Current Events > Fo4ced vasectomy on men would be better than banning abortions.

(+) Yeah! (+)

And still terrible, which goes to show how absurd and immoral banning abortion is. At leased forced vasectomy wouldn't be all but guaranteed to kill a good number of affected men....

Continue!?

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Continue!?

With what? I made my point well, abortions should be a protected right.

Just ban sex.

Flauros posted...

Just ban sex.

This. Until you complete your state mandated parenting classing and finalize your Child application, sex should just be illegal.

LotsOfHorror posted...

With what? I made my point well

I don't think you've ever made your point, much less made it well.

More accidental babies to feed into the workforce is literally the point of banning abortion though

DeadBankerDream posted...

I don't think you've ever made your point, much less made it well.

The point is that it's pretty obvious forced vasectomies would be bad and immoral, yet it is an objectively better, safer option than banning abortions, so it's pretty blatantly clear how badly we need to fix our laws.

Raikuro posted...

More accidental babies to feed into the workforce is literally the point of banning abortion though

Yeah true :/

I don't agree that forcing people to have invasive surgery is inherently less bad than making it illegal to have invasive surgery.

I think the kind of comparison work you're engaging in is batshit insane.

Raikuro posted...

More accidental babies to feed into the workforce is literally the point of banning abortion though

Not even.

It's so more white (ideally Christian) babies can be born.

An unintended side effect of the strong middle class of the 50s and 60s was a decline in birth rates of white babies. This led to a decline in the proportional percentage of white people in American demographics. That spooked the racists of the world, so they Co-opted the religious nuts in the 80s and have been on a slow warpath to ban abortion nationally literally so there's more white babies being born(because middle class (white) people are more likely to have the knowledge of and resources available to go get a safe abortion)

It's worse than you think

DeadBankerDream posted...

I don't agree that forcing people to have invasive surgery is inherently less bad than making it illegal to have invasive surgery.

I think the kind of comparison work you're engaging in is batshit insane.

One is an invasive surgery with no real danger.

The other is an invasive surgery that's necessary for life saving care in many cases.

We'd go from endangering millions of lives to not endangering any.

You literally said "forced vasectomies".

Do you not understand how critically different that is to whether or not a woman is able to get an abortion?
Do you not see the significant difference in forcing a medical procedure upon one group of people compared to denying one to another group?

Can you not see how what you're suggesting would be MORE invasive and oppressive than women being denied abortions?
Can you take a moment and consider that even many women would have sound reason to reject your extreme proposition?

Like you tried to make this a level comparison and missed the mark.

LotsOfHorror posted...

One is an invasive surgery with no real danger.

The other is an invasive surgery that's necessary for life saving care in many cases.

We'd go from endangering millions of lives to not endangering any.

Wed just end up with a bunch of sterile men instead

Pastryarchy posted...

You literally said "forced vasectomies".

Do you not understand how critically different that is to whether or not a woman is able to get an abortion?
Do you not see the significant difference in forcing a medical procedure upon one group of people compared to denying one to another group?

Can you not see how what you're suggesting would be MORE invasive and oppressive than women being denied abortions?
Can you take a moment and consider that even many women would have sound reason to reject your extreme proposition?

Like you tried to make this a level comparison and missed the mark.

One is less dangerous to the population than the other, therefor is objectively better.

So let's do neither and protect abortion nationwide.

LinkPizza posted...

Wed just end up with a bunch of sterile men instead

Vasectomies are reversible, so still a better option than banning abortions.

LotsOfHorror posted...

One is less dangerous to the population than the other, therefor is objectively better.

Batshit logic.

there should be an initiative where reproductive scientists work to create something so that the upcoming generation (and each subsequent one after that) would be born sterile/infertile.

when members of those generations reach a certain age, they will need to pass a series of tests until they receive a licence.

with that license, they will be able to submit their genetic materials, along with their partner's, to be combined and brought to term into an artificial womb, to help avoid any gender roles right from the beginning.

DeadBankerDream posted...

Batshit logic.

Not at all.

