Abortion

[nimic]

Do you not see how something like that can be abused? In the worst case scenario a man wears a condom, a woman is on birth control - she still wounds up pregnant and then decided to change her mind and keep the baby while the man has maintained he doesn't want a child.
Sure that makes sense in that scenario.

How often do you really think that would happen if a law like that were to happen?
Realistically it would just end up being men signing away responsibilities for fatherhood after drunken nights where they can't remember wearing a condom, or sleeping with someone they regret etc. It becomes a very slippery slope.

100% agreed. Ultimately it's the woman's body, and she's the one with all the risk as far as health goes.

 

[MadMike]

But again - if someone truly feels that strongly about being burdened with parenthood, they should've done a lot more earlier in the process to avoid getting someone pregnant.

But again - that goes both ways. You could argue that if a woman felt that strongly about not wanting parenthood, she could have had her tubes tied too. I don't think we can place the burden on only one sex.

A law that allows men to write away all responsibilities in the event they get someone pregnant is as reckless as i've heard and will only lead to a growth in single mothers who are unable to even get child support, or an increase in abortions - and if you live in an area where abortion is illegal, that just leads to dangerous abortions more often than not.

I would never advocate for such a law if women aren't allowed abortions or don't have a minimal level of access to social support. The latter is not just about the woman either, the child deserves to receive as much help as possible. I think these would be absolute preconditions for advocating for such a law. If those are met though....

Condoms, abstinence, non-penetrative sex, vasectomy, masturbation - if someone hasn't taken any of these measures while being so sure that they don't want to be a father why should they be granted the right to sign away all responsibilities?

All true. But all equally apply to both sides. Yet still there are unwanted pregnancies due to failures from both sides.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Do you not see how something like that can be abused? In the worst case scenario a man wears a condom, a woman is on birth control - she still wounds up pregnant and then decided to change her mind and keep the baby while the man has maintained he doesn't want a child.
Sure that makes sense in that scenario.

How often do you really think that would happen if a law like that were to happen?
Realistically it would just end up being men signing away responsibilities for fatherhood after drunken nights where they can't remember wearing a condom, or sleeping with someone they regret etc. It becomes a very slippery slope.

Often enough that I think it would sense to have a law like that. DR (Danish version of the BBC) ran a series on this a few years ago, which sparked the debate here at the time.

Also, I just want to stress, that paper abortions should obviously only be a thing where actual abortions are legal and readily available. It goes hand in hand - giving the men some options, but only if the woman has options as well.

 

[Siorac]

Do you not see how something like that can be abused? In the worst case scenario a man wears a condom, a woman is on birth control - she still wounds up pregnant and then decided to change her mind and keep the baby while the man has maintained he doesn't want a child.
Sure that makes sense in that scenario.

How often do you really think that would happen if a law like that were to happen?
Realistically it would just end up being men signing away responsibilities for fatherhood after drunken nights where they can't remember wearing a condom, or sleeping with someone they regret etc. It becomes a very slippery slope.

The only way I could see something like this work is if the man signed the papers prior to any sexual encounter, in the presence of legal representatives of both his own and of the woman in question. But that's all a bit... cumbersome. It might end up looking something like this:

 

[villain]

But again - that goes both ways. You could argue that if a woman felt that strongly about parenthood, she could have had her tubes tied too.



I would never advocate for such a law if women aren't allowed abortions or don't have a minimal level of access to social support. The latter is not just about the woman either, the child deserves to receive as much help as possible. I think these would be absolute preconditions for advocating such a law



All true. But all equally apply to both sides. Yet still there are unwanted pregnancies due to failures from both sides.

This argument isn't about "both sides" you were the one that proposed in an event of a man getting a woman pregnant and he doesn't want to be a parent, whereas she does, he should be able to sign away the rights to child support. So this isn't about "what could the woman have done to avoid getting pregnant"

What i'm saying is, a law like that becomes a slippery slope very quickly that can be abused and not applied for its intended purpose.
The only way a law like that could even come into force is if the man has done everything possible to avoid getting someone pregnant and it still happens - and you're talking about a very small percentage.
It's much better for men to accept responsibilities for their actions and if they're that worried about fatherhood then there are a lot of steps they can take to avoid getting in that situation to begin with.

