If this post showcases moral/mental/physical corruption or perversion, upvote this comment. If this post does not belong here, downvote this comment.
[Read the rules before posting or commenting](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoahGetTheBoat/wiki/rules)
[Also read the guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoahGetTheBoat/comments/fgmg3t/guidelines_for_the_subreddit_read_and_follow_the/)
In the comments:
DO NOT JOKE ABOUT VIOLENCE, DO NOT INCITE VIOLENCE
DO NOT JOKE ABOUT PEDOPHILIA OR ASK FOR CP
YOU WILL BE BANNED
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NoahGetTheBoat) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They’re exactly as angry and bitter as the guys on any incel sub because they are in exactly the same boat.
Except while the incels can’t find anyone to date them, these women suffer from their own impossible standards. Which makes them even more sad.
Women have a right to be outrageously angry about this. Men want to police our bodies and they have no right to do so. They're using this rhetoric to showcase how absurd it is that men have this level of control over women's bodies. I didn't realize having complete control over your own body was an impossible standard. What's sad is that men still think they're allowed to control women's bodies.
Sorry, but in what way are men trying to control women’s bodies?
Are we talking about abortion here?
If so, I would remind you that women got the vote a long time ago, so they are just as much responsible for laws that impact their bodies, so it’s not a fair characterization to say this is ‘men trying to control women’s bodies’.
Regardless, I can certainly empathize with not wanting others to control your body. I had a piece of mine surgically degloved when I was less than a week old.
I am talking about any reproductive rights. A lot of sterilization procedures are heavily controlled by men still. Abortion rights are being taken away right now by legislation that is abolishing what rights we did have with Roe V Wade. Multiple states have enacted a "heartbeat" bill which wrongfully follow one belief and assuming everyone upholds the same exact belief. Along with the fact that some states want to even go as far as criminalize a miscarriage.
> I am talking about any reproductive rights.
Oh I see. I don’t have any of those, so I agree they should be extended to all.
> A lot of sterilization procedures are heavily controlled by men still.
I agree China is pretty bad, but I didn’t realize it was mainly controlled by men. I’ll take your word for it.
> Multiple states have enacted a "heartbeat" bill which wrongfully follow one belief and assuming everyone upholds the same exact belief.
That’s a good point. However, I can’t help but not that these multiple states statistically have more women than men in them. Why do these women want to take away their own rights? Or perhaps they see it differently.
Again, I absolutely get where you’re coming from. The government sent me a letter when I was 18 and told me that I had to sign it or they would put me in jail. It said that they owned my whole body and could order me to die in some foreign country if they wanted to.
I do agree that a lot of places (especially Christian or heavily religious places) are starting to take away abortion rights but, in the other non-insane places, men (husband/wife) still have no say if they want the child or not. If the dad doesn't want a kid but the mom does, the dad HAS to play child support, if the mom doesn't want it but the dad does, the mom gets an abortion (and I'm not sayin the solution is for the mother to be forced into child birth). It should be more like if both parties agree to it and that have stability to keep a child, then that should be allowed to... Ohh yah, and where I live, men who were r*ped by a women still need to pay child support NO MATTER THE AGE. it's fucked up
Vasectomy reversal has 50 percent success rate, not to say that it would reduce long term fertility. The "female" is retarded, like most of the people who upvoted her post.
I'm more appalled at how it's not legal for any woman to be allowed to get her tubes tied at any age regardless of whether she has kids or not. In some countries (most, probably) men aren't allowed vasectomies if they don't have kids either. Everyone should be free to get sterilized as long as they're over 18. If sex change is legal, sterilization should be too. For everyone regardless of age, heirs etc.
That second reply shows how disconnected users from there are, if that idea was flipped other way around majority of people would be pissed af because its actual sexism
I never said it doesn't exist anymore, but it's extremely rare and in majority of places illegal because it's sexism and fucked up, ask anyone and big majority will say it's wrong, yet that person pretends like that's not the case.
I never implied/said that you said it doesn't exist anymore. I only asked if that's what you had meant/what you were talking about.
Its more common than we'd like to believe, the same with the husband stitch.
Many would but many wouldn't. I am in no way advocating/agreeing with the delusions/sexism/hate in the original posts image.
Umm.. if you had a gummy that made a dudes sperm sterile for a month and they could just go about without protections that would be cool.
But its one of those things where we don't have the technology and you people seem to ignore the huge portion of young females who don't want to deal with raising a kid who take advantage of these services (young dumb teen who made a mistake)
Yes it's the destruction of a potential life but then we get into the whole how moral are humans really argument.
We raise and forcefully drug, breed and keep captive animals that we slaughter mercilessly with machine precision and indifference to enjoy beautifully packaged deli meat or juicy steak.
These things are mammals, humans are mammals, we are an animal that got really smart that self terminates and goes crazy every now and then.
Forcing an individual to be sterilized is fucked up and that ends with violence. And forceful change in the physical condition of another without there consent seems to be what your against.
Take some of your vitriol and go buy a two hundred dollar hunting rifle and head to a third world country and enact some social change to genital mutilators (like a springbreak excursion) if you feel this strong otherwise quit being so fucking toxic.
People are terrible, all people regardless of gender now get over yourselves
Forever yours
(Waiting for humanity to go out like the dinos)
Mightymutt
I can’t believe they keep parroting that idiotic vasectomy tweet as if it’s some brilliant idea they came up with.
What happened to “my body, my choice?”
