An honest-to-god question from The Women's March on Washington FAQ

How come the fight for "reproductive rights" never seems to include government-subsidized vasectomies for men? If you look into the requirements for insurance under the ACA/Obamacare, you see that contraception for women is covered but not male contraception.

I'm having trouble figuring out what "rights" women think are in danger from this administration, other than abortion restriction. I haven't heard anyone say that their rights to work, join the military, run for office, vote, buy what they want, marry (or not marry) who they want, are in any danger. In financing their own birth control, they would simply be in the same position as men are-- and no panic there, apparently, even though men routinely get the shaft when they breed. After all, if they knock a woman up, they have no choice at all. My body, my choice is never followed to its logical conclusion, which means "your body, your choice, you chose to have a baby, YOU PAY FOR IT." If biology/anatomy is destiny for a man, why shouldn't it be for a woman as well?

It seems to me that these women are more upset about losing some perceived privilege of being female rather than any lack of equality.

I am child free and I tend to favor restrictions on abortion, though I have reservations and that's why I can't say I'm all in for either abortion on demand or making it harder to get one. My objections are evolutionary-based; is it really good for us to abort 1 in 5 of potential offspring based on our own convenience or criteria that may be fleeting? If we saw other primates doing this, wouldn't we think it was a problem, investigate and try to stop it?

However, knowing that I don't want to ever be in the position of having to choose, I have always been responsible and used multiple forms of birth control and my partner has had a vasectomy. But for health reasons, I would have had a tubal. But it is possible to be female, on the fence about the morality and implications of abortion, and childfree at the same time.

Quote
freedomchick
How come the fight for "reproductive rights" never seems to include government-subsidized vasectomies for men? If you look into the requirements for insurance under the ACA/Obamacare, you see that contraception for women is covered but not male contraception.

I'm having trouble figuring out what "rights" women think are in danger from this administration, other than abortion restriction. I haven't heard anyone say that their rights to work, join the military, run for office, vote, buy what they want, marry (or not marry) who they want, are in any danger. In financing their own birth control, they would simply be in the same position as men are-- and no panic there, apparently, even though men routinely get the shaft when they breed. After all, if they knock a woman up, they have no choice at all. My body, my choice is never followed to its logical conclusion, which means "your body, your choice, you chose to have a baby, YOU PAY FOR IT." If biology/anatomy is destiny for a man, why shouldn't it be for a woman as well?

It seems to me that these women are more upset about losing some perceived privilege of being female rather than any lack of equality.

I am child free and I tend to favor restrictions on abortion, though I have reservations and that's why I can't say I'm all in for either abortion on demand or making it harder to get one. My objections are evolutionary-based; is it really good for us to abort 1 in 5 of potential offspring based on our own convenience or criteria that may be fleeting? If we saw other primates doing this, wouldn't we think it was a problem, investigate and try to stop it?

However, knowing that I don't want to ever be in the position of having to choose, I have always been responsible and used multiple forms of birth control and my partner has had a vasectomy. But for health reasons, I would have had a tubal. But it is possible to be female, on the fence about the morality and implications of abortion, and childfree at the same time.

Um...okay. I had one and I don't think I broke any morality rules. In fact, having an abortion was the best decision I ever made for myself. If I would have had the kid, it would have grown up in poverty with a single mother with mental illness.

I guess that's the thing I like about the board. We can all be CF and have varying opinions.

Quote
freedomchick
I'm having trouble figuring out what "rights" women think are in danger from this administration, other than abortion restriction. I haven't heard anyone say that their rights to work, join the military, run for office, vote, buy what they want, marry (or not marry) who they want, are in any danger. In financing their own birth control, they would simply be in the same position as men are-- and no panic there, apparently, even though men routinely get the shaft when they breed. After all, if they knock a woman up, they have no choice at all. My body, my choice is never followed to its logical conclusion, which means "your body, your choice, you chose to have a baby, YOU PAY FOR IT." If biology/anatomy is destiny for a man, why shouldn't it be for a woman as well?

I don't think anyone's rights are in danger, really. With the exception of illegal aliens, who are not citizens and not eligible for constitutional rights anyway, I can't say that I disagree with virtually any of Mr. Trump's actions, thus far.

The abortion thing is what it is. Do I think abortion should be legal? Yes. Should there be some limitations on it? Probably. Maybe they should be performed prior to a certain week of the pregnancy. I don't know. I'm not a doctor and don't know all of the bioethics behind it.

