Instead of banning abortion should unmarried men get reversible vasectomies? (Page 2)
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
89Opinion
that would be too much of a simple solution for them. Remember its not their choice. Its the mans choice to them... Only Sandwiches a beer..
*throws the bro code card* fuck you neoturds
https://youtu.be/s41RQBRr-E4
Lmao truee, cause in their brains an unborn fetus has more of a right to live than a whole grown ass woman
Your question basically shows how ignorant you are of the procedure, it's reversable, but in 40 to 50% of cases the man is left unable to have children.. Additionally this question has been asked by someone else on here exact wording and everything.
If you're going to ask something like this at least be original..
https://www. girlsaskguys. com/sexual-behavior/q4616973-wouldn-t-it-make-more-sense-to-just-have-men-get-a-reversible
According to the doctor I asked (who has literally done more reversals than any other doctor!! ) It's only effective in about %8 of patients.
He told me not to consider it if I wanted children
So I wore a condom every time I had sex as a married man who wanted children ,,(my wife didn't)
Nice so the stats I read were wrong.. Don't you just love how idiot feminists can't come up with anything original so they just ask the same question just adding "100%" in to it? It shows laziness and stupidity.
Yes a vasectomy can be reversed slowing fluid to flow, it doesn't mean you can conceve !
Again afte been years his conception rate was %8. ...
If you want a chance at a child, don't wait more than three years after a vasectomy to get it reversed!!
Sorry about the typos, I wish gag allowed a quick edit after a reply. I don't even look for typos until after I hit submit.
My question wasn’t actually for that, I’m specifically targeting the pro life crowd. Asking why it’s ok for a woman to be refused an abortion but not ok for a man to get a vasectomy to prevent it
So was Subarugirl's she literally said the exact same thing in her question and response to me doopayo.. And I will tell you the exact same thing I told her..
I will support abortion when men have the same right to financially abort, her body her choice, his wallet his choice.
I never saw Subaru girls opinion.
You’re also straw maning, very terribly.
You’re equating money to bodily autonomy? Which obviously makes no sense and isn’t a valid argument.
With the logic you’re using, it would be ok if someone raped someone as long as they paid them cause my wallet my choice?
Your money doesn’t give you the right to violate someone else’s bodily autonomy.
Who is strawmaning here. All I'm saying is I want men to have the same power to step away from unwanted children as women do.. You're conflating it.. Typical feminist, can't see beyond your own idiotic ideology.
Men don’t hold the baby in their stomach for nine months and most of them sure as hell don’t care about the baby when it’s out of her stomach.
The most men can do is either a) prevent getting a woman pregnant by using protection or b) help the mother of their child if she does choice to have a baby.
That isn’t taking away their bodily autonomy? You need to search up the definition of autonomy cause I’m not sure you know what it even means
And considering the fact that the only thing you’ve got to say for yourself when I called you out is calling me names like you’re 12 years old doesn’t help your case at all
You are straw manning and arguing something that’s void of any logic.
Men don't care about the baby? Tell that to my brother who committed suicide when his girlfriend aborted without his consent. Take your man hate and and misandry elsewhere, I have nothing else to say to you, insensitive little child.
Lmao. Ok? Sorry for your lost I guess but he doesn’t have the right to consent to something that’s not in his body.
He didn’t commit suicide because his girlfriend aborted his baby, he committed suicide cause he thought he was entitled to a fetus that doesn’t even have a brain and isn’t even inside his body?
It’s ok, all pro lifers can really do at this point is call me names when I show the hypocrisy in their argument
I'm not pro life. You made an assumption here, you know what assuming does don't you?
He might not have been entitled to a choice but he was entitled to a discussion. To say otherwise is to deny that men have anything to do with creating children. I pity you, your attitude toward men is why feminism is a joke to 80% of the rational thinking world. When you have suffered losses like mine maybe your world view will expand, until then, this conversation is over.
