No abortions for women? Then no vasectomies for men, lawmakers say

Submitted by Mastodon on Wed, 2013-07-10 21:47

Article here.

'As members of Georgia’s House of Representatives debate whether to prohibit abortions for women more than 20 weeks pregnant, House Democrats planned to introduce their own reproductive rights plan: No more vasectomies that leave "thousands of children ... deprived of birth."

Rep. Yasmin Neal, a Democrat from the Atlanta suburb of Jonesboro, planned to introduce a bill Wednesday that would prevent men from vasectomies unless needed to avert serious injury or death.

“If we legislate women’s bodies, it’s only fair that we legislate men’s,” said Neal, who said she wanted to introduce a bill that would generate emotion and conversation the way anti-abortion bills do. “There are too many problems in the state. Why are you under the skirts of women? I’m sure there are other places to be."'

---
Ed.: This story's from Feb. 2012, but I thought it was a good one to run since it points out the confusion in popular perception re repro. rights. I discuss it in the first comment.

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Ms. Neal is confusing her analogs. The analagous situation for women vis-a-vis a vasectomy isn't pregnancy, it's a tubal ligation. The abortion right analogy for men would be the right to renounce parental responsibilities as well as rights either post-conception or post-birth. However men don't have that right. So really, Ms. Neal has it wrong.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2013-07-11 01:11

So you want to make it so men can't even prevent conception? Then neither should women be allowed to either. Better add a clause to that bill that forbids women from getting free birth control from Obamacare, you hypocrite! Nice attempt at a strawmen there. Zygotes are not the same as gametes! I guess someone failed high school biology.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by xtrnl on Thu, 2013-07-11 19:02

I don't see the correlation between abortion and a vasectomy. If anything, Tubal Sterilization is the female equivalent to a vasectomy.

Regardless of ones opinion on abortion, taking rights away from men with the intention of proving some point is childish. I've noticed a lot of female politicians debate legislation with emotion instead of logic. Makes me wonder how a Hillary administration will function.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Mastodon on Thu, 2013-07-11 20:09

Women's groups usually oppose abstinence-only sex education programs. On the other hand, if a man complains about getting a woman pregnant, the response of most women is "You should have kept it in your pants." In other words, you should have chosen abstinence. That seems to be the view of a lot of women: abstinence is good for men but not for women.

Also, I wonder why ObamaCare does not include free vasectomies or condoms for men but does provide free hysterectomies and BC pills for women. Part of the reason is Obama doesn't recognize that men are reproductive beings. But perhaps it's also because this would give men too much control over their own reproductive lives. A man who had vasectomy is denying a woman the right to have a child. And he usually can't be nailed with child support. Vasectomies may not be right for a young man who hopes (unwisely) to have a family, but they do make sense for men past a certain age. Yet the government requires insurance companies to pay for a hysterectomy without co-pays or deductibles but not for men who want vasectomies. At the same time, we are told if we don't want to have a baby to "keep it in our pants." Does this make any sense?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Fri, 2013-07-12 16:21

Sounds good. Make sure a woman can't cut an infant boys genitals as well. I'm all for it.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Gwyddion on Mon, 2013-07-15 14:50

A Hillary admin'n would be a total calamity, and I think she knows it. Still, she may decide to run anyway and unless the GOP can find a decent counter-candidate, there's a good chance she'd win.

Aside entirely from any anti-male agenda (which there'd be, of course), just the very "simple" matter of being able to govern the US at this time in its history-- think another 4 years of ZERO legislative progress on even the most basic concerns. Not like much is happening anyway. And there'll be an incessant hue from the feminist blocs in the House and Senate as their Glorious Leader is now occupying the same office her old man used to.

4 years of nothing + 4 years of nothing + 4 more years of nothing will add up to 12 years of gridlock. Neither America nor the rest of the civilized world can afford it. But there's a pretty good chance that's exactly what we'll (continue to) get.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Mon, 2013-07-15 20:29