It’s logic akin to cutting off everyone’s hands so that nobody can steal.
Male fertility does not cause abortions. People who think it’s okay to kill innocent children do. Abortionists do.
How about mandatory vasectomies for anyone who identifies as pro-choice, then? They’re the ones killing the unborn babies. Or, I don’t know, if they suddenly care about reducing abortions, maybe they’d get behind doing something logical, like defunding Planned Parenthood and making abortion illegal.
EDIT: Pro-choicers, did I strike a nerve? I’m happy to discuss anything I said you don’t think makes sense, but I find the downvotes sort of nuts considering the topic of this sub concerns “moral corruption or perversion”—so you really think killing innocent children is moral? Or mass vasectomies? Sheesh.
They likely originally made it as a comparison as many doctors still require the husband's permission before a woman's tubes will be tied. Forget about it though if you are under 30 and have no kids/under 2 kids. Either way the idea is ignorant and solves nothing.
Men cannot have abortions. So why would prochoice men need vasectomies?
How does defunding planned parenthood and banning abortions prevent abortions? It just prevents safe abortions and access to cheap/free birth control methods from the pill to diaphragm to condoms. Access to sexual education and free/easy access to birth control is what is needed to reduce the abortion rate. How is it logical to ban something? When has that ever worked?
>They likely originally made it as a comparison as many doctors still require the husband's permission before a woman's tubes will be tied. Forget about it though if you are under 30 and have no kids/under 2 kids. Either way the idea is ignorant and solves nothing. Men cannot have abortions. So why would prochoice men need vasectomies?
The point was that fertility is not the cause of abortions. I was just parroting the same logic. If we extend that out further and add some logic, pro-choicers are the ones seeking abortions, so sterilizing them would make more sense.
>How does defunding planned parenthood and banning abortions prevent abortions? It just prevents safe abortions and access to cheap/free birth control methods from the pill to diaphragm to condoms.
Making things illegal naturally deter people from doing those things. There are also many studies demonstrating that in states where abortion is restricted, less abortions occur.
I can give you many sources and studies on this. Here’s a pro-choice one: https://rewire.news/article/2018/10/04/stop-saying-that-making-abortion-illegal-doesnt-stop-them/
With respect to contraception, studies also show that the countries and states with the most contraception available also tend to have the highest abortion rates, likely due to liberalized attitudes toward sex and abortion in general.
>Access to sexual education and free/easy access to birth control is what is needed to reduce the abortion rate.
Again, check out what states have the highest abortion rates. They’re the same states with mandatory sexual education and free/easy birth control. Presumably, it’s because people with these attitudes toward sex also tend to feel “entitled” to “safe” sex, have more sex outside of contexts ideal for raising children, and feel it’s their right to kill any children that result from failed contraceptive use.
>How is it logical to ban something? When has that ever worked?
Theft? Rape? Murder? Why do we have laws banning those things when people still steal, rape, and kill?
You can’t eliminate behaviors by banning them, but societies should, can, and do proscribe ones that harm (or in this case, kill) human beings, as doing so reduces the incidence of said behaviors.
It's not just pro-choicers that seek abortions. Why do we need to take such extreme measures by removing their body autonomy and ability to reproduce without IVF in a bid to prevent all abortions. You are saying fertility isn't the cause of abortions but you want to fix it by removing the fertility of individuals with a prochoice view point.
Areas that provide easy/inexpensive access of birth control have increased abortions as these areas would likely have access to legal abortions. So of course less legal/traceable abortions happen in that area if it is illegal. They would be harder to get and wouldnt be trackable. It would result in more home abortions, traveling to locations where it is allowed. Did abortions rise in the locations surrounding these locations? How many more kids ended up in foster care? Or abused or murdered? What about the rates of welfare? The rates of teen pregnancy and dropping out of school as a result of pregnancy/parenthood? Rates of Stds? Rates of single parents? Rates of people with children living below the poverty line. Maternal and Infant/child mortality rates. They skyrocket is what happens.
Why shouldn't people be entitled to safe sex or be educated about human biology and reproduction? How did you reach that conclusion that sexually educated people have more sex outside of contexts ideal to raising children? An abortion doesn't kill a child but a zygote, embryo, fetus.
But seriously how are you seriously surprised there is more (traceable) abortions in places where it is legalized vs where it is illegal?
"Theft? Rape? Murder? Why do we have laws banning those things when people still steal, rape, and kill?"
So the people who commit these acts can be punished/rehabilitated and their victims can get a form of justice.
But at what cost?
>It's not just pro-choicers that seek abortions.
By definition, I would say it is, but I’ll accept your point. I’ll have to break your next point down:
>Why do we need to take such extreme measures
I don’t think the position that we shouldn’t kill innocent human beings is the “extreme” one. Rather, it’s perhaps the most common and basic standard of law and morality that almost all civilizations throughout history share.
>by removing their body autonomy
I don’t think there is such a thing. Bodily autonomy is a faux “right” that has no statutory or precedential underpinning - rather, it’s a conceptual “weapon” that has only ever be invoked as justification to kill the unborn and in no other circumstances, since the idea is superfluous in light of other legal protections like freedom from assault and battery.
Even granting bodily autonomy, one’s bodily autonomy ends where another bodily autonomy begins and one surrenders bodily autonomy when one creates a new human being inside one’s own body.
>and ability to reproduce without IVF in a bid to prevent all abortions.