Forced invasive but harmless surgery for half the population is objectively better than denying a lifesaving procedure for the other half.

LotsOfHorror posted...

Vasectomies are reversible, so still a better option than banning abortions.

It's estimated that the success rate of a vasectomy reversal is: 75% if you have your vasectomy reversed within 3 years. up to 55% after 3 to 8 years. between 40% and 45% after 9 to 14 years.

So, yeah. They can be reversed. But they can easily fail depending on how long you have them. So, when do they get these vasectomies. If they get them at the age of puberty, then many may not be able to get them reversed in time to for it to work. If you wait until they are older, then there will probably be a bunch of younger parents.

I dont think its better. I think both forced vasectomies and banning abortions are shitty

g0ldie posted...

there should be an initiative where reproductive scientists work to create something so that the upcoming generation (and each subsequent one after that) would be born sterile/infertile.

when members of those generations reach a certain age, they will need to pass a series of tests until they receive a licence.

with that license, they will be able to submit their genetic materials, along with their partner's, to be combined and brought to term into an artificial womb, to help avoid any gender roles right from the beginning.

I agree. Only rich people should be allowed to reproduce.

LotsOfHorror posted...

Vasectomies are reversible, so still a better option than banning abortions.

Why would you reverse a forced vasectomy? Just because we're in space atm it doesn't mean you can choose to float with no vector

g0ldie posted...

there should be an initiative where reproductive scientists work to create something so that the upcoming generation (and each subsequent one after that) would be born sterile/infertile.

when members of those generations reach a certain age, they will need to pass a series of tests until they receive a licence.

with that license, they will be able to submit their genetic materials, along with their partner's, to be combined and brought to term into an artificial womb, to help avoid any gender roles right from the beginning.

Or just legalize and protect the right to abortion. Nothing else is actually needed.

LinkPizza posted...

It's estimated that the success rate of a vasectomy reversal is: 75% if you have your vasectomy reversed within 3 years. up to 55% after 3 to 8 years. between 40% and 45% after 9 to 14 years.

So, yeah. They can be reversed. But they can easily fail depending on how long you have them. So, when do they get these vasectomies. If they get them at the age of puberty, then many may not be able to get them reversed in time to for it to work. If you wait until they are older, then there will probably be a bunch of younger parents.

I dont think its better. I think both forced vasectomies and banning abortions are shitty

Then you agree with the point of this topic and your arguing it is weird and pointless.

DeadBankerDream posted...

I agree. Only rich people should be allowed to reproduce.

nice.

LotsOfHorror posted...

Or just legalize and protect the right to abortion. Nothing else is actually needed.

yea, but still, sex...gross!

Oh, it's this dude again.

Always dim.

LotsOfHorror posted...

Then you agree with the point of this topic and your arguing it is weird and pointless.

My arguing is that a forced vasectomy isnt better than banning abortions. Both are bad and harmful in their own way

Like another poster said, just dont ban abortions. Thats it. Forcing an invasive surgery is pretty shitty Especially since the reversibility of it goes down as time goes on

Jerry_Hellyeah posted...

Oh, it's this dude again.

Always dim.

You've come in and claimed this repeatedly but never actually are able to make an argument rofl

LinkPizza posted...

My arguing is that a forced vasectomy isnt better than banning abortions. Both are bad and harmful in their own way

Like a mother poster said, just dont ban abortions. Thats it. Forcing an invasive surgery is pretty shitty Especially since the reversibility of it goes down as time goes on

I was that other poster.....

LotsOfHorror posted...

I was that other poster.....

There you go. Thats all we need. Not this forced vasectomy shit

LotsOfHorror posted...

One is less dangerous to the population than the other, therefor is objectively better.

lolno

standardized vesectomies without choice would be inhumane and sexist
and would literally be a bigger threat to population...

some men arent even interested in having sex with women or bothering to reproduce
your batshit fascist idea would still enforce a surgery on them they dont even need
it would also rob men of the ability to consensually and traditionally create families with women who want them
so your crazy idea also negatively impacts women

thats not "objectively better"
thats your subjective bias showing like a billboard

This is so fucking bait

LotsOfHorror posted...

