[RD] Abortion, once again

[MaryKB]

The point of the vasectomy thing is to illustrate to men what it's like to have people discuss the government regulating your body. You're SUPPOSED to be horrified by the idea, that's the entire point of the thought exercise. I'm not surprised it went over dudes' heads.

The difference between making every man have a vasectomy and forcing women to go through with unwanted or dangerous pregnancies are these:

• vasectomies are reversible and far less invasive
• vasectomies are easier, quicker, and cheaper
• vasectomies don't have any other effect on your body
• vasectomies don't disrupt your education or career
• vasectomies don't put you into life-long debt
• vasectomies don't leave you with a lifelong social burden
• vasectomies aren't exposing you to risk of death

Men have no idea what women have to go through. The fact that ignorant guys lost their minds about it is entirely the point: you can't even imagine what it's like to be a woman and have to face this. If you don't support the mandatory vasectomies for all males, then you cannot support any kind of abortion law Moderator Action: *snip*
Text removed. Please play nice. - lymond
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't follow this analogy at all or how it applies. I'd like to know if you can explain it more.

I precipitated the creation of a consciousness, then created a risky environment for him and myself, and then killed him after he was conscious in order to save myself. It is an imperfect analogy, but it's also not easy to say that creating the situation then gives me permission to kill him.

Even if I claim that it was the only way to get him to the island with me, something I wanted, I think to say that the allocation of risk and harms isn't fair.

 

[Samson]

vasectomies are reversible

Success rates for vasectomy reversal

• 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
• 30% after 15 to 19 years
• less than 10% after 20 years

 

[MaryKB]

Success rates for vasectomy reversal

• 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
• 30% after 15 to 19 years
• less than 10% after 20 years

And what are your stats on the reversibility of pregnancy?

 

[sophie]

Success rates for vasectomy reversal

• 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
• 30% after 15 to 19 years
• less than 10% after 20 years

Sounds to me like vasectomies are, in fact, reversible then.

 

[Sommerswerd]

My analogy is that forcing someone into a risk changes burdens.

This is part of why I'm trying to stay away from abstract analogies/arguments in this context. I don't agree with the notion of "forcing" in this context and I don't agree with the way you are using "risk" in this context.

For one thing, you have to exist first, before you can be "forced" to do anything. So your use of "force" here does not apply. More importantly, a woman does not "force" a fertilized egg/fetus/unborn child into existence, nor does a man. The egg travels down the fallopian tube on its own, the woman can't control it. The man ejaculates and after that, he has no control of where the sperm goes or whether they fertilize the egg or not, nor does the woman. The parents certainly play the primary role in causing the pregnancy, but they by no means "force" it. They can't. The thousands upon thousands of couples struggling with fertility can attest to that.

Also, what is the "risk" here? Being alive? Existing? The mother had a principal role in causing the fertilized egg/fetus/unborn child to exist, so her rights must be subordinated to theirs? Why? Why isn't it the other way around? The mother is the one who caused the fertilized egg/fetus/unborn child to exist, so she is the one it has to thank for its existence, it wouldn't, and couldn't exist without her, so its rights are subordinated to hers. She is the creator, she is the one carrying... so she is in charge, not the fertilized egg/fetus/unborn child. Why is that not your view?

 

[JollyRoger]

God the creator has a planned 100% kill rate, so maybe she should follow that model?

 

[Samson]

And what are your stats on the reversibility of pregnancy?

Do not get me wrong, I support your general point, and think we make too many people ATM so would probably support such a measure if it was implemented as a reasonable way of dealing with the climate crisis. But one should be honest about the results of said policy. There is the issue that it would be likely to turn reproduction into largely the domain of the rich, but there should be a solution to that.

Sounds to me like vasectomies are, in fact, reversible then.

For some values of reversible. I am just making those values clear.

 

[MaryKB]

Do not get me wrong, I support your general point, and think we make too many people ATM so would probably support such a measure if it was implemented as a reasonable way of dealing with the climate crisis. But one should be honest about the results of said policy. There is the issue that it would be likely to turn reproduction into largely the domain of the rich, but there should be a solution to that.

For some values of reversible. I am just making those values clear.

The point is that vasectomies can be reversed while pregnancies cannot.

 

[Samson]

The point is that vasectomies can be reversed while pregnancies cannot.

Well, depending on your point of view this whole thread is about pregnancy reversal. It has a pretty low success rate after 9 months though.

 

[Lexicus]

Also, what is the "risk" here? Being alive? Existing? The mother had a principal role in causing the fertilized egg/fetus/unborn child to exist, so her rights must be subordinated to theirs? Why? Why isn't it the other way around? The mother is the one who caused the fertilized egg/fetus/unborn child to exist, so she is the one it has to thank for its existence, so its rights are subordinated to hers. She is the creator, she is the one carrying... so she is in charge, not the fertilized egg/fetus/unborn child. Why is that not your view?

I just want to say that this view is really the only one that is consistent with women participating in society as full, equal, and free citizens.

 

[MaryKB]

Well, depending on your point of view this whole thread is about pregnancy reversal. It has a pretty low success rate after 9 months though.

If you think an abortion is a pregnancy reversal then you understand neither pregnancy nor abortion.

 

[Remorseless1]

Tl;dr it tells us about some youngish (20s) women who believe that supporting abortion bans without exceptions for rape and incest is actually feminist and empowering.

They are almost all conservative evangelical Christians who like to flaunt their, ahem, "morality" at us sinners. I'd bet my house that if one of those "Christians" got knocked up at an inconvenient time, they would get an abortion in a blue state because they prayed on it and God said it was okay this time...

Effing stupid hypocrites.

 

[Samson]

If you think an abortion is a pregnancy reversal then you understand neither pregnancy nor abortion.

This is true, and that was a flippant comment rather than a useful contribution.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The point of the vasectomy thing is to illustrate to men what it's like to have people discuss the government regulating your body. You're SUPPOSED to be horrified by the idea, that's the entire point of the thought exercise. I'm not surprised it went over dudes' heads.

FWIW Mary, I got your point re: forced vasectomies and I started to type a post saying "Duh Mary is being sarcastic to make the point that..." but then it occurred to me that folks posturing as if they didn't already get that we're just arguing in bad faith, so I said forget it.

 

[JollyRoger]

I'm pro choice - a man can choose to either get all of his COVID vaccines or a vasectomy.

 

[Farm Boy]

Forced sterilization has a proud history. You suggest it, it gets considered. I'd consider it a policy suggestion.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Forced sterilization has a proud history. You suggest it, it gets considered. I'd consider it.

Almost as proud as treating women as baby machines.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I just want to say that this view is really the only one that is consistent with women participating in society as full, equal, and free citizens.

Which is why the whole argument about "personhood" and defining "person" is misdirection. The point is that either the mother or the fetus rights have to be subordinated to the other and the choice of who gets to make the decision and/or get their rights, wants, needs prioritized and/or subordinated.

The personhood argument is fatally flawed because it does not address any issue, ie., the justification for the subordination of one's rights/wants/needs over the other. The personhood argument defines a "person" essentially, as "an entity with equal rights"... then says "A fertilized egg/fetus/unborn child is a person, therefore they are entitled to equal rights." But this is the same thing as saying that "An entity with equal rights is therefore entitled to equal rights." Its a completely circular argument that has no real underlying substance.

 

[Farm Boy]

We have lots of histories. Tons and tons of killing. Yupyup.

Though there does need to be some agreement over what point man gets made to the point it isn't supposed to be terminated by a member of the gang with more seniority. We subsume each others rights all the time. Even come up with errata. We're passing good at it when motivated.