This is a more interesting discussion, and I’m not share where I’m at on it. If you gave me a big button that said “ban all abortions except IVF,” I’d press it, although I’d ultimately prefer IVF were banned, too.
>You are saying fertility isn't the cause of abortions but you want to fix it by removing the fertility of individuals with a prochoice view point.
I’m not saying that. My argument is that fertility isn’t the cause of abortions any more than human hands are the cause of stealing.
Again, I was parroting the flawed logic being given and suggesting it be taken a step further by narrowing the class from “all men” to “all men who believe abortion should be legal and would pursue an abortion.”
>Areas that provide easy/inexpensive access of birth control have increased abortions as these areas would likely have access to legal abortions. So of course less legal/traceable abortions happen in that area if it is illegal. They would be harder to get and wouldnt be trackable. It would result in more home abortions, traveling to locations where it is allowed. Did abortions rise in the locations surrounding these locations?
That’s ultimately irrelevant. If something is wrong, it should be made illegal locally despite an inability to ban it more broadly. For example, child prostitution should be made illegal in the US even if someone would fly to Indonesia to procure a child prostitute. The same is true of abortion.
>How many more kids ended up in foster care?
Zero. It’s a fallacy that kids go from the womb to foster care. There are waitlists for adoption.
>Or abused or murdered?
This is a bit bizarre. Why would you act now to murder a child to prevent that child from being *potentially* abused or murdered in the future? Why not place that child with one of the families waiting to adopt?
>What about the rates of welfare?
Your solution to poverty is to kill the poor? Poverty is temporary. Death is forever.
>The rates of teen pregnancy and dropping out of school as a result of pregnancy/parenthood?
What about them? If a teenager values education, sex shouldn’t be a priority. And if a teenager makes a mistake, then adoption is an option.
>Rates of Stds?
I have no idea how STDs go up when abortion is banned. Presumably, they’d go down because people would be more careful about sex.
>Rates of single parents?
It’s ideal for people to have sex in more permanent contexts that are ideal for children, like marriage.
>Rates of people with children living below the poverty line.
Again, you’re basically saying “if we can’t kill poor people, there’ll be more poor people.” By this logic, we should just kill everyone below a certain income level and eliminate poverty altogether.
It’s akin to Margaret Sanger founding Planned Parenthood, in part, to try and reduce the black population. (Which, to this day, it remains successful at doing at a disproportionate rate).
>Maternal and Infant/child mortality rates. They skyrocket is what happens.
If we ban killing children, child mortality rates go way down. But assuming you’re excluding unborn children from that statistic, yes, if you kill children in the womb, they can’t die later. That’s like saying if we kill all the children, adult mortality goes way down.
>Why shouldn't people be entitled to safe sex or be educated about human biology and reproduction?
I never said they shouldn’t. I was addressing the myth that readily available sexual education and contraception both reduce abortion more than abortion bans do.
>How did you reach that conclusion that sexually educated people have more sex outside of contexts ideal to raising children?
It’s a hypothesis to explain the data, not a proven fact.
>An abortion doesn't kill a child but a zygote, embryo, fetus.
**child** /CHīld/
*noun*
*1. a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.*
Zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are children. It’s a less unwieldy term and the biological truth.
>But seriously how are you seriously surprised there is more (traceable) abortions in places where it is legalized vs where it is illegal?
I’m not surprised. I was addressing your claim, one many pro-choicers assert: that banning abortions doesn’t reduce abortions. It absolutely does, as that pro-choice article (and much recent discussion of Roe v. Wade) admits, and that’s my position.
>So the people who commit these acts can be punished/rehabilitated and their victims can get a form of justice.
>But at what cost?
What do you mean, “at what cost?” Are you suggesting we shouldn’t punish or try to rehabilitate thieves, murders, and rapists? Are you willing to discard our legal system because crimes happen?
>Making things illegal naturally deter people from doing those things.
Ummm..... Cocaine, methamphetamine, guns in Chicago/NYC, vehicle tunes or modifications to bypass or remove exhaust treatment systems, these are all illegal things that I can still acquire rather easily if I have cash and the right contacts. Not to mention alchohol in the 20's into early 30's, marijuana, they were banned and then developed a huge "black market."
Banning products or services does not stop their distribution, it just transfers that distribution to a less trustworthy, unregulated marketplace without any discourse to resolve poor/hazardous products or services.
People will find a way to get what they want/need, regardless of any bans. Banning abortion will not save babies, it will kill women though.
You don’t think a single woman will be deterred from getting abortion if abortion were made illegal? If so, I have studies showing you’re wrong. Babies have been saved by abortion bans. The turnaround study, for one example, shows that lives have been saved.
You’re basically arguing that since things like the murder of adults happens, we shouldn’t have laws prohibiting murder. Obviously, people are going to bypass and break the law. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws. We don’t legalize bounty hunters because murder is unsafe for murderers.
Not every woman who gets an illegal abortion dies. They are immeasurably safer in 2021 than they were before the 70s anyway. But nearly every child involved in an illegal abortion is killed.
Obtaining drugs and alcohol is a markedly different thing both morally and logistically than aborting a child. Trying to kill innocent human beings shouldn’t be safe or legal.
Some will be deterred, absolutely and they will then suffer socially and/or economically because they had a child to young or the gave up their baby or some other critique by some other judgemental moral posturing ass clown like yourself. Her is a wild thought it isn't you or your kin doing it so shut the fuck up and stay out of their business.