 

[villain]

Often enough that I think it would sense to have a law like that. DR (Danish version of the BBC) ran a series on this a few years ago, which sparked the debate here at the time.

Also, I just want to stress, that paper abortions should obviously only be a thing where actual abortions are legal and readily available. It goes hand in hand - giving the men some options, but only if the woman has options as well.

If you're that worried about getting someone pregnant - you can not have sex.
Paper abortions really is a weird suggestion.

The only way I could see something like this work is if the man signed the papers prior to any sexual encounter, in the presence of legal representatives of both his own and of the woman in question. But that's all a bit... cumbersome. It might end up looking something like this:

Exactly it's a ridiculous scenario when there are so many steps you can take to avoid getting in that situation in the first place.

 

[Mike Smalling]

This argument isn't about "both sides" you were the one that proposed in an event of a man getting a woman pregnant and he doesn't want to be a parent, whereas she does, he should be able to sign away the rights to child support.

The phrasing 'a man getting a woman pregnant' is very strange and one-sided. Surely, in a consensual scenario the two parties would share the responsibility for the unwanted pregnancy?

The only way a law like that could even come into force is if the man has done everything possible to avoid getting someone pregnant and it still happens - and you're talking about a very small percentage.

Would you apply the same logic to actual abortions? Only possible if everything was done to prevent the pregnancy?

 

[villain]

The phrasing 'a man getting a woman pregnant' is very strange and one-sided. Surely, in a consensual scenario the two parties would share the responsibility for the unwanted pregnancy?



Would you apply the same logic to actual abortions? Only possible if everything was done to prevent the pregnancy?

Well no because in the scenario presented the man didn't want the child, whereas the woman did, hence why I used the phrasing.

I believe in pro-choice, the scenario being debated is about a woman who wants to keep a child.

 

[MadMike]

This argument isn't about "both sides" you were the one that proposed in an event of a man getting a woman pregnant and he doesn't want to be a parent, whereas she does, he should be able to sign away the rights to child support. So this isn't about "what could the woman have done to avoid getting pregnant"

It's not the same scenario though, it's the opposite. I'm using it to juxtapose the different rights offered to the two partners in that case.

Because with unilateral abortions (which we both support) a woman that didn't want to get pregnant by a man who was ok with it, can still back out of her mistake to not contracept adequately. But the inverse doesn't exist. A man who didn't adequately contracept despite not wanting to be a parent, has no legal means of backing out of his mistake. That's a bit lopsided.

What i'm saying is, a law like that becomes a slippery slope very quickly that can be abused and not applied for its intended purpose.
The only way a law like that could even come into force is if the man has done everything possible to avoid getting someone pregnant and it still happens - and you're talking about a very small percentage.
It's much better for men to accept responsibilities for their actions and if they're that worried about fatherhood then there are a lot of steps they can take to avoid getting in that situation to begin with.

I'm not sure I agree with the intended purpose though. We are advocating for unfettered access to abortions. No questions asked why. We are not advocating for access to abortion only in cases of rape or of failure of the contraceptive measures that were taken. Are you suggesting that women should only have access to abortion if they've taken precautions which failed them? If not, then why is that condition placed on men for signing off their rights?

I'd wager that a high percentage of abortions are on the back of drunk or passion-of-the-moment, reckless, unprotected sex. But we're advocating for being allowed to back out of that mistake without judgement.

EDIT: I do agree that just signing a legal waiver is a far less emotionally and physically draining process that an abortion though. Goes without saying.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Exactly it's a ridiculous scenario when there are so many steps you can take to avoid getting in that situation in the first place.

You could say the exact same thing about an actual abortion (again, talking strictly about consensual sex).

I don't think we will see eye to eye on this, but my position is the following: Unintended pregnancies do happen, and it is not that far fetched that the woman decides she wants to keep the child, whereas the man does not want to become a father. In that scenario, the man has no rights. I am in favor of giving the man the option to separate himself from all future rights and responsibilities related to the child, so long as he makes the decision in due time for the woman to decide if she wants to carry the baby to term. Again, this would only work where abortions are legal, safe and available.

 

[villain]

@MadMike @Mike Smalling

Yes a man doesn't have the ability to back out of that scenario in the event of him getting someone pregnant, we all understand that.
Paper abortions are still a slippery slope that opens itself up to be abused and cause far more problems down the line.

