Abortion VS vasectomy.. (can't believe i am making a thread about it)

[EagerBeaver]

In the scenario by snoodle the "girls" are determined to have a baby.

I already said at least 10 times I did not originally interpret his comment that way because he also mentioned a "condom popping"......................I had no idea what he meant with the "baby rape" comment but to me a condom popping is an accident, one that leads to a baby nobody wants. The whole discussion was premised on the avoiding of an accident, the accident to be avoided being an accidental childbirth. This will also be the last time I repeat something I have already posted because people are not getting a discussion they either (a) have not read through fully, or (b) had a different interpretation of the OP's comments than I did.

It is also illogical and makes no sense that a woman would attempt to be "raped" and impregnated by a man she does not know.......in such a situation, the man would have equal or superior parental rights with regard to the child in 31 of 50 USA jurisdictions (not sure where Snoodle lives or the law of the jurisdiction in Canada if that is where he lives). To want to be impregnated by rape you presumably want to keep the baby, and it's a totally illogical act if you then can't do that legally...so the bottom line is that I presumed, unlike apparently all of you, that snoodle was not talking complete fucking nonsense.

 

[Merlot]

...unlike apparently all of you, that snoodle was not talking complete fucking nonsense.

Hello EB,

I didn't mention the "rape" part of it because I thought it was a joke and I wasn't referencing that. Still, I've known women and teenage girls (most unfortunately) who told people they were determined to have babies. So the basic idea that the women would not be willing to give up the children you coolly said could be aborted was the point. I'm also fully aware that a large percentage of the population sees abortion as little more than a choice. Yet, even then that choice usually has more emotional consequences than choosing breakfast dishes on a menu.

Sticking to the choices you set in the thread, I find it very unsettling that anyone could suggest an abortion is either an easier choice to make than a vasectomy in which the life of the fetus isn't an issue, or that it can be presumed the woman would necessarily go along with choosing an abortion. If the guy was more proactive on his own choice he there he wouldn't be passing the burden of his choice onto anyone or facing the possibility that he might suddenly have to deal with the prospect of becoming a father and taking responsibility to raise a child as positively as possible.

Frankly I know one very selfish asshole at work who never wanted kids and screwed everything that moved, married or not. He finally got a woman pregnant he knew wanted kids and was personally and religiously very anti-abortion, then had the heartlessness to tell the young kid he was never wanted, while continuing to screw around with the same risk at every chance. That's a lot of complications and pain for avoiding a solution that would have had no impact on anyone but him.

If avoiding kids is the choice then why isn't it much wiser and more responsible for both men and women to be proactive in making sure that choice is solved rather than taking the risk of impacting on other lives...many other lives.

Just my opinion.

In the event this happens (unlikely) wouldn't it be cheaper to pay for an abortion than get a vasectomy? Not to mention pain and suffering of enduring the surgery on very sensitive areas of the body. Just a thought.

Abortion of the fetus is 100%. They remove the fetus and it cannot survive when thrown in a medical waste pail. I go back to the question of why not pay for something that is 100% and cheaper as opposed to something that is less than 100% and more expensive. Does not make any sense to me.

Dude, this is what I find very unsettling..and I'm being kind about it. You refer to the "pain and suffering" of a vasectomy for a guy who doesn't want babies in the first place, but offer no sympathy for the woman who even if she agrees now, may want one later.

For a guy the pain is brief, the risk of complications is infinitesimal as is the risk of impregnation. And don't forget he doesn't want a baby. For the woman who very likely wants a baby sometime, any complications could risk infertility, and whether there are complications or not, each abortion increases the risk of miscarriage later. Millions of women who want babies have trouble becoming pregnant without any of that.

http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/vasectomy-14387

Vasectomy is a very effective (99.85%) birth control method. Only 1 to 2 women out of 1,000 will have an unplanned pregnancy in the first year after their partners have had a vasectomy.

Again, you make it sound like a living fetus is no more than dirty dishes, that human beings have no more responsibility or humanity than to screw as they wish then clean up the...ho-hum, oh not again...unfortunate trifling mess they made, and all because of a .15% (that's about 1/7th of 1 percent) risk of a vasectomy failure. This is too cold for me.

I think this argument turns by a huge landslide if you consider that .15% risk of a failed vasectomy is hundreds of times smaller than the risk of the woman deciding to keep the baby, which they have done even in cases of Rape. Your presumption that there would be an abortion is the riskiest part.