The fact that you would laugh because a man lost his child shows just how evil and disgusting of a creature (not human) you are. I hope sincerely you never reproduce, you never marry, and you never ever destroy a man like you are obviously planning to do..
Your lack of empathy in this situation basically confirms what I suspected about you on this site. You're definitely a sociopath or possibly even a psychopath.
www.webmd.com/mental-health/signs-sociopath
No. But kids need a break. 2 of my 3 sisters had unwanted pregnancies in their teens. Both boyfriends bugged-out. Mom was an up tight christian. So Big Brother was the go to... and both of my sweet sisters agonized over their choices. They decided differently, But Gods Love was there guiding. NO ONE CAUSES PAIN TO MY SISTERS , UNLESS THEY ARE PREPARED TO DIE.
Absolutely not. Surgery should be a last-resort and permanent situation.
Vasectomies don't reverse easily. It's still surgery and a significant procedure.
Don't mess around with fertility.
I’m talking about people that don’t want kids
Oh ok I think I misunderstood this a bit.
Yeah if the guy definitely does not want kids (because reversing a vasectomy is not really easy and feasible in all situations) then yeah, more guys should get them. It's an easier surgery for them than the surgeries women need to get.
Well thats my point. How does that not apply to what were talking about? Stopping half of men doesn't have a drastic effect on possible births. Where stopping half of women stops half of all possible births. I dont see why you have such an issue with what seems obvious to both of us.
Anything is preferable than an abortion, taking a life because of it being an inconvenience is a very slippery slope, where does it stop? If an abortion is moral because the baby is not wanted then killing and elderly relative because they are an inconvenience is only a step away, or someone with a disability. All lives are precious. I am 52 years old and I have never had an unplanned baby. It can be done.
If vasectomies were actually reversible I'd offer them to every boy in my family.
I looked into this for myself, i even talked to a doctor and decided not to as it's RARELY reversible and I wanted children.
I see the confusion here, you can undo the vasectomy most of the time, that doesn't restore fertility.
So yes , most vasectomies are "reversible" the only catch is you probably still can't have children.
Hypocritical men will say no. If women ain't have choice about their body, so should not men have any choice about their body
Exactly
No , if you were going down that path , just like animals , you would start with the females , you say reversible.. no always , tie the tubes of the relevant females , and see how the single mothers go..
well men should do something besides just tell a woman what to do with her body.
Period. Spot on
Half of the people in these comments are just proving they aren’t pro choice, they’re just pro controlling women’s bodies. They literally can’t explain to me why it’s ok for a woman to be refused an abortion but not ok for a man to get a vasectomy to prevent her from even having to have that abortion in the first place?
Heh. Here comes the most unpopular opinion, that will trigger some sick plonkers.
Abortion should be accessible and freely available on demand (not banned). Plus I want to get myself a vasectomy anyway, so it's a win-win.
Even though i have had two children taken against my will and have had lasting affects on my life. I am pro choice. But i also strongly suggest conferring with the father if he wants to be a part of your life.
You're confused, kiddo. Stay in school until at least after they start teaching basic biology.
You'll make less of a fool of yourself.
From your other posts I can tell your far left, so would you have men forced to have this medical procedure? quite communist of you.
I never said I advocated for it. It was just a question but yeah, I’m far left.
Please tell me you realize how asinine this idea is and that you are just posting for shock value.
How? It’s reversible majority of the time and prevents unwanted pregnancy from ever happening.
If pro life people believe the unborn fetuses future matters more than the mothers than I’m just wondering if they have the same feelings when it comes to men 🤔?
So does a pill. Why would you think a surgical procedure that is reversible "majority of the time" would even be an option when so many other less invasive options are available?
Because those options aren’t 100% effective like the vasectomies are and I’m not sure how the procedures invasive. It’s a safe way to prevent pregnancy and those pills could arguably have worst effects that the vasectomy on people.