 

[MadMike]

You could say the exact same thing about an actual abortion (again, talking strictly about consensual sex).

I don't think we will see eye to eye on this, but my position is the following: Unintended pregnancies do happen, and it is not that far fetched that the woman decides she wants to keep the child, whereas the man does not want to become a father. In that scenario, the man has no rights. I am in favor of giving the man the option to separate himself from all future rights and responsibilities related to the child, so long as he makes the decision in due time for the woman to decide if she wants to carry the baby to term. Again, this would only work where abortions are legal, safe and available.

...and free or inexpensive. You don't want a £5k cost being a barrier to abortion. I think men should also be liable for half the cost if there is any too.

But I think otherwise the Mikes are in agreement here.

 

[MadMike]

@MadMike @Mike Smalling

Yes a man doesn't have the ability to back out of that scenario in the event of him getting someone pregnant, we all understand that.
Paper abortions are still a slippery slope that opens itself up to be abused and cause far more problems down the line.

I mean there might be some risk, sure, as with everything. Like allowing unilaterally-decided, free abortions at any term (which we do advocate for).
I just don't think that justifies having a lopsided and arguably unfair law.

I'd think we'd have to see what the repercussions are and if there's a type or level of abuse unforeseen, then the law should be re-evaluated and amended or revoked based on evidence. But I don't think saying "oooh don't do that, bad things will happen" alone is rational justification not to.

 

[villain]

I mean there might be some risk, sure, as with everything. Like allowing unilaterally-decided, free abortions at any term (which we do advocate for).
I just don't think that justifies having a lopsided law.

In what way could it be enforced?
Either there's some sort of agreement between both parties & proof after the fact of the woman breaking said agreement as well as steps taken to prevent pregnancy by both parties, or it would have to be a lot more 'lax and becomes open for interpretation & abused because someone got drunk and forgot to wear a condom.

 

[nimic]

You could say the exact same thing about an actual abortion (again, talking strictly about consensual sex).

I don't think we will see eye to eye on this, but my position is the following: Unintended pregnancies do happen, and it is not that far fetched that the woman decides she wants to keep the child, whereas the man does not want to become a father. In that scenario, the man has no rights. I am in favor of giving the man the option to separate himself from all future rights and responsibilities related to the child, so long as he makes the decision in due time for the woman to decide if she wants to carry the baby to term. Again, this would only work where abortions are legal, safe and available.

Never mind the woman's rights, this would seriously violate the child's rights. This is honestly a very dangerous suggestion.

 

[MadMike]

In what way could it be enforced?
Either there's some sort of agreement between both parties & proof after the fact of the woman breaking said agreement as well as steps taken to prevent pregnancy by both parties, or it would have to be a lot more 'lax and becomes open for interpretation & abused because someone got drunk and forgot to wear a condom.

I don't consider that abuse though. Why is it abuse?

A woman, in my opinion, should be able to get a free, unilaterally-decided abortion despite getting drunk and having sex without contraception. Or failing to take the morning after pill. Or simply changing her mind about the pregnancy at a later time. Why does one side's error of judgement constitute an abuse and other's doesn't.

 

[NotThatSoph]

You could say the exact same thing about an actual abortion (again, talking strictly about consensual sex).

I don't think we will see eye to eye on this, but my position is the following: Unintended pregnancies do happen, and it is not that far fetched that the woman decides she wants to keep the child, whereas the man does not want to become a father. In that scenario, the man has no rights. I am in favor of giving the man the option to separate himself from all future rights and responsibilities related to the child, so long as he makes the decision in due time for the woman to decide if she wants to carry the baby to term. Again, this would only work where abortions are legal, safe and available.

With an abortion it's a woman, or a man and a woman together, deciding whether or not to have a child. If an abortion is performed then there will be no child, so this is purely a matter between the man and the woman, with the woman having the final say for obvious reasons.

If an abortion is not performed, then there's a child involved. A paper abortion is the man fecking over the child. The responsibilities a father has as a parent isn't to the mother, it's to the child. The child wasn't involved in any discussions, whether or not the mother decided to keep the child against the father's wishes is completely irrelevant.

 

[MadMike]

Never mind the woman's rights, this would seriously violate the child's rights. This is honestly a very dangerous suggestion.