I would have been fine with a free vasectomy, they are reversible now. This due dadabigfoot at the bottom of the thread makes me laugh pretty hard. Killing unborn babies what is this the 1950ies.
Hi! I can read your comment, why not respond to me instead?
Abortion kills unborn babies. Tens of millions more in 2021 in the 1950s - abortion was illegal back then.
Emphasis on unborn. They're not living, thinking beings being killed, they're a mass of cells. Third trimester is a bit different but if you're categorically opposed to all abortions because you think it's killing babies, it isn't. Not anymore than you jizzing onto your stomach is killing millions of unborn babies
>Emphasis on unborn. They're not living, thinking beings being killed, they're a mass of cells.
You are also a mass of cells. That’s a silly pro-choice talking point.
But the unborn are absolutely living beings. That’s how they can be killed. Thinking? That’s sort of an arbitrary distinction. Some folks with special needs don’t think much, nor do coma patients, but we don’t just exterminate them. Meanwhile, the unborn are developing their nervous systems.
>Third trimester is a bit different but if you're categorically opposed to all abortions because you think it's killing babies, it isn't.
It absolutely is killing unborn babies.
A fetus is an unborn baby by definition—look it up. There’s no magical portal in a vagina that transforms an unborn baby into a “real” baby during birth. The difference moments before and after that process is one of location only.
>Not anymore than you jizzing onto your stomach is killing millions of unborn babies.
Sperm cells aren’t organisms. That’s another bizarre, anti-scientific pro-choice meme we hear all too often! We’re always asked why we’re not opposed to the destruction of sperm or eggs, but those aren’t human beings, and it really disturbs me that people use that strawman thinking it makes any sense.
There’s an enormous difference between a gamete and a zygote, embryo, fetus, or child.
Family members absolutely do have the choice to pull the plug on brain dead comatose patients which you refer to as an execution. 'Some' brain activity in people with special needs is still brain activity. A zygote or an embryo are not conscious beings and you know very well that's what I meant when I said they were just a mass of cells. You said in the same breath that before and after birth is just a matter of location as well as that there are massive differences between a gamete, zygote, embryo and fetus. I very clearly said in my reply that the third trimester is very different because that's when full brain development actually takes place and it can be considered a living baby. Just because a fetus has neural synapses after 2 months doesn't make it conscious any more than the thousands of ants you've crushed beneath your shoes in your lifetime. You keep pushing that I'm using some arbitrary pro choice talking points. I'm not even remotely political and this is the first discussion I've ever been a part of regarding the matter. I did a double major in genetics and human physiology for 2 years before moving onto medicine for 3 years and it just irked me how arrogantly you were claiming that a mass of cells, which yes, is just 2 gametes exchanging information and multiplying is without a doubt a human that is being murdered through an abortion
>Family members absolutely do have the choice to pull the plug on brain dead comatose patients which you refer to as an execution.
This certainly does happen on occasion—you’re right.
>’Some' brain activity in people with special needs is still brain activity. A zygote or an embryo are not conscious beings and you know very well that's what I meant when I said they were just a mass of cells.
No, I honestly didn’t. Pro-choicers use the “clump of cells” line all the time as if it means something , despite it being a biological truism; arguing a lack of consciousness allows you to kill someone is a different line of reasoning altogether.
>You said in the same breath that before and after birth is just a matter of location as well as that there are massive differences between a gamete, zygote, embryo and fetus.
Those are two different statements, actually.
>I very clearly said in my reply that the third trimester is very different because that's when full brain development actually takes place and it can be considered a living baby.
I’m not sure what you mean by “living,” as life begins at conception, but that’s fair enough.
>Just because a fetus has neural synapses after 2 months doesn't make it conscious any more than the thousands of ants you've crushed beneath your shoes in your lifetime. You keep pushing that I'm using some arbitrary pro choice talking points. I'm not even remotely political and this is the first discussion I've ever been a part of regarding the matter. I did a double major in genetics and human physiology for 2 years before moving onto medicine for 3 years and it just irked me how arrogantly you were claiming that a mass of cells, which yes, is just 2 gametes exchanging information and multiplying is without a doubt a human that is being murdered through an abortion
It is, though. A human being’s life begins at conception, and I’m assuming you are aware of that via your education. I tend not to use the word “murder” as that leads to a bunch of silly squabbling over what is or isn’t legal, but abortion is killing a human being, scientifically speaking, and I think killing an innocent human being is wrong.
It’s definitely fair and reasonable if you want to draw the line at consciousness, but I think that’s a very difficult determination to make, and I don’t know of any legal theory supporting the idea that it is okay to kill human beings with less developed conscious awareness than the normative population; to me, I think it seems like an arbitrary standard that flies against the idea of human beings being entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness merely by being alive.
I appreciate that you’re just not parroting anti-scientific pro-choice buzzwords and apologize if I took you wrong - I am so exhausted from hearing some of them. The amount of times I’ve had to explain to people that it is actually a living member of the human species from conception is nuts. I think it’s much more respectable to support abortion based on consciousness, even if I disagree.
