End Abortion But More Importantly End Abortion Threads

[George Steele's Barber]

In this WZ world I am old. I'm at that not quite hit my late 30's yet time of life. I am married and have two kids. I would like to get a good night's sleep again regularly some time soon. In order to make this happen I plan on getting a little snip-snip in the near future that will prevent my super-sperm from invading and creating anymore wonderfully pain in the ass kids.

Another trait of being WZ old is that I've listen to and exhausted certain conversations and topics to death. My biggest white whale is abortion. The difference is that while I have never conquered the topic, I have no interest in discussing it even further. I think I'm pro-choice but I can't even make what feels like that great of an argument for it or against pro-life.

Therefore today I am officially evolving. I believe the abortion dicussion needs to be aborted. It's time to move on and find another means of ending abortion. Here is my proposition:

Free government sponsored contraception for all males in the form of some type of painless one time surgery or pill that can be reversed at any time. I realize the technology may not be quite there yet but what if it was? What if we outlawed abortions in the process? What if a 13 year old could do something harmless to themselves that kept them from making babies until they were ready and wanted it? How far do you think we are from having this technology? How much money and time would it take? What if males could carry around a card to prove to women they were safe?

I know I am getting carried away, but is this that crazy of an idea when contraception is a $14 bn a year industry (I totally made that number up). I'm tired of abortion but more tired of these endless pointless deconstructive conversations. Am I finding middle ground oe would the left and right find more shit to spew at one another?

 

[SalvIsWin]

Here's a question - why does the discussion bother you? You've posted this thread to show your disdain for the conversation, and you've posted in the bar room or GSD (can't remember) to illustrate how little you think of it.

Abortion, religion, God, Homosexuality - these are topics that people are going to talk about on this forum. There's a sentiment among some members that unless the conversation is going to yield some sort of conclusion, it's not worth talking about. A good example are threads on God or religion - none of those threads are going to end with a consensus, they'll just slowly die as people get bored of it, I don't see the problem in that.

EDIT: As to the poll, I voted to have the same old tired argument - I enjoy it.

 

[Mustang Sally]

What if a 13 year old could do something harmless to themselves that kept them from making babies until they were ready and wanted it?

Well, it's an interesting idea, that's for sure. On the one hand, it would certainly increase sexual promiscuity, since even 13-year-olds could have sex as much as they want without having to worry about procreating. Then, of course, there would be a big-ass increase in sexually transmitted diseases since they're having more sex with more partners. On the other hand, there would be less babies being born to people who are emotionally and financially unable to raise them. That's a good thing.

Ironically, I can just see some girls rejecting advances from a young guy because he shows her his "snip" card. After all, she's 16 and more than anything in the world, she wants a baby.......after all, her friends are having them, so she wants one too. She's looking for a "baby daddy" and this guy who's gotten the medical procedure that makes him "safe" is not going to fulfill her needs. Now, there's some irony.

But the best part of all this is that a guy named "George Steele's Barber" comes up with the idea of a "snip" technique.

Fitting, yes?

 

[Davi323]

I would be in favor of a male birth control pill or something similar, however I would disagree that it is the Government's job to provide it. If I can't get on board it being the taxpayer's responsibility to pay for female birth control, I can't get on board just because it's now the men...It would be an obvious double standard.

But, the concept of male birth control beyond condoms is a good idea conceptually, I think. I should have just as much responsibility for not fathering a child as my partner should have in not mothering one, fair is fair.

I am not sure exactly what could be done, other than find some chemical combination that effectively kills sperm cells, so that during intercourse, they are DOA, and incapable of fertilizing an egg. I guess that would be the logical way to do it in pill form.

Vasectomies are also very routine now, and in most cases, totally reversible. a female friend of mine's husband had one after their 3rd child, and I think he was only in the hospital for a couple of hours after the surgery...it was minimally invasive with almost no recovery time needed. The only issue would be getting over the ridiculous stigma that men who get vasectomies are somehow less "manly" which may prevent a lot of guys from getting it done.

If I get to the point where I do not want to father a child, I would have no problems getting it done, I would encourage it as part of the general theme of people making safe, responsible sexual decisions and taking responsibility for their sexual activity.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Birth control already exists yet people are still getting pregnant and having abortions, whether that's due to having unprotected sex, or that contraception failing. While having male contraceptive pills wouldn't be a bad idea at all, it's not going to stop unwanted pregnancies just like female contraceptive pills, condoms, surgery and other contraceptive devices don't stop unwanted pregnancies now. Why would these male pills/surgery suddenly change it? Would they be 100% effective despite no other contraceptive being so? Good idea to have male contraceptive pills, but should have nothing do to with making abortion illegal.