No it wouldn't, because there is no child yet it's a foetus. You should have a window during the pregnancy to inform. If you were aware of the pregnancy and you missed your window, now it's your problem.

It's the same as an abortion. It's not child's rights.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Never mind the woman's rights, this would seriously violate the child's rights. This is honestly a very dangerous suggestion.

Is it? I mean, a single woman can go to a sperm bank and get pregnant with the intention of becoming a single mother. The child would then not know the father or be financially supported from the father. Is that also dangerous?

 

[MadMike]

If an abortion is not performed, then there's a child involved. A paper abortion is the man fecking over the child. The responsibilities a father has as a parent isn't to the mother, it's to the child. The child wasn't involved in any discussions, whether or not the mother decided to keep the child against the father's wishes is completely irrelevant.

Nope it isn't. The decision was made when it was a foetus. As with the abortion. I don't think a single-parent child is de facto fecked over. Single parents (say through sperm bank donation or separation) abound.

But if the kid is getting fecked over (which it isn't), then arguably the decision of the woman to carry on with the pregnancy regardless is also the contributing factor. It's not the man fecking over the child.

 

[nimic]

No it wouldn't, because there is no child yet it's a foetus. You should have a window during the pregnancy to inform. If you were aware of the pregnancy and you missed your window, now it's your problem.

It's the same as an abortion. It's not child's rights.

That's not how any of this works. The child has a right to know its father, and the father has responsibility towards the child. It's honestly irrelevant whether or not he wanted the child, because the child happened.

 

[villain]

I don't consider that abuse though. Why is it abuse?

A woman, in my opinion, should be able to get a free, unilaterally-decided abortion despite getting drunk and having sex without contraception. Or failing to take the morning after pill. Or simply changing her mind about the pregnancy at a later time. Why does one side's error of judgement constitute an abuse and other's doesn't.

How can you enforce the difference between someone who has taken steps to avoid getting someone pregnant, but it still happens, versus someone who is reckless with their sperm and decides to cut all ties in order to avoid taking responsibility for their actions?

You're seemingly conflating abortion as simply a means of terminating pregnancy - abortion is a very serious procedure that can often lead to complications further down the line.

 

[nimic]

Is it? I mean, a single woman can go to a sperm bank and get pregnant with the intention of becoming a single mother. The child would then not know the father or be financially supported from the father. Is that also dangerous?

Not close to being the same. In one case the father was actively involved in making it, in the other it was more like he was providing a service.

 

[nimic]

Nope it isn't. The decision was made when it was a foetus. As with the abortion. I don't think a single-parent child is de facto fecked over. Single parents (say through sperm bank donation or separation) abound.

But if the kid is getting fecked over (which it isn't), then arguably the decision of the woman to carry on with the pregnancy regardless is also the contributing factor. It's not the man fecking over the child.

You do realize fathers who have separated still have responsibilities towards the child? Such as paying his part for the upbringing. And that's what a lot of deadbeat dads would try to avoid if this became a thing.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Nope it isn't. The decision was made when it was a foetus. As with the abortion. I don't think a single-parent child is de facto fecked over. Single parents (say through sperm bank donation or separation) abound.

But if the kid is getting fecked over (which it isn't), then arguably the decision of the woman to carry on with the pregnancy regardless is also the contributing factor. It's not the man fecking over the child.

It doesn't matter if the decision was made when it was a fetus, because the child is no longer a fetus. We can show this with a basic and absurd example: parents cannot decide while pregnant to have a child with the plan murder it later for their own pleasure or sell it as a slave. It doesn't matter that there was no child when they decided, because you can't murder or enslave children.

It doesn't matter that the decision of the woman contributed, because the mother is not the child.

 

[MadMike]

How can you enforce the difference between someone who has taken steps to avoid getting someone pregnant, but it still happens, versus someone who is reckless with their sperm and decides to cut all ties in order to avoid taking responsibility for their actions?

I've not come round to the idea yet that we should tbh.

You're seemingly conflating abortion as simply a means of terminating pregnancy - abortion is a very serious procedure that can often lead to complications further down the line.

Sure it is. Which is why the decision should be the woman's alone as she will be the one burdened by it. There are steps to prevent the pregnancy before it gets to the abortion stage though.

