Try rephrasing this into a statement I can understand.
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.
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.
Along with my request for more cites in another thread of mine, this cite shows that men want kids more than women do:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Good point
Lol. You must not read any of the comments directed at Republicans or conservatives if you think my tone is overly strident.
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.
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.
Just grab your nose and pull it out of other people’s business. Easy.
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.
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.
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.)
(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.