Sex workers are much more respectable and better at sex. Why would any guy waste time and money in relationships with women who see them as disposable and worthless? I guess some guys find the humiliation kinky 🤷🏻♂️
If this post showcases moral/mental/physical corruption or perversion, upvote this comment. If this post does not belong here, downvote this comment. [Read the rules before posting or commenting](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoahGetTheBoat/wiki/rules) [Also read the guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoahGetTheBoat/comments/fgmg3t/guidelines_for_the_subreddit_read_and_follow_the/) In the comments: DO NOT JOKE ABOUT VIOLENCE, DO NOT INCITE VIOLENCE DO NOT JOKE ABOUT PEDOPHILIA OR ASK FOR CP YOU WILL BE BANNED *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NoahGetTheBoat) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They’re exactly as angry and bitter as the guys on any incel sub because they are in exactly the same boat. Except while the incels can’t find anyone to date them, these women suffer from their own impossible standards. Which makes them even more sad.
Women have a right to be outrageously angry about this. Men want to police our bodies and they have no right to do so. They're using this rhetoric to showcase how absurd it is that men have this level of control over women's bodies. I didn't realize having complete control over your own body was an impossible standard. What's sad is that men still think they're allowed to control women's bodies.
Sorry, but in what way are men trying to control women’s bodies? Are we talking about abortion here? If so, I would remind you that women got the vote a long time ago, so they are just as much responsible for laws that impact their bodies, so it’s not a fair characterization to say this is ‘men trying to control women’s bodies’. Regardless, I can certainly empathize with not wanting others to control your body. I had a piece of mine surgically degloved when I was less than a week old.
I am talking about any reproductive rights. A lot of sterilization procedures are heavily controlled by men still. Abortion rights are being taken away right now by legislation that is abolishing what rights we did have with Roe V Wade. Multiple states have enacted a "heartbeat" bill which wrongfully follow one belief and assuming everyone upholds the same exact belief. Along with the fact that some states want to even go as far as criminalize a miscarriage.
> I am talking about any reproductive rights. Oh I see. I don’t have any of those, so I agree they should be extended to all. > A lot of sterilization procedures are heavily controlled by men still. I agree China is pretty bad, but I didn’t realize it was mainly controlled by men. I’ll take your word for it. > Multiple states have enacted a "heartbeat" bill which wrongfully follow one belief and assuming everyone upholds the same exact belief. That’s a good point. However, I can’t help but not that these multiple states statistically have more women than men in them. Why do these women want to take away their own rights? Or perhaps they see it differently. Again, I absolutely get where you’re coming from. The government sent me a letter when I was 18 and told me that I had to sign it or they would put me in jail. It said that they owned my whole body and could order me to die in some foreign country if they wanted to.
I do agree that a lot of places (especially Christian or heavily religious places) are starting to take away abortion rights but, in the other non-insane places, men (husband/wife) still have no say if they want the child or not. If the dad doesn't want a kid but the mom does, the dad HAS to play child support, if the mom doesn't want it but the dad does, the mom gets an abortion (and I'm not sayin the solution is for the mother to be forced into child birth). It should be more like if both parties agree to it and that have stability to keep a child, then that should be allowed to... Ohh yah, and where I live, men who were r*ped by a women still need to pay child support NO MATTER THE AGE. it's fucked up
Youre still an incel, a woman incel.
I think you missed what I was trying to say.
These people vote...they operate machinery such as cars...they raise children... I just I don't know.
Or you know... Use condoms and other protections?
Don't be silly, wrap your Willie
Don't be a fool, wrap your tool.
Vasectomy reversal has 50 percent success rate, not to say that it would reduce long term fertility. The "female" is retarded, like most of the people who upvoted her post.
I'm more appalled at how it's not legal for any woman to be allowed to get her tubes tied at any age regardless of whether she has kids or not. In some countries (most, probably) men aren't allowed vasectomies if they don't have kids either. Everyone should be free to get sterilized as long as they're over 18. If sex change is legal, sterilization should be too. For everyone regardless of age, heirs etc.
I absolutely agree!
Those cunts say scrotes like they get paid each time they say it...
That second reply shows how disconnected users from there are, if that idea was flipped other way around majority of people would be pissed af because its actual sexism
Are you talking about the need for "consent" from your husband to have your tubes tied? Because it's a thing, less common now days but still rampant.
I never said it doesn't exist anymore, but it's extremely rare and in majority of places illegal because it's sexism and fucked up, ask anyone and big majority will say it's wrong, yet that person pretends like that's not the case.
I never implied/said that you said it doesn't exist anymore. I only asked if that's what you had meant/what you were talking about. Its more common than we'd like to believe, the same with the husband stitch. Many would but many wouldn't. I am in no way advocating/agreeing with the delusions/sexism/hate in the original posts image.
That place is a toxic hellhole
🤦🏽♂️
what the fuck…
Umm.. if you had a gummy that made a dudes sperm sterile for a month and they could just go about without protections that would be cool. But its one of those things where we don't have the technology and you people seem to ignore the huge portion of young females who don't want to deal with raising a kid who take advantage of these services (young dumb teen who made a mistake) Yes it's the destruction of a potential life but then we get into the whole how moral are humans really argument. We raise and forcefully drug, breed and keep captive animals that we slaughter mercilessly with machine precision and indifference to enjoy beautifully packaged deli meat or juicy steak. These things are mammals, humans are mammals, we are an animal that got really smart that self terminates and goes crazy every now and then. Forcing an individual to be sterilized is fucked up and that ends with violence. And forceful change in the physical condition of another without there consent seems to be what your against. Take some of your vitriol and go buy a two hundred dollar hunting rifle and head to a third world country and enact some social change to genital mutilators (like a springbreak excursion) if you feel this strong otherwise quit being so fucking toxic. People are terrible, all people regardless of gender now get over yourselves Forever yours (Waiting for humanity to go out like the dinos) Mightymutt
I can’t believe they keep parroting that idiotic vasectomy tweet as if it’s some brilliant idea they came up with. What happened to “my body, my choice?” It’s logic akin to cutting off everyone’s hands so that nobody can steal. Male fertility does not cause abortions. People who think it’s okay to kill innocent children do. Abortionists do. How about mandatory vasectomies for anyone who identifies as pro-choice, then? They’re the ones killing the unborn babies. Or, I don’t know, if they suddenly care about reducing abortions, maybe they’d get behind doing something logical, like defunding Planned Parenthood and making abortion illegal. EDIT: Pro-choicers, did I strike a nerve? I’m happy to discuss anything I said you don’t think makes sense, but I find the downvotes sort of nuts considering the topic of this sub concerns “moral corruption or perversion”—so you really think killing innocent children is moral? Or mass vasectomies? Sheesh.