Should government pay for abortions? I'd say no. But that's not out of character for me or inconsistent with any of my other positions regarding government involvement in people's lives. I don't believe that government should be put in charge of Social Security or Medicare. I don't think they should tell people whom to marry, or even get involved in the marriage process at all. I don't think they should tell bakers whom they must bake cakes for, nor do I believe they should restrict business or commerce between any consenting adult parties. Government shouldn't pay for public television, or the arts, or sports stadiums.

That being said... if I feel this way about other matters, it would be a vast departure for me to state that government should pay for abortions. Maybe birth control... and a few social safety nets, all minimal and temporary in nature.

I actually changed the opinion of a friend by stating my philosophy on abortion restrictions like this: If a woman thinks long and hard and decides that her life will be severely enough impacted by having an unwanted child--who are we to forbid her? On the other hand--if she recklessly decides to use abortion as a form of BC,who am I to conclude that she would make a responsible parent and force her to have the kid? I have known at least 2 women who had had multiple abortions , one had SIX!!--from pure contraceptive laziness. Which stinks, but--do I really want that kind of person to have kids? I see those kinds of parents daily--so--NO! Abort away, I say, and I don't mind my taxes helping, either!!

Quote
freedomchick
How come the fight for "reproductive rights" never seems to include government-subsidized vasectomies for men? If you look into the requirements for insurance under the ACA/Obamacare, you see that contraception for women is covered but not male contraception.

A lot of people only think about themselves. As far as I'm concerned, reproductive freedom doesn't exist as it should. Sterilization, for instance, is a reproductive freedom issue, but too often it depends on whether the doctor "feels like it." Men also deserve far more options for taking control of their fertility, instead of just condoms or vasectomy.

And yes, it should all be paid for from taxes because study after study has shown that stopping unwanted conception and unwanted birth is far, far cheaper than supporting unwanted children. Whether you are fiscally conservative or actually want people not to have children they don't want, it makes sense.

Quote
freedomchick
I am child free and I tend to favor restrictions on abortion, though I have reservations and that's why I can't say I'm all in for either abortion on demand or making it harder to get one. My objections are evolutionary-based; is it really good for us to abort 1 in 5 of potential offspring based on our own convenience or criteria that may be fleeting? If we saw other primates doing this, wouldn't we think it was a problem, investigate and try to stop it?

If you are against abortion, you are either not CF or you are an asshole. A hypocritical asshole is someone who would themselves get an abortion if they got pregnant, but thinks other women shouldn't be allowed to get them. Someone who would remain pregnant if they got pregnant by accident is not CF, because no matter what they have done to avoid pregnancy, they are only one accident away from parenthood.

If you want to pull biology out of your ass, why don't you just call everyone on this site "unnatural" since being CF is a matter of convenience which is getting in the way of evolution? Don't forget to rail on against C-sections, which allow women to live when they would normally die in childbirth, and contraceptives which allow women who do want children to choose when and how many children they would have.

Quote
freedomchick
However, knowing that I don't want to ever be in the position of having to choose, I have always been responsible and used multiple forms of birth control and my partner has had a vasectomy. But for health reasons, I would have had a tubal. But it is possible to be female, on the fence about the morality and implications of abortion, and childfree at the same time.

Oh how nice for you. But suppose you are the victim of rape, and become pregnant? Or suppose your partner's vasectomy fails? Would you have an abortion, or would you not?

There is no "morality and implications of abortion" outside of religious fanaticism or misogyny. Deification of nature is just another variation of that, because "nature" does not give a fuck about individual fitness or propagation or the survival of our species.

Generally when someone supports "some restrictions" or "reasonable restrictions" it means "I want abortion to be safe, legal, and accessable in case I ever need one, but I reserve the right to moralize and pass judgement on others". It's the old "the only moral abortion is My abortion".

Quote
cfinboston
Generally when someone supports "some restrictions" or "reasonable restrictions" it means "I want abortion to be safe, legal, and accessable in case I ever need one, but I reserve the right to moralize and pass judgement on others". It's the old "the only moral abortion is My abortion".

Specifically, I wrote that there may be a reason to disallow abortions after a certain stage of pregnancy for ethical reasons. And to further explain, jurisprudence on this should be determined by bioethics specialists and physicians, not I... as I have no medical training and don't know what stage that is.

While I fully support the women's march, I do NOT support taking your kids to political protests of any kind and using them as a billboard for your beliefs...especially when there's the possibility of violence. You couldn't pay me enough to drag my kyds (if I had 'em) to a rally, march, gathering, sit-in, protest or event that's even somewhat political these days.

And yeah, fuck this attention-whoring breastfeeding "station" crap. Ugh. Do your business in a bush and keep it mo(ooooo)ving.

The cows just want to hijack the women's march and make it all about their leaky udders.

So glad the Pukey smiley is back!