Abortion Rights for Fathers?

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Yeah, that is pretty appalling. I understand why doctors do that...it's not really their decision to make, frankly, but I do understand what they are basing that on...but the double standard is mind boggling.

I have a friend that had a vasetomy at 17. No, that is not a typo. Seven Fucking Teen years old. True story. I didn't think it was possible to have such a thing done that young. Can you even get a tattoo at that age?

If he'd been a girl, you think I'd have a story to tell about it now? How can they make a ruling like that based on gender?

Mind blown.

[Seshat]

$METOO on the whole double standard regarding sterilisation. (mega, mega metoo)

But this thread is on fathers and abortion rights. Whoever wants to talk about the double-standard on sterilisation, please make a new thread on it.

Thanks.

[Cats]

To add even further insult to the injury of a woman not really having choice, unless things have changed in the past few years, a lot of insurance companies will NOT cover birth control pills for women, but WILL cover a few Vigara a month for a man. So a man has full control over his ability to be sterilized and can get cheap pills to help him get it up, but a woman has to suffer and fight to keep herself from having children she does not want to have? WTF?

Granted, I do know it is easier and less ricky to sterlize a man. However, I don't think doctors should be even allowed to refuse sterilze a woman. Yes, there are risks, and it aint cheap. But if a woman agrees to it, why the hell not? It's freaking easier to get liposuction, a face lift, 3 nosejobs and breast implants for pete's sake!


As for a man's choice to sterlize himself, I feel the same as abortion...in a commited relationship, it should be discussed, but his body, his final decision.

[Slytovhand]

Just a quick note:

I'd say there is far too cavalier an attitude towards sex, let alone abortion.

[AFPheonix]

To add even further insult to the injury of a woman not really having choice, unless things have changed in the past few years, a lot of insurance companies will NOT cover birth control pills for women, but WILL cover a few Vigara a month for a man. So a man has full control over his ability to be sterilized and can get cheap pills to help him get it up, but a woman has to suffer and fight to keep herself from having children she does not want to have? WTF?

Granted, I do know it is easier and less ricky to sterlize a man. However, I don't think doctors should be even allowed to refuse sterilze a woman. Yes, there are risks, and it aint cheap. But if a woman agrees to it, why the hell not? It's freaking easier to get liposuction, a face lift, 3 nosejobs and breast implants for pete's sake!


As for a man's choice to sterlize himself, I feel the same as abortion...in a commited relationship, it should be discussed, but his body, his final decision.

My state passed a bill in which insurers based out of our state had to cover birth control pills. But even before that, far more insurance companies than not covered birth control, and very few covered viagra. It's only been in the last year or so that I've seen companies start covering it, and at that it's maybe 4 tabs a month if the guy's lucky. (I work in a pharmacy)
I don't know about Wal-Mart or Kroger or whatever, but my chain's little discount plan covers several types of birth control at a lower price than ED meds. It will discount on both, so yay equality for the sexes, I suppose.

Getting tubes tied is indeed riskier than getting a vasectomy, but now that Essure is out, perhaps we'll see a change in doctors willingness to do the procedure. It's about as risky as putting in an IUD and it's a pretty quick office procedure to have it done.

[The Shadow]

But let a guy in his 20s, even VERY EARLY 20s, decide to get a vascectomy - no FUCKING PROBLEM in most cases. Makes me sick.

You know, it really irritates me when people take hearsay or anecdotes like this and try to pass them off as proof of some kind of universal and absolute truth.

The fact is, there are many - possibly even most - doctors who absolutely will not perform a vasectomy on men under 30. One man I know who's in his sixties now, got his when he was 34 and he had to do a bit of searching before he finally found a doctor who was willing. On his quest he encountered a doctor who said he didn't perform them on unmarried men, another said he wouldn't perform one on a man who didn't have at least a few kids and told him "come back in a few years after you've had some kids". He eventually found one who would, but even then he had to use a bit of persuasion to convince the doctor he was making an informed decision and understood what he was doing.

I'm not saying younger men can't get a vasectomy. In fact, I got mine when I was 27. But I had told my doctor I was pretty sure I never wanted kids of my own and I'm a person with an inheritable disability and I didn't want to risk passing that on to any offspring so even if I should change my mind later, I would still opt for this and have to look for alternative means of becoming a dad. I've always wondered if it would have been just as easy to get it were it not for all those factors.

I'm not denying that members of the medical community can still be very condescending and paternalistic to women and that women don't have as much choice and reproductive freedom as they should...they don't and I think there's a lot of unnecessary obstacles in their way and make no mistake...male privilege is still very much the order of the day. But that doesn't mean that men can just go out and get vasectomies willy-nilly.

[jackfaire]

but until they come up with a form of pill birth control for men, then that's how it is..

MT DEW!!! j/k

[jackfaire]

My dad passed away years ago it is relevant because a year and a half after it happened I was with my mom and she started crying. It all came out when her and my dad were first together she had gotten pregnant.

She never told my dad and she went and got an abortion. He lived the rest of his life never knowing he would have had 5 children instead of 4.

I still don't know if it was right or wrong that he didn't have a choice. But you know what when my mom got pregnant with my brother (second pregnancy) my dad didn't run.

She got the abortion because she thought he would.


Edit:

The second pregnancy was only a little over a 1 year or so later.

[fireheart17]

I hate the double standard thing as well. I do want a child further down the track, but given that I'm on antidepressants and such, I'm not sure my body could handle being pregnant at this stage.

As for the male's right to abortion, essentially it is the woman's body, so it is her right to choose whether she wants to abort the child or not. However, I'm still for the opinion that counselling is a requirement prior to abortion.

[Fashion Lad!]

This is such a tough call because it's ultimately up to the mother because it's her body. But, I do think father's should have some choice in it.

I'm not going to argue in defense of father's-to-be who don't want the child. I can't.

If I found myself in the situation where the girl I got pregnant doesn't want the baby and I do, I'd probably sue for my DNA. The law recognizes it's mine after the baby is born and DNA is matched.

I can't really speak too much on the subject because it is ultimately up to the woman. I don't carry a baby for 9-10 months, she does. In the end, if I really want that child I just have to accept the fact that she is the only one that can give it to me.

[Flyndaran]

I'm a man, and believe a man should have absolutely positively ZERO input on the WOMAN'S choice to get an abortion. My girlfriend has no right to make my medical decisions, so why should I her. I have a right to tell her how I feel about abortions, her, and everything about life, but no right to put any kind of pressure that might affect her choice.
A baby would be dangerous for my love muffin. I might have wanted kids if our sexes were reversed.. then again I would be a lesbian, so why would I shack up with a dude?