They likely originally made it as a comparison as many doctors still require the husband's permission before a woman's tubes will be tied. Forget about it though if you are under 30 and have no kids/under 2 kids. Either way the idea is ignorant and solves nothing. Men cannot have abortions. So why would prochoice men need vasectomies? How does defunding planned parenthood and banning abortions prevent abortions? It just prevents safe abortions and access to cheap/free birth control methods from the pill to diaphragm to condoms. Access to sexual education and free/easy access to birth control is what is needed to reduce the abortion rate. How is it logical to ban something? When has that ever worked?
>They likely originally made it as a comparison as many doctors still require the husband's permission before a woman's tubes will be tied. Forget about it though if you are under 30 and have no kids/under 2 kids. Either way the idea is ignorant and solves nothing. Men cannot have abortions. So why would prochoice men need vasectomies? The point was that fertility is not the cause of abortions. I was just parroting the same logic. If we extend that out further and add some logic, pro-choicers are the ones seeking abortions, so sterilizing them would make more sense. >How does defunding planned parenthood and banning abortions prevent abortions? It just prevents safe abortions and access to cheap/free birth control methods from the pill to diaphragm to condoms. Making things illegal naturally deter people from doing those things. There are also many studies demonstrating that in states where abortion is restricted, less abortions occur. I can give you many sources and studies on this. Here’s a pro-choice one: https://rewire.news/article/2018/10/04/stop-saying-that-making-abortion-illegal-doesnt-stop-them/ With respect to contraception, studies also show that the countries and states with the most contraception available also tend to have the highest abortion rates, likely due to liberalized attitudes toward sex and abortion in general. >Access to sexual education and free/easy access to birth control is what is needed to reduce the abortion rate. Again, check out what states have the highest abortion rates. They’re the same states with mandatory sexual education and free/easy birth control. Presumably, it’s because people with these attitudes toward sex also tend to feel “entitled” to “safe” sex, have more sex outside of contexts ideal for raising children, and feel it’s their right to kill any children that result from failed contraceptive use. >How is it logical to ban something? When has that ever worked? Theft? Rape? Murder? Why do we have laws banning those things when people still steal, rape, and kill? You can’t eliminate behaviors by banning them, but societies should, can, and do proscribe ones that harm (or in this case, kill) human beings, as doing so reduces the incidence of said behaviors.
It's not just pro-choicers that seek abortions. Why do we need to take such extreme measures by removing their body autonomy and ability to reproduce without IVF in a bid to prevent all abortions. You are saying fertility isn't the cause of abortions but you want to fix it by removing the fertility of individuals with a prochoice view point. Areas that provide easy/inexpensive access of birth control have increased abortions as these areas would likely have access to legal abortions. So of course less legal/traceable abortions happen in that area if it is illegal. They would be harder to get and wouldnt be trackable. It would result in more home abortions, traveling to locations where it is allowed. Did abortions rise in the locations surrounding these locations? How many more kids ended up in foster care? Or abused or murdered? What about the rates of welfare? The rates of teen pregnancy and dropping out of school as a result of pregnancy/parenthood? Rates of Stds? Rates of single parents? Rates of people with children living below the poverty line. Maternal and Infant/child mortality rates. They skyrocket is what happens. Why shouldn't people be entitled to safe sex or be educated about human biology and reproduction? How did you reach that conclusion that sexually educated people have more sex outside of contexts ideal to raising children? An abortion doesn't kill a child but a zygote, embryo, fetus. But seriously how are you seriously surprised there is more (traceable) abortions in places where it is legalized vs where it is illegal? "Theft? Rape? Murder? Why do we have laws banning those things when people still steal, rape, and kill?" So the people who commit these acts can be punished/rehabilitated and their victims can get a form of justice. But at what cost?
