Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Want A Vasectomy? Submit to the (Admittedly Iffy) Will of the Government, Thanks.
In response to a move by Georgia Republicans to outlaw abortion 20 weeks after fertilization, Democrat lawmakers have proposed a measure limiting vasectomies to men who would die or suffer dangerous health problems without one, reasoning that if women's judgment is deemed less valid than the government's, then men's must be too. N-i-i-i-ce.
“Thousands of children are deprived of birth in this state every year because of the lack of state regulation over vasectomies,” said Rep. Yasmin Neal, D-Riverdale, author of the bill. “It is patently unfair that men can avoid unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly, while women’s ability to decide is constantly up for debate throughout the United States.”
18 Comments so far
Show AllAlthough it is clearly intended to make a point rather than establish policy, in the political and cultural climate of today, I wouldn't be surprised if this bill got passed. It fits right in with the "government in the bedroom and the doctor's office" philosophy of the fanatic wing of our culture. I would suggest a variation -- no funding for Viagra or Cialis or treatment of enlarged prostate in any health plan that does not fund contraceptives and women's health care.
That logic presumes all men are on the wrong side of the issue. That is not true.
Sadly, the Catholic church may support this. While I think everyone gets the point, I hope it doesn't pass because we do not need men dying needlessly too.
While hundreds of thousands of living children's chances for a decent shot at getting by in this country are increasingly at risk, politicians are using OUR time and OUR resources to duke it out with each other over absolutely ridiculous nonsense such as the above-posted. Am I missing something here??
Only fair. But I am thinking it's not going to make much difference. Most men that undergo vasectomies have already established families. And those resorting to viagra have also. It would be more constructive to only allow procreation by those that can demonstrate a repsonsible role in the resulting child's life. But we'll never do that, will we? Most women that consider abortion are considering how they will provide for said children. They fear they can't provide homes, food, or stable lives for them. They're now charged by conservative groups with the responsiblity for the incubation period. Who then will be responsible for them for the rest of their lives. I'd rather males were neutered until they could provide for their offspring. Why that's not the discussion is beyond me.
TOTALLY AGREE!! I've been saying the same thing for years!
Yea, I'd suggest an amendment to the law pertaining to masturbation. Anyone caught or witnessed in the act in which they have taken the possibility of life from its natural course of becoming so, shall be prosecuted according to the same laws as abortion. Ejecting semen anywhere other then to its Godly intended purpose that could produce life shall be considered an illegal action.
How do you propose to "unneuter" a male once he's reached the, say, top 25% - thus proving he is "fit" to be a father?. And suppose you can unneuter a male, what happens if he loses his job, is he required to be reneutered?
You folks may think you're funny, but it is a similar type of funny as an imbecile trying to load a gun.
And for what it is worth, I am pro-choice, but from what I recall of abortion laws in most places I've lived, while admittedly not needing really to pay much attention to them in detail, isn't abortion on demand illegal in most states after the first trimester, which if my math skills are still intact, is TWELVE weeks?
Again, not to appear anti-choice, but if a woman CAN"T decide within 5 months, is she really capable of making the decision in any case? If it comes down to the life of the mother, or viability of the fetus, after 5 months, wouldn't there be other avenues to pursue in light of an established medical condition that would ciurcumvent the necessity for the procedure to be considered an abortiion on demand under such circumstances?
I mean, really, do you women really want the right to end pregnancy on demand of a 6 or 7 month old fetus. I mean, come on, go the last few months and put the kid up for adoption if it is not a medical necessity to end its life. You already waitng 5 or 6 months.
And please remember, I am pro-choice, though most days I think abortion should be required unless the mother can prove she's fit to raise a kid.
It's not really the same thing - a woman getting her tubes tied would be the equivalent of a guy getting a vasectomy.
But I understand the motivation of wanting people to realize how invasive the govt is regarding a woman's choice to have an abortion or a baby.
But a lot of women opt for having their tubes tied, either before they ever get pregnant, or when they've had all the children they want. And this proceedure is in the bag of womens' choice that are on the line. Having lived under these restrictions, I hope young women are paying attention to what is going to happen to their rights if they don't stand up for them.
The vasectomy bill is an excellent way of getting men involved in the whole stupid business of politicians trying to take control of our bodies and our bedrooms.
If men could get pregnant, then abortion would be a sacrament.
Who here is sick to death of hypocritical religious zealots trying to control everyone else's lives except their own?!!
I am!
DITTO! Tony
Why did the Supreme Court legalize abortion? I thought it was for a woman's constitutional right to privacy. But if that is true then all this intrusion of the church and government into the bodies and bedrooms of men and women is violating a human right to privacy according to the constitution. When there is no medical reason and no consent of the woman required for a transvaginal probe, it is rape. I believe that this disrespect of females will encourage males to abuse women and girls all the more. After all if the church and government men in power have no respect for women and girls why should any male? I say criminalize sex if it is so sacred ,censor all the sex on TV. books, movies, advertisement. No more sex for profit. The Pro-lifers are too cowardly to do that but it is the only way that the general public will care and demand that all this church and government meddling into our private sex lives will end.
I wish Pro-Choice people would stop using the term "Pro-Life". "Pro-life" blatantly expresses the views of those whom the late great African-American feminist Florence Kennedy called "fetus fetishists". If you really want to stop this aspect of fascism from taking hold all over the US, you should simply arm yourselves with that in-their-face epithet and go on the offensive big time.
BTW, don't fail to look at www.barefootandprogressive.com
Well, if you did away with all the books, TV and hard-core porn on the 'Tubes', what would all the good Christian men do after church services on Sundays????
When I was a kid the standard method for housebreaking a dog was to rub his nose in his mess. That doesn't work in politics because too many politicians are dumber than the average dog.
and there is no way you could rub even one of their noses into all of their personal messes it would take decades... but it would create jobs
Turning of the tables! OK. We've turned them and we don't like either one. Let's not have mandatory motherhood or fatherhood. That's the old Nazi game with them hearding young unmarried men and women together to make babies for the head Nazi nut.