Getting a vasectomy is literally the most effective form of birth control, it doesn’t effect your sex drive in the way most pills would*
You don't know how a surgical procedure is invasive? You are hopeless.
Do you know how a fetus is invasive?
You are hopeless
Abortion should never be banned to begin with but yes a reversible vasectomy should be accessible to guys
Or some other type of reversible male birth control
condoms are pretty reversible
Abortion should still be banned but the solution is morality. People dont love there neighbor or care about the person there having sex with. Thats the real issue at hand. If the woman loved the child and kept it and the man loved the woman and the child and supported them it would be a nice change
….30% reversible would mean over 2/3rds of men would end up sterilized. This isn’t a possible solution it’s just sexism.
Just like abortion, no one should be forced to do this. It should still remain an option and be available and affordable should a person want/need one.
No, but schools should be required to offer Health/ Sex Ed courses. (And I mean the ones that are not crap and skip/ rush over the important stuff).
Every coin has two sides.
Why not women get 100 % reversible contraception.
A) With the same efficacy as the make one, or doesn't exist. The female version of that surgery is almost always permanent. So no.
B) They have to face the risks of their bfs walking out on them, of having to go through the pregnancy and taking care of the kid alone... And now you want them to also have to get surgery in their early teens, or even childhood, because we makes can't be responsible in how we behave and in advertising the consequences of our sections?
Nah, man. If abortion is banned, then we men should cut off our balls as compensation.
@Hawner first of all, you cannot force anyone to do anything. You cannot force a man or woman to have contraception as it is against human right internationally.
Secondly prevention is better than cure. Educating people and make them understand the reality of sex and how it can affect someone is more important so that anyone engaging in this, knows fully what are the potential risk and do not come and blame x and y for not doing this and that... Because both parties agree to do it so they must agree with the consequences. ( for now I am removing rape in the equation).
All this goes back to one specific point : not taking responsibility for your action and run away.
You fuck up, you bear the consequences. Do not tell me you did not know the consequences of it before the act.. So well
I agree with all that, especially with the education part.
Still, we can't be so maybe as to not acknowledge that it is not so easy. There are always going to be mistakes and accidents, and forcing someone to suffer the consequences of any of those when there are methods available is wrong, as you very correctly said.
Education as the main solution, abortion as the backup, and the surgery as the extreme.
@Hawner wow or just teach girls that being a slut is wrong? Seems the obvious choice. I don't know why everyone tells young girls they should fuck around to be "empowered"
@bamesjond0069 that’s such a stupid and overused take. Men have sex way more than women statistically, how about we tell men to stop being whores and sleeping around?
Notice how nobody ever says that
@doopayo It wouldn't hurt of we took it down a notch, that's for sure.
@bamesjond0069 You do realize that that having sex is not the problem, but doing it without protection is, right? Girls sleeping around, even if I agree that some should moderate themselves a bit, doesn't have consequences if all measures to prevent pregnancy are in place. That is why I said education as the main solution.
Abortion helps with the accidents and when the guy is an ass and doesn't want to take care of the consequences of his actions, because THAT is actually a problem and it is on US.
Learn what the actual root of the problem is instead of bucking things in others.
@Hawner seems when a girl doesn't have sex she doesn't get pregnant. Dont even need to see a doctor or pay any money.
Same happens if a boy doesn't stick the dick inside, you know? Are you even contemplating that option?
As I said, education.
@Hawner sure. It is as well. Except only women can get pregnant. Every woman who keeps their legs closed cannot get pregnant. So each woman who abstains is one less possible child. Every single man must abstain to have a result. If one man fucks a hundred women its no different than if 100 men fuck 100 women. If 100 men fuck one woman thats only one child. So solving the problem is primarily for women because there is no chance all men will never have sex and thus the rate of men having sex is completely irrelevant to how many children are born.
Basically, what you are saying is that if two people cut someone's head off, as long as the head is in the hands of one of them, the other goes free.