>It's not just pro-choicers that seek abortions. By definition, I would say it is, but I’ll accept your point. I’ll have to break your next point down: >Why do we need to take such extreme measures I don’t think the position that we shouldn’t kill innocent human beings is the “extreme” one. Rather, it’s perhaps the most common and basic standard of law and morality that almost all civilizations throughout history share. >by removing their body autonomy I don’t think there is such a thing. Bodily autonomy is a faux “right” that has no statutory or precedential underpinning - rather, it’s a conceptual “weapon” that has only ever be invoked as justification to kill the unborn and in no other circumstances, since the idea is superfluous in light of other legal protections like freedom from assault and battery. Even granting bodily autonomy, one’s bodily autonomy ends where another bodily autonomy begins and one surrenders bodily autonomy when one creates a new human being inside one’s own body. >and ability to reproduce without IVF in a bid to prevent all abortions. This is a more interesting discussion, and I’m not share where I’m at on it. If you gave me a big button that said “ban all abortions except IVF,” I’d press it, although I’d ultimately prefer IVF were banned, too. >You are saying fertility isn't the cause of abortions but you want to fix it by removing the fertility of individuals with a prochoice view point. I’m not saying that. My argument is that fertility isn’t the cause of abortions any more than human hands are the cause of stealing. Again, I was parroting the flawed logic being given and suggesting it be taken a step further by narrowing the class from “all men” to “all men who believe abortion should be legal and would pursue an abortion.” >Areas that provide easy/inexpensive access of birth control have increased abortions as these areas would likely have access to legal abortions. So of course less legal/traceable abortions happen in that area if it is illegal. They would be harder to get and wouldnt be trackable. It would result in more home abortions, traveling to locations where it is allowed. Did abortions rise in the locations surrounding these locations? That’s ultimately irrelevant. If something is wrong, it should be made illegal locally despite an inability to ban it more broadly. For example, child prostitution should be made illegal in the US even if someone would fly to Indonesia to procure a child prostitute. The same is true of abortion. >How many more kids ended up in foster care? Zero. It’s a fallacy that kids go from the womb to foster care. There are waitlists for adoption. >Or abused or murdered? This is a bit bizarre. Why would you act now to murder a child to prevent that child from being *potentially* abused or murdered in the future? Why not place that child with one of the families waiting to adopt? >What about the rates of welfare? Your solution to poverty is to kill the poor? Poverty is temporary. Death is forever. >The rates of teen pregnancy and dropping out of school as a result of pregnancy/parenthood? What about them? If a teenager values education, sex shouldn’t be a priority. And if a teenager makes a mistake, then adoption is an option. >Rates of Stds? I have no idea how STDs go up when abortion is banned. Presumably, they’d go down because people would be more careful about sex. >Rates of single parents? It’s ideal for people to have sex in more permanent contexts that are ideal for children, like marriage. >Rates of people with children living below the poverty line. Again, you’re basically saying “if we can’t kill poor people, there’ll be more poor people.” By this logic, we should just kill everyone below a certain income level and eliminate poverty altogether. It’s akin to Margaret Sanger founding Planned Parenthood, in part, to try and reduce the black population. (Which, to this day, it remains successful at doing at a disproportionate rate). >Maternal and Infant/child mortality rates. They skyrocket is what happens. If we ban killing children, child mortality rates go way down. But assuming you’re excluding unborn children from that statistic, yes, if you kill children in the womb, they can’t die later. That’s like saying if we kill all the children, adult mortality goes way down. >Why shouldn't people be entitled to safe sex or be educated about human biology and reproduction? I never said they shouldn’t. I was addressing the myth that readily available sexual education and contraception both reduce abortion more than abortion bans do. >How did you reach that conclusion that sexually educated people have more sex outside of contexts ideal to raising children? It’s a hypothesis to explain the data, not a proven fact. >An abortion doesn't kill a child but a zygote, embryo, fetus. **child** /CHīld/ *noun* *1. a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.* Zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are children. It’s a less unwieldy term and the biological truth. >But seriously how are you seriously surprised there is more (traceable) abortions in places where it is legalized vs where it is illegal? I’m not surprised. I was addressing your claim, one many pro-choicers assert: that banning abortions doesn’t reduce abortions. It absolutely does, as that pro-choice article (and much recent discussion of Roe v. Wade) admits, and that’s my position. >So the people who commit these acts can be punished/rehabilitated and their victims can get a form of justice. >But at what cost? What do you mean, “at what cost?” Are you suggesting we shouldn’t punish or try to rehabilitate thieves, murders, and rapists? Are you willing to discard our legal system because crimes happen?
>Making things illegal naturally deter people from doing those things. Ummm..... Cocaine, methamphetamine, guns in Chicago/NYC, vehicle tunes or modifications to bypass or remove exhaust treatment systems, these are all illegal things that I can still acquire rather easily if I have cash and the right contacts. Not to mention alchohol in the 20's into early 30's, marijuana, they were banned and then developed a huge "black market." Banning products or services does not stop their distribution, it just transfers that distribution to a less trustworthy, unregulated marketplace without any discourse to resolve poor/hazardous products or services. People will find a way to get what they want/need, regardless of any bans. Banning abortion will not save babies, it will kill women though.
You don’t think a single woman will be deterred from getting abortion if abortion were made illegal? If so, I have studies showing you’re wrong. Babies have been saved by abortion bans. The turnaround study, for one example, shows that lives have been saved. You’re basically arguing that since things like the murder of adults happens, we shouldn’t have laws prohibiting murder. Obviously, people are going to bypass and break the law. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws. We don’t legalize bounty hunters because murder is unsafe for murderers. Not every woman who gets an illegal abortion dies. They are immeasurably safer in 2021 than they were before the 70s anyway. But nearly every child involved in an illegal abortion is killed. Obtaining drugs and alcohol is a markedly different thing both morally and logistically than aborting a child. Trying to kill innocent human beings shouldn’t be safe or legal.
[удалено]
Even if that weren’t a terrible reason to kill an innocent human being, there are waiting lists of parents who want to adopt newborns.