Vasectomy - almost 100% risk free; almost 100% effective; 100% under the man's control

Abortion - entirely dependent on the woman's consent; man has 0% control.

BIIINNNGGGO!!!

Merlot

 

[EagerBeaver]

The only complete fucking nonsense in this thread is the ridiculous assumption that the woman/mother-to-be will simply trundle over to the abortion clinic any time the father-to-be wishes.

It was never stated as an assumption, but rather as an option so I have no idea what you are talking about. If it were not an option abortion would never happen. It is an option with any unwanted pregnancy for any reason. The possibility that the woman may not want it does not mean it should not be discussed or considered. Why would you assume that a woman does not want it without discussing it with her first? It may be she decides it is her best option under the circumstances. So I would say your post is nonsense because there are thousands of abortions that occur because there is a discussion and a conclusion that it is the best course of action for both parties.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I'm just waiting for Todd Akin to chip in & give us his thoughts about this thread......

 

[Merlot]

...is not only non-binding and non-enforceable, but will not relieve the father of his legal and financial obligations toward the child.

Hello JHG,

Excellent!

As I pointed out previously when it comes to the guys desire to avoid making a child the 0.15% failure rate, or 99.85% vasectomy success rate versus odds hundreds of times higher that the mother may want to keep the child makes the abortion option a real non-starter from the guys view of the best chance of avoiding children. Not only is there the risk that the woman wants the child from the start, but also women have often decided to keep unplanned children from any relationship as well as those from a rape sometimes. I would make a guess I think is very reasonable that 25-30% of women go through with unplanned pregnancies. That's 167-200 times the risk of having a child versus the failure rate of a vasectomy. That's overwhelmingly in favor of the man take charge of his productive capacity versus what the woman may choose to do.

As you correctly pointed out, any agreement against having children is completely non-binding on the woman.

In fact a quick check of unplanned pregnancies that were aborted show in 2001 that 44% of them were followed by live birth, 42% aborted, and 14% resulted in miscarriage...40% aborted in 2010. That means given the option of abortion, women were 293 times more likely to have a baby than if a man had a vasectomy. Choice made Beav.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/75973-unplanned-pregnancy-information/

http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/446-abortion-2010

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[Merlot]

As for abortion and same-sex marriage, any law against them is religion based as there is no victim here unless you, by virtue of your religion, believe that life begins at conception.

Well,

I'll move this here so the mods don't get annoyed by diverted subjects.

I didn't mean to turn this into an abortion thread, but I have no idea why the question of abortion rights is based on religion. Frankly I think anyone who insists laws about abortion are religious is letting his perspective be trapped into falling in line with the Fundamentalist philosophy. In my perspective the question is heavily grounded in the scientific and humanistic. Again, what's religious about that.

Today we accept that the simplest forms of organisms are "LIFE". To say something infinitely more complex and with infinitely more potential isn't life because it's only in the first trimester is utterly contradicting given the basis of what is accepted as life. And the standard of whether an early fetus can survive on it's own is bogus. Any individual denied it's means to survive as it's designed at the time cannot live at any age.

What's religious about any of this?

No victim! Sorry I find that view unconscionable.

really,

Merlot

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Today we accept that the simplest forms of organisms are "LIFE". To say something infinitely more complex and with infinitely more potential isn't life because it's only in the first trimester is utterly contradicting given the basis of what is accepted as life.

According to who? The religious community, yes. The scientific community, no

And the standard of whether an early fetus can survive on it's own is bogus.

According to who? The religious community, yes. The scientific community, no

BTW, this doesn't belong here either, IMHO. You should have started a new thread.

 

[michael99]

http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/vasectomy-14387

Vasectomy is a very effective (99.85%) birth control method. Only 1 to 2 women out of 1,000 will have an unplanned pregnancy in the first year after their partners have had a vasectomy.

I wish webmd.com had explained where this 99.85% number comes from.
Just above that comment on their web site they state that with a successful vasectomy the sperm count is zero.

Zero sperm = no baby no matter how you slice the cake.

BTW - I had a vasectomy years ago, was quite apprehensive about it before taking the plunge because I thought my sex drive and sexual pleasure would go down the drain.
Turns out that the opposite happened.
Probably because any concern about geting my partner pregnant went out so window - did for her as well.
If the couple (or man) is sure they don't want any (more) babies, having a vasectomy is a smart thing to do.