Regarding the discussion being frequent, it's just as much as the other 'main' topics in here, including politics, religion, gay marriage etc. And it's nothing compared to the repetitiveness of some of the wrestling section threads.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Here's a question - why does the discussion bother you? You've posted this thread to show your disdain for the conversation, and you've posted in the bar room or GSD (can't remember) to illustrate how little you think of it.

Completely ignoring the topic but since this thread has been a bust so here goes:

I think I've made myself pretty clear. Topics like abortion are old and stale (wrestling term). It's pretty much the same old shit. But on top of that it tends to be divisive. It's a huge wedge issue that is used and abused in order to infuriate and separate people. I also lack understanding and have accepted that I will never be smart or stubborn enough to feel strong enough on either side. I would rather discuss other things or change the conversation. Changing the conversation is what I am trying to do here.

Abortion, religion, God, Homosexuality - these are topics that people are going to talk about on this forum.

I know.

There's a sentiment among some members that unless the conversation is going to yield some sort of conclusion, it's not worth talking about.

I know.

A good example are threads on God or religion - none of those threads are going to end with a consensus, they'll just slowly die as people get bored of it, I don't see the problem in that.

I know. You've made it very clear that you can't see a problem with these conversations. I disagree.

EDIT: As to the poll, I voted to have the same old tired argument - I enjoy it.

You should try something new. What's stopping you from trying something new? You come off like a smart person or at least someone who has either memorized a lot of shit or is good at the Googling. What would it take for you to agree to outlaw abortion (ignoring cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother)?

 

[SalvIsWin]

What would it take for you to agree to outlaw abortion (ignoring cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother)?

Probably a scenario where its purpose wasn't necessary I suppose, or if there was some miraculous technology that allowed for the fetus to not be killed, like if it could be removed and grown independent of a womb. If there was some crazy business like that, I would agree that abortions would be a more barbaric way of dealing with the problem in comparison to this hypothetical alternative.

No one likes abortion, and I'd be happy to see a day where they weren't necessary, that's why I would advocate for safe-sex education, more effective contraceptives, things like that. There are still cases like rape where it couldn't be avoided, but that is a small number of cases to deal with.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Well, it's an interesting idea, that's for sure. On the one hand, it would certainly increase sexual promiscuity, since even 13-year-olds could have sex as much as they want without having to worry about procreating. Then, of course, there would be a big-ass increase in sexually transmitted diseases since they're having more sex with more partners.

I don't know if this is true. This may help to educate kids better about the mental and physical health benefits and dangers of sex. It may take away the stigma that sex is just "how babies are made" and give kids the opportunity to understand more about sex.

On the other hand, there would be less babies being born to people who are emotionally and financially unable to raise them. That's a good thing.

Thank you.

Ironically, I can just see some girls rejecting advances from a young guy because he shows her his "snip" card. After all, she's 16 and more than anything in the world, she wants a baby.......after all, her friends are having them, so she wants one too. She's looking for a "baby daddy" and this guy who's gotten the medical procedure that makes him "safe" is not going to fulfill her needs. Now, there's some irony.

When I was 16 I could have had a "snip" card, a million dollars and front row seats to a Milli Vanilli concert and girls would still reject my advances.

You watch too much MTV. I hope what you're saying is rarer than we think. Mostly because I have a four year old daughter.

But the best part of all this is that a guy named "George Steele's Barber" comes up with the idea of a "snip" technique.

Fitting, yes?

I am strictly licensed to manscape 50-plus year old retired wrestlers. I will not be performing any vasectomies.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I would be in favor of a male birth control pill or something similar, however I would disagree that it is the Government's job to provide it. If I can't get on board it being the taxpayer's responsibility to pay for female birth control, I can't get on board just because it's now the men...It would be an obvious double standard.

Damn, I threw the government subsidized stuff in there with you in mind. I was hoping you would bite but you are nothing if not consistent. Still kind of shocks me that you would choose legal abortion over government subsidized birth control.

But, the concept of male birth control beyond condoms is a good idea conceptually, I think. I should have just as much responsibility for not fathering a child as my partner should have in not mothering one, fair is fair.

