law or requirement that men below the age of 45 or whatever cannot get vasectomies; it's more of an operational norm rather than a legal prohibition for docs to deny them to men of a certain age out of concern that such men are 'too young' or likely to change their tune at some inordinate point in the future.

My idea is to just jettison that practice and make it mandatory for docs to provide vasectomies to any willing men above 16+ years old. In a world where abortion is either incredibly restricted or outlawed outright, then this might make that sort of nightmarish environment at least somewhat tolerable.
  #35  
Old 05-17-2019, 01:40 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
Re: the last sentence of your first paragraph, the problem with age requirements as they are today is that there's presently no law or requirement that men below the age of 45 or whatever cannot get vasectomies; it's more of an operational norm rather than a legal prohibition for docs to deny them to men of a certain age out of concern that such men are 'too young' or likely to change their tune at some inordinate point in the future.

My idea is to just jettison that practice and make it mandatory for docs to provide vasectomies to any willing men above 16+ years old. In a world where abortion is either incredibly restricted or outlawed outright, then this might make that sort of nightmarish environment at least somewhat tolerable.
I should have said guidelines, not requirements.
I'm not terribly in favor of 17 year olds getting vasectomies no questions asked. We're pretty stupid at that age. I was. We really need a pill for men.
But I don't think it would help the abortion situation at all. Men who would get vasectomies are not the men who oppress women, for the most part.
  #36  
Old 05-17-2019, 02:58 AM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,551
Just grab your nose and pull it out of other people's business. Easy.
  #37  
Old 05-17-2019, 03:20 AM
Nava is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 42,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
People who advocate for widespread access to contraceptives generally mean reversible contraceptives, not sterilization (vasectomy or tubal ligation).
Actually, many people also mean irreversible ones. Why wouldn't we? Specially given that the irreversible ones aren't all that easy to get, either, and in this I'm including medically-indicated hysterectomies.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.
  #38  
Old 05-17-2019, 03:56 AM
Ronald Raygun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 204
I'm not understanding this age requirement. If I can get an orchiectomy at 18, y'all should be able to get vasectomies at 18.
  #39  
Old 05-17-2019, 03:58 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
I'm with Little Nemo on this one. Any conversation that doesn't first and foremost address the rights of women is missing the point in a catastrophic manner.

How to stop this madness? Well, maybe care about the issue even a fraction as much as they do. That'd be a start. We don't even have to do crazy things like shoot up Federalist Society meetings (an actual analogue to the Robert Dear types on the right), just... Y'know, fucking fight. And fight as dirty as they will.

Politics in the US is grossly asymmetric and has been for quite some time. Tell me - what's the democratic analogue to the federalist society? To ALEC? To the Kochs? (If you said "George Soros", sit the fuck down.) To REDMAP? There is none. Democrats have opted instead to "take the high ground" in the hopes that being the sane, fair party will go well for them. It hasn't. Instead, they just look like weak, pathetic losers who are unable or unwilling to fight for what they believe in or what's right or even what would be politically expedient for them.

Does Nancy Pelosi care? Maybe? She doesn't act like it. But the Republicans care. They care deeply and passionately about this issue, and they've done the legwork to do whatever it takes to make Abortion illegal again. Before we care enough to fight back that hard, they're going to keep winning.

(This applies to every issue, not just abortion.)
__________________
"Until their much-needed total political extinction, you can expect the GOP to continue to take corporate money to systemically murder you and everyone you know."
- A. R. Moxon
  #40  
Old 05-17-2019, 04:07 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
(And for the record I have no interest in a vasectomy and equally no interest in abstinence, not that it's anyone's business.)