That doesn't work in real life. You put your dick in it, that is your responsibility as well. If you can avoid a pregnancy keeping it in your pants instead of wiping it out every time you seea hole, then you have to do so. Did not put the blame on girls when it is in fact mostly a male's problem.
@Hawner there is no point discussing with someone who won't accept facts. One male can get multiple women pregnant. Getting half the men to stop having sex would not change birth rates significantly. Getting half of women to stop having sex would lower the birth rate by half. Address this fact if you want a response. I have better things to do than talk to a brick wall.
Learning not to stick your dick in every hole you see would indeed change the birth rates BY A LOT. That would also help reducing the spread of STDs, by the way. And before you tell me that you would not spread any STD because you use condom, that is actually what you always should do to avoid pregnancy. That is learned with the right education, which was my point from the beginning.
You call me a brick wall? Did you see yourself in the mirror, Great Wall of China? If you are not going to behave like a person, then go away.
@Hawner change the subject. Every woman closing her legs is one less child. Every man keeping his pants on has negligible or no effect on birth rates. Change the subject because you dont want to address the obvious. Brilliant.
Actually, it had been you changing the subject all this time because you know you are wrong but won't admit it. You just want to try to make me feel like an idiot. Fat chance.
Every man keeping his pants on makes as much effect on birth rates as a woman.
Actually, scratch that. Every man keeping his pants on makes MORE EFFECT on birth rates than woman.
You said it yourself: every woman that closes their legs, as you put it, is one less child. But that is because each woman can have, normally, one baby. Twins, triplets and such aside, of course.
However, every man could, potentially, impregnate tens, hundreds or even thousands a year depending on how sexually active he can be. So, him learning to keep his pants on, does affect birth rates waaaaaaay more than women.
Learn your facts before opening your mouth, man. And, above all, respect others, unless you want to suffer the same treatment you give.
@Hawner lmao you're trolling me now.
No, I am not.
@Hawner so if there is 10 men and 10 women on a deserted island...
A, how many women get preggers if all 10 are having sex?
B. If 5 men stop having sex how many of the 10 women get prego?
C. If 5 women stop having sex how many get a bun in the oven?
D. If 5 men and 5 women stop having sex... how many women get knocked up?
Answer those and lets see where we actually disagree.
A) If all 10 have a 100% chance at the first try, obviously all 10. If there were 100, also all 100; same with 1000.
B) All 10 as well. Nobody said than each men only gets one woman. They can very well impregnate the others. Even only one would be able to do it.
C) only 5. For that matter, only 1 man would be needed in this case as well.
D) same as before.
It is obvious that you made this questions to turn the discussion on your favor, but it won't work this time.
Since you aren't replying, I'll consider this discussion resolved. Good luck.
@Hawner "It is obvious that you made this questions to turn the discussion on your favor..." yes? isn't that the point of discussion?
"but it won't work this time." Why not?
In a discussion you present facts to prove the validity of your point. Your questions only tried to twist facts on your benefit using a tailored situation. However, that was easily avoided.
Because it hasn't. You tried to show how women are the root of the problem, but I showed on your unfair scenario how is the other way around.
@Hawner "discussion you present facts to prove the validity of your point" werent the answers your provided factual outcomes?
"using a tailored situation." Can you think of a situation in which im wrong? Love to hear it.
"but I showed on your unfair scenario how is the other way around." Not sure where you offered any evidence of your claim. Did you?
1. Yes, it is a fact of how your point is wrong.
2. All of it. That is why you tailored the questions to try to force an specific answer or of me that would validate you, which did not happen because I saw through you.
3. If you haven't seen the evidence, you are bound or ignoring it. In either case, suit yourself.
@Hawner ah so you are trolling. Well played.
Aaaaah, so now you play the "you are trolling" card so you look good when you are the one that screwed it up. Sorry, that promotion at the other store. Here we just accept facts.
Have a nice day.