I am not sure exactly what could be done, other than find some chemical combination that effectively kills sperm cells, so that during intercourse, they are DOA, and incapable of fertilizing an egg. I guess that would be the logical way to do it in pill form.

Vasectomies are also very routine now, and in most cases, totally reversible. a female friend of mine's husband had one after their 3rd child, and I think he was only in the hospital for a couple of hours after the surgery...it was minimally invasive with almost no recovery time needed. The only issue would be getting over the ridiculous stigma that men who get vasectomies are somehow less "manly" which may prevent a lot of guys from getting it done.

If I get to the point where I do not want to father a child, I would have no problems getting it done, I would encourage it as part of the general theme of people making safe, responsible sexual decisions and taking responsibility for their sexual activity.

The two guys I know that have had it done took about four painful days to recover. Nothing compared to popping out a baby but nothing I am excited to have done.

I can probably look this up, but do Christians have a policy on vasectomies?

 

[Davi323]

Damn, I threw the government subsidized stuff in there with you in mind. I was hoping you would bite but you are nothing if not consistent. Still kind of shocks me that you would choose legal abortion over government subsidized birth control.

pretty sure I am against abortion too? Have I not been clear on that? LOL It's not that I am opposed to pre-conception forms of birth control, I am just not sure why it's government's job to provide it. Aren't Democrats always telling everyone how we need to stay out of the bedroom, that's a matter of privacy? Yet, isn't forcing taxpayers to fund birth control government intrusion into that same privacy? My position is if you want to use birth control, great. More power to you. I encourage you to continue to make educated, responsible sexual decisions...but that doesn't mean it's my job to pay for your condoms, it's yours. I would also encourage people to eat healthier...but I sure as hell am not going to pay for your groceries.

The two guys I know that have had it done took about four painful days to recover. Nothing compared to popping out a baby but nothing I am excited to have done.

I can probably look this up, but do Christians have a policy on vasectomies?

To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any objections that I have ever heard...At least from mainstream Protestants. It would follow the same logic as other forms of birth control, that since it prevents fertilization it is okay...

Not sure if the Catholics would treat a vasectomy the same as they do all other birth control, but if I had to hazard a purely speculative guess, I would think that they would probably be opposed to vasectomies for the same reasons they are opposed to other forms of birth control.

I suppose you could make a case for the whole "be fruitful and multiply" verse as a Biblical argument against all birth control, but is that a command, or a blessing? Is God telling Christians they HAVE to be fruitful and multiply, or is it just God giving his blessing if they did, kind of like a "live long and prosper" kind of thing? I tend to think it's more of the blessing than a commandment though, and refers to Christians in general, not necessarily each individual Christian.

Some women have to have hysterectomies for medical reasons, including my girlfriend. Are they sinning because they can't reproduce due to a medical condition that forced them to have their ovaries or uterus removed? I don't think so, and I have a tough time believing that most Christians would have a problem with it either.

I have no religious objections whatsoever to vasectomies for men or hysterectomies for women, regardless of reasons.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Isn't the position of the Bible that sex is for procreation, not for recreation? Isn't that their entire reasoning for why condoms or other contraceptives are not allowed? If you had a vasectomy it's essentially the exact same thing as using condoms - you're doing something so you don't procreate.

 

[Davi323]

Isn't the position of the Bible that sex is for procreation, not for recreation? Isn't that their entire reasoning for why condoms or other contraceptives are not allowed? If you had a vasectomy it's essentially the exact same thing as using condoms - you're doing something so you don't procreate.

Only as far as Catholics are concerned. Catholics do not speak for all of Christianity, as I have pointed out previously.

Having it only be for procreation is easily dispelled. If God didn't mean for it to be fun in and of itself, as a way for a husband and wife to share intimacy, He wouldn't have made it so enjoyable. It would just be another bodily function to be done without joy.

 

[H33LTurn]

I mean if you dislike the discussion so much you could just simply avoid it. People are always going to talk about current events, it makes little sense to refrain from mentioning something on the site that the media takes every opportunity in mentioning. In my mind the discussion has never made any sense so I sympathize with you sort of. You know who has abortions? Not a trick question...people who dont want kids. Why would you try to force a child to be born into a home where he/she might not be wanted and/or put them up for adoption with the chance of them being overwhelmed by the issues adopted kids face? Let it be an option for people who arent religious. Its like letting people have the right to bear arms. We all have the right, but if you think its wrong you wont do it. Same as abortion. It just shouldnt be such a big deal.