 

[MadMike]

It doesn't matter if the decision was made when it was a fetus, because the child is no longer a fetus. We can show this with a basic and absurd example: parents cannot decide while pregnant to have a child with the plan murder it later for their own pleasure or sell it as a slave. It doesn't matter that there was no child when they decided, because you can't murder or enslave children.

It doesn't matter that the decision of the woman contributed, because the mother is not the child.

I'd flatly disagree with these two statements and I find the explanation why they don't matter quite absurd.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Not close to being the same. In one case the father was actively involved in making it, in the other it was more like he was providing a service.

Outcome is exactly the same though. If you are arguing that it is 'dangerous' because the child is missing out on knowing who his father is or because the father would not support the child, I am just saying that we have constructed that exact setup in other ways. Sperm donation being one, but there are certainly others.

Abortion is often hailed as a milestone in women's rights, presumably because it allows for their sexual liberation without the associated risk of a lifetime of financial burden and responsibility of an unwanted child. However, giving men that same right is labelled as dangerous, and most often met with suggestions of 'keeping it in your pants' or something similar. Imagine if you argued against abortions by saying 'keep it in your pants' to a woman. This is not equality. There are biological differences that can never be made equal, but if you accept that the responsibility of an unintended pregnancy is equally shared between the man and the woman, it would stand to reason that both parties have the opportunity to get out of it. Which is not the case at the moment.

 

[villain]

I've not come round to the idea yet that we should tbh.



Sure it is. Which is why the decision should be the woman's alone as she will be the one burdened by it. There are steps to prevent the pregnancy before it gets to the abortion stage though.

You wouldn't want to enforce this paper abortion only for men who are already actively avoiding getting a woman pregnant, and you can't see how this would lead to men impregnating women and simply avoiding responsibilities of being a father.

 

[nimic]

Outcome is exactly the same though. If you are arguing that it is 'dangerous' because the child is missing out on knowing who his father is or because the father would not support the child, I am just saying that we have constructed that exact setup in other ways. Sperm donation being one, but there are certainly others.

Abortion is often hailed as a milestone in women's rights, presumably because it allows for their sexual liberation without the associated risk of a lifetime of financial burden and responsibility of an unwanted child. However, giving men that same right is labelled as dangerous, and most often met with suggestions of 'keeping it in your pants' or something similar. Imagine if you argued against abortions by saying 'keep it in your pants' to a woman. This is not equality. There are biological differences that can never be made equal, but if you accept that the responsibility of an unintended pregnancy is equally shared between the man and the woman, it would stand to reason that both parties have the opportunity to get out of it. Which is not the case at the moment.

To me, the big difference is that in the case of sperm donations the mother is fully prepared and knows what she's getting into. Presumably she's financially secure, and so on. In the case of an unexpected pregnancy there's no way of knowing if that is the case. But you obviously can't force anyone to get an abortion, so in the event that it does result in a child, the child needs to be protected. In this case the protection includes either having an involved father, or at the bare minimum having a mother who is financially supported enough to take properly care of them. At the end of the day you have to protect the child.

There are also ways for the father to renounce his rights and responsibilities, but they obviously involve consent from the mother.

 

[NotThatSoph]

To me, the big difference is that in the case of sperm donations the mother is fully prepared and knows what she's getting into. Presumably she's financially secure, and so on. In the case of an unexpected pregnancy there's no way of knowing if that is the case. But you obviously can't force anyone to get an abortion, so in the event that it does result in a child, the child needs to be protected. In this case the protection includes either having an involved father, or at the bare minimum having a mother who is financially supported enough to take properly care of them. At the end of the day you have to protect the child.

There are also ways for the father to renounce his rights and responsibilities, but they obviously involve consent from the mother.

It's actually not a difference in rights at all after the birth, the mother can't just nope out either. Of course the mother have more control over whether or not the birth happens, but it's far from unheard of that women choose to have a baby even though they don't want a baby. They just want an abortion even less (they might for instance believe that abortion is murder, a lot of people do), but that doesn't mean that they get to not provide for the child. The alternative is to give the child up for adoption, because in that case the child is given security by having a new family, which makes sense because this is not about the parents.

 

[MadMike]

You wouldn't want to enforce this paper abortion only for men who are already actively avoiding getting a woman pregnant, and you can't see how this would lead to men impregnating women and simply avoiding responsibilities of being a father.

