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.
I have a question for all male Pro-Lifers. It may sound extreme at first, but I'd like you take a few moments to think about it before automatically rejecting it.
If you want abortions to be illegal, then you are obviously willing to accept the government being in control of women's bodies and lives and forcing women to use their bodies to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term and have a baby. That's what making abortion illegal means however you want to dress it up.
But just how FAR are you willing to go with your OWN bodies and giving up control over your own lives to stop abortions and all those unwanted fetuses from being “murdered”? It does take a man and a woman to create a baby right? Both are responsible, not just the woman.
Here's the hypothetical question:
Would you be willing to introduce a law that enforced every post-pubescent male to have a simple reversible vasectomy which they will not be legally allowed to reverse until they have entered into a contract with a woman where they are both in agreement that they want to have a child?
I bet you're thinking things like: That's ridiculous. How stupid. No Way!
But think about it for a minute:
We already have the technology and medical expertise to do this.
Your health (or even your life) wouldn't be put at risk nearly as much as a woman's could be if she is forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and give birth.
Pregnancy can cause a lot of long term problems in a woman's body, unlike a simple reversible vasectomy procedure in men.
There would be very few side-effects that can damage your health like there can be for many women who take the Pill.
The procedure only takes about an hour so out of your life and is not really painful. Well nothing at all like the pain in giving birth. Just a bit of a mild discomfort for few days after the procedure.
Wouldn't this stop the majority of unwanted pregnancies and therefore any need for abortion in the case of unwanted pregnancies? Wouldn’t it go a long way in preventing all those unwanted babies from being born to women who don’t want them? Or prevent all those children being raised in foster care waiting for adoption? Being adopted can cause huge life-long emotional issues for people.
Is one hour from the lives of all post-pubescent males too much to ask if it will prevent all those fetuses being murdered by abortion?
I keep hearing Pro-life men saying that women who want an abortion are selfish not to give up a few months of their lives for the life of a fetus. So what say all you pro-life men? Is an hour or so of your life and accepting government control over your own bodies and lives too much to ask to save the lives of all those fetuses being "murdered" by abortion? If you’re willing to accept it for women, why not for yourselves?
Every state DOES decide whether to allow abortion or not.
A state can make it very difficult to get an abortion, but they can't constitutionally ban it as of now.
The only *possible* way they could ban it would be to criminalize abortion as murder and to define the fetus as a person - a la Colorado Proposition 48 and bills in the Montana and North Dakota legislatures. Those laws aren't passing because even pro-lifers realize the ends don't justify the means.
As far as your vasectomy law goes you are comparing apples to oranges. Abortion kills life. So abortion is not about who controls womans bodies. Forced vasecomtines would not stop abortions .
If you read through he thread we have had a close discussion as to castrating men.
The federal governemnt has no right to endorse genocide. Its not about who controls what body. Reverse row versus wade and return that to the states.
The goal is to avoid abortions, which kill life.
Much of the problem could be resolved by guys putting their internal organs where their mouth is and getting a reversible vasectomy or taking the male BC pill.
You cant possibly believe that reversing R v W would cut down on abortions, and ESPECIALLY on third trimester ABs. That's just so pie-in-the-sky naive, not to mention dangerous.
Much of the problem could be resolved by a quick, painless, reversible procedure -- guys putting their internal organs where their mouth is and getting a reversible vasectomy or taking the male BC pill.
You cant possibly believe that reversing R v W would cut down on abortions, and ESPECIALLY on third trimester ABs. That's just so pie-in-the-sky naive, not to mention dangerous.
A state can make it very difficult to get an abortion, but they can't constitutionally ban it as of now.
The only *possible* way they could ban it would be to criminalize abortion as murder and to define the fetus as a person - a la Colorado Proposition 48 and bills in the Montana and North Dakota legislatures.
Im just saying the states decide whether to take advantage of the federal interpretation. The federal law remains constant but the states vote to use it or not use it as their political climates change.
You cant possibly believe that reversing R v W would cut down on abortions, and ESPECIALLY on third trimester ABs. That's just so pie-in-the-sky naive.
Why reverse Roe v Wade when the whole problem could be resolved in a quick, painless, reversible procedure -- your vasectomy?
I will play your game, a man reverses his vasectomy and gets a woman pregnant. She changes her mind. That hos not stopped abortion or the debate about killing the fetus. So you compared apples to oranges. We have had this discussion on the thread about mandatory castration.
the argument is the same how would a man feel about the government forcing a decision on his body. The difference a woman does not have a right to kill. Outlawing abortion is not about a woman controlling her body it is about the unborn being given the right to live, not killed
Pro deathers hid ebehaind the choice arguement while ignoring the right of the unborn to live
I will play your game, a man reverses his vasectomy and gets a woman pregnant. She changes her mind. That hos not stopped abortion or the debate about killing the fetus. So you compared apples to oranges. We have had this discussion on the thread about mandatory castration.
the argument is the same how would a man feel about the government forcing a decision on his body. The difference a woman does not have a right to kill. Outlawing abortion is not about a woman controlling her body it is about the unborn being given the right to live, not killed
Pro deathers hid ebehaind the choice arguement while ignoring the right of the unborn to live
So you would reverse your vasectomy and be so irresponsible as to let your wife get pregnant, in a situation where she doesnt want the baby. Wouldnt she have known you were getting your V reversed? Wouldnt you have mentioned it? What kind of relationship IS this?
The point is, if you REALLY want to stop abortion, take some responsibility: get a vasectomy yourself, or change your internal chemistry with the male pill.
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.