You've come in and claimed this repeatedly but never actually are able to make an argument rofl

Show me 1 time I've ever done that, sane person.

You WOULD rofl there.

Jerry_Hellyeah posted...

Show me 1 time I've ever done that, sane person.

You WOULD rofl there.

Here.

NonDairyMiltank posted...

lolno

standardized vesectomies without choice would be inhumane and sexist
and would literally be a bigger threat to population...

some men arent even interested in having sex with women or bothering to reproduce
your batshit fascist idea would still enforce a surgery on them they dont even need
it would also rob men of the ability to consensually and traditionally create families with women who want them
so your crazy idea also negatively impacts women

thats not "objectively better"
thats your subjective bias showing like a billboard

Forcing a harmless, reversible surgery for half the population is objectively better than forbidding a lifesaving surgery on the other.

LotsOfHorror posted...

Forcing a harmless, reversible surgery for half the population is objectively better than forbidding a lifesaving surgery on the other.

Somewhat reversible. Saying it the way youre saying it makes it sound like you always have a high chance of reversal. But your chances lower the longer you have it Its not as harmless as you make it sound

LinkPizza posted...

Somewhat reversible. Saying it the way youre saying it makes it sound like you always have a high chance of reversal. But your chances lower the longer you have it Its not as harmless as you make it sound

It's far more harmless than banning abortions.

LotsOfHorror posted...

It's far more harmless than banning abortions.

It depends. Both having and banning abortions can be dangerous for different reasons. I wouldnt call it more harmless than banning abortions, though. They are harmful for different reasons. Youre going to far to the other side. You go from banning an invasive surgery to forcing one If I honestly had to choose between the two, Id choose banning abortion before forcing vasectomies. But Id rather have neither

LotsOfHorror posted...

You've come in and claimed this repeatedly but never actually are able to make an argument rofl

That's because your arguments aren't coherent enough to actually bother refuting.

Considering how hard it is for alot of men to even lose their virginity vasectomy. Nevwrmindnsleep regularly with woman I'm curious if this would have had anywhere near the effect TC believes it would sadly enough.

Unless you're targeting PUAs or married men specifically for vasectomys I guess?

ScazarMeltex posted...

That's because your arguments aren't coherent enough to actually bother refuting.

And yet they are.

Prismsblade posted...

Considering how hard it is for alot of men to even lose their virginity vasectomy. Nevwrmindnsleep regularly with woman I'm curious if this would have had anywhere near the effect TC believes it would sadly enough.

Unless you're targeting PUAs or married men specifically for vasectomys I guess?

I think you're missing the point of the topic.

LinkPizza posted...

It depends. Both having and banning abortions can be dangerous for different reasons. I wouldnt call it more harmless than banning abortions, though. They are harmful for different reasons. Youre going to far to the other side. You go from banning an invasive surgery to forcing one If I honestly had to choose between the two, Id choose banning abortion before forcing vasectomies. But Id rather have neither

No, it doesn't depend. Forced vasectomies don't put anyone in danger. Banning abortions does.

This is obvious bait.

LotsOfHorror posted...

No, it doesn't depend. Forced vasectomies don't put anyone in danger. Banning abortions does.

It absolutely depends. Forced vasectomies puts the population in danger. Forcing half the population to get an invasive surgery is an asinine idea. I honestly think banning abortion is better than that then forcing more than to half the population into being sterile

LotsOfHorror posted...

objectively better

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

RiKuToTheMiGhtY posted...

This is obvious bait.

Also, this is very true ^

Not to mention, forced vasectomies probably wouldnt even fix much. To be effective, boys would have to get them at 9, since thats when they can start puberty. Chances are, they wouldnt reverse it until 18+. Even at 18, the success rate for reversal is 40%-45%. So, even if they arent ready, most would get the reversal at that age so they can still have kids in the future So, wed still wind up with unwanted children Either that, or no children at all since wanting to long could mean sterilization

SergeantGander posted...

sex should just be illegal.

Agreed. If I'm not getting any sex then no one should get it either.