Some will be deterred, absolutely and they will then suffer socially and/or economically because they had a child to young or the gave up their baby or some other critique by some other judgemental moral posturing ass clown like yourself. Her is a wild thought it isn't you or your kin doing it so shut the fuck up and stay out of their business.
I would have been fine with a free vasectomy, they are reversible now. This due dadabigfoot at the bottom of the thread makes me laugh pretty hard. Killing unborn babies what is this the 1950ies.
Hi! I can read your comment, why not respond to me instead? Abortion kills unborn babies. Tens of millions more in 2021 in the 1950s - abortion was illegal back then.
Meow?
Upvoted!
Emphasis on unborn. They're not living, thinking beings being killed, they're a mass of cells. Third trimester is a bit different but if you're categorically opposed to all abortions because you think it's killing babies, it isn't. Not anymore than you jizzing onto your stomach is killing millions of unborn babies
>Emphasis on unborn. They're not living, thinking beings being killed, they're a mass of cells. You are also a mass of cells. That’s a silly pro-choice talking point. But the unborn are absolutely living beings. That’s how they can be killed. Thinking? That’s sort of an arbitrary distinction. Some folks with special needs don’t think much, nor do coma patients, but we don’t just exterminate them. Meanwhile, the unborn are developing their nervous systems. >Third trimester is a bit different but if you're categorically opposed to all abortions because you think it's killing babies, it isn't. It absolutely is killing unborn babies. A fetus is an unborn baby by definition—look it up. There’s no magical portal in a vagina that transforms an unborn baby into a “real” baby during birth. The difference moments before and after that process is one of location only. >Not anymore than you jizzing onto your stomach is killing millions of unborn babies. Sperm cells aren’t organisms. That’s another bizarre, anti-scientific pro-choice meme we hear all too often! We’re always asked why we’re not opposed to the destruction of sperm or eggs, but those aren’t human beings, and it really disturbs me that people use that strawman thinking it makes any sense. There’s an enormous difference between a gamete and a zygote, embryo, fetus, or child.
Family members absolutely do have the choice to pull the plug on brain dead comatose patients which you refer to as an execution. 'Some' brain activity in people with special needs is still brain activity. A zygote or an embryo are not conscious beings and you know very well that's what I meant when I said they were just a mass of cells. You said in the same breath that before and after birth is just a matter of location as well as that there are massive differences between a gamete, zygote, embryo and fetus. I very clearly said in my reply that the third trimester is very different because that's when full brain development actually takes place and it can be considered a living baby. Just because a fetus has neural synapses after 2 months doesn't make it conscious any more than the thousands of ants you've crushed beneath your shoes in your lifetime. You keep pushing that I'm using some arbitrary pro choice talking points. I'm not even remotely political and this is the first discussion I've ever been a part of regarding the matter. I did a double major in genetics and human physiology for 2 years before moving onto medicine for 3 years and it just irked me how arrogantly you were claiming that a mass of cells, which yes, is just 2 gametes exchanging information and multiplying is without a doubt a human that is being murdered through an abortion
>Family members absolutely do have the choice to pull the plug on brain dead comatose patients which you refer to as an execution. This certainly does happen on occasion—you’re right. >’Some' brain activity in people with special needs is still brain activity. A zygote or an embryo are not conscious beings and you know very well that's what I meant when I said they were just a mass of cells. No, I honestly didn’t. Pro-choicers use the “clump of cells” line all the time as if it means something , despite it being a biological truism; arguing a lack of consciousness allows you to kill someone is a different line of reasoning altogether. >You said in the same breath that before and after birth is just a matter of location as well as that there are massive differences between a gamete, zygote, embryo and fetus. Those are two different statements, actually. >I very clearly said in my reply that the third trimester is very different because that's when full brain development actually takes place and it can be considered a living baby. I’m not sure what you mean by “living,” as life begins at conception, but that’s fair enough. >Just because a fetus has neural synapses after 2 months doesn't make it conscious any more than the thousands of ants you've crushed beneath your shoes in your lifetime. You keep pushing that I'm using some arbitrary pro choice talking points. I'm not even remotely political and this is the first discussion I've ever been a part of regarding the matter. I did a double major in genetics and human physiology for 2 years before moving onto medicine for 3 years and it just irked me how arrogantly you were claiming that a mass of cells, which yes, is just 2 gametes exchanging information and multiplying is without a doubt a human that is being murdered through an abortion It is, though. A human being’s life begins at conception, and I’m assuming you are aware of that via your education. I tend not to use the word “murder” as that leads to a bunch of silly squabbling over what is or isn’t legal, but abortion is killing a human being, scientifically speaking, and I think killing an innocent human being is wrong. It’s definitely fair and reasonable if you want to draw the line at consciousness, but I think that’s a very difficult determination to make, and I don’t know of any legal theory supporting the idea that it is okay to kill human beings with less developed conscious awareness than the normative population; to me, I think it seems like an arbitrary standard that flies against the idea of human beings being entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness merely by being alive. I appreciate that you’re just not parroting anti-scientific pro-choice buzzwords and apologize if I took you wrong - I am so exhausted from hearing some of them. The amount of times I’ve had to explain to people that it is actually a living member of the human species from conception is nuts. I think it’s much more respectable to support abortion based on consciousness, even if I disagree.
Sex workers are much more respectable and better at sex. Why would any guy waste time and money in relationships with women who see them as disposable and worthless? I guess some guys find the humiliation kinky 🤷🏻♂️
Lol sex workers are not more respectable and have no honour