Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What about simply removing her uterus, though? Also, isn't there the option of taking hormone replacement therapy afterwards?
Because she never wants to risk becoming pregnant? Plus, isn't there the option of taking hormone replacement therapy afterwards?
If abortion bans are misogynistic, though, then is withholding safe surgical castration from male-bodied for sterilization purposes misandrous?
I can't believe this thread is still alive.
OP, you didn't read my post. If a women doesn't ever want to become pregnant, she can have an IUD inserted. But the thing is, women generally do want to become pregnant, when they find the right guy. So your solution wouldn't work, because it would deprive women of having that choice. I have no idea why you don't get this.
Why would men have to be castrated in order to be sterilized? Why are you proposing these extremes? Do you even know what you're talking about? You're babbling nonsense.
So you'd be into living in a world of post-menopausal women? That's what you're suggesting. Humankind would quickly go extinct, as there would be no option to give birth.
First of all, I was talking about one specific woman doing this--not all women doing this. Secondly, can't women with no ovaries but with a uterus still get pregnant and give birth?
[quote]And why would such a radical step be necessary? The IUD is the most reliable form of bc known. People just need to use reliable birth control.[/quote
IUDs can and sometimes do fail, though.
Quote:
Of course, another alternative to what you propose would be to leave women intact, and have all the men get snipped. Is there a reason you're not suggesting that?
Why would men have to be castrated in order to be sterilized? Why are you proposing these extremes? Do you even know what you're talking about? You're babbling nonsense.
First of all, I was talking about one specific woman doing this--not all women doing this. Secondly, can't women with no ovaries but with a uterus still get pregnant and give birth?
IUDs can and sometimes do fail, though.
Vasectomies can and sometimes do fail, though.
If a woman has no ovaries but has a uterus, she could get pregnant using a donor egg. It would be an expensive procedure and something that would definitely not happen by accident. Generally, it would be a procedure that a woman who had lost her ovaries to cancer but still wanted to carry a child would consider.
[quote=Futurist110;42376289]First of all, I was talking about one specific woman doing this--not all women doing this. Secondly, can't women with no ovaries but with a uterus still get pregnant and give birth?
Quote:
And why would such a radical step be necessary? The IUD is the most reliable form of bc known. People just need to use reliable birth control.[/quote
IUDs can and sometimes do fail, though.
Vasectomies can and sometimes do fail, though.
IUD's failing is an almost unheard-of occurrence.
How would a woman with no ovaries, producing no eggs, get pregnant? See, you really don't know what you're talking about. How old are you? Don't they cover these basics in school?
Your paranoia is reading like "pro-life misogyny" in reverse. You seem overly "fix"ated on the female part of the equation.
Exactly this. I took the OP's premise to mean that he is fixated on the idea that women "hold all the cards." They get to decide whether to carry a child to term, and if they decide to keep the child, the man is "forced" to support it. (This of course always is thought of as some involuntary servitude, like some evil woman grabs an innocent man off the street and he is suddenly "forced" to support a child—as if he had no say in the matter and of course never did anything—like, you know, have sex with her!) LOL.
It's just more weird ranting from an MRA or Red Piller about how it's so unfair that women can have an abortion, and that men are still "made" to support their own children. Yawn.
I agree that a biology book and counseling are in order. It is very doubtful that a physician is going to perform such a surgery in the name of birth control and I doubt the insurance company would agree to pay for anything more than a tubal ligation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
