Get rid of abortion all together and give men vasectomies. They are cheaper and more reversible than a tubal ligation, and less recovery time. Hell, get rid of unpaid child support, and welfare too! What do you boys think? Let's get government involved in your bodies...!
2007-02-20 03:57:33 · 28 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I gave reasons for doing this to men instead of women. If you can come up with a good argument for doing this just for women, let er rip!
2007-02-20 03:58:43 · update #1
HEY! I don't believe this is the way to go, just another way to look at the argument. I love men! Especially mine...;)
2007-02-20 04:05:30 · update #2
lol, I like that. if people are so concerned with stopping a woman from controling her body- especially males who have no say- then we should have the gov control men's bodies. one unplanned pregnancy, one missed child support check and you get snipped boys!
2007-02-20 04:11:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I am all for men and women being put on mandatory birth control in the event that they go on welfare or they cannot take care of themselves or the children they have. Lets be smart about it. However that is very George Orwellian like in 1984 and will never happen.
Government has too much control over our daily lives today and all I hear from the liberals on here is how we need socialized medicine and wealth distribution. Bull!
2007-02-20 05:14:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I disagree with buttebob. I think a woman should have a choice. As far as government mandated vasectomies I wouldn't be against that. There would have to be some rules though. If you father one child and you refuse to take care of it then you have to get a vasectomy. Same for a woman. If you refuse to take care of your first child steps should be taken to prevent a second child. If everybody was more like Notch Johnson we wouldn't be having this argument.
2007-02-20 05:28:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why should the government be involved here?
If people don't want a pregnancy, perhaps they shouldn't be having sex. Ever thought about that? That would be known as "acting responsibly". Deciding, after one becomes pregnant, that post-conception birth control would be more convenient, is too late - it means the killing of a human.
Almost all abortions are about convenience, are about the fact that 2 people acted irresponsibly, but don't want to suffer the consequences.
I have very little sympathy for the position you support, or for the outlandish and false analogies you attempt.
2007-02-20 04:16:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Interesting! There's no way to square this circle, though - there are no viable fetuses in men's bodies.
Men and women are different. They are equal in the eyes of the law - as they should be! - but not identical or interchangeable.
Procreation is such a messy, inefficient way to produce the next generation - but it's all we've got.
Just remember that "the great correction," be it Biblical or evolutionary, can't be far off. :)
PS Perhaps someone else with a different point of view could analogize abortion on demand to allowing a father to destroy the fetus up to, say, a moment before birth, to "even the playing field." But that analogy would fail too, for the SAME reason - the fetus is not in his body, but the woman's. Round and round we go!
PPS I do appreciate your main point - that women have to deal with a level of intrusiveness (to put it mildly) that men do not! (Moreover, I would say it is much more physiologically possible for a man to force intercourse on a woman than the other way around, again with the woman having the far more profound physical consequences.) I have had family members deal with abortion and rape issues - and none of them were men! Again, I don't have a satisfactory answer. All I can say is that a woman has the POWER to create life in a way no man ever will - so maybe some cosmic "rough justice" is at work.
I didn't make the rules; I just try to live by them, and figure them out if I can!
2007-02-20 04:02:12 · answer #5 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 3⤊ 6⤋
YES !!!!
Then there is no reason for abortions .
Yes , yes ,yes .
Plus it would help the population in the US
. After all a woman can only have one birth at a time , but a man can and do impregnate many women easily with no after thought to the babies .
That is an excelant idea , one that men will cring at , but hey , they want to stick their noses into a wonams world .
We should run with this .
2007-02-20 04:13:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think government mandated vasectomies would be a great idea as long as they were provided free of charge and you have two kids. As to someone being childless, I would hesitate to have the government offering sterilization.......reminds me too much of Hitler days.
2015-01-18 00:17:22 · answer #7 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What a wonderful idea !! Do you suppose it's never hit the House floor, because it's is mostly male lawmakers in Washington DC ?
Anyhow, imagine all the problems this actually would solve. Guys - this could be a good thing for you too. No more, "well she said she was on the pill". Men should do there part in preventing unwanted pregnancies. It's not like they are going to stop having sex.
2007-02-20 04:10:14 · answer #8 · answered by T S 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
I am in favor of neutering all humans at birth. The procedure would be safe, painless, and reversable, but only by certified doctors through a secure process. You must then be able to prove that you are fiscally and emotionally able to take care of a child. If both partners meet the criteria, proceed to propogate the species at will.
2007-02-20 04:04:57 · answer #9 · answered by jh 6 · 7⤊ 2⤋
How about an even easier answer to the conundrum? People should exersize a modicum of personal responsibility. Medical science actually knows what causes pregnancy these days. Guess what? It's not something in the water!
2007-02-20 04:11:59 · answer #10 · answered by Rick N 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