Stop ceding ground to far-right radicals. Stop having debates on their terms. Stop going halfway and expecting them to meet you in the middle - they'll just go as far right as you did and make the same demand. Stop framing the debate around "what shitty religious nutters might agree with", because every time you do they just demand more - this is how the overton window rachets further and further right. Stand up and fight for what's right, dammit. Nothing else works anyways, so you might as well.
__________________
"Until their much-needed total political extinction, you can expect the GOP to continue to take corporate money to systemically murder you and everyone you know."
- A. R. Moxon
  #41  
Old 05-17-2019, 05:19 AM
Maastricht is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Dutch in the Netherlands
Posts: 9,285
The Alabama law is so heinous because it also criminalizes at home abortions by women taking a drug for a chemical abortion.

https://www.wired.com/story/telemedi...abortion-care/

Anyway, I think most women should stock up for such medication in case they or a friend need it. The hassle and delay of buying it in a drugstore, or waiting for on-line delivery might be enough to miss an important pregnancy deadline. Such medication can be bought for around 100 dollars, free for people who can't afford it. Buying the medication can be done safely through sites like these. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_on_the_Web

The same goes for morning after pills. If I were a woman in a Red State, I'd have a supply of those in my medicine cabinet. Even in Alabama those would be legal, as the woman takes them the morning after, not six weeks after.

Last edited by Maastricht; 05-17-2019 at 05:20 AM.
  #42  
Old 05-17-2019, 05:37 AM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,436
People who are determined to "Make America A White Christian Nation Again" are not going to be in favor of letting white men opt out of their duty to make more white babies.
  #43  
Old 05-17-2019, 05:47 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
People who are determined to "Make America A White Christian Nation Again" are not going to be in favor of letting white men opt out of their duty to make more white babies.
Yeah, there's a non-trivial overlap between the people saying "we are aborting our future" and the people saying that we have no room for more immigrants or refugees. The white supremacy angle here is very real.
__________________
"Until their much-needed total political extinction, you can expect the GOP to continue to take corporate money to systemically murder you and everyone you know."
- A. R. Moxon
  #44  
Old 05-17-2019, 05:53 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maastricht View Post
Anyway, I think most women should stock up for such medication in case they or a friend need it. The hassle and delay of buying it in a drugstore, or waiting for on-line delivery might be enough to miss an important pregnancy deadline. Such medication can be bought for around 100 dollars, free for people who can't afford it. Buying the medication can be done safely through sites like these. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_on_the_Web

The same goes for morning after pills. If I were a woman in a Red State, I'd have a supply of those in my medicine cabinet. Even in Alabama those would be legal, as the woman takes them the morning after, not six weeks after.
If women should stock up in case a friend needs it, men should too. No reason to let dudes off the hook.
  #45  
Old 05-17-2019, 05:54 AM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Lol. You must not read any of the comments directed at Republicans or conservatives if you think my tone is overly strident.
They did it first is a child's argument. The only insults I see on this thread are from you.
  #46  
Old 05-17-2019, 06:39 AM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
People who are determined to "Make America A White Christian Nation Again" are not going to be in favor of letting white men opt out of their duty to make more white babies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Yeah, there's a non-trivial overlap between the people saying "we are aborting our future" and the people saying that we have no room for more immigrants or refugees. The white supremacy angle here is very real.
The white supremacist creed goes: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words

People more familiar with apartheid South Africa or Northern Ireland into the '70s could give us more information about that mindset.
  #47  
Old 05-17-2019, 06:48 AM
red fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
nm
PLS EXCUSE ME I AM NOT ENGLISH I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF "nm" WHAT DOES IT MEAN? THANK YOU
  #48  
Old 05-17-2019, 06:59 AM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,827
"nm" means "no message", or possibly "never mind"
  #49  
Old 05-17-2019, 07:03 AM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,827
Vasectomies are irreversible, and many horny young men want children later. That's not a great solution. IUDs on the other hand, are reversible, and last for years of they aren't removed. They have a bad reputation in the US, because the ones used 50 years ago were dangerous. But the ones currently on the market have a good safety record.

Rehabilitating and subsidizing IUDs would go a long way to reducing the demand for abortions. They don't do anything to slow the spread of STIs, of course, but neither do vasectomies.
  #50  
Old 05-17-2019, 07:09 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
So what? I’m responding to the ridiculous assertion that “blue states” can pick and choose what Supreme Court decisions to abide by with impunity. Why not address that ‘inflammatory’ assertion instead of the response?

As the south learned during desegregation the federal government controls the army.
Why don't you address any response you see as inflammatory yourself? How about, "well, if Roe were simply overturned, then the decision to ban abortion would return to the States. However, if somehow it were banned nationwide, I don't think blue states would simply ignore the law. There's not much precedent for that."

Or, do it your way and make sure every thread goes right to the gutter. Whatever floats your boat.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017