Pro choice vs vasectomy...

[mjr]

I'm putting this here because the pro choice/pro life debate is generally a political one.

That said, here's the question:

If "pro choice" translates (in general) to "a woman's right to choose, because it's her body", and the male essentially has no say (if the woman decides not to/can't discuss it with him), is the same true for getting a vasectomy?

If a man decides he wants a vasectomy, and he is in a committed relationship, should he be able to do it without consulting his significant other? And should the S.O. be upset with him?

And how would "implied consent" work in these situations? I mean, generally when women take birth control pills, men don't complain (I said generally). There's a certain level of "implied consent" there, though the man really can't tell the woman to stop. Pills, though, are "temporary" in that if you stop, you can be fertile again the next cycle. Vasectomies are basically permanent.

Honestly, I don't like using condoms, and I would like for my wife to go on birth control, but she says she can't because she tried it in her early 20's and had a bad reaction to it.

But again (and I have to ask the ladies of this forum on this one), if your spouse got a vasectomy without telling you, and without asking you, how would you react?

I really would like to have an actual discussion here...not trying to play "gotcha" or whatever.

I think I know how a few of you might answer. Others, I'm not so sure.

[Greenday]

I mean, it's surgery so obviously it's a man's right to choose. It's his decision and his alone in the end.

If your spouse chooses to leave you because of it, that's their choice too.

[mjr]

I mean, it's surgery so obviously it's a man's right to choose. It's his decision and his alone in the end.

If your spouse chooses to leave you because of it, that's their choice too.

No quibbles, Greenday. Good points.

[Blue Ginger]

If you are both on the same page regarding kids (having or not having) then discuss the snip with her as an option for no longer needing to use condoms. If you and your wife want kids in the future, this is something that would need to be discussed before surgery on either side. If you don't, then go for the snip.

I never want kids and the pill gives me constant morning sickness. If I was ever in a relationship, I would be fine with my partner having a vasectomy, if he wanted one. If he didn't, I would be looking into permanent birth control for myself, be it a tubal or full hysterectomy. (My longest relationship to date was 6 weeks and then I got bored. I'm also mostly asexual so it's not much of an issue for me.)

Take a look at the childfree reddit. A lot of guys on there have said that they enjoy sex a lot more after the surgery because they no longer have to use condoms or worry about accidents.

[mjr]

I see where you're coming from, BlueGinger, but I think the question is, basically, "Is it OK for a man to make the choice to get a vasctomy without consulting his spouse?"

[Blue Ginger]

It's your body, so in the end it is ultimately your choice. But would you feel ok if your partner made the decision to have her tubes tied without at least talking to you about it?

[mjr]

BG:

Again, valid point. No argument.

I guess the question that follows from that is this: "Pro-choice" is treated as a "special case", for want of a better phrase.

Both the termination of a pregnancy and a vasectomy are life-changing events (as is giving birth to a child).

In both cases, the person can essentially do what they want. But in one case, it seems like "consent" (again, for lack of a better word), is solely up to the person having the procedure.

But again, as you and Green Day point out, there are generally consequences either way as far as "lack of consultation".

[Canarr]

I guess the question that follows from that is this: "Pro-choice" is treated as a "special case", for want of a better phrase.

Well, it is a somewhat special case. You could be "pro-choice", meaning you support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy over the rights of the unborn fetus, while still believing it should be the father's right to be part of the decision whether or not to abort his child. Both are different things.

And, as has been said already: your partner can always choose to leave you if they disagree with the decision you made, whether they were included beforehand, or not.

[mjr]

Both are different things.

Here, I would concur with you.

And, as has been said already: your partner can always choose to leave you if they disagree with the decision you made, whether they were included beforehand, or not.

Though, in this case, I think it can be argued that a man who leaves a woman who terminates a pregnancy because she terminated the pregnancy would be looked at far differently than a woman who left a man because he had a vasectomy.

[HYHYBT]

"Is it OK" is too vague a question. This goes back to the difference people like to ignore between having a right to do something and its being right to do it. Whether it's abortion or a vasectomy or whatever, if it affects someone you are in a relationship with (and these do), the decision is yours to make, but you OUGHT to discuss it with them. To do it in secret, or even to announce it without discussion in a "you don't matter" sort of way, would be disrespectful of that person and of the relationship.

You have a right to do that, but only a total idiot would expect them not to be upset over it or to treat that as an unreasonable response. It's precisely the response you're asking for.

[mjr]

"Is it OK" is too vague a question. This goes back to the difference people like to ignore between having a right to do something and its being right to do it.

This is a brilliant statement!

You have a right to do that, but only a total idiot would expect them not to be upset over it or to treat that as an unreasonable response. It's precisely the response you're asking for.

Again, very valid!

I appreciate the conversation here, everyone!

[s_stabeler]

I agree with HYHYBT as well. Basically, nobody can veto either procedure, but they don't have to like that it occurred.. As for a man leaving over a terminated pregnancy, it somewhat depends on the situation. If it was a case of the father wanting the mother to have the kid, and any attempt at discussing the matter was met with "I'm not talking about it, I'm aborting the pregnancy, and that's final" then I'd say he was well shot of her. If, conversely, he said "Do not get an abortion or we're through- no arguments" then I would see that as unacceptable.

[Ghel]

From a pro-choice perspective, yes, it's absolutely a man's choice to have a vasectomy if he doesn't want to have kids. However, if he's in a relationship with a woman who does want kids, he needs to disclose to her that he's had a vasectomy, or else he's deceiving her. (That is, she can't fully consent because he hasn't fully disclosed his situation.)

mjr, in your situation, as long as you and your wife don't want any more children, it seems perfectly fine for you to have a vasectomy. But since it could affect your relationship, I think it's something you should discuss with your wife first.

Anecdote related to the above: an acquaintance told me the story of how she and her husband had been trying to have a child. For years. She had been going to a fertility clinic, going through all sorts of tests. He told her that he wanted to keep trying to have a kid. She finally found out he'd had a vasectomy and hadn't told her. She got everything in the divorce.

[s_stabeler]

I don't entirely agree- specifically, I disagree that "she can't fully consent because he hasn't fully disclosed his situation"- it doesn't invalidate the consent to have sex. It does however, provide every reason for a divorce, or probably even an annullment.(it's a sufficient deception that it's reasonable to say "I would not have married him if I had known he couldn't have kids"- it's not a sufficient deception to invalidate consent to have sex, since a fair percentage of people don't just have sex for reproduction.)

[Canarr]

I don't entirely agree- specifically, I disagree that "she can't fully consent because he hasn't fully disclosed his situation"- it doesn't invalidate the consent to have sex. It does however, provide every reason for a divorce, or probably even an annullment.(it's a sufficient deception that it's reasonable to say "I would not have married him if I had known he couldn't have kids"- it's not a sufficient deception to invalidate consent to have sex, since a fair percentage of people don't just have sex for reproduction.)

Agreed. Unless there is a very specific arrangement to have sex for the explicit purpose of conceiving a child, whether or not one party is deceitful about their ability to reproduce doesn't invalidate the other party's consent to have sex.

Other than that, I agree with the majority in this thread: it's everybody's personal business whether or not to have surgery such as an abortion or a vasectomy, but it would be morally wrong to keep that from a person they are in a committed relasionship with - and if the other party then decided to leave them, because children are an important part of the relationship for them, then that would, in turn, be their business.