I'm going off the assumption here the vast majority of such pregnancies are simply unintentional. In which case, why not? You're thinking of someone maliciously and serially impregnating women as some sort of fetish and then noping out?

I think I understand the concept that an abortion is a highly unsavoury process which works as a disincentive for having sex without contraception for women that don't want a pregnancy. And the suggestion that there needs to be something to balance out that disincentive for men. But I don't think not having the option to nope out either is fair.

 

[villain]

I'm going off the assumption here the vast majority of such pregnancies are simply unintentional. In which case, why not? You're thinking of someone maliciously and serially impregnating women as some sort of fetish and then noping out?

I think I understand the concept that an abortion is a highly unsavoury process which works as a disincentive for having sex without contraception for women that don't want a pregnancy. And the suggestion that there needs to be something to balance out that disincentive for men. But I don't think not having the option to nope out either is fair.

Right now one of the main reasons for using a condom is to avoid pregnancy, I understand that it helps in preventing the spread of STI's but i'm personally of the belief that most people don't tend to sleep with someone they suspect of having an STI in the first place and wear a condom for this purpose & this purpose alone.
In your scenario of paper abortions - once you remove the need to wear a condom, the chances of pregnancy increases, the need for abortions increases - meanwhile the accountability for mens actions massively decreases. And there's no incentive for a man to be responsible about using contraception.

I'm not saying that someone would intentionally and maliciously go out to impregnate multiple people - but you have people who at uni for example sleep around often, and because of the biology of a man it's very easy to impregnate multiple people very easily, so a 2 week freshers tour can very quickly turn into multiple women getting pregnant and the guy being absolved of his part in this.

Abortion isn't an ideal situation for a woman to find herself in no, and the health risks don't get reported enough, it can lead to life long health issues including infertility.
I also don't agree that the balance isn't there for men, you have the option of getting a vasectomy, or avoiding penetrative sex in whatever way you want.
Obviously it's not 50/50 but not much in life ever is, and ultimately men still have the rub of the green in terms of not having to carry a child in their body for 9 months, give birth to it etc.

 

[MadMike]

Right now one of the main reasons for using a condom is to avoid pregnancy, I understand that it helps in preventing the spread of STI's but i'm personally of the belief that most people don't tend to sleep with someone they suspect of having an STI in the first place and wear a condom for this purpose & this purpose alone.
In your scenario of paper abortions - once you remove the need to wear a condom, the chances of pregnancy increases, the need for abortions increases - meanwhile the accountability for mens actions massively decreases. And there's no incentive for a man to be responsible about using contraception.

I'm not saying that someone would intentionally and maliciously go out to impregnate multiple people - but you have people who at uni for example sleep around often, and because of the biology of a man it's very easy to impregnate multiple people very easily, so a 2 week freshers tour can very quickly turn into multiple women getting pregnant and the guy being absolved of his part in this.

Abortion isn't an ideal situation for a woman to find herself in no, and the health risks don't get reported enough, it can lead to life long health issues including infertility.
I also don't agree that the balance isn't there for men, you have the option of getting a vasectomy, or avoiding penetrative sex in whatever way you want.
Obviously it's not 50/50 but not much in life ever is, and ultimately men still have the rub of the green in terms of not having to carry a child in their body for 9 months, give birth to it etc.

I don't think people can easily suspect the people who have STIs. So I don't know by what percent condom use would decline in case of paper abortions, but I'll assume there'll be at least some reduction. I do understand the need to put some of the onus on the men to take contraception. I'm open to ideas to incentivise (or disincentivise unprotected sex) but forced parenthood isn't that. I still disagree that this is remotely balanced.

I think the campus scenario is kinda extreme but also removes the agency from women. If you're a girl at uni, having unprotected sex, without being on the pill, without using a morning after pill when neither you nor your partner use contraception, despite knowing you'll be disproportionally impacted in the case of an unwanted pregnancy... then you have a large share of the blame here. Again it's shared blame for the failures, she's not the only one to blame it's the guy's fault too. But forced parenthood isn't balancing things out.

On the subject of vasectomy, because it's getting pushed a lot, I get the feeling there's a lack of awareness about the high risks of it being irreversible. According to the NHS it's estimated that the success rate of a vasectomy reversal is:

• 75% if you have your vasectomy reversed within 3 years
• up to 55% after 3 to 8 years
• between 40% and 45% after 9 to 14 years
• 30% after 15 to 19 years
• less than 10% after 20 years

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/vasectomy-reversal-nhs/

This isn't something you can rationally propose to younger people as a means of contraception. Like you wouldn't push for tying of the fallopian tubes for young women, it's very invasive and tricky to reverse. You wouldn't push for IUD devices either which are quite invasive too, but a preferable option to tying the tubes. Realistically the condom for men and the pill for women are the only ones you can advocate for at the moment and perhaps tie some legal benefits to using them. Finally, as it stands women have a much wider variety of contraception methods than men. Hopefully will be corrected in the future with technological advancements.

 

[WI_Red]

I don't think people can easily suspect the people who have STIs. So I don't know by what percent condom use would decline in case of paper abortions, but I'll assume there'll be at least some reduction. I do understand the need to put some of the onus on the men to take contraception. I'm open to ideas to incentivise (or disincentivise unprotected sex) but forced parenthood isn't that. I still disagree that this is remotely balanced.

I think the campus scenario is kinda extreme but also removes the agency from women. If you're a girl at uni, having unprotected sex, without being on the pill, without using a morning after pill when neither you nor your partner use contraception, despite knowing you'll be disproportionally impacted in the case of an unwanted pregnancy... then you have a large share of the blame here. Again it's shared blame for the failures, she's not the only one to blame it's the guy's fault too. But forced parenthood isn't balancing things out.

On the subject of vasectomy, I get the feeling there's a lack of awareness about the high risks of it being irreversible. According to the NHS it's estimated that the success rate of a vasectomy reversal is:

• 75% if you have your vasectomy reversed within 3 years
• up to 55% after 3 to 8 years
• between 40% and 45% after 9 to 14 years
• 30% after 15 to 19 years
• less than 10% after 20 years

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/vasectomy-reversal-nhs/

This isn't something you can rationally propose to younger people as a means of contraception. Like you wouldn't push for tying of the fallopian tubes for young women, it's very invasive and tricky to reverse. You wouldn't push for IUD devices either which are quite invasive too, but a preferable option to tying the tubes. Realistically the condom for men and the pill for women are the only ones you can advocate for at the moment and perhaps tie some legal benefits to using them. Finally, as it stands women have a much wider variety of contraception methods than men. Hopefully will be corrected in the future with technological advancements.

My initial thought, and I remember reading some articles on it, was the use of RNAi to either inhibit sperm production or inhibit the binding receptors on the egg that allow for sperm entry. Either target "should" be reversible by simply discontinuing treatment as RNAi "should" just inhibit translation. No idea what become of those studies, but at the time there was hope the they could be adopted to provide both male and female options for contraception without the inherent dangers of hormonal treatments.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I
This isn't something you can rationally propose to younger people as a means of contraception. Like you wouldn't push for tying of the fallopian tubes for young women, it's very invasive and tricky to reverse. You wouldn't push for IUD devices either which are quite invasive too, but a preferable option to tying the tubes. Realistically the condom for men and the pill for women are the only ones you can advocate for at the moment and perhaps tie some legal benefits to using them. Finally, as it stands women have a much wider variety of contraception methods than men. Hopefully will be corrected in the future with technological advancements.

Just to correct you on this, IUDs can be a very good option. Highly effective and not reliant on being used perfectly (an issue for pills and condoms) Implants would be another in the same category (LARC: Long Acting Reversible Contraception)

 

[MadMike]

Just to correct you on this, IUDs can be a very good option. Highly effective and not reliant on being used perfectly (an issue for pills and condoms) Implants would be another in the same category (LARC: Long Acting Reversible Contraception)

I mean, they are indeed an excellent option. I was talking more about the potential side effects as reasons why it's hard to tie legal benefits to their use.

From what I've read some drawbacks are:

• Your periods can be heavier, longer or more painful in the first 3 to 6 months after an IUD is put in. You might get spotting or bleeding between periods.
• There's a small risk of getting an infection after it's been fitted.
• It can be uncomfortable when the IUD is put in, but you can take painkillers after, if you need to.

Condoms have practically no drawbacks in comparison apart from the "feel". They also protect from STIs.

I'd probably say that the IUD seems like the best method for long term couples that don't want to get pregnant or bother with pills and condoms, while ensuring that the process is 100% reversible if they change their minds. An equivalent for men would be amazing.

Vasectomies and tying of the fallopian tubes are certainly more invasive and carry a high risk of inversibility, by comparison.

 

[villain]

I don't think people can easily suspect the people who have STIs. So I don't know by what percent condom use would decline in case of paper abortions, but I'll assume there'll be at least some reduction. I do understand the need to put some of the onus on the men to take contraception. I'm open to ideas to incentivise (or disincentivise unprotected sex) but forced parenthood isn't that. I still disagree that this is remotely balanced.

I think the campus scenario is kinda extreme but also removes the agency from women. If you're a girl at uni, having unprotected sex, without being on the pill, without using a morning after pill when neither you nor your partner use contraception, despite knowing you'll be disproportionally impacted in the case of an unwanted pregnancy... then you have a large share of the blame here. Again it's shared blame for the failures, she's not the only one to blame it's the guy's fault too. But forced parenthood isn't balancing things out.

On the subject of vasectomy, because it's getting pushed a lot, I get the feeling there's a lack of awareness about the high risks of it being irreversible. According to the NHS it's estimated that the success rate of a vasectomy reversal is:

• 75% if you have your vasectomy reversed within 3 years
• up to 55% after 3 to 8 years
• between 40% and 45% after 9 to 14 years
• 30% after 15 to 19 years
• less than 10% after 20 years

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/vasectomy-reversal-nhs/

This isn't something you can rationally propose to younger people as a means of contraception. Like you wouldn't push for tying of the fallopian tubes for young women, it's very invasive and tricky to reverse. You wouldn't push for IUD devices either which are quite invasive too, but a preferable option to tying the tubes. Realistically the condom for men and the pill for women are the only ones you can advocate for at the moment and perhaps tie some legal benefits to using them. Finally, as it stands women have a much wider variety of contraception methods than men. Hopefully will be corrected in the future with technological advancements.

The campus scenario is obviously extreme but it's still a real possibility of happening because you're advocating for paper abortions without increasing the agency put on men to take accountability for their actions. That's what I mean by it becoming a slippery slope very quickly - you're suggesting that men should have increased rights to remove accountability for their actions.
And again for men the same thing applies - there are many different steps you can take to avoid putting yourself in that scenario. A girl can tell you she's on birth control, but there's so many different types and not only are they not 100% full proof, but she could simply be lying. It doesn't mean as a man (if your intention is to avoid pregnancy) you shouldn't be doing your part too. So if a man gets a woman pregnant while not taking the steps to prevent that pregnancy he should take his share of the blame and simply being able to sign away his rights (& therefore his accountability) for his actions is reckless.

I'm not saying vasectomy is an ideal solution - but neither is an abortion, I don't see why it's so easy and simple to throw around abortions as an alternative for women but the concept of vasectomy for men is seen as taboo. Both are invasive, both carry risks, both could have potential long term impacts.
Also, if you're that worried about it not being reversed in the future, there are ways to freeze your sperm for future use too.

 

[adexkola]

I appreciate a tedious debate on some days but regarding a paper abortion, a government would never allow for such a mechanism because it would put more onus on the state to provide for children who's father's have opted out of financial support.

I mean, you're obligated to pay child support even if a paternity test down the line shows you're not the father... It's obvious the government doesn't give a feck about anything other than not being on the hook.

I agree with it in principle if both parties have made their wishes known pre-coitus

 

[MadMike]

To me, the big difference is that in the case of sperm donations the mother is fully prepared and knows what she's getting into. Presumably she's financially secure, and so on. In the case of an unexpected pregnancy there's no way of knowing if that is the case. But you obviously can't force anyone to get an abortion, so in the event that it does result in a child, the child needs to be protected. In this case the protection includes either having an involved father, or at the bare minimum having a mother who is financially supported enough to take properly care of them. At the end of the day you have to protect the child.

There are also ways for the father to renounce his rights and responsibilities, but they obviously involve consent from the mother.

Of course we wouldn't force abortions and of course the child needs protecting. But if the mother wanted the baby and couldn't do that alone, the state should help. I don't see why it's the responsibility of the sexual